The word tv:n sounds good with the new voice, but the intonation is very odd. The main stress of the sentence should be on ny, not on är as it is now.
'Som' is considered more informal, but it's acceptable to use it in place of 'vilket' or 'vilken' nowadays. 'Som' would always be used when referring to a person.
"Så (adverb) som möjligt".
"As fast as you can" would be "Så snabbt som möjligt"
In this sentence, SOM needs to be translated as THAT, not WHICH, except in the less-common context of referring to a specific TV whose ownership has been flexible, and in that case, a comma is required between TV and which.
Is there any interpunction in swedish between the sentences? (I just ask because in czech there will be some)
Between sentences, yes. But Swedish does not mark main clauses and subclauses with commas like English or Danish would.
And you, DarkLord, are a prime example of why DL shouldn't teach faulty English to non-native speakers.
"as new" can mean either "just like a new one" (som ny) or "not as new (as this other one)" (inte lika gammal). But it can't mean just "new".
So in another program (rosetta stone) spells tv as teve, is this wrong/ should it be accepted cause i wrote teven here out of habit
It's perfectly fine - I personally prefer it, even - but if you got a "type what you hear" exercise, Duolingo will only accept one spelling even when there are multiple correct answers. It's been like that for ages. :(
Do I infer correctly from the wrong relative pronoun "which" used in the default English translation above that the Swedish language does not distinguish whether relative clauses are restrictive (AKA defining) or not, while such distinction does matter in how a relative clause is constructed in English?
In "The TV that we have is not new", the relative clause "that we have" is restrictive/defining in that it narrows down which TV set we are talking about.
A non-restrictive/non-defining relative clause, on the other hand, merely provides supplementary information, given that it is already clear what we are talking about and there is no need for further narrowing down.
In many other exercises in the relative pronoun section, the English translations can swap out a restrictive relative clause for a non-restrictive clause and vice versa and still remain valid statements under different contexts, but in this case it can work only one way. "The TV, which we have, is not new" would be in the form of a non-restrictive relative clause, but it doesn't make sense as such. In using a non-restrictive clause, we take for granted it is already clear which TV set we are talking about. Suppose we want to add some side information about its ownership, we just wouldn't say "which we have", but rather something like "The TV, which belongs to us (therefore we would know), is not new". Another correct use of a non-restrictive clause would be "This TV model, which we have, is not new."
When referring to a person, the relative pronoun "who/whom" can be used to introduce either kind of relative clause, and the distinction is made only by punctuation and prosody. When referring to an objection, though, "that" is used to introduce a restrictive clause, while "which" is used to introduce a non-restrictive clause. (The relative pronoun "that" can refer to a thing or a person in starting a restrictive clause, and it is never used in a non-restrictive clause.) So, in this translation we mean to use the relative pronoun "that", which might even be left out and merely implied (possible only in the case of restrictive clauses).
Edit: Upon research, I see that the avoidance of using "which" in opening a restrictive relative clause is considered by some not to be a hard rule but a recommendation for clarity. In any case, I would still like to get a confirmation that Swedish makes no structural distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses.
We don't use contractions when we write sentences, but Duo generates them automatically, so depending on what you input, you may be shown some unexpected contractions. As you can see, the main English sentence here is 'The TV which we have is not new.'
I think the form I was writing about was: "The TV which we've is not new." I certainly say "We've been there before," but the other use sounds equivalent to "We've a new baby sister," which sounds extremely British to me.
That's what I mean. They're automatically generated by Duo for both cases, we can't do anything about it. But it shouldn't be shown to you unless you input something that is similar to it.
There is a difference between "We've a new baby sister", which is fine with me although it does sound British or, in American English, a bit pretentious, and "The TV which we've isn't new". "We've" needs something more substantial to follow it than just "is" (or "isn't"). I doubt very much that would be acceptable English to most Brits either. I've had many British friends and acquaintances over the years and never heard a similar construction.
Sorry, I'm from the Midwest too (Michigan), have scads of friends and relatives in Wisconsin, Minnesota and South Dakota, and am about to turn 70 myself. Never heard such a thing in my entire life. Please note the difference between saying "We've a new TV" and "The TV which we've is new". Cheers