Learn Hardcore Swedish: Hon räknar snabbt och ser att siffrorna i boken inte är lika höga som igår. - She counts quickly and sees that the numbers in the book are not as high as yesterday.

Why is räknar in the present tense here? In English I’d probably say “She is counting quickly,” so why not something like a continuous form in Swedish?

Swedish doesn’t have a separate continuous -ing form like English.

The present tense in Swedish (here räknar) is used for both:

English simple present: She counts
English present continuous: She is counting

So:

Hon räknar snabbt can mean either She counts quickly (general habit) or She is counting quickly (right now).
The context decides which one you understand, but grammatically it’s just normal present tense.

What exactly is snabbt here — an adjective or an adverb? Why does it end in -t?

Snabbt is an adverb here, describing how she counts.

In Swedish, many adverbs of manner are formed from adjectives by adding -t, which is historically the neuter form:

snabb (adjective: “fast, quick”)
- en snabb bil – a fast car
- ett snabbt tåg – a fast train
snabbt (adverb: “quickly”)
- Hon räknar snabbt. – She counts quickly.

So snabbt here is not agreeing with a noun; it’s the adverbial form “quickly.”

Could I move snabbt and say Hon snabbt räknar or Hon räknar och ser snabbt att …? How flexible is the word order?

Some movements are possible, but not all sound natural.

Hon räknar snabbt … – natural and standard.
- Verb (räknar) + adverb (snabbt) is very common.
Hon snabbt räknar … – sounds unnatural in normal, neutral Swedish.
- This type of placement is sometimes possible for emphasis in poetry or very marked style, but you should generally avoid it.
Hon räknar snabbt och ser att … – means she counts quickly and then sees something (no comment on how quickly she sees it).
Hon räknar och ser snabbt att … – now snabbt most naturally modifies ser:
- “She counts, and quickly realizes/sees that …”

So:

To say she counts quickly, keep snabbt close to räknar.
To say she quickly notices, place snabbt close to ser.

Why do we need att after ser in ser att siffrorna …? In English we can often drop “that” (“she sees (that) the numbers…”), so can we drop att in Swedish?

No, in Swedish you normally cannot drop att in this kind of clause.

Here, att is a subjunction (a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause), similar to English “that”:

Hon ser att siffrorna i boken inte är lika höga som igår.
– She sees that the numbers in the book are not as high as yesterday.

In English, you can say:

She sees the numbers are not as high… (dropping “that”)

In Swedish, you must keep att:

✓ Hon ser att siffrorna …
✗ Hon ser siffrorna … inte är lika höga … (incorrect structure)

So: after verbs like se, veta, tro, säga, etc., when you introduce a full clause, att is normally required.

Why is the word order in att siffrorna i boken inte är lika höga … “inte är” instead of “är inte”?

This is one of the key word order differences between main clauses and subordinate clauses in Swedish.

In main clauses, the verb normally comes before inte:
- Siffrorna är inte lika höga.
  (Subject Siffrorna – verb är – inte)
In subordinate clauses, the pattern is:
subject + (extra stuff) + sentence adverb (like inte) + verb

So:

att siffrorna i boken inte är lika höga …
- subject: siffrorna
- extra info: i boken
- sentence adverb: inte
- verb: är

If it were a main clause, it would be:

Siffrorna i boken är inte lika höga.

So “inte är” here is exactly what you expect in a subordinate clause after att.

How does inte lika höga som work? Is this the normal way to say “not as high as” in Swedish?

Yes. The pattern lika … som is the standard way to express “as … as” in Swedish.

lika hög som – as high as (singular)
lika höga som – as high as (plural)
lika snabbt som – as quickly as

With negation:

inte lika höga som – not as high as
inte lika bra som – not as good as

So in the sentence, inte är lika höga som igår is literally:

“are not as high as (they were) yesterday.”

If you wanted a comparative like “higher than,” you’d use:

högre än – higher than

Why is it höga and not hög or högt? How does the adjective agree here?

Höga is agreeing with siffrorna, which is definite plural (“the numbers”).

Adjectives in Swedish agree with the noun in number and definiteness:

Indefinite singular common: en hög siffra – a high figure
Indefinite singular neuter: ett högt tal – a high number
Indefinite plural: höga siffror – high figures
Definite plural: de höga siffrorna – the high figures

In the sentence we have siffrorna (“the numbers” – definite plural), so:

lika höga (plural form of the adjective) is required.

That’s why it’s höga here.

Why is it siffrorna and not something like talen or numren? Aren’t they all “numbers”?

They’re related but not identical in nuance:

siffra (plural siffror, definite plural siffrorna)
- literally “digit” (0–9), but also used for figures in e.g. statistics, prices, results.
- siffrorna i boken can easily mean “the (numerical) figures in the book.”
tal (plural tal, definite plural talen)
- more abstract numbers (mathematical numbers, quantities, also “speech” in another sense).
- talen i boken sounds more like literal numbers as mathematical objects.
nummer (plural nummer, definite plural numren)
- labels or identifiers: telephone numbers, house numbers, jersey numbers, etc.

In a book with e.g. financial or statistical information, siffrorna i boken is the most natural phrase for “the figures / numbers in the book.”

Why is it i boken (“in the book”) and not på boken? When do you use i vs på?

I and på are both often translated as “in” or “on,” but they have different typical uses.

i is used for something inside or contained in something, often with books, texts, documents, films, etc.:
- i boken – in the book (inside the contents)
- i tidningen – in the newspaper
- i brevet – in the letter
på is more like “on” (on the surface) or used in fixed expressions:
- på bordet – on the table
- på omslaget – on the cover
- på sidan fem – on page five

So:

siffrorna i boken – the figures inside the content of the book
bilden på omslaget – the picture on the cover of the book

At the end we only have som igår. Is something left out here? Could I say som de var igår instead?

Yes, there is an elliptical (left-out) part that is understood from context.

Fuller form would be something like:

… inte är lika höga som de var igår.
– “…are not as high as they were yesterday.”

But Swedish (and English) often omits the repeated part when it’s clear:

… inte är lika höga som igår.
– “…are not as high as yesterday (they were).”

You can say som de var igår, and it’s grammatically fine, but it’s longer and usually not necessary. The shorter som igår is very natural and common in speech and writing when the meaning is obvious.

Why don’t we repeat the subject hon after och? Could we say Hon räknar snabbt och hon ser att … instead?

You can repeat hon, but you don’t have to. Both are correct:

Hon räknar snabbt och ser att …
Hon räknar snabbt och hon ser att …

When two verbs share the same subject, Swedish (like English) often omits the repeated subject in order to avoid sounding heavy or redundant:

Hon öppnar boken och börjar läsa.
Han går hem och lägger sig.

Repeating the subject (hon) is possible for extra clarity or emphasis, but in neutral style it’s more natural to drop it here, just as in English “She counts quickly and sees that …”

Is there any difference between igår and i går? Which one should I use?

Both igår and i går mean yesterday and are understood everywhere.

igår – written as one word, now the most common modern spelling in everyday use.
i går – written as two words, more traditional/older spelling, still accepted.

For normal, modern writing, you can safely use igår. You may still see i går in older texts or in more conservative style, but there is no difference in meaning.