"Do you prefer meat or fish?" is also acceptable, because "Preferisce" con refer to "Lei", formal sentence. It makes sense because that's the form typically used in restaurants.
Is it something we're likely to hear? If I was flying Air Italia and the flight attendent asked if I wanted meat or fish, would she use preferisce or preferiesci?
A stewardess would use "Lei" the formal you and would say "Preferisce carne o pesce?"
I didn't even notice that it should be "does he prefer", but it marked it correct for me.
From a biological point of view: yes. From a culinary point of view: no.
Fish is fruit! Fruit of the sea! Only animals with feelings can become meat. (This is sarcasm, by the way.)
Italian menus phrase it differently, but in the end it is the distinction between "water-meat" and "land-meat": MARE o TERRA
Why does this sentence NOT require the "il" carne & "il" pesce ?? I've seen other sentences where you Must use the 'il" or "la" article before the noun. Why not here???
If you ever get an answer, let me know. I have studied several languages and never remember having problems with the use of definite articles as I have had in Italiano. UGH!!!!
Good question. From what I've seen on other discussion posts, I can say that putting the "the" before the word isn't always done; for many people, it's a habit, and it is understood by others. But not everyone does this. DL uses both forms, with the "the" and without, but when you're actually in Italy it's optional. People will understand you anyway.
To the culinary world, they're different, to the point where some vegetarians will eat fish and still consider themselves vegetarian.
By the way, if I had a choice, I'd choose neither as well :)
Preferisce is the third person,in preferire it means(he,she ,you,it,)I was taught this ,so why is she wrong,anyone know?
"Does she prefer meat or fish?" is correct and should be accepted by DL - maybe you had another error in your sentence
When it comes to cooking they are treated as two different things. For example cook books will have a section on how to cook meat, (which would be red meat, beef, lamb) another for poultry and another separate one for fish or seafood.
Fish and poultry are meats. I understand that they are separated in a cook book, but they are all meat, and not vegetables. It would be better for DL to say beef or fish.
Biologically yes. However there is a cultural distinction. For instance, many Catholics (myself included) don't eat the flesh of birds and mammals on fridays but may eat fish.
"Meat or fish" makes perfect sense because yes, in the culinary world, they are different things. If you look at a menu, and the menu was divided into sections, it would have a section for meat and a different section for fish. This may not be how everyone sees it but it's still good to understand that's how it works sometimes.
Not really because meat covers different kinds of meat where as beef is just form a cow or bull.
I couln't tell he or she since the sentence started with word choice "does" that leaves do you out of the spectrum of choices
Should it be "oppure" as opposed to "o" since the question is asking whether he or she likes one or the other?
In common speech, wouldn't an acceptable colloquial way to translate this be "Would you like meat or fish?"
Why is beef wrong for carne? I believe in this context this is exactly what is being asked, since fish is also meat...
There are more options for meat than beef alone, and here the question is to whether you prefer fish to all the other options or v.v., not specifically referring to meat from a bovine origin only. : )
Actually quite often on restaurant menus (not just Italian ones) fish dishes fall in a separate category from meat dishes, which usually consist of beef, pork, lamb, chicken and venison (+other types depending on region/culture). When fish is in a separate category, it's often grouped up with other fruits of the sea. So I guess fish = seafood and meat = flesh from landbased animals? Just a guess here.
Who would choose fish? No one would ever say, "try this, it doesn't taste meaty at all."
Quite honestly, this is rude and offensive to vegetarians who choose to eat fish. In the culinary world, they are different. Please accept it if someone says they're vegetarian even if they eat fish, as calling them "fake vegetarians" can be flat-out offensive to some people.
No, they might as well say they're vegetarian but they eat steak. Vegetarianism has nothing to do with "culinary" definitions, it is about not eating animals, and fish are animals. So I'm not going to accept them calling themselves vegetarians, because it's literally false. The steak-eater "vegetarian" could just as well be offended, but their feelings don't affect the definition of the word. People who are racist are offended by being called racist but that doesn't make them any less racist according to the actual definition of the word. What they're offended by isn't relevant. People who eat fish but not any other meat can call themselves pescatarians.
I wonder if the downvotes are from pescatarians who go around calling themselves vegetarians. Or maybe they're just from generic meaters who hate the idea of vegetarians caring about anything, including the definition of the word vegetarian.
I understand where you're coming from, but that doesn't make it okay to call someone a "fake vegetarian". They may really be pescatarians but you are who you believe you are.
Let me phrase that differently. Even IF they're pescatarians, they might still say they are vegetarians. They are people who have feelings and thoughts and opinions, and they might feel defensive if they're being called a "fake vegetarian."
Yes, fish is biologically meat, but it's not "meat" in the culinary sense. Also, there are a lot of different things (similar to vegetarian and pescatarian) that people don't know about, like being flexitarian (being okay with meat but picking something else when possible.) If someone doesn't know what pescatarian means, they might say they're vegetarian.
I myself am flexitarian, but before I learned what it means to be a flexitarian, I considered myself "mostly vegetarian." If people asked, I'd say I was vegetarian mainly to avoid being offered meat. If someone says they're vegetarian simply because they don't know what 'pescatarian' means, you can hardly get mad at them for it, can you?
Anyway, I hope this clears up what I was trying to say. Thanks!