Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Noen seere blir forvirret fordi reglene i programmet endres hele tiden. - Some viewers get confused because the rules in the program change all the time.

noen seere = some viewers (in general)
- You are not thinking of a specific, known group.
- Example: Noen seere blir forvirret – Some viewers (in general) get confused.
noen av seerne = some of the viewers
- You are talking about a specific group that is already known or previously mentioned.
- Example: Noen av seerne blir forvirret – Some of the viewers (of this particular show / in this specific situation) get confused.

So the original sentence is more general and not limited to a known, specific set of viewers.

Why is it seere and not seer or seerne?

The noun seer (viewer) has these common forms in Bokmål:

Singular indefinite: en seer – a viewer
Singular definite: seeren – the viewer
Plural indefinite: seere – viewers
Plural definite: seerne – the viewers

In the sentence, we have noen seere:

noen requires an indefinite plural: “some viewers”
So we must use seere (indefinite plural), not seer (singular) and not seerne (definite plural).

What exactly does blir forvirret mean, and why use blir here?

Blir forvirret is a common structure: bli + past participle.

bli = to become / to get
forvirret = confused (past participle of å forvirre)

So blir forvirret means “become confused / get confused”, describing a change of state.

Compare:

er forvirret – is confused (state)
blir forvirret – gets/becomes confused (process of becoming confused)

The sentence talks about what happens as they watch the show, so blir forvirret (they end up getting confused) fits better than er forvirret (they are confused in general).

How does the word order work in fordi reglene i programmet endres hele tiden? Should the verb go at the end like in German?

No. Norwegian is not like German in this respect.

In a subordinate clause with fordi (because), the usual word order is:

[Conjunction] + [Subject] + [Verb] (+ rest)

So:

fordi – conjunction
reglene i programmet – subject
endres – verb
hele tiden – adverbial

This gives: fordi reglene i programmet endres hele tiden

It is not correct in Norwegian to push the finite verb to the very end as in German. A German-style structure like fordi reglene i programmet hele tiden endres is unusual and sounds marked; the normal word order is exactly as in the example sentence.

Why is it endres and not endrer or blir endret?

Norwegian has an -s passive form, created by adding -s to the verb.

å endre – to change
endres – is changed / gets changed

So:

reglene i programmet endres = the rules in the program are (being) changed

Alternatives:

reglene i programmet endrer seg – “the rules in the program change (themselves)”
reglene i programmet blir endret – “the rules in the program are being changed”

Meaning-wise, endres and blir endret here are very close. Endres is short and neutral; blir endret can sound a bit more explicit about an agent (someone is changing them).

What does hele tiden literally mean, and how is it used?

Hele tiden literally means “the whole time”.

In practice it often means:

all the time / constantly / continually

In this sentence:

reglene i programmet endres hele tiden
= the rules in the program are changed all the time / constantly

Other examples:

Han snakker hele tiden. – He talks all the time.
Det regner hele tiden. – It rains constantly.

It’s a very common everyday expression.

Why is it i programmet and not another preposition like av or på?

I is used because the rules belong to / exist within the program:

reglene i programmet = the rules in the program (internal to that show)

Other prepositions would change the meaning:

reglene av programmet – not idiomatic in Norwegian (sounds wrong)
reglene på programmet – could be understood, but sounds odd; i programmet is natural

Think of i as “inside, as part of” the show.

Why is it reglene and not regelene or reglerne?

The noun regel (rule) is irregular in the plural:

Singular indefinite: en regel – a rule
Singular definite: regelen – the rule
Plural indefinite: regler – rules
Plural definite: reglene – the rules

So reglene is the correct definite plural form.

Forms like regelene or reglerne are not standard in Bokmål.

Why is programmet in the definite form?

Programmet is:

Singular definite of et program – a show/program
programmet – the show / the program

We say reglene i programmet (the rules in the program) because we are talking about a specific show that both speaker and listener know about (for example, a particular TV show).

If you said reglene i et program, it would sound like “the rules in a program / in some program or other”, more general and less specific.

Could the sentence start with the fordi clause? How would the word order change?

Yes, you can put the because-clause first. Then you must use verb-second word order in the main clause:

Original:
- Noen seere blir forvirret fordi reglene i programmet endres hele tiden.
With the fordi clause first:
- Fordi reglene i programmet endres hele tiden, blir noen seere forvirret.

Notice:

In the subordinate clause (after fordi): subject before verb (reglene … endres)
In the main clause: finite verb in second position (blir comes right after the whole first clause).

Can hele tiden be placed somewhere else in the clause, like endres hele tiden vs hele tiden endres?

The neutral, most natural order is:

reglene i programmet endres hele tiden

You can move hele tiden for emphasis:

reglene i programmet hele tiden endres

This is grammatically possible but sounds more marked and stylistic, not like a neutral textbook sentence. In everyday speech and standard writing, Norwegian speakers strongly prefer the original order: verb + hele tiden.

Could you rewrite the sentence in a more “active” way without the passive endres?

Yes, here is an active version:

Produsentene endrer reglene i programmet hele tiden, så noen seere blir forvirret.
- Produsentene – the producers
- endrer – change

This makes the agent explicit: it is the producers who keep changing the rules.

In the original sentence with endres, the focus is on the rules being changed, not on who changes them.