"At the dog"? Surely by is a better choice.
"by" is accepted as well. :)
That's great, but I think "at" is not even correct.
if you changed the word to something like book store, it would make a lot more sense IMO. I don't know if the phrase would still be the same in Danish though using "ved"
That's true, but you are changing the context. The word is inappropriate in this context.
I agree with Sam_Cat. The preposition "at" is not used with an animal in this context. Maybe "at the dog's" but not "at the dog"
I'm just imagining ved as some multi-purpose word, meaning things like "near" or "by", among other things. Not sure if I'm correct though.
I was thinking it means something like being "with" the dog, like in its company? Is that correct?
Shouldn't "with the dog" then be correct as well?
My understanding of ved in this context is that it means with. In english both by and with would be acceptable to say in this sentance. But at would not. This should be changed.
How is "The boy's next to the dog" not accepted? It's literally written there as the answer... :(
In English you wouldn't make a contraction out of "boy" and "is" there. "Boy's" is possessive.
Actually, you can contract "boy is" to "boy's", as well as "boy has" to "boy's", and finally "boy's" can be used to signify possession. All three options are possible. Context is key to knowing exactly what that apostrophe + s really means.
Thank you. That is what I thought.
But then the question remains: Can I contract it in the case/context above?
ooooooooooooh :O ... is there an overview for when "IS" can be contracted?
But if we look at it, isn't "ved" that is called know
Yes, "ved" is the present tense form of "at vide" which means "to know", but here in the context of the sentence, "ved" means "by"
Many things are possible. "At" is one of the few that isn't.
I offered beside the dogas a translation, and it was accepted. Is that okay?
beside the dog
I wrote down the boy is close to the dog and it was not accepted. smh