Learn Hardcore Swedish: Den slarviga brodern steker ofta utan lock och lämnar stekpannan på spisen, vilket gör mamman nervös. - The careless brother often fries without a lid and leaves the frying pan on the stove, which makes Mom nervous.

In Swedish, adjectives normally take an -a ending when they come before a definite noun (or a noun with a determiner like den, det, de, or a possessive).

en slarvig bror – an careless brother (indefinite, common gender → basic form slarvig)
den slarviga brodern – the careless brother (definite → slarviga)

So the pattern is:

Indefinite singular:
- en‑word: en slarvig bror
- ett‑word: ett slarvigt barn
Plural or any definite / with determiner:
- slarviga bröder, de slarviga bröderna, min slarviga bror, den slarviga brodern

That’s why you need den slarviga brodern, not den slarvig brodern.

What is the difference between bror and brodern here?

Bror is the indefinite form (like brother), and brodern is the definite form (the brother).

For this noun, the forms look like this:

singular indefinite: en bror
singular definite: brodern
plural indefinite: bröder
plural definite: bröderna

So den slarviga brodern literally is the careless brother.
If you said en slarvig bror, it would be a careless brother instead, which doesn’t fit the context of a specific family member.

What exactly does steker mean, and why is this tense used?

Steker is the present tense of steka, which means to fry (in a pan, usually with fat/oil).

Swedish present tense covers both English simple present and present continuous:

Han steker potatis.
→ He fries potatoes. / He is frying potatoes.

In this sentence, steker ofta describes a habitual action: the brother often fries (or is often frying) without a lid. Swedish just uses the plain present steker for that.

Why is ofta placed after steker and not before, like in English “often fries”?

In a main clause, Swedish usually follows a verb‑second principle: the finite verb goes in second position, and common sentence adverbs like ofta, inte, alltid typically come after that verb.

So:

Den slarviga brodern steker ofta utan lock.
Subject (Den slarviga brodern) – verb (steker) – adverb (ofta) – rest.

Other possibilities:

Ofta steker den slarviga brodern utan lock. (Adverb first → verb still second)
Den slarviga brodern steker inte utan lock. (same pattern with inte)

But ✗ Den slarviga brodern ofta steker utan lock is ungrammatical, because the verb is no longer in the second position.

Why is it utan lock and not utan ett lock or utan locket?

The noun lock is an ett‑word:

ett lock – a lid
locket – the lid

After utan (without), Swedish often drops the indefinite article when we talk about something in a general / non-specific way:

utan lock – without (a) lid
utan bil – without a car
utan jobb – without a job

So:

utan lock = without any lid / with no lid on it (generic)
utan ett lock = grammatically possible, but sounds like “without a single lid”, with a bit of emphasis on one
utan locket = without the lid (a particular, known lid)

In this context, we mean that he generally fries with no lid, so utan lock is the natural choice.

Why are stekpannan and spisen in the definite form?

Both stekpanna and spis are en‑words:

en stekpanna → stekpannan (the frying pan)
en spis → spisen (the stove / cooker)

They are definite here because they refer to specific objects in the situation:

It’s the frying pan he just used.
It’s the stove in their kitchen.

Swedish uses the definite form whenever the speaker and listener can identify the specific object from context, similar to English the frying pan, the stove.

In contrast, the lid is not there at all, so we talk about it in a non-specific, generic way (utan lock).

Why is there no han before lämnar? Shouldn’t it be “och han lämnar stekpannan…”?

In both Swedish and English, if two verbs share the same subject, you can omit the subject for the second verb:

Den slarviga brodern steker ofta utan lock och lämnar stekpannan på spisen.
= The careless brother often fries without a lid and leaves the frying pan on the stove.

Adding han:

… och han lämnar stekpannan på spisen

is grammatically correct, but it adds a bit of extra emphasis or can sound slightly heavier. The most natural, neutral version here is to omit the repeated subject, as in the original sentence.

Why is there a comma before vilket?

The part starting with vilket is a separate clause that comments on the whole preceding situation (the brother’s bad habits). This is like a non‑restrictive relative clause in English (using which with a comma).

…, vilket gör mamman nervös.
→ “…, which makes the mother nervous.”

In Swedish, such commenting / explanatory clauses are usually separated by a comma:

Han glömde nycklarna, vilket var pinsamt.
Hon kom för sent, vilket chefen inte gillade.

So the comma marks that what follows is extra information about the entire previous statement, not a part that narrows down which brother we are talking about.

Why do we use vilket here instead of som?

Vilket here is a relative pronoun that refers to an entire preceding clause, not just one noun:

“The fact that he fries without a lid and leaves the pan on the stove”
→ vilket → “which makes the mother nervous.”

In Swedish:

som normally refers back to a specific noun:
- Mannen som bor där… – The man who lives there…
vilket (neuter) can refer back to an idea / whole statement:
- Han tappade telefonen, vilket gjorde honom arg.

You cannot just substitute som here without changing the structure; you would need something like:

…, något som gör mamman nervös. – “…, something that makes the mother nervous.”

So vilket is chosen because it points to the whole situation described earlier.

What is the word order logic in vilket gör mamman nervös?

Inside this relative clause:

vilket is the subject
gör is the finite verb
mamman is the object
nervös is a predicative adjective describing the object

So the order is simply:

Subject – Verb – Object – Predicative
vilket – gör – mamman – nervös

This is normal subordinate-clause word order in Swedish when the subject is first:

att han gör mamman nervös – that he makes the mother nervous
som gör mamman nervös – that/which makes the mother nervous
vilket gör mamman nervös – which makes the mother nervous

Why is it mamman and not just mamma?

Mamma is the indefinite form (mum / mom), and mamman is the definite form (the mum / the mother).

In Swedish, family roles are often used in the definite when talking about the particular family member in a given context:

Pappan jobbar sent. – The dad works late.
Barnen är trötta. – The children are tired.
Mamman blir nervös. – The mother gets nervous.

So mamman here means that specific mother in the story, probably their mother, in the same way English might say the mother or their mother in context.

How does the pattern gör mamman nervös work? Can I use this with other adjectives?

Yes. The structure is:

göra + someone + adjective = to make someone + adjective

In this sentence:

gör – makes
mamman – the person affected (object)
nervös – the resulting state (adjective)

You can use this with many adjectives:

Det gör mig glad. – That makes me happy.
Nyheterna gör honom arg. – The news makes him angry.
Värmen gör oss trötta. – The heat makes us tired.

Compare:

Mamman är nervös. – The mother is nervous.
Mamman blir nervös. – The mother becomes / gets nervous.
Det gör mamman nervös. – That makes the mother nervous.

The last one is exactly the pattern used in your sentence.