En fördel är att han sparar tid, men en nackdel är att han saknar sina kollegor.

One advantage is that he saves time, but one disadvantage is that he misses his colleagues.

Breakdown of En fördel är att han sparar tid, men en nackdel är att han saknar sina kollegor.

• vara: to be
• en: a
• han: he
• men: but
• att: that
• sina: his
• tiden: the time
• kollegan: the colleague
• spara: to save
• sakna: to miss
• fördelen: the advantage
• nackdelen: the disadvantage

Questions & Answers about En fördel är att han sparar tid, men en nackdel är att han saknar sina kollegor.

Why is it en fördel and en nackdel, not ett fördel or ett nackdel?

In Swedish, every noun has a grammatical gender: en-word (common gender) or ett-word (neuter).

• fördel is an en-word → en fördel, fördelen
• nackdel is also an en-word → en nackdel, nackdelen

There is no logical rule you can apply from the English meaning; you simply have to learn each noun with its article. So you memorize:

• en fördel = an advantage
• en nackdel = a disadvantage

What exactly do fördel and nackdel mean, and how are they used?

fördel and nackdel are very common, almost formulaic opposites:

• en fördel (med något) – an advantage (of something), a benefit, a plus
• en nackdel (med något) – a disadvantage (of something), a drawback, a minus

Typical patterns:

• En fördel med att jobba hemifrån är att han sparar tid.
  An advantage of working from home is that he saves time.

• En nackdel med jobbet är att han saknar sina kollegor.
  A disadvantage of the job is that he misses his colleagues.

In your sentence they are set up as a clear contrast with men:

• En fördel är … men en nackdel är …
  One advantage is … but one disadvantage is …

What is the function of att in att han sparar tid and att han saknar sina kollegor?

Here att introduces a subordinate clause that works like “that …” in English:

• att han sparar tid = that he saves time
• att han saknar sina kollegor = that he misses his colleagues

So the structure is:

• En fördel är

  • att han sparar tid
    An advantage is
    • that he saves time

• en nackdel är

  • att han saknar sina kollegor
    a disadvantage is
    • that he misses his colleagues

You cannot drop att here like you sometimes can drop that in English.
English: The advantage is (that) he saves time.
Swedish: Fördelen är att han sparar tid. (you must have att)

Why is the verb in the present tense (sparar, saknar) if we might be talking about an ongoing situation?

Swedish present tense covers both:

• simple present (he saves time, he misses his colleagues), and
• present continuous (he is saving time, he is missing his colleagues).

So:

• han sparar tid can mean he saves time or he is saving time
• han saknar sina kollegor can mean he misses his colleagues or he is missing his colleagues

You do not need a separate progressive form like English is saving / is missing. Context tells you whether it’s a general fact or an ongoing situation.

What does saknar mean exactly, and why not use missar?

This is a common confusion for English speakers:

• saknar means to miss (emotionally), to long for, to feel the absence of

  • Jag saknar dig. = I miss you.
  • Han saknar sina kollegor. = He misses his colleagues.

• missar means to miss in the sense of fail to catch / fail to attend / make a mistake

  • Jag missade bussen. = I missed the bus.
  • Hon missade mötet. = She missed the meeting.

So in your sentence, he emotionally misses his colleagues, so saknar is the correct verb, not missar.

Why is it sina kollegor and not hans kollegor?

Swedish has special reflexive possessive pronouns: sin / sitt / sina.
They are used when the possessor is the subject of the same clause.

• sin – for en-words (singular)
• sitt – for ett-words (singular)
• sina – for plurals

In att han saknar sina kollegor:

• subject: han
• thing possessed: kollegor (plural)
• possessor is the subject of the same clause → use sina

So:

• Han saknar sina kollegor. = He misses his (own) colleagues.

If you said Han saknar hans kollegor, it would normally mean:

• He misses his (some other man’s) colleagues,
  i.e. han misses colleagues that belong to some other male person.

So:

• han … sina X = his own X
• han … hans X = another man’s X

Why is it kollegor and not kollegorna?

• kollegor = colleagues (indefinite plural)
• kollegorna = the colleagues (definite plural)

Here, sina kollegor is indefinite because we’re talking about his colleagues in general, as a group, not pointing to a specific, already-identified group in the discourse.

Compare:

• Han saknar sina kollegor.
  He misses his colleagues (in general).

vs.

• Han saknar sina gamla kollegor, särskilt kollegorna på marknadsavdelningen.
  He misses his old colleagues, especially the colleagues in the marketing department.

In everyday speech, you could sometimes hear sina kollegor or sina kollegorna with slightly different nuances, but the standard, neutral form in your sentence is sina kollegor.

Why is there a comma before men?

In Swedish, you normally put a comma between two independent main clauses joined by men:

• En fördel är att han sparar tid, men en nackdel är att han saknar sina kollegor.

Both parts could stand as sentences on their own:

• En fördel är att han sparar tid.
• En nackdel är att han saknar sina kollegor.

Therefore a comma before men is standard.

Note: Swedish generally uses fewer commas than English, but a comma before men when it links two full clauses is normal and recommended.

Is the word order att han sparar tid and att han saknar sina kollegor fixed, or could it be att sparar han tid?

The word order in these att-clauses is fixed:

• att + subject + verb + (objects/adverbs …)

So you must say:

• att han sparar tid (correct)
  not att sparar han tid (incorrect)

Same with the second clause:

• att han saknar sina kollegor (correct)
  not att saknar han sina kollegor (incorrect)

In Swedish main clauses you often have verb in second position (V2 rule):
Han sparar tid. / Idag sparar han tid.
But in subordinate clauses after att, the subject comes before the verb:
att han sparar tid.

Could you say Fördelen är att han sparar tid, men nackdelen är att han saknar sina kollegor without en?

Yes, that’s very natural and maybe even more common in context:

• Fördelen är att han sparar tid, men nackdelen är att han saknar sina kollegor.
  The advantage is that he saves time, but the disadvantage is that he misses his colleagues.

Using en fördel / en nackdel emphasizes that these are one of possibly several advantages or disadvantages:

• En fördel är att han sparar tid, men en nackdel är att han saknar sina kollegor.
  One advantage is … but one disadvantage is …

Both are correct; the choice depends on whether you’re talking about the main specific advantage/disadvantage (definite) or just one among several (indefinite).

Can the sentence be rephrased without att-clauses and keep the same meaning?

Yes, you can rephrase while keeping the meaning, though the grammar changes. For example:

• Han sparar tid, men han saknar sina kollegor. Det är både en fördel och en nackdel.
  He saves time, but he misses his colleagues. That is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

Or:

• Han sparar tid, men saknar sina kollegor.
  He saves time but misses his colleagues.

In these versions, sparar tid and saknar sina kollegor are no longer inside att-clauses; they are just main-clause predicates. The original sentence puts them inside att-clauses functioning as complements to fördel / nackdel.

How are fördel and nackdel pronounced?

Approximate pronunciation (Swedish standard, rough English approximation):

• fördel: [FÖR-del]

  • för: like fur but with rounded lips
  • del: like English dale (shorter vowel)

• nackdel: [NAK-del]

  • nack: like English knack without the initial k
  • del: same as above

Stress is on the first syllable in both words: FÖR-del, NAK-del.