Learn Hardcore Norwegian: I dagboken min beskriver jeg hvordan applausen, lyset og stillheten i rommet høres ut fra stolen der jeg sitter. - In my diary I describe how the applause, the light and the silence in the room sound from the chair where I am sitting.

Jeg beskriver hvordan …
= neutral order, focus on what I describe.
I dagboken min beskriver jeg hvordan …
= the place/time (in my diary) is put first. This highlights where this description happens.
Because something other than the subject is in first position, Norwegian main-clause word order requires verb before subject: beskriver jeg, not jeg beskriver.

So:
Position 1: I dagboken min
Position 2 (finite verb): beskriver
Position 3 (subject): jeg

Why is it dagboken min and not min dagbok for “my diary”?

Norwegian allows two main patterns for possessives:

Noun + definite ending + possessive after it
- dagboken min = my diary
- Feels slightly more neutral/colloquial in many contexts.
Possessive before an indefinite noun
- min dagbok = my diary
- Often a bit more formal, emphatic, or contrastive (e.g. my diary, not someone else’s).

In this sentence, i dagboken min is the most natural and conversational way to say in my diary.
I min dagbok is not wrong, but would sound a bit more formal or marked in many contexts.

What exactly does hvordan do here, and why not hva or som?

In … beskriver jeg hvordan applausen, lyset og stillheten … høres ut …, the word hvordan introduces an embedded question-like clause, meaning how.

hvordan = how (manner, in what way)
hva = what (thing)
som = that/which/who (relative pronoun)

So:

Jeg beskriver hvordan … høres ut
= I describe *how … sound.*

If you used hva, it would mean what … sound (like) as objects, which doesn’t fit here.

som would introduce a relative clause, not a content clause:

applausen som høres = the applause that is heard (relative clause)
but here we need I describe how they sound → hvordan is the correct choice.

Why are applausen, lyset og stillheten all in the definite singular form?

Each noun is in definite singular:

applausen = the applause
lyset = the light
stillheten = the silence

This matches the English translation the applause, the light, and the silence.

In Norwegian, you usually:

Use definite singular for these “mass” or abstract nouns when you are referring to a specific instance:
- applausen at this event
- lyset in this room, at this moment
- stillheten in this particular situation

Indefinite forms would be applaus, lys, stillhet, which would sound more general or less anchored to this specific scene.

Listing them with commas is just a normal coordinated list: applausen, lyset og stillheten = the applause, the light and the silence.

Does i rommet (“in the room”) modify all three: applausen, lyset og stillheten, or just stillheten?

Syntactically, i rommet is closest to stillheten, so it most naturally attaches to stillheten:

stillheten i rommet = the silence in the room.

However, in real-life interpretation, it’s easy for a listener to understand it as the setting for the whole trio: the applause, the light, and the silence in the room.

If you wanted to be crystal clear that in the room applies to all three, you could rephrase, e.g.:

… hvordan applausen, lyset og stillheten i rommet høres ut … (as in the original, relying on context), or
… hvordan applausen, lyset og stillheten høres ut inne i rommet … (moving the place phrase).

But the original is fully natural, and Norwegians will understand it in context.

What does høres ut mean, and how is it different from just høres?

høres is the passive (or “middle voice”) of å høre (to hear).

Det høres bra. = It sounds good.
Musikken høres høyt. = The music sounds loud.

Adding ut makes it a common fixed expression høres ut, often used with som:

Det høres ut som musikk. = It sounds like music.

In this sentence:

… hvordan applausen, lyset og stillheten i rommet høres ut …
literally: how the applause, the light and the silence in the room are heard out → idiomatically: how they sound.

So høres ut here means “sound (to someone’s ears, from a certain perspective)”.

What is the function of fra stolen der jeg sitter, and why use der and not hvor?

fra stolen der jeg sitter means from the chair where I am sitting.

fra = from
stolen = the chair (definite)
der jeg sitter = where I sit / where I am sitting

der here is a relative adverb of place, equivalent to where in English:

stolen der jeg sitter = the chair where I sit

In written standard Norwegian, der is preferred over hvor in relative clauses for place:

More standard: stolen der jeg sitter
Less standard / more spoken-like: stolen hvor jeg sitter

So der is the “correct” choice in a more neutral or written style.

The whole phrase fra stolen der jeg sitter expresses the point of view: how things sound from the chair where I’m sitting.

Why is it stolen (definite) in fra stolen der jeg sitter, and not just fra stol?

In Norwegian, when you refer to a specific, identifiable object, you usually use the definite form:

stol = a chair (any chair)
stolen = the chair (a particular one)

Here, it is clear that we are talking about a specific chair where the person is sitting, so stolen is natural:

fra stolen der jeg sitter = from the (specific) chair where I’m sitting

fra stol der jeg sitter is not idiomatic; you almost always use the definite form when something is specified further by a relative clause (der jeg sitter).

Why is there no comma before hvordan?

Norwegian comma rules (especially in the “new” style) are more restrictive about commas before subordinate clauses than English.

In this sentence:

I dagboken min beskriver jeg hvordan applausen, lyset og stillheten … høres ut …

hvordan … introduces a content clause that functions as the direct object of beskriver:

Jeg beskriver [hvordan … høres ut].

You don’t normally put a comma between a verb and its object clause in modern Norwegian. So:

No comma: beskriver jeg hvordan applausen … høres ut …
A comma there would look old-fashioned or incorrect in contemporary usage.

Could you rephrase this sentence in a simpler word order, more similar to English?

Yes. One more “English-like” version would be:

Jeg beskriver i dagboken min hvordan applausen, lyset og stillheten i rommet høres ut fra stolen der jeg sitter.

Differences:

Subject first: Jeg beskriver … (like English I describe …)
i dagboken min moved after the verb.

Both versions are correct; the original just chooses to foreground in my diary by putting it at the start, which is very natural in Norwegian.