Learn Hardcore Swedish: De pratar om drömmen som de flyttade hit för, och försöker komma ihåg varför de ville förändra livet. - They talk about the dream that they moved here for, and try to remember why they wanted to change their life.

In this sentence, it’s clearly a specific, previously known dream: the one they actually moved for. That’s why the definite form drömmen is natural, just like in English:

They are talking about *the dream they moved here for
(not: *a dream they moved here for)

What is the function of som in drömmen som de flyttade hit för, and why is för at the end?

Som is a relative pronoun here, like that/which in English. The phrase:

drömmen som de flyttade hit för
= the dream (that) they moved here for

Som introduces a relative clause describing drömmen.

About för at the end: Swedish, like English, often allows “preposition stranding” in relative clauses:

drömmen som de flyttade hit för
≈ the dream that they moved here for

A more formal, but less common, alternative would be:

drömmen för vilken de flyttade hit
(the dream for which they moved here)

That version sounds quite stiff in everyday Swedish. The version in the sentence, with för at the end, is what people normally say.

Why is it flyttade hit and not something like flyttade här or flyttade till här?

Swedish distinguishes between:

här = here (location, being in a place)
hit = to here (direction, movement towards a place)

Since flytta (to move) is about movement, you need the directional word hit:

De flyttade hit = They moved (to) here.

Flyttade här would be wrong in this sense. It would sound like “they moved here (around)” as in “they were moving around while being here,” not “they moved to this place”.

You also don’t say till här; hit already includes the idea of “to here”, so till isn’t needed.

Why are some verbs in the present tense and some in the past: pratar, försöker vs. flyttade, ville?

Swedish uses a mix of tenses here for the same reasons English does:

De pratar … och försöker …
→ present tense: this is happening now – they are talking and trying.
som de flyttade hit för
→ past tense: the move happened before the current conversation.
varför de ville förändra livet
→ past tense: their desire (to change their life) is located in that earlier time, when they decided to move.

So the time structure is:

Past: They wanted to change life → they moved here.
Present: Now they talk about that dream and try to remember why they had that wish.

This is parallel to natural English:
They talk about the dream they moved here for and try to remember why they wanted to change their life.

What is the difference between pratar om and other verbs like talar om or diskuterar?

All of these can translate as “talk about”, but they differ in tone and usage:

pratar om
– very common, neutral, everyday speech
– like talk about or chat about
– De pratar om drömmen = They are talking about the dream.
talar om
– a bit more formal or neutral; can sound slightly more serious or careful
– often used in more formal speech or writing, but still common.
diskuterar
– means discuss, usually with some depth or back-and-forth; implies a more structured or analytical conversation
– De diskuterar drömmen = They are discussing the dream (more than just mentioning it).

In this sentence, pratar om fits well because the tone sounds like an ordinary conversation.

Why is it försöker komma ihåg and not something like försöker att komma ihåg or just minns?

There are two separate issues here:

Verb + infinitive without “att”
Some verbs in Swedish are normally followed directly by an infinitive, without att. Försöka (to try) is one of them:
- De försöker komma ihåg = They try to remember
- Not: försöker att komma ihåg (this sounds foreign or non‑standard here)
Other verbs that often drop att before an infinitive include vill, kan, ska, måste, bör, etc.
komma ihåg vs. minnas
Both mean to remember, but:
- komma ihåg = phrasal verb, very common in speech and writing, neutral
- minnas = a bit more formal or literary, and often used without an object (just remember in general)
So:
- De försöker komma ihåg varför … = very natural, everyday Swedish
- De försöker minnas varför … = also correct, but slightly more formal or stylistically different.

Why is there no att after ville in varför de ville förändra livet?

Vilja (to want) behaves like a modal verb in Swedish and is normally followed directly by an infinitive without att:

Jag vill gå. = I want to go.
De vill förstå. = They want to understand.
de ville förändra livet = they wanted to change (their) life

Using att here (ville att förändra) is ungrammatical in standard Swedish.

Compare with verbs that do take att:

De försökte att förstå. (here att is possible, though often dropped)
De bestämde sig för att förändra livet. (decided to change their life)

Why is it varför de ville förändra livet and not varför ville de förändra livet?

This is about word order in subordinate clauses.

Varför ville de förändra livet?
→ main clause (a direct question)
→ verb is in second position (V2), as usual in Swedish main clauses.
… varför de ville förändra livet.
→ subordinate clause, introduced by varför inside a larger sentence
→ Swedish subordinate clauses use subject–verb order, not V2.

So in subordinate clauses:

varför de ville … (correct)
varför ville de … (would sound like an embedded direct question, which is usually wrong in standard Swedish in this structure)

This pattern is the same with other question words in subordinate clauses:

Jag undrar varför de ville förändra livet.
(not: varför ville de)

Why is it livet and not sitt liv in varför de ville förändra livet?

Both are possible, but they have slightly different nuances.

förändra sitt liv
– literally change their own life
– sitt is a reflexive possessive referring back to the subject (de)
– this sounds very natural and explicit: it’s clearly their life they want to change.
förändra livet
– literally change the life
– here livet is used more like a general concept: “(their) life” as a whole situation or lifestyle
– context still makes it clear it’s their own life, so Swedish can omit the possessive.

In everyday speech, förändra sitt liv is extremely common and probably the most typical phrasing. förändra livet is also acceptable and can sound a bit more stylistic or general, as if talking about “life” as a big idea.

Why is there a comma before och in …, och försöker komma ihåg …? Is it required?

The comma before och here is optional and mostly a stylistic choice.

In Swedish:

You must use a comma between main clauses if there is no conjunction (like och, men, etc.).
When clauses are joined by och, using a comma is often optional and depends on rhythm, length, or emphasis.

Here, you have two main actions:

De pratar om drömmen …
(De) försöker komma ihåg …

You can write:

De pratar om drömmen som de flyttade hit för och försöker komma ihåg varför …
(no comma, perfectly fine)

De pratar om drömmen som de flyttade hit för, och försöker komma ihåg varför …
(comma, adds a small pause and can make the sentence slightly easier to read)

Both are correct; many writers would probably omit the comma in a short sentence like this.

Why is de used and not dom, even though I often hear dom when people speak?

In modern spoken Swedish, almost everyone says dom for both written de (they) and dem (them). But in standard writing:

de = subject form → they
dem = object form → them

In this sentence:

De pratar om drömmen … → de is the subject → they talk …
… som de flyttade hit för … → again subject → they moved here for …

So standard written Swedish uses de here.

If you write in a very informal, phonetic style (e.g. in text messages, dialogues, or on social media), you may see dom used for both de and dem:

Dom pratar om drömmen som dom flyttade hit för …

But in formal or neutral writing, de/dem is still the norm.