(Replying to this again since your reply to mine below is too deep to reply to.)
I don’t quite follow. Are we nearly there yet? is surely closer in meaning to the literal Are we there soon? than the accepted answer of Are we there yet?, since both nearly and soon mean that (taking the question literally) the answer can be “Yes” before actually arriving at the destination, whereas Are we there yet? doesn’t contain anything corresponding. So Are we nearly there yet? is just as idiomatic as the accepted answer, closer in meaning to the original, and not much further in a word-for-word sense.
(Sorry to be a pain; I’m not coming back to this for the sake of arguing, but just because each time I meet this question in practice again after a couple of months, having forgotten the last time I met it, I go through the same thought-process of trying to think of a phrase that’s idiomatic but captures the meaning of Are we there soon?, and arriving at Are we nearly there yet again, and getting tripped up…)
How about Will we be there soon? as a happy medium. Not the most idiomatic way of expressing this but closer to the literal translation from Swedish and still correct/understandable English... Just a thought. The best idiomatic translation is certainly Are we there yet? though... can attest to this having tortured my parents on multiple car trips as a child!!!
"där" = a direction you can point at, like pointing on a map. It also works in context as destination marker "- Where are we going? Var bär vi av/ ska vi åka? - To the cinema, going to see the latest movie. På bio, vi ska se den senaste filmen. - Yippie! ...Are we there yet?!" Hurra! ...Är vi där än?!"
While framme is more considered to the designated destination. "I am hungry now, have we reached to the designated destination yet? Jag är hungrig nu, är vi framme än?"
my dictionary gives: framme = arrived ( http://redfoxsanakirja.fi/#!eng_swe_arrived ) so the sentence means: are we arriving soon there or are we arrived there soon. Soon/snart means it is going to happen in the future. Yet is like angrier version: it OUGHT TO have happened long ago. are we there soon has the same meaning i think.
I don't think it's nearly as unidiomatic (or to the point of being wrong) in English as you/many on this thread make it sound.
Yes, 'are we there yet', is a very common phrase/question in English, but I don't think, 'are we there soon', is that uncommon at all.
Sure, be quiet, we're there soon. I'm home soon etc. Are we home soon?
These all seem fine to me. Perhaps, it's a quirk of Hiberno-English or I am in a boat rowing alone ('are we there soon?' has been removed/it didn't work for me as a possible answer), but I think it should be accepted.
Similar to a 'say when? when!' situation.
Yes, I have gone through my stance on this and I think I may have been told by some native I trust that it's wrong, since apparently I changed my mind about it at one point.
But looking around, it is evident that I should have been more careful in my sourcing than I was this time. I'll be adding "are we there soon?" and delete the many comments asking about it. We already accepted several very similar answers, so it makes no sense to leave this specific one out even if it had been wrong.
Again, the speed of moderation is impressive. I've been using Duolingo some time (unsure whether I've replied to moderators much in the past, likely rarely) but this turnaround is award worthy.
To be honest, I'm slightly on the fence about this issue, given the number of people questioning it as 'weird' (the longer I think about it, I greater I question) but I am fairly sure my examples sound natural (at least colloquially).
I understand why some feel the need (or desire) to use 'will be' but in spoken English (at least), I just don't think it is of necessity (and I'm unsure if there is any grammatical issue). But perhaps for American English speakers, using 'soon' just sounds wrong/foreign. (But I think it is an issue that given Swedish question if answered yes, would need to be answered no, with respect to the English translation).
Anyhow, thanks again. I'll hopefully check back in a year, and gain wisdom or feel stupid following greater consensus.
Exactly! Why not just learn it and move on? There are many phrases that do not translate word for word into each language. I just learn them by writing them down in an exercise book of idiomatic phrases. I try to use them often and let repetition work its magic. These repeated attempts to convert a phrase into something that really is not idiomatic in either language is a waste of time, ultimately. Explaining the differences between där and framme, and snart and än (in this particular phrase) however, is important, since we've already learnt the words in our exercises on Duo, but not all their uses they in practice. I feel it's "like beating a dead horse" to keep on trying to fit "a square peg into a round hole". (Two examples of English expressions which probably have Swedish equivalents with not a word in common (I don't know the actual translations, sorry.) It's the meaning rather than the word for word translation that's important. Some examples: The Swedish expression: "Det är ingen ko på isen" literally means "there's no cow on the ice" but means in English "there's no need to worry" or "Det är ingen fara på taket" which means the same thing as the English expression but translated from Swedish word for word means "there's no danger on the roof". I'd say "är vi framme än" is great as "are we there yet".