Learn Hardcore Swedish: När jag kokar pasta glömmer jag ibland tiden och bränner såsen, så jag måste vara mer ordentlig. - When I boil pasta I sometimes forget the time and burn the sauce, so I have to be more careful.

The whole phrase “När jag kokar pasta” is one element (a subordinate clause placed first).
After that, the finite verb of the main clause must come: glömmer.
Then comes the subject: jag.

So:

När jag kokar pasta glömmer jag ibland tiden …
= [När jag kokar pasta] (1st position) + glömmer (2nd) + jag (3rd)

You cannot say “När jag kokar pasta jag glömmer …” in Swedish; that breaks the V2 rule.

Why is there no comma after “När jag kokar pasta”? In English we would write one.

Modern Swedish punctuation often omits the comma between a short initial subordinate clause and the following main clause.

Both are correct in many contexts:
- När jag kokar pasta glömmer jag ibland tiden …
- När jag kokar pasta, glömmer jag ibland tiden …

In everyday Swedish, it’s very common to skip the comma here, especially when the clause is short and the sentence is easy to read. So the version without the comma looks completely natural.

Why do you say “koka pasta” and not “laga pasta”? Aren’t both “to cook”?

Both koka and laga (mat) relate to cooking, but they’re used differently:

koka = to boil something in water
- koka pasta, koka potatis, koka ris, koka kaffe
laga mat = to cook / prepare food (more general)
- Jag ska laga middag – I’m going to cook dinner.

You can say laga pasta, but it usually means “make a pasta dish” (including sauce, etc.).
Here, we’re specifically talking about boiling pasta, so koka pasta is the natural choice.

Why is there no article before “pasta”? Why not “kokar jag en pasta” or “kokar jag pastan”?

In Swedish, many food words are mass nouns and are used without an article when speaking in general:

Jag äter kött. – I eat meat.
Hon dricker kaffe. – She drinks coffee.
Vi kokar pasta. – We cook (boil) pasta.

You only use a definite form when it is a specific, known portion:

Jag kokar pastan nu. – I’m boiling the pasta (that we already talked about).

Saying “en pasta” usually means “a pasta dish” on a menu (like “a pasta meal”), not just the raw pasta being boiled.

Why is it “tiden” and not just “tid” in “glömmer jag ibland tiden”?

Tid = time (in general)
Tiden = the time (definite form)

The expression “glömma tiden” is idiomatic Swedish and means:

“lose track of the time”
literally: “forget the time”

So:

Jag glömmer ibland tiden. – I sometimes lose track of the time.

Using bare tid here (glömmer jag ibland tid) is not idiomatic and sounds wrong.

Can “ibland” go in other places, like “ibland glömmer jag tiden”? Does the meaning change?

Yes, ibland is flexible. All of these are grammatically correct:

Jag glömmer ibland tiden.
Ibland glömmer jag tiden.
Jag glömmer tiden ibland.

Nuances:

Ibland glömmer jag tiden. – Slight emphasis on sometimes (frequency is in focus).
Jag glömmer ibland tiden. – Neutral, very common; adverb inside the clause.
Jag glömmer tiden ibland. – Also OK; ibland sounds more like an afterthought.

In the original, “glömmer jag ibland tiden”, ibland comes after the verb and before the object, which is a natural spot for frequency adverbs.

Why isn’t “jag” repeated before “bränner såsen”? Why not “glömmer jag ibland tiden och jag bränner såsen”?

In Swedish, when two verbs share the same subject, you usually don’t repeat the subject:

Jag glömmer tiden och bränner såsen.
(not Jag glömmer tiden och jag bränner såsen in normal speech)

In your sentence:

glömmer jag ibland tiden och bränner såsen

The subject jag clearly belongs to both glömmer and bränner, so it only needs to be said once. Repeating jag here would sound heavy and unnatural unless you want special emphasis.

What exactly does “bränner såsen” mean? Is it like “burn myself” or “the sauce gets burnt”?

The verb bränna is transitive here: you are burning something.

bränna något – to burn something
- Jag bränner såsen. – I burn the sauce.
- Han brände brödet. – He burned the bread.

Other related forms:

bränna sig – to burn oneself
- Jag brände mig på spisen. – I burned myself on the stove.
såsen bränner fast / bränner vid – the sauce burns on / sticks and burns
- Såsen brände fast i kastrullen.

So “bränner såsen” means “(I) burn the sauce”, i.e. I let it burn.

What does “så” mean in “…bränner såsen, så jag måste vara mer ordentlig”? Is it like “therefore” or “so that”?

Here, så is a coordinating conjunction meaning “so / therefore / as a result”:

…, så jag måste vara mer ordentlig.
– “…, so I have to be more careful.”

Compare:

så (as here) – “so / therefore”: result
så att – “so that”: can express purpose or result
- Jag ställer en timer så att jag inte glömmer tiden.
därför att – “because”: introduces a reason
- Jag bränner ofta såsen därför att jag glömmer tiden.

The comma before så is common because it links two main clauses, but in modern Swedish you’ll also see it without a comma:
… bränner såsen så jag måste vara mer ordentlig.

What does “ordentlig” mean here? Is “mer ordentlig” like “more proper”?

Ordentlig is a bit tricky; its meaning depends on context. Common senses:

Neat / tidy / orderly
- ett ordentligt rum – a tidy room
Careful / conscientious / thorough
- Var ordentlig med läxorna. – Be diligent with your homework.
Real / proper (in size/degree)
- en ordentlig frukost – a proper, substantial breakfast

In your sentence:

… så jag måste vara mer ordentlig.

It means “more careful / more disciplined / more conscientious” about what you’re doing (watching the time, stirring the sauce, etc.).
Translating it literally as “more proper” would sound odd in English; “more careful” or “more organized” is better.