Translation:This bread tastes good but that bread tastes bad.
Honestly, there are way too many ways to say this, so I painstakingly wrote it as redundantly as possible, and it worked. "This bread is delicious but that bread is not delicious". I wanted to write "This bread is good, but that bread isn't", but sacrifices for Duolingo score.
Why worry about a score? The importance is to accurately interpret and learn the language so that one can accurately and politely communicate with native Koreans.
Since tasty means savory or delicious, if you replace the suffix "-y" with the suffix "-less", it now is tasteless meaning not tasty. They made this word so we don't have to use two words to describe something that is not tasty. However, not tasty would work if you it's okay for you.
It is used in that way. However that usage does not mean it doesn't also mean what the commenter above you said. It is a word with more than one meaning. In this case, it means something does not have good flavour. Context is a powerful thing. I doubt very much that bread can be crass or ill-considered.
You are, of course, correct, but in my experience "tasteless" is rarely used to describe something lacking flavor, which I think would be the most appropriate definition when applied to something ingested. Rather than a "bad" flavor, it would connote no flavor or a very bland taste. The Korean "맛없다" though translating literally to "no taste" is generally used to describe something that tastes bad. Often times a very literal translation does not really convey the intended thought.
If you rotate your phone it will auto fill the correct answer. Maybe you tipped your phone by accident.
No ㅃ is different. I would google videos about the difference. It's hard to get used to but eventually you will :)
Yeah, ㅂ is pronounced as if it were between "b" and "p", while ㅃ is more forceful, like when you shout the word "BANG"
Uhm no people, this guy is right. The voice pronounces 빵 like 방. ㅃ is a much more "solid" sound.
If you're slowly enunciating, sure it'll have a much more "solid" sound, but this program is going at speed. If you listen closely, you can hear the pop as the program reads over ㅃ
This sentence is combining 2 independant clauses. So the double use is acceptable... I believe.
I wrote 'this bread is delicious, but my bread is not delicious' Sounds a bit ridiculous, but correct me if I'm wrong '저' means 'my'. Unless I must use '저의' all the time?
저 has 2 meanings. It either means 'I'/'me' or it means 'that' when referring to an object far from both the speaker and the listener. In this sentence it is the latter and means 'that'.
My, as another commenter said is either '저의' or in short form '제'. They explained why very well in their comment.
So, unfortunately, 저 doesn't mean "my," it means "I/me."
But thankfully, the Korean language has a hack, which might be a bit visually confusing at first. You can shorten 저의 into 제 (as well as 나의 into 내).
What's happening here is they're combining both final vowels, and creating the "ae" diphthong from it, so "ㅓ and ㅣ in 저의 become ㅔ" and "ㅏ and ㅣ in 나의 become ㅐ."
This way it's less cumbersome and a little more natural to say/read, though both I'd say are used almost equally.
Does it works the same if it's "This bread taste delicious, but that bread over there taste bad"?
No, it's not. Even in English that sentence is incorrect. To be more clear, you've written a run on sentence in English- you need a conjunction such as "and," "but," etc.
For this sentence, it uses the "~지만" grammatical principle, which would primarily translate to "but" or "however."
Isn't the second "bread" supposed to be optional? I wrote "This bread tastes good but that tastes bad" and it got wrong.
Just like in English, although you specify a topic in the initial clause, the second clause has no topic in your case. So you could be talking about anything, like milk, meat, candy, etc. I think the only way to get out of it is if you were actually saying the sentence and physically pointing at the other bread.