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.
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 People like Webster come along and try to bring spelling reform, but that makes all the old printed texts outdated and it also makes standard a drift that some speakers may never have adopted.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.)
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.
An English person is quite likely to say "is stood" even though it is not grammatically correct
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".
beside/next to/bredvid don't seem to be very different from alongside/längsmed
That's odd - must be a bug. It's kind of hard to construct the sentence without it... :)
But... your error report says "near", not "beside". We do accept "beside".