I disagree about them being synonymous in English in the first place. I found this on one site:
Usually - X repeats over time, and some kind of variants happen more frequently than others. (time separation is implied)
Generally - there are multiple instances of X, and there is more of some variant than others. (no time separation is implied)
(here: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/70726/when-to-use-generally-usually-or-normally) but a quick search gave other hits as well. Anyway the difference is the same, i allmänhet is really generally and vanligtvis and oftast are usually.
Interesting. I see your point, although I couldn't tell you whether most people generally (ha!) use the words in these contexts or not. If I do, I've certainly never thought about it. With any luck I'll be able to forget the whole thing and not notice every time someone uses one word or the other in conversation. If I were to mix the two up in Swedish, would anyone be likely to notice? (And if that's the worst of my troubles in Swedish, I'm in fabulous shape.) What's your native language, Arnauti? Do I have a Swede teaching me English?
I keep translating lita på as rely on, which is marked incorrect. My Swedish-English dictionary reckons it's valid, but does it mean rely on in any general sense, or only rely on the trustworthiness of? (In which case, it's just synonymous with trust, and probably should continue not to be accepted.)
That's a good question. I feel there's a difference in meaning here but I'm not sure whether it's big enough for it not to be accepted or not. My own feeling is that rely on would be better translated as förlitar mig på or even är beroende av in a context like this.
I took a look in a dictionary (a physical one for a change) which says rely on is "lita på, förtrösta på, vara beroende av, vara hänvisad till". On the other side they say that lita på is "depend (rely) [up]on, trust to, trust, have confidence in, count [up]on, be assured of." (with various attempts at clarification in small type). The way to read a dictionary like this of course is to keep in mind that the translations listed work in some contexts, their ideal is to try to catch as many possible translations as possible. But not everything works everywhere.
Having thought a little more about it, I think you're right that in this sentence, it only means "rely on their trustworthiness". I think it's a very good description of it. If you'd say this with rely on, you'd probably mean something more, which isn't present in the Swedish sentence. Something along the lines of "use them as a resource" even.
Thanks Arnauti, that's exactly what I was getting at. I rely on my neighbours to take out the communal recycling bins for collection on Tuesdays, but just because they always do it before I get a chance, so I never even bother to check anymore. It wouldn't be a betrayal if they didn't; just an invalidation of an assumption I made about something that someone else would do for me. So would that be the sort of situation where förlitar mig på would make more sense?
Whereas in this Duo phrase, it's more like it's saying that I generally trust the staff not to be stealing from the cash register, or something like that.
I suppose, there is a difference between "I trust (someone)" and "I trust in (someone)" as Duo suggested me as a correct answer and marked my "i trust to the staff" incorrect and replaced my "to" with "in" which i consider to be not exactly what the sentence means... How you actually say this two things? So "på personalen" means you trust someone that he will not betray you, for example. How then actually to say "I trust in the stuff" in terms of trust in the their ability to achieve something? (Like "i trust in you, in my team, in myself etc.)