Learn Hardcore Swedish: Om hon har feber vilar hon och dricker vatten. - If she has a fever she rests and drinks water.

Because Swedish main clauses follow the V2 rule (the finite verb is in second position). When a clause or other element is placed first—in this case the entire Om hon har feber—the verb of the main clause must come next: … vilar hon …, not … hon vilar …. If you start with the subject, you say Hon vilar och dricker vatten …

In the “om”-clause, why is it “hon har” rather than “har hon”?

Subordinate clauses use subject–verb order (no V2). So it’s Om hon har feber, not Om har hon feber. Only in yes–no questions would you invert: Har hon feber?

Do I need a comma after “Om hon har feber”?

Often yes in writing: Om hon har feber, vilar hon och dricker vatten. Many omit the comma in short, clear sentences, and that’s acceptable. The comma becomes more helpful as the clauses get longer or more complex.

Can I use “när” instead of “om”?

Om = conditional “if” (uncertain whether it happens): Om hon har feber, vilar hon …
När = “when/whenever” (assumed or known to happen): När hon har feber, vilar hon … (“Whenever she has a fever, she rests …”)

Both can work here; när sounds more habitual, om more conditional.

Can I add “så” like “then”: “Om hon har feber, så vilar hon …”?

Yes. Om hon har feber, så vilar hon … is common in speech and informal writing. Så is optional and adds a “then” feel. In formal writing many prefer to omit it.

Why is it “har feber” and not “är feber”?

Swedish uses ha for certain conditions: ha feber (have a fever), ha ont i huvudet (have a headache). You use vara for others: vara sjuk (be ill), vara förkyld (have a cold), vara trött (be tired).

Why is there no article before “feber”? Could I say “en feber” or “febern”?

In general statements: bare feber (mass-like): hon har feber.
Specific, previously mentioned fever: febern: Febern steg på kvällen.
En feber is grammatically possible (it’s an en-word) but rare and usually odd. With adjectives you still skip the article: hög/lätt feber.

Where does “inte” go if I want to negate the sentence?

Negate the subordinate clause: Om hon inte har feber, vilar hon och dricker vatten. (Order in a subordinate clause: Subject + satsadverbial + verb → hon inte har.)
Negate the main clause: Om hon har feber, vilar hon inte och dricker inte vatten. (After inversion in the main clause: Verb–Subject–satsadverbial → vilar hon inte.)

Why are both verbs in the present tense? How do I talk about the future?

Present is used for general truths/habits: Om hon har feber, vilar hon … It can also refer to future with a time word: Om hon har feber imorgon, vilar hon. To emphasize a planned or likely future, use ska or kommer att: Om hon har feber imorgon, ska/kommer hon att vila.

Could I say “vilar sig” instead of just “vilar”?

Yes, but vila without the reflexive is the default. Vila sig can sound more colloquial or add nuance (“get some rest”). Both are acceptable here: … vilar (sig) och dricker vatten.

Why is there no “att” before “dricker”? It says “vilar hon och dricker vatten.”

Because och coordinates two finite verbs with the same subject: (hon) vilar and (hon) dricker. Att is only used with infinitives, not between coordinated finite verbs.

Can I put the main clause first?

Yes: Hon vilar och dricker vatten om hon har feber. Here the subject Hon comes first, so vilar is in second position and there’s no inversion needed. No comma is used in this order.

Should I repeat the subject before the second verb: “vilar hon och hon dricker”?

Normally no. Swedish shares the subject across coordinated verbs: vilar hon och dricker. Repeating hon is possible for emphasis or contrast, but in a neutral sentence it sounds heavy.

What are the grammatical genders of “feber” and “vatten”?

Feber is an en-word (common gender): definite febern. In this context it’s typically article-less: har feber.
Vatten is an ett-word (neuter): definite vattnet. As a mass noun here it’s bare: dricker vatten.

How is “och” pronounced here?

Careful speech: [ɔk]. Everyday speech often reduces it to [o] or [ɔ], so you’ll hear something like … vilar hon å dricker vatten informally. Spelling remains och.

Is it okay to say “dricker mycket vatten” or “dricker lite vatten” instead?

Yes. You can modify the mass noun: dricker mycket vatten (drinks a lot of water), dricker lite vatten (drinks a little water). No article is used.

Could “om” also mean “whether” here?

No. Here om introduces a condition (“if”). Om can mean “whether” in indirect questions like Jag undrar om hon har feber (“I wonder whether she has a fever”), but that’s a different structure.

Is “feverish” expressed with “febrig” in Swedish?

Yes. Hon är febrig means “She is feverish.” It describes how she feels, whereas Hon har feber states the condition. Both are natural, with slightly different focus.