"Io ho i polli."

Translation:I have the chickens.

January 4, 2013

This discussion is locked.



"" can't be a plural amount?


The meat can't be plural but the animals can be.


eauxement: Chicken can be plural in UK, but not in USA.


I eat chicken, but a farmer raises chickens. The food would be singular, but the animal can be plural on either side of the pond, and even in Australia and New Zealand.


I've not heard chicken used as plural form in Britain. Unless you mean chicken meat?


Check Longman's dictionary of contemporary english, all is there. I haven't heard it either but, alas, it exists.


I'm pretty sure chicken/chickens have the exact same meaning wherever you are. Chicken = 1 chicken or chicken meat, chickens = 2 or more chickens.


To all of you saying 'chicken' is plural in England: do you really mean the following is correct - "The farmer has 20 chicken"? Or are you only referring to chicken meat?


Exactly. It's similar with fish and is dependant on the context. Fish is the plural form for one kind of fish. So if you have a fising-cutter and you fish for let's say tuna, then at the end of the day you have a lot of fish, just as a farmer has a lot of chicken. If you have an aquarium, then you probably would say you have some fishes there, because they are most likely of a different species. Another example: If you say you saw four fish when scuba diving, that means you saw four individual fish, but if you say you saw four fishes, we might infer that you saw an undetermined number of fish of four different species


Spot on with the fish analogy, but the phrase "a farmer has a lot of chicken" would to me (British) mean meat. I think when talking about the animal, chicken = singular, chickens = plural. As far as the meat goes, chickens would never be used, only chicken which doesn't specify a quantity. It could mean anything from 1 chicken breast to 100 or something


Makes sense. When talking about meat, chicken just tells you what kind of meat you walk about. The slight difference between chicken and fish here seems to be that we do have several kinds of fish, yet (at least in western culture) only one kind of chicken.


So, I reported it as an error, but I'm wondering if the error is mine. I answered it as 'I have the hens.'

Is 'polli' a word that only refers to chicken as food? Or can it also refer to living chickens - in which case 'hens' would be an acceptable alternative?


Your post is very old but someone might stumble on the same question so I'll answer it. As I know (I might be wrong) 'hen' refers to the female bird, so it's translation is 'gallina'. For 'pollo', the correct translation is 'chicken' which refers to the species in general, not to a specific gender. Hope it helps


Why is it incorrect to say: 'io non ho i polli' - the correct translation for which is given as: 'io non ho poll' - but yet it is correct to say: 'io ho i polli'?


Just like in english you sometimes used "the" and sometimes you dont. There is no real rule.


is the "io" redundant?


Yes, it's optional.


I think either translation is correct


in fact, the old italians speak "i ho i polli", but now all say gallina or galline, i know this duolingo is just a program but you have to speak with italians for learn more.


Gallina = hen (female chicken) pollo/i is more general


is there any italian learner community/forum on the web?


"I have the hens", is not correct... so pollo is a word that describes only cockerels?


No, pollo means chicken, so neither hen nor cockerel would be correct, both being too specific.


And I know how to use them


I expected an o sound with ho. Is it pronounced ah? Or is it the speaker's accent?


Ho should be pronounced as: Ò .
You can hear native speakers pronounce it here:

Learn Italian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.