Jeg fikk klippet luggen hos frisøren i går, og hun brukte ikke føner fordi håret mitt tørket fort.

Because få + past participle is a very common Norwegian pattern meaning get/have something done.

So:

• Jeg fikk klippet luggen = I got my bangs trimmed / I had my fringe cut.
• Jeg klippet luggen = I cut my bangs myself.
• Jeg fikk klippe luggen = I got to cut the bangs / I was allowed to cut the bangs.

The key difference is:

• klippet = past participle
• klippe = infinitive

So fikk klippet is not about permission. It is about the result of having the action done.

Luggen is the definite form of lugg:

• en lugg = a fringe / a bang area
• luggen = the fringe / the bangs

Norwegian often uses the definite form by itself when the thing is already understood from the situation, especially with body-related things and personal appearance.

So at a hairdresser, luggen naturally means your bangs/fringe, even without saying min.

This is similar to how Norwegian often says:

• Jeg vasket håret = I washed my hair
• Han løftet hånden = He raised his hand

Also, English bangs is plural, but Norwegian lugg is singular. That is just a vocabulary difference between the languages.

Hos is used when you mean at someone’s place, with someone, or at the office/business of a professional.

So:

• hos frisøren = at the hairdresser’s / at the hairdresser

This is the natural choice here because the speaker is talking about receiving a service there.

Compare:

• Jeg er hos frisøren = I’m at the hairdresser’s.
• Jeg går til frisøren = I’m going to the hairdresser.

So:

• hos = location / being there
• til = direction / going there

And i frisøren is not correct, because frisøren is a person, not a place you can be physically inside.

Yes. Frisøren simply means the hairdresser. The noun frisør itself is not tied to one gender in the way English sometimes uses different wording.

Then hun tells you that this particular hairdresser is female.

So:

• frisøren = the hairdresser
• hun = she

If the hairdresser were male, it would be:

• ... og han brukte ikke føner ...

Yes, it could go somewhere else. Norwegian is flexible with time expressions like i går, but different positions change what is emphasized.

In your sentence:

• Jeg fikk klippet luggen hos frisøren i går = neutral, natural wording

You could also say:

• I går fikk jeg klippet luggen hos frisøren

That puts more emphasis on yesterday.

Notice what happens in the second version: after fronting i går, the verb comes before the subject:

• I går fikk jeg ...

That is normal Norwegian V2 word order in a main clause.

Norwegian sometimes leaves out the article when talking about a thing in a general, non-specific way, especially after certain verbs.

So brukte ikke føner can mean didn’t use a hair dryer in a general sense: the point is the type of tool, not one particular dryer.

You may also hear:

• brukte ikke en føner
• brukte ikke hårføner

These are also possible. The differences are small:

• føner = general, compact, natural in speech
• en føner = a bit more explicit as a countable object
• føneren = the specific dryer

Also, føner is a common short form of hårføner.

Both are possible, but håret mitt is the more neutral and common Norwegian way to use a possessive.

Norwegian often prefers:

• definite noun + possessive

So:

• håret mitt = my hair
• boka mi = my book
• vennen min = my friend

The alternative:

• mitt hår

is possible, but it often sounds more emphatic, contrastive, or slightly more formal/literary.

For example:

• Ikke håret ditt, men håret mitt = Not your hair, but my hair
• Ikke ditt hår, men mitt hår = also possible, with stronger contrast

So in an everyday sentence like this, håret mitt is the normal choice.

Because tørke can be an intransitive verb meaning to dry.

So:

• Håret mitt tørket fort = My hair dried quickly

This describes the drying process happening.

Compare:

• Håret mitt var tørt = My hair was dry
  
  • This describes a state.
• Håret mitt ble tørt = My hair became dry
  
  • This focuses on the change of state.
• Håret mitt tørket fort = My hair dried quickly
  
  • This describes the process and how fast it happened.

In this sentence, the speaker is explaining why the hairdresser did not use a dryer, so the process verb tørket fits very well.

Because fordi introduces a subordinate clause.

In a subordinate clause, Norwegian normally keeps the order:

• subject + finite verb

So:

• fordi håret mitt tørket fort

not:

• fordi tørket håret mitt fort

A very useful thing to remember is that sentence adverbs like ikke also stay before the verb in subordinate clauses:

• fordi håret mitt ikke tørket fort

That is different from a main clause, where you would say:

• Håret mitt tørket ikke fort

So fordi is a good signal that the clause following it will use subordinate-clause word order.

Because the sentence is clearly about a finished event in the past, and it includes the specific time expression i går.

In Norwegian, the simple past is the normal tense for:

• completed actions
• a definite time in the past

So:

• Jeg fikk klippet luggen i går = correct and natural

Using the present perfect with i går is generally not standard:

• Jeg har fått klippet luggen i går = not the normal choice

The present perfect is used more when the past event is connected to the present and no specific past time is given:

• Jeg har fått klippet luggen = I’ve had my bangs trimmed

So the simple past in your sentence is exactly what you would expect.

Yes, it follows normal word order.

The conjunction og simply links two main clauses. It does not by itself cause inversion.

So the second clause has normal main-clause order:

• hun brukte ikke føner

This is different from what happens when you put another element first for emphasis, such as i går:

• I går brukte hun ikke føner

There, inversion happens because i går has been moved to the front of the main clause.

But after og, you usually just continue with ordinary clause order:

• ..., og hun brukte ikke føner ...