- Forum >
- Topic: Danish >
- "Manden spiser fiskens kød."
27 Comments
Since we're in "Duolingoland: Land of Unrealistic Sentences" :p, I want to ask: does "fiskens kød" means just "the fish meat", or could it mean also "some meat that is possessed by the fish"?
In this case "fiskens kød" literally does mean "the fish's meat" and won't be used for saying "the fish meat", which would instead be "fiskekødet".
With this sentence, "Manden spiser fiskens kød", it could both mean that the man is literally eating the fish's meat, as in meat that belongs to the fish, and not the fish's own flesh 'and blood'.
So like you pointed out, "fiskens kød" is "some meat that is possessed by the fish".
Now, "fiskens kød" could also refer to the meat on the fish. As in, "Spiser du fiskens kød?" = [Literally: "Eat you the fish's meat?"] = (Meaning: Are you eating the fish's meat? / Do you eat the fish's meat?). However, as a native Danish speaker, I can't see a real-life situation where you'd say this.
Unless you got very technical, and you were two people talking about which parts of a fish you would be eating:
Person 1: "Spiser du fiskens kød?"
Person 2: "Nej, jeg spiser fiskens øjne."
=
Person 1: "Do you eat the fish's meat?"
Person 2: "No, I eat the fish's eyes."
But unless you wanted to get specific like that it seems a bit redundant. If you wanted to say, "Do you have the fish meat?", you'd say, "Har du fiskekødet?" = [Literally: "Have you the fish meat?"].
I hope that helps!
Thanks, this helps a lot!
(It actually sounds a bit like a parallel to "yú de ròu" and "yúròu" in Mandarin to me...)
Don't forget that "fiskens kød" can also mean "the meat of the fish": Lad det simre til fiskens kød er hvidt og fast = Let it simmer until the meat of the fish is white and firm.
Quick tip: Do yourself a favor and hover over "fiskens" for the correct pronunciation. For some reason, when the software reads the entire sentence, it botches the pronunciation of "fiskens", but does it correctly, when pronouncing it on its own.
I think this got fixed by now or I'm just too limited to make out any difference. :s
I also think it's fixed now. Then again, danish is pretty difficult to pronounce :D
149
no, the fish is in possession of some meat. It could say the fish's coat, the fish's glass.... in this sense. Based on what I read in all of these comments that's how I understand it.
- 415
I agree with all those who say that fish's meat is not good English. I think that in this unit the genitive "'s" is abused.
Because "a man" would be "en mand"
en [---] = a [---]
[---]en = the [---]
This is silly. I'm English you wouldn't say fish's meat... You'd say fish meat even if it was in ownership to the fish.
- 149
you wouldn't say it, but if you were watching a cooking show, and the chef is slicing up a whole fish, then how would he refer to, "the filet, and the meat on bone." Would they say only the fish on the bone? The apostrophe can be correct gramatically in some contexts, but contextually it is completely wrong here, due to a different issue. Common usage. If there is no apostrophe, then it is an adjective, just like butcher receipt and butcher's receipt or hospital food and hospital's food.
I got a wrong answer when typing "The man is eating the fish meat." I have been taught in English you only ever say fish, and there is no such thing as fish's. Am I wrong all these years ?
- 529
'fish's' is not good English. It should be fishes (yes - the same form in the genitive and the plural)
wosaer, wherever did you get that idea from? Fish's is perfectly good English, e.g.
-- I cut off the fish's head
-- I cut off the fishes' heads
Fish's and fishes' may SOUND the same, but they are written differently.
- 149
regardless, one does not say fish's meat. If you are referring to a cartoon character and the fish has a fork and a knife and is eating a steak, then that is the fish's meat, but it is so outlandish without any context given, that one cannot fathom grammar while ignoring common usage.
