Translation:I do not eat meat or fish.
This sentence helped me see for the first time how helpful Kanji can be in reading quickly. Instead of a line of hiragana sounds that are meaningless until you mentally sound them out, the sentence you wrote is so clear: kanji noun + hiragana “and” + kanji noun + hiragana particle + kanji/hiragana conjugated verb. I am loving this language.
You always write 肉 but the app tells you to write almost everything in Hiragana for now so we won't get mixed up.
Kids in Japan learn hiragana early but then keep learning new kanji all throughout grade school. If you read something designed for kids, it's going to use as little kanji as possible, since they may not know it.
also, things designed to be easy to read may have kanji, but there is small hiragana for it on top
The small hiragana above kanji that Raijania mentioned is called furigana :)
I think the idea is that the speaker doesn't eat either of fish or meat. Using and in English makes it sound like you just don't eat them together and most English speakers would say "or" in this context.
I think this sentence is intended to point out that subtle difference between Japanese and English. When negating multiple things, use and in Japanese, but in English use or.
This exactly. English is more subtle in its use of or vs. and. E.g. "I do not eat eggs or mayonaise" (neither of eaten) as compared to "I do not eat eggs and mayonaise" (not both at same time). Listing with "to" in this case would be an inclusive list of things not eaten.
Do you happen to know how you would imply that you don't eat that combination? As opposed to just listing?
just guessing, but I would go with. 肉と魚一緒には食べません。肉抜き魚は大丈夫です。魚抜き肉は大丈夫です、けど一緒にはダメです。Though this would be over explaining it and using just one would probably work just as well. 抜き（ぬき）means without. ハムバッカーblablabla ぬきです。hamburger without ....
No と means "and" and は (pronounced "wa" as a particle) indicates the noun which one is talking about :)
I think this is a great illustration of how English and Japanese have fundamentally different structures. When the sentence says 「にくとさかなは」this establishes the topic. It is a lot like establishing the subject of the sentence in English by saying something like: "About meat and fish..."
So when you take the whole sentence and translate it in this way it would be like saying in English: "So about meat and fish...I don't eat them." In Japanese, both the "I" and "them" are implied by the fact that you're the speaker, and by the topic you set. But the same logic is going on...the 「と」still means "and", it's just that you treat "and" different when you're talking about something.
In general though と does not always mean "and", but in this circumstances it still means "and", it just gets translated to "or" because we tend to word or frame this type of thought in a very different way from how Japanese people do.
I don't know if this clarifies it? I found this stuff super tricky when first learning Japanese, but in time it will start to make more sense.
You mean the verb "tabemasu" is transitive and the direct object is "meat and fish" but in this sentence they're in the topic but the DO is implied? So the sentence really is: "as for the meat an the fish, [I] eat [them]"? Thought it was "As for the meat and the fish, [they] are being eaten"...
Is it necessary to specify fish in this sentence? Does にく apply to any meat that is not fish, or meat in general?
When discussing foodstuff, fish is typically not considered meat. Food terminology and languages in general are often arbitrary in this way, regardless of science or logic.
Fish is not traditionally considered as meat because of christian customs : in Lent, people was not allow to eat meat. It was really difficult for the fishermen, so the Church decided to accept fish during Lent. This is why we make the distinction.
Why isn't the particle wo here? Isn't the subject an implied watashi, hence the rest is an object?
The わたしは can be implied after にくとさかな.
Think of it as: "Regarding meat and/or fish, I do not eat."
There is no need for 私 (or わたし in Hiragana) here since it's obvious from the context. (Also, side note, わたし is only used when being very polite or when a female is speaking. Males use 僕 or ぼく usually. There are many other ways to say "I" though. ☺)
Because the object particle を ("wo") was substitued by the topic particle, は ("wa"). The implied part would be 私が, which is "I + (subject particle)".
I'm confused about the 食 character. The reading doesn't seem to say that character (shoku), but tapping on it says it means 'to eat' or something similar. What is this character?
But the APP should be Smart Enough to show us the correct translation of any particular sentence. It should at least be Smart Enough to show us the pronunciation they are Teaching Us in a Particular Lesson!
kanji usually have 2 or more meanings, although there are some that have only one reading, most kanji have 2 or more readings depending on the context that they are in. they have often a kunyomi reading that is used in combination with kana or as a stand alone and onyomi is used in combination with other kanji. 食 character has the following most common readings kunyomi ta like in たべます and the onyomi like in the word meal 食事 (しょくじ).
Could someone explain this particle use to me? Like, は isn't acting as a topic marker here, else this would mean "meat and fish don't eat." If it was を, then would it be more like "I won't eat the meat and fish (in this instance)."? If all of that is correct, then I still wonder why the particle isn't が. I think I remember hearing that は implies that there are more items than listed, i.e. "I don't eat meat, fish, eggs, etc." where が might suggest that you have no other dietary restrictions? Is that it?
を is usually used when an action is happening to a topic. 'I eat the sushi' the sushi is getting 'eaten' if the sentence had been 'jack walks to the store' the store wouldn't say 'hey I just got walked to'. In the case of '肉と魚は食べません' it is more like talking about your habits or preferences, if you have a plate in front of you and you don't want to eat the fish and meat you would use 'にくとさかなをたべません' (I think)
Can someone break down the part of NOT eating... (in comparison to I DO eat). Every time I think I got that it confuses me somehow
Is it critical that positive form uses "ni" particle and negative uses "wa" ?
They're completely different particles, but neither is tied to positive or negative, to my knowledge.
I am not a native English speaker, but isn't "I do not eat meat or fish" grammatically wrong? Shouldn't it be "I neither eat meat nor fish"?...
Maybe but native speakers would never say it like that. Native speakers would say: I don't eat meat or fish.
So, one cannot say "meat or fish" or "fish and meat" as if they aren't, for all intents and purposes, the same thing?
I put ”I'm a vegetarian” and it marked it wrong. Honestly, i just wanted to see that it would.
why it requires fish, doesnt sakana means snacks? (sake food, including all stuff eated with alchohol?)
I tried : vegetarian (because the phrase means : I don't eat fish and meat). Duolingo did not approve
looking though the comments, it seems im the only one who didnt get the kanji OR hiragana for fish at all to complete the sentence, i just got "niku and" the sentence finisher, i did not get fish or Ha, i had bread though. i couldnt get the sentence right because the right answer wasnt there.
肉と魚は食べませんが 、野菜はたくさん食べます。( I do not eat meat and fish, but I eat a lot of vegetables.)
私は肉や魚を食べません。( I do not eat meat or fish. )
Reading the comments get me more confused. I guess japanese is easier and more similar to my mother language (portuguese) than to English.
For that to be correct in english, it would have to be, "I eat neither meat nor fish." Saying, "I don't eat meat or fish," is like saying, "I don't eat either meat or fish."
Spot on, but rarely heard now, as most speakers will say or, rather than nor, here.
It's a shame really. It's already hard for many people to make a differentiation between basic words like "there", "their" and "they're";
To me, that sounds unnatural in English though. Never in my life have I heard anyone use 'and' in this type of sentence. 'I don't eat meat OR fish' is more natural sounding and is still a correct translation.
Actually both OR and AND would be incorrect. Technically, NOR replaces OR whenever negative sentences are concerned.
No, it shouldn't, actually. As discussed above, that carries a different meaning.