Learn Hardcore Swedish: Föräldrarna tycker att tålamod är en viktig styrka hos ett barn. - The parents think that patience is an important strength in a child.

tycker att + clause = think that
- Föräldrarna tycker att tålamod är en viktig styrka…
  → The parents think that patience is an important strength…
tycker om + noun / verb = like
- Föräldrarna tycker om barn.
  → The parents like children.
- Jag tycker om att läsa.
  → I like to read.

So you use tycker att when you state an opinion about a whole sentence, and tycker om when you like something.

Why do we need att after tycker?

att here is a subordinating conjunction, equivalent to English “that” introducing a clause:

tycker att [tålamod är en viktig styrka hos ett barn]

Swedish usually keeps this att (that), where English often drops “that”:

Swedish: De tycker att tålamod är viktigt.
English: They think (that) patience is important.

Grammatically, you could omit att in some informal spoken Swedish, but in standard written Swedish you normally include it in such sentences.

Why is it Föräldrarna (the parents) and not just Föräldrar (parents)?

Föräldrarna is the definite plural form: “the parents”.

föräldrar = parents (indefinite plural)
föräldrarna = the parents (definite plural)

In English, we often say “Parents think that…” to talk about parents in general. Swedish tends to use either:

Föräldrar tycker att… → Parents think that… (parents in general)
Föräldrarna tycker att… → can mean the parents in this specific context, but also often works almost like a generic “the parents” in discussions about parents as a group.

In many contexts, both Föräldrar tycker att… and Föräldrarna tycker att… are possible, with föräldrarna sounding a bit more like we’re referring to a specific set of parents (e.g. the parents in this study, the parents we’re talking about).

Why is there no article before tålamod? Why not ett tålamod?

Tålamod (patience) is usually treated as an uncountable abstract noun, like “patience” in English:

English: Patience is an important strength. (no article)
Swedish: Tålamod är en viktig styrka. (no article)

You normally do not say ett tålamod in this general, abstract sense.
You might see ett stort tålamod (“a lot of patience / great patience”) in some contexts, but simple tålamod without article is the normal generic form.

So here, tålamod functions as “patience in general”, so no ett.

What gender is tålamod, and why don’t we see that in this sentence?

Tålamod is an ett-word (neuter noun):

ett tålamod

However, in the sentence:

Föräldrarna tycker att tålamod är en viktig styrka…

we don’t see any article or adjective directly attached to tålamod, so its gender never shows up.

Gender becomes visible if you add something like:

ett stort tålamod – a lot of / great patience
mycket tålamod – a lot of patience (no gender marking here either)

In this sentence, the adjective viktig agrees with styrka (which is an en-word) instead, not with tålamod.

Why is it en viktig styrka and not ett viktig styrka or viktigt styrka?

The key is the noun styrka:

styrka is an en-word: en styrka (a strength)

Adjectives in Swedish must agree with the gender and number of the noun:

en viktig styrka – an important strength (en-word, singular)
ett viktigt barn – an important child (ett-word, singular)
viktiga styrkor – important strengths (plural)

So:

en viktig styrka is correct (en-word, singular).
ett viktig styrka is wrong because styrka is not an ett-word.
viktigt styrka is also wrong, because viktigt is the ett-form of the adjective, and we need the en-form: viktig.

What is the difference between styrka and something like egenskap?

Both can work here, but they have slightly different nuances:

styrka = strength (often something positive, a strong point, a strong ability or character trait)
egenskap = quality / characteristic / trait (more neutral)

In this sentence:

en viktig styrka hos ett barn
→ an important strength in a child (sounds like a strong positive trait)

You could also say:

en viktig egenskap hos ett barn
→ an important quality/trait in a child (a bit more neutral, “trait” rather than specifically “strength”)

Both sentences are correct; styrka emphasizes that it’s a positive strength.

What does hos mean here, and why not say i ett barn or för ett barn?

