Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Når han mister familietid, merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere. - When he loses family time, he notices that the quality of life becomes worse.

når is used for:
- Repeated / habitual actions
  - Når han mister familietid, ... = Whenever he loses family time, ...
- General truths or future time
da is used for:
- One specific event in the past
  - Da han mistet familietid i fjor, merket han ... = When he lost family time last year, he noticed ...

Here the sentence describes a general, repeated pattern in his life, so når is correct and da would be wrong.

Why is the word order "Når han mister familietid, merker han ..." and not "... han merker"?

Norwegian has verb-second word order (V2) in main clauses.

In this sentence:

Når han mister familietid is a subordinate clause (a når-clause).
After that clause, the main clause begins: merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere.

Rule for a main clause after a fronted element (like a subordinate clause, adverb, etc.):

The first element is the subordinate clause: Når han mister familietid
The second element must be the finite verb of the main clause: merker
Then comes the subject: han

So:

Correct: Når han mister familietid, merker han at ...
Not correct: Når han mister familietid, han merker at ... (breaks V2 word order)

What exactly does mister mean here? Is it like English miss or lose?

miste in Norwegian corresponds to to lose in English, not to miss (someone).

miste:
- Jeg mistet nøklene. = I lost my keys.
- Han mistet jobben. = He lost his job.
- Når han mister familietid = When he loses (out on) family time.

To say to miss someone, you use savne:

Han savner familien sin. = He misses his family.

Note: Stylistically, many Norwegians would more often say:

Når han går glipp av familietid, ... (When he misses out on family time, ...)
or
Når han får mindre familietid, ...

But mister familietid is still understandable and grammatically fine.

What kind of word is familietid, and why is there no article (like en or den)?

familietid is a compound noun:

familie (family) + tid (time) → familietid (family time)

Grammatical details:

Gender: common gender (like en familie, en tid)
- en familietid (indefinite)
- familietiden (definite)

Why no article here?

In Norwegian, abstract or mass-like concepts often appear without an article when talking about them in general:
- Han trenger ro. = He needs peace.
- Hun liker musikk. = She likes music.
- Han mister familietid. = He loses family time (in general).

If you say:

Han mister familietiden, it sounds more like a specific, known amount of family time: He is losing the family time (we talked about / that he used to have).

Why is there a comma after "Når han mister familietid"?

Norwegian punctuation rules require a comma between:

a subordinate clause (like a når-clause)
and the following main clause, when the subordinate clause comes first.

So:

Når han mister familietid, merker han at ... ✔
Merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere når han mister familietid. (no comma needed here because the subordinate clause comes last)

This comma is obligatory in standard written Norwegian.

What does merker mean here, and how is it different from føler or innser?

merke (here: merker) means to notice, to perceive, to sense.

In this context:

merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere
= he notices / becomes aware that his quality of life gets worse

Comparison:

merke: notice something (mentally or physically)
- Jeg merker at du er sliten. = I notice that you’re tired.
føle: feel emotionally or physically
- Jeg føler meg sliten. = I feel tired.
innse: realize (often with a sense of understanding/acceptance)
- Han innser at livskvaliteten blir dårligere. = He realizes that his quality of life is getting worse.

You could replace merker with merker at or legger merke til at (more explicit):

Han legger merke til at livskvaliteten blir dårligere.

Why is it livskvaliteten (definite) and not just livskvalitet?

livskvalitet means quality of life:

liv (life) + kvalitet (quality) → livskvalitet

Grammatical form:

Indefinite: livskvalitet
Definite: livskvaliteten = the quality of life

Here, livskvaliteten refers to his own, specific quality of life, which is already known in the context:

... merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere.
= he notices that the quality of life (his quality of life) is getting worse.

If you said:

... at livskvalitet blir dårligere,
it would sound ungrammatical in this context; abstract nouns used in a specific, concrete sense usually take the definite form.

Why is blir used instead of er in "livskvaliteten blir dårligere"?

bli is used to express change or becoming:

bli = to become, to get
er = to be (state)

So:

livskvaliteten blir dårligere
= the quality of life becomes / gets worse (it changes over time)
livskvaliteten er dårlig
= the quality of life is bad (describes a state, not a change)

In this sentence, the focus is on a worsening process, so blir is the natural choice.

What is dårligere exactly? How is it formed, and can I say verre instead?

dårligere is the comparative form of dårlig (“bad”).

Positive: dårlig = bad
Comparative: dårligere = worse
Superlative: dårligst = worst

So:

livskvaliteten blir dårligere
= the quality of life becomes worse

You can also use verre, which is an irregular comparative of dårlig:

dårlig – verre – verst

In practice, both are possible:

livskvaliteten blir dårligere
livskvaliteten blir verre

Both mean the quality of life gets worse. verre is a bit shorter and very common; dårligere tends to sound slightly more neutral or formal, but the difference is small.

Why is everything in the present tense? Could this also refer to the past?

Norwegian often uses the present tense to describe:

general truths
habits or repeated actions

So:

Når han mister familietid, merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere.
≈ Whenever he loses family time, he notices that his quality of life gets worse.

This doesn’t mean it’s happening right now; it describes a general pattern.

To talk about a specific situation in the past, you would change the tenses:

Da han mistet familietid, merket han at livskvaliteten ble dårligere.
= When he lost family time, he noticed that his quality of life got worse.

Can I drop the second han and say "Når han mister familietid, merker at livskvaliteten blir dårligere"?

No. In Norwegian, you cannot normally drop the subject pronoun like that.

Each finite verb in a main clause needs an explicit subject:

Når han mister familietid, merker han at ... ✔
Når han mister familietid, merker at ... ✖ (ungrammatical)

Unlike in languages like Spanish or Italian, Norwegian is not a “pro-drop” language; subjects are normally required and cannot be omitted just because they are clear from context.

Could I say this in another natural way, for example with tid med familien instead of familietid?

Yes, there are several natural alternatives that a native might use:

Når han mister tid med familien, merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere.
Når han går glipp av tid med familien, merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere.
Når han får mindre tid med familien, merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere.
Når han får mindre familietid, merker han at livskvaliteten blir dårligere.

Nuances:

mister tid med familien – literally “loses time with the family”
går glipp av tid med familien – “misses out on time with the family” (very idiomatic)
får mindre tid med familien / mindre familietid – “gets less time with the family / less family time”, focuses on reduction rather than “losing”

All keep the same basic meaning as the original sentence.