Yeah. My biggest problem (for now) with swedish is when to use på, for, and i.
1- can someone introduces a good reference to read out more about på role in this language? I myself would always pray him-her whenever i'll go to church! 2- Anyway, is stannar på a phrasal verb here?
No I do not think so. Koppen ligger på bordet. 'För' would not fit here i do not think.
You're right that på and för are rarely interchangeable. I want to point out that if you say Koppen ligger på bordet, then the cup is lying on its side, or it's broken. If the cup is in the normal position, we would say Koppen står på bordet.
@paulthompson3 You can, yes, though just in case I'd like to clarify to anyone reading it's "Koppen är på bordet", not "ar".
Hej Emil,what is the diffeence between..staying...and..standing when the place is not obviously mentioned in the question or if there is really difference,what exact verb is used for standing of human
"stay" is in the sense of "remain". You can't use "stand" that way - "stand" is about physical position primarily.
Could you translate this as "Stay for a cup of tea?" using English's implied you? Or is that not a correct translation as this implies an invitation to stay, whereas "Are you staying for a cup of tea?" does not.
Are the other ways the implication could be used? For example, could "talar engelska?" Be used instead of "do you speak english?"
The du is necessary, but it's often pronounced quite weakly, so that in reality we often say it like talaruengelska.
No, the difference is that Arnauti used the imperative form, but saying it as a question makes it a polite request rather than an order. You used the present tense, which can not be used in this way.
I almost wrote "Are you staying for a cup of coffee?". Seems I become Swedish faster than I thought :-)
"are you staying for tea?" Isn't accepted, but I don't understand why. Do you have to include that it's a "cup of tea"?
You should since it's in the Swedish sentence. Otherwise we could have skipped it in the Swedish sentence too.
English person here. You need to include the word 'cup' if you are meaning the drink, as 'tea' is also the word used for the evening meal in some parts of the country.
because "stop" as in stay is more colloquial... if we were using it literally, they would need to stop doing something
I can't get over the fact that "en kopp te" and "en kopp kaffe" just sound weird, as if they were missing "av" in the middle. Can you explain why they are written like that? Thanks.
av is used for 'made out of', so that's taken.
I guess it's just a thing that nouns can be used as a kind of expression of measurement.
I'm finding it quite hard to work out which order words come in when you are asking a question. Is there a rule?
You simply invert the normal sentence structure (an affirmative sentence such as "Du stannar på en kopp te" which would translate as "You are staying for a cup of tea") so that instead of Subject-Verb- Object, it's Verb-Subject-Object. Hence: Stannar (verb) du (subject) på en kopp te?
Han går hem = He walks (is walking) home. Går han hem? = Is he walking home?
Du känner honom = You know him. Känner du honom? = Do you know him?
If I've made any mistakes, anyone, then please correct me! :)
I'm very confused the meaning "stay for"... May I understand the sentence as "Do you have the time to drink a cup of tea?"
Yes, it's basically a conjunction of that plus "would you like to?"
Could you say stannar du på en te? Or would a swede always say en kopp insert drink here?
It depends a little on what's idiomatic. For instance, på en drink and på en kaffe are both fine, but på en te just sounds weird.
It told me that the solution is: Are you staying for a coppa? Explain please
Why is "Stay for a cup of tea?" not accepted? It is colloquial and means the same thing as the answer given.
It's not feasible to maintain a course where all colloquialisms are accounted for, especially where the point is to teach words and constructions.