Let me get this straight. "Zupe" becomes "Zupę" here because it is in the accusative case?
Yes and no.
Yes, "zupę" is accusative. But "zupe" is not a thing. The nominative is "zupa."
To be more precise, "zupa" is gramatically feminine, not neuter (the "e" ending?). It is indeed a thing, or rather "stuff" as it is uncountable
For example "dziecko" is neuter, but not a thing. On fhe other hand, "kanapka" is a thing, but feminine, not neuter.
It is important to make this distinction, especially as we don't have grammatical gender in English. Not all that is neuter is "things", and many, probably most, "things" are not neuter.
You misunderstand. You seem to be taking "thing" as implying "neuter," which was not my intent. When I say that "zupe" is not a thing, I simply mean that there is no case in which "zupa" takes that form.
OK, I think I've got it. You mean perhaps that the word form "zupe" does not exist / nie istnieje? But I'm afraid that I've never before seen "is not a thing" used like that. In British English, at least, we say that something exists or doesn't exist, not that it is or isn't a thing. Or we might say that "there is no such word form as zupe". So, yes, I'm afraid I did misunderstand you, and I think it's just possible others might, as well.
Yes, "is/isn't a thing" is a common expression in American English meaning that something is/isn't done a certain way.
How can someone eat "a" soup.I'm quite sure soup is an uncountable noun since its a liquid.I've never heard someone say "a soup"
Mass nouns for food can take the indefinite article in English when you're talking about them by the serving. E.g. "I would like to order a soup."
I assume the "a" is goes for the "plate" which is not written but implied.
I've never paid attention to that before...even though I know the sentence is still okay English, it just sounds weird now kek