1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Wij eten niet alleen vis, ma…

"Wij eten niet alleen vis, maar ook vlees."

Translation:We eat not only fish, but also meat.

August 17, 2014



Should "We do not eat only fish, but also meat" be accepted?


I don't see why not.


Yes, it's correct too.


I was desperately looking for the "don't" and wasn't quite sure how to answer this.


No, it cannot be right. With the above sentence, you are implying that "we DO NOT eat fish and meat " but the correct meaning of the given Dutch sentence is that "We eat both fish and meat"


Their sentence does not imply that in the least. The 'do not' applies to the phrase 'eat only', not to 'eat' in isolation


But fish has meat lol


I think vlees is more like red meat.


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


It's just because of the grammar. Trust me, I am a native Dutch speaker.


ook <=> auch (German)


Vis zijn dieren. Wij eten geen vlees van dieren. Go vegan


"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"

[deactivated user]

    "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.


    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.


    Isn't "not only we eat fish but also meat" correct?


    It's "not only do we ...", and then it's correct


    Why is the meaning not "we eat not only fish, but also meat


    Can vlees in Dutch only refer to non-fish meat, or does this sentence just assume that the learner will understand the context of this sentence? In English the view that "meat" doesn't include fish seems a bit outdated from my perspective (excluding specific cultural & religious contexts).


    What's wrong with "We not only eat fish, but also meat."? That was the structure they just wanted in the last question:
    "Mijn zus koopt niet alleen een jurk, maar ook een hoed." "My sister not only buys a dress, but also a hat."

    Update 6/30/2020: It's accepted here... https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/9268911/We-not-only-eat-fish-but-also-meat


    In a previous sentence, I used We in the same sentence position, and they said I should use Wij, now they say it should be We.


    In this exercise i used "We" and it told me it was wrong and that it should be "Wij" which brought me here looking for an answer...


    The English translation is not correct


    'we eat not only fish but meat' seems like good enough english to me. Everything additional seems redundant


    Could you say "Wij eten vis niet alleen, maar ook vlees", following the principle that "niet" goes at the end of the clause?


    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..."


    It would make much more sense (for English users) to read this sentence as We eat neither fish nor meat. So confusing


    It's saying the opposite though: that we eat both fish and meat. "Not only but also" is a fairly common sentence structure, at least in British English.


    your sentence would be: "we eten vis noch vlees"


    "We eten noch vis noch vlees" because Noch means both neither and nor.


    Both sentences are possible Marcus, it's not necessary to use noch twice.


    I was translating the direct statement which was "We eat neither fish nor meat" and not "We eat fish nor meat" while both are perfectly acceptable terms in both languages only mine is a direct translation.


    On the other hand, "vis noch vlees" is a standard expression in Dutch, and "noch vis, noch vlees" isn't.

    Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.