- Forum >
- Topic: German >
- "Fische trinken keinen Orange…
136 Comments
Because the plural of "fish" in English is "fish".
(Unless you're speaking about difference species of fish.)
You are correct but both fish and fishes are accepted as correct in English. If you want to answer to be just fish, the phrase should be more specific. I have over 20 years of schooling (high school, undergrad, grad) and have taken several English writing classes. Fishes has always been acceptable as a plural form of fish.
As an English person, I'd just like to say that normally the plural of 'Fish' is 'Fish'. It's similar to 'Deer', the plural of which is 'Deer', or 'Sheep', the plural of which is 'Sheep'....
It is a possible form within CONTEXT. For example, all the fishes of the sea = all the different kinds of fish. But in American English, fish (as a general group) most definitely like water but not necessarily orange juice.
100
When writing something in English, I'd probably use singular-Fish plural-Fish and when writing about different species of Fish then only Fish To be sure check out the link-https://www.grammarly.com/blog/fish-fishes/#:~:text=The%20plural%20of%20fish%20is,often%20referred%20to%20as%20fishes. (13/04/2021)
like someone else said: fishes should still work. fish is not the only way to translate "Fische"
Not in modern English, anyway. Shakespeare and the translators of the King James Bible used it, true, but that was 400+ years ago.
Fish=Singular and plural of one species of fish Fishes= plural of multiple species of fish
Because Orangensaft is masculine (der), so in the accusative case kein ends with an -en
Orangensaft is a compound word, the ending word determines the gender of the noun which is masculine "der Saft".
I think its because keinen is for gender neutral nouns, keine is for feminine nouns
No - keinen is the accusative form used with masculine nouns.
A neuter noun would have had kein in the accusative case, e.g. Fische trinken kein Bier. (das Bier is neuter, der Saft is masculine and thus also der Orangensaft.)
keine is for feminine nouns, as you said, e.g. Fische trinken keine Limonade.
And it's used for plural nouns as well, regardless of their gender, e.g. Fische trinken keine Säfte.
It is also used in feminine dative and genitive and plural genitive. Here is a great site that should help with that: http://germanforenglishspeakers.com/adjectives/adjective-declensions/
Kind of OT here but I find it difficult to know whether something is feminine or masculine in German. Is there any smooth way of knowing this?
Is this sentence just for the grammar? i can't even think of a situation where i would use this sentence IRL... Funny though.
A while ago i had visitors in my house and a kid poured juice in my aquarium trying to feed the fish. I said: "Hey kid fish dont drink juice!"
Because they are not talking about a specific event, but about fish in general. if you say "are not" it means that they aren't drinking orange juice right now, but that they might on another occasion. If you say they "do not", then yuo are talking about what they drink in general.
After a quick google search I have found a picture of a fish drinking orange juice: https://9gag.com/gag/ajrNWBq/fish-drinking-orange-juice-from-a-baby-bottle3
So "Fish drinkS no orange juice" (note the -s ending in 'drinks') is not acceptable? Why?
Because when the subject is plural (like "fish" or "dogs" or "cats"), the verb does not take -s.
So it has to be "Fish drink no orange juice".
Fishes is a word that is used when discussing different species of fish...as in, Salmon and Pike are fishes the species.... It is in the dictionary but not often used.
- 900
Kein: regular version for neuter and masculine nouns. Keine: for feminine and plural nouns. Keinen: accusative version for masculine nouns.
The question says "Type what you hear" - so why do they expect a translation in this case?
This forum is for that sentence in any form that Duolingo presents it. Most people are discussing the translation of it. If you have a listening exercise, you are not expected to translate it.
I'm typing the correct German every time, exactly what they show me is the "correct" words, and yet it keeps saying im wrong. And, of course, it wont let me advance! What do I do now????
I am writing exactly what is shown to be correct, but am being told what I've submitted is not correct! And, of course, I am not able to advance! Any help??
There was no audio and I got marked wrong - it didn't say "no listening exercises" - there just wasn't any audio
Can it be Fisher trinken orangesaft nich. If not, could anyone please explain me when to use nicht and kein
You can say "Fische trinken Orangensaft nicht." In this case, the drinking is negated, as "nicht" is used for verbs and "kein" for nouns.
Fish don't drink... it isn't right. It should be Fish doesn't..... isn't it?
No.
The usual plural of "fish" in English is "fish".
In this sentence, "fish" is plural, which you can see from the verb -- "fish don't".
If it were singular, it would need an article, e.g. "a fish doesn't".
