Learn Hardcore Swedish: Hennes idé är att vi först går till sjön och sedan tar en fika på caféet. - Her idea is that we first go to the lake and then have a coffee break at the café.

Hennes = her (possessive pronoun, 3rd person, non‑reflexive).
Hon = she (subject pronoun).
Sin/sitt/sina = her/his/their own (reflexive possessive; must refer back to the grammatical subject of the same clause).

In Hennes idé är att …, there is no subject before hennes yet, so sin cannot be used. Sin must refer back to a visible subject in the same clause:

✅ Hon presenterar sin idé. – She presents her (own) idea.
✅ Hennes idé är bra. – Her idea is good. (here hon is not the subject of this sentence, so you use hennes, not sin)

So Hennes idé is the only natural choice at the beginning of this sentence.

What exactly is the function of att in är att vi först går …? Could I say Hennes idé är vi först går …?

Att here is a subjunction (a subordinating conjunction), similar to English that in sentences like:

Her idea is that we first go to the lake…

In Swedish, you need att to introduce this kind of subordinate clause:

✅ Hennes idé är att vi först går till sjön …
❌ Hennes idé är vi först går till sjön … (ungrammatical)

So you cannot drop att in this structure. It is required to link idé är to the clause vi först går till sjön och sedan tar en fika på caféet.

Why is it idé with an accent, and what gender is it? How is it inflected?

Idé is an en‑word (common gender) and is normally written with the acute accent in standard Swedish.

Basic forms:

en idé – an idea
idén – the idea
idéer – ideas
idéerna – the ideas

In the sentence, Hennes idé = Her idea (indefinite singular).

Why is the word order att vi först går till sjön and not att först vi går till sjön or something else?

In a typical att‑clause (subordinate clause) in Swedish, the basic order is:

att + subject + (sentence adverb) + verb + …

So:

att vi först går till sjön
- att = subjunction
- vi = subject
- först = time adverbial
- går = verb

Först (a time adverb) has some flexibility. In this clause, putting it between the subject and verb (vi först går) is fine and sounds natural.

Some alternatives:

att vi går först till sjön – also OK, a bit more neutral.
att först vi går till sjön – sounds odd/marked and is not the normal word order.

Key point: in an att‑clause, you generally keep subject before verb (no main‑clause V2 inversion), and you place adverbs like först near the verb, often either just before or just after it.

The verbs are in the present: går, tar. But the meaning is clearly future: “we will first go… and then have a fika…”. Why present tense?

Swedish very often uses present tense to talk about planned or scheduled future actions, especially when the plan is clear from context:

Vi ses imorgon. – We’ll see each other tomorrow.
Jag åker till Stockholm nästa vecka. – I’m going to Stockholm next week.

So:

vi först går till sjön
(och) sedan tar en fika på caféet

are in grammatical present, but they naturally refer to a plan about the future. You could use ska for a clearer future:

Hennes idé är att vi först ska gå till sjön och sedan ska ta en fika …

But it’s not necessary; your original version is completely normal Swedish.

Why is it går till sjön and not åker till sjön? What’s the difference?

Both are possible, but they mean slightly different things:

gå = to walk (on foot).
åka = to go, travel using some kind of vehicle (car, bus, train, bike, etc.).

So:

Vi går till sjön. – We walk to the lake.
Vi åker till sjön. – We go to the lake by some means of transport.

Your sentence doesn’t specify transport, but går till sjön suggests that the lake is close enough to walk to, or that the speaker is emphasising the walk itself.

Why is it sjön and not just sjö?

en sjö = a lake (indefinite)
sjön = the lake (definite)

Using the definite form sjön signals that the speakers have a specific lake in mind, one that is already known from context:

(We both know which lake.) → Vi går till sjön.

If you said Vi går till en sjö, it would sound like “to some (unspecified) lake.” In everyday planning like this, it’s natural to refer to the particular lake you usually mean, so sjön is expected.

What exactly does fika mean? Is it a noun or a verb?

Fika is both:

Noun (common gender, en):
- en fika – a coffee break / a fika
- fikan – the fika (definite)
Verb:
- att fika – to have a coffee break
- Vi fikar. – We are having fika.

Culturally, fika is more than just “drinking coffee”: it’s a social coffee (or tea) break, usually with something small to eat (a bun, a cookie, etc.), and it’s an important part of Swedish social life.

In your sentence, en fika is the noun used with ta: tar en fika.

Why do you say tar en fika and not har en fika or dricker kaffe?

This is mostly about natural collocations in Swedish:

The most common expression is ta en fika – literally take a fika.
ha en fika is understandable but much less idiomatic.
dricka kaffe just refers to drinking coffee; it doesn’t necessarily capture the social “fika” concept.

So:

✅ Vi tar en fika. – very natural, standard expression.
✅ Vi fikar. – also very common (verb form).
⚠️ Vi har en fika. – not wrong, but sounds odd/unusual.
✅ Vi dricker kaffe. – fine, but you lose the specific “fika” meaning.

That’s why the sentence has tar en fika.

Why is it på caféet and not i caféet? What’s the difference between på and i here?

With many places that are seen as venues or institutions, Swedish prefers på when you mean “at (doing the typical activity of) that place”:

Common patterns:

på café(et) – at the café (having coffee etc.)
på restaurang(en) – at the restaurant (eating there)
på bio – at the cinema
på jobbet – at work
på skolan / på universitetet – at school / at the university

I caféet focuses more on the physical inside of the room (the interior), not on the typical activity.

In your sentence, you’re talking about having fika at the café, i.e. participating in the normal activity of a café, so på caféet is the natural preposition.

Why is it spelled caféet with two es? Could it be **cafét?

Standard Swedish spelling is caféet:

ett café – a café
caféet – the café (definite form)

When a word ends in a stressed é and takes the definite neuter ending -et, Swedish spelling doubles the e:

café + et → caféet

Cafét does appear informally (especially in older or casual writing), but caféet is the recommended, standard spelling today.

Could I say Hennes idé är att vi först går till sjön och sedan fikar på caféet instead of tar en fika?

Yes, that’s perfectly good Swedish:

… och sedan fikar på caféet.

Here you’re using the verb fikar instead of the phrase tar en fika. Both are natural:

Vi tar en fika.
Vi fikar.

Subtle nuance:

tar en fika often feels a bit more concrete (a particular occasion).
fikar sometimes feels slightly more general or process‑like.

But in a sentence like this, the difference is minimal, and both are idiomatic.

Why is it först … och sedan …? Could I use sen instead of sedan, and where does sedan go in the sentence?

Först … sedan … is a very common way to express sequence:

först = first
sedan (or sen) = then / afterwards

Sedan and sen:

sedan is slightly more formal/spelled‑out.
sen is the very common spoken form; both are correct.

Placement: In your sentence, you have:

… att vi först går till sjön och sedan tar en fika på caféet.

This is normal:

adverb först before går
adverb sedan before tar

Other acceptable variants:

att vi går först till sjön och sedan tar en fika …
att vi först går till sjön och sen tar en fika …

The meaning doesn’t really change; you’re just varying where the time adverbs sit around the verb.