Translation:The limbs and the stomach are white, the cheeks are red.
technically speaking le ventre is the abdomen ot tummy and not the stomach which is an internal organ
Sure it is.
Technically speaking it comes from venter\ventris from Latin meaning "uterus" (one of its French meanings, as well). [Well-known Ave Maria song's lyrics: Et benedictus fructus ventris - [...] fruit of the womb].
Stomach is one (valid) interpretation.
French also has the word "abdomen", so "belly" is arguably more accurate in terms of respective levels of technicality, formality, and territory of meaning, but what's idiomatic in either language is highly dependent on context.
- ventre = belly/stomach/tummy
- estomac = stomach
- abdomen = abdomen
in english ,the middle part of some thing can some times be called the stomach too. unfortunately . like the stomach of the boat or the aeroplane..
In what region do English speakers say that? In North America I've never heard the middle of a boat or an airplane called "stomach". Maybe you're confusing this with "belly"? That would be the underside, as in "the belly of the boat", and it's also used metaphorically, as in "the dark underbelly of the city".
Reporting the "members" version of this answer to be wrong... should just be translated as limbs.
The members and the stomach are white, the cheeks are red.
...especially since "member", in English, typically regards one specific ahem appendage.
Kinda_AWF, I thought of that then noticed it was plural, and then I thought whoa, it must mean something else- cause......ewwwwww.
No, actually it depends on which type of English you're speaking. In polite, British English "member" means limb too as ib "the members of her body. Actually French seems to be closer to British English as spoken pre-2000. Now only people of a certain age and class speak like that.
Didn't think of that! Looks like DuoLingo has adjusted to the correct answer :)
Abdomen should be accepted for "le ventre." It is accepted elsewhere on the site.
What's the full sentence? The limbs are not extremities. I always thought the extremities were like your hands, feet or toes and fingers even.
That definition is weird since it says its just limbs and also the furthest point of limbs. Can't really be both. I've never heard of anyone refer to extremities as just their limbs. If you think about it doesn't even make sense since it has to be "extreme" ie the furthest point.
Illogical weirdness is part of language because humans aren't particularly logical creatures. So, yeah, it can be both. We do that a lot; it's technically called a "semantic overload" when we use the same word for different things, including some things that are in a sub-category of the umbrella term. In this case where the furthest part is depends on where you draw any dividing line, doesn't it? If you try to demarcate the torso from its appendages, then the entire appendage is the furthest thing. If you draw the line at the elbow, then the lower arm is the furthest thing. If you draw the line at the wrist, then the hand is the furthest thing. If you draw the line at the knuckles, then the fingers are the furthest thing...
One of the example sentences on that page I linked illustrates the use of "extremity" referring to entire limbs: “It is not implausible that a greater proportion of torso and extremity fat may protect against injury,” the report said. That clearly refers to the entire limbs because overweight people don't just have extra fat in the torso, hands, and feet, but it is distributed throughout the entire limbs.
In my experience "extremities" referring to entire limbs is often used in medical situations. I used to be a paramedic, and that was part of the terminology. Upper extremities are arms, lower extremities are legs. If you do an image search you'll find that as well.
Interesting ! I wondered, why I mostly read "lower limbs" but the "upper extremities" and not v.v.
Which thing? Limbs, abdomen, or cheeks? Or are you just wondering when one would say such a thing? Since most of us are not pathologists, Imagine you're describing a doll's body. In general, they are just words and you can plug them into any other sentence, like when you're describing something about your body to a doctor.
Ah, that's how you meant it. Yes, could be an animal. Maybe a white monkey, though the ones I've seen have pink faces, not red ones.
In English "members" is not a synonym of "limbs". In this case the cognate is not your friend.
Whenever I am terse, I am sure to leave something out. It's medical terminology, and not even particularly common in that context, and especially not when paired with "belly" -- if you were to say "member" for "limb", you'd also say "abdomen". And honestly, as a former medical professional, we didn't use "member".
Unfortunately, from the mentally 12 year old crowd, there's also the high likelihood of breaking out in giggles, because "member" as a euphemism for "penis" is more commonly used than as one for limbs.
I'd advice native French speakers to avoid this in English; use "limb", which is both more common and safer. Unless you're writing pathology reports. And then don't say "belly". ;)
If it's accepted now, that's got to be new, since I was responding to somebody who sounded like they hadn't had it accepted. Duo usually tries to stick with the common vernacular, which seems sensible to me at this stage.
I think the whole sentence sounds as if it is being dictated during an autopsy.. or a forensic investigation!
Why does this sentence (English) use the definite article? Isn't it about the generality?
Yes and no. You can think of the words "of this kind of animal" as being implied. (There are other possibilities for what's being left out, but the sentence isn't referring to limbs, stomachs, and cheeks in general.)
I think limbs = joints, so "The joints and the stomach are white, the cheeks are red" should probably be considered correct.
Limbs are not joints. They contain joints.
A joint is a point of articulation between two or more bones.
A limb is a jointed appendage.