Could someone explain this sentence? I would have translated it as "Kaczka jest zwierzęciem"
"duck is an animal" Why would I need any article. I thought it was a correct sentence...
in English, we need an article for many more things than most Central and Eastern European languages, though less than some Romance languages....
In this case, both 'a duck...' and 'The duck...' could be correct, but without any article, 'duck' isn't an animal, it's food.
Let me show you an example where my sentence would be correct: Why, because duck is an animal. A duck is an animal is very unnatural. Ducks are animals is correct though. Even though I think, if we want to use the singular form, we should say duck is an animal, without any article.
As a native English speaker born and raised in Michigan, the phrase "duck is an animal" is as unnatural, and the phrase "a duck is an animal" as perfectly, unremarkably natural, as you seem to think they are the opposite.
"Ducks are animal" is also not correct; 'animal' must be a plural to agree with "ducks" and "are"...
As a native English speaker born and raised in Michigan (ironically), I also used "duck is an animal". A lot of the phrasings here hit the ear awkwardly, which is understandable.
The concept that it is wrong because the English speaker is referencing duck as a food rather than duck as an animal just comes off as silly.
roger bro, btw, ik animal should have been in plural, it was just a typo, but nvm. damn, bro, u have a point, ❤❤❤❤, just looked up a few wikipedia pages, and they all use those ❤❤❤❤❤❤ articles before the terms.
As a native English speaker born and raised in England, "duck is an animal" is absolutely fine. You could use it either to refer to the species or the meat.
Both ways are correct. Keep in mind after jest, the following noun (or the adjective that comes with it) will be in the instrumental case.