Learn Hardcore Swedish: Han försöker fokusera på en positiv tanke som kan ändra en hel dag eller en dröm som började negativt. - He tries to focus on a positive thought that can change a whole day or a dream that started negatively.

In modern Swedish, verbs like försöka (try), börja (start), lära sig (learn) are often followed directly by an infinitive without att:

Han försöker fokusera. – He tries to focus.

Adding att is not wrong here (Han försöker att fokusera) but it sounds a bit more formal or old-fashioned in many contexts. Everyday spoken and written Swedish usually drops att after försöka.

You must keep att before infinitives in many other cases though, for example:

Det är svårt att fokusera. – It is hard to focus.
Jag vill att du fokuserar. – I want you to focus.

Why do you say fokusera på and not just fokusera?

In Swedish, fokusera på is the normal way to say focus on something. The preposition på works like English on in this sense.

Han försöker fokusera på en positiv tanke.
He is trying to focus on a positive thought.

You can use fokusera without på if you mean focus in a more general sense:

Han måste fokusera mer. – He must focus more.

But when you specify an object of focus, Swedish almost always uses på:

fokusera på arbetet – focus on the work
fokusera på problemet – focus on the problem

Why is it en positiv tanke and not en positivt tanke?

Because tanke is a common gender noun (en tanke), and adjectives have to agree in gender and number with the noun:

en positiv tanke – a positive thought
- common gender singular → adjective form: positiv
ett positivt minne – a positive memory
- neuter singular (ett minne) → adjective form: positivt
positiva tankar – positive thoughts
- plural → adjective form: positiva

So positivt (with -t) is the neuter singular form of the adjective, which would be wrong with en tanke.

What does som do in en positiv tanke som kan ändra …?

Here som is a relative pronoun, like English that/which. It introduces a relative clause that describes tanke:

en positiv tanke som kan ändra en hel dag
= a positive thought that can change a whole day

The word som refers back to tanke. In English you could translate it with that or which, and often you might even omit it:

a positive thought (that) can change a whole day

In Swedish, you cannot omit som in this kind of clause. It must be there.

Why is it som kan ändra and not som ändrar?

Both som kan ändra and som ändrar are grammatically possible, but they have slightly different nuances:

som kan ändra en hel dag
– that can change a whole day
Focus on possibility/ability. It says that this kind of thought has the potential to change a whole day.
som ändrar en hel dag
– that changes a whole day
Sounds more like it always actually results in changing the day; more definite and “fact-like”.

Using kan softens it and expresses a general possibility, which fits the idea “a positive thought that can (potentially) change your whole day”.

Why is it en hel dag and not hela dagen?

Both exist, but they mean slightly different things:

en hel dag – a whole day (indefinite, general)
- speaks about any day in general, not a specific day
- emphasizes the extent: the entire duration of a day
hela dagen – the whole day (definite, specific)
- refers to a particular day that both speaker and listener know about
- e.g. Jag jobbade hela dagen. – I worked the whole day (today / that day we’re talking about).

In this sentence, the idea is general: a thought that could change a whole day (any day), so en hel dag is the natural choice.

Why is there no article before dag in en hel dag, but there is en before hel?

The article en belongs to the whole noun phrase hel dag, not just hel. In Swedish, the usual pattern is:

article + adjective + noun

en lång dag – a long day
en bra bok – a good book
en hel dag – a whole day

So hel is just an adjective in its normal position; the phrase literally is “a whole day”. You never say en dag hel in this meaning.

What is the role of som in en dröm som började negativt?

Again, som is a relative pronoun:

en dröm som började negativt
= a dream that started out negative(ly)

Here som refers back to dröm and introduces a clause that tells you more about that dream. Swedish uses som both for who (people) and that/which (things):

en man som jag känner – a man who I know
en dröm som började negativt – a dream that started negative(ly)

Why is it började negativt and not började negativ?

Because negativt is used as an adverb here, describing how the dream began:

började negativt – began in a negative way / began negatively

In Swedish, many adjectives form an adverb by adding -t:

snabb (quick) → snabbt (quickly)
dålig (bad) → dåligt (badly)
negativ (negative) → negativt (negatively)

If you said drömmen var negativ, you would use the adjective form:

Drömmen var negativ. – The dream was negative.

But with börja you normally use an adverb:

Drömmen började positivt. – The dream started positively.
Drömmen började negativt. – The dream started negatively.

Why is började in the past tense when the rest of the sentence is in the present?

Swedish, like English, can mix present and past if that fits the meaning.

Han försöker fokusera … på … en dröm som började negativt.

försöker is present tense: what he is doing now (trying to focus).
började is past tense: when the dream began (at an earlier time, e.g. during the night).

English does the same:

He is trying to focus on a dream that started negative(ly).

So the tenses reflect different time frames: current effort (försöker) vs. how the dream originally was (började negativt).

Why is it en dröm and not drömmen?

en dröm is indefinite: a dream. It introduces the dream as a type or any dream in general:

en dröm som började negativt
= a dream (of the kind) that began negatively

If you said drömmen som började negativt, you would be talking about a specific, known dream:

drömmen som började negativt – the dream that began negatively (you know which one)

In this sentence, the focus is on the idea of such a dream, not one particular dream, so the indefinite form en dröm is natural.

Why is there no comma before eller in en hel dag eller en dröm?

In Swedish, as in English, you normally don’t use a comma between two items linked by och (and) or eller (or):

en kopp kaffe eller te – a cup of coffee or tea
en hel dag eller en dröm – a whole day or a dream

You would only use a comma if you had a longer list:

en hel dag, en dröm eller en natt – a whole day, a dream, or a night

Is the overall word order Han försöker fokusera på en positiv tanke … typical Swedish order?

Yes. The main clause follows the standard Subject – Verb – (Verb) – Object / Adverbials pattern:

Han (subject)
försöker (conjugated verb)
fokusera (infinitive verb)
på en positiv tanke … (prepositional phrase: focus on what?)

So the structure closely matches English:

Han försöker fokusera på …
He is trying to focus on …

Where Swedish differs more in word order is with adverbs in the “middle field” (like inte, alltid), but your sentence doesn’t have those, so it looks very similar to English.