Learn Hardcore Swedish: Hon vill veta vilka känslor barnet har när det gråter på kvällen. - She wants to know what feelings the child has when it cries in the evening.

Direct question: Vilka känslor har barnet?
(What feelings does the child have?)
→ Verb (har) comes right after the question word phrase (vilka känslor).
Indirect question (embedded after another verb):
Hon vill veta vilka känslor barnet har.
(She wants to know what feelings the child has.)
→ In the embedded clause barnet har, the order is subject + verb.

So:

Direct: Vilka känslor har barnet?
Embedded: … vilka känslor barnet har.

Using … vilka känslor har barnet inside the sentence would sound incorrect in Swedish, just like saying in English:
✗ She wants to know what feelings does the child have.

Why is it vilka and not vilken or vilket before känslor?

Vilka / vilken / vilket must agree with the number and gender of the noun:

Vilken – singular, common gender: vilken bok (which book)
Vilket – singular, neuter gender: vilket hus (which house)
Vilka – plural (for both genders): vilka böcker, vilka hus (which books / houses)

Here we have känslor (feelings) → plural, so we must use vilka:

vilka känslor = which/what feelings

You could also say:

vilken känsla = which (single) feeling
vilka känslor = which feelings (more than one)

Why is känslor in the indefinite plural, not känslorna?

In Swedish, when you use vilka (“which/what”) you normally follow it with an indefinite noun form, not the definite one:

vilka känslor (which feelings) – correct
✗ vilka känslorna – sounds wrong

The word vilka itself already gives a kind of “definiteness” (“these specific ones”), so you don’t add the definite ending -na on the noun.

Compare:

De där känslorna – those feelings (definite: we know which ones)
Vilka känslor? – which feelings? (indefinite form after vilka)

Why is it barnet and not just barn?

ett barn = a child (indefinite)
barnet = the child (definite)

In the sentence, English has “the child”, so Swedish uses the definite form barnet.

You could say Hon vill veta vilka känslor barn har när …, but that would then mean “what feelings children (in general) have when…”, not about one specific child.

Why does the pronoun become det in när det gråter, not han or hon?

In Swedish:

barn is a neuter noun: ett barn
The corresponding pronoun for a thing, an animal (in some contexts), or a young child is det.

So if you refer back to barnet, you normally use det:

barnet → det
Barnet gråter. Det är ledset.
“The child is crying. It is sad.”

Using han / hon is also possible if you know and emphasize the child’s gender:

Hon vill veta vilka känslor barnet har när *han gråter på kvällen.
→ She wants to know what feelings the child has when *he cries in the evening.

But the neutral default in Swedish for barnet is det.

Why is it på kvällen and not something like i kvällen or om kvällen?

For parts of the day in Swedish, you almost always use på:

på morgonen – in the morning
på dagen – in/at the daytime
på kvällen – in the evening
på natten – at night

So på kvällen is simply the normal idiomatic way to say “in the evening”.

✗ i kvällen – not used
om kvällen / om kvällarna exists, but it’s more like “in the evenings / in the evenings in general”, often a bit more formal or old‑fashioned.
Example: Han brukar läsa om kvällarna. – “He usually reads in the evenings.”

Here, på kvällen suggests a specific recurring time of day: when evening comes (typically this specific child’s usual crying time).

Why is kvällen in the definite form (-en)?

en kväll – an evening (indefinite)
kvällen – the evening (definite)

In Swedish, when you speak about a usual or typical time of day for someone, you often use the definite form:

på morgonen – in the morning (for me / in my routine)
på eftermiddagen – in the afternoon
på kvällen – in the evening

So på kvällen here is like “in the evening (when it’s evening for them / at that time of day)”, not just any random evening.

If you wanted to emphasize every evening in general, you could also say:

på kvällarna – in the evenings (plural, habitual)

Why isn’t there an “om” after vill veta (why not vill veta om vilka känslor … )?

In Swedish, veta works differently with direct and indirect questions:

With if/whether (= om in Swedish):
Hon vill veta *om barnet är sjukt.
→ She wants to know *if the child is sick.
With question words (who, what, which, when, where, why, how), you do not add om:
- Hon vill veta *vem som kommer.* – who is coming
- Hon vill veta *när vi åker.* – when we are leaving
- Hon vill veta *vilka känslor barnet har.* – what feelings the child has

So you say:

vill veta vilka känslor … (without om)

Adding om here (vill veta om vilka känslor barnet har) would sound unnatural or wrong.

Could you also say Hon vill veta vad barnet känner? What’s the difference from vilka känslor barnet har?

Yes, both are possible, but there is a nuance:

Hon vill veta vilka känslor barnet har.
- Very literal: She wants to know which feelings the child has.
- Focuses on naming/identifying the feelings (fear, sadness, anger, etc.)
- Slightly more concrete.
Hon vill veta vad barnet känner.
- Literal: She wants to know what the child feels.
- More general, focused on the experience of feeling, not listing feelings.

Both are natural in Swedish; choose depending on whether you emphasise “which emotions exactly” (1) or “what it feels” (2).

Can you say vilka känslor som barnet har? What does som do here?

Yes, you can also say:

Hon vill veta vilka känslor som barnet har när det gråter på kvällen.

In this type of indirect question:

som is optional after vilka (and some other question words).

So:

vilka känslor barnet har – perfectly correct
vilka känslor som barnet har – also correct, slightly more explicit

Using som here can:

Make the sentence a bit more emphatic or clear, especially in longer or more complex sentences.
But often it’s simply a style preference, with no real change in meaning.

Why are both verbs in the present tense (vill veta, har, gråter)?

Swedish present tense is used for:

Actions happening now
Habits / repeated actions
General truths

In this sentence:

Hon vill veta – she wants to know (now / generally)
barnet har (känslor) – the child has (these feelings whenever it cries)
det gråter – it cries (whenever this situation happens, in the evenings)

So the present tense here describes a current, repeated situation:
she currently wants to know what feelings the child usually has when it (typically) cries in the evening.

To put it in the past, for example:

Hon ville veta vilka känslor barnet hade när det grät på kvällen.
(She wanted to know what feelings the child had when it cried in the evening.)

Is the main clause word order Hon vill veta because of the verb‑second rule in Swedish?

Yes, the main clause follows the normal Swedish V2 pattern:

Hon (subject in first position)
vill (finite verb in second position)
veta (infinitive) + the rest of the clause

Basic Swedish main‑clause structure is:

Some element (often the subject)
Finite verb
Other elements

So here:

Hon – 1st position
vill – 2nd position (finite verb)
veta vilka känslor barnet har … – everything else that follows

You could move another element to first position, and vill would still stay second, for example:

På kvällen vill hon veta vilka känslor barnet har när det gråter.
(In the evening, she wants to know what feelings the child has when it cries.)