Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Hvis forhandlingene stopper, kan det bli streik ved fabrikken. - If the negotiations stop, there may be a strike at the factory.

In Hvis forhandlingene stopper, «Hvis» starts a subordinate clause (the condition).
The other part kan det bli streik ved fabrikken is the main clause (the result/consequence).

Word order pattern:

Hvis + [subject] + [verb] …, [verb] + [subject] …
→ Hvis forhandlingene stopper, kan det bli streik …
(“If the negotiations stop, there may be a strike …”)

So when the hvis-clause comes first, the finite verb of the main clause (kan) must come before the subject (det) because of the V2 rule (verb in second position in main clauses).

Why are both verbs in the present tense (stopper, kan) when the sentence talks about a possible future event?

Norwegian very often uses the present tense to talk about the future, especially:

in conditional clauses introduced by «hvis»
with modal verbs like kan, skal, vil, må

So:

Hvis forhandlingene stopper literally: If the negotiations stop
→ understood as If the negotiations end / break down (in the future)
kan det bli streik literally: can it become strike
→ understood as there may be a strike (in the future)

Using the future construction “vil stoppe” is not wrong, but it sounds heavier and less natural here. The simple present is the normal, idiomatic way to express this kind of future condition in Norwegian.

What exactly is «forhandlingene», and why does it end in -ene?

«Forhandlingene» is:

from the noun «en forhandling» = a negotiation
«forhandlinger» (plural indefinite) = negotiations
«forhandlingene» (plural definite) = the negotiations

So «forhandlingene» = “the negotiations”.

The ending -ene is the definite plural article attached to the noun:

en forhandling → forhandlinger → forhandlingene
a negotiation → negotiations → the negotiations

Why is it «forhandlingene stopper» and not «forhandlinger stopper»?

Both are grammatically possible, but they don’t mean exactly the same:

forhandlinger stopper
= negotiations stop (in general, non-specific negotiations)
forhandlingene stopper
= the negotiations stop (some specific negotiations we already know about)

In your sentence, the context is a known, specific set of negotiations (e.g., between a company and a union), so the definite form «forhandlingene» is the natural choice.

Why is it «kan det bli streik» and not something like «kan være streik» or «det kan være en streik»?

The phrase «det kan bli streik» is a very idiomatic way to say:

“there may be a strike / a strike might happen / they might go on strike”

Points to note:

«det» here is a dummy subject (like “there” in English: there may be a strike).
«bli streik» literally means “become strike”, but idiomatically it means:
- “there will be a strike”
- “they will go on strike”
«kan være streik» is grammatically fine, but it usually means:
- “there might currently be a strike” (right now / already happening),
  not “a strike might start in the future”.

So:

det kan bli streik → a strike might happen / start
det kan være streik → there might already be a strike (now)

Is «det» in «kan det bli streik» necessary? Can you say «kan bli streik»?

You normally cannot drop «det» here. Norwegian (like English) generally requires an explicit subject, even when it’s just a dummy subject.

Compare:

Norwegian: Det kan bli streik.
English: There may be a strike. (you can’t say “May be a strike.”)

So «det» in «kan det bli streik» is functioning like “there” in English and is required in a normal declarative sentence.

Why is the main clause word order «kan det bli streik» instead of «det kan bli streik»?

This is because of the V2 (verb-second) rule in Norwegian main clauses:

In a normal main clause:
Det kan bli streik ved fabrikken.
→ subject (det) comes first, verb (kan) second.
But when the sentence begins with a subordinate clause (like Hvis forhandlingene stopper), that whole clause occupies the first position in the sentence.
To keep the verb in second position overall, you must invert:
- Hvis forhandlingene stopper, kan det bli streik ved fabrikken.
  [Hvis‑clause] (position 1), then kan (verb, position 2), then det (subject).

So both are possible depending on whether you include the hvis-clause:

Det kan bli streik ved fabrikken.
Hvis forhandlingene stopper, kan det bli streik ved fabrikken.

What is the difference between «bli» and «være» here (why «bli streik» and not «være streik»)?

«være» = to be (state, situation)
«bli» = to become / to get / to turn into / to end up being

So:

det kan være streik
→ there may be a strike (as a current state)
det kan bli streik
→ there may *become a strike → *a strike may occur / start

In your sentence, we are talking about something that might happen later if the negotiations stop, so «bli» (become) is the natural verb: the situation may change into a strike.

What does «streik» mean here, and is it a noun or a verb?

In this sentence, «streik» is a noun:

en streik = a strike (workers stopping work as a protest)

There is also a related verb:

å streike = to go on strike / to be on strike

So:

Det kan bli streik. = There may be a strike.
De kan komme til å streike. = They may go on strike.

Why is the preposition «ved» used in «ved fabrikken», and could you say «på fabrikken» or «i fabrikken» instead?

«Ved» generally means “by / near / at (the vicinity of)”.
In «streik ved fabrikken», it implies:

a strike at that workplace / that company (connected to that factory)

Other options:

på fabrikken
- also common and natural: “at the factory” as a workplace or institution
- Det kan bli streik på fabrikken. is perfectly idiomatic.
i fabrikken
- literally “in the factory (inside the building)”
- used more for physical location inside rather than the workplace as an institution,
  so it’s less natural for talking about a strike as an industrial action.

In most real-life contexts, «ved fabrikken» and «på fabrikken» would both be understood as “at the factory (as a workplace)”, with only subtle nuance differences.

Why is there a comma after «Hvis forhandlingene stopper»?

In Norwegian, a subordinate clause is normally separated from the main clause by a comma, especially when it comes first.

Here:

Hvis forhandlingene stopper → subordinate clause (condition)
kan det bli streik ved fabrikken → main clause (result)

So you write:

Hvis forhandlingene stopper, kan det bli streik ved fabrikken.

If the order is reversed, the comma is usually not used:

Det kan bli streik ved fabrikken hvis forhandlingene stopper. (no comma needed)