Learn Hardcore Swedish: Mellan huset och skogen finns en promenadstig där vi ofta går med hunden. - Between the house and the forest there is a walking path where we often go with the dog.

Swedish normally uses finnas (here: finns) to express “there is / there are” or “exists”, especially when talking about where something is located.

Mellan huset och skogen finns en promenadstig
≈ “Between the house and the forest there is a walking path.”

Compare:

Det finns en promenadstig mellan huset och skogen.
= “There is a walking path between the house and the forest.”

This is the standard existential pattern: det finns + noun.

Putting the place expression first just moves det away:

Mellan huset och skogen finns (det) en promenadstig.
The det is usually dropped here.

Using är would sound wrong in this structure:

❌ Mellan huset och skogen är en promenadstig. (not idiomatic)

You can say:

En promenadstig är mellan huset och skogen.

but that sounds marked and unnatural in everyday speech; it emphasizes the path rather than simply stating that one exists there. So finns is the normal choice in this sentence.

Why is the word order “Mellan huset och skogen finns en promenadstig” and not something like “Mellan huset och skogen en promenadstig finns”?

Swedish main clauses obey the V2 rule: the finite verb must be in second position in the sentence.

Position 1 can be almost anything (subject, time phrase, place phrase, object, etc.). Here, position 1 is the place phrase:

Mellan huset och skogen (adverbial of place)
finns (finite verb)
en promenadstig (subject)

So:

Mellan huset och skogen finns en promenadstig. ✅

If the subject comes first, the verb is still second:

En promenadstig finns mellan huset och skogen. ✅

But you cannot push the verb out of second place:

❌ Mellan huset och skogen en promenadstig finns.

That breaks the V2 rule, so it sounds clearly wrong to native speakers.

Why are huset, skogen, and hunden in the definite form?

In Swedish, definiteness is usually marked with an ending on the noun:

hus → huset (the house)
skog → skogen (the forest)
hund → hunden (the dog)

In this sentence, all three are specific, known things:

huset – the particular house (probably “our house” or one already mentioned)
skogen – the particular forest near the house
hunden – the particular dog (almost certainly the family dog)

This matches English the house / the forest / the dog.

A useful difference from English: Swedish often uses the definite form instead of a possessive where English says “our” or “my”:

Vi går ut med hunden.
Literally: “We go out with the dog”, but often understood as “We walk our dog.”

Using the indefinite forms (ett hus, en skog, en hund) would sound like you mean some random house, forest, or dog, not something already known to the listener.

Why is it en promenadstig (indefinite) and not promenadstigen (definite)?

This is about new vs known information.

en promenadstig = a walking path (new, not yet introduced)
promenadstigen = the walking path (already known/specific)

In the sentence, the path is mentioned for the first time. Swedish, like English, usually uses the indefinite form when you introduce something:

Mellan huset och skogen finns en promenadstig. Promenadstigen är lång.
“Between the house and the forest there is a walking path. The walking path is long.”

If you said:

Mellan huset och skogen finns promenadstigen.

it would suggest that both speaker and listener already know exactly which path you mean (a specific, previously mentioned or very locally famous one). That can be correct in the right context, but the neutral, descriptive version is with en promenadstig.

What kind of word is promenadstig, and why is it one word?

promenadstig is a compound noun, made up of:

promenad = a walk / stroll
stig = a narrow path / trail

Swedish regularly forms new nouns by joining words together into a single written unit:

sommarhus (summer house)
skolbok (school book / textbook)
promenadstig (walking path)

Important points:

It is always written as one word: promenadstig, not promenad stig.
The last part (stig) is the head and decides:
- gender: en (because en stig) → en promenadstig
- plural: promenadstigar
- definite forms: promenadstigen, promenadstigarna

So you get:

en promenadstig – a walking path
promenadstigen – the walking path
promenadstigar – walking paths
promenadstigarna – the walking paths

How does mellan work in mellan huset och skogen?

