Translation:The fish in the water are like the sharks: big and terrible.
Singular fish with plural are? Can we not use the singular with the verbs too? It doesn't seem to be correct, to say: The fish in the water is like the shark: big and terrible.
No, plural "fish" with plural "are".
Like "sheep" or "deer", the singular is the same as the plural in general use.
fish is either singular or plural, even if it is the same word, the verb must still agree:
A fish is swimming here
Many fish are swimming here
Many fishes are swimming here: big ones, red ones, yellow ones
If I understand you well, my answer, which was marked wrong, is correct: The fish in the water is like the shark: big and terrible. (fish and is). And the duo answer is wrong with: The fish in the water are like the sharks: they are big and terrible. (fish and are)
Your English answer is grammatically correct, but is not a translation of Duo's Hungarian sentence (which has plural halak, amilyenek, nagyok, szörnyűek).
Duo's English sentence ("fish are") is fine. It's like the second example in Joeintheory's answer ("Many fish are swimming here").
You wrote shark. Cápák=sharks. Fish can be one fish or multiple fish. The plural for shark is always sharks. Shark=1 shark.
- The fish in the water is like the sharks. 2. The "duo" - answer. Both are possible.
The Hungarian 'halak' is plural, so you must use the plural 'fish' in English: The fish in the water are like (the) sharks.
How would you express that the fish are like sharks in general (rather than the specific sharks in the water)? Would it be the same sentence? (My first submission was the correct answer minus the "the" before "sharks", and it was marked incorrect.)
It would be the same. Hungarian uses the definite article for generalisations, and "The fish in the water are like sharks" is now an accepted answer
"Like sharks in general" would probably be the primary understanding, unless particular sharks were specified, e.g, "a cápák, amelyek a vízben is úsznak".
Is it possible to use just sharks here? I thought it was talking about the whole of the species in a general way.
I don't think course contributors scan comments to find bugs, but they're pretty good about following up on reports; just keep reporting.
terrible, meaning the quality of the fish or their capability at hunting? shouldn't it mean terrifying?
The primary meaning of 'terrible' is 'terrifying'. They are synonyms in standard English.