Actually, not to be difficult, but it could. If I was saying that we obviously see him, then it could be placed there. If I was talking about how visible he was, it would come at the end. Which actually counteracts my argument, completely! I was thinking "tydligt" could be translated to fit both purposes, which i don't think it can!
We clearly see him = Vi ser honom tydligen/uppenbarligen, or something like that. Or Tydligen ser vi honom, but there are no other possible places for the adverbial in that case. Well, there is one that assumes a continuation: Vi ser tydligen honom, inte henne. = We obviously see him, not her.
And you're right, you can't use "tydligt" in that sense.
Oh, sorry. I must've misinterpreted you. I thought you were asking if thats a legit structure in Swedish, which it isn't.
No worries! I feel a little embarrassed that my quibble was actually moot in the first place!
When I typed "I am seeing him clearly" it was marked wrong. Does it have to translate directly to "I see him clearly"? Thanks!
Yes, stative verbs aren't always used in the continuous tense in English, at least not with the same meaning. You should probably only say see here, not am seeing.
Thank you! Is there a way you can use to tell which verbs are stative?
It's a verb that does not describe an action, but a state of being. This page seems pretty helpful: http://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/verbs/stative-verbs/
It's weird, but tydligt as an adverb doesn't come up on wiktionary.. Only tydligt as the ett form of tydlig.