Jeg har på jakken min fordi det er kaldt.

I am wearing my jacket because it is cold.

Breakdown of Jeg har på jakken min fordi det er kaldt.

• jeg: I
• være: to be
• kald: cold
• det: it
• fordi: because
• min: my
• jakken: the jacket
• ha på: to wear

Questions & Answers about Jeg har på jakken min fordi det er kaldt.

What does har på mean here, and how is it different from just har?

Har på is part of the fixed expression å ha på (seg), which means “to wear” (clothes).

• Jeg har jakken min = I have my jacket (I own it / I have it with me).
• Jeg har på jakken min = I am wearing my jacket (it is on my body).

So på is essential here: it changes the meaning from have/possess to have on / wear.

I learned å ha på seg = “to wear”. Why is there no meg in Jeg har på jakken min?

The “full” pattern is: ha på seg noe – literally “have on oneself something”.
Examples:

• Jeg har på meg en jakke. – I’m wearing a jacket.
• Hva har du på deg? – What are you wearing?

When you clearly mention the clothing item (especially with a possessive like jakken min), Norwegians often drop the reflexive meg/deg/seg:

• Jeg har på jakken min.
• Han har på jakka si.

Many speakers would still say Jeg har på meg jakken min, but leaving out meg here is natural and common.

Why is it jakken and not jakke?

Norwegian usually puts the definite article at the end of the noun as a suffix:

• en jakke = a jacket (indefinite)
• jakken = the jacket (definite, masculine form)

In the sentence, jakken means “the jacket”, and combined with min it becomes “my jacket”. So Jeg har på jakken min literally is “I have on the jacket of mine / my jacket.”

Why is it jakken min and not min jakke? Do they mean the same thing?

Both word orders are possible in Norwegian:

• jakken min
• min jakke

Meaning is almost the same (“my jacket”), but there is a nuance:

• jakken min (noun + possessive) is the most common, neutral way in everyday speech.
• min jakke (possessive + noun) is used more for emphasis (“my jacket, not someone else’s”) or in slightly more formal / stylistic language.

So here, jakken min is the most natural choice.

Is the possessive min really necessary? Could I just say Jeg har på jakken?

Yes, you can say Jeg har på jakken, and it will normally be understood as your jacket from context.
Adding min makes it explicit that it is my jacket. This can matter if:

• Several jackets are being discussed.
• You want to stress whose jacket it is.

In an isolated sentence (like in a textbook), it’s very common to include the possessive: jakken min.

Can I change the word order and say Jeg har jakken min på instead?

Yes, that is also correct:

• Jeg har på jakken min.
• Jeg har jakken min på.

Both mean “I’m wearing my jacket.”
The version with på right after har (har på jakken min) follows the standard pattern of the verb phrase ha på, so it’s especially common in teaching materials, but both orders are fine in everyday speech.

Why is it fordi det er kaldt and not fordi er det kaldt?

After fordi (“because”), you get a subordinate clause, and Norwegian subordinate clauses use subject–verb word order, not verb-second (V2):

• Main clause: Det er kaldt. / Er det kaldt?
• Subordinate: fordi det er kaldt (never fordi er det kaldt).

So you must keep det before er after fordi.

What’s the difference between fordi, for, and siden when they all can mean “because”?

All three can introduce a reason, but they’re not interchangeable in all contexts:

• fordi = neutral, most common “because”.

  • Jeg tar på meg jakken fordi det er kaldt. – I put on my jacket because it’s cold.

• for = more like English “for” / “you see / as”, often an afterthought explanation in written or somewhat more formal speech.

  • Jeg tar på meg jakken, for det er kaldt.

• siden = “since”, often used when the cause is assumed to be known or obvious.

  • Jeg tar på meg jakken, siden det er så kaldt. – since it’s so cold.

In your sentence, fordi is the most straightforward and typical choice.

Why is it kaldt with a -t and not just kald?

Kald is an adjective (“cold”). In det er kaldt, the -t marks the neuter singular form.

When det is a “dummy” subject (as in weather expressions or impersonal statements), adjectives usually take the neuter -t form:

• Det er kaldt. – It is cold.
• Det er varmt. – It is warm.
• Det er fint. – It is nice.

So kaldt is agreeing with this impersonal det.

Why do we say det er kaldt instead of something like været er kaldt (“the weather is cold”)?

Norwegian, like English, often uses a dummy subject for weather:

• Det regner. – It’s raining.
• Det snør. – It’s snowing.
• Det er kaldt. – It’s cold.

You can say Været er kaldt, but that sounds more like a general description (“the weather is cold”) rather than the simple everyday statement “it’s cold (outside)”. Det er kaldt is the default, idiomatic weather expression.

Do I need a comma before fordi in this sentence?

In modern Norwegian punctuation, you usually do not put a comma before fordi when it introduces a necessary reason:

• Jeg har på jakken min fordi det er kaldt. ✅

You might see a comma if the fordi-clause is more of a parenthetical explanation, but in short sentences like this, it is normally written without a comma.

Can I say Jeg har på jakka mi instead of jakken min?

Yes, depending on the form of Bokmål you use:

• jakke can be feminine or masculine in Bokmål.
  
  • Masculine: en jakke – jakken – jakken min
  • Feminine: ei jakke – jakka – jakka mi

Both jakken min and jakka mi are correct Bokmål, but school-standard / formal Bokmål tends to prefer the masculine form jakken min. In many dialects and in more informal writing, jakka mi is very common.