1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Die Vögel fressen Brot."

"Die Vögel fressen Brot."

Translation:The birds are eating bread.

October 10, 2015



Menchen essen, Tiere fressen.


What is the difference between Essen and Fressen?


Essen refers to humans. Fressen refers to animals. So... Essen= Humans Fressen= Animals. Hoped this helped :D


That is very helpful.


Was explained to me as: humans eat, animals feed.


Essen is for people, fressen is mainly used when the subject is an animal


Essen is for humans eating, Fressen is for animals/animal-like eating. You use Fressen to say that an animal is eating, or that a human is eating like an animal would.


The intonation of "Vögel" sounds strange to me. My native language has pitch accents and the voice uses an unexpected tone. Or does it sound perfectly normal to a German ear since tones are not phonemic?


Whats your native tongue? It seems normal, pitch-wise to me. Has a bit of the "bounce" Germans have.


Right, the pitch sounds correct. To me as a mother tongue speaker, it sounds like they want to stress the "Vögel" as in: "Die Vögel fressen Brot, aber die Katzen fressen Fisch."


I couldn't make it out at all on first hearing.


"Birds" in English is a General name of a category and we have to drop the definite article. Examples: 1- Birds eat bread. The word Birds here means the birds in general and we have to drop the definite article.But in 2- the birds in this garden eat Bread we have to maintain the definite article because it is a specified cluster of birds which doesn't include the whole category


Is 'die' used with all plural nouns?


yes. Unless it's got something to do with the cases. But in the Nominative case it's always die as far as I understand.


Are the birds ducks


so, why isnt "the birds are feeding on bread" working here?


because duolingo takes both essen and fressen as 'eat' whether the subject is human or animal. We may memorize in our head that fressen means feed, but for now let's follow what duolingo wants.


Thats not typically what we would say English. Its not incorrect, just not typical.


Why is this not "Frisst"


it is because it is 'vögel' which is plural, so it uses 'fressEN', the plural form. 'frisst' is for singular form, like 'vogel' (note the 'ö' in plural and 'o' in singular)


Singular is Vogel, plural Vögel, isn't it?


Sorry, I meant singular is DER Vogel, plural DIE Vögel?


Yes, that's right: der Vogel, die Vögel.


Knowing that, according to one of these comments: fressen , animals feed, what if one says: The mother feeds her children, would you use that word or some form of it, or is there another word for feeding?


To feed someone as in giving food to them is füttern: Die Mutter füttert ihre Kinder.

Though that implies that she takes a spoon and puts the food straight into the child's mouth.

If she just feeds them by cooking food and placing it on the table, but the children eat by themselves, then Die Mutter gibt ihren Kindern (etwas) zu essen. would be better.


It sounded to me a little like 'vögele' is it just me ?


I hear that too and came to the comments to see if someone else thought the same. It's only in the fast speed. Slow speed sounds ok.


It sounded like it said “fögel” instead of “vögel”... Which is the proper pronunciation?


The correct pronunciation has a /f/ sound at the beginning.

Vogel is a native German word, not a borrowed one, and in native German words the letter V (almost?) always stands for the /f/ sound.

For example: vor, Vater, Vogel, verstehen.

By contrast, in words borrowed from other languages (e.g. Latin, French, English), the letter V usually stands for the /v/ sound.

For example: Vitamin, Veranda, Villa, Vase, Vene.


ok Why in this sentance is the answer (or tanslation) the bird ARE eating bread, but as you can see there is no "Sind, Seid, Are" etc in the sentance?

Thanks, RObert


"are eating" is the present continuous form of the verb "eat".

German doesn't have a present continuous form. It just has one present tense.

So whether the birds are eating something right now (where English uses present continuous) or whether the birds eat something every day (where English uses present simple), both would translate into the same German present tense - die Vögel fressen.

And when translating the other way around, you may have to turn German grammar (present tense) into English grammar (present continuous) -- in which case you may have to add a word such as "are" because of the rules of English grammar, rather than because it corresponds to a particular word in the German sentence.

Similarly, if you are asking a question -- Fressen Vögel Brot? -- you would have to ask "Do birds eat bread?". The "do" does not come from anything in the German sentence, but from the rules of English grammar, which require "do" in this kind of question.


What's the difference between vögel and vogel


vogel is not a German word, and vögel is not one to be used in polite company.

Hopefully, you are speaking about Vogel and Vögel (capitalised).

Vogel is the singular (= bird) and Vögel is the plural (= birds).

ein Vogel, zwei Vögel "one bird, two birds"


"frisst" = eat and are eating when singular. Should be the same plural


It’s got little to do with singular and plural.

Generally, each subject takes a different verb form.

Those for du usually end in -st; after /s/ sounds, this gets simplified, so you have du frisst “you eat; you are eating”.

Those for er, sie, es have -t, so it’s es frisst “it eats; it is eating”, for example.

And those for ihr end in -t as well: ihr fresst “you eat; you are eating”.

As you can see, the vowel change only affects the du and er, sie, es forms - so er frisst and ihr fresst have a different vowel and look different even though the -t ending is the same.

Here, though, the subject is die Vögel, which is third person plural, like sie “they” — that subject has verbs ending in -en, as in die Vögel fressen.


I think The birds eat bread is also acceptable. The course does not agree to ackowledge it as an alternative


I think The birds eat bread is also acceptable.

It is, of course.

The course does not agree to ackowledge it as an alternative

Do you have any proof of that? A screenshot, for example, that you can upload to a website somewhere and then paste the URL into a comment here?


Die Vogel frisst brot . It should be the bird eats bread. Why is it the birds in plural form


It doesn't say die Vogel (which would be simply wrong).

It's die Vögel = the birds.

"the bird" would be der Vogel -- no umlaut, and it's masculine, so it takes der.


Vögeln in here sounds the same as Vögel. How do you actually pronounce the plural one ?


Am I the only one that didn't hear anything resembling "Vogel". I kept hearing, "fonen" or "phonen", neither of which is a real word as far as I know.


In another sentence, Duo gave: Die Enten essen Gemuese. Essen and not fressen. Any reason? Or just a Duo error?


Isst, frisst and now fressen.. I'm totally confused where and when, which one used.. :'-(


"essen" is used for humans.
"fressen" is used for animals - or colloquially for humans who are very hungry and are digging in huge amounts.

While English distinguishes only "eat" and "he/she/it eats"; some other languages (like German or Spanish) do that for every single pronoun:
ich esse - du isst - er/sie/es isst (I eat - you (one person) eat - he/she/it eats)
wir essen - ihr esst - sie essen (we eat - you (more than one) eat - they eat)

Same with fressen:
ich fresse - du frisst - er/sie/es frisst
wir fressen - ihr fresst - sie fressen

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