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).
Swedish is the most consistent language I know (and I know a few of them).
"Kakan är bakad av min man" means that is baked, yes. "Kakan är bakad och kaffet..." means "The cookie is baked", yes. but it also says "i går". The cookie is still there, you can see the cookie on the table, so you cannot say "was" in Swedish, if you look at it carefully, is by far more consistent than English. I know that "the cookie is baked yesterday" makes no sense in English, but the cookie is still there, so why should we use the past tense? I think that's an inconsistency in English, not in Swedish.
Not exactly, since you are seeing him in a room now and you saw him in that room yesterday, so they're different sentences based on different days.
Edit: Let me give you an example, maybe it helps:
"Huset är ritat av en finsk arkitekt".
The house was drawn by a Finnish architect.
It was, yes, in past tense, but the drawing is still there, so I guess you can translate it like "There IS a drawing that WAS drawn by a Finnish architect"
Well, I'm not the best one to give you an answer to this, since I'm not a native, not even fluent, just another learner, but if I understood it properly, yes, it's exactly that, "Kakorna bakades i går" would mean that the cake is not there anymore, because it has already been eaten, while "Kakorna bakas i går" would mean that the cake was baked yesterday, but it's still there (it hasn't been eaten yet)
[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. :-)
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.
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.
I understand my mistake but what wanted to clarify that since there are a lot of objects that after being made exist for quite long than it would mean that in Swedish for these objects one can say both present and past passive forms (as long as the objects exist). Moreover, sometimes they exist forever. For example if a person dies, the dead person exists forever (at least until resurrection:), which would mean that in these cases both forms are always correct. Am I correct in this?
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.
In that scenario, you'd definitely use är bakat - because var bakat would imply that you're talking about some bread that has already been eaten.
This is true for the är/var passive distinction in general in Swedish. If you use är, you're talking about something that exists. If you use var, you're talking about something that no longer exists.
Swedish does not seem strange at all from the perspective of my native language (Polish), we could say both:
the bread is baked yesterday, meaning the bread is baked at the moment (it is its state being baked) and yesterday would describe the way it is baked, (similarly, the bread is baked and it is dark, we would say the bread is baked dark, if we drop 'dark', we just say `the bread is baked' as the current state of bread).
the bread was baked yesterday, meaning the process of baking happened yesterday. Thus for the bread that has been eaten, we cannot say that it is baked however for the bread that is still in our possession we can say it if we want to report its current state.
I wonder if these two situations cannot be distinguished in English. If they cannot it is rather a limitation of English and Swedish has it right.
I may have a naive understanding of the difference (based on my own language, which is Polish) but `är bakad' is like 'är brun' so it is more an adjective, while 'bakades' is more like a passive form of a verb. Adding the specification of the time is a bit confusing but it seems to describe in a way how it is baked vs. when it was baked.