I'm with you, Nico3' -- to me, the given translation makes the poor burger sound like it has some awful disease. (I've just earned myself a red screen by writing "there are potatoes with the burger" and would really like one of our versions, at least, to be admitted into the pantheon. What d'ya say, moderators?)
Other possible translations we include are:
The hamburger comes with potatoes.
The hamburger comes with chips.
The hamburger comes with fries.
The hamburger comes with french fries. (French fries)
The hamburger is accompanied by potatoes.
The hamburger is accompanied by chips.
The hamburger is accompanied by fries.
The hamburger is accompanied by french fries. (French fries)
The burger comes with potatoes.
The burger comes with chips.
The burger comes with fries.
The burger comes with french fries.
The burger is accompanied by potatoes.
The burger is accompanied by chips.
The burger is accompanied by fries.
The burger is accompanied by french fries.
Those are only the relevant sentences of the 93 we have in the incubator.
What does this sentence actually mean? "The hamburger has potatoes" really doesn't mean anything. A hamburger can't have anything. Does it mean the hamburger is served with potatoes? Or there are potatoes in the hamburger (like the sentence with salt)? This is not just an awkward sentence of the type that often come up in language courses - it really does not have any clear meaning.
To me (native US English speaker), this sentence clearly and unambiguously means "the hamburger contains potatoes as an ingredient."
Similar constructions include, "does this dish have meat [in it]?", "because of celiac, I can't eat anything that has gluten", and "a hamburger really needs to have tomatoes to be any good at all."
Ah - interesting - I am a native British English speaker. However, if that is the clear American meaning, then "the hamburger contains potatoes" should be an acceptable answer (like "the hamburger contains salt"), but that was marked as wrong when I tried it. But who puts potatoes into their hamburgers anyway?
Possibly veggie burgers have potatoes in them. I wouldn't be surprised. Some veggie burgers are very good and they often are a mixture of many different vegetables. I used to eat them a lot when I was a vegetarian. I too, am a native US English speaker so I totally get what you're saying.
Sure it does. But not in your language. I, as native bulgarian speaker, would also say sentences like that. I'm sure if you stick with learjing grwek, you'll find that out yourself.
Anyhow, to explain what it means: for me, there are potatoes inside of the hamburger. Whether it is chips or boiled potatoes is another question.
I have to agree. I am a native English speaker (UK) and feel there is something missing from the English translation, eg the context? I feel I'm more likely to hear 'the hamburger COMES with potato(es)' or 'the hamburger has potato IN' (maybe you are trying to establish ingredients). As it stands 'the hamburger has potatoes' doesn't give quite the whole story. I could possibly imagine a scenario whereby someone, looking at the menu, says 'I don't want potatoes, maybe I'll have the burger...', person 2 says 'nah...the hamburger has potatoes'. To suggest that this sentence means that the burger has potato as an ingredient doesn't make sense as it stands, surely it would be 'has potato in it'? Even if it was said in consternation 'oh yuck, the hamburger has potatO IN IT!' potato being single, as a quantity, I would still expect the 'in it'.
Just whining. "χαμβουργερ" is obviously not the correct spelling, but "hamvurger" cannot possibly mean anything else. At the same time, it accepted something very much not pears as pears... and it seems to be totally fine to use ο and ω interchangeably, and η... basically any way that can be read as "ee" is fine. I have a feeling that I am not learning Greek, I'm learning to answer "the right way". :-( GRRRR!