Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Hun blir ulykkelig når møtet blir avlyst. - She becomes unhappy when the meeting is cancelled.

Hun blir ulykkelig = She becomes unhappy / She gets unhappy (a change of state when something happens).
Hun er ulykkelig = She is unhappy (describing a more constant state, not necessarily triggered by something right then).

In this sentence, the focus is on what happens when the meeting is cancelled: at that moment, she changes from not-unhappy to unhappy, so blir is the natural verb.

Why is it “møtet” and not just “møte”?

Norwegian usually marks definiteness with an ending instead of a separate word like “the”:

et møte = a meeting
møtet = the meeting

So møtet is “the meeting”.

In this sentence we’re talking about a specific meeting that gets cancelled, so the definite form møtet is required.

Why is “når” used here, and not “da” for “when”?

Both når and da can translate to “when”, but:

når is used for repeated, general, or future situations:
- Hun blir ulykkelig når møtet blir avlyst.
  = Whenever / when a meeting is cancelled, she gets unhappy.
da is used for a single event in the past:
- Hun ble ulykkelig da møtet ble avlyst.
  = She became unhappy when the meeting was cancelled (that one time).

Here we’re describing a general reaction (every time this happens), so når is correct.

Why is the word order “når møtet blir avlyst” and not “når blir møtet avlyst”?

In Norwegian subordinate clauses (clauses introduced by words like når, at, fordi, hvis, som):

The normal pattern is: [subjunction] + [subject] + [verb] + ...

So:

når møtet blir avlyst
= når (when) + møtet (subject) + blir (verb) + avlyst (participle)

“Når blir møtet avlyst” is the word order for a question:

Når blir møtet avlyst? = When will the meeting be cancelled?

In this sentence it’s not a question, but a subordinate clause, so we use når + subject + verb.

What is going on with “blir avlyst”? Why two words for “is cancelled”?

Blir avlyst is a passive construction made from:

blir = becomes / gets (present tense of å bli)
avlyst = cancelled (past participle of å avlyse = to cancel)

Together, bli + past participle forms the bli-passive, which is very common in Norwegian:

Møtet blir avlyst. = The meeting is (gets) cancelled.

So in your sentence:

når møtet blir avlyst = when the meeting is cancelled / when the meeting gets cancelled.

Could we also say “når møtet avlyses” instead of “når møtet blir avlyst”?

Yes, that is also grammatically correct:

Møtet avlyses. (s-passive)
Møtet blir avlyst. (bli-passive)

Both mean “The meeting is cancelled”, but:

Avlyses (s-passive) is a bit more formal / written and can sound bureaucratic.
Blir avlyst (bli-passive) is very common in spoken language and also fine in writing.

In everyday speech, “når møtet blir avlyst” sounds more natural.

Why is the tense present (blir) if we might be talking about future meetings?

Norwegian often uses the present tense to talk about:

General truths, habits, and what usually happens
Future events in time clauses (with når, hvis, om etc.)

So:

Hun blir ulykkelig når møtet blir avlyst.
= She gets unhappy when the meeting is cancelled / whenever the meeting is cancelled.

Even if the meeting is in the future, Norwegian keeps present tense in the når-clause. You don’t say “når møtet vil bli avlyst” in normal Norwegian.

What exactly does “ulykkelig” mean, and is it the same as “sad”?

Ulykkelig literally means “un-happy”, but often carries a slightly stronger or deeper tone than just “sad”:

trist = sad (neutral, common word for feeling sad)
lei seg = feeling sad / upset (colloquial)
ulykkelig = unhappy, miserable, deeply sad

So Hun blir ulykkelig can suggest she becomes really unhappy / miserable, not just a little bit disappointed. Context decides how strong it feels, though.

Does “ulykkelig” change form depending on gender or number?

Yes, like most adjectives, ulykkelig has different forms:

Singular, masc/fem: ulykkelig
- Hun er ulykkelig. (She is unhappy.)
- En ulykkelig mann. (An unhappy man.)
Singular, neuter: ulykkeligt
- Et ulykkelig barn. (An unhappy child.)
Plural (all genders): ulykkelige
- Ulykkelige mennesker. (Unhappy people.)

In your sentence, it describes hun (she), which is feminine singular, so ulykkelig is the correct form.

Why is it “hun” and not “henne”?

Norwegian has different forms for subject and object pronouns:

hun = she (subject form)
- Hun blir ulykkelig. = She becomes unhappy.
henne = her (object form)
- Jeg ser henne. = I see her.

In this sentence, she is the subject of the verb blir, so hun is required, not henne.

Could the sentence also start with the når-clause, and does anything change?

Yes, you can switch the order:

Hun blir ulykkelig når møtet blir avlyst.
Når møtet blir avlyst, blir hun ulykkelig.

Both are correct and mean the same thing.

Note that in the second version, the main clause starts with the verb after the comma (blir hun ulykkelig), because Norwegian main clauses usually have verb in second position (V2):

Når møtet blir avlyst, (first position = whole når-clause)
blir (second position = verb)
hun (third)
ulykkelig (rest)

Are there more natural or colloquial ways to say this in Norwegian?

Yes, you might hear, for example:

Hun blir lei seg når møtet blir avlyst.
– “She gets sad when the meeting is cancelled.” (very common and colloquial)
Hun blir trist når møtet blir avlyst.
– “She becomes sad when the meeting is cancelled.”

Blir lei seg is especially frequent in spoken Norwegian for “gets sad / upset”.