Could "går" be used in this sentence in place of "åker"? What's the distinction between the two verbs?
Går is used for walking and åker is used for other forms of transport; cycling, bus, plane , train, boat etc.
"att åka" isn't used for cycling "att cykla" is used for cycling, otherwise you're correct. "att åka" is used for driving, travelling on the train, going on a plane, etc. I think of it more as "riding" than "going".
According to Norstedts ordböcker is 'travel by [motor] cycle (färdas på [motor]cykel o.d. ride)' correct. See: http://www.ord.se/oversattning/engelska/?s=%C3%A5ker=SVEENG
No, there are several mistakes in that sentence. I'm guessing you want to say Where is your home? but that would be Var är ditt hem? because you are asking where it is, not towards where it is moving. And your home is ditt hem – hemma is not used as a noun, instead we use the noun hem which is an ett noun.
So there are 3 'hem'-words:
mitt hem, hemmet, ett hem 'my home, the home, a home' – denotes a place – only used as a noun – only use it when you could say house
hem adverb used for direction: Jag går hem 'I am going home' – you are moving 'homewards' – this denotes movement in the direction toward the home
hemma adverb used for place: Jag är hemma 'I am at home' – you are talking about a place, not a direction.
Hope this helps!
Is it just me, or is there a sneaky extra syllable in that soundclip? It sounded to me like "vart a aker ni. Not a big problem, just wondered if anyone else noticed.
I translated åker as 'driving' rather than going, which I think is equally reasonable.
Åker implies that you're not in charge of steering or propelling the vehicle you ride. It's an important distinction.
In English, though, the distinction between driving and riding isn't that clear. For example, if your friend asked you how you're getting somewhere, you may be likely to say "I'm driving," even if you won't actually be the one behind the wheel. How would one handle this in Swedish?
I would not in a million years say I was driving if I wasn't driving. The closest to that would be if a group of people said "we're driving to..." when actually not each individual will be taking a turn at the wheel.
If you drive, jag kör.
If you are driven or flown somewhere, jag åker.
If you walk = jag går.
It doesn't work as "driving" because "åker" can be used for travelling on the train or on a plane, etc. I think "riding" might be more appropriate
I see, tack! Maybe it should be added to the list in the tips and notes section?
I'm suspicious about using the word åker, cause I'm used to using it only with words like skis, skates, rollerblades etc. "Jag åker skridskor". I'd use the word "gå" pretty much in any case where there is going happening just cause I've learned so in school :D Mandatory Swedish ftw
If "vart" is supposed to refer to a direction rather than place, shouldn't "What direction are you going to?" be an acceptable answer?
What is the confusion all about? Although the "to" at the end of the sentence is not necessary, it's there to distinguish "vart" from "var" (direction/location)
We haven't added you all as an accepted answer everywhere yet. You can report it wherever it should be accepted and we'll add it.
this is confusing, and doesn't give a clear statement of what we are supposed to put
How would one say the past tense version of this, i.e. "Where did you go?" ?
åker means driving with something that has wheels, går means walking by foot. So this sentence in english is wrongly unfortunately translated again.
It does not quite work like that. The English "where are you going?" does not specify the means of transportation.
I love how the English translation for Ni is Y'all. Well I mean, you plural, but y'all is basically that.
I wonder if Southern English (Texas, and etc.) had an influence by the Swedes by that
The default is actually "you", we just happen to accept some other answers as well - including "y'all".
I tried translating this as “Which way are you going?” Would that be an acceptable translation to Swedes?