"Åka" is only used when you are a passanger and not actually driving the vehicle in which case we would use "köra".
You can use "åka" when your in a car, train, or bus. When going by plane we use "flyga", literally "fly", and when riding a bike, we say "cykla".
It should however be noted that "åka" can be used in a more general sense when going somewhere far away (no matter the mode of transport). It's more common to say "Jag ska åka till Thailand" ("I will go to Thailand") than "Jag ska flyga till Thailand".
It's fine to say "åka" even if you're the one driving the car. "Jag åker till Stockholm i morgon" can be used if you're taking the bus, a plane, being a passenger in a car, or driving yourself - unless you want to point out that you're driving. Compare with "I'm going to Stockholm tomorrow" and "I'm driving to Stockholm tomorrow".
Tack! I've always struggled with this and used 'resa', because I didn't know any better, but I was never happy with it, because it sounds so formal. Men nu kan jag åka världen runt :)
If "i morgon" means "tomorrow", what means "in the morning"? (Hello false friend)
in the morning = på morgonen
this morning = i morse
tomorrow morning = i morgon bitti
Sorry, if you're confused now :).
Thanks for your instant and helpful answer. But yes! Especially this preposition-thing is very confusing....
The Text-To-Speech engine messes up on the intonation putting too much emphasis on the t and i which sounds strange.
It would be more natural to put the time adverb first in Swedish than in English in a sentence like this, so changing a Swedish sentence like this one, with the subject first, into an English one with the time adverb first, really doesn't make sense.
Can 'åka' be used for any kind of going with a vehicle or is it restricted to car? Which verb can I use if I go away with a bike, an aeroplane, a train? (I know that 'gå' is used for going by foot.)
You would åka tåg, but for plane I'd use flyga and for bike cykla. Note that you can also åka skidor = ski! (Although skida is just as good, too.)
'åka skidor' - I remember that that was taught at school! And something like 'åka skridsko' for skating. (Right?) The most important Nordic words are always studied first ;)
and "åka pulka" and "åka kälke"...
"Åka skidor" sounds weird, since "åka" is more like being a passive passenger and skiing can be very exhausting.
But would you not use åka skidor? Oh, and åka slalom (ski downhill), that's a bit cushier...
@rhblake: I know, I use it, but I was wondering if fellow native speaker Helen doesn't. :-)
It's funny how you never think of all these little differences, until someone asks you about them.
Yes, "åka skidor" is the way you would say it. The verb "skida" does exist but would sound very weird in most situations.
Of course I do. I just realized that it sounds like there is a motor involved :).
You could also use skrinna instead of åka skridskor. I thought it was a regionalism (fellow Finn here...), but SAOL (http://www.svenskaakademien.se/svenska_spraket/svenska_akademiens_ordlista/saol_pa_natet/ordlista) just lists it without any comments regarding specific usage.
Shouldn't the English translation be: "He will go away tomorrow."? After all, it refers to the future.
So does the Swedish sentence, but in both cases it refers to the future with a present tense verb and a time adverb.
Yes, but in Swedish you can use the present tense to refer to the future, whereas in English I would only use the present tense to refer to the future when talking about bus and train schedules and such. Otherwise, I would use 'will', 'be going to' or the present continuous. I am not a native speaker, though.
English present can be used to talk about the future; we do it all the time. "I retire in 5 years." "What are you doing this weekend?" "I'm bringing cake to the party." Seems like Swedish does the same thing.
This is how I've learned to use the future tenses in English:
The present simple can be used about scheduled events, such as bus and train tables, for example, "The train leaves at 2 o'clock."
"He is going away tomorrow" (present continuous) would be fine, but "He goes away tomorrow" still sounds wrong to me. Perhaps you can think about it as a scheduled event, though?
I was replying to your original post, sorry about the confusion. And yes, the present continuous would be better here. "He goes away tomorrow" does sound wrong. (Present simple is possible in some cases, like the ones you pointed out, and some others, but you're right, this isn't one of those cases.) However, in Swedish (based on what we've learned so far) there is only one present tense. So while we could discuss what's wrong and what's less wrong and what English textbooks say... for the purpose of learning Swedish it doesn't really matter. :) There is one present tense, which happens to translate 2 ways into English. As long as the "correct" one is accepted, having the other one doesn't hurt anybody. :)
"in the morning" can only mean "tomorrow morning", though - or at least "tomorrow somewhat early-ish". The Swedish i morgon can be at any time tomorrow.
How would say "He is leaving tomorrow" or is that an accepted translation?
I'd use this phrase for that meaning as well, and it is indeed an accepted translation.