Translation:It is not necessarily an expensive suit.
I wonder why, the translations do not choose equivalents that are closer in sound/structure/linguistic roots (etc), for example, why use 'expensive' for dyr, as the most natural translation is 'dear'. Similarly, älg, "elk", is closer than moose; both words originate from the same 'root'. Again, 'precis'; English has exactly/precisely the same word and meaning, just spelt differently, precise. There used to be a rough stylistic guide for translation and writing in general in English if faced with alternatives, choose an equivalent that is simpler, choose from Anglo-Saxon, choose the one with the greatest similarity. So, dear for dyr, elk for älg, precise/ly for precis ... etc. Out of all the languages I have ever studied, with the possible exception of Norse, Swedish, I find to be the easiest, because of its closeness to English, so why not utilise this more? It seems perverse not to.