Breakdown of Han hittar inte sin plånbok, trots att den ligger på bordet.
han
he
ligga
to lie
inte
not
på
on
hitta
to find
sin
his
den
it
plånboken
the wallet
bordet
the table
trots att
even though
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Swedish grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about Han hittar inte sin plånbok, trots att den ligger på bordet.
Why is it sin plånbok and not hans plånbok?
Because sin/sitt/sina is the reflexive possessive and refers back to the subject of the clause (here, han). Sin plånbok therefore means it’s his own wallet. Hans plånbok would normally mean some other man’s wallet previously mentioned, not the subject’s own. So:
- Han hittar inte sin plånbok. = He can’t find his own wallet.
- Han hittar inte hans plånbok. = He can’t find another man’s wallet.
How would this change if the subject were female or plural?
- Female subject: Hon hittar inte sin plånbok. (still sin, because it’s the subject’s own item)
- Neuter noun: sitt (e.g., Hon hittar inte sitt brev.)
- Plural noun: sina (e.g., De hittar inte sina plånböcker. for “They can’t find their wallets”)
Why is there no definite ending on plånbok after a possessive?
In Swedish, a noun doesn’t take the suffixed definite ending when it has a possessive determiner. So you say min/sin/hans plånbok, not min/sin/hans plånboken. The possessive already “makes it definite” in function. With adjectives, you still keep the noun indefinite: min nya plånbok (not “plånboken”).
Could I say hans or hennes here at all?
Yes, but it would usually mean someone else’s wallet:
- Han hittar inte hans plånbok. = He can’t find another man’s wallet.
- Hon hittar inte hennes plånbok. = She can’t find another woman’s wallet. Use sin when it’s the subject’s own; hans/hennes when it belongs to a different person.
Why is it den and not det in the second clause?
Pronouns agree with grammatical gender. Plånbok is an “en-word” (common gender), so the pronoun is den. If it were an “ett-word” (neuter), you’d use det:
- Han hittar inte sitt brev, trots att det ligger på bordet.
Could I omit den and just say “trots att ligger på bordet”?
No. Swedish requires an explicit subject in clauses, and you need a pronoun to refer back to plånbok. So you must say trots att den ligger på bordet.
Why is the negation placed as hittar inte and not inte hittar?
In a main clause, the sentence adverb inte typically comes after the finite verb: Han hittar inte .... In a subordinate clause, inte comes before the verb: trots att han inte hittar den. Compare:
- Main: Han hittar inte sin plånbok.
- Subordinate: … trots att han inte hittar den.
What’s the nuance between hittar inte and kan inte hitta?
- Hittar inte states the fact that the search does not result in finding; it’s the most idiomatic everyday way to say “can’t find.”
- Kan inte hitta emphasizes inability or lack of success/ability at the moment. It’s also common, but a bit more explicit about inability. Both are fine here.
Why use ligger instead of är or finns?
Swedish often uses “posture” verbs for location:
- ligger (lies), står (stands), sitter (sits), depending on the object’s typical position. A wallet on a table is naturally said to ligga.
- är (is) is possible but less idiomatic for physical placement.
- finns means “exists/there is/are” and suits existence/availability: Det finns en plånbok på bordet, not when referring back to a specific known wallet.
Why på bordet and not på bord or i bordet?
- Surfaces take på: på bordet (on the table). Interiors take i: i lådan (in the drawer).
- You use the definite form bordet because it’s a specific, contextually identifiable table (Swedish often uses definites for unique-in-context things). På bord is not idiomatic.
Is the comma before trots att required?
It’s optional and used for clarity/intonation here. Many writers insert a comma before a final concessive clause; others omit it:
- Han hittar inte sin plånbok, trots att den ligger på bordet.
- Han hittar inte sin plånbok trots att den ligger på bordet. Both are acceptable.
Can I reverse the clause order?
Yes: Trots att den ligger på bordet hittar han inte sin plånbok. Note the main clause keeps verb-second order, so hittar comes before han when the subordinate clause is fronted.
What’s the difference between trots att, fast/fastän, and även om?
- trots att = “despite the fact that / even though” (neutral/formal).
- fast/fastän ≈ “although/though” (common, fast is more colloquial).
- även om = “even if/although”; often more hypothetical or concessive in tone. All can work here, but trots att or fast (än) are the closest matches to a factual contradiction.
Could I use just trots without att?
Yes, but then it must take a noun phrase, not a clause:
- With clause: trots att den ligger på bordet
- With noun phrase: trots läget, trots detta Don’t mix them (e.g., avoid “trots den ligger …”).
How would this look with neuter or plural referents?
- Neuter: Han hittar inte sitt brev, trots att det ligger på bordet.
- Plural: Han hittar inte sina nycklar, trots att de ligger på bordet. Pronouns agree: det (neuter), de (plural). Possessives agree: sitt/sina.
What’s the difference between inte and ingen here?
- inte negates a verb/clause: Han hittar inte sin plånbok.
- ingen/inget/inga negates a noun: Han hittar ingen plånbok (he doesn’t find any wallet). The original sentence targets his own wallet specifically, so inte … sin is the natural choice.