Just to see what would happen, I translated this as "the fish is meat" and Duolingo marked it wrong. Can anybody explain? Is it more because it's a weird way of expressing this idea in English, or is there a reason in Finnish that it specifically means "fish is meat" without "the"?
Perhaps 'Se kala on lihaa'... (Just 'kala on lihaa' would do it too; it depends on the talking point) and as Finnish does not have any articles the difference have to be made with different words. Mmm it's hard to explain...
Onko (tuo/se) kala lihaa? = Is (that/the) fish meat? / Kyllä, (se) kala on lihaa. = Yes, (that/the) fish is meat
I'm not sure if that makes ANY sense but I tried... '-'
I appreciate it! Every little bit helps as I figure out whether certain translations are wrong or if the Duolingo course just doesn't have those translations listed as valid yet.
Whoever downvoted this entire thread, can you explain why you don't think this is a relevant discussion to have?
Same here, @tjperi. I tried the same thing, and got the same "Väärin!" The lack of articles, definite or indefinite, is driving me batty. I don't see why "The fish is meat" is wrong, though I agree it's an odd construction. Perhaps tämä or tuo are as close as we get to a definite article, and lacking that we try and pick it up from context? But I still wish we had "the" as a starting point.
I'm hoping a native speaker will come along with a definitive answer --and perhaps a definite article.
To me, it's all about context. Since Finnish doesn't have articles, we have to make educated guesses.
In what situation would you say "The fish is meat" in English? I can't think of any, except really contrived ones, like a fish-shaped meatloaf or something.
It makes more sense that you'd be saying that all fish counts as a type of meat, rather than saying that a specific fish is meat, which is what "the fish" implies.
(Also I just realized I asked this same question earlier. Take a look at the thread above that starts with my question.)