Learn Hardcore Swedish: Vi betalar räkningen tillsammans på grund av att alla åt olika saker. - We pay the bill together because everyone ate different things.

Swedish usually uses the present tense for planned or scheduled future actions, especially when it’s clear from context that we’re talking about the future.

So Vi betalar räkningen… can mean:

“We pay the bill…” (general / habitual)
“We’re paying the bill…” (right now)
“We’re going to pay the bill…” (later today, after the meal, etc.)

If you want to make the future meaning more explicit, you can use ska:

Vi ska betala räkningen tillsammans… – “We are going to pay the bill together…”

Why is it räkningen and not just räkning?

Räkning is a common-gender noun (an en-word) meaning “bill / invoice”.

In this sentence we mean the specific bill for the meal, so we use the definite form:

en räkning – a bill
räkningen – the bill

Swedish usually attaches the definite article as an ending instead of using a separate word like the:

en bok → boken (a book → the book)
en stol → stolen (a chair → the chair)
en räkning → räkningen (a bill → the bill)

Why is there no för after betalar? In English we say “pay for the bill”.

In Swedish you normally don’t use a preposition after betala when you mention the thing you’re paying:

betala räkningen – pay the bill
betala hyran – pay the rent
betala notan – pay the tab

You only add för if you talk about what the payment is for in a more abstract way:

Jag betalar för maten. – I’m paying for the food.
Hon betalade för resan. – She paid for the trip.

Here we refer directly to the bill itself, so it’s simply betalar räkningen.

What’s the difference between räkning and nota for “bill”?

Both can mean a bill, but:

räkning – general word for a bill or invoice (electricity bill, phone bill, etc.), and also possible for a restaurant bill.
nota – more specifically the tab / bill in a bar or restaurant.

So in a restaurant you could say:

Vi betalar notan tillsammans. – We’ll pay the tab together.
Kan vi få notan, tack? – Can we get the bill, please?

Using räkningen in your sentence is still correct, just a bit more general-sounding.

Why do we say på grund av att and not just på grund av?

På grund av is a fixed expression meaning “because of / due to”. What comes after it decides the form:

på grund av + noun / noun phrase
- på grund av regnet – because of the rain
- på grund av det som hände – because of what happened
på grund av att + full clause (subject + verb)
- på grund av att alla åt olika saker – because everyone ate different things
- på grund av att tåget var försenat – because the train was delayed

So when a full sentence follows, you normally insert att after på grund av.
Just på grund av + clause without att (på grund av alla åt…) is incorrect.

Can I use eftersom instead of på grund av att? Do they mean the same thing?

They’re very close in meaning (“because”), but with a small difference in style:

eftersom – a conjunction, very common and neutral, used in both speech and writing.
- Vi betalar räkningen tillsammans eftersom alla åt olika saker.
på grund av att – literally “on the basis that”, a bit heavier/longer, often perceived as more formal or written style.

In many everyday contexts, eftersom (or för att) will sound more natural:

…eftersom alla åt olika saker.
…för att alla åt olika saker.

Your original på grund av att is correct, just a bit more formal-sounding.

Is på grund av att the same as för att? When should I use which?

Both can translate to “because”, but they have different typical uses:

för att
1. because:
  - Vi gick hem för att vi var trötta. – We went home because we were tired.
2. in order to (purpose):
  - Vi gick hem för att sova. – We went home to sleep.
på grund av att is only causal (“because / due to the fact that”) and more formal:
- Vi gick hem på grund av att vi var trötta. – We went home because (due to the fact that) we were tired.

In everyday speech, för att is more common.
Use på grund av att if you want a slightly more formal “due to the fact that” feeling, or to avoid the possible ambiguity of för att (“because” vs “in order to”).

Why is åt (past tense) used when betalar is present tense? Can you mix tenses like that?

Yes, you can mix tenses like that in Swedish (and in English). Each clause has its own time reference:

Vi betalar räkningen tillsammans – we are (now / generally) paying the bill together.
…på grund av att alla åt olika saker – because earlier everyone ate different things.

The eating happened before, so we use past tense åt. The paying is happening now or is a general rule, so we use betalar (present).

This is the same pattern as in English:
“We pay the bill together because everyone ate different things.”

What is the difference between tillsammans and phrases like var för sig or separat?

They describe how the paying is done:

tillsammans – together, as one shared action
- Vi betalar räkningen tillsammans. – We pay the bill together (one joint payment).
var för sig – each separately, one by one
- Vi betalar räkningen var för sig. – We each pay our part separately.
separat – separately (more formal/neutral adverb)
- Vi betalar separat. – We pay separately.

So your sentence means they are paying as one group (even if the reason is that they ate different things). If you wanted to emphasize separate payments, you’d use var för sig or separat instead of tillsammans.

Is the word order Vi betalar räkningen tillsammans fixed, or can I move tillsammans?

You have some flexibility, but not all positions sound equally natural. Common options:

Vi betalar räkningen tillsammans. – most natural, neutral.
Vi betalar tillsammans räkningen. – possible, but sounds a bit marked; tillsammans is more often placed near the end.

General rule of thumb in main clauses:

Subject: Vi
Finite verb: betalar
Object: räkningen
Manner adverb: tillsammans

So your original order is the preferred, “default” option.

Why is it alla åt olika saker and not something like alla åt olika sak?

Olika (“different”) in this sense normally goes with a plural noun, because you’re talking about several different things:

olika saker – different things
olika rätter – different dishes
olika böcker – different books

Sak is the singular form (“thing”), so olika sak sounds wrong here. You want “different things” → olika saker.

Also note:

alla åt olika saker – everyone ate different things (from each other).

Could I say alla åt något annat instead of alla åt olika saker? Is there a difference?

You can, but the nuance changes slightly:

alla åt olika saker – literally “everyone ate different things”;
it emphasizes that each person’s food was not the same as the others’.
alla åt något annat – “everyone ate something else”;
this is a bit vaguer; it can mean “everyone ate something different than expected / than offered / than someone else”, depending on context.

If you want to stress each person had a different dish, alla åt olika saker is clearer and more direct.

What exactly does olika mean here, and is it interchangeable with annorlunda?

Both relate to “different”, but they’re used differently:

olika – not the same (often comparing several items/people):
- olika saker – different things (from each other)
- de har olika jobb – they have different jobs
annorlunda – different in the sense of unusual / in another way, often compared to a norm:
- Det här är annorlunda. – This is different (from what we’re used to).
- Hon tänker annorlunda. – She thinks differently.

In your sentence you’re comparing what each person ate, so olika is the natural choice:
alla åt olika saker – everyone ate different things (from one another).
Using annorlunda saker would suggest the things themselves are “unusual” or “not like other things”, which is not the intended meaning here.