1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Comer pescado es bueno para …

"Comer pescado es bueno para la salud."

Translation:Eating fish is good for health.

January 14, 2013



is "to eat fish is good for the health" not a valid translation?


I think it should be valid. It is perfectly valid in English.


completely agree - I'm going to complain


Me too! I just thought I'd check to see if anyone else did the same as me!


If I had a dollar for every time DL had pinged me for using the "[verb]ing" form instead of the "to [verb]" I'd have $242. So with this translation, even though it didn't sound as natural, I used the "to [verb]" form to please the Owl and got pinged for that! In sentences like this DL should just accept both forms and save us all the grief.


I agree the owl is hard to please sometimes. But 'eating fish is good for health' is the more natural way to say this in English. One would hardly ever say 'to eat fish is good for health' in normal conversation. It sounds awkward, like something that a person learning English might say.

And besides, we're supposed to be learning when to translate the Spanish Verb:Infinitive (to eat) into the English Verb:Gerund (eating). I believe this sentence is an example of when the preferred translation is the '[verb]ng' form, not the 'to [verb]' form. So 'eating fish is good for health' is the best translation in my opinion.


I disagree. "To eat fish" and "eating fish" both sound perfectly natural.


It is valid in my opinion


Shouldn't "your health" be acceptable here? I know it's implied, but it's more natural in English.


"Eating fish is good for your health" is accepted now. (28 October 2013)


When a very serious publication use this sentence, what is more natural, "for your health" or "for the health" (assuming the newspaper never use the apostrophe of the reader)?


hi PERCE_NEIGE: I'm assuming that you are not a native English speaker, yes? I would say that while "for the health" is not wrong, it is not natural to me (living in North America in this decade). In my experience, "for your health" is common and "for one's health" is more formal, more "serious" as you say.


No, I'm not, it's the reason why I have many troubles with English grammar. Thanks for your replies, guys, it helps me very much.


Hi Daniel and PERCE_NEIGE: I'm also Canadian living in this decade (not necessarily my favourite but I can't seem to escape it), and as I've said elsewhere I almost always agree with you Daniel and do so again -- "You should eat fish for your health" is correct while "You should eat fish for the health" sounds very odd. However, "good for the health" is a common expression, but it does not work for any other adjective (not "dangerous," not "ideal"). Also common are such expressions as (since we're talking about fish) "Fishing is good for the soul."


When I read "very serious publication" I was thinking medical journal, in which case both choices might be a bit informal -- "for one's health" or a different construction like "The consumption of fish has health benefits" might be preferable. Then you said "newspaper," in which case I think either would be all right.


Why not: "To eat fish is good for health." ?? Comer = to eat. Isn't the gerund for eating comiendo? Seems to me the sentence should start with comiendo.


The Spanish is consistent in using infinitives; English goes back and forth between the infinitive and the gerund. (It drives English learners crazy.) The use of the infinitive in Spanish doesn't always equal the use of the infinitive in English. And they do not use the -iendo and -ando forms as nouns in Spanish, as we use gerunds in English.


Why can't I say " To eat fish is good for the health." Why is "eating" the only acceptable translation for comer?


For me, "to eat" is not natural English in this sentence, nor is "the health". You can probably use google to find examples of your phrasing; it just doesn't sound natural to me.


Well, I agree that "To eat" would not be used as often as "Eating". However, I don't think cookj should be marked wrong because "To eat fish is good for the health" is not an incorrect way to say it in English. After all, Shakespeare said, "To be or not to be, that is the question"...


I don't think I've ever disagreed with you, Daniel, but I'm inserting a quibble here. I agree about the verbal. But "good for the health" is extremely common in my experience, although it would also be fine without the article. Parallel expressions range all the way from "good for the soul" to "good for the complexion," although those two definitely require the article.

  • 2336

Egad! "Eating fish is healthy" was accepted.


"Good for your health" or "good for one's health" is the proper English translation here.


Why is it "bueno", not "buena", given that "la salud" is feminine?


Bueno is refering to the act of eating, not to the health:

"comer pescado es bueno" it is a complete phrase. "comer pescado" is the subject and hasn't really a genre, so we use the masculine. Then we can add: "for what is good?", and the answer to that question can be masculine of femenine, but it has nothing to do with the genre of "bueno"


It's not good for the fish though ;)


This sentence definitely needs the gerund version of comer. It seems strange without it.


It seems strange because you are thinking in English grammar. In Spanish the sentence with gerund is not correct.


The Spanish is consistent in using infinitives; English goes back and forth between the infinitive and the gerund. (It drives English learners crazy.) The use of the infinitive in Spanish doesn't always equal the use of the infinitive in English. And they do not use the -iendo and -ando forms as nouns in Spanish, as we use gerunds in English.


But if you don't translate word for word, you can say "It's healthy" instead, couldn't you? That's what my teachers taught as the definition for this phrase


I agree. I just didn't want to risk it. :-)

[deactivated user]

    How about 'It is good for health to eat fish'?


    Word order is fine, but the lack of a pronoun or article (your/the) before "health" doesn't sound quite right in English.


    The "d" of "salud" in the audio file sounds like a "th".


    My experience with native speakers (Mexicans) suggests that word-final "d" should actually sound like nothing at all, i.e. it is silent.


    I had "to eat fish" too and as far as I'm concerned it's right


    I'm guessing the mapping is not literal it's duolingual.


    January 15th, 2015, and your doesn't appear as an option in the choose a word tile option. Personally I have never heard off dropping "your" from the expression. I speak NAmE.


    What's that 'th' sound at the end of salud? Do Spanish really say like that?


    Yes, the "d" on the end of words has the tongue a bit in between the teeth like a hard "th"


    'comer' is the infinitive 'to eat'... 'combined' would be the present participle for 'eating'...in my humble opinion. No 'clutter' meant. The red warning sign is not welcoming.


    Duolingo should make "To eat" a correct answer. Are they actually saying that it is incorrect ? I does not matter what is said more often than the other, the fact is that it is not wrong. I am English and have spoken English for the past 72 years all over the world


    hate when you have to type a sentence which isn't even true!!


    One thing I have learned from reading these well founded criticisms is that nothing ever happens! The errors are allowed to continue. But I suppose that when something is free it's rather hard to complain about it.


    Comer pescado es bueno para la salud. To eat fish is good for the health. This is not the same as "eating fish is good for you." Comiendo is eating. Comiendo pescado es bueno para la salud. Why is this not correct?


    Well, focusing on the infinitive / present participle issue, in English "To eat fish is good for the health" is the same as "Eating fish is good for the health".

    In Spanish, however, "Comer pescado es bueno para la salud" is not the same as "Comiendo pescado es bueno para la salud". In fact, the latter would make no sense.

    Keep in mind that the Spanish present participle (their gerundio) is generally only used for continuous action: Estoy comiendo pescado - I am eating fish.

    I could get into our gerunds and their difference to Spanish gerundios, but to keep it simple: If the English version can use the infinitive, then use the infinitive in Spanish.

    Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.