"Restauranten ligger ved siden av butikken."
Translation:The restaurant lies next to the shop.
I would say: Pakken ligger på bordet, pakken er på kjøkkenet, pakken kom med posten, men den ligger i bilen (I forgot it in the car), glasset står bak tallerkenen, glassene er i skapet til høyre.
Butikken som vi snakket om i går, er i Oslo. Den ligger ved siden av den fine, franske restauranten, i nærheten av banken.
This would be normal sentences in a Norwegian conversation about a shop, a restaurant and a bank.
No, 'Restauranten står ved siden av butikken.' is very strange. However, you could say: 'Restauranten er ved siden av butikken.' I think I would say that, rather than use the word 'ligger'. If we are going to meet at a restaurant, and you don't know exactly where it is, and you ask me: Where is it exactly? I would say: 'Den er ved siden av butikken.'
The usual way to translate Germanic languages to English just uses the verb "to be" for locations of things that use a range of verbs such as the "ligger" here. Duolingo normally does this too so I'm surprised to see the overly literal unnatural English translation used this time.
If I've understood correctly, you can oppose "setter" which designates something that "stands" on a surface, and "ligger" which designates something that "lies" on a surface. I suppose that a building is considered to be laid on the concrete... Maybe I'm not making sense, sorry..
In English, at least where I'm from (midwest/Eastern USA), it would either be "is next to" or "sits next to" ("beside" could be used in either).
We wouldn't use "lies" or "stands." We'd understand what you meant, but it's awkward.
When something "stands next to" something else, it implies that at least one of the two things is impressive, historical, amazing... "The hotel stands next to the Southern overlook of the Grand Canyon."
Something like that. It's a weird nuance.