Translation:A vegetarian who eats meat is not a vegetarian.
I'm not a native English speaker, but I like to practice German with English. My answer was considered wrong because I used "that" instead of "who". Is that wrong indeed?
In practice, the use of relative pronouns is extremely flexible, especially regarding ‘that’: it is often used for both human and non-human referents and often also in non-restrictive relative clauses, where in theory only which (non-human) or who (human) should be used.
Some argue that only ‘who’ should be used to refer to humans, regardless of the type of sentence. That is by no means a universal rule, though. If anything, it could be considered a suggestion. At any rate, always using ‘who’ for human referents is at least allowed, if not always recommended.
As far as the usage of ‘that’ in non-restrictive relative clauses (those that simply add new information about the antecedent, like ‘my mom, who is 50, is very nice’ or ‘dogs, which are notoriously obedient, make for good pets’), as opposed to restrictive relative clauses (restricting the statement to only the group of referents that satisfy the requirement, like ‘moms that/who are older than 50 are nice’ or ‘dogs that/which obey their owners make for good pets’), I would discourage that. While possibly accepted informally, it is at the very least nonstandard.
I'm a native English speaker and I used "that". I think, at least in this context, it is a perfectly acceptable alternative.
The audio provided has a very strange pronunciation of Vegetarier. I believe it should be pronounced VegeTArier and not VegetaRIer.
Yes, it sounds very weird. You're right, the correct pronunciation is "VegeTAAri-ër". With three "e"s in total.
"A vegetarian, who eats meat, is not vegetarian" was marked wrong. However, it would be accepted, because "vegetarian" is also used as an adjective. Posted on July 1, 2018.
Recently received the following email, for any and all interested:
You suggested “A vegetarian that eats meat is no vegetarian.” as a translation for “Ein Vegetarier, der Fleisch isst, ist kein Vegetarier.” We now accept this translation. :)
Thanks for the contribution, please keep it up!
I think a vegetarian that eats meat and a vegetarian who eats meat are both correct . That can replace who too .
For the accusative to come in question you would need either an accusative preposition (z.B. "für", "gegen", "um" etc.) or a direct object.
Actually, in this sentence we do have an accusative object: "Fleisch". To rewrite the sentence to illustrate my point:
Der (angebliche) Vegetarier isst Fleisch.
The (supposed) vegetarian eats meat.
So, here the nominative and accusative cases (subjective and objective in English respectively) help us identify who is doing the eating, and who is being eaten:
nominative=der (quasi) Vegetarier
Does that help at all?