"Ein Vegetarier, der Fleisch isst, ist kein Vegetarier."

Translation:A vegetarian who eats meat is not a vegetarian.

January 19, 2018



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?

May 13, 2018


It's... complicated.

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.

May 21, 2018


It's correct colloquially, just report it when you get it wrong

May 26, 2018


Not really

May 18, 2018


I'm a native English speaker and I used "that". I think, at least in this context, it is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

July 1, 2018


The audio provided has a very strange pronunciation of Vegetarier. I believe it should be pronounced VegeTArier and not VegetaRIer.

January 19, 2018


Yes, it sounds very weird. You're right, the correct pronunciation is "VegeTAAri-ër". With three "e"s in total.

January 19, 2018


Das stimmt, Duo. Das stimmt.

June 25, 2018


"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.

July 1, 2018


Recently received the following email, for any and all interested:

Hi AdamKean,

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!

- Duolingo

December 6, 2018


Isst ist... This seems intentionally difficult.

June 16, 2019


Another thinker is "Man ist, was man isst".

June 16, 2019


I think a vegetarian that eats meat and a vegetarian who eats meat are both correct . That can replace who too .

September 13, 2018


I dont understand why this is not in accusative ...

January 8, 2019


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

  • accusative=Fleisch

Does that help at all?

January 8, 2019



March 28, 2019
Learn German in just 5 minutes a day. For free.