But fishes should be right too since it is universally used when you are talking about multiple kinds of fish or usually used when talking about multiple individual fish. And it exists in dictionary as plural form of fish. Enlighten me if i am wrong.
why Fish don't drink any orange juice! is wrong?? as per this article should be accepted here aswell: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/languagesonline/german/sect34/pdfs/print04.pdf
Please ask about entire sentences.
"do not", by itself, is not a correct translation of Fische trinken keinen Orangensaft.
I presume you had some other words as well, but nobody can see which ones you used or in which order.
"Orange fish juice drink do not" would not be correct, for example, even though it has all the correct words, but the problem is not the use of "do not"; it's the word order.
Can one say "Fische trinken nicht Orangensaft"? From reading through the lesson notes it seems that one would use nicht to negate the verb here rather than keinen as in "Fish do not drink orange juice", rather than "Fish drink no orange juice"... though perhaps this is a difference between the languages in terms of how we prefer to frame this sentiment and I simply need to become familiar with the idiomatic phrasings of German? Is there a mod or native speaker who could elaborate for me?
It has been asked and answered several times— if you read from the top of the thread, several moderators have explained it.
I said it correctly and software saying it is not, but giveme the same answer: Fische trinken keinen Orangensaft!
Looks like a sftbug!
My answer was wrong - acc.to Mr.DL - "Fishes don't drink orange juice" but I'm sure it shoud have been accepted namely plural of fish can be fishes too. Am I right?
plural of fish can be fishes too
Only in certain, rare, circumstances. Not in this sentence.
Totally incorrect to say this. If you are being pedantic, there could easily be more than one species of fish involved unless you are intending to infer that one one species odes not drink orange juice?
- Saft is masculine, and therefore so is Orangensaft
- Orangensaft here is the direct object of the verb trinken, so it's in the accusative case
- therefore you need the masculine accusative form of kein, which is keinen
why is it keinen and not nicht? please help! because if it says " i dont drink orange juice" it will be ich trinke orangensaft nicht wont it?
why is it keinen and not nicht?
If the verb has a direct object which is indefinite, you will generally use a form of kein to negate the sentence.
if it says " i dont drink orange juice" it will be ich trinke orangensaft nicht wont it?
No, it won't. It would be Ich trinke keinen Orangensaft. (with kein and with capital O on Orangensaft.)
Ich trinke Orangensaft nicht would negate the verb: "What I do to orange juice is not 'drink', ..." -- and the sentence would feel incomplete if you don't say what the actual verb should be.
Why is "Fishes do not drink orange juice" incorrect? My dictionary says that it is an alternative plural!
Yes, it exists-- but in modern spoken English, the plural of fish is fish. It's one of the irregular plurals like sheep, deer, shrimp, and moose.
"Fishes" is very outdated... as in Shakespeare, or the King James Bible, and in fixed idioms such as "to sleep with the fishes".
Clearly die Eule isn’t aware of it. So, when you get it the next time, report it as “my answer should be accepted.”
Will do - not the first time something like this has happened. I’ve had continuous present marked as incorrect with simple present given as the correct answer and vice versa
Don't is a contraction of do not. There is no way this could be wrong. No rules broken . A contraction is just a shorter version of 2 words. Should be accepted. Everyone should report it.
Kein/keine/keinen is used before nouns to express the concept of “no, none, not a...”
This has been asked and answered several times; if you start at the top and read earlier comments, that should help.
Is it not "fishes" also valid as the plural of fish?
No, generally not. "fishes" is a specialised plural.
What do you mean with "specialized"?
"fishes" is used only in specific situations -- when you are talking about multiple species of fish.
So you can't "eat fishes", for example, since you can't eat entire species at once.
Unless you're a scientist, you can probable ignore the form "fishes".
"Fish do not drink orange juice" should be accepted, right?
For a translation exercise? Yes, definitely.
(For a listening exercise: no, of course.)
"Fish doesnt drink orange juice" isnt accepted. why? this is broken as hell
"Fish doesnt drink orange juice" isnt accepted. why?
Because the German word Fische is clearly plural, so the translation has to be "Fish don't drink ...".
"They doesn't" is wrong, and "they doesnt" (without apostrophe) even more wrong.
In previous lessons, "Fisch" was used as an undefined plural, so why is it not accepted in this case?
"Fisch" was used as an undefined plural
Fisch is never plural.
