"Du behöver inte komma om du inte vill."

Translation: You do not need to come if you do not want to.

[reaperlord]

Is there a specific rule/reason why it is "om du inte vill" and not "om du vill inte"?

[Lundgren8]

The adverb comes before the verb in subordinate clauses. So it’s du vill inte but om du inte vill.

[RossGee1]

You need not come if you do not want to

[ferretchere]

Also "you do not need to come if you do not want", while less Queen's English grammatically correct, is also idiomatically correct

[pang1968]

In fact, it's far more common in my experience. Saves time.

[BalvinderC1]

This is a word-for-word translation which is perfectly good English, indeed, the contracted form 'You needn't come if ...' is arguably as prevalent as the 'You do not need to come ...' or 'You don't need to come ...'.

[devalanteriel]

Yup. Added that now. :)

[boDjwyEj]

I would add as acceptable "You don't need to come if you don't want." The final "to" is often omitted in colloquial English.

[devalanteriel]

I know it's not uncommon colloquially, but it would likely still be considered ungrammatical in text, which makes me hesitant to add it - since a lot of our users also take the course to learn English. I do see your point, though. Will give it some thought.

[LyckligCyklop]

It sounds English to me? I don't commonly hear it used, reminds me of historical dramas

[samira22401]

Why inte is before vill?

[devalanteriel]

Adverbs such as inte go before the verb in subclauses.

[craigchardy]

"You don't have to come if you don't want" was not accepted and it should be because it means exactly the same thing.

[pang1968]

Definitely. We say it all the time.