Learn Hardcore Swedish: När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv blir hon tyst. - When she sees a serious piece of news on TV she becomes quiet.

In subordinate clauses (introduced by när, att, eftersom, om, etc.), the normal order is subject–verb:
- När hon ser … = When she sees …
  NOT När ser hon … (that would be a question word order).
In main clauses, Swedish is a V2 language: the finite verb should come in second position.
Here, the entire När hon ser … part counts as position 1, so the verb of the main clause, blir, must come next:
- När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv, blir hon tyst.
  (comma optional; see another question below)

If you start with the main clause instead, you get normal subject–verb order there:

Hon blir tyst när hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv.
(She becomes/goes quiet when she sees a serious piece of news on TV.)

Why is it “När hon ser …” and not a past tense like “När hon såg …”?

The sentence uses present tense (ser, blir) to describe something that happens whenever this situation occurs – a general or habitual reaction:

När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv blir hon tyst.
= Whenever she sees serious news on TV, she becomes quiet.

If you want to talk about one particular past occasion, you’d use the past tense in both clauses:

När hon såg en allvarlig nyhet på tv blev hon tyst.
= When she saw a serious piece of news on TV, she went quiet.

So:

present + present → general or repeated situation.
past + past → one specific time in the past.

Why is it “en allvarlig nyhet” (singular) and not “allvarliga nyheter” (plural)?

Nyhet is a countable noun in Swedish; it literally means “(a) news item / piece of news”.

en nyhet = one news item
nyheter = (several) news items

So:

en allvarlig nyhet
= one serious news item / one serious news story
allvarliga nyheter
= serious news (several items; a general stream of serious news)

Both are grammatically fine; you just say slightly different things:

När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv blir hon tyst.
→ When she sees a single serious news item on TV, she goes quiet.
När hon ser allvarliga nyheter på tv blir hon tyst.
→ When she sees serious news (in general) on TV, she goes quiet.

What nuance does “allvarlig” have? How is it different from “seriös”?

Allvarlig most often means “serious, grave, not light-hearted”, focusing on the emotional weight or severity of something:

allvarliga nyheter = grave / distressing news
en allvarlig sjukdom = a serious disease
Han såg allvarlig ut. = He looked serious/solemn.

Seriös can mean “serious” in the sense of “professional, committed, not joking, not casual”:

en seriös skådespelare = a serious (professional) actor
ett seriöst förhållande = a serious relationship (as opposed to casual)

For news, allvarlig(a) nyhet(er) is the normal choice when you mean “news about something negative / grave.”
Seriösa nyheter would sound more like “news that is trustworthy / not tabloid-like,” which is a different idea.

Why is it “på tv”? Could you also say “i tv” or something else?

På tv literally means “on TV”, just like English:

Jag såg det på tv. = I saw it on TV.

This is the standard modern expression.

Other possibilities you might encounter:

i tv – older or more specific; often used about appearing in TV (being on a program) rather than watching it:
- Hon jobbar i tv. = She works in television.
på teve – same as på tv, just spelling out teve instead of the abbreviation tv. More common in older texts.

In everyday speech, på tv is what you should use for “on TV” in the sense of watching something.

Why is it “hon” here and not “henne” or “hen”?

Swedish has different pronouns for subject, object, and gender-neutral usage:

hon = she (subject)
henne = her (object, or after prepositions)
hen = gender-neutral they / them (singular), or “that person”, used when gender is unknown, irrelevant, or non-binary.

In this sentence, “she” is the subject of both verbs:

hon ser … (= she sees …)
hon blir tyst (= she becomes quiet)

So hon is correct.
Examples for contrast:

Jag ser henne. = I see her. (object form)
När hen ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv blir hen tyst. = When they (gender-neutral) see a serious news item on TV, they become quiet.

What exactly is “tyst” here – adjective or adverb – and does it change form?

In “blir hon tyst”, tyst is a predicative adjective (a complement after bli = become).

bli + adjective is very common:
- bli trött = become tired
- bli arg = become angry
- bli glad = become happy
- bli tyst = become quiet / fall silent

Predicative adjectives in Swedish do not change for gender (en/ett) in singular:

Hon är tyst. = She is quiet.
Huset är tyst. = The house is quiet.

But they do change in the plural and with definite forms:

Barnen är tysta. = The children are quiet.
den tysta flickan = the quiet girl
det tysta rummet = the quiet room
de tysta barnen = the quiet children

So in your sentence, tyst is the basic singular form, used because hon is singular and the adjective is predicative after blir.

Why is it “när” and not “om”? Both can mean “when/if,” right?

Both när and om can introduce clauses that look like “when/if,” but they’re used differently:

när = when (time), often with:
- a specific time in the past/future:
  - När jag kom hem … = When I came home …
- a general or repeated situation:
  - När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet … blir hon tyst.
    = Whenever she sees a serious news item, she becomes quiet.
om = if (condition), and sometimes “in case”:
- Om det regnar, stannar vi hemma. = If it rains, we stay home.
- Om du ser henne, hälsa! = If you see her, say hi!

In your sentence we are describing what happens every time that event occurs (a time-based “whenever”), so när is natural.
Using om here would sound more hypothetical or conditional: “if she ever happens to see a serious news item…”, which is a different nuance.

Should there be a comma: “När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv, blir hon tyst”?

Both versions are seen in modern Swedish:

När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv blir hon tyst.
När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv, blir hon tyst.

Traditional school grammar in Swedish preferred a comma between a leading subordinate clause and the main clause, so older texts almost always have it.

However, modern practice (especially in everyday and journalistic writing) often omits that comma if the sentence is short and clear, as here.

So:

With a comma: a bit more traditional, slightly more formal.
Without a comma: completely acceptable today, and very common.

If the sentence is longer or more complex, a comma is more likely to be used for clarity.

Why is it “ser en nyhet” and not “tittar på en nyhet”?

Both se and titta (på) are about looking, but they’re used differently:

se = to see (perceive with the eyes), often more general:
- Jag såg en film. = I saw a movie.
- Såg du nyheterna igår? = Did you see the news yesterday?
titta (på) = to look at / watch, more active:
- Jag tittar på tv. = I’m watching TV.
- Hon tittar på nyheterna varje kväll. = She watches the news every evening.

With nyheter på tv, both are possible, but they have slightly different focuses:

När hon ser en allvarlig nyhet på tv …
→ When she sees a serious news item on TV (the moment she notices it).
När hon tittar på allvarliga nyheter på tv …
→ When she watches serious news on TV (the activity).

The original sentence highlights the moment of seeing / being confronted with the serious news, so ser fits well.

Why is the article “en” used with “nyhet”? Could it be “ett nyhet”?

Swedish nouns belong to two genders:

en-words (common gender)
ett-words (neuter)

Nyhet is an en-word, so:

en nyhet = a news item
nyheten = the news item

You cannot say “ett nyhet”; that’s grammatically wrong.

Unfortunately, gender is mostly something you have to memorize word by word, but there are some helpful tendencies. One of them is:

Nouns ending in -het (like nyhet, frihet, möjlighet, säkerhet) are almost always en-words.

So en allvarlig nyhet follows that pattern.