Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Etter å ha snakket med vennen sin, kjente hun at selvfølelsen ble litt sterkere og usikkerheten litt svakere. - After having talked with her friend, she felt that her self‑esteem became a bit stronger and the uncertainty a bit weaker.

In this sentence, the talking with her friend is finished before she feels the change in her self‑esteem and uncertainty. That’s why Norwegian uses å ha + past participle (å ha snakket) after etter, to show it’s something that has already been done.

You could also say Etter at hun hadde snakket med vennen sin, … with a full clause; Etter å ha snakket … is the more compact infinitive version of the same idea.

Why is the word order kjente hun and not hun kjente?

This is the normal verb-second (V2) word order in Norwegian main clauses.

The sentence order is:

Etter å ha snakket med vennen sin, kjente hun at …

Etter å ha snakket med vennen sin = an initial adverbial / preposed clause (a kind of “fronted element”).
In Norwegian, when something other than the subject comes first, the finite verb must come second.
So the finite verb kjente comes before the subject hun: kjente hun, not hun kjente.

If you start directly with the subject, then you’d say:

Hun kjente at selvfølelsen ble litt sterkere …

But once you move Etter å ha snakket med vennen sin to the front, you must invert subject and verb: kjente hun.

Why is there a comma after vennen sin?

The comma separates the initial adverbial/infinitive clause from the main clause:

Etter å ha snakket med vennen sin, = introductory clause
kjente hun at … = main clause

Norwegian uses commas to clarify structure when a subordinate (or infinitive) clause comes before the main clause. If the order were reversed, you would normally not have a comma:

Hun kjente at selvfølelsen ble litt sterkere og usikkerheten litt svakere etter å ha snakket med vennen sin.

Here, the etter å ha snakket… part comes at the end, so no comma is needed.

Why is it vennen sin and not hennes venn?

Vennen sin uses the reflexive possessive sin, which refers back to the subject of the same clause (here: hun).

vennen sin = her own friend (the subject’s friend)
hennes venn = her friend too, but hennes does not have to refer to the subject; it could be some other woman’s friend.

In this sentence:

… etter å ha snakket med vennen sin, kjente hun …

sin clearly tells us the friend belongs to hun (she). If you wrote vennen hennes, it might be understood as the friend of some other woman already mentioned in the context.

So vennen sin tightly connects the friend to the subject hun.

Why is it vennen sin and not sin venn?

This is a question about definite vs. indefinite:

sin venn = her friend (indefinite: a friend of hers)
vennen sin = her friend (definite: the friend of hers)

In the sentence we have vennen sin:

venn (a friend)
vennen (the friend)
vennen sin (the friend of hers)

The idea is that it’s a specific, known friend that she speaks to (her particular friend, not just any friend). That’s why the definite form vennen sin is chosen, not the indefinite sin venn.

Could it also be venninnen sin since the subject is female?

Yes, grammatically you could say:

Etter å ha snakket med venninnen sin, …

Venninne specifically means female friend. However, in modern Norwegian, venn is very commonly used for both male and female friends, especially in neutral contexts. It doesn’t say anything about the friend’s gender; it just means friend.

So:

venn = friend (gender‑neutral in common usage)
venninne = explicitly female friend

The original sentence is natural and idiomatic as it stands.

Why are selvfølelsen and usikkerheten in the definite form?

They are definite because they refer to her particular self-esteem and her particular uncertainty, not to these concepts in general.

selvfølelse = self-esteem (in general)
selvfølelsen = the self-esteem (here: her self-esteem)
usikkerhet = uncertainty (in general)
usikkerheten = the uncertainty (here: her uncertainty)

In English we normally say “her self-esteem” and “her uncertainty”, but Norwegian often uses the + noun (definite form) to express what English would treat as “her + noun” when the possessor is clear from context.

Because the whole sentence is about what she feels in herself, it’s understood that selvfølelsen and usikkerheten belong to her.

Why is kjente used instead of something like følte? What is the nuance?

Both kjenne and føle can translate as to feel, but they have slightly different tendencies:

kjenne (kjente):
- can be both physical and emotional
- often used for noticing or sensing a change:
  - Hun kjente at hun ble roligere. – She felt that she became calmer.
føle (følte):
- leans more toward emotional or internal states
- common in expressions like å føle seg trygg / usikker / trist.

In this sentence:

kjente hun at selvfølelsen ble litt sterkere og usikkerheten litt svakere

kjente emphasizes that she noticed or experienced a change in her inner state. Følte would also be possible:

Hun følte at selvfølelsen ble litt sterkere …

That version is also natural, just with a slightly more explicitly emotional flavor. Kjente is very idiomatic here.

Why do we use ble (“became”) and not var (“was”) with selvfølelsen and usikkerheten?

Ble indicates a change, not just a state.

ble litt sterkere = became a bit stronger (her self‑esteem increased)
var litt sterkere = was a bit stronger (already in that state, with no focus on change)

The sentence is about how talking to her friend affected her inner state:

her self‑esteem became stronger, and her uncertainty became weaker.

So ble is needed to show the transition or development that results from the conversation.

What is the role of at in kjente hun at selvfølelsen ble litt sterkere …?

At introduces a content clause (a subordinate clause) that functions as the object of kjente.

Structure:

Main clause: (Hun) kjente – She felt / sensed
Subordinate at‑clause: at selvfølelsen ble litt sterkere og usikkerheten litt svakere – that her self‑esteem became a bit stronger and her uncertainty a bit weaker.

So at is like English “that” in “She felt that her self-esteem became a bit stronger …”. In English, that can often be omitted; in Norwegian, at is usually kept in such clauses.

What does litt do here, and where can it be placed?

Litt means “a little / a bit” and softens the change, making it sound more natural and less absolute:

ble litt sterkere = became a bit stronger
litt svakere = a bit weaker

Placement:

Before the adjective it modifies:
- litt sterkere, litt svakere
It normally comes after the verb:
- ble litt sterkere, not litt ble sterkere.

You could also (less commonly) put litt earlier for emphasis in speech, but the neutral, standard placement is exactly as in the sentence: ble litt sterkere / litt svakere.