I put "I offered him pasta" and it was accepted. That seems much more natural.
It sounds like Fairy Tale language again, by which the King "bid him come" to a feast. Tho in this world, nowadays, it's just a pasta-fest. Love it. Pass the linguini.
Sometimes bjöd is translated as "invited" and sometimes as "paid". I said "I paid him for pasta" but it was deemed incorrect - why?
It can never mean that you paid someone. It can however mean that you paid for someone (so that they didn't have to). So in this case, you could say 'I treated him to pasta' or 'I bought him pasta'.
In this setting is it more likely to mean that you invited him out for a dish of pasta, offered him a dish of pasta or "shouted" him pasta/"treated" him to pasta? Or can it mean any/all of these things depending on context? I think I generally get the idea of the word bjuder but am unsure about how to pick up contextual clues on its use. Is it simply situational at times?
Note that in addition to the verb 'bjuda' there are also the verbs 'erbjuda' and 'inbjuda'. There is also the verb 'invitera'. Perhaps a native speaker could comment on the subtle differences.
Right. The word means 'invited, offered, asked'. Perhaps also 'treated', as in "I treated him to pasta". But it does not mean 'paid'. Do you have a Swedish-English dictionary? Here is a free one online: http://folkets-lexikon.csc.kth.se/folkets/folkets.en.html
Can't I translate this to "I treated him to the pasta? " It was marked wrong, why?
You're right. I treated him to pasta is an accepted answer. (imho probably the best translation, too).
I think the Swedish says only that he was invited, not that he accepted the invitation or that he actually ended up going. So I think it would be wrong to accept your wording here.