"Jij eet varkensvlees en brood."
Translation:You eat pork and bread.
Yes, except it's not the correct register. Normally, people don't talk about eating 'bovine meat' or 'taking the bovines to the pasture'.
This is slightly off topic, since it concerns English and not Dutch, but may I ask why you make the distinction between "pork" and "flesh" in this way (and how exactly you make it)? I am not a native English speaker, but I had always thought that "pork" is just a type of flesh (namely that of pigs), and at least wikipedia also says that "flesh is the soft substance of a human or other animal body that consists of muscle and fat", which would imply that pork is in fact just a type of flesh (even though flesh that is used as food is probably more commonly called "meat"). Or is there some other distinction in meaning or usage that I am not aware of? (Or is this some regional, local, etc. thing and not actually universal in English?)
All English words for meat are euphemisms that make an artificial distinction between the flesh of living animals, especially humans, and the same flesh as cut out of an animal's corpse. As a result, English speakers are ever so slightly less likely to be aware of what they are doing when they are eating meat.
meat originally just meant (wet) food
Pork, beef, veal were originally just the French words for pig, ox and calf, respectively.
What we are seeing here is the point of view of the Norman (i.e. French-speaking) nobility, who knew these animals primarily as they arrived on the table. The point of view of the (Germanic-speaking) peasants is preserved in the Germanic words referring to the living animals.
You are right about meat originally being a generic word for (wet) food.
Ther is a remnant of this meaning in some Lancastrian English dialects: there is somthing called 'moggie meat'.
'Moggie' in English is usually slang for a cat but in this phrase actually means mouse (although it can also generically refer to creatures as I understand it).
The 'meat' is the "moggie's" food.
Therefore 'moggie meat' is 'mouse food' which translates into standard English as 'cheese'!
Yes, I know that, but that would imply that meat and pork are types of flesh. My question was asked with regard to ws9167 saying "I don't like to think I'm eating flesh when I eat my pork.", which I took to mean that, at least according to them, pork is not a type of flesh or that there is some additional component that makes them not want to associate pork with flesh. Or maybe I misunderstood them, but then I'm not sure what they meant.
@AngleTerran "Flesh" is a pretty generic word:
The same is true in Dutch or in German, where you eat the "vruchtvlees" or "Fruchtfleisch" of a fruit, and "gums" are referred to as "tandvlees" and "Zahnfleisch", respectively. But neither the Dutch nor Germans usually feel like cannibals when eating "vlees" or "Fleisch", as far as I know.
But I think I might have misunderstood ws9167 a little bit and that they didn't mean that pork isn't flesh, just that they would feel weird using the word "flesh" in the context of eating, which is more or less what you're saying. I'm still not quite sure why they would feel weird or "like a cannibal", though, if "flesh" is such a generic word. Or is it predominantly used to refer to human flesh in the context of eating the tissue of some animal?
"Flesh" is a pretty generic word in English that refers to a 'soft body'. For example you could eat the flesh of an orange.
I think ws9167 means that he sounds like a cannibal when he's eating pork in dutch.
If I hear a friend proclaim they are going to enjoy their portion of pig flesh, for example, they are teasing, reveling in their ability to consume meat, muahahaha, etc. etc.
Johaquila is right to mention the euphemistic nature of this topic. In general, English avoids the implication that you could be eating the flesh of another animal (gross!) by substituting a word without those pesky feelings, like the word pork! Pork is delicious and perhaps my brain won't remind me where it came from.
Basically, "flesh" has a more negative connotation, while "meat" is a bit more appealing. It's like instead of saying "I dyed my hair," saying "I covered my dead skin cells in chemicals and dye." Meat is just typically used to describe what you eat, while flesh is more associated with gore.
I think it should be accepted. Maybe you had a typo that wasn't recognised as such? Jij is probably not emphasised in this sentence, so it should be allowed to replace it by je. There are probably sentences in which native speakers are inclined not to do this for phonetic or metric reasons, but in this case I would doubt it.
This question isn't really clear. Maybe you want to know how to determine whether or not to use the progressive/continuous aspect, i.e. whether to say eat(s) or is/are/am eating? Then the answer is as follows:
Unlike English, but like most languages of the world, Dutch does not have an obligatory progressive/continous aspect. E.g., Jij eet means both You eat and You are eating. Just choose whichever you feel like at the moment, or whichever makes more sense with the sentence.
Dutch actually does have a progressive/continous aspect similar to the one in English, but since it's somewhat cumbersome to use it's not obligatory and is only used when you want to stress that the action is going on right now. E.g., in increasing order of stress on the on-going character of an action, from not on-going at all to strong stress:
- You eat.
- Jij eet.
- You are eating.
- Jij bent aan het eten.
- You are eating right now.
- Jij bent nu aan het eten.
The way to read this is that to translate one line you need to use the one immediately above or below to minimise the difference in emphasis on the on-going nature of the action.
And thank you, too. It's really great to have a competent native speaker around who catches and points out this kind of thing.
I think my post is fixed now. This looks like another interesting divergence between Dutch and German, which took me completely by surprise. Uitmuntend.de offers these German translations of zoëven: soeben (the obvious cognate), just, eben, gerade. The fun fact here is that all of the German translations are evolving towards use as equivalents of the progressive aspect, or at least as casualty markers that can only be used in situations when English would require progressive aspect. I don't remember if I actually looked up zoëven when I wrote this post, but even then I would have had little chance to catch the problem.
I wonder if this difference is causally related to the fact that the English-like construction aan het doen zijn is more common and more flexible in Dutch than in German.