Följa = pursue, follow. Makes it sound like she was either stalking him or had to follow him home.
Följa med = follow. Makes it sound like she followed him home because they wanted each other's company.
It's a little nuance, but it can make a difference.
Well, depends on the context. These days we've borrowed "stalk" and say stalka. Otherwise you could use förfölja, but that word is problematic too, it implies repression.
Hej! If I understood well: "följa någon" is not nice, "följa efter någon" is nicer and "följa med någon" is to follow by accompanying.
"Följa någon" is nice if you do it on twitter, but generally not nice afk. But yes. :)
It's because the verb Föjla needs to be followed by the particle Med. The verb is actually att föjla med. Like hälsa på or tänka på, etc.
The voice is not quite perfect on this sentence, as of September 25th, 2017, so I've taken the liberty of re-recording it.
följt med is effectivelly a particle verb and should be stressed on med.
Please find a correct recording on http://duolingo.vydea.io/762db2bd98b74619a4d7c87545e3d292.mp3
For more info on re-recordings, please check the info thread: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/23723515
Thanks for listening. Ha en bra dag! :)
I think that would be more idiomatic English, maybe they’re trying to not steer away from the Swedish sentence too much, but it should at least be accepted in my opinion.
Would "She has gone home with him." be a better translation here? i agree with this. the "correct solution" would be implying that she was stalking him.
I wrote "She has accompanied him home," and that was accepted. I think that's probably the closest translation that also sounds natural in English. The only problem is that most English speakers would not use "accompany" in casual conversation - it makes it sound a little bit like a police report!
Besides, many of us would assume then that she gave him a lift home in her car.
I'd say yes, ever so slightly, but it's just barely audible. At least that's for me - I would have pronounced fölt a tiny bit differently. But other natives may just skip the sound completely.
You wouldn’t say “to home” here in English. Just like you would say “He is going home” not “He is going to home”.
Thanks! Then my English is failing me. I realize that it sounds more natural without the "to" here but I can't pin point why. Do you mind giving me an explanation why?
“Home” can either act as a noun, or as an adverb meaning “to or towards one’s home”. The adverb use is most natural in this sentence: “She followed him home.” You could use it as a noun, but then it also needs an article/determiner of some sort, e.g. “She followed him to his home.”
my english is so bad to translate this sentence, I used "with" -> "med" and "to home" -> hem