Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Jeg prøver å ikke være misunnelig; hun er sjalu nok for oss begge. - I try not to be envious; she is jealous enough for both of us.

Ikke å være misunnelig is possible, but it usually occurs in different constructions, for example after a preposition or as a kind of noun phrase:

Målet er ikke å være misunnelig.
The goal is not to be jealous.

Compare:

Jeg prøver å ikke være misunnelig.
I’m trying not to be jealous. (This is what the sentence uses.)
Jeg prøver ikke å være misunnelig.
This usually means I’m not trying to be jealous (I’m not making an effort to be jealous), which is a different meaning.

So in this sentence, å ikke være is the natural and correct choice to express to not be.

What is the difference between misunnelig and sjalu?

Both can be translated as jealous, but Norwegians often feel a nuance similar to English envy vs jealousy:

misunnelig – envy:
You want what someone else has (money, looks, success, a job, etc.).
Example: Jeg er misunnelig på bilen hennes.
I’m envious of her car.
sjalu – jealousy, especially in love/relationships:
You’re afraid of losing someone’s affection, or feel possessive.
Example: Han er sjalu på ekskjæresten min.
He’s jealous of my ex.

In everyday speech, people sometimes mix them or use sjalu more broadly, but the typical distinction is:

misunnelig = envious of things/qualities
sjalu = romantically jealous / possessive

That’s why the sentence can contrast them for effect: Jeg tries not to be misunnelig, while hun is sjalu (the more emotional, dramatic kind).

Could I just use one of them and say Jeg prøver å ikke være sjalu instead?

Grammatically, yes: Jeg prøver å ikke være sjalu is fine and means I’m trying not to be jealous (in the romantic/possessive sense).

However, the original sentence creates a stylistic contrast:

misunnelig for the speaker
sjalu for the other person

This lets the writer play with the nuance between envy and jealousy and gives the sentence more color. Using sjalu in both clauses would be more neutral and less expressive:

Jeg prøver å ikke være sjalu; hun er sjalu nok for oss begge.
I’m trying not to be jealous; she’s jealous enough for both of us.

So your alternative is correct, but the original uses both words for stylistic and semantic nuance.

What exactly does nok mean in hun er sjalu nok for oss begge?

Here nok means enough. So:

hun er sjalu nok for oss begge
= she is jealous enough for both of us

This nok expresses a sufficient or more‑than‑sufficient degree of something: sjalu nok = jealous enough / more than jealous enough.

Be aware that nok has another very common meaning: probably / I suppose. For example:

Han kommer nok i morgen.
He’ll probably come tomorrow.

In your sentence, because nok comes right after the adjective (sjalu nok) and is followed by for oss begge, it clearly has the enough meaning, not probably.

Why is it for oss begge and not for begge oss?

Both are possible:

for oss begge
for begge oss

In this sentence, for oss begge is the more natural and idiomatic choice. Nuances:

for oss begge is very common when you talk about both of us / the two of us as a single unit affected by something.
for begge oss is also correct but can feel a bit more contrastive or emphatic in many contexts (as in for both of us, each of us individually).

Here, for oss begge nicely matches the English idea for both of us and sounds completely natural.

Why is it oss and not vi in for oss begge?

Norwegian distinguishes between subject and object forms of personal pronouns, just like we vs us in English:

vi = we (subject form)
Example: Vi er her. – We are here.
oss = us (object form)
Example: Hun ser oss. – She sees us.

In for oss begge, the pronoun comes after the preposition for, so it must be in the object form:

for oss = for us, not for vi

This is directly parallel to English: you say for us, not for we.

Why is there a semicolon (;) and not a comma or a period?

A semicolon in Norwegian is used much like in English:

It links two closely related independent clauses (each could be a full sentence on its own).
It signals a stronger break than a comma, but a tighter link than a period.

Here:

Jeg prøver å ikke være misunnelig
hun er sjalu nok for oss begge

Each of these could be separate sentences. The semicolon shows they belong together as a contrast:

I’m trying not to be jealous; she’s jealous enough for both of us.

You could also write:

Jeg prøver å ikke være misunnelig. Hun er sjalu nok for oss begge.
This is correct but slightly less tight stylistically.

A comma here would be wrong, because Norwegian (like English) does not normally allow a comma splice between two full clauses.

Why is it prøver and not some continuous form like “am trying”?

Norwegian doesn’t have a separate grammatical -ing or continuous tense like English. The present tense (here prøver) is used for:

actions happening right now
general, repeated, or ongoing actions

So:

Jeg prøver å ikke være misunnelig
can mean either:
- I am trying not to be jealous (right now / these days), or
- I try not to be jealous (in general)

Context usually makes it clear. You don’t need an extra helper verb to form a continuous aspect; prøver alone covers that meaning.

Do misunnelig and sjalu change form for gender or plural?

Yes, they behave like regular adjectives, but in this sentence they appear in their base form because they describe a subject in the common gender singular (en‑word):

Jeg (implicit: jeg er misunnelig) – same form as with en person
hun er sjalu (implicit: en kvinne)

Adjective patterns (simplified):

Indefinite singular (common and neuter):
- en misunnelig mann
- et misunnelig barn
- en sjalu kjæreste
- et sjalu barn
Indefinite plural: add -e
- misunnelige venner
- sjalue kjærester
After a definite form: usually add -e
- den misunnelige mannen
- den sjalue kjæresten

So in your sentence, misunnelig and sjalu are in their regular predicative singular forms and don’t need any endings.

Why do we need å in prøver å ikke være? Could we say prøver ikke være?

With prøve (to try), the å before the infinitive is normally required:

Jeg prøver å ikke være misunnelig. ✔

Leaving out å here (Jeg prøver ikke være misunnelig) sounds wrong or at best very non‑standard.

The omission of å is typical after modal verbs like kan, skal, vil, må, bør:

Jeg kan ikke være misunnelig. (no å)
Jeg vil ikke være misunnelig. (no å)

But prøve is not a modal verb, so you keep å:

prøver å være / prøver å ikke være

Could the word order be Hun er nok sjalu for oss begge instead?

You can say Hun er nok sjalu for oss begge, but the meaning changes:

Hun er sjalu nok for oss begge
= She is jealous enough for both of us.
Here nok clearly means enough and belongs to sjalu (sjalu nok).
Hun er nok sjalu for oss begge
will very often be understood as:
= She is probably jealous, for both of us / when it comes to both of us.
Here nok is read as probably / I suppose, and it modifies the whole clause, not just sjalu.

So in the original sentence, the placement sjalu nok is chosen specifically to express the enough meaning without ambiguity.

Is the word order Jeg prøver å ikke være misunnelig fixed, or can I move ikke somewhere else?

For the intended meaning (I’m trying not to be jealous), the natural pattern is:

[subject] + [finite verb] + å + ikke + [infinitive]

So:

Jeg prøver å ikke være misunnelig. ✔

Other possibilities:

Jeg prøver ikke å være misunnelig.
Usually means I am not trying to be jealous (I’m not making an effort to be jealous).
Jeg prøver å være ikke misunnelig.
Ungrammatical.

So for try not to be X, keep ikke immediately before the infinitive verb: å ikke være.