Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Røyken fra vedovnen gjør stuen varm. - The smoke from the wood stove makes the living room warm.

Norwegian usually uses the definite form when English uses the, and that is what is needed here: we are talking about a specific smoke (the smoke from the wood stove), not smoke in general. Hence røyken.

Why do røyken, vedovnen, and stuen all end in -en?

The ending -en marks definite singular for most masculine and many feminine nouns in Bokmål.

In this sentence:

røyk → røyken = the smoke
vedovn → vedovnen = the wood stove
stue → stuen = the living room

English uses a separate word (the); Norwegian usually attaches the definite article at the end of the noun as a suffix: -en, -et, or -a depending on gender and form.

What exactly is vedovnen, and why is it written as one word?

Vedovnen is a compound noun:

ved = firewood / wood (for burning)
ovn = oven, stove
vedovn = wood stove (literally wood-oven)
vedovnen = the wood stove

Norwegian very often writes such combinations as one word (compounds), not as two separate words. Writing ved ovnen instead would mean by the oven or at the oven, which is a different meaning. So vedovnen must be one word here.

What is the gender of vedovn and stue, and does that affect vedovnen and stuen?

In Bokmål:

vedovn is masculine:
- indefinite: en vedovn
- definite: vedovnen
stue is usually treated as feminine, but can also be used as masculine in Bokmål:
- feminine pattern: ei stue → stua
- masculine pattern: en stue → stuen

In this sentence, the masculine pattern is used for stue: stuen. The gender determines which definite ending you use:

masculine: -en
feminine (if used as feminine): often -a in speech and informal writing
neuter: -et

Could I say stua instead of stuen? Is there a difference?

Yes, in Bokmål both are possible, and both mean the living room:

stuen – more traditional / neutral written Bokmål (masculine pattern: en stue – stuen)
stua – more colloquial / spoken-like Bokmål (feminine pattern: ei stue – stua)

So you could also say:

Røyken fra vedovnen gjør stua varm.

It would sound a bit more informal or speech-like, but it is standard for many speakers.

What verb is gjør, and why does it mean makes here?

Gjør is the present tense of the verb å gjøre, which normally means to do or to make.

å gjøre = to do / to make
jeg gjør = I do / I make
røyken gjør stuen varm = the smoke makes the living room warm

In this pattern, gjøre is used like English make in sentences such as:

Dette gjør meg glad. = This makes me happy.
Sola gjør dagen lys. = The sun makes the day bright.

So here: Røyken … gjør stuen varm. = The smoke … makes the living room warm.

Could I use varmer instead of gjør ... varm?

Yes, that is possible and natural, but the nuance is slightly different.

Røyken fra vedovnen gjør stuen varm.
– literally: The smoke from the wood stove makes the living room warm.
– structure: [subject] + gjør + [object] + [adjective]
Røyken fra vedovnen varmer stuen.
– literally: The smoke from the wood stove warms the living room.
– structure: [subject] + varmer + [object]

Both are correct. Varmer focuses directly on the heating/warming action. Gjør ... varm presents varm as a resulting state: the smoke causes the living room to be warm.

Why is it varm and not varmt at the end?

Here varm is a predicative adjective describing stuen (the living room).

In Norwegian:

Attributive adjective (before noun) agrees with gender and number:
- et varmt rom = a warm room (neuter + -t)
- en varm stue = a warm living room (masc/fem, no -t)
Predicative adjective (after er, blir, gjør
- object) also shows agreement:
- Rommet er varmt. = The room is warm. (neuter, varmt)
- Stuen er varm. = The living room is warm. (masc/fem, varm)

In gjør stuen varm, varm agrees with stuen (masculine/feminine), so it stays varm, not varmt.

What grammar pattern is gjør stuen varm? It looks different from English.

This is the same pattern as English make + object + adjective:

gjør stuen varm
- gjør = makes
- stuen = the living room (object)
- varm = warm (object complement / predicative adjective)

Other examples:

Dette gjør meg trøtt. = This makes me tired.
Bråket gjør barna urolige. = The noise makes the children restless.

So the structure is:

[subject] + gjør + [object] + [adjective describing the object]

Can the word order change? For example, can I move fra vedovnen somewhere else?

Yes, Norwegian word order is fairly flexible for adverbial phrases like fra vedovnen, as long as you keep the main pattern:

Original:
- Røyken fra vedovnen gjør stuen varm.

You can also say:

Røyken gjør stuen varm, fra vedovnen. (sounds a bit odd; tacks the source on at the end)
Fra vedovnen kommer det røyk som gjør stuen varm. (more rephrased)

But in terms of simple rearrangement within the same sentence, the most natural alternatives are:

Røyken fra vedovnen gjør stuen varm. (best)
Røyken gjør stuen varm fra vedovnen. (grammatical but not very natural; sounds like warm from the wood stove)

So in practice, fra vedovnen is naturally placed right after røyken to specify which smoke you mean.

Why is the preposition fra used instead of av?

Both fra and av can roughly translate as from, but they are used differently.

fra = from a place, source, origin:
- røyken fra vedovnen = the smoke from the wood stove
- brev fra Norge = a letter from Norway
av often means: by, made of, because of:
- laget av tre = made of wood
- skrevet av Peter = written by Peter
- trøtt av jobben = tired from/because of the job

Here we’re talking about the source of the smoke (where it comes from), so fra vedovnen is the correct choice.

Is there a difference between Røyken fra vedovnen gjør stuen varm and Røyk fra vedovnen gjør stuen varm?

Yes, the difference is definite vs. indefinite:

Røyken fra vedovnen gjør stuen varm.
– The smoke from the wood stove makes the living room warm.
– refers to a specific, known smoke (this particular smoke we are seeing or talking about)
Røyk fra vedovnen gjør stuen varm.
– Smoke from the wood stove makes the living room warm.
– more general: smoke of that type has that effect (like a general statement, not about one particular situation)

So the original sentence focuses on a concrete situation; the version with røyk is more generic.

How do you pronounce the tricky sounds in røyken, gjør, and stuen?

Approximate pronunciations (standard Eastern Norwegian):

røyken:
- røy- like English roy but with rounded lips (similar to French deux
  - y)
- -ken like ken in English, but with a short e
- IPA-ish: /ˈrœy.kən/
gjør:
- gj is pronounced like y in yes
- ø is like the vowel in French peu or German schön
- final r is usually a tapped or rolled r
- IPA-ish: /jøːr/
stuen:
- stu- like stoo in stool, but shorter
- -en as in en / den (schwa-like)
- IPA-ish: /ˈstʉː.ən/ or /ˈstʉːn/ (the second syllable can be very weak)

These are approximations; actual pronunciation varies by dialect.