no one is likely ever to say 'water is in the kettle'. They would say 'there is water in the kettle/there's water in the kettle'. Its a bad, or at least 'unnatural', translation.
I wrote exactly the same: "There is watr in the kettle", and it was considered wrong...
There is water in the kettle -> У чайнику [є] вода (as opposed to, There is NO water in the kettle, У чайнику немає води).
The water is in the kettle -> Вода у чайнику (as opposed to, The water is NOT in the kettle, Вода не у чайнику)
Still, no english speaking person would say "the water is in the kettle". You could say "the water in the kettle is hot", or some other scenario where you speak about a very particular (often finite) body of water. But otherwise you would just confirm whether there is water in the kettle or not. "There is water in the kettle". So i also don't agree with the system's correct english version, unless the ukrainian version is in itself not really a practically used term.
How would you answer the question "Where is the water?" then? :)
Yes it's not a common sentence. But it still makes sense grammatically and semantically.
I understand your point. I suppose water in a kettle is just one of those rare examples where the subject (water) is generally never defined/specified unless it is observed or if something has happened to it. "The water in the kettle has boiled". Or the water that was in the bucket is in the kettle :)
Anyway, I get it. There's nothing wrong per se with saying the water is in the kettle ;)
How would the ukrainian sentence differ though if you translated "There is water in the kettle" ?
Jmo, but it could depend on context, not to mention that we tend to get a bit lazy at times with our speech- Americans, that is.
That said, however, I don't necessarily disagree with you.