Learn Hardcore Swedish: Efterrätten var god, men när räkningen kommer ser hon att den var dyr. - The dessert was good, but when the bill comes she sees that it was expensive.

Tense: var vs är
- var = was (past of är = is)
- The sentence talks about something that already happened:
  Efterrätten var god = The dessert was good.
Adjective agreement: god vs gott
- efterrätt is an en-word (common gender).
- Predicative adjectives (after vara, bli, etc.) agree with gender:
  - en efterrätt → efterrätten var god
  - ett vin → vinet var gott

So:

var because it’s past,
god because efterrätt is an en-word.

Why is the second part in the present tense: när räkningen kommer ser hon... even though it started with var (past)?

Swedish, like English, can mix tenses in a sentence depending on what time you’re talking about.

Efterrätten var god – a completed situation in the past.
när räkningen kommer ser hon... – the moment when she gets the bill and reacts; this is told in a kind of “dramatic” or narrative present, as if you’re watching it happen.

This is similar to English:

The dessert was good, but when the bill comes she sees that it was expensive.

You could also put everything in the past:

Efterrätten var god, men när räkningen kom såg hon att den var dyr.
= The dessert was good, but when the bill came she saw that it was expensive.

So the present here is a stylistic choice: it makes the reaction feel more immediate and vivid.

Why is it när räkningen kommer ser hon and not när räkningen kommer hon ser?

This is the Swedish V2 rule (verb-second word order) in main clauses.

Think of när räkningen kommer as one big introductory element. After that element, the finite verb of the main clause must be in second position:

När räkningen kommer | ser hon att …
- 1st element: the whole clause när räkningen kommer
- 2nd element: the verb ser
- 3rd element: the subject hon

Compare:

Idag ser hon filmen. (Today sees she the movie.)
- You can’t say Idag hon ser filmen.

So när räkningen kommer ser hon... is correct V2 word order;
när räkningen kommer hon ser... breaks the V2 rule.

What exactly does räkningen mean here, and why the form räkningen?

räkning can mean:

a bill (e.g. restaurant bill, phone bill)
a calculation (in math/finance), depending on context

In this sentence, the context is clearly a restaurant bill.

Forms:

en räkning = a bill
räkningen = the bill (definite, singular)
räkningar = bills (plural, indefinite)
räkningarna = the bills (definite, plural)

So räkningen = the bill.

In ser hon att den var dyr, what does den refer to, and why den, not det?

den is a pronoun referring back to efterrätten (the dessert).

efterrätt is an en-word (common gender).
The singular pronoun for an en-word is den (not det, which is for ett-words).

So:

efterrätten var god … den var dyr.
= the dessert was good … it was expensive.

If it referred to an ett-word, you’d use det:

vinet var gott … det var dyrt.
(the wine was good … it was expensive.)

Why is it dyr and not dyrt or dyra in den var dyr?

Again, adjective agreement:

dyr – common gender singular form (for en-words)
dyrt – neuter singular form (for ett-words)
dyra – plural form (and also used in definite plurals and with some determiners)

Since den refers to efterrätten (an en-word), you use dyr:

den var dyr = it was expensive (one en-word thing)
Compare:
- vinet var dyrt (the wine was expensive; ett-word)
- efterrätterna var dyra (the desserts were expensive; plural)

Why is there an att in ser hon att den var dyr, and could you leave it out?

att here is a subordinating conjunction, similar to English that in:

she sees *that it was expensive.*

Swedish prefers to keep att in this kind of sentence, especially in writing:

Hon ser att den var dyr. = natural and standard.

Leaving it out is not as common or natural here. In everyday speech, att can be dropped sometimes, especially with very frequent verbs like säga (say), tycka (think), etc.:

Jag tror (att) han kommer.

But in this exact sentence, att sounds very normal and is normally included.

Why is the last part den var dyr in the past, even though ser is in the present?

The tenses reflect different time relations:

ser hon – she sees this now (narrative present at the moment the bill comes).
den var dyr – the price of the dessert was already fixed before she sees it. It’s a fact about the past event (her ordering/eating).

English does the same:

She sees that it *was expensive.*

You could also use present in Swedish if you treat the price as a present fact:

…ser hon att den är dyr.

But var dyr emphasizes that this is about what it cost on that occasion, a completed past event, which fits well with efterrätten var god earlier.

Why is there a comma only before men: Efterrätten var god, men när räkningen kommer ser hon...?

Two main points about Swedish comma rules here:

Comma before men
- Swedish normally puts a comma before coordinating conjunctions like men (but) when they join main clauses:
  - Efterrätten var god, men …
No required comma before a när-clause
- The clause när räkningen kommer is an adverbial clause inside the second main clause.
- Modern Swedish usually does not require a comma before such a clause when it comes in the middle:
  - … men när räkningen kommer ser hon …
- You may add a comma for clarity or pause in some styles, but it’s not necessary here.

So the comma before men marks the boundary between the two main clauses;
no extra comma is needed before när räkningen kommer.