Hos literally means “at / with / in (someone)”, but in this kind of phrase it is used to talk about characteristics that belong to a person (or group of people).

en viktig styrka hos ett barn
→ literally: an important strength *with a child
→ natural English: an important strength **in a child*

Use hos when you talk about qualities, traits, or conditions in a living being:

en vanlig egenskap hos barn – a common trait in children
symtom hos patienter – symptoms in patients

Why not i ett barn?

i ett barn would sound physical, like “inside a child” literally (inside the body), not as a mental or character trait.

Why not för ett barn?

för ett barn = for a child (for the child’s benefit, from the child’s perspective), which changes the meaning:
- En viktig styrka för ett barn = An important strength *for a child* (something that is advantageous for a child to have), which is possible but slightly different in nuance.

Hos ett barn focuses on the strength as a trait that the child possesses.

Why is it hos ett barn and not hos barn or hos barnen?

All three forms are possible, but they have slightly different meanings:

hos ett barn – in a child (a single child, generic)
- Generic singular: talking about “a child” in a general way.
- Very similar to English “in a child”.
hos barn – in children (children in general)
- Generic plural: typical of children.
- En viktig styrka hos barn = An important strength in children (generally).
hos barnen – in the children (some specific children already known from context)
- En viktig styrka hos barnen = An important strength in the children (those specific children we’re talking about).

In the original sentence, hos ett barn emphasizes a single child in a general, typical sense: in a child (any child). It’s a very common way to talk generically in Swedish.

How does the word order work in tycker att tålamod är en viktig styrka hos ett barn?

After att, we have a subordinate clause. In such a clause:

the subject usually comes before the verb,
we do not apply the V2 (verb-second) rule that main clauses often follow.

Compare:

Main clause: Tålamod är en viktig styrka hos ett barn.
- Subject: tålamod
- Verb: är

Inside the full sentence:

Föräldrarna tycker att tålamod är en viktig styrka hos ett barn.
- Main clause: Föräldrarna tycker
- Subordinate clause: att tålamod är en viktig styrka hos ett barn

We keep tålamod (subject) straight before är (verb), just like in English: that patience is an important strength…

Incorrect word order would be:

✗ att är tålamod en viktig styrka… (this would be wrong in Swedish)

Could I say Föräldrarna tycker att tålamod är viktigt hos ett barn instead? Is that correct?

Yes, that is grammatically correct, and it’s a very natural alternative.

Föräldrarna tycker att tålamod är viktigt hos ett barn.
→ The parents think that patience is important in a child.

Differences:

tålamod är en viktig styrka
- Treats “patience” as a strength (a countable positive trait).
tålamod är viktigt
- Just says that patience is important, without explicitly labeling it as a “strength”.

Both are good Swedish; the original is slightly more explicit about patience being a strength.

How do you pronounce Föräldrarna tycker att tålamod är en viktig styrka hos ett barn?

Very roughly, using English-like approximations (Swedish has sounds that don’t match perfectly):

Föräldrarna ≈ fuh-RELL-drar-na
- ö is like the vowel in British “bird” or German ö.
- Stress mainly on -RÄLD-: för-ÄLD-rar-na.
tycker ≈ TYK-ker
- y is a close front rounded vowel: similar to German ü; like saying “ee” with rounded lips.
- Double k gives a clear, short k sound.
att ≈ att (short “a”, like “u” in “cup” in some accents, very short).
tålamod ≈ TOH-la-mood
- å like the “aw” in “law”, but a bit shorter/tenser.
- Primary stress on tå: TÅ-la-mod.
är ≈ air (shorter), between “air” and “eh-r”.
en ≈ en.
viktig ≈ VIK-tig
- Short i (like “bit”), clear k.
- Stress on VIK.
styrka ≈ STYUR-ka
- y again like German ü.
- Stress on STYR.
hos ≈ hoos (like “hooss”).
ett ≈ ett (short e, like “e” in “get”).
barn ≈ barn
- Long a (like “father”), and a retroflex-ish rn in many accents.

Spoken smoothly, many syllables reduce slightly, but this should give you a workable guide.