"You can swim in the lake without risk."

Translation: Du kan simma i sjön utan risk.

[havjermunaas]

'Du kan simma i sjön utan risk' is apparently wrong. I know that usually one would say 'man', but there is no context whatsoever, and I could be asking my dad 'pappa, kan jag simma i sjön utan risk?', my dad would answer 'ja, det är sant, du kan simma i sjön utan risk'. It should be valid too...

[Zmrzlina]

It is accepted.

[deactivated user]

How does one now that "Man kan simma..." is also right? Wouldn't the translation for that one be "One can swim in the lake..."?

[devalanteriel]

If I say "you can ..." in English, it can mean either that you, the person I'm talking to, can do something - or that anyone in general can do it. So "you can ..." in English can be translated to either "man kan" or "du kan" in Swedish, and you have/one has to guess from the English context which one it is.

The "one can..." construct is also in use in English, but is far less common, and often forgone in favour of "you can..." instead. So in this case, for once, it's English that's the confusing part and not Swedish. :p

[deactivated user]

Alright that makes sense (I guess?). Such a shame that "one can..." is so uncommon. Sounds much nicer to my ears :-).

Thanks for the explanation!

[Synthpopalooza]

Why does får not work here?

[Arnauti]

That wouldn't be logical. The meaning of that would be like You're allowed to swim in the lake without risk, which doesn't make sense. It's not like the risk is a question of permission or not.