Translation:We eat not only fish, but also meat.
I was desperately looking for the "don't" and wasn't quite sure how to answer this.
Why is is the second part of the sentence structured as "maar ook vlees"? Why not "maar vlees ook"?
It is saying: "But also meat" because ook is at the middle. When at the final it would be: "but meat too"
MAAR OOK is considered like a unique conjunction (in this example) that's why it's not correct to break it with the Object complement
"We don't eat just fish, but also meat" - why is this wrong? 'Just' is listed as an option, and that phrasing is one that I use all the time.
I'm not a native, so I am not sure. But I would say "niet alleen" is a combination that forms: not only. Not "not just"
"We don't eat just fish" and "We don't just eat fish" are exactly the same as if one was to use "not only" instead of "don't just". I put in a request to have it changed.. :/ I will admit though, "We don't eat just fish" is a strange way of saying it.
Why not "We eat not fish only, but also meat." Certainly acceptable as an English sentence, and a literal (as far as I can tell) translation.
I am not a native English speaker, but that doesn't sound like a sentence grammatically correct in Standard English to me.
If I said that, I would rearrange it slightly: "We eat not only fish, but also meat." That appears closer to the Dutch phrasing, but I also prefer it because the first clause implicitly constrains the second clause to refer to things we eat. When the "not only" precedes the verb, the second clause is wide open, and might just as easily be, "We not only eat fish but also kiss babies."
It's not incorrect technically, but would flow and sound better as, "We not only eat fish, but..." or " Not only do we eat fish, but..."
So will 'We don't eat fish alone, but also meat' be okay? I didn't try it. If so, then alleen=alone would be a good clue.