Translation:The lunch is neither fish nor fowl.
One of the correct translations listed is "... fish nor fowl". Can "fleisch" really mean "fowl" instead of the more broad "meat"?
"Fleisch" cannot mean "fowl" on its own but "weder Fisch noch Fleisch" is an idiom in the same sense as "neither fish nor fowl", so here it's probably a bit confusing that is is used with something that's actually edible.
"Fowl" in this sense refers to birds/poultry, so yes; they're both edible. lol.
This was very confusing since duo normally gives me errors when I try translations that are more idiomatic than literally identical.
In a religous fasting period you are not allowed to eat meat, but you may eat fish. Hundreds of years ago, monks declared a beaver as a fish, so they could eat it.
Actually, in most regions fish is considered separate from meat for culinary purposes. It has a lot to do with both textures and flavors and what works best with what. There are also types of vegetarians that find fish acceptable. (Vegetarians, not vegans.)
In Sweden, fish is typically considered meat. A menu would have entries for "meat" (meaning beef and pork), "fowl" (or more probably "chicken") and "fish" but someone claiming to be vegetarian and still eat fish would be considered a bit weird (in the sense that that's not how the word is normally used).
Also, you can find people with exactly any combination of eating restrictions to that's difficult to base word distinctions on. (Personally, I'm apescetarian.)
I'm American and I consider fish meat. I think that's true for all English-speaking people.
In Korean, fish is literally "water meat".
I consider fish a type of meat, but it is not usually lumped together with "meat" because it is a different kind of meat. In fact, if both were being served at a meal, your host/hostess might well say, "Do you want fish or meat?"
BTW, I am American, too.
Up until a couple of generations a go, Catholics didn't eat meat on Fridays. As a consequence most institutions in the western world made a point of offering a meatless meal on Friday.
Everywhere that the restriction was honored, the alternative offered was a fish dish. Institutions that offered only one choice for every meal, always chose fish for every Friday serving. As a consequence it was routine to only offer fish options on Friday since that was the day they felt obligated to provide fish anyway.
Meatless Friday's were known as Fish Fridays. The custom was known throughout the English speaking world although some countries felt less bound by it than others.
Fish is not considered meat, traditionally, whether in the US or Britain.
The idiom itself derives from a longer idiom, "neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring." Monks abstained from meat, so they ate fish (in Catholic households, families still eat fish on Fridays for this reason, as fish is not meat); the wealthy ate meat; the poor ate red herring, a cheap fish. Something that was none of the three could not be easily categorized.
Fish also have specific rules for preparation and accompaniment that differ greatly from meat dishes.
I'm American and while, in the strictly technical sense, you're correct, for culinary purposes it is considered a separate thing. That's why they pair wines around them differently.
No, that's not true for all English-speaking people. In fact, you'll see separate "fish" and "meat" sections on many menus, and people who give up meat on Fridays for Lent (which a few decades ago was standard every Friday for Catholics) still eat fish.
Fish is "meat" in the sense that it is the muscle tissue of an animal, but from a culinary perspective, "fish" and "meat" are different categories.
I'm English-speaking and I wouldn't say fish is meat. If someone said we're having meat tonight and put fish on the plate, I'd be angry.
Is there a similar expression in your language? In Polish we say "ni pies, ni wydra" [neither dog nor otter]
Croatian 'Ni riba ni meso' in Nominative (Neither fish nor meat)...i figured,as long as we're making a list
Many, many, many people would disagree. You'd never find fish in the meat section of a menu, for example (or at least almost never). Instead, it gets its own section. Still, many people do consider fish to be meat, all the same. This is a rather divided topic, really. =P Personally, I wouldn't class fish as meat.
Help a non native English speaker, please. What does "neither fish nor fowl" means?
And to be grammatically correct, it is neither nor, not neither or! As it was in the example
I said "neither fish nor flesh" and it was marked wrong. I think the idiom is "neither fish nor fowl", but I think I have also heard it as "neither fish nor flesh."
I think the issue may be your use of the word "flesh" rather than "meat". Duo seems to prefer the latter.
Ah! I completely forgot that "flesh" also refers to fruits, mushrooms, etc. Thanks!
I think Duo is trying to introduce us to an idiom here which exists both in German ('weder Fisch noch Fleisch') and in English ('neither fish nor fowl'). However, by relating it to a meal to begin with, it's made it a bit confusing. The idiom may have its origins in food and religion, as is discussed in great detail in the comments above, but its true meaning is '(the subject) is not easily categorized'; 'it is neither one thing nor another'; 'it falls easily into no category.'
I'm a native English speaker who once upon a time spoke German fairly well (meaning I knew the German idiom as well as the English), and yet I missed seeing the idiom in both languages. Because the subject is Mittagessen, I translated it as "the lunch is neither fish nor meat," which is a literal translation (and which was accepted by Duo.) I think the introduction of this idiom might have been more successful if it had been given in its simplest form of "Es ist weder Fisch noch Fleisch."
So no, 'Fleisch' does not mean "fowl." :-) They're just two parallel idioms which did not come down into modern speech exactly the same way.
"The lunch is neither fish nor fowl." is incorrect? Even though that is an idiom?
That wasn't the question. The question was what just "neither" by itself is. Like in the following:
Person A: "Is this a mouse or a rat?"
Person B: "Neither."
I'm curious to know the answer to this as well.
In your example (mouse or rat?) in response I'd say "keine" to mean "neither." You could say "keiner von ihnen" (neither of them) but that is just extra words.
Actually, come to think of it, I think I have heard it as "neither flesh nor fowl" which wouldn't fit this at all.
I said for the last part "neither fish nor meat" If they wanted fowl, why not use Vogel? Up until just now Fleisch meant meat.
From what I've gathered, it's just idiomatic weirdness. Fleisch in general does mean flesh or meat, not specifically from a type of animal.
I have being translating the word ""wieder" as neither and have been correct so far.
lunch oder luncheon - They are interchangable, alto adults share luncheon... kids have lunch, a picnic is lunch
Weird , fowl is a kind of meat, certainly is not a fruit or vegetable , so i read it as fish nor meat..
These 57 comments made my day!! The bottomline is that this is an idiom because Fleisch means meat or flesh. I couldn't find anywhere that it means "fowl".
the hint says: "weder Fisch noch Fleisch" together means "neither fish nor fowl". Alright I typed just the way DL says and guess what?? it was wrong :) I lost a heart.
cmmon ppl elementary - fish is not meat, tomato is not a fruit , calamari are not fish, pizza is not a burger -:))