Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Bestefar forteller om krig i sin barndom og hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå. - Grandpa talks about war in his childhood and how much he appreciates peace now.

Bestefar here functions almost like a proper name (like Grandpa in English).
Min bestefar = my grandfather (more neutral, factual).
Bestefaren = the grandfather (definite form, sounds more distant or like you’re talking about “the grandfather” as a role).

In a personal, storytelling context, Bestefar is natural and warm, just like saying Grandpa in English rather than my grandfather.

Why is the verb forteller in the present tense when he is talking about the past?

Norwegian, like English, often uses the present tense for narration when describing something that is happening “now” (the act of telling), even if the content is about the past.

Bestefar forteller om krig i sin barndom
= Grandpa is telling / tells about war in his childhood.

The telling is happening now (present), even though the war and childhood are in the past.

If you wanted to put the act of telling in the past, you’d say:

Bestefar fortalte om krig i sin barndom
= Grandpa told about war in his childhood.

What does om mean in forteller om krig, and could you use a different preposition?

Om here means “about”.

å fortelle om noe = to tell about something / to talk about something.

You cannot replace om with another preposition in this meaning.
You couldn’t say forteller over krig or forteller på krig; those would be wrong.

Why is it om krig and not om krigen?

Both are grammatically possible, but the meaning changes slightly:

om krig = about war (war in general, as a concept or general experience).
om krigen = about the war (a specific war, like World War II).

In the sentence you gave, om krig suggests he is talking about war in general in his childhood, or about his war experiences without focusing on naming one particular war.

If the context is a specific war, the speaker might say:

Bestefar forteller om krigen i sin barndom.
= Grandpa tells about the war in his childhood.

What does i sin barndom mean exactly, and could you say it differently?

I sin barndom literally means “in his childhood”.

i = in
sin = reflexive possessive pronoun (his own)
barndom = childhood

You could say the same idea in several other ways:

da han var barn = when he was a child
i barndommen hans = in his childhood (using hans instead of sin)
fra han var liten = from when he was little

All are natural, but i sin barndom is compact and a bit more formal/neutral.

What is the difference between sin and hans in sin barndom?

This is a key point for learners.

sin / si / sitt / sine are reflexive possessive pronouns.
They refer back to the subject of the clause.
hans / hennes are non‑reflexive and usually refer to someone else (not the subject), or are used for emphasis.

In your sentence:

Subject: Bestefar / han
sin barndom = his own childhood (Bestefar’s childhood)

If you wrote i barndommen hans in this sentence, context still makes it clear it’s his own childhood, so it’s not wrong, but:

i sin barndom feels slightly more elegant and is the default when it’s the subject’s own childhood.

Reflexive rule (simplified):

Use sin/si/sitt/sine when the owner = the subject of the same clause.
Use hans/hennes when the owner is someone else, or when you really need to stress that it is his (that other guy’s), not the subject’s.

Could you say i barndommen hans instead of i sin barndom? Is there a difference in tone?

Yes, you can say:

Bestefar forteller om krig i barndommen hans.

This is grammatically fine and still likely understood as his own childhood, because of context.

Subtle differences:

i sin barndom
– Feels slightly more neutral/standard and follows the typical reflexive pattern.
i barndommen hans
– Feels a bit more colloquial or spoken, and in other sentences can more easily be understood as “some other man’s childhood.”

In everyday speech, Norwegians use both, but learners are safest getting used to sin/si/sitt/sine whenever the subject owns the thing.

What does the phrase setter pris på mean?

Å sette pris på noe is an idiomatic expression meaning:

to appreciate something / to value something / to be grateful for something.

It is not about setting a price in money in normal modern usage, even though literally that’s what the words suggest.

So:

Han setter pris på fred nå.
= He really appreciates peace now / He values peace now.

This is a very common expression, used in many contexts:

Jeg setter pris på hjelpen.
= I appreciate the help.

Why do you need på in setter pris på fred?

With this idiomatic expression, the preposition på is fixed:

å sette pris på noe
(not sette pris noe, and not sette pris til noe).

So the structure is:

subjekt + setter pris på + objekt
Han setter pris på fred.
Vi setter pris på deg.
Hun setter pris på stillhet.

You can’t drop på here.

What does hvor mye mean in hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå, and why is it used?

Hvor mye literally means “how much”.

In this sentence, it introduces an embedded clause describing the degree of appreciation:

hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå
= how much he appreciates peace now.

It works like in English:

He tells about how much he appreciates peace now.

Using hvor mye emphasizes the extent or degree of his appreciation, not just the fact that he appreciates it.

Why is the word order hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå and not hvor mye setter han pris på fred nå?

This is about main clause vs. subordinate clause word order.

In a direct question:
Hvor mye setter han pris på fred nå?
(Verb in 2nd position: V2 rule)
In an embedded (subordinate) clause introduced by hvor mye:
… hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå.
(Subject han comes before verb setter.)

Your sentence has an embedded clause, not a direct question, so it follows subordinate clause word order:

Subordinator: hvor mye
Subject: han
Verb: setter
Rest: pris på fred nå

Can you move nå to a different position, like hvor mye han nå setter pris på fred?

Yes, nå is quite flexible, and you can move it without changing the basic meaning:

… hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå.
… hvor mye han nå setter pris på fred.

Both are natural.
Differences:

… pris på fred nå
– Very neutral, most common.
… han nå setter pris på fred
– Slightly more emphasis on now as a contrast with before.

You normally wouldn’t put nå at the very beginning of this clause (nå hvor mye han…) in standard Norwegian.

Why is there no comma before og in this sentence?

The sentence is:

Bestefar forteller om krig i sin barndom og hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå.

In Norwegian, when og connects two parts that belong to the same main clause and share the same subject and verb, you usually don’t put a comma:

Subject + verb: Bestefar forteller
Object part 1: om krig i sin barndom
Object part 2: (om) hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå

So og is just linking two parts of what he is telling about, and no comma is needed.

You would use a comma before og if it joined two full main clauses:

Bestefar forteller om krig i sin barndom, og han snakker om hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå.

Can you drop han in hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå?

No, you cannot drop han here.

Norwegian generally requires an explicit subject in finite clauses. Unlike in some languages, you can’t just leave the subject implied:

✔ … hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå.
✖ … hvor mye setter pris på fred nå. (incorrect – subject missing)

Even though we already know we’re talking about Bestefar, the pronoun han is still necessary in this subclause.

Could you say Bestefar forteller om krig og om hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå? Is that better?

Yes, this version is also correct:

Bestefar forteller om krig og om hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå.

Here you repeat om before the second part. Both versions are fine:

… forteller om krig i sin barndom og hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå.
… forteller om krig i sin barndom og om hvor mye han setter pris på fred nå.

Repeating om (version 2) can make the structure a bit clearer for learners, but native speakers often omit the second om when it’s obvious from context.