I am trying to pick up Swedish again after taking four German classes in Uni…. At this rate I am creating some unholy matrimony of Germanic languages. Who next will be added to the soup

(anon who asked about the numbers) for example when you ask koliko stane something? and the price can be en evro, dva evra, tri-štiri evre, and from pet to sto en the word is evrov. could it be? hvala lepa again!!!

Ahhh, ok, sure! I made a pretty in-depth post about Slovene numbers a while back and this is (rather briefly) discussed there as well:

[The numbers 1–4] are also the only numerals with which the according nominal is in nominative case: “one wolf” = nom. sg. en volk, “two wolves” = nom. du. dva volka “two wolves”, “three/four wolves” = nom. pl. trije/štirje volki, but  “five/six/ninety-nine wolves” = gen.(!) pl. pet/šest/devetindevetdeset volkov – numbers 5 and above, when in nom./acc. always demand an according nominal in gen. (due to the partitive nature of genitive there, what is said is thus literally “five/… of the wolves”).

(↑ this also serves as a tl;dr; a longer explanation and a second tl;dr follow ↓)

So, to “translate,” in a sentence like Kruh stane en evro “The bread costs one euro” evro is in accusative singular (singular because it’s “one (1) euro” and accusative because “one euro” is the direct object in the sentence (“The bread costs what?”); the accusative singular of evro happens to be the same as nominative singular; if it were in instrumental singular, it would be different: Kruh plačam z enim evrom “I pay [for]the bread with one euro.”)

→ /sidenote/ you can check out the different declension paradigms here (evro is declined according to the 1st masculine declension, it is inanimate and has the ending -o in nominative singular and accordingly also accusative singular (the “alt. V” thing); it also doesn’t take the -ôv- extension so you can ignore that in the paradigm)

Ok, so moving on to the second example: Kruh stane dva evra “The bread costs two euros” – here evra is in accusative dual (dual, predictably, because it’s “two (2) euros” and accusative again because it’s the direct object; if you’ve checked the declension paradigms, here, accusative is the same as nominative in dual as well; in instrumental dual it would again be different: Kruh plačam z dvema evroma “I pay [for] the bread with two euros.”).

Plural, of course, means “many things” (in English and many other languages, that’s quite simply “more than one thing”, while in languages with dual, such as Slovene, it means “more than two things”, with “two things” being a separate category covered by dual), thus Kruh stane tri evre “The bread costs three euros” – again, as expected, in accusative plural. In plural of 1st declension masculine nouns, however, accusative and nominative are not the same. When acting as the subject in a sentence, the form is nominative plural: Trije evri ti lahko kupijo nekaj kruha “Three euros can buy you some bread.” If we ignore the number “three” itself, the form is the same in instrumental plural as well: Kruh plačam s tremi evri “I pay [for] the bread with three euros.”

It’s all normal and nice all the way to number 4. With numbers 5 and higher a curious thing happens. When the number is in nominative or accusative, the number is followed by the “thing” in genitive plural! What you can imagine is happening here is that the “thing” is now considered an uncountable amount of those things; you aren’t looking at 5 euros period – you’re looking at 5 euros out of an immense, countless amount of euros (idk, all the euros in the world …), it’s thus literally “five of the euros”: Kruh stane pet evrov “The bread costs five [of the] euros” – pet in accusative plural and evrov in genitive plural. Accordingly also: Pet evrov ti lahko kupi nekaj kruha “Five [of the] euros can buy some bread” – what you can notice here is that the verb (kupi) is in the singular (cf. kupijo in the 3–4 plural example above), which you can imagine is because the small amout out of an uncountable, enormous amount is considered a single unit – the verb thus in singular. As mentioned, this only happens in nominative and accusative, instrumental, for example, is thus: Kruh plačam s petimi evri “I pay[for] the bread with five euros.”

While I said “numbers 5 and higher” before, the numbers where 1, 2, 3 and 4 figure separately at the end, the rules for those respective numbers apply: 101 sto en evro (not evrov), 6304 šest tisoč tristo štiri evre (not evrov), 1 059 702 (en) milijon devetinpetdeset tisoč sedemsto dva evra (not evrov), etc., but 43 005 triinštirideset tisoč pet evrov.

Of course, all the examples use evro which is (as mentioned) declined according to the 1st masculine declension. If I were to use a currency like krona (“crown”, as in Swedish “krona”, Czech “koruna”, etc.), which declines according to the 1st feminine declension, in the example sentences above it would be ena krona, z eno krono, dve kroni, z dvema kronama, tri krone, tri krone, s tremi kronami, pet kron, pet kron, s petimi kronami.

Anyway, the second tl;dr:

1: number in nom./acc. sing. + noun in nom./acc. sing. en evro, ena krona | number in gen./dat./loc./inst. sing. + noun in gen./dat./loc./inst. sing. z enim evrom, z eno krono | (if num. is the subject) verb in sing. kupi

2: number in nom./acc. dual + noun in nom./acc. dual dva evra, dve kroni | number in gen./dat./loc./inst. dual + noun in gen./dat./loc./inst. dual z dvema evroma, z dvema kronama | (if num. is the subject) verb in dual kupita

3–4: number in nom./acc. plur. + noun in nom./acc. plur. trije evri, tri krone | number in gen./dat./loc./inst. plur. + noun in gen./dat./loc./inst. plur. s tremi evri, s tremi kronami | (if num. is the subject) verb in plur. kupijo

5+: number in nom./acc. plur. + noun in gen. plur.(!) pet evrov, pet kron | number in gen./dat./loc./inst. plur. + noun in gen./dat./loc./inst. plur. s petimi evri, s petimi kronami | (if num. is the subject) verb in sing.(!) kupi