Learn Hardcore Swedish: I spegeln ser det ut som om klänningen är för lång, men den passar bra. - In the mirror it looks as if the dress is too long, but it fits well.

If you start with an adverbial (time, place, manner), like I spegeln (“in the mirror”), that counts as position 1.
Then the verb must come next (ser = “looks”), in position 2.
The subject or dummy subject (det) then comes after the verb.

So:

Neutral order: Det ser ut som om klänningen är för lång.
With fronted adverbial: I spegeln ser det ut som om klänningen är för lång.

This is why you get “I spegeln ser det …” instead of “I spegeln det ser …”, which would be ungrammatical in standard Swedish.

What does the expression “ser det ut” mean, and why do we need “det” there?

The core expression is “det ser ut (som…)”, which corresponds to English “it looks (as if…)”.

ser = “sees” / “looks” (present tense of se, “to see”)
ut is a particle here, not a separate “out” with its own meaning
det is a dummy subject (like English “it” in “it is raining” or “it seems that…”)

So:

Det ser ut som om klänningen är för lång
≈ “It looks as if the dress is too long.”

We’re not saying that some specific “thing” sees; Swedish just needs a formal subject det in this construction.

What is the role of “som om” here? Can I say just “som” or “att” instead?

“som om” means “as if / as though”.

som on its own is more like “that / which / who / as”, depending on context.
som om specifically introduces something hypothetical or seeming, not necessarily real.

Examples:

Det ser ut som om klänningen är för lång.
= “It looks as if the dress is too long.”

If you used just som:

Det ser ut som klänningen är för lång.
This is heard in spoken language, but som om is more standard and clearer.

Using att here would be wrong:

✗ Det ser ut att klänningen är för lång. (ungrammatical)
You can say Det verkar som att klänningen är för lång (“It seems that the dress is too long”), but that’s a different verb (verkar, “seems”) and a slightly different structure.

So in this particular sentence, “som om” is the natural, correct choice.

Why is it “klänningen” and not “klänning”, and why is there no separate word for “the”?

Swedish usually marks definiteness on the noun itself, not with a separate “the”.

en klänning = “a dress” (indefinite)
klänningen = “the dress” (definite: dress + -en)

So:

English: the dress
Swedish: klänning + en → klänningen

That’s why the sentence uses klänningen: it’s talking about a specific dress that is already known in the context. There is no separate word like “the”; instead, you get the -en ending.

What exactly does “för lång” mean, and why is “för” used here?

In this context, för before an adjective means “too” (in the sense of “excessively”).

lång = “long”
för lång = “too long”

So:

Klänningen är lång. = “The dress is long.” (neutral description)
Klänningen är för lång. = “The dress is too long.” (it’s longer than it should be)

This för + adjective pattern is very common:

för kort = too short
för stor = too big
för dyr = too expensive

Why do we say “den passar bra” and not something like “det passar bra”?

The pronoun referring back to klänningen must match its gender and number.

klänning is an en-word (common gender).
The corresponding 3rd person singular pronoun is den (for en-words).
det is used for ett-words (neuter) or as a dummy pronoun.

So:

klänningen … den passar bra. = “the dress … it fits well.”
If it were an ett-word, e.g. ett bord (a table), you’d say:
bordet … det passar bra.

So den here simply agrees with klänningen in grammatical gender.

What does “passar bra” mean exactly? Is it about size, style, or both?

Passa in clothing contexts usually means “to fit / to suit”.
Passar bra literally = “fits well”.

It can refer to:

Size/length: The dress is the right size or length.
Suitability/appearance: It suits the person; it looks good on them.

Context often decides which nuance is stronger. In this sentence, it contrasts with “är för lång”, so the idea is:

It looks too long in the mirror,
but actually it fits well overall.

You could add more detail if needed:

Den passar bra på mig. – “It fits me well.”
Den passar dig jättebra. – “It suits you very well.”

Why is there a comma before “men”? Is that always required?

Yes, in standard written Swedish you normally put a comma before “men” when it introduces a new clause that contrasts with the previous one.

…, men den passar bra. = “…, but it fits well.”

This is similar to English:

“It looks as if the dress is too long, but it fits well.”

In many other cases Swedish uses fewer commas than English, but before “men” joining two clauses, the comma is standard and expected.

Why is the word order “ser det ut som om klänningen är…” and not something like “ser det ut som om är klänningen…”?

There are two relevant rules:

Main clause V2 rule
- In the main clause: [I spegeln] ser det ut …
- Verb (ser) stays in second position.
Subordinate clause word order
- After som om, you get a subordinate clause:
  som om klänningen är för lång
- In subordinate clauses, Swedish does not use V2; it uses straight subject–verb order (S–V):
  - Subject: klänningen
  - Verb: är

So the correct order is:

… som om [klänningen] [är] för lång (S–V)

Putting är before klänningen (like “… som om är klänningen …”) would be wrong.

Why is it “i spegeln” and not “på spegeln”? What does “i” express here?

In this expression, i spegeln means “in the mirror” in the sense of “in the reflection”.

i = “in, inside (of)”
på = “on (the surface of)”

You would use:

i spegeln when you mean what you see in the mirror:
- I spegeln ser det ut som om … – “In the mirror it looks as if …”
på spegeln when you mean something on the surface of the physical mirror:
- Det är damm på spegeln. – “There is dust on the mirror.”

So i spegeln is the normal choice when talking about the image/reflection, as in this sentence.