Learn Hardcore Swedish: De vill hitta en kompromiss så att vänskapen känns starkare. - They want to find a compromise so that the friendship feels stronger.

De = they (subject):
- De vill hitta en kompromiss. → They want to find a compromise.
Dem = them (object):
- Vi vill hjälpa dem. → We want to help them.

In spoken Swedish, both are often pronounced dom, but in writing de is used as the subject and dem as the object.

Why is it vill hitta and not just vill or just hitta?

In Swedish, vill works like want to in English and is followed by an infinitive verb without att:

vill hitta = want to find

You normally need a main verb after vill:

De vill hitta en kompromiss. → They want to find a compromise.
De vill resa. → They want to travel.

Just vill on its own would feel incomplete, like saying They want… and not finishing the sentence.
Just hitta en kompromiss would mean find a compromise (an imperative or bare infinitive), not want to find a compromise.

Why is it en kompromiss and not ett kompromiss?

Swedish nouns belong to two genders: en-words (common gender) and ett-words (neuter).

kompromiss is an en-word, so you say:
- en kompromiss (indefinite singular)
- kompromissen (definite singular)
- kompromisser (indefinite plural)
- kompromisserna (definite plural)

You simply have to memorize the gender with each noun; there’s no reliable rule that tells you in advance that kompromiss is an en-word.

What does så att do here, and how is it different from just så?

In this sentence, så att introduces a result or purpose clause:
…så att vänskapen känns starkare. → …so that the friendship feels stronger.

så att = so that, in such a way that (introduces a subordinate clause with a verb)
- Vi pratar öppet så att vi förstår varandra bättre.
  We talk openly so that we understand each other better.
så on its own is more like so / that … in degree:
- Vänskapen känns så stark. → The friendship feels so strong.
- Det är så bra. → It is so good.

You normally need så att when you’re linking to a full clause with a subject and a verb (here: vänskapen känns starkare).

Could you say för att instead of så att here? What’s the difference?

You could say:

De vill hitta en kompromiss för att vänskapen ska kännas starkare.

But notice:

With för att (to express purpose), Swedish usually adds ska or ska kunna (will/shall, can) in the second clause:
- för att vänskapen ska kännas starkare
  so that the friendship will feel stronger / in order for the friendship to feel stronger

så att can express either:

result (more neutral, often with present tense as in the original sentence), or
purpose (sometimes with ska as well).

Original:

…så att vänskapen känns starkare.
Neutral: their compromise leads to the friendship feeling stronger.

With för att + ska, you highlight the intention more clearly.

Why is it vänskapen and not just vänskap?

Vänskap is friendship in general (the concept).
Vänskapen is the friendship, a specific, known friendship (usually their friendship).

vänskap (indefinite):
- Vänskap är viktigt. → Friendship is important.
vänskapen (definite):
- De vill att vänskapen ska kännas starkare. → They want the friendship to feel stronger.

Here, vänskapen indicates their particular friendship that both speaker and listener know about, not just friendship as an abstract idea.

Why is it känns and not känner or är?

These verbs behave differently:

känna = to feel (someone/something, or to feel something internally)
- Jag känner dig. → I know you.
- Jag känner glädje. → I feel joy.
kännas (with -s) = to feel, to seem (how something feels to someone, often passive-like)
- Det känns bra. → It feels good.
- Vänskapen känns stark. → The friendship feels strong.
vara (är) = to be
- Vänskapen är stark. → The friendship is strong.

Using känns focuses on the experienced or perceived quality:

vänskapen känns starkare = the friendship feels stronger (to them)
This is more subjective and emotional than vänskapen är starkare (is stronger), which sounds more objective or factual.

What form is starkare, and why not just stark?

starkare is the comparative form of the adjective stark (strong).

Positive: stark → strong
- Vänskapen känns stark. → The friendship feels strong.
Comparative: starkare → stronger
- Vänskapen känns starkare. → The friendship feels stronger.
Superlative: starkast → strongest
- Vänskapen känns starkast nu. → The friendship feels strongest now.

They want the friendship to become stronger than it is now, so the comparative (starkare) is natural here.

Is the word order De vill hitta en kompromiss så att vänskapen känns starkare fixed, or can I move parts around?

The given order is the most natural, but some movement is possible as long as you respect Swedish word order rules.

Main idea:

Main clause first, then the så att clause:
- De vill hitta en kompromiss så att vänskapen känns starkare.

You can front the subordinate clause for emphasis:

Så att vänskapen känns starkare vill de hitta en kompromiss.

This is grammatically correct but more marked and slightly formal/literary.
Note: In the main clause (after fronting), Swedish still uses V2 word order (the conjugated verb, here vill, must be in second position: så att vänskapen känns starkare | vill | de hitta en kompromiss).

How is De vill hitta en kompromiss så att vänskapen känns starkare pronounced in normal spoken Swedish?

In everyday speech, it often sounds like:

Dom vill hitta en kompromiss så att vänskapen känns starkare.

Some details:

De is usually pronounced dom.
vill – like English vill (short i).
hitta – hi like in hit, double t shortens the vowel: HIT-ta.
en – often reduced, almost like n.
kompromiss – KOM-pro-miss, stress on kom and slight stress on miss.
så – long open o: like saw but longer and more rounded.
att – usually weak, almost like at with very short vowel.
vänskapen – vän with Swedish ä (like e in bed, but longer), stress usually on vän: VÄN-ska-pen.
känns – kän with ä, final -s pronounced.
starkare – STAR-ka-re, stress on star, a like in English car but shorter.

Prosodically it flows with two main emphasis peaks: kompromiss and starkare.

Is this sentence formal, informal, or neutral in style?

It is neutral. All words are standard, everyday Swedish.

Could appear in conversation, in writing, or in a textbook.
Not slangy, not particularly formal.

In very casual speech, people might say dom instead of de out loud, but in writing this standard version is neutral and correct.

Is kompromiss used in Swedish in the same way as compromise in English, or are there any differences?

kompromiss is very close in meaning and usage to English compromise:

att göra en kompromiss / att kompromissa = to make a compromise / to compromise
en bra/dålig kompromiss = a good/bad compromise

Examples:

Vi måste hitta en kompromiss.
We have to find a compromise.
De kompromissade för att båda skulle bli nöjda.
They compromised so that both would be satisfied.

Nuance: As in English, kompromiss can sometimes have a slightly negative flavour (giving up something), but often it’s neutral or positive, especially in relationships, politics, negotiation, etc.