у́тка → у́тку
‧ Accusative Case - Direct Object ‧ Whenever a verb, like "read", "cut" or "want" acts directly on some noun, the latter is a Direct Object. Such nouns take the Accusative Case. ‧ Formation - feminine nouns ending in -а / -я have a separate form:
ма́ма → ма́му
‧ www.duolingo.com/skill/ru/Accusative-Case%3A-the-direct-object/tips-and-notes ‧
Хотеть + DO Acc
Хотеть + Verb Infinitive
[ Хотеть ] ‧ is a Transitive Verb ( takes Direct Objects in Accusative Case ) ‧
A Transitive Verb has two characteristics. First, it is an action verb, expressing a doable activity like kick, want, paint, write, eat, clean, etc. Second, it must have a direct object, something or someone who receives the action of the verb. ‧ www.chompchomp.com/terms/transitiveverb.htm ‧
This raises an interesting topic I've been turning over. In an actual class you learn the language partially by learning words for popular foods from the regions where they speak that language. I thought getting into this would involve reading about a lot of pierogi and vodka and stuff like that. But I guess not!
This could be one specific menu item as opposed to an entree and a side dish. Try reporting to see what happens. How are we to know if the duck can be ordered separately from the rice, or not? https://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web?q=duck%20and%20rice%20in%20Russia
Is утку a word that always works for "duck"? I tried to order duck in a Kyrgyz restaurant this summer, and my fluent-in-Russian-friend said the menue was ambiguous and that duck isn't always duck. Maybe just "bird"? I don't remember, but this is very intriguing to me. Btw, they didn't have duck left.
I presume the "duck" this sentence is referring to is the type that is already cooked and ready to eat, i.e. it is dead, inanimate. Wouldn't it then be more logical to say "Я хочу утка" if you wanted a (dead) duck to eat, and "Я хочу утку" if you wanted a live duck (to play with)?