Mina skor är gamla, så jag tar regnjackan ändå.

My shoes are old, so I take the rain jacket anyway.

Breakdown of Mina skor är gamla, så jag tar regnjackan ändå.

• jag: I
• vara: to be
• ta: to take
• så: so
• mina: my
• gammal: old
• regnjackan: the rain jacket
• skon: the shoe
• ändå: anyway

Questions & Answers about Mina skor är gamla, så jag tar regnjackan ändå.

Why is it mina skor and not min skor or mitt skor?

Swedish possessive pronouns agree with the noun’s gender/number:

• min = common gender, singular (en-böjn.)
• mitt = neuter, singular (ett-böjn.)
• mina = plural (both genders)

Since skor (shoes) is plural, you must use mina: mina skor.

Why is the adjective gamla (with -a) and not gammal?

In predicative position (after the verb), adjectives agree with the subject:

• Singular, common gender: gammal (Min sko är gammal.)
• Singular, neuter: gammalt (Mitt paraply är gammalt.)
• Plural (any gender): gamla (Mina skor är gamla.)

Here, skor is plural, so the adjective must be gamla.

Why isn’t it mina skorna? Don’t Swedish definite nouns take -n/-na?

After a possessive pronoun (min/mitt/mina), Swedish does not add the definite ending to the noun. So you say:

• Correct: mina skor
• Incorrect: mina skorna

This avoids “double definiteness” with possessives. Double definiteness is used with an adjective + a definite noun (e.g., de gamla skorna), but not with a possessive.

Why is it regnjackan (definite) instead of en regnjacka (indefinite)?

Swedish often uses the definite form when the item is specific and understood from context—“the rain jacket” you normally use. English can say “the rain jacket” or “my rain jacket” here; Swedish commonly chooses the definite form: regnjackan.

If you want to emphasize ownership, you can also say min regnjacka. Both are fine in this context.

Can I say min regnjacka instead of regnjackan? Any difference?

Yes: Mina skor är gamla, så jag tar min regnjacka ändå. is natural.

• regnjackan = “the rain jacket (I have/that we know about).”
• min regnjacka = explicitly “my rain jacket.”

Don’t combine them: “min regnjackan” is wrong.

What exactly does så do here?

Here så is a coordinating conjunction meaning “so/therefore,” linking two main clauses: Mina skor är gamla, så ... It expresses result or consequence.

Do I need the comma before så?

It’s standard (and recommended) to put a comma before så when it links two main clauses with a consequence meaning:

• Mina skor är gamla, så jag tar regnjackan ändå.

In short sentences you’ll sometimes see it omitted in informal writing, but the comma is a safe, good choice.

What about word order after så? Should there be inversion?

Because så is a coordinating conjunction here, the new clause starts normally with subject–verb order:

• ..., så jag tar ... (subject = jag, finite verb = tar)

If så starts a clause as an adverb meaning “then/so,” you get inversion:

• Så tar jag regnjackan (så = first position, tar = verb in second position, jag = subject)

Where can I place ändå, and does the position change the meaning?

Common, natural options include:

• jag tar ändå regnjackan (sentence adverb after the finite verb; very typical)
• jag tar regnjackan ändå (end position; also common, slightly afterthought feel)
• jag tar ändå regnjackan and jag tar regnjackan ändå are both fine in this sentence.

Fronting it (Ändå tar jag regnjackan) is also possible for emphasis. The core meaning “anyway/all the same” stays the same; placement nuances emphasis and rhythm.

Does jag tar regnjackan mean I will bring it or put it on?

By itself, jag tar regnjackan can mean “I take the rain jacket,” which in context often implies “I’ll bring it (with me).”

• To make “bring” explicit: jag tar med (mig) regnjackan.
• To mean “put on”: jag tar på mig regnjackan.

So if you specifically mean wearing it, use tar på mig; if you mean bringing it along, tar med (mig) is clearest.

Is present tense tar used for future here?

Yes. Swedish often uses the present tense for near-future or planned actions:

• Jag tar regnjackan (nu/sen).

You can also use:

• Jag ska ta regnjackan (intention/plan)
• Jag kommer att ta regnjackan (neutral prediction)

Could I replace så with därför?

Yes, but adjust punctuation and word order:

• Separate sentences: Mina skor är gamla. Därför tar jag regnjackan ändå.
• In one sentence, keep the comma and invert after därför (since it’s a sentence adverb in first position): Mina skor är gamla, därför tar jag ändå regnjackan.

Note that many writers prefer a period after the first clause when using därför.

Is there a difference between så and så att?

Yes:

• så (as in the sentence) = “so/therefore” introducing a result clause.
• så att = “so that” introducing a purpose/result construction, often with a consequence described: Det regnade så att vi blev blöta (“It rained so that we got wet”). You wouldn’t use så att in the original sentence.

Could I drop så and just use a comma: Mina skor är gamla, jag tar regnjackan ändå?

Better not. That’s a comma splice in Swedish too. Use a coordinator (e.g., så, och, men) or make two sentences:

• Mina skor är gamla, så jag tar regnjackan ändå.
• Mina skor är gamla. Jag tar regnjackan ändå.

What are the forms of regnjacka and sko?

• regnjacka (en-word): en regnjacka, regnjackan; plural: regnjackor, regnjackorna.
• sko (en-word): en sko, plural skor; definite plural: skorna.

Note how nouns ending in -a typically take -an in the definite singular: jacka → jackan.