Learn Hardcore Swedish: Han tycker att han ser ful ut i sin gamla kostym, men jag håller inte med. - He thinks he looks ugly in his old suit, but I don’t agree.

tycker = to be of the opinion (based on feelings/experience)
- Used for opinions, evaluations, and subjective judgments.
- Han tycker att han ser ful ut... = He thinks (feels, is of the opinion) that he looks ugly...
tror = to believe (think something is true, guess, assume)
- Used for beliefs, expectations, guesses about reality.
- Jag tror att han kommer. = I think / I believe he will come.
tänker = to think (mentally, to be thinking about something)
- Used for the mental process itself or for intend to.
- Jag tänker på dig. = I’m thinking of you.
- Jag tänker resa. = I intend to travel.

In this sentence, he is expressing a subjective opinion about his appearance, so tycker is the natural choice.

Why is att han ser ful ut used instead of just att ser ful ut? Why repeat han?

In Swedish, every clause needs its own subject; you cannot drop the subject like you sometimes can in English or some other languages.

Main clause: Han tycker (He thinks)
Subordinate clause: att han ser ful ut (that he looks ugly)

The second han is the subject of the subordinate clause. You can’t say:

✗ Han tycker att ser ful ut...

That would be grammatically wrong because the verb ser would have no subject inside that clause. So the repetition of han is required in Swedish.

Why is it att han ser ful ut and not att han är ful? What’s the difference?

Both are grammatically correct, but they mean slightly different things:

att han ser ful ut = that he looks ugly
- Focuses on appearance in this specific situation (e.g. in that suit, at that moment).
- Implies: He thinks his appearance (now) is ugly.
att han är ful = that he is ugly
- More general and more absolute, about him as a person, not just how he looks in the suit.
- Sounds harsher and more permanent.

In the given sentence, ser ful ut matches the context “in his old suit” — it’s about how he looks in that outfit, not about him being inherently ugly.

Why do we say ser ful ut and not just ser ful?

In Swedish, when you describe how something looks, you often use se ... ut:

se + adjective + ut = to look + adjective
- Han ser trött ut. = He looks tired.
- Hon ser glad ut. = She looks happy.
- Det ser konstigt ut. = It looks strange.

So:

Han ser ful ut. = He looks ugly.

Without ut, se is more literally “to see”:

Jag ser dig. = I see you.

Using se ful without ut is not idiomatic in this meaning. For look + adjective in Swedish, think se ... ut as a unit.

Why is the adjective ful and not fult or fula?

Ful is in the basic (common gender, singular, indefinite) form here because it’s used as a predicative adjective describing the subject han:

Subject: han (he) → treated as common gender singular
Predicative adjective: ful

General patterns:

Common gender singular: ful
Neuter singular: fult (e.g. ett fult hus – an ugly house)
Plural / definite: fula (e.g. de fula kläderna – the ugly clothes)

In Han ser ful ut, ful is describing han, so it stays in the basic form ful.

Who does sin refer to in i sin gamla kostym? Could it refer to jag?

Sin is the reflexive possessive pronoun. It refers back to the subject of the same clause where it appears.

In the sentence:

Subordinate clause: att han ser ful ut i sin gamla kostym
- Subject of this clause: han
- Possessive sin refers to this han.

So sin here means his own (suit), referring to the same han who ser ful ut.

It does not refer to jag, because jag is the subject of a different clause (men jag håller inte med). Reflexive pronouns don’t “jump out” of their own clause to refer to another subject.

Why is it sin gamla kostym and not hans gamla kostym?

Use sin/sitt/sina when the possessed thing belongs to the subject of the same clause. Use hans/hennes when it belongs to some other person, not that subject.

Here, the subject of the clause is han, and the suit belongs to that same han:

Han ser ful ut i sin gamla kostym.
→ He looks ugly in his own old suit.

If we said hans gamla kostym in this sentence, it would usually mean:

Han ser ful ut i hans gamla kostym.
→ He looks ugly in *his (another man’s) old suit.*

So:

sin = his own (reflexive to the subject of the clause)
hans = his (someone else’s, not the subject’s, or at least not automatically the subject’s)

Why is it sin gamla kostym and not sin gammal kostym?

This is about adjective forms with possessives.

When a noun has a possessive (like min, din, sin, vår, er, deras), Swedish uses:

Indefinite form of the noun
Definite form of the adjective (ending in -a for singular)

So:

Without possessive, indefinite: en gammal kostym (an old suit)
With definite article: den gamla kostymen (the old suit)
With possessive: sin gamla kostym (his own old suit)

Notice:

Noun: kostym → still in the indefinite form (no -en)
Adjective: gammal → changes to gamla because of the possessive

So sin gammal kostym would be ungrammatical; with possessives, you need gamla here.

Why is the preposition i used in i sin gamla kostym instead of på?

Swedish typically uses i (“in”) with clothes when you mean “wearing” or “dressed in”:

Han ser ful ut i sin gamla kostym.
= He looks ugly in his old suit / when wearing his old suit.

Other examples:

Hon ser fin ut i den klänningen. = She looks nice in that dress.
Han ser bra ut i glasögon. = He looks good in glasses.

You do see på with clothes in some expressions (e.g. ha något på sig – to have something on), but with se ... ut i to talk about appearance when wearing something, i is the normal preposition.

What does jag håller inte med literally mean, and why is med needed?

Hålla med (någon) is a fixed expression meaning “to agree (with someone)”.

Jag håller med (dig). = I agree (with you).
Jag håller inte med. = I don’t agree.

Literally, hålla med is something like “hold with,” similar to older English “I hold with that.” But in modern Swedish, it’s just the normal verb for agree.

The med is part of the verb phrase:

hålla med → agree
Negated: hålla inte med (after the V2 rule: verb in second position, inte after the verb)

You cannot drop med here; Jag håller inte alone doesn’t mean “I don’t agree”.

Why is the word order Jag håller inte med and not Jag inte håller med?

This follows the basic Swedish word-order rule called V2 (“verb second”):

The finite verb (here: håller) must be in the second position in a main clause.
The negation inte usually comes after that verb.

So:

Subject: Jag
Finite verb: håller (must be in 2nd position)
Negation: inte
Rest of the verb phrase: med

Correct:

✔ Jag håller inte med.

Incorrect:

✗ Jag inte håller med. (verb is no longer in second position)

Why is there a comma before men in Swedish, just like in English?

In Swedish, as in English, men (“but”) is a coordinating conjunction that links two main clauses:

Han tycker att han ser ful ut i sin gamla kostym
men jag håller inte med.

Swedish writing conventions normally put a comma before a coordinating conjunction when it joins two independent clauses (each with its own subject and verb), which is exactly the case here.

So:

..., men jag håller inte med.

This is very similar to English punctuation with “but” in this type of sentence.