Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Ullgenserne lukter røyk etter at vi har fyrt i vedovnen. - The wool sweaters smell of smoke after we have fired in the wood stove.

So -ne is the definite plural ending for many masculine and feminine nouns. The sentence is talking about some specific wool sweaters that both the speaker and listener know about, so the definite form is used: ullgenserne = the wool sweaters.

How does the verb lukter work here? Is it like “to smell” in English?

Yes. Å lukte can be:

Intransitive (to have a smell):
- Genseren lukter røyk. = The sweater smells of smoke.
Transitive (to smell something / sniff):
- Jeg lukter røyk. = I smell smoke.

In the sentence, ullgenserne lukter røyk is the intransitive use: the sweaters smell (of) smoke.
So lukter here behaves like a linking verb (like “smells” in “The sweater smells bad.”).

Why is there no word like “of” in lukter røyk?

Norwegian usually doesn’t use a preposition here. You simply say:

lukter røyk = smells (of) smoke
lukter godt = smells good
lukter blomster = smells (of) flowers

You could sometimes hear lukter av røyk, but lukter røyk is more common and perfectly natural. So the pattern is:

subjekt + lukter + [what it smells like]

What is the role of etter at here, and could you use just etter?

Etter at is a conjunction that introduces a clause (with a subject and a verb):

etter at vi har fyrt i vedovnen = after we have fired up / burned wood in the stove

Use:

etter
- noun:
- etter middag = after dinner
- etter ferien = after the holiday
etter at
- clause:
- etter at vi spiste = after we ate
- etter at vi har fyrt i vedovnen = after we’ve fired up the stove

So in this sentence you must have etter at, because it’s followed by a full clause (vi har fyrt i vedovnen), not just a noun.
Spoken Norwegian sometimes drops at (etter vi har fyrt), but etter at is the standard written form.

Why is it vi har fyrt (present perfect) and not vi fyrte (simple past)?

Har fyrt is the present perfect, used for a past action that has a relevance or visible result now:

We fired up the stove earlier → now the sweaters smell of smoke.

Norwegian often uses present perfect in exactly this kind of “cause → present result” situation:

Jeg har spist. = I have eaten (and I’m not hungry now).
Vi har fyrt i vedovnen. = We’ve had a fire in the stove (and now there’s smoke smell).

You could also say:

Ullgenserne luktet røyk etter at vi fyrte i vedovnen.

Here everything is more “past”: The sweaters smelled of smoke after we lit the wood stove.
If you keep lukter (present) in the main clause, har fyrt fits better, because it connects the past action to a present result.

What exactly does fyrt i vedovnen mean, and how is å fyre used?

Å fyre (i noe) means to burn fuel / have a fire (in something), especially in a stove or boiler.

å fyre i vedovnen = to burn wood / have a fire in the wood stove
Vi har fyrt i vedovnen. = We’ve had a fire / burned wood in the wood stove.

The verb conjugates:

å fyre – fyrer – fyrte – har fyrt

So har fyrt is the present perfect form.
Literally, fyrt i vedovnen = fired in the wood stove, but idiomatically it just means you used the wood stove, putting wood in and burning it.

Why is it fyrt i vedovnen and not fyrt vedovnen?

You normally fyre i an oven or stove:

fyre i vedovnen = burn wood in the stove
fyre i peisen = have a fire in the fireplace

Without i, fyrt vedovnen would sound like “fired the wood stove” (as a direct object), which is not idiomatic Norwegian.
The normal pattern is:

fyre i + [place where the fire is]

Why is it i vedovnen and not på vedovnen?

With ovens, stoves, fireplaces, etc., Norwegian uses i when the fire or heat is inside the thing:

i vedovnen = in the wood stove
i ovnen = in the oven
i peisen = in the fireplace

På would mean on the surface of something:

på ovnen = on the oven (on top of it)
på komfyren = on the stove (e.g. a pot standing on the stove)

Since the wood burns inside the stove, i vedovnen is correct.

What does vedovn mean exactly, and how is it different from peis?

ved = firewood
ovn = oven / stove
→ vedovn = a stove that burns wood (a wood-burning stove), usually a metal unit with a door.

Peis = fireplace built into a wall or chimney, usually made of brick or stone.

So:

vedovn: standalone wood stove, often with a visible pipe/chimney.
peis: open or closed fireplace in the wall.

In this sentence the smoke smell comes specifically from a vedovn (wood stove), not a wall fireplace.

Why is røyk used without an article? When would you say røyken?

Røyk (smoke) is often treated as a mass/uncountable noun, like water or air in English:

Det er mye røyk her. = There is a lot of smoke here.
Genseren lukter røyk. = The sweater smells of smoke.

No article is needed when we talk about smoke in general or an unspecified amount.

You use røyken (the smoke) when you mean some specific, identifiable smoke:

Røyken fra vedovnen er tykk. = The smoke from the wood stove is thick.
Lukk vinduet, røyken kommer inn. = Close the window, the smoke is coming in.

In the sentence, the sweaters just smell of smoke in general, so bare røyk is natural.

Is the word order in etter at vi har fyrt i vedovnen special because it’s a subordinate clause?

Yes. Etter at introduces a subordinate clause, and in Norwegian subordinate clauses have a characteristic word order:

Conjunction
- subject
  - (adverbs/negation)
    - verb
      - rest

In this case:

etter at (conjunction)
vi (subject)
har (auxiliary verb)
fyrt (main verb, past participle)
i vedovnen (prepositional phrase)

So:

etter at + vi + har + fyrt + i vedovnen

This follows the normal subordinate-clause pattern.
In the main clause, you would still have verb-second word order:

Ullgenserne lukter røyk … (verb in second position)
… etter at vi har fyrt i vedovnen. (subordinate clause with its own pattern)