Learn Hardcore Swedish: Han förstår inte varför hon ler när hon egentligen vill gråta. - He does not understand why she smiles when she actually wants to cry.

förstå = to understand (mentally grasp, make sense of)
veta = to know (have information, be aware of facts)
känna (most often känna till or känna någon) = to know (be familiar with a person/place/thing)

In the sentence, the idea is that he cannot make sense of why she smiles. That is a mental understanding problem, so han förstår inte … is natural.

If you said han vet inte varför hon ler, it would sound more like He doesn’t know why she smiles (he lacks the information). It’s not wrong in all contexts, but förstår matches the emotional/psychological nuance better here.

Why is inte placed after förstår and not before it?

In a normal main clause, Swedish has verb-second word order: the finite verb goes in second position. Negation inte usually comes after that finite verb.

Basic pattern in main clauses:
[Subject] + [finite verb] + inte + …

Examples:

Han förstår inte. – He does not understand.
Jag vill inte gå. – I do not want to go.

So in Han förstår inte varför hon ler …, förstår is the finite verb in second position, and inte comes right after it, which is the standard pattern.

Why is it varför hon ler and not varför ler hon?

Swedish, like English, distinguishes between:

Direct questions (main clauses):
- Varför ler hon? – Why is she smiling?
  Here the verb comes right after the question word: varför + ler + hon.
Indirect/embedded questions (inside a larger sentence):
- Han förstår inte varför hon ler. – He doesn’t understand why she smiles.
  Here varför hon ler is a subordinate clause, and Swedish uses normal subject–verb order: varför + hon + ler.

So varför hon ler is correct because it’s not a stand‑alone question; it’s part of what he does not understand.

Why is ler used here, and not a form meaning is smiling like in English?

Swedish does not normally make a separate continuous/progressive tense like English is smiling. The present tense in Swedish covers both:

Han ler.
= He smiles / He is smiling (context decides which sounds better in English).

So Han förstår inte varför hon ler corresponds to He doesn’t understand why she is smiling in English, even though Swedish just uses the simple present form ler.

If you really want to emphasize an ongoing action, you usually add an adverb or context, not a different tense:

Hon står där och ler. – She is standing there, smiling.

What is the nuance of egentligen? Does it mean the same as actually or really?

Egentligen usually adds the idea of what is truly, in reality, or deep down the case, often contrasting with appearances.

In this sentence:

… när hon egentligen vill gråta.
suggests: when, deep down, she wants to cry or when in reality she wants to cry.

It’s similar to English actually, but often with a stronger contrast between surface behavior and inner reality. Other examples:

Jag gillar egentligen inte kaffe. – I actually don’t like coffee (even if you might think I do).
Vad vill du egentligen? – What do you really/actually want (deep down)?

Why is it när and not om before hon egentligen vill gråta?

Both när and om can sometimes translate as when, but they are used differently:

när = when (refers to time, something that actually happens or is expected to happen)
om = if (condition, possibility; sometimes when in very hypothetical/future senses)

In när hon egentligen vill gråta, we are talking about the actual moments in time when she wants to cry, so när is the natural choice.

Compare:

När jag är trött går jag hem. – When I’m tired, I go home.
Om jag är trött går jag hem. – If I’m tired, I go home. (more conditional)

Why is gråta in its basic form, while förstår and ler have -r?

The verb forms are different because they play different roles:

förstår and ler are in the present tense:
- förstå → förstår
- le → ler
gråta is in the infinitive (the to‑form):
- gråta = to cry

In Swedish, the infinitive usually appears:

after modal verbs like vill, kan, måste:
- vill gråta – wants to cry
- kan läsa – can read
in dictionaries and as the basic form of the verb.

Present tense is built (for regular verbs) by adding -r to the stem, but gråta here must stay in the infinitive because it follows vill.

Why is there no att before gråta? In many places I see att before infinitives.

You’re right that Swedish often uses att + infinitive, like:

att läsa – to read
att äta – to eat

However, after certain modal or semi‑modal verbs, att is usually omitted. Common ones:

vill – want (to)
kan – can
ska – shall / will
måste – must
brukar – usually (do)

So you say:

Hon vill gråta. – She wants to cry. (not vill att gråta)
Han kan simma. – He can swim.

In the example, vill gråta is exactly this pattern: vill + infinitive (without att).

What is the difference between ler and skrattar?

They describe two different actions:

le (present ler) = to smile (silent or quiet facial expression)
skratta (present skrattar) = to laugh (sound, more active)

So:

Hon ler. – She is smiling.
Hon skrattar. – She is laughing.

In the sentence, ler is used because we are talking about her smiling despite wanting to cry. Saying skrattar would mean she is actually laughing, which gives a stronger and different picture.

How does word order work in när hon egentligen vill gråta? Why is it not när vill hon egentligen gråta?

In subordinate clauses (clauses introduced by när, att, eftersom, om etc.), Swedish normally uses subject–verb order, not verb‑second.

Pattern in subordinate clauses:
[Subordinator] + [subject] + (sentence adverb, e.g. egentligen) + [verb] + …

So in the example:

när (subordinator)
hon (subject)
egentligen (sentence adverb)
vill (finite verb)
gråta (infinitive)

Result: när hon egentligen vill gråta, which is standard order.

När vill hon egentligen gråta? would be a direct question (When does she actually want to cry?), not a subordinate clause. Here we don’t have a question; we have a time clause attached to Han förstår inte …, so we keep the subordinate clause order.

Is there any gender‑neutral way to say han or hon in Swedish?

Yes. Swedish increasingly uses the gender‑neutral pronoun hen. It can refer to:

a person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant, or
someone who prefers a gender‑neutral pronoun.

So you could, in a gender‑neutral version, say:

Hen förstår inte varför hen ler när hen egentligen vill gråta.

In many contexts han (he) and hon (she) are still very common and completely normal, but hen is now widely accepted and used, especially in writing and in more inclusive language.