"Hunden står bredvid hästen."

Translation:The dog is standing next to the horse.

November 21, 2014

This discussion is locked.


So, what's the difference between bredvid and vid?


Bredvid is 'next to' like in 'side by side'. vid is in the general vicinity of something.
bredvid makes the objects more equal, they're next to each other.
vid is an unequal relationship: one thing is seen as a landmark for another thing. This makes it unnatural to use in some combinations: if the thing that something is near is smaller or not stationary, vid is not a good match.


So, in a sentence where I would talk about utensiles, a fork and a spoon, would it be better to use bredvid instead of vid? : "Gaffeln är bredvid skeden" ? ...I'm trying to follow your reasoning : the 2 objects are equal and not moving.


Yes. A typical example for vid would be Jag står vid vägen 'Im standing by the road'. I'm smaller and can move, the road is a landmark. Turning this around to say that the road is 'by' me would be absurd.


First, thank you for the great course and explanations.

Second, what about using "near" instead. The dog stands near the horse. Bredvid and vid vs. near?

Third, not-related, still makes me scratch my head, can we use the verb "stand" for an animal? (Stand up probably??)


near is nära in Swedish. It expresses closeness but not the side-by-side feeling in bredvid.
near and nära are more general so they don't necessarily imply the asymmetric relationship that vid does.

As long as an animal has feet (well, or something like it: paws, hooves, whatever) and is in a standing position, it's normal to say that it stands in either language.


You're always there to help


I found your helpful explanation again! Is this the definitive difference between these two prepositions? Or are there other nuances to look out for as well? Tack så mycket!


Is the first d in bredvid silent?


Most often, yes.


May I know why it is silent?


Because, in both English and Swedish, the pronunciation of words naturally drifts and drifts. People just don't say words the same as the previous century. However, the spelling doesn't get updated very often. People like Webster come along and try to bring spelling reform, but that makes all the old printed texts outdated and it also makes standard a drift that some speakers may never have adopted.


I might add that the last time Swedish had a spelling reform was in 1906, when the spelling of the sounds T and V where simplified to T and V (rather than dt, hv, f, fv etc)

Some silent letters were kept though, especially before word-initial J, which is why we have words like djur, hjärta and ljus where the initial letter is silent.

Also, many short E sounds were changed to be spelled with Ä. (elg, enka, ega -> älg, änka, äga.)


Why "The dog stands near the horse" is wrong?


It would be further away rather than next to


What does this sentence mean? They mobile app shows no translation.


"The dog stands next to the horse."


This is probably more my terrible grammar, but why doesn't "is stood" work? ie. The dog is stood next to the horse.


I think I can see how that might be grammatical with stood as a past participle. With is stood being similar to is placed. "The sign is placed in the middle of the field". In cases like this, the sign is an object, not a subject. Someone acted on the sign. It did not come to life and stand itself in the field. For this reason, I would not say the dog "is stood" next to the horse, unless it is a statue and someone placed it there.
In this Swedish exercise, the dog is the subject, not the object, and so I would call it a bad translation to make it an object in the answer.


Sorry, I worded that wrong about subjects vs objects, but hopefully the example is useful.


It has to be third person singular present tense, which in English can be either "stands" (present simple) or "is standing" (present continuous). Both are the same in Swedish (står).


Maybe it's just us, but my husband and I are both native English speakers (US), and neither of us can think of an example where one would say "is stood".


Would it also work to translate this as "the dog stands alongside the horse"? That was my first instinct.


beside/next to/bredvid don't seem to be very different from alongside/längsmed


"bredvid" sounds so russian to me


I used besides instead of next to. I think it should be correct


Beside is next to. Besides is, other than. In addition to.


I noticed that the 'bredvid' was spelled 'brevid' in another exercise. Is it interchangeable? What is the difference?


Horse option was not there


That's odd - must be a bug. It's kind of hard to construct the sentence without it... :)


What is the difference between beside and next to


I tried beside and got it wrong, but I'm not sure why


But... your error report says "near", not "beside". We do accept "beside".


Really? Wow, I could've sworn I used "beside"... Jag var väldigt trött då. Thanks


I put 'The dog stands by the horse' and was marked wrong. Positionally in English that would mean roughly the same thing.


That actually is accepted. If you were marked wrong for exactly that, there was an error.


In one of the previous lessons there was a sentence that said "the knife is by the fork", why can't you use "by" here? Is it because it becomes a phrasal verb "stand by"?


I always think brad pitt is next to mr, then i recall bredvid


I am afraid to write "Hound" instead of "dog" when I know Hund is literal and Direct translation to English. Am I confusing the issue because of my childhood exposure to Shakespeare?


What is wrong with ,,the dog is standing next to the horse"?

Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.