Det som irriterer naboen, er søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren.

What annoys the neighbor is trash that stays outside the door.

Breakdown of Det som irriterer naboen, er søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren.

• være: to be
• naboen: the neighbor
• døren: the door
• som: that
• utenfor: outside
• søppelet: the trash
• det som: what
• irritere: to annoy
• bli liggende: to stay lying

Questions & Answers about Det som irriterer naboen, er søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren.

What is the function of Det som at the beginning? Why not just start with Søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren irriterer naboen?

Det som … er … is a common Norwegian way to emphasize or clarify what you’re talking about. It’s similar to English:

• What irritates the neighbour is trash that stays outside the door.

So:

• Det som irriterer naboen, er …
  literally: That which irritates the neighbour is … → What irritates the neighbour is …

Your suggested sentence:

• Søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren irriterer naboen.

is also grammatical and natural. The difference is only in focus and style:

• Det som … er …: emphasizes the thing that irritates the neighbour.
• Søppel som … irriterer naboen.: just states the fact more straightforwardly, without the cleft/focus structure.

Both are good Norwegian; the original is a cleft sentence used for emphasis.

Why is there a comma after naboen?

The comma separates the dependent clause (subject clause) from the rest of the sentence.

• Det som irriterer naboen, er søppel …

Here, Det som irriterer naboen functions as the subject of the sentence (like What irritates the neighbour in English). In Norwegian, when a subordinate clause (like a som-clause) comes before the main clause, it is usually followed by a comma.

So:

• [Det som irriterer naboen], [er søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren].

Two units: a subject clause, then the main predicate. The comma marks that boundary.

Why is som used twice: Det som irriterer naboen and søppel som blir liggende? Are these the same word?

Yes, it is the same word som, acting as a relative pronoun in both cases, usually translated as that/which/who.

1. Det som irriterer naboen

   • Det = that / the thing
   • som irriterer naboen = that irritates the neighbour
     Together: that which irritates the neighbour / what irritates the neighbour.

2. søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren

   • søppel = trash
   • som blir liggende utenfor døren = that stays lying outside the door.

So you have:

• Det som irriterer naboen, er søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren.
  = What irritates the neighbour is trash that stays lying outside the door.

Same som, two different relative clauses.

What is the difference between søppel som blir liggende and søppel som ligger?

Both are possible, but they’re not quite the same:

• søppel som ligger utenfor døren
  = trash that is lying outside the door (simple description of location/state).

• søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren
  = trash that ends up staying / keeps on lying outside the door.

The pattern:

• bli + liggende (present participle)
  expresses a continued state: something remains lying there, instead of being picked up or moved.

So blir liggende focuses on the fact that it stays there and isn’t removed, which fits the idea of why the neighbour is irritated.

Why is blir used with liggende? How does bli + liggende work?

In Norwegian, you often combine bli with a present participle (ending in -ende) to talk about something remaining in a state:

• bli liggende – remain lying
• bli stående – remain standing
• bli sittende – remain sitting
• bli værende – remain / stay

So:

• søppel som blir liggende
  ≈ trash that stays lying / remains lying (there)

Compared with:

• søppel som ligger
  = just trash that is lying (there), neutral description.

bli + liggende adds the sense of it doesn’t get moved; it continues to lie there.

Why is it irriterer, not irriterer seg? What is the difference between irritere and irritere seg?

• å irritere (no reflexive) = to irritate someone, to annoy.

  • Det irriterer naboen. – It irritates the neighbour.

• å irritere seg (reflexive) = to get annoyed / to be annoyed, focusing on the person’s reaction.

  • Naboen irriterer seg over søppelet. – The neighbour gets annoyed about the trash.

In your sentence, the trash (or the situation) is the thing that irritates the neighbour, so we need the non‑reflexive form:

• Det som irriterer naboen, er søppel …

If you wanted to use the reflexive form, you’d rephrase:

• Naboen irriterer seg over søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren. – The neighbour is annoyed about trash that stays outside the door.

Why is it naboen and not just nabo?

The ending -en makes the noun definite:

• en nabo – a neighbour
• naboen – the neighbour

In the sentence, we’re talking about a specific neighbour (someone both speaker and listener can identify), so Norwegian uses the definite form:

• Det som irriterer naboen, …
  – What irritates the neighbour, …

If you said:

• Det som irriterer en nabo, …

it would sound more like “what irritates a neighbour (any neighbour)”, which is less specific and less natural in this context.

Why is there no article before søppel? Shouldn’t it be søppelet or søppel-en?

Søppel is usually treated as an uncountable / mass noun in Norwegian, like trash / garbage in English. In such general statements, Norwegian often uses no article:

• søppel – (some) trash / garbage, trash in general

The definite form søppelet (or søpla in some dialects) is used when talking about specific, identifiable trash:

• Kan du ta ut søppelet? – Can you take out the trash? (the trash we both know about)

Here, we are talking about trash in general that stays outside the door, so søppel without an article is natural:

• … er søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren.
  – … is trash that stays lying outside the door.

What is the difference between døren and døra? Are both correct?

Yes, both are correct forms of the door, but they reflect different styles/varieties:

• døren – more formal/standard written Bokmål.
• døra – more colloquial Bokmål / closer to many spoken dialects.

Indefinite forms:

• en dør – a door

Definite forms:

• døren or døra – the door

In your sentence, utenfor døren is perfectly standard. In more informal writing or dialogue, you might see:

• utenfor døra

Could the sentence also be Søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren, irriterer naboen? Is that the same?

Yes, that sentence is grammatical and natural:

• Søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren irriterer naboen.

Differences:

• Original: Det som irriterer naboen, er søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren.
  Focus: What irritates the neighbour is (this): trash that stays outside the door.

• Alternative: Søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren irriterer naboen.
  Focus: Trash that stays outside the door (subject), then tells you it irritates the neighbour.

Meaning-wise, they are almost the same. The original uses the cleft structure (Det som … er …) to highlight the cause of irritation more explicitly.

What is the difference between utenfor døren and foran døren?

Both involve being in front of / outside the door, but there’s a nuance:

• utenfor døren
  = outside the door (on the outside side, not inside the room/house).
  Focus: outside vs inside.

• foran døren
  = in front of the door (in front position, could technically be inside or outside, depending on context).
  Focus: position in front of something.

For trash not being taken in, utenfor døren is very natural, because the contrast is with inside the house. It suggests it’s left outside instead of being thrown away or taken in.

How would this sentence look in the past tense?

You mainly change the verbs:

Present (original):

• Det som irriterer naboen, er søppel som blir liggende utenfor døren.

Simple past (habitual or at that time):

• Det som irriterte naboen, var søppel som ble liggende utenfor døren.
  • irriterte – irritated
  • var – was
  • ble liggende – remained lying / stayed lying

This would mean “What irritated the neighbour was trash that (kept) stayed lying outside the door.” referring to a situation in the past.