But ... I thought ... fish were friends, not food? :/
The sharks said so.
OK, I'm a Roman Catholic. The laws of the church state that you can't have meat on Friday, so we have fish. Fish isn't meat! Right??
In 16th century Sweden people were eating beavers on Fridays because they were fish apparently.
Haha, OK. Weird. :)
Religion does not claim all of the people in one country or their language. This translation drill is purely linguistic and has no cultural implication.
In Judaism, you may not eat meat and dairy together, and fish do not count as meat.
In Russia your grandmother would certainly tell you not to eat fish and dairy together too. ;)
It's meat. You're going to hell.
regardless of semantics, the sentence is very odd in english. Fish is meat. Unless you're trying to have some silly argument with a vegetarian who eats fish, when you going to use it?
Read the small print at the bottom of the notes on the lesson, which warn you that some of these sentences might be far-fetched.
is mięso Acc or Nom in this sentence?
In this sentence it's nominative. See the tips in this section for more details, but basically you can define something using "to" and the nominative, as in the case of this sentence.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think you use the nominative with to
I said "Fish is a meat" - marked wrong. This seems to me to be incorrect English - any ideas?
Can we use ''jest'' instead of ''to''. The meaning will be same or no ? I dont know when we use to or jest
yes, you can use "jest" in this sentence. But you have to use instrumental case. For longer explanation see:
A guide on "X is Y" and "This is Y" constructions
When do I use 'to' instead of 'jest'?
Biologically of course fish is meat but by custom in English meat excludes fish which is an alternative and usually sold in a fishmonger's npt a butchers. Fismngers are usually separate in Poland also