Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Han føler seg så rolig etter meditasjon at han glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk. - He feels so calm after meditation that he forgets the time squeeze for a moment.

Han føler seg rolig = He feels calm (describing his state).
Han føler ro = He feels calmness / peace (feeling a noun).
Han føler rolig is wrong, because rolig is an adjective and needs to describe han, not directly follow føler without seg.

Without seg, å føle usually means:

to feel, sense (with senses): Jeg føler smerte – I feel pain.
to feel that/think that: Jeg føler at han tar feil – I feel (think) that he is wrong.

So you need seg here because you’re describing how he feels (his internal state): Han føler seg så rolig ...

What is the function of så ... at ... in this sentence?

The structure så … at … expresses degree + consequence, similar to English “so … that …”.

så rolig = so calm
at han glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk = that he forgets the time crunch for a moment

So the pattern is:

Han er så trøtt at han sovner på bussen.
He is so tired that he falls asleep on the bus.

In your sentence, så rolig is the cause/degree, and the at-clause gives the result: he becomes so calm that he forgets the time pressure for a bit.

Why is it etter meditasjon without an article? Could it also be etter meditasjonen?

Both are possible, but they mean slightly different things.

etter meditasjon
– generic or habitual: after meditation (as an activity, in general)
– like English “after meditation” without saying which specific session.
etter meditasjonen
– specific: after the meditation (this particular session we just did)
– points to one concrete instance of meditation already known from context.

In the original sentence, etter meditasjon suggests this is a regular effect of meditation as an activity, not just one specific session.

What exactly does tidsklemma mean, and how is the word built up?

Tidsklemma is a common Norwegian noun meaning “time squeeze / time crunch”, i.e. the feeling of having too many things to do and too little time.

It’s a compound:

tid = time
klemme = squeeze, pinch, crush

Literally: “the time squeeze”, figuratively the stressful situation where your time is being “squeezed” by many obligations (work, children, studies, etc.).

It’s very commonly used in everyday language:

å være i tidsklemma = to be stuck in the time crunch

Why is it tidsklemma and not tidsklemme here? Is this definite or indefinite?

Tidsklemma here is the definite singular form: “the time squeeze/time crunch”.

For this noun in Bokmål, you have two gender options:

Masculine:
- en tidsklemme (indefinite)
- tidsklemmen (definite)
Feminine:
- ei tidsklemme (indefinite)
- tidsklemma (definite)

The sentence uses the feminine definite form tidsklemma.

Norwegian often uses the definite form with abstract, “life situation” nouns:

livet – life
hverdagen – everyday life
fremtiden – the future
tidsklemma – the time crunch (in my/our life)

So han glemmer tidsklemma = literally he forgets the time crunch, i.e. the stressful time pressure that is part of his situation.

Why is there no separate word for “the” before tidsklemma? Why not han glemmer den tidsklemma?

In Norwegian, the definite article is usually attached as a suffix to the noun itself, not as a separate word:

en bil → bilen (a car → the car)
ei bok → boka (a book → the book)
en tidsklemme → tidsklemma or *tidsklemmen (a time crunch → the time crunch)

So tidsklemma already means “the time crunch”.

You would only add den if you were using it in a specific, contrastive way, often with an adjective:

den store tidsklemma – the big time crunch (that particular one)

But here, han glemmer tidsklemma is just “he forgets the time crunch”, with the definiteness already built into -a.

Why is it et øyeblikk? Could it be for et øyeblikk or i et øyeblikk instead?

All three exist, but they’re not identical.

In your sentence:

et øyeblikk
functions almost like an adverbial meaning “for a moment”, without a preposition.
Han glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk.
≈ He forgets the time crunch for a moment.

With prepositions:

for et øyeblikk
often emphasizes duration: for a moment / for a little while
Han glemmer tidsklemma for et øyeblikk. – almost the same meaning; also natural.
i et øyeblikk
more literally “in a moment,” often used for very short instants or in other contexts:
- Jeg var redd i et øyeblikk. – I was scared for a moment.
- Less common with glemme here; et øyeblikk or for et øyeblikk sound more idiomatic.

So et øyeblikk without a preposition is perfectly normal and quite natural.

Why is the word order at han glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk and not something like at glemmer han tidsklemma?

Norwegian word order rules differ between main clauses and subordinate clauses.

Main clause: V2 rule – the verb is in the second position.
- Han glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk.
- I dag glemmer han tidsklemma et øyeblikk.
Subordinate clause with at: the verb comes after the subject, not in the second overall position.
- at han glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk ✅
- at glemmer han tidsklemma et øyeblikk ❌ (sounds wrong in Norwegian)

So in an at-clause you typically have: > at + subject + (adverbs) + verb + rest

Which is exactly what you see: at han glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk.

Why is han repeated in the second part? Can you say … etter meditasjon at glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk?

You have to repeat the subject han in the at-clause.

Norwegian does not normally drop the subject in a new clause, even if it’s the same person:

Han føler seg så rolig etter meditasjon at han glemmer tidsklemma. ✅
Han føler seg så rolig etter meditasjon at glemmer tidsklemma. ❌

Each clause (main or subordinate) needs its own explicit subject, unless you’re in a special elliptical context (e.g. very informal speech with known subject). In standard written Norwegian, you keep han.

Could you say etter å ha meditert instead of etter meditasjon? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can, and it’s very natural:

Han føler seg så rolig etter å ha meditert ...
= He feels so calm after having meditated ...

Difference in nuance:

etter meditasjon
– focuses on the activity as a noun (after meditation).
– sounds a bit more general or “type-of-activity”-like.
etter å ha meditert
– focuses on the completed action (after (he has) meditated).
– often feels a bit more concrete and close to the English structure “after meditating”.

Both are grammatically correct; the choice is mostly stylistic.

Why is rolig unchanged here? Shouldn’t it agree with han somehow?

Rolig is an adjective used as a predicative complement (describing the subject):

Han er rolig.
Han virker rolig.
Han føler seg rolig.

In Norwegian, adjectives in this position take the base form for singular masculine/feminine subjects:

Han er rolig.
Hun er rolig.

You only change the form when you need neuter or plural:

et rolig barn – a calm child (neuter: rolig → rolig
- t is often visible in other adjectives: fin → fint)
rolige barn – calm children (plural: rolige)

But here, since it’s describing han in the singular, the base form rolig is exactly what you want.

What’s the difference between saying så rolig and something like veldig rolig here?

Both describe a high degree of calmness, but they behave differently in the sentence:

så rolig
– often used in a cause–effect structure with a following at-clause:
Han er så rolig at han sovner. – He is so calm that he falls asleep.
– så sets up the consequence expressed by at …
veldig rolig
– just means very calm, without automatically implying a consequence.
– You can still add an at-clause, but it doesn’t form the fixed så … at … pattern.

In your sentence, så is natural because it directly connects to the result: > så rolig … at han glemmer tidsklemma et øyeblikk
> so calm that he forgets the time crunch for a moment.