Oops! What was I thinking When I posted this? Mensen = People or humans Dieren = Animals Mannen = Men
You said, "The animals are tasty." [I was wrong! mensen=people ]
If you were going for a joke it would be, "De mannen zijn lekker." However, that can also be translated simply as "The men are good." Hardly the desired impact. If you take it to the superlative, "De mannen zijn lekkerste." There is only one primary translation, "The men are tastiest!"
Referring back to the post I commented on, He actually said, The people are hot!! Or The people are tasty!
Note to self: Refrain from making correction comments when it's past time to sleep!
Long-pig is the cannibal word for human. Long is no longer really the adjective here but part of the word. They aren't talking about a pig.
But yea litrally translated, langvarken would mostly take het since it is a composite. But more likely is, it will be used as a loanword and de longpig sounds much better. (Not sure why, because it is a loanword? Not an object? You know it is about a mens? Not sure but I know het longpig would be wrong.)
Aside from the difference in the vowel that Ayyllmao mentioned (and sometimes the words are quite different, like ze and hun/hen), there is probably a difference in the speaker's tone, too, like their pitch or loudness, the same as when we stress something in English, using the prosody (the 'melody' of the whole phrase) to signal nuances. :)
it has to do with if it's a direct or an indirect object. Imagine for a moment that we are holding a pair of twin babies and it's time to give them back to their parents. "We give them to their parents." them=the people we are giving away, the direct object > hen. "We are giving them the twins" them=the parents, teh people receiving the items given, the indirect object > hun.
Yes the distinction between hen and hun.
Normally hun is the possesive pronoun. But it can also be the indirect object, so the dative, but only when there is no preposition.
The direct object is hen. So the accusative. (Or when it's indirect object with preposition "aan hen")
Ik zie hen (acc.)
Ik geef hun de bal (dat.)
But Ik geef de bal aan hen. (dat. with preposition)
In English while it is considered archaic, she is used in place of her. "That is she.", "Are you she? It's usually used as a literary stylistic or dramatic application. A classic piece of literature by H. Rider Haggard makes use of it.
" And now it appeared that there was a mysterious Queen clothed by rumour with dread and wonderful attributes, and commonly known by the impersonal but, to my mind, rather awesome title of She."
"Shall a man grave his sorrows upon a stone when he hath but need to write them on the water? Nay, oh She, I will live my day, and grow old with my generation, and die my appointed death, and be forgotten."
So, it may be possible that there may be a similar archaic literary usage where, like the partaking of some form of worship a symbolic consumption as in Christianity, "Ik eet ze.", could validly be translated as "I eat She."
Am I as the French would say, "Ne coupons pas les cheveux en quatre!" Is there an equivalent Dutch expression?
Nice thought but no. Ze for haar is something only little kids that just started learning the language might say, or immigrants. (Kids also often have the tendency to call zij hij. Or maybe that is just kids from immigrants because maybe in their language it works differently? Can't remember if the kids from dutch parents mix he/she up aswell. But they definitely mix up she and her)
It is not proper dutch, not even archaic/poetic.