11 Comments This discussion is locked.
Because in this context, it means "eating meat" not eating "flesh" which seems to imply cannibalism.
Ok, I understand about the context. But literally, could this sentence mean "the child is eating flesh" under more macabre circumstances?
No, not really. If one were to be talking about cannibalism, one would most likely use the word "Menschenfleisch" I just want to add that in my 10 years living in Austria, this subject has never come up in conversation.
Then you could be talking about the flesh of another creature. While it is rare for us to say someone is eating flesh in English, in certain circumstances (for example, those protesting the consumption of meat) one could definitely use the term "eating flesh" as a way to try and sway others from eating meat.
The computer's pronunciation is a bit confusing, although I was able to figure it out.
As far as I know the 'sch' in a word is not silent, can anyone correct me if I am wrong in case of Fleisch? I put the word into google translate as well and sch is clearly audible there.
Sch is read pretty much like the "sh" in the English "wash". So Fleisch would be fl-eye-sh.
Yeah, that's what i've been thinking. Is there any difference at all between the German "sch" and the English "sh"?
There is a difference, but it is very subtle, the German "sch" is a little bit longer and stronger, but not by very much.