Learn Hardcore Swedish: Imorgon kommer hon att ha på sig en röd klänning på jobbet, vilket gör henne lite nervös. - Tomorrow she is going to wear a red dress at work, which makes her a little nervous.

Imorgon kommer hon att ha på sig …
The time expression Imorgon is put first for emphasis: Tomorrow is the important part. This is very common in Swedish: you can front an adverbial (time, place, etc.) and then you must follow the V2 rule (the finite verb in second position), so you get:
- Imorgon (1st) kommer (2nd) hon (3rd) …
Hon kommer att ha på sig en röd klänning på jobbet imorgon.
This is also correct and perhaps the most neutral order in everyday speech.

So both are fine; starting with Imorgon just highlights when it happens.

Why is kommer att used for the future? Could I just use the present tense instead?

Swedish doesn’t have a special future tense the way English does; it usually uses:

Presens (present tense) for scheduled or very certain events
- Imorgon *jobbar hon.* = Tomorrow she works / She’s working tomorrow.
ska + infinitive for intentions, plans, promises
- Imorgon *ska hon ha på sig en röd klänning.* = Tomorrow she is going to wear…
kommer att + infinitive for neutral predictions about the future
- Imorgon *kommer hon att ha på sig en röd klänning.*
  This feels like a factual prediction or statement about what will happen.

You could say:

Imorgon har hon på sig en röd klänning.
Grammatically OK, but it sounds a bit less natural here; for clothing tomorrow, ska or kommer att is more idiomatic.

So kommer att here is a neutral, common way to talk about what will happen in the future.

Can I drop att and say Imorgon kommer hon ha på sig…?

In spoken Swedish, many people do drop att after kommer:

Imorgon kommer hon ha på sig en röd klänning…

This is very common in informal speech and in casual writing. However:

In careful written Swedish, especially in more formal contexts, you normally keep att:
- Imorgon kommer hon *att ha på sig…*

So:

Informal: dropping att is fine.
Formal / textbook Swedish: keep att.

What does ha på sig literally mean, and why not just ha?

ha på sig is a fixed expression meaning “to wear (clothes)”.

Literally:

ha = to have
på = on
sig = oneself (reflexive pronoun)

So literally it resembles English “have on oneself”, which is close to “have on / wear”.

You can’t normally use just ha for clothes:

✗ Imorgon kommer hon att ha en röd klänning
This can be understood, but more as “have/own a red dress” in some contexts, not clearly “be wearing”.

Instead use:

ha på sig: Imorgon kommer hon att ha på sig en röd klänning.
For short, in some contexts you can also use bära (“carry/wear”), but it’s more formal or written:
- Hon ska bära en röd klänning.

For everyday speech, ha på sig is the standard way to say “wear”.

Why is it på sig and not på henne?

sig is the reflexive pronoun for third person (he/she/they) and is used when the object refers back to the same person as the subject.

Subject: hon (she)
Object referring back to the same person: sig (herself)

So:

Hon har på *sig en röd klänning.* = She is wearing a red dress (on herself).

If you used på henne, it would usually refer to some other “her”, not the subject:

Hon lade handen på henne. = She put her hand on her (another woman).

Thus:

på sig → on herself (reflexive, same person as subject)
på henne → on her (some other female person)

Why is it en röd klänning and not ett röd klänning?

Swedish nouns have two grammatical genders:

en-words (common gender)
ett-words (neuter)

klänning (dress) is an en-word, so it takes the article en:

en klänning = a dress
klänningen = the dress

The adjective röd (red) agrees with the gender and definiteness of the noun:

en röd klänning (indefinite, en-word, singular)
den röda klänningen (definite, en-word, singular)
ett rött hus (indefinite, ett-word: ett hus = a house)
det röda huset (definite, ett-word)

So en röd klänning is correct because klänning is an en-word.

What is the difference between en röd klänning and den röda klänningen?

