Jag menade inte att vara sur; jag ville bara förklara varför jag blev besviken.

Because the sentence is talking about a past situation, so Swedish uses the preterite (simple past):

• menade = meant
• ville = wanted
• blev = became / got

So:

• Jag menade inte ... = I didn’t mean ...
• jag ville bara ... = I just wanted ...
• jag blev besviken = I became/got disappointed

If it were happening now, you would use present tense instead:

• Jag menar inte att vara sur ...
• jag vill bara förklara ...

In a normal Swedish main clause, inte usually comes after the finite verb.

So:

• Jag menade inte ...
• literally: I meant not ...

This is standard Swedish word order. Compare:

• Jag är inte trött. = I am not tired.
• Hon kommer inte idag. = She isn’t coming today.

English often puts not differently, but in Swedish this placement is very common in main clauses.

Here att vara sur means to be upset / grumpy / annoyed.

The structure is:

• mena att + infinitive
• menade inte att vara sur = didn’t mean to be upset / grumpy

So att is the infinitive marker, like English to in to be.

A learner might expect just vara sur, but after menade inte in this kind of sentence, att vara is the normal pattern.

Not exactly. Sur can mean something like:

• upset
• annoyed
• grumpy
• sour-faced
• sulky

It often suggests a mood that shows on the face or in the tone, not necessarily full anger.

So jag menade inte att vara sur is often better understood as:

• I didn’t mean to sound so annoyed
• I didn’t mean to be grumpy
• I didn’t mean to come across as upset

It is also a common false friend for English speakers, because sur looks like English sour. The meanings overlap a little, but in Swedish it is very commonly used about a person’s mood.

The semicolon joins two closely related full clauses:

• Jag menade inte att vara sur
• jag ville bara förklara varför jag blev besviken

Each part could stand as its own sentence, but the semicolon shows they belong closely together.

You could also write:

• Jag menade inte att vara sur. Jag ville bara förklara varför jag blev besviken.

A comma would usually be less appropriate here in careful writing, because these are two complete main clauses.

In Swedish main clauses, short adverbs like bara often come after the finite verb.

So:

• jag ville bara förklara = I just wanted to explain

This is the most natural placement here.

Compare:

• Jag har bara en fråga. = I only have one question.
• Hon kan bara stanna en stund. = She can only stay a moment.

If you move bara, the emphasis can change, but ville bara förklara is the normal and natural phrasing in this sentence.

Because this is an embedded question (an indirect question), not a direct question.

In a direct question, Swedish uses question word + verb + subject:

• Varför blev jag besviken? = Why did I get disappointed?

But inside a longer sentence, Swedish uses subordinate clause word order:

• ... förklara varför jag blev besviken
• literally: ... explain why I became disappointed

So after varför, the subject jag comes before the verb blev.

This is a very important Swedish pattern:

• Jag vet varför hon kom sent.
• not Jag vet varför kom hon sent.

Because blev besviken focuses on the change of state: became disappointed or got disappointed.

• bli + adjective = become + adjective
• blev besviken = became/got disappointed

If you say var besviken, that means was disappointed, which describes the state more than the moment or reason it arose.

So in this sentence, varför jag blev besviken fits well because the speaker is explaining why they ended up feeling disappointed.

Besviken means disappointed.

It is used when reality did not meet your expectations, or when someone let you down.

Examples:

• Jag blev besviken på filmen. = I was disappointed in the film.
• Hon blev besviken på honom. = She was disappointed in him.

It is not quite the same as ledsen:

• besviken = disappointed
• ledsen = sad / sorry / upset

Sometimes both are possible, but besviken is specifically about disappointment.

Because the second part is a new main clause, and Swedish normally needs the subject stated again.

So:

• Jag menade inte att vara sur; jag ville bara förklara ...

The second jag is not optional in normal Swedish. English also usually repeats the subject in the same way:

• I didn’t mean to be upset; I just wanted to explain ...

It is neutral and very natural. You could use it in everyday conversation, in a text message, in an email, or in a spoken apology/explanation.

It sounds thoughtful and polite, because the speaker is:

1. clarifying they did not intend to sound upset, and
2. explaining that they only wanted to explain their feelings

So it is not especially formal, but it is quite mature and considerate in tone.

Sometimes, yes, depending on context.

Literally, sur is more like upset / annoyed / grumpy, but in real conversation it can imply:

• sounding sharp
• seeming irritated
• coming across negatively

So in context, an English translation might be:

• I didn’t mean to be snappy
• I didn’t mean to sound annoyed
• I didn’t mean to come across that way

The exact English wording depends on tone and situation, even though the Swedish stays the same.