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).
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'.
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
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.
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 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. :)
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.
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.