The difference is indefinite vs definite:

en röd klänning = a red dress
- We don’t know which one; it’s not specific.
den röda klänningen = the red dress
- A specific dress that both speaker and listener can identify (for example, one you already talked about).

Form changes with definiteness:

Article: en → den
Noun: klänning → klänningen
Adjective: röd → röda

So:

Indefinite: en röd klänning
Definite: den röda klänningen

Why is it på jobbet and not something like i jobbet?

In Swedish, the usual phrase for “at work” (location) is:

på jobbet

Examples:

Jag är på jobbet. = I am at work.
Hon trivs på jobbet. = She enjoys being at work.

The preposition på is used with many fixed location phrases:

på skolan = at school
på banken = at the bank
på kontoret = at the office
på bio = at the cinema

i jobbet would be understood more like “in the work / in the job” and is used in different contexts (for example when talking about tasks in the job, not the physical place).

So for the meaning at work (place), på jobbet is the natural choice.

What does vilket refer to here, and why not som?

In …på jobbet, vilket gör henne lite nervös, the word vilket refers to the whole preceding situation, not just one noun.

That is:

“The fact that she will be wearing a red dress at work tomorrow makes her a little nervous.”

vilket (neuter singular relative pronoun) is used when:

It refers back to an entire clause or situation.

If you used som, it normally refers to a specific noun:

Den röda klänningen, *som hon köpte igår, är dyr.*
- “The red dress, which she bought yesterday, is expensive.”

Here, we are not just referring to “the dress” but to the whole event of wearing a red dress at work tomorrow, so vilket is appropriate.

Thus:

Whole idea/statement → vilket
Specific noun → usually som

Why is there a comma before vilket?

The comma marks that vilket gör henne lite nervös is a separate comment about the whole previous statement, not essential information about a single noun.

This is similar to English:

“..., which makes her a little nervous.”

In Swedish:

Non-essential, commenting relative clause → often separated by a comma:
- Imorgon kommer hon att ha på sig en röd klänning på jobbet, vilket gör henne lite nervös.

Without the comma, it would be less clear that this is an added comment on the whole situation. Using the comma is standard and helps readability.

Why is it gör henne and not gör hon?

Because henne is the object form of hon.

Swedish personal pronouns (singular, 3rd person, feminine):

Subject form: hon = she
Object form: henne = her

In vilket gör henne lite nervös:

vilket = “which” (the situation)
gör = makes
henne = her (object)
lite nervös = a little nervous (object complement)

So the structure is:

[Situation] makes [her] [a little nervous].

Using hon here would be incorrect, just like “which makes she a little nervous” is wrong in English.

Why is the adjective nervös and not something like nervöst or nervösa?

nervös is used here as a predicative adjective describing henne (her).

Predicate adjective agreement in Swedish:

Singular, one person/thing:
- hon är nervös (she is nervous)
- han är nervös (he is nervous)
- det är nervöst (it is nervous, neuter)
Plural:
- de är nervösa (they are nervous)

In this sentence:

henne refers to one person (singular, common gender), so:
- …gör henne lite nervös.

You would only use:

nervöst with a neuter singular subject (det är nervöst).
nervösa with plural (de är nervösa).

Is Imorgon correct, or should it be I morgon?

Both forms are accepted in modern Swedish:

imorgon
i morgon

Usage notes:

i morgon is more traditional and very correct in formal writing.
imorgon is extremely common in everyday writing and is accepted by many style guides today.

You can choose either, but be consistent. Many learners find imorgon easier, since it looks like one word, similar to English “tomorrow”.

Can lite nervös also mean “slightly anxious”, not only “a little nervous”?

Yes. Just like in English, nervös can cover a range from mild nervousness to a bit of anxiety, depending on context.

lite nervös = a little nervous / slightly anxious

It usually sounds fairly mild:

Not panic, not a serious anxiety disorder—more like normal anticipatory nervousness about something (like wearing something noticeable at work).