Learn Hardcore Swedish: Nu är hon mer social och behöver inte låtsas vara någon annan. - Now she is more social and does not need to pretend to be someone else.

You can say Hon är nu mer social …, but that puts the verb second after the subject instead of after nu, and slightly changes the focus (more neutral or emphasizing her rather than the time).

Why is it “mer social” and not “socialare”?

Many Swedish adjectives form the comparative in two ways:

By adding -are:
- snäll → snällare (kind → kinder)
- billig → billigare (cheap → cheaper)
With mer before the adjective:
- intressant → mer intressant
- social → mer social

Adjectives of foreign origin, often longer or ending in -al, -ell, -isk, etc., commonly use mer:

normal → mer normal
social → mer social
professionell → mer professionell

You can sometimes hear socialare, but mer social is more standard and natural.

Why is it “behöver inte” and not “måste inte”? Do they mean the same thing?

Both relate to necessity, but they’re not identical:

behöver inte = doesn’t need to / no longer needs to
- Focus: the lack of necessity.
måste inte can mean doesn’t have to, but in everyday Swedish
- inte måste is often interpreted more like “is not obliged to / it’s not required”,
- and can sometimes be understood as a weaker or more context-dependent statement.

In this sentence, the idea is that she no longer needs to pretend, so:

behöver inte låtsas = the most natural choice.

You could say hon måste inte låtsas in some contexts, but here it would sound less idiomatic and slightly off in nuance.

Why does “låtsas” end in -s? Is it a passive verb or a reflexive form?

The -s ending in låtsas is not the passive voice here; it’s part of a deponent verb.

låtsas = “to pretend”
There is no separate active form låtsa in modern Swedish.
You do not add sig (låtsas sig) in this meaning.

So:

Hon låtsas = She pretends.
Hon låtsas vara någon annan = She pretends to be someone else.

The verb just happens to always include -s in its dictionary form.

Why is it “låtsas vara någon annan” and not “låtsas att vara någon annan”?

After låtsas, Swedish normally uses a bare infinitive (infinitive without att) when it directly describes what you pretend:

låtsas vara trött – pretend to be tired
låtsas sova – pretend to sleep
låtsas förstå – pretend to understand

So låtsas vara någon annan is the default, natural pattern.

You could see låtsas att man är någon annan in a slightly different structure:

Hon låtsas att hon är någon annan – She pretends (that) she is someone else.

Here, låtsas att introduces a subordinate clause, not an infinitive phrase.

What’s the difference between “någon annan” and just “annan”?

någon = “someone / anyone” (singular, common gender)
annan = “other / another”

Together:

någon annan = “someone else / another person”

If you only said annan (“other”), you’d usually need a noun:

en annan person – another person
någon annan already implies “someone (who is) other / else”.

So någon annan is the natural way to say “someone else” in this context.

Why is there no “hon” after “och”? Could I say “… och hon behöver inte …”?

The full version would be:

Nu är hon mer social och (hon) behöver inte låtsas vara någon annan.

Swedish allows omitting a repeated subject in coordinated clauses when it’s clearly the same:

Hon kom hem och (hon) somnade direkt.

So it’s perfectly natural to leave out hon and say:

Nu är hon mer social och behöver inte låtsas …

You can say och hon behöver inte låtsas …; it’s also correct. Including hon makes it a bit more explicit and can add a slight emphasis, but both are grammatical.

Why is “inte” placed after “behöver” and before “låtsas”?

Swedish places inte:

after the finite verb (here: behöver)
and before the infinitive (here: låtsas)

Basic pattern:

[subject] + [finite verb] + inte + [infinitive]

Examples:

Hon kan inte komma. – She can’t come.
Han vill inte gå. – He doesn’t want to go.
Hon behöver inte låtsas. – She doesn’t need to pretend.

If you put inte before behöver (e.g. Hon inte behöver låtsas), it’s ungrammatical in normal word order, except in some special emphatic or inverted structures.

Does “nu” here mean “right now” or “these days / now in general”?

Nu can mean either “right now” or “nowadays / at this stage in life”, depending on context.

In:

Nu är hon mer social och behöver inte låtsas vara någon annan.

it most naturally suggests a change over time:

Now / these days she is more social and doesn’t need to pretend to be someone else (anymore).

If you want to be very explicit about the “nowadays” meaning, you can also say:

Nu för tiden är hon mer social … – These days she is more social …

But plain nu already often carries that idea when contrasted with the past.

Could I say “Nu har hon blivit mer social” instead of “Nu är hon mer social”? What’s the difference?

Both are possible, but the nuance changes:

Nu är hon mer social …
- Focuses on her current state: “Now she is more social.”
- The fact that this is different from before is implied, but not grammatically highlighted.
Nu har hon blivit mer social …
- har blivit = “has become”
- Emphasizes the change or the process: “Now she has become more social.”

If you really want to stress that she has changed compared to before, har blivit is stronger. If you simply describe how she is now (with the change understood from context), är is fine and very natural.