Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Når jeg deler noe sårbart, gjør jeg det bare med venner jeg har tillit til. - When I share something vulnerable, I do it only with friends I trust.

You cannot use da here, because that would sound like you are talking about one specific moment in the past.
You could use hvis, but it would change the meaning to more conditional:
- Hvis jeg deler noe sårbart, gjør jeg det bare med venner …
  = If I ever share something vulnerable (and maybe I won’t), I only do it with friends …

With når, the speaker implies that this does happen; it’s just that they restrict with whom they do it.

Why is the word order gjør jeg det instead of jeg gjør det?

Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb is always in second position in the sentence.

The structure here is:

Fronted element: Når jeg deler noe sårbart (the whole subordinate clause counts as position 1)
Finite verb: gjør (position 2)
Subject: jeg
Rest: det bare med venner jeg har tillit til

So:

Når jeg deler noe sårbart, gjør jeg det bare …
not
Når jeg deler noe sårbart, jeg gjør det bare … ✗ (ungrammatical)

This inversion (verb before subject) is triggered because something other than the subject is placed first in the main clause (here, the når‑clause).

Could you say Når jeg deler noe sårbart, jeg gjør det bare med venner …?

No, that word order is ungrammatical in standard Norwegian.

In a main clause:

If the subject comes first, you say:
Jeg gjør det bare med venner.
If anything else comes first (time, place, an object, or a whole subordinate clause), you must put the verb second and the subject after it:
Da gjør jeg det bare med venner.
Når jeg deler noe sårbart, gjør jeg det bare med venner.

So after the når‑clause, the main verb gjør must come before jeg.

What does noe sårbart literally mean, and why is it noe, not noen?

noe sårbart literally means something vulnerable.

noe is used for:
- something (unspecified thing)
- neuter singular, or uncountable / abstract things
noen is used for:
- someone or some (plural countable items or people)

Here, you’re talking about an unspecified “something” (maybe a story, a feeling, an experience), not counting specific items or people. So Norwegian uses noe:

noe sårbart – something vulnerable
noen sårbare venner – some vulnerable friends (plural people → noen)

Why does sårbart end in -t?

The -t ending marks the neuter singular form of the adjective.

In Norwegian:

Common gender singular: en sårbar person (a vulnerable person)
Neuter singular: et sårbart tema (a vulnerable topic)
After noe (which behaves like a neuter pronoun): noe sårbart (something vulnerable)
Plural: sårbare personer (vulnerable people)

Because noe is treated as a neuter pronoun, the adjective must agree and take the neuter form sårbart.

What is the purpose of gjør det here? Could I just repeat deler?

gjør det works like English do it / do that: it stands in for the previous action so you don’t repeat the same verb phrase.

The first clause has the full action:

deler noe sårbart – share something vulnerable

The second clause refers back to that action:

gjør jeg det bare med venner …
= I only do that with friends …
(where det = sharing something vulnerable)

You could repeat the verb instead:

Når jeg deler noe sårbart, deler jeg det bare med venner jeg har tillit til.

Both versions are grammatical. Using gjør det:

avoids repeating deler
sounds very natural and idiomatic, especially when the action has already been clearly described.

What does det refer to in gjør jeg det?

det refers back to the whole action of sharing something vulnerable:

Når jeg deler noe sårbart
→ That action = det

So gjør jeg det bare med venner … means:

I only do that (i.e. share something vulnerable) with friends I trust.

This is similar to English:

When I share something vulnerable, I only do *it with friends I trust.
where *it = the sharing of something vulnerable.

Why is bare placed before med venner? Could I move bare?

Position of bare affects what is limited (what is “only”).

Original:

… gjør jeg det bare med venner jeg har tillit til.
→ “I only do it with friends I trust.”
The restriction is about who you do it with.

If you move bare, the meaning can change:

… gjør jeg bare det med venner jeg har tillit til.
→ “I only do that with friends I trust (but I might do other things with others).”
Now det is restricted, not the med venner part.
… gjør jeg det med bare venner jeg har tillit til.
This sounds odd and a bit unclear in Norwegian; we normally do bare before the whole prepositional phrase:
bare med venner …

So the given sentence is the natural way to say:

I only do it with friends I trust.

What exactly is going on grammatically in venner jeg har tillit til?

This is a relative clause describing venner:

Head noun: venner (friends)
Relative clause: jeg har tillit til (I trust / I have confidence in)

Full underlying meaning:

venner (som) jeg har tillit til
= friends (that) I trust

Inside the relative clause, you can imagine the full non‑relative sentence:

Jeg har tillit til dem. – I trust them.
Then dem (them) is replaced by venner, which moves in front, and the gap is left after til:
venner (som) jeg har tillit til

So grammatically, venner is the object of har tillit til, just like dem in the simple sentence.

Why is there no som in venner jeg har tillit til? Isn’t it usually venner som jeg …?

Yes, the full form is:

venner som jeg har tillit til – friends that I trust

Here, som is a relative pronoun (like English that / who).

In Norwegian, when som would be the object of the verb (or of a preposition), it is very often dropped in everyday language:

venner som jeg har tillit til → venner jeg har tillit til
boka som jeg leste → boka jeg leste

Both forms are correct; the version without som is just more informal and very common in speech and writing.

Why is the preposition til at the end: jeg har tillit til?

This is called preposition stranding: the preposition is left at the end of the clause, separated from its logical object.

The full, non‑relative sentence is:

Jeg har tillit til dem. – I trust them.

In the relative version:

venner (som) jeg har tillit til
= friends (that) I have trust in

Here:

har tillit til is a fixed expression: ha tillit til noen – to have trust in someone
venner is the thing you have trust in, but inside the clause it’s replaced by a gap where dem would normally be, and til stays attached to tillit.

You could front the preposition in a very formal style:

venner til hvem jeg har tillit

But this sounds stiff and is not natural in normal spoken Norwegian. The everyday pattern is exactly what you see:

venner jeg har tillit til

What is the difference between ha tillit til and stole på?

Both can translate as to trust, but there are nuances:

ha tillit til (noen/noe)
- more formal or abstract
- often about deeper, long‑term, or institutional trust
- common in contexts like relationships, politics, leadership, institutions
- example:
  Jeg har stor tillit til legen min. – I have great trust in my doctor.
stole på (noen/noe)
- more everyday, colloquial
- closer to “count on / rely on / trust”
- example:
  Jeg stoler på vennene mine. – I trust my friends.

In this sentence, you could say:

… bare med venner jeg stoler på.
This is also correct and maybe a bit more informal.
ha tillit til sounds slightly more serious or reflective about the nature of the trust.

Why is the present tense (deler, gjør) used here?

Norwegian uses the present tense not only for actions happening right now, but also for:

general truths
habits and repeated actions
rules or principles

Here the speaker is stating a general rule about themselves:

Når jeg deler noe sårbart, gjør jeg det bare med venner jeg har tillit til.
= Whenever I (tend to) share something vulnerable, I only do it with friends I trust.

This is parallel to English simple present:

When I share something vulnerable, I only do it with friends I trust.

Why is there a comma after the når‑clause?

In written Norwegian, the rule is:

If a subordinate clause (introduced by når, hvis, fordi, at, som, etc.) comes before the main clause, you must put a comma between them.

So:

Når jeg deler noe sårbart, gjør jeg det bare …
Subordinate clause → comma → main clause

If the order is reversed, you usually do not put a comma:

Jeg gjør det bare med venner jeg har tillit til når jeg deler noe sårbart.

So that comma is just following a standard punctuation rule, not marking a pause that is optional like in English.