"Jag är vid hästarna."

Translation:I am by the horses.

January 4, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Shouldn't 'I am with the horses' also be right then?


No. That makes it sound like you and the horses are spending time together hanging out (which is perfectly fine of course, but not a translation).


It's good to be friendly with your neigh-bours


I don't agree with this response. with is just as accurate as by in the context


"by" can have a similar meaning to "with" - but vid can only have the next to sense, which isn't really suitable for "with". If we accepted that, people would definitely think vid can mean "among".


Cue: Min härliga häst


Yes it should, unfortunately Duolingo is overly strict with colloquial terms. If I was at a petting farm and someone asked me where I was I would say either 'over by the horses', or 'I am with the horses'. Never 'I am by the horses'.


What is the meaning of "I am by the horses" ?


That ’I’ am standing next to them: ”over by the horses”.


I would never say "I am by the horses" - I would say I am beside or near or with the horses. I think you should change the swedish phrase so that translates to a phrase in english that matches more common english (or american) usage.


I would almost definitely say "I am by the horses". It sounds perfectly natural to me


By. Definition: in proximity to.

I am by the statue. That's a location.

I am by my aunt...in the picture.

I am by the horse - but where's the horse?


I would say I am by the horses far more frequently than I'd say with or next to. But I suppose I'd say next to the horses as well. Maybe it's a difference between English and American English.


Just want to know about the differences between vid and bredvid?


Why is beside the horses incorrect

  • 1624

I'm with Julian here and would appreciate a response. Why is BESIDE not also considered correct and accepted here? I’m quite sure in other contexts I’ve seen brevid used and translated as ‘beside.'


Is "I am near the horses" not appropriate? Aren't we talking about proximity?


We are, but it doesn't have quite the same meaning. Your sentence would be "Jag är nära hästarna", while being vid hästarna means you're right at their place rather than in their near surroundings.


I wrote "I'm next to the horses", it said it's incorrect. Isn't being next to something the same as being by something?


I have the same question. My swedish husband said there should be no difference and "next to" should also count. If there's some slight difference between "next to" and "by", can you please explain? Because to me they mean exactly the same thing.


I wrote "next to" as well.


I wrote "next to" also. I think that is correct.


I wrote "beside" which was also marked as wrong. :(


I agree. By is definied as in proximity to. Which is near.


I am hearing "Jo-gär vid hästana"... So saying "jag är" you actually pronounce the "g"?


No, the G is rarely heard unless you really emphasize the word. The TTS is just being a robot voice unaware of this. :)


How come "next to" is wrong? "By" and "next to" are synonymous in English. Are they not in Swedish?


"next to" would be bredvid. We use vid for vicinity rather than directness. English frequently does the same - you can often say that you're "by" something even if you're not actually next to it.


Thank you. I appreciate your help.


So I am over by the horses, but not next to any particular horse? If you find the horses, you'll find me? Is this the "vicinity" concept versus the "next to/adjacent" concept?


Sometimes the "g" in "Jag" is pronounced and sometimes it isn't. Is there a general rule for when to pronounce the "g?"


No, that's just up to the individual speaker.

Most people just drop it entirely. Formal and/or slow speech tends to use it more often, since that puts emphasis on "correct" pronunciation, just like in English. And if the next word starts in a vowel sound, you're also a bit more likely to pronounce the g than if it starts in a consonant sound.


It gives "on" as a translation for vid and på also has "on" as a translation. Is there a given distinction between the two? Such as på for living things and vid for inanimate objects.


I heard "Jag äter hästarna" at first. It would not be objectionable, but a bit surprising.


The horses might find it objectionable.


They certainly would! ;-)


how do you say star in swedish


Sometimes it's hard to understand what the voice is saying. This time I heard her saying "Jag är i hästarna" :D


Should beside be accepted?


Arguably, but I think the difference is worth maintaining:

  • vid means by as in the near vicinity of
  • bredvid means by as in next to

It's problematic that "by" isn't really idiomatic to use in English, though, so I can see the argument for both ways.


This sentence seems quite problematic. Perhaps the point of the prepositions can be learned better by omitting horses and using restaurants please? Since we're all having trouble with horses! XOXO


There is literally a sentence using restaurants as an example of this in the course, and learners have the same problems there. I think it's just something where the languages clash a little, so that people have to rewire their internal grammar.


Is the r not pronounced in hastarna? I am hearing hestana...


r + n forms a retroflex sound, but simply dropping the r is also common here.


Good one! Thanks for the clarification.


I am surprised that är is acceptable in sentences like this. When I took Swedish at the university, they beat it into our heads to avoid saying är and choose between ligger, sitter, or står in a sentence like this.

It feels like "Jag står vid hästarna" is the best choice but står isn't in the word list, but that seems to translate as "I am standing beside the horses". Would a native Swede normally say är or står?


Unless there was additional context to that teaching, that is really, really weird advice. It's a perfectly natural sentence. Sure, you could say står as well but in this case I would say that's closer to actually using "am standing" in English as well. Was that class really taught by a native speaker?


It was taught by a native speaker. In English, we almost always use the verb 'to be' to describe an object's physical location and we have to learn ourselves out of that for Swedish, where several other verbs are more commonly used. This one felt to me like står would be the preferred choice so I was just wondering which of the two is most natural in a sentence like this.


I wouldn't call either unnatural in any way, really.

I mean, sure, I know how both languages work - and if the advice had been "try to favour using positional verbs to get into that practice, since non-natives often struggle with it," I'd call it great advice. That's not really what it sounds like from the description, though.


Would vid be the same as the German bei?


Pretty much, yeah.


I agree with many others, "I am beside the horses" should be acceptable. As a native English speaker my natural tendency would be to use "beside" in this case. I can see that others may use "by", as that does not seem out of place.

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