Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Den ensomheten hun beskrev i dagboken, forstår jeg nå litt bedre. - That loneliness she described in the diary I now understand a little better.

When you have a noun in the definite form and it’s modified by something (like an adjective or a relative clause), you usually add a den / det / de in front:

den store hunden – the big dog
den boka jeg leste – the book I read
den ensomheten hun beskrev – the loneliness she described

So den here points to a specific, previously mentioned or contextually known kind of loneliness. It’s not wrong or redundant; it’s just how Norwegian works in these structures.

Could I say denne ensomheten instead of den ensomheten? What’s the difference?

You can say denne ensomheten, but it changes the nuance slightly:

den ensomheten = that particular loneliness, the one we already know about from context (often slightly more distance, more “referential”).
denne ensomheten = this loneliness (more “here-and-now” or emotionally closer, like you’re pointing at it in the conversation).

In this sentence, den ensomheten sounds more neutral and natural, because we’re referring back to “the loneliness she described in her diary” as a known thing, not pointing at it as something right here.

Why is there a comma before forstår: … i dagboken, forstår jeg …?

The part Den ensomheten hun beskrev i dagboken is a long noun phrase that has been moved to the front of the sentence for emphasis. The “normal” (neutral) word order would be:

Jeg forstår den ensomheten hun beskrev i dagboken nå litt bedre.

When you move (front) that object to the beginning:

Den ensomheten hun beskrev i dagboken, forstår jeg nå litt bedre.

Norwegian usually inserts a comma after a fronted element when it’s long or complex (here, the noun plus its relative clause hun beskrev i dagboken). It visually separates the fronted part from the main clause forstår jeg nå litt bedre and makes the sentence easier to read.

Why is it forstår jeg and not jeg forstår after the comma?

Norwegian has the V2 rule (verb-second) in main clauses: the finite verb almost always comes in second position, no matter what is in first position.

Normal order:

Subject – 2. Verb – 3. Other stuff
→ Jeg forstår det.

With a different element in first position (time, object, etc.), the verb still must be second, so the subject gets pushed after the verb:

Nå forstår jeg det. (Time in first position)
Det forstår jeg. (Object in first position)
Den ensomheten hun beskrev i dagboken, forstår jeg nå litt bedre. (Long object in first position)

So forstår jeg is required by the V2 word-order rule. Den ensomheten …, jeg forstår nå litt bedre would sound ungrammatical.

Why is there no som after den ensomheten? Shouldn’t it be den ensomheten som hun beskrev?

The full, “complete” form can be:

Den ensomheten som hun beskrev i dagboken, forstår jeg nå litt bedre.

But in Norwegian, the relative pronoun som is often dropped when it’s the object in the relative clause, especially in everyday style:

Den filmen (som) jeg så i går …
Den boka (som) han kjøpte …
Den ensomheten (som) hun beskrev i dagboken …

Leaving out som is common and natural here. Including it sounds slightly more explicit/formal, but both are correct.

What exactly does hun beskrev i dagboken modify? Does i dagboken go with beskrev or with ensomheten?

Grammatically, hun beskrev i dagboken is a relative clause describing ensomheten, and within that clause, i dagboken goes with beskrev:

She described that loneliness in the diary.

So the structure is:

Den ensomheten [hun beskrev i dagboken], forstår jeg nå litt bedre.
- Den ensomheten = the loneliness
- hun beskrev i dagboken = (which) she described in the diary

We are not saying “the loneliness in the diary”; we are saying “the loneliness that she described (and this description happened in the diary)”.

Why is beskrev in the past tense, but forstår is in the present?

The tenses mark two different time frames:

hun beskrev – she described (in the past, when she wrote the diary)
forstår jeg nå – I now understand (present, at the time of speaking)

So the sentence means:
“I now understand, a bit better, the loneliness that she described back then in the diary.”

Past for the diary-writing event, present for the speaker’s current understanding. This “past event, present understanding” combination is very common and natural in both Norwegian and English.

Can I move nå and litt bedre around? For example: forstår jeg litt bedre nå or nå forstår jeg den ensomheten … litt bedre?

Yes, adverbs like nå and litt bedre are fairly flexible. All of these are grammatical, with only slight shifts in rhythm/emphasis:

Den ensomheten hun beskrev i dagboken, forstår jeg nå litt bedre.
– Neutral, nå near the verb, litt bedre after.
Den ensomheten hun beskrev i dagboken, forstår jeg litt bedre nå.
– Slightly more emphasis on the “now” feeling at the end.
Nå forstår jeg den ensomheten hun beskrev i dagboken litt bedre.
– Fronts nå, making “now” very prominent.

You normally keep litt right before bedre, and nå can move around as a time adverb. Just respect the V2 rule (finite verb in second position).

Why is it i dagboken and not på dagboken?

For “in a diary / in the diary”, Norwegian uses i:

i boka – in the book
i dagboka / i dagboken – in the diary

på is used for many other locations and surfaces (på bordet, på skolen, på jobben, på TV), but for something written inside a book/diary, i is the normal preposition. So i dagboken corresponds to English “in the diary.”

What’s the difference between ensomhet and alene? Could I say something with alene here instead?

ensomhet = loneliness (a noun; the state/feeling)
ensom = lonely (adjective)
alene = alone (adverb/adjective, mostly about physically being by yourself)

In this sentence, we talk about an abstract feeling (“that loneliness”), so we need the noun:

den ensomheten – that loneliness

alene would fit if we talked about being alone:

Hun var mye alene. – She was alone a lot.

You cannot directly replace den ensomheten with something based on alene in the same structure; you would need a different construction, e.g.:

Det å være så mye alene som hun beskrev i dagboken, forstår jeg nå litt bedre.
(“Being as alone as she described in the diary, I now understand a bit better.”)

But that’s a different sentence, not a simple substitution.

Is it necessary to have litt in forstår jeg nå litt bedre, or can I just say bedre?

You can say both:

… forstår jeg nå bedre. – I now understand … better.
… forstår jeg nå litt bedre. – I now understand … a little bit better.

litt softens and limits the improvement: not a complete understanding, just a small step closer. Without litt, it sounds like a more general or stronger improvement. Both are fully correct; it’s just a matter of nuance.