The 'is' translation should not be accepted, this is completely ungrammatical in English.
- I realise that it is fine to allow literal translation even if it's not the way people actually speak (and I generally prefer writing a literal translation here actually, because I've been burnt enough with correct or good translations on Duo). But the idiomatic conventions of use are one thing, and basic grammatical rules are a completely different thing and should be treated differently (i.e. more conservatively).
But what about the other exercises here? "Kakan är bakad av min man" is translated with "the cake is baked of my husband" or "kakan är bakad och kaffet ...." - "the cake is baked and the coffee"
So it's like är född vs var född? Oh the differences between swedish and English!!
Ooh thanks for clarifying this. So is it possible for every verb to use the -es ending?
[I am not a native Swedish speaker, nor even a fair one, lol, but I was curious also.]
My grammar book--"A Concise Swedish Grammar", by Åke Viberg et al, Natur & Kultur, Pub.--says: "The passive in Swedish is formed simply by adding an s to the verb" and all ten examples given are formed that way.
It does, however, add a few options that have to do with endings ('-er' endings in particular, where the 'e' can be left or dropped; and for '-ar', the instruction is to remember that the 'r' disappears before the 's') ...but the end result always appears to be an s on the end. If there are other exceptions, I'm sure someone will say. ;-)
I liked this example: "Kassan räknas varje kväll. Igår räknades den tre gånger. Den har aldrig räknats så noggrant"* even though I didn't know every word.
*[The money in the till is counted every evening. Yesterday it was counted three times. It has never been counted so carefully.]
Hope this helps. I learned something. :-)
Is my understanding correct? :
"Brödet är bakat i går". E.g. I have a basket of bread sitting in front of me and it was baked yesterday.
"Brödet var bakat i går". E.g. I've just eaten the bread, it no longer exists, I asked when it was baked, and it was baked yesterday.
Both are totally correct and accepted. The official recommendation is to use them with a space, so that's what we write in the main versions. But there's nothing wrong with igår. The only thing is that the machinery has trouble accepting spelling variation in the type-what-you-hear exercises, so in those your safest bet is to write i går.
Thank you for answer! I asked one old swedish man about it, and he answered me that swedish people write "igår" together always. So I was confused. But maybe, he is not so good in grammar)
There's probably a lot of native speakers who think that. I've even had people tell me that they've never ever in their whole life seen the spelling i dag. However that is easy to disprove by a quick search in the most widespread newspapers. I think it isn't very natural for most people to observe their native language very closely. After all, why should they, since it just comes naturally to them anyway.
If the bread var bakat i går, that means that the bread does no longer exist.
brödet är bakat i går means that the bread was baked yesterday, and the result remains = the bread still exists
If you say blev bakat, that means 'got baked' i.e. it emphasizes the change of state from not being baked to getting baked.
So English and Swedish work a bit differently here.
Weird. So if I see a dead person in front of me who died yesterday, I say hon är död igår.
No, bakat is a perfect participle and död is an adjective. You'll want Hon är dödad i går for that meaning. Though that sounds much less idiomatic than e.g. Hon dödades i går.
This will be hard for me to remember.
I am having trouble understanding how the idea of the bread being gone is included.
If the sentence was, "Brödet var bakat och ätit upp i går," I would have no trouble knowing that the bread was gone.
Try to think of it like this, if it helps:
- Brödet var bakat i går = The bread was and it was baked yesterday
- Brödet är bakat i går = The bread is and it was baked yesterday
It's not so much that the Swedish construction explicitly means something as it is that we leave some information out and infer it through the idiomatics of the construction. So it can definitely be tricky.
Shouldn't the Swedish be 'brödet var bakat i går.' Since the adverb of time is in the past tense, the verb to be has also to be in the past tense. But in the Swedish it is in the present form. Why?
It's a quirk of Swedish, really - we use the construction to show that it still exists.
1) Brödet är bakat i går - the bread was baked yesterday (and it still exists; for e.g. it was not eaten)
2) Brödet var bakat i går - the bread was baked yesterday (but it no longer exists; for e.g. it was eaten)
Can someone confirm if this is correct?