It can be countable (ein Fisch, zwei Fisch) when you're talking about entire animals (living or dead). Or it can be uncountable (Fisch) when you're talking about an unspecified quantity of fish meat (which might come from one animal or from several). Uncountable mass nouns are grammatically singular.
But Fisch (the mass noun) can't be the subject of the verb trinken; meat doesn't drink.
Fisch may not be a plural but fish certainly can be. See the OED and correspondence further down this page.
Fish do not drink any orange juice is actually more accurate than fish do not drink orange juice. Why does it say it is wrong?
I don't think it's more accurate. "Literal" translations are not always word-for-word....
I wrote "Fishes don't drink orange juice" without ! and it said it is not correct. Please fix this!!! My sentence IS correct.
I should be correct with "fishes" because it is being use in English language as plural form of fish; ex: it can be multiple kinds of fish or multiple individual fish. Besides when you translate "Fische" then it would be fishes and only "Fisch" for fish. Please anyone, enlighten me if my understanding is wrong!
The verb changes according to the subject but if it was fish ,then the verb should be conjugated as trinkt.,but it was written "Fische trinken"
Unfortunately, I still can't get you. Could you please explain it in other words?
Orangensaft is "orange juice", i.e. "juice made out of oranges [the fruit]". It's uncountable.
oranger Saft is "orange juice"; i.e. juice that has the colour orange.
"an orange juice" must mean "a juice that is coloured orange", i.e. "of all the kinds of juice, one that is orange".
But the German sentence does not mean that -- because it does not have keinen orangen Saft (not ... an orange juice) but instead has keinen Orangensaft (not ... orange juice).
Thus the translation has to be "Fish do not drink orange juice", without the "an".
'Fishes' is a less common, but acceptable plural of the word fish, especially in the US. - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fish#English (See usage notes)
Perhaps more problematically, the error I got when putting 'Fishes' was that I had put the plural form rather than the singular form, which is obviously not correct. 'Fish' is also a plural form.
not sure why you're being downvoted. I have the same gripe. yeah, fish is plural, but "fishes" is also fine.
This sentence expresses an "eternal truth", for which we use the present simple tense in English -- "Fish do not drink" rather than "Fish are not drinking".
"Fish is not drinking" is wrong; you need the verb form "are" with the plural subject "fish".
I am typing correct answer and app is time and again rejecting my ans...look into this guys!
Please show us a screenshot of your response, the error message, and the correction (if any).
We can't see what you typed, so just talking about "the correct answer" and "rejecting" without any details is not helpful in finding out what happened.
Your answer Duo is wrong, if you put the name in plural we will use the verb also in plural. Then the right answer is Fishes don't drink orange juice…
No. The modern English plural of "fish" is "fish". We no longer talk about Jesus blessing "five loaves and two fishes"; that comes from an English translation of the Bible in 1601.
That soda isn't juice?
soda is fizzy. juice is just what you get from squeezing a fruit or juicing a vegegable.
Trinken is used with a plural noun
Fisch -singular Deutsch Fische -plural Deutsch
In English,
Fish is singular Fishes is plural
If "Fish drink" is properly translated to german it should read Fisch trinkt
By the way, don't is a shortened form of do not. They are the same
Fish is plural and singular in English. Examples: I caught a fish. I caught many fish. Look a fish. Look a bunvh of fish. One fish, two fish. Fishes is only proper when referring to multiple species. Look a bass and a perch, fishes.
Absolutely. Actually one can say, “the fish are on the table” or “ the fishes are on the table”. “A shoal of fish is correct” as is “the fishes are shoalling”. In England anyway, I cannot speak for other countries. I hope this helps
New Oxford Dictionary of English p691 (or fishes) and adult ed for many years
- 476
It is not wrong to say in English " Fish does not drink orange juice". It should not be marked incorrect
Yes, it is wrong.
"fish" in the singular needs an article (or other determiner). You might say "the fish does not..." or "a fish does not...", but "fish does not..." is not correct.
Unless "Fish" is the name of somebody or something.
But the German Fische is plural, meaning that it's "fish do not..." with plural "fish", not singular "fish".
- 267
Don is absolutely correct. Duo is wrong. Fisch, not fische, if you mean only one fish; otherwise the sentence should read The fishes...
No, Duo is not wrong. Fische is plural, not singular: " Fish don't drink orange juice." The modern English plural of fish is fish: one fish, seven fish, thirty-nine fish, five hundred fish. "Fishes" is an archaic plural form only found in writing before about 1750, such as in Shakespeare or the Authorised Version ("King James") of the Bible.
