Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Øreproppene faller lett ut når det ligger snøfnugg på håret mitt. - The earbuds easily fall out when there are snowflakes on my hair.

In this sentence, we are talking about specific earbuds (the ones in my ears), so Norwegian uses the definite form øreproppene, even though English just says the earbuds and often implies “my earbuds” from context.

You could also say:

Øreproppene mine faller lett ut … = My earbuds fall out easily …

Adding mine (my) is optional if it’s already clear whose earbuds they are. Norwegian often leaves out the possessive when it’s obvious from context.

What does faller lett ut literally mean, and why is lett in the middle?

Literally:

faller ut = fall out
lett = easily / lightly

So faller lett ut = fall out easily.

falle ut is a verb + particle combination (like English fall out). When you add an adverb (lett), standard word order is:

verb + adverb + particle
faller lett ut

Other examples:

slå helt av – turn completely off
ta ofte på – touch often / put on often

Putting lett at the end (faller ut lett) is unusual and sounds wrong in neutral Norwegian.

What does når mean here? Is it the same as English “when”?

Yes. når is a subordinating conjunction meaning when / whenever in time expressions:

Øreproppene faller lett ut når det ligger snøfnugg på håret mitt.
The earbuds fall out easily when there are snowflakes on my hair.

Here it describes a general condition that can happen multiple times, so når is correct.

If it were one specific event in the past, you’d more likely use da:

Da det lå snøfnugg på håret mitt, falt øreproppene ut.
When there were snowflakes on my hair, the earbuds fell out.

Why do we say det ligger snøfnugg instead of snøfnugg ligger?

This is the common “dummy det” (expletive det) construction, similar to English “there is/are”:

Det ligger snøfnugg på håret mitt.
Literally: There lie snowflakes on my hair.

Structure:

det = dummy subject (doesn’t refer to anything)
ligger = verb
snøfnugg = real subject (the thing that exists / is located)

Saying Snøfnugg ligger på håret mitt is grammatically possible but sounds more like you’re focusing on the snowflakes as a known topic (like “The snowflakes are lying on my hair”).
In neutral, “there are X somewhere” statements, Norwegian strongly prefers:

Det + verb + subject …
Det ligger en katt på sofaen. – There is a cat lying on the sofa.
Det står en bil utenfor. – There is a car standing outside.

Why is ligger used instead of er?

Norwegian often uses specific position verbs instead of just er:

ligger – lies / is lying (horizontal / resting surface)
står – stands / is standing (upright)
sitter – sits / is sitting (seated / attached)

Det ligger snøfnugg på håret mitt literally means There are snowflakes lying on my hair, emphasizing their physical position.

Det er snøfnugg på håret mitt is also possible and correct. It’s a bit more neutral and less visual. ligger here just adds a bit of concreteness: the snowflakes are lying/resting on the hair.

What kind of noun is snøfnugg? Is it singular or plural here, and what gender is it?

snøfnugg (snowflake) is a neuter noun, and it has the same form in singular and plural in the indefinite:

et snøfnugg – a snowflake
snøfnugg – snowflakes / (some) snowflakes
snøfnugget – the snowflake
snøfnuggene – the snowflakes

In the sentence:

det ligger snøfnugg på håret mitt

snøfnugg is understood as indefinite plural: there are (some) snowflakes. Context (plus the verb and logic) tells you we’re talking about more than one.

Why is there no article before snøfnugg?

Two reasons:

Indefinite plural in Norwegian has no article.
Compare:
- en katt / katter / kattene – a cat / cats / the cats
- et snøfnugg / snøfnugg / snøfnuggene – a snowflake / snowflakes / the snowflakes
So snøfnugg here is “snowflakes” in general, without “the”.
The meaning is “some, an unspecified number of” snowflakes.
English often adds “some”, but Norwegian just uses the bare plural (snøfnugg) for that idea.

If you wanted to refer to specific, known snowflakes, you’d use the definite plural:

Det ligger snøfnuggene på håret mitt.
The snowflakes are lying on my hair. (we both know which ones)

Why is it på håret mitt and not just på håret?

Both are possible, but there’s a nuance:

på håret mitt – on my hair (explicit whose hair)
på håret – on the hair (normally still understood as my hair from context, but less explicit)

In many body-part contexts, Norwegian can use just the definite form without a possessive if it’s obvious whose body part it is:

Jeg vasker hendene. – I wash my hands.
Han kuttet seg i fingeren. – He cut his finger.

Here, på håret mitt emphasizes that you’re talking specifically about your hair. It also sounds slightly more natural than på håret in this exact sentence, because the snowflakes are clearly associated with you.

What is the difference between håret mitt and mitt hår?

Both mean my hair, but word order and style differ:

håret mitt = the-hair my
mitt hår = my hair

In Norwegian, you usually have two patterns with possessives:

Article + noun + possessive
- håret mitt, boka mi, bilen min
  Feels more neutral, common in everyday speech.
Possessive + noun
- mitt hår, min bok, min bil
  Feels a bit more formal, emphatic, or written.

In this sentence, håret mitt is the most natural everyday choice. mitt hår is correct but would sound more marked or “pointed” in normal speech.

What is the word order rule inside the når-clause (når det ligger snøfnugg på håret mitt)?

Inside a subordinate clause introduced by når, Norwegian normally uses:

[conjunction] + subject + verb + (rest)

Applied to this sentence:

når = conjunction
det = subject (dummy “it/there”)
ligger = verb
snøfnugg på håret mitt = rest of the clause

So:

når det ligger snøfnugg på håret mitt

In a main clause, Norwegian has the V2 rule (the verb is in second position), but in subordinate clauses, the verb usually comes after the subject, not in second position overall. That’s why you don’t say:

✗ når ligger det snøfnugg på håret mitt (that would be a question, “When are there snowflakes on my hair?”)

The correct subordinate order is exactly what you see in the sentence.