Harpissima: To be fair, Danish has one of the largest phonetic repertoires, having around 20 consonants, 15 monophthongs, and 25 diphthongs, plus the fun stød. Text-to-speech software is still kinda rudimentary and not fit for such a complex language. Add some homonyms with different pronounciations, like kost, and the TTS will fail a lot. But it gives a good idea of the language melody, which is already helpful. I don't think that correcting the TTS is an option; I assume Duo uses their TTSs from an outside source.
If you want to compare it with Japanese, that has some 20 consonants as well, but only five vowels in total - in a very predictable (C)V(n) pattern. It's a lot simpler to digitalise, and Japan has been pretty prolific in the text-to-speech market. :)
Oh dear, French phonetics... I don't have much experience with French, but it seems like it's even softer in Danish. If you're familiar with German, look there. In IPA, the sound is written as [ɣ] which is the voiced version of [x] which in turn is the hard ch-sound in German, the g-sound in Dutch, or х in Russian, for instance.
I'm not familiar with different dialects, however. Just learning. ^-^
It is not an ‘r’ sound like you know it from other languages, but ‘går’ is pronounced very differently from the infinitive form “at gå”, so it is rather misleading to claim that it is not pronounced. I am generally not very satisfied with the audio sound on the Danish course. For years now, the ‘vi’ has been ‘vis’ , it can’t be all that hard to correct that. And that is just one example. I expect all learners of Danish on Duolingo will go around trying to order a “saaarndwich” because that is what is sounds like on the course. With a language like Danish, a proper audio sound is really important. Other courses are much better, in the Japanese course for instance, the quality is so good, it almost sounds as though each sentence has been recorded seperately!
More figuratively, maybe. :)
Very figuratively. So figuratively that I cannot think of an instance where you would translate "in the past" with "i går".
So, no. Despite its fancy look, "i går" really just means "yesterday", just like "i dag" is "today" and "i morgen" is "tomorrow".
Actually, i går is sometimes written igår, just like today is sometimes written i dag or idag, though officially, it has to be written in two separate words. Also, I går, with a capital I can only mean You walk/leave or whatever (unless it stands at the beginning of a sentence, of course), whereas i går can only mean yesterday... “I” as in the plural form of you is written with a capital I to distinguish it from the preposition “i”!