Learn Hardcore Swedish: Jag tycker att hans beskrivning är lika tydlig som texten i boken. - I think that his description is as clear as the text in the book.

tycker att = think/feel (as an opinion)
- Jag tycker att filmen är bra. – I think the movie is good.
tror att = believe (about facts, reality, the future)
- Jag tror att han kommer i morgon. – I believe/think he will come tomorrow.
tänker = am thinking / intend / plan
- Jag tänker på dig. – I am thinking of you.
- Jag tänker resa i sommar. – I plan to travel this summer.

In your sentence, tycker att is correct because you are giving an opinion about how clear the description is, not stating a factual belief or a plan.

Is att here the same att as in infinitives, and can it be omitted after tycker?

In this sentence, att is a subordinating conjunction, not the infinitive marker.

Jag tycker att hans beskrivning är …
Here att = that (introducing the clause that his description is …).

Compare:

att läsa – to read (infinitive marker)
Jag tycker att hans beskrivning är … – I think that his description is …

About omitting att:

In spoken Swedish, people often drop att after verbs like tycka, tro, säga:
- Jag tycker hans beskrivning är tydlig.
In written/standard Swedish, it is safer and more correct to keep att.

So yes, you may hear the sentence without att, but the version with att is the standard one.

Why is the word order att hans beskrivning är and not att är hans beskrivning?

Swedish has different word order rules in main clauses and subordinate clauses:

In main clauses, the verb is usually in second position (V2):
- Hans beskrivning är tydlig. – Subject + verb
- I boken är texten tydlig. – Adverbial + verb + subject
In subordinate clauses (after att, som, när, etc.), the subject comes before the verb:
- att hans beskrivning är tydlig
- att texten i boken är tydlig
- när han skriver, …

So att hans beskrivning är … is correct.
att är hans beskrivning … is ungrammatical in Swedish.

What is the difference between tycker and tycker om?

They mean different things:

tycker (att) = think, have an opinion
- Jag tycker att hans beskrivning är tydlig. – I think his description is clear.
tycker om = like (find pleasant/enjoy)
- Jag tycker om hans beskrivning. – I like his description.

So your sentence with tycker att expresses an opinion about quality, not simply that you like it.

Why is it hans beskrivning and not sin beskrivning here?

Swedish distinguishes between:

hans = his (non‑reflexive, can refer to someone else)
sin/sitt/sina = his/her/their own (reflexive, refers back to the subject of the same clause)

In your sentence:

Jag tycker att hans beskrivning är …
Subject: Jag (I)
Possessor: hans (some man, not me)

So hans must refer to another male person, not to jag.

If he were the subject and you meant his own description, you would use sin:

Han tycker att sin beskrivning är tydlig. – He thinks his own description is clear.
Han tycker att hans beskrivning är tydlig. – He thinks that his (another man’s) description is clear.

In your original sentence with Jag, sin would be wrong; hans is correct.

Why is there no article before hans beskrivning? Why not en hans beskrivning?

In Swedish, you do not use an article (en/ett) together with a possessive pronoun:

hans beskrivning – his description
min bok – my book
vårt hus – our house

You cannot say:

✗ en hans beskrivning
✗ en min bok

So hans beskrivning is the normal, correct form.

(You might see forms like en av hans beskrivningar – one of his descriptions – but there en belongs with en av, not directly with hans.)

How does lika tydlig som work? Is it the same as as clear as in English?

Yes. lika … som is the standard way to say as … as for equal comparison:

lika tydlig som = as clear as
lika snabb som = as fast as
lika lång som = as tall/long as

Patterns:

lika + adjective + som + noun/pronoun
- Hennes uttal är lika tydligt som lärarens. – Her pronunciation is as clear as the teacher’s.

Other comparison patterns:

mer … än = more … than
- mer tydlig än – clearer than
inte lika … som = not as … as
- inte lika tydlig som – not as clear as

You can also see så … som in some contexts, but lika … som is the normal neutral form for as … as.

What exactly does tydlig mean here, and how is it different from klar?

Both can translate to clear, but they are used somewhat differently:

tydlig
- easy to understand, well-structured, not ambiguous
- en tydlig beskrivning – a clear, well‑formulated description
- tydlig text, tydliga instruktioner
klar
- clear in the sense of finished, resolved, not cloudy, ready
- Jag är klar. – I’m finished.
- klart vatten. – clear water.
- Det är klart nu. – It’s done/settled now.

For language, explanations, and descriptions, tydlig is usually the most natural word. So lika tydlig som texten i boken focuses on how understandable and well-expressed the description is.

Why is the adjective tydlig used in that basic form? Why not tydligt or tydliga?

Adjectives in Swedish change form depending on gender/number/definiteness and position. Here, tydlig is used predicatively (after the verb är) and refers to beskrivning:

beskrivning is an en‑word, singular, indefinite:
- en beskrivning
Predicative adjective for an en‑word singular indefinite uses the basic form:
- beskrivningen är tydlig (definite),
  but
- en beskrivning är tydlig / hans beskrivning är tydlig (indefinite), adjective = tydlig

Other forms:

tydligt – neuter singular or adverb
- ett tydligt exempel – an obvious/clear example
- Det är tydligt. – It is clear.
tydliga – plural or definite attributive
- tydliga exempel – clear examples
- de tydliga exemplen – the clear examples

So tydlig is the right form for hans beskrivning är tydlig.

In texten i boken, what is definite and why? Could I say text i boken or texten i en bok instead?

In texten i boken:

texten – the text (definite, marked by -en)
i boken – in the book (also definite: boken = the book)

So the phrase means the text in the book.

Variants:

text i boken – text in the book (more general, text as a mass, not a specific text)
texten i en bok – the text in a book (some book, not specified)
texten i den boken – the text in that book (more specifically that particular book)

In your sentence, texten i boken naturally means a particular text which both speaker and listener know (for example, the text you are studying in a course book).

Why is i used in i boken and not på boken?

The choice between i and på is mostly about inside vs on (the surface of):

i boken – in the book (inside its contents)
- texten i boken – the text inside the book
på boken – on the book (on its surface/cover/top)
- namnet står på boken. – the name is on the book (e.g. on the cover).

Here you are talking about the text that is written inside the book, so i boken is correct.

What does som mean in lika tydlig som texten i boken? Is it the same som as in mannen som bor där?

Yes, it is the same word som, but used in a different function.

Two common uses:

Comparative conjunction – after lika, så, samma
- lika tydlig som texten i boken – as clear as the text in the book
- så stor som du – as big as you
- samma bok som jag läste – the same book that I read
Relative pronoun/conjunction – meaning who/that/which
- Mannen som bor där. – The man who lives there.
- Boken som jag läser. – The book that I am reading.

So it is the same word, but in your sentence it introduces a comparison, not a relative clause.

Where would inte go if I want to say that his description is not as clear as the text in the book?

You have two main options, with a slight difference in nuance:

Negating your whole opinion (I don’t think that …):
- Jag tycker inte att hans beskrivning är lika tydlig som texten i boken.
  = I don’t think his description is as clear as the text in the book.
Keeping tycker positive but negating the comparison inside the clause:
- Jag tycker att hans beskrivning inte är lika tydlig som texten i boken.
  = I think (that) his description is not as clear as the text in the book.

Both are grammatically correct; the second one makes the not‑as‑clear part more directly in focus.