Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Søsteren min studerte i utlandet i to år og lærte mye om seg selv. - My sister studied abroad for two years and learned a lot about herself.

søsteren min
- Literally: the sister mine
- This is the most natural everyday way to say my sister.
- Structure: søster (sister) + -en (definite ending) + min (my).
min søster
- Also means my sister.
- Slightly more formal / written style, or used when you want to contrast or emphasize the possessor:
  - Min søster, ikke broren min, studerte i utlandet.
    (My sister, not my brother, studied abroad.)

So in normal, neutral speech, søsteren min is more common than min søster in Bokmål.

What is the function of the -en ending in søsteren?

The -en is the definite singular ending for most common-gender nouns in Bokmål.

søster = a sister (indefinite singular)
søsteren = the sister (definite singular)

When you put the possessive after the noun (søsteren min), you normally keep this definite ending. This is called double definiteness (definite article on the noun plus possessive).

So søsteren min is literally the sister my but idiomatically just my sister.

Can I also say Søstra mi instead of Søsteren min?

Yes, in many contexts.

søstra mi is a more informal/colloquial form.
søster has two definite forms in Bokmål:
- søsteren (more standard/written)
- søstra (more colloquial, often used in speech and in more informal writing)

Both:

Søsteren min studerte i utlandet …
Søstra mi studerte i utlandet …

are natural, but søsteren min looks more neutral/standard in writing.

Why is the past tense of å studere written studerte?

Studerte is the regular past tense of the verb å studere (to study).

In Bokmål, many verbs that end in -ere form the past tense by adding -te:

å studere → studerte (studied)
å diskutere → diskuterte (discussed)
å telefonere → telefonerte (telephoned)

So:

Søsteren min studerte = My sister studied

Why is it i utlandet and not something like i det utlandet?

Utlandet is used almost like a fixed noun meaning abroad / foreign countries in general.

utland = (the concept of) foreign countries
utlandet = the foreign countries → in practice: abroad

You normally say:

i utlandet = abroad
å reise til utlandet = to travel abroad

You do not say i det utlandet here. That would sound wrong, because utlandet is already definite, and we mean it in a general sense, not a specific named country.

What is the difference between i utlandet and til utlandet?

They express different aspects of the action:

i utlandet = in/while in a foreign country, focusing on location or state
- Hun studerte i utlandet.
  She studied abroad.
til utlandet = to a foreign country, focusing on movement / destination
- Hun reiste til utlandet for å studere.
  She went abroad to study.

In your sentence, we care about where she was studying, so i utlandet is correct.

Why is it i to år for “for two years”? Why not use for?

Norwegian often uses i to express the duration of an activity:

Hun studerte i to år.
She studied for two years.

Some patterns:

i
- time expression = how long something lasted:
  - i to timer – for two hours
  - i to måneder – for two months
  - i mange år – for many years

If you use for, it typically does not mark duration in the same way:

for to år siden = two years ago
(here for
- siden gives a different meaning)

So i to år is the natural way to say for two years in this context.

Why is there no plural ending on år in i to år?

The noun år (year) is irregular in Norwegian:

et år = one year
to år = two years
mange år = many years

År has the same form in singular and plural (at least in the indefinite form), so you don’t add anything like -er.

Compare:

en dag → to dager (day → days)
et år → to år (year → years)

Could I say i to år i utlandet instead? Is the word order important?

Both are grammatically correct, but they feel slightly different:

Søsteren min studerte i utlandet i to år …
- More common and natural.
- First tells you where she studied (abroad), then how long it lasted.
Søsteren min studerte i to år i utlandet …
- Also possible, but a bit less neutral.
- Often used if you’re contrasting with other time periods or other places:
  - Hun studerte i to år i utlandet, og to år i Norge.

In neutral context, i utlandet i to år is the most typical order.

Where is the subject in the second part og lærte mye om seg selv?

The subject hun (she) is understood from the first clause and is not repeated.

Full form would be:

Søsteren min studerte i utlandet i to år, og (hun) lærte mye om seg selv.

In Norwegian, if two clauses share the same subject and are linked by og, it’s common and natural to omit the repeated subject in the second clause.

Why is the verb before the adverb in lærte mye, and is that related to the V2 rule?

In lærte mye, the verb lærte comes before mye for two reasons:

Typical verb–object/adverb order
- It’s normal for the verb to come before its objects and many adverbs:
  - Hun lærte mye. – She learned a lot.
  - Hun spiste mye. – She ate a lot.
V2 rule applies to the full clause, not just this phrase
- In a main clause, Norwegian wants the finite verb in second position (V2).
- The (understood) subject is first, the verb is second:
  - (Hun) lærte mye om seg selv.

So in the second clause, the order is effectively:

[Subject] hun – [Verb] lærte – [Rest] mye om seg selv

Why is it lærte mye, not lærte mange?

The choice between mye and mange depends on the type of noun (if any) that follows:

mye = a lot (of)
- uncountable nouns or without a noun:
- mye tid – a lot of time
- mye vann – a lot of water
- Hun lærte mye. – She learned a lot. (no noun after)
mange = many
- countable plural nouns:
- mange bøker – many books
- mange land – many countries

Here, mye stands alone and means a lot, referring to a lot (about herself) in general, not to a countable number of things. So lærte mye is correct.

What does seg selv mean, and why not just seg or henne?

Seg selv means himself / herself / themselves, depending on context. It is the 3rd person reflexive form:

meg selv – myself
deg selv – yourself
seg selv – himself / herself / themselves
oss selv – ourselves
dere selv – yourselves

In your sentence:

lærte mye om seg selv = learned a lot about herself

Why not other options?

om seg: grammatical, but in practice we almost always say om seg selv to mean about oneself. Selv adds clarity and emphasis.
om henne: means about her (some other woman), not reflexive.
- Hun lærte mye om henne = She learned a lot about her (another woman).
- Here we want it to refer back to the same person, so seg selv is needed.

So seg selv clearly shows the subject and the object are the same person.

Why is seg used instead of hun in om seg selv?

Norwegian uses reflexive pronouns when the subject and the object are the same person.

Subject: hun (she)
Reflexive object: seg (selv) (herself)

So:

Hun lærte mye om seg selv.
She learned a lot about herself.

If you used hun in the object:

Hun lærte mye om hun – this is ungrammatical.
Objects need object forms (henne, seg), and if the object refers back to the subject, you must use seg (reflexive), not henne.

What gender is søster, and how does that affect min / mi?

Søster is a feminine (or common gender) noun.

In Bokmål, you can treat many feminine nouns in two ways:

As feminine:
- en søster – a sister
- søstra – the sister
- søstra mi – my sister
As common gender:
- en søster – a sister
- søsteren – the sister
- søsteren min – my sister

Both systems are correct. Standard written Bokmål often prefers the common-gender style (søsteren min), while spoken language and some writing use the feminine endings (søstra mi) a lot.

Possessives agree with that choice:

Common-gender style: søsteren min
Feminine style: søstra mi

Could the sentence use har studert instead of studerte? What would change?

Yes, you could say:

Søsteren min har studert i utlandet i to år og har lært mye om seg selv.

Difference:

studerte / lærte (simple past / preterite)
- Often used for completed past events, especially when the time is clearly in the past and not directly connected to now.
- Neutral narrative past:
  - My sister studied abroad for two years and learned a lot about herself (at that time).
har studert / har lært (present perfect)
- Focuses more on the result or relevance in the present:
  - My sister has studied abroad for two years and has learned a lot about herself (and this matters now).

In many narratives, especially when telling a story about the past, studerte … og lærte is more natural, as in your original sentence.