"To jest smaczna ryba."
Translation:This is tasty fish.
46 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I am English, lived here all my life, and I would say "This fish is tasty".
Is there only one way to answer for each of these questions? because I think that would be quite rigid.
It says more or less the same, but with a completely different grammatical structure, even the subject of the sentence is different. ('this' vs 'this fish')
This fish is tasty is correct. The problem is that construct does not translate well from Polish to English. As an old English teacher once taught me, "translations are mere coincidences". Polish was not created off a translation of English, nor vice versa. They're independent.
It's a correct sentence, but not a correct translation. This has already been discussed in this comment section.
Yeah, “to jest” is an equivalent of “this is” (you say it when pointing at things) and its form does not change, regardless of the gender of the noun.
Why not "To jest smaczną rybę"? Is it because "to" is used rather than a noun?
After 'To jest' you use nominative case. Why would you use accussative?
Examples of nominative cases:
-To jest duża ryba - This is a big fish
-To jest wysoka góra = This is a high mountain
Examples of accusative cases:
-Widzę dużą rybę - I can see a big fish
-Widzę wysoką górę - I can see a high mountain
179
The noun "fish" is uncountable, so it is wrong to say "a fish".
To jest smaczna ryba (mięso/danie) - It is tasty fish (meat/
dish)/ This fish is tasty
I guess that with the adjective 'tasty', it makes a lot more sense to use "fish" rather than "a fish", I just changed the main answer.
However, this doesn't mean that "a fish" is incorrect in English. Just think about Christmas, Polish people buy karp (carp), and although it's less common now, they still can be bought alive. It's not such a strange thing to look at an alive fish and say that it's a tasty fish. And even if you considered it strange, it's surely not wrong.
"This fish is tasty" is a different sentence grammatically ("Ta ryba jest smaczna"), we do not accept those.
Of course, "a fish" is completely OK in a different sentence. "I saw a fish at the supermarket that I couldn't identify", or "the alligator is eating a fish". The plural can be "fish" or "fishes" depending on whether you look at the fish as potential food (or food) or whether you look at it as a representative of a species of fish. Two trout swimming together are two fish. Two trout and a carp swimming together are three fishes. Fish you don't eat (or don't know you eat) are often treated in the second way. For instance, you might be in the water, surrounded by salmon (no s) or surrounded by sharks (s). Because of the weirdness of this rule in English, you will find people confused about whether to say fish or fishes in the plural, but if you look it up in Grammarly you will see I am correct.
It's the translation that matters. If the english can be this fish is tasty or this is tasty fish then obviously both should be acceptable....
But it can't, because "This fish is tasty" is "Ta ryba jest smaczna".
I refer you to my previous reply. It can because they are equivalent translations (i.e. not necessarily exactly grammatical equivalents) for a statement with no other context as in the exercise on the app version. Maybe it is a web version vs app thing...?
Why not "This is yummy fish"? Are tasty and yummy pretty much interchangeable or no?
"yummy" is considered colloquial, and if you use it, it seems stronger than "tasty", it's rather "delicious" (Polish: "pyszna ryba"). We generally try not to accept colloquialisms neither in Polish nor English.
"This fish is tasty" = "Ta ryba jest smaczna".
It changes the subject from 'this' (dummy pronoun) to 'this fish'.
Excuse but is. This is tasty fish even correct grammar? The correct translation to English in correct grammar should really be this is "a" tasty fish ;) is the pronoun not being missed there?
The English translation should be "This is a tasty fish", not "This is tasty fish".
If ryba is singular, the English translation should be singular as well, "a fish".
There were a lot of complaints about "a fish", and we decided that in the context of 'being tasty' we'll go with "fish". But it's not plural here, it's singular used as "fish meat".
We're answering the question "What's this?" and not "How does the fish taste?"
- 627
Im not a native in the english language and this sentence feels odd. I would have put an 'a' in between (this is a tasty fish).
Sorry what i meant a bove is either that way or i actually typed in this fish is tasty which is definitely also a correct translation to english and it didnt accept it and mark me down. Correct gramatical translations would be this is a tasty fish or this fish is tasty... This is tasty fish just makes no sense and seems be a very rudimentar translation of the sentence literally word by word.
So "to jest" doesn't take the instrumental, but "jest" does? For example I would say "ona jest kobietą" but "ta jest kobieta"?
Wow, so this sentence helped me with all the other ones in the series! Polish is a lot more straightforward than other languages I've studied. I'm excited to consider that I could gain proficiency a lot sooner than I had previously anticipated!! =D (Note to self and others: don't make it more difficult than it is.)
Those are different sentences. If I point at a dish and ask: "What's this?" you could respond with "This is a tasty fish", but not "This fish is tasty".
Because it changes the subject of this sentence from "this" to "this fish". What if I don't even know that it's a fish?
Why does the adjective come before the noun in the translation and nothing else is added/needed?? If worded differently, the result sounds more 'natural', at least in my opinion: This fish is tasty, or with the determiner 'a': This is a tasty fish. It seems like there's something off with the 'correct' answer, and even people who are actually English believe so, for what I've read in other comment.
Care to explain why?
Or are u used to being spoon-fed everything?
The moderators and contributors on this course do an excellent job of breaking things down and explaining them very patiently. Sometimes numerous times.
The very basic thing they can expect from us is to at least explain what we are struggling with or what confuses us. They can hardly be expected to chase you and beg for you to explain what you are struggling with so that they can help you.
And on one hand you say it is a "confusing sentence" and then in the same breath you say "it is essentially wrong".
So which is it? Is it 'confusing' (in which case they can explain it to us) or is it 'just wrong'? (In which case they may have to consider relearning their own language)