Jag vill att du inte ringer mig under mötet.

I want you not to call me during the meeting.

Breakdown of Jag vill att du inte ringer mig under mötet.

• jag: I
• du: you
• vilja: to want
• inte: not
• ringa: to call
• mig: me
• att: that
• mötet: the meeting
• under: during

Questions & Answers about Jag vill att du inte ringer mig under mötet.

What does the word att do here, and why can’t I say Jag vill du inte ringer…?

In this sentence, att is a complementizer that introduces a content clause (like English “that”): Jag vill [att du inte ringer mig under mötet]. Swedish requires att when the verb is followed by a full clause with its own subject.

• If the action is your own, use a bare infinitive without att: Jag vill ringa.
• If the action is someone else’s, use att + subject + finite verb: Jag vill att du ringer.

Why is inte placed before ringer in att du inte ringer?

In Swedish subordinate clauses (like those introduced by att), sentence adverbs such as inte come before the finite verb:

• Subordinate: att du inte ringer (mig)

In main clauses, inte follows the finite verb:

• Main: Du ringer inte (mig)

Can I say att du ringer mig inte?

No. In an att-clause, inte must precede the finite verb. The natural order is:

• att du inte ringer mig (under mötet)

Note: In a main clause with a pronoun object, it’s common to have inte after the pronoun, e.g. Du ringer mig inte, but you should not copy that order into an att-clause.

Why is it ringer (present tense) and not ringa (infinitive) or ring (imperative)?

Because att du inte ringer is a full clause with its own subject (du) and a finite verb (ringer, present tense).

• ringa is the infinitive (used after modal-like verbs or with the infinitive marker).
• ring is the imperative (used for commands), e.g. Ring mig inte.

The meeting is in the future. Why is the present tense ringer used?

Swedish often uses the present tense for future events, especially when the time is clear from context: under mötet implies future. You can also express future explicitly:

• Jag vill att du inte ska ringa mig… (deontic/obligation or planned future)
• Jag vill att du inte kommer att ringa mig… (more neutral future; less common here)

Is there a difference between Jag vill att du inte ringer… and Jag vill inte att du ringer…?

They’re near-equivalent in everyday use. Subtle focus difference:

• Jag vill att du inte ringer… puts the emphasis on the action being negated (you not calling).
• Jag vill inte att du ringer… emphasizes the speaker’s lack of desire. Both are fine and commonly used.

Is Jag vill att du inte ska ringa mig under mötet good style?

It’s grammatical and idiomatic. Adding ska inside the att-clause can sound slightly stronger or more explicit about obligation/arrangement. Some prefer the leaner att du inte ringer, but both are common.

Can I say this more directly or more politely?

• Direct (imperative): Ring mig inte under mötet.
• Polite/softened:
  • Skulle du kunna låta bli att ringa mig under mötet?
  • Jag skulle uppskatta om du inte ringde mig under mötet. (past tense in the clause softens the request)
  • Snälla, ring mig inte under mötet.

Why under mötet and not på mötet or i mötet?

• under mötet = during the meeting (best match for “during”).
• på mötet = at the meeting (place/time; can overlap in meaning but is less precise for “during”).
• i möte is a set phrase meaning “in a meeting” (indefinite): Jag är i möte. Using i mötet to mean “during the meeting” is unusual in standard usage.

Why is it mötet (definite)? Could I say under möte?

mötet is definite because it refers to a specific meeting (“the meeting”).

• under ett möte = during a meeting (unspecified).
• under möte (bare singular) is not idiomatic; use the definite (mötet) or include an article (ett möte) depending on meaning.

Do I need till: ringa till mig or just ringa mig?

Both occur, but the default is direct object without a preposition:

• Standard: ringa någon (e.g. ringa mig)
• Also common in speech: ringa till någon Note: ringa på means “ring the doorbell” (e.g. ringa på dörren), not “call someone.”

Why du and not dig?

du is the subject form; dig is the object form. In att du inte ringer mig, du is the subject of the subordinate clause. Compare:

• Jag vill att du ringer mig.
• Jag vill ringa dig.

What about mig vs mej?

mig is the standard spelling. mej is a common informal spelling. They’re pronounced the same. In formal writing, stick to mig (and dig rather than dej).

Do I need a comma before att?

No. Swedish normally does not use a comma before att when it introduces a content clause: Jag vill att du… (no comma).