Translation:The proof is that we are speaking about it.
The English really needs to be "are speaking" and not "speak" in this case. I didn't understand the English at all until your explanation.
It's a subtle difference. The form "we are speaking about it" means we are talking about it actively, in the moment. The form "we speak about it" means we talk about it habitually, but it is not the topic at the moment. Using the latter form causes a disconnect in the sentence, because "it" is "the proof" that is actively being spoken about.
To clarify the difference, take the sentence "His face is juicy because he is eating watermelon". That makes sense. If I said "His face is juicy because he eats watermelon" it would be odd, because he would likely wash his face between the times he eats watermelon.
I've changed the main sentence just because it was you who said this, but I must confess don't really understand your explanation.
The way I understand this sentence, the proof is not that we're speaking about it right now, the proof is that we often talk about it.
So I'd rather compare it to a sentence like His face is bloated because he eats watermelon – where he isn't eating watermelon right now, but he does it habitually, which has long-term effects on his face.
Contrary to what someone said, X is in fact a famous person, and the proof is that we talk about X a lot. The proof is not that we're discussing X right now.
What are we supposed to learn about Swedish from this sentence? Whatever that purpose is, can you course designers give us learners a completely different sentence that illustrates that purpose? I think this sentence is far too confusing because it either doesn't make sense to us or we would have to concoct some artificial situation in which to use the sentence. Tack!
Evidence and proof aren't quite the same thing, and I don't think "evidence" is a good translation here in the first place, and to make it definitely singular makes it fit even worse. Here's a link to a discussion about the difference between proof and evidence which I think clarifies it a bit: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=101209
I don't want to split hairs here but it seems that the difference between "proof" and "evidence" gets substantial mostly in legal language. It might be relevant when you are talking with your lawyer, but in an everyday situation the two terms MIGHT be used interchangeably without too much fuss.
Also if you are using the fact that you are talking about something to prove it, some "issues" may arise. First, it's not something i would expect to hear in a court, making the distinction between the two terms less relevant; second, it is circular reasoning and third, you probably don't have enough evidence to support your claim in the first place. Think about all of these issues together and you realize that there is no proof provided for the claim: there is, at the very best, some loose evidence.
So, i think "evidence" is not only acceptable but it also fits the context better.
It is also true that the person saying the sentence believes his/her claim strongly enough to talk about it as proof and thus choosing the word "proof" over "evidence" might a tool to convey exactly this meaning. Still convinced that both the solution should be accepted but i thought it was important to add this little bit.
I agree with MikyNik1856. Aside from the legal context, I think it's at least as likely that we'd use "evidence" here.
But even using legal difference between evidence (something might be true) and proof (something is true), I think "evidence" may be even better than "proof" here.
I get that bevis is an ett word that ends in a 't' in the singular definite and in an 'n' in the plural definite, but when would you use "beviset" vs "bevisen"? Does "beviset" translate to both "the proof" and "the single piece of evidence"? Since you would probably never say "the proofs", does "bevisen" always translate to "the [multiple pieces of] evidence"?
I typed "evidence" and it marked it wrong whereas "bevis" was translated as "evidence" else where in the same course. Its really misleading