Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Hun deler sin hemmelighet anonymt med en venninne og på nettet fordi hun er redd for reaksjonene. - She shares her secret anonymously with a female friend and online because she is afraid of the reactions.

sin is a reflexive possessive pronoun. It refers back to the subject of the same clause.
- Hun deler sin hemmelighet … = She shares her own secret.
hennes is a non‑reflexive possessive pronoun. It refers to some other female person, or at least it does not automatically refer back to the subject.
- Hun deler hennes hemmelighet … usually means: She shares another woman’s secret.

So in this sentence we clearly mean she is sharing her own secret, so sin is the natural choice.

Why is hemmelighet indefinite (sin hemmelighet) and not definite (sin hemmeligheten)?

Norwegian often prefers the indefinite form when introducing something as a piece of information, even if English might say “the secret”.

Hun deler sin hemmelighet …
Literally: She shares her secret (indefinite in Norwegian).
This feels neutral and natural when you first mention the secret itself.
Hun deler hemmeligheten sin …
Literally: She shares the secret of hers.
This is also grammatically correct and quite common. The difference is mostly one of focus and style:
- sin hemmelighet → focus a bit more on her and the fact that it is her own secret.
- hemmeligheten sin → focus a bit more on the secret as a specific thing.

Both are acceptable here; the sentence you gave is just one natural variant.

Why is anonymt in the neuter form? Shouldn’t it agree with hemmelighet somehow?

Anonymt is an adverb here, not an adjective.

The base adjective is anonym = anonymous.
The neuter form anonymt is used adverbially, meaning “in an anonymous way” / “anonymously”.

Adverbs in Norwegian often look like the neuter singular form of the adjective:

rolig (calm) → rolig / rolig (adverb “calmly”)
rask (quick) → raskt (adverb “quickly”)
anonym (anonymous) → anonymt (adverb “anonymously”)

Since it modifies the verb (deler – “shares”), not the noun, it does not agree with hemmelighet in gender or number.

Why does the sentence say med en venninne og på nettet and not repeat med before på nettet?

Norwegian allows you to share (deler) something with someone and on something / somewhere using different prepositions in one list:

med en venninne = with a (female) friend
på nettet = on the internet / online

The pattern is:

Hun deler X med en venninne og (deler X) på nettet …

The second deler is just understood, not repeated, and the preposition changes because the relationship is different:

med is used for people you share with.
på is used for platforms or places: på nettet, på Facebook, på jobben.

You could repeat the verb for emphasis:

Hun deler sin hemmelighet anonymt med en venninne og deler den også på nettet – longer, more emphatic, but stylistically heavier. The original version is more natural and concise.

What is the difference between venninne and venn?

Both relate to “friend”, but:

venninne = a female friend (the word itself is grammatically feminine).
venn = can be a friend of any gender, but is often perceived as male if the gender is known and not otherwise specified.

So:

en venninne – specifically “a (female) friend”.
en venn – “a friend” (gender-neutral in many contexts, but can also be understood as “male friend”).

In contexts where the gender matters, people often use venninne for a female friend. In gender‑neutral contexts, many speakers just use venn.

Why is it fordi hun er redd for reaksjonene and not fordi er hun redd for reaksjonene?

Fordi is a subordinating conjunction (“because”). In Norwegian, subordinate clauses have the word order:

Subject – Verb – (Other elements)

So after fordi, the structure is:

hun (subject)
er (verb)
redd for reaksjonene (rest of the predicate)

Correct:

… fordi hun er redd for reaksjonene.

Incorrect:

… fordi er hun redd for reaksjonene.

The inversion (Verb–Subject) happens in main clauses in some contexts (e.g. after adverbs of time, place, etc.), but not after subordinating conjunctions like fordi, at, hvis, fordi at, etc.

Why do we say redd for reaksjonene and not just redd reaksjonene?

The adjective redd (“afraid”) normally takes the preposition for when you say what someone is afraid of:

redd for noe = afraid of something
- redd for hunder – afraid of dogs
- redd for mørket – afraid of the dark
- redd for reaksjonene – afraid of the reactions

So for here corresponds directly to English “of” in afraid of X. You cannot omit it; redd doesn’t directly take a noun without a preposition in this meaning.

Why is it reaksjonene (definite plural) and not just reaksjoner?

Both forms exist, but they feel slightly different:

reaksjoner (indefinite plural) = reactions (in general), unspecific.
reaksjonene (definite plural) = the reactions, understood as specific, expected reactions from people around her.

In this sentence, hun er redd for reaksjonene suggests she is afraid of the reactions that will come from others – a more concrete, expected set of reactions. Using the definite form makes it feel more specific and real, rather than a vague, abstract fear.

What does på nettet literally mean, and could you just say online?

På nettet literally means:

på = on
nettet = the net (definite form of nett)

So it matches English “on the net” / “on the internet”.

You can also say:

på internett – also common, means on the internet.
Norwegian does sometimes borrow online, but in everyday, standard language på nettet and på internett are more typical and neutral.

So: Hun deler … på nettet ≈ She shares it online / on the internet.

Could the sentence use fordi at instead of fordi, and would it change the meaning?

You could say:

Hun deler sin hemmelighet anonymt med en venninne og på nettet fordi at hun er redd for reaksjonene.

This is grammatically acceptable, and the meaning is the same (because she is afraid of the reactions).

Differences:

fordi alone is shorter and often preferred in written, more formal language.
fordi at is common in spoken language and in some dialects, but in standard Bokmål writing it can sound more colloquial or slightly redundant.

So your original sentence with plain fordi is perfectly natural and stylistically good.