Although "he always tells the truth" translates to "han säger alltid sanningen" as well.
It's always tala sanning and always säga sanningen. You can't mix the two expressions.
They're essentially semantically equivalent (with one minor difference), and I'm not trying to mix them. I'm not sure what you're arguing.
Oh, sorry! What you said is totally true. I just wanted to add more information.
I'm not arguing at all, just pointing out something that learners need to know.
So why would we not accept the translation "he always speaks truth"? Is there some reason why that sentence is unacceptable? I am asking why the "the" has to be included here.
I'm terribly late here, but I agree - that's a good, idiomatic translation and should be accepted.
Edit, four months later: And now it's accepted.
Technically, that'd be sanningsenligt ("truthaccordingly"), but in this case I'd say that should also be accepted. After all, there's no difference, really.
Tack. Is senlig a common prefix (or whitever) then - en pizza gjord på kanin dynga smakar senlig?
enlig - the s is a so-called foge-s, used to connect words in a compound. It's the same en as in "one", originally, so the meaning was basically similar as in one and the same. German has ähnlich for "similar" in essentially the same way.
And you're right: it does feature as an occasional suffix. But not really on its own as with your rabbbit example - we tend to use it mostly for established words, or in the "accordingly" sense when used in new words.
Edit: Of, and of course, English has "only" from the same etymology. :)