mellan means between, and the normal structure is:

mellan X och Y

So:

mellan huset och skogen = between the house and the forest
mellan Stockholm och Uppsala = between Stockholm and Uppsala
mellan bordet och soffan = between the table and the sofa

Notes:

Both nouns after mellan are just in their normal form (indefinite or definite depending on meaning). There’s no special case marking.
The whole phrase mellan huset och skogen is a prepositional phrase functioning as an adverbial of place. You can move it:
- Det finns en promenadstig mellan huset och skogen.
- Mellan huset och skogen finns en promenadstig.
You can optionally include det with finns:
- Mellan huset och skogen finns det en promenadstig.
  Also correct; slightly more neutral or explanatory in style.

But structurally, mellan X och Y is stable: you don’t change mellan or add another preposition.

What exactly does där do in … en promenadstig där vi ofta går med hunden? Could you use som instead?

Here, där is a relative adverb meaning “where”. It introduces a relative clause that describes promenadstig:

en promenadstig [där vi ofta går med hunden]
= “a walking path where we often walk the dog”

So där works like English where referring to a place.

You can make a similar sentence with som, but the structure changes:

… en promenadstig som vi ofta går på (med hunden).

Here:

som = “that/which” (relative pronoun)
som is the object of the preposition på
på can’t disappear here; it belongs to gå (på) “walk on”.

Rough comparison:

där vi ofta går (med hunden)
= “where we often walk (the dog)” – focusing on place.
som vi ofta går på (med hunden)
= “which we often walk on (with the dog)” – focusing on the path itself as an object.

Both are grammatical; där is the more natural, compact choice for locations.

Also, because där already means “in/on/at that place”, you don’t say:

❌ där vi ofta går på (with no further object)

That would be redundant and incorrect in this context.

Why is it där vi ofta går and not där vi går ofta?

This is about the difference between main clause and subordinate clause word order.

In main clauses, adverbs like inte, ofta, alltid normally come after the finite verb:

Vi går ofta med hunden.
(subject – verb – adverb – …)

In subordinate clauses (introduced by att, som, där, när, etc.), those adverbs come before the finite verb:

… att vi ofta går med hunden.
… som vi ofta går med hunden.
… där vi ofta går med hunden.

So inside the där‑clause, the normal order is:

där + [subject] + [adverb] + [verb] …
där vi ofta går med hunden

Using där vi går ofta would follow main‑clause order inside a subordinate clause and sounds wrong or very marked:

❌ … där vi går ofta med hunden. (ungrammatical in standard Swedish)

So the sentence is a textbook example of subordinate‑clause word order.

What does går med hunden mean exactly, and are there other common ways to say this?

gå med hunden literally means “go/walk with the dog”, and is the standard everyday way to say “walk the dog”.

Breakdown:

gå = to go / to walk (on foot)
med = with
hunden = the dog (here: our dog / the dog we both know)

You must use med; you cannot make hund a direct object:

❌ Vi går hunden. (wrong)
✅ Vi går med hunden.

Common alternatives:

gå ut med hunden – go out with the dog (very common for “walk the dog”)
promenera med hunden – stroll with the dog (slightly more “proper”/descriptive)
rasta hunden – take the dog out so it can relieve itself

In the given sentence, där vi ofta går med hunden = “where we often walk the dog”.

Can you leave out vi and just say … där ofta går med hunden?

No. Swedish normally requires an explicit subject pronoun; it is not like Spanish or Italian where the subject can often be dropped.

Compare:

… där vi ofta går med hunden. ✅
❌ … där ofta går med hunden.

In the second version, there is no subject for går, so the sentence is ungrammatical.

The main exceptions where Swedish omits the subject are:

Imperatives:
Gå med hunden! – “Walk the dog!”
Certain abbreviated styles (headlines, diary notes, bullet lists), not regular full sentences like the one you have.

So in normal sentences, always keep vi, jag, han, hon, etc. as subjects.