Learn Hardcore Swedish: Jag hinner inte äta lunch nu, men jag kommer att äta senare. - I don’t have time to eat lunch now, but I will eat later.

Hinna means “to have (enough) time to do something,” with an emphasis on fitting it into your schedule. It’s about time constraints, not ability or permission.

Jag hinner inte äta lunch = I don’t have time (in my schedule) to eat lunch.
Compare:
- Jag har inte tid att äta = I don’t have time to eat (explicit “time”).
- Jag kan inte äta = I can’t eat (ability/permission).
- Jag orkar inte äta = I don’t have the energy to eat.

Why is inte placed after hinner (Jag hinner inte …)?

Swedish main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb is in second position. Hinner is the finite verb, so inte (a sentence adverb) comes right after it:

Jag hinner inte äta … If you negate the second clause with kommer, you also place inte after the finite verb:
Jag kommer inte att äta senare.

Why isn’t there an att after hinna?

Verbs like hinna, kunna, ska, vilja, måste, orka, slippa, våga take a bare infinitive (no att):

Jag hinner äta, not ✗Jag hinner att äta. You can use hinna med
- noun: Jag hinner inte med lunch. With a verb, some say hinna med att
  - infinitive, but the most idiomatic is simply hinna
    - bare infinitive.

What’s the difference between kommer att and ska for the future?

Both can express the future.

Kommer att is neutral/predictive: something will happen.
Ska often adds intention/plan/promise. In your sentence both are fine:
… men jag kommer att äta senare (neutral prediction).
… men jag ska äta senare (sounds a bit more like a plan/intention).

Can I drop att and say jag kommer äta?

Yes, in everyday speech and informal writing you’ll often hear/see kommer äta. In formal writing, prefer kommer att äta. In speech, att is frequently reduced, often sounding like å.

Could I just use the present tense for the future?

Yes. Swedish often uses the present for near or scheduled future:

… men jag äter senare. This is natural and concise. Kommer att can feel a bit more neutral/explicit; the present is common in casual speech.

Where does inte go if I want to negate the second clause?

After the finite verb kommer:

… men jag kommer inte att äta senare. If you omit att: … men jag kommer inte äta senare.

Why is there no article before lunch?

Meals are typically used as mass nouns without an article in Swedish:

äta frukost/lunch/middag You use an article when referring to a specific meal/event/dish:
Lunchen börjar klockan tolv.
Jag åt lunchen du hade lagat (less common; refers to a specific lunch).

Can I say jag hinner inte med lunch nu?

Yes. Hinna med + noun is idiomatic: “not have time for” something.

Jag hinner inte med lunch nu = I can’t fit lunch in right now. With a verb, you can say hinna
- infinitive (hinna äta) or (more heavy) hinna med att äta.

Is the comma before men required?

It’s standard to put a comma before men when it joins two main clauses:

… nu, men … It’s good style and common in Swedish. Short clauses sometimes drop it, but keeping it is perfectly correct.

Can I move nu to the front for emphasis?

Yes. Word order changes emphasis:

Neutral: Jag hinner inte äta lunch nu.
Emphatic “right now”: Nu hinner jag inte äta lunch. Avoid Jag hinner nu inte äta lunch—that sounds odd.

What’s the nuance between senare, sen, and sedan?

All can mean “later/after.”

senare = “later” (a bit more formal/explicit).
sen = colloquial (short for sedan) and very common in speech.
sedan = more formal/written. All are fine here: … jag kommer att äta senare/sen/sedan.

Could I use the verb luncha?

Yes. Luncha means “to have lunch” and is common in casual contexts:

Jag hinner inte luncha nu, men jag lunchar senare.

Is there any difference in meaning if I use ska instead of kommer att here?

Subtle:

… jag ska äta senare suggests a plan/intention (“I will [I intend to] eat later”).
… jag kommer att äta senare states that it will happen (more neutral). In practice, both are acceptable; choose based on tone.

Can I drop the second jag and say …, men kommer att äta senare?

No, Swedish normally repeats the subject in the new clause. Keep jag:

…, men jag kommer att äta senare.

How would I say it in the past: “I didn’t have time to eat lunch”?

Use the preterite of hinna:

Jag hann inte äta lunch. Perfect: Jag har inte hunnit äta lunch.

Pronunciation tips for key words?

Approximate English-friendly hints:

Jag: “yah” (the final g is often very soft or silent).
hinner: “HIN-ner” (short i, double n).
inte: “IN-teh.”
äta: “EH-ta” (long “ä” like in “air,” but longer).
lunch: roughly “lunsh” (Swedish u is a front rounded vowel; aim for a light “ü”).
kommer: “KOM-mer” (double m).
att: often reduced to “å” in speech; in careful speech “att” with a crisp t.
senare: “seh-NAH-reh.”

Could I rephrase with har inte tid instead of hinner inte?

Yes, it’s very natural:

Jag har inte tid att äta lunch nu, men jag äter senare. This explicitly mentions “time,” while hinna is more compact.