Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Billetten er for dyr for meg. - The ticket is too expensive for me.

The first for (in for dyr) is an adverb meaning too (as in too expensive).
- for dyr = too expensive
The second for (in for meg) is a preposition meaning for (in the sense of for someone).
- for meg = for me

So literally, the structure is:
Billetten er for dyr for meg.
= The ticket is too expensive for me.

Why is it dyr and not dyre or dyrt in this sentence?

In Norwegian, adjectives change form depending on how they are used.

Here, dyr is used after the verb er and describes the subject Billetten. This is called a predicative adjective. In this position, the rules in Bokmål are:

Masculine/feminine singular: dyr
Neuter singular: dyrt
Plural (all genders): dyre

So:

Billetten er dyr. – The ticket is expensive. (masc./fem.)
Huset er dyrt. – The house is expensive. (neuter)
Billettene er dyre. – The tickets are expensive. (plural)

Since billett is a masculine noun, and the adjective is predicative, we use dyr.

Why is it Billetten and not En billett at the beginning?

Billetten is the definite form of billett (the ticket, not a ticket).

en billett = a ticket (indefinite)
billetten = the ticket (definite)

Using Billetten implies that both speaker and listener know which ticket is being talked about (for example, a particular concert ticket you are looking at together).

If you said:

En billett er for dyr for meg.

this would sound more like a general statement: A ticket is too expensive for me (tickets in general, or any ticket of this kind), not one specific ticket.

Could I say Billetten er veldig dyr for meg instead of for dyr?

You can say Billetten er veldig dyr for meg, but it changes the meaning slightly.

for dyr = too expensive (it’s more than I can accept or afford; it’s excessive)
veldig dyr = very expensive (it’s very high in price, but not necessarily beyond what I can pay)

So:

Billetten er for dyr for meg.
→ The ticket is too expensive for me (I won’t/can’t buy it).
Billetten er veldig dyr for meg.
→ The ticket is very expensive in my opinion, but I might still buy it, depending on context.

Is dyr here the same word as dyr meaning animal?

Yes, the spelling is the same, but they are different words with different meanings:

dyr (adjective) = expensive
et dyr (noun) = an animal

In your sentence, dyr is clearly an adjective because:

It follows er (a linking verb)
It describes the noun Billetten

So Billetten er dyr = The ticket is expensive, not The ticket is an animal.

Can I change the word order and say For meg er billetten for dyr?

Yes, that is also correct Norwegian:

For meg er billetten for dyr.

Both:

Billetten er for dyr for meg.
For meg er billetten for dyr.

mean The ticket is too expensive for me.

The difference is just emphasis:

Starting with Billetten emphasizes the ticket.
Starting with For meg emphasizes for me / in my case, often contrasting with others (e.g., For me it’s too expensive, but maybe not for you).

Why is it for meg and not til meg at the end?

Both for and til can translate as for in English, but they are used differently:

for meg is used in expressions about suitability, acceptability, preference, or effect on someone:
- for meg, for deg, for ham, etc.
- Det er vanskelig for meg. – It is difficult for me.
- Billetten er for dyr for meg. – The ticket is too expensive for me.
til meg is used more literally in the sense of to me (destination, giving, direction):
- Gi den til meg. – Give it to me.
- Kom til meg. – Come to me.

In your sentence, we mean for me in the sense of suitable/affordable for me, so for meg is correct.

Could I say Billetten koster for mye for meg instead? Does it mean the same thing?

Yes, this is a very natural alternative:

Billetten koster for mye for meg.
= The ticket costs too much for me.

Difference in focus:

Billetten er for dyr for meg.
– Focuses on the quality expensive.
Billetten koster for mye for meg.
– Focuses more directly on the price (it costs too much money).

Both are commonly used and close in meaning.

Is for dyr always negative, like too expensive, or can it ever mean something neutral?

for dyr with an adjective for + adj. normally carries a negative / excessive meaning: too [adjective].

for dyr – too expensive
for tung – too heavy
for lang – too long
for liten – too small

It implies that the degree of the quality is beyond what is acceptable, suitable, or possible. So in normal usage, for dyr is not neutral; it suggests a problem.

What’s the difference between dyr billett and billetten er dyr?

This is the difference between attributive and predicative use of adjectives:

Attributive (before a noun):
- en dyr billett – an expensive ticket
- den dyre billetten – the expensive ticket
Here, dyr/dyre is part of the noun phrase.
Predicative (after a linking verb like er):
- Billetten er dyr. – The ticket is expensive.
Here, dyr is a complement to the verb er, describing the subject.

In your sentence, dyr is predicative:
Billetten er for dyr for meg.

How would you pronounce Billetten er for dyr for meg in normal spoken Norwegian (Bokmål)?

In standard Eastern Norwegian (one common pronunciation), a rough guide is:

Billetten → [bi-LET-ten] (stress on -LET-)
er → [ær] (similar to air but shorter)
for → often reduced to [fɔr] or even [fər] in fast speech
dyr → [dyr] (similar to dyur, with a long y like the German ü)
meg → in many dialects pronounced like [mæi] / [mɛi] (similar to English my but a bit flatter)

So the whole sentence could sound roughly like:

[bi-LET-ten ær fər DYR fər MÆI]

Exact pronunciation varies by region, but this gives you a general idea.