Learn Hardcore Swedish: Hon skrattar och säger att hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon redan är snygga. - She laughs and says that his natural hair and brown eyes are already good-looking.

Hon skrattar och hon säger… – this would sound like you’re stressing that she is both laughing and speaking (maybe in contrast to someone else).

What is the function of att in säger att hans naturliga hår…? Can it be left out like English that?

Here att is a conjunction meaning that, introducing a subordinate clause:

Hon säger att hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon redan är snygga.
= She says that his natural hair and brown eyes are already good‑looking.

Unlike English, in this kind of sentence you normally cannot drop att in standard Swedish.
English: She says (that) his hair is nice.
Swedish: Hon säger att hans hår är fint.
✗ Hon säger hans hår är fint. (wrong in standard Swedish)

What is the difference between han and hans?

han = he (subject form)
- Han skrattar. – He is laughing.
hans = his (possessive form, not changing with gender/number of the noun)
- hans hår, hans ögon, hans bil, hans hus

So in the sentence, hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon means his natural hair and brown eyes.

Why is it hans and not sin/sitt/sina?

Swedish has two kinds of third-person possessives:

hans / hennes / deras – his / her / their, can refer to someone else or to the subject
sin / sitt / sina – reflexive his/her/their own, must refer back to the grammatical subject of the clause

In your sentence:

Hon is the subject, and hans refers to some man, not to hon herself.

If we used sin/sitt/sina, it would have to refer back to hon, which is wrong here because the hair and eyes belong to him, not to her.

Correct:

Hon skrattar och säger att hans naturliga hår… – She talks about his hair.

If the subject and owner were the same man:

Han skrattar och säger att hans hår är snyggt. (ambiguous – could be his own or another man’s)
Han skrattar och säger att sitt hår är snyggt. (unambiguously: his own hair)

Why is it naturliga hår and not naturligt hår?

This is a combination of two rules:

Hår (hair) as a mass noun is an ett‑word: ett hår.
After a possessive pronoun like hans, adjectives take the definite form (‑a), not the simple ‑t neuter form.

Compare:

ett naturligt hår – a natural hair (rare, refers to a single strand or theoretical hair)
naturligt hår – natural hair (no article, general)
hans naturliga hår – his natural hair (with possessive → adjective takes the ‑a form)

So with a possessive (hans, mitt, ditt, etc.), you say:

mitt långa hår, hennes korta hår, deras blonda hår, hans naturliga hår

Why is there no article before hans naturliga hår or bruna ögon?

Possessives in Swedish (like hans, min, din) replace the article. You don’t add en/ett or the definite suffix when a possessive is used:

en bil – a car
bilen – the car
hans bil – his car (not ✗ hans en bil, ✗ hans bilen)

Same with the noun phrase:

hans naturliga hår – his natural hair
hans bruna ögon – his brown eyes

So the structure is: [possessive] + [adjective] + [noun], without an extra article.

Why is hår singular but ögon is plural? Don’t we usually talk about hair in plural?

Swedish and English differ here:

hår is usually treated as a mass noun in Swedish, like hair in English:
- hans hår – his hair (in general, all of it)
ett hårstrå – a (single) hair, a hair strand

Öga (eye) behaves more like English:

ett öga – one eye
två ögon – two eyes
bruna ögon – brown eyes

So hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon is literally his natural hair and brown eyes:
hair = mass singular, eyes = regular plural.

Why is it bruna ögon and not brunt ögon or brun ögon?

Because ögon is the indefinite plural of ett öga, and adjectives must agree in number:

Singular: ett brunt öga – a brown eye
Plural: bruna ögon – brown eyes

Patterns:

en brun bil → bruna bilar
ett brunt hus → bruna hus
ett brunt öga → bruna ögon

So for plural indefinite nouns, you use the ‑a form of the adjective: bruna.

Why is it redan är snygga instead of är redan snygga?

Both word orders are possible in this subordinate clause, but they differ slightly in emphasis:

… att hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon redan är snygga.
– More neutral; redan (already) is placed before the verb.
… att hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon är redan snygga.
– Grammatically possible, but sounds a bit marked or emphasised; it can stress är redan together.

The very common, neutral placement in Swedish is:

In main clauses: De är redan snygga.
In subordinate clauses (after att, eftersom, etc.): … att de redan är snygga.

So the sentence is using the most natural word order.

Why is snygga plural here? Why not snygg or snyggt?

The subject of the verb är is a compound plural phrase:

hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon
= (his hair) and (his eyes) → together they form a plural subject.

In Swedish, the predicative adjective after är agrees with the subject in number:

Håret är snyggt. – The hair is good‑looking. (singular, ett‑word → snyggt)
Ögonen är snygga. – The eyes are good‑looking. (plural → snygga)
Hans hår och ögon är snygga. – His hair and eyes are good‑looking. (plural subject → snygga)

So snygga matches the plural subject hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon.

Could you replace snygga with vackra or fina? Do they mean the same?

All of these are positive, but with slightly different nuances:

snygg / snygga
- Often about attractiveness, looks, style; common in spoken language.
- Han är snygg. – He’s good‑looking.
- snygga kläder – stylish/attractive clothes.
vacker / vackra
- More poetic or formal, often about beauty in a somewhat elevated sense.
- vackra ögon – beautiful eyes.
- Sounds a bit more “literary” than snygga.
fin / fina
- Very common, quite neutral and flexible: nice, pretty, good, fine.
- fint väder – nice weather.
- fina ögon – nice/pretty eyes.

So you could say:

…hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon redan är vackra.
…hans naturliga hår och bruna ögon redan är fina.

Both are correct; they just carry slightly different stylistic or emotional tones.