Learn Hardcore Swedish: Efter att det har regnat ser barnen en regnbåge över skogen. - After it has rained, the children see a rainbow over the forest.

Efter att det har regnat ser barnen en regnbåge över skogen.

After it has rained, the children see a rainbow over the forest.

Breakdown of Efter att det har regnat ser barnen en regnbåge över skogen.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Swedish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Swedish now

Questions & Answers about Efter att det har regnat ser barnen en regnbåge över skogen.

Why does the sentence say Efter att det har regnat and not just Efter det har regnat?

In Swedish, when efter is followed by a whole clause (with a verb), you normally need att to introduce that clause:

Efter att det har regnat = After it has rained (preposition efter
- subjunction att
  - clause det har regnat)

If you say Efter det har regnat, it’s not grammatical in standard Swedish with the meaning after it has rained. It sounds like you are trying to say after that has rained, which doesn’t make sense.

So:

efter att + clause → after + clause
efter + noun → e.g. efter regnet (after the rain)

What is the function of det in det har regnat?

Here det is a dummy subject (also called an expletive), just like it in English in sentences such as:

It is raining.
It is snowing.

In Swedish, weather verbs almost always take this dummy det:

Det regnar. – It’s raining.
Det har regnat. – It has rained.
Det snöar. – It’s snowing.

The det does not refer to anything specific; it just fills the subject position, because Swedish (like English) normally requires a subject in finite clauses.

Why is the verb in the first part har regnat (has rained) and not regnar (is raining) or regnade (rained)?

The form har regnat is the present perfect, and it’s used to describe something that has just finished or is completed before another event:

Efter att det har regnat – After it has rained (the rain is over)
ser barnen en regnbåge – the children see a rainbow (this happens afterwards)

If you use other tenses, the meaning changes:

Efter att det regnar – incorrect here; you wouldn’t normally use the present in this structure.
Efter att det regnade – sounds odd; it would be more natural to say Efter att det hade regnat (after it had rained, past perfect) if the whole sentence is in the past:
- Efter att det hade regnat såg barnen en regnbåge. – After it had rained, the children saw a rainbow.

So in the original sentence the present perfect har regnat connects a recent, completed event (the rain) with a present-time consequence (the children see a rainbow).

Why is the word order ser barnen and not barnen ser after the first clause?

This is the Swedish V2 rule (verb-second). In a main clause, the finite verb must come in second position.

The sentence is structured like this:

Efter att det har regnat – a whole adverbial clause in first position
ser – the finite verb of the main clause in second position
barnen – the subject, coming after the verb

If you start the sentence directly with the subject, then the verb comes second after the subject:

Barnen ser en regnbåge över skogen efter att det har regnat.

But when you place something else first (like a time or place expression, or a subordinate clause), the verb still stays in second place, so the subject moves after the verb:

Efter att det har regnat ser barnen en regnbåge…
På kvällen ser barnen en regnbåge…
I skogen ser barnen en regnbåge…

Is att in Efter att det har regnat optional, like English sometimes drops that?

No, in this exact structure att is not freely optional in standard Swedish.

Efter att det har regnat – natural, common.
Efter det har regnat – not correct with the meaning after it has rained.
Efter det att det har regnat – more formal, also correct.

In other kinds of clauses, especially after certain verbs, att can be dropped in speech:

Jag tror (att) det blir bra. – I think (that) it will be fine.

But with efter + clause, speakers normally use efter att (or the more formal efter det att). Dropping att there does not sound like normal Swedish.

Could you say Efter regnet ser barnen en regnbåge instead of Efter att det har regnat?

Yes, that is possible; it’s just a bit different in style and nuance.

Efter att det har regnat ser barnen en regnbåge…
Focus on the event of raining (after the fact that it has rained).
Efter regnet ser barnen en regnbåge…
Focus on the rain as a thing (after the rain).

Both are grammatical and natural. Efter att det har regnat feels a bit more verbal, efter regnet a bit more nominal and compact. In practice, both can describe the same situation.

What is the difference between ser and tittar på here? Could I say Barnen tittar på en regnbåge?

You can say Barnen tittar på en regnbåge, but there is a difference:

se = to see (perceive with your eyes, often unintentional or neutral)
- Barnen ser en regnbåge. – The children see a rainbow. (they notice it)
titta på = to look at / watch (an intentional action, directing your gaze)
- Barnen tittar på en regnbåge. – The children are looking at a rainbow. (they focus on it)

In the original sentence, ser fits well because the result of the rain is that a rainbow becomes visible and the children see it. If you want to emphasize that they are actively watching it, tittar på is also possible but slightly changes the nuance.

What does barnen mean exactly, and how is it formed?

Barnen means “the children”.

The base form barn means “child / children” (it is the same in singular and plural).
To make it definite plural (the children), you add -en:
- barn – child / children
- barnen – the children

So:

Barn leker. – Children play. (general, indefinite)
Barnen leker. – The children are playing. (specific, definite)

Why is it en regnbåge and not ett regnbåge?

In Swedish, every noun is either en-word (common gender) or ett-word (neuter). You simply have to learn the gender with the noun.

en regnbåge – a rainbow (common gender)
regnbågen – the rainbow

There is no rule that you can reliably apply to guess this; regnbåge just happens to be an en-word. A few related examples:

en sol – a sun
en himmel – a sky
en molnformation – a cloud formation (compound with moln, which on its own is ett moln)

What does över skogen mean, and how is över used here?

Över skogen literally means “over the forest”.

över here expresses position above something:
- En regnbåge över skogen – a rainbow over the forest.

över can also mean “across / over (to the other side)”, depending on the verb:

Hon går över bron. – She walks over the bridge (to the other side).
Planet flyger över staden. – The plane flies over the city.

In the rainbow sentence, it clearly refers to location above the forest, not movement.

Could we use ovanför instead of över: en regnbåge ovanför skogen?

Yes, you can say en regnbåge ovanför skogen, and it would be understood.

Nuance:

över is more general and widely used, both for movement and static position.
ovanför is more specifically “above / higher than”, often emphasizing vertical distance.

In many contexts, especially physical position, they can overlap:

En lampa över bordet. / En lampa ovanför bordet.

Here, över skogen is probably the more common phrase, but ovanför skogen is not wrong; it just sounds a bit more literally “higher than the forest” and slightly more formal or descriptive.

Can I move Efter att det har regnat to the end of the sentence, like in English?

Yes, that’s possible:

Barnen ser en regnbåge över skogen efter att det har regnat.

This is grammatically correct and natural. The differences are:

Efter att det har regnat ser barnen…
– Slightly more formal or narrative; the time setting comes first.
Barnen ser… efter att det har regnat.
– More neutral, subject-first; similar to typical English order.

In both versions, the verb-second rule is respected:

Version 1: Efter att det har regnat (first position), ser (second), barnen (third).
Version 2: Barnen (first), ser (second).