Native Dane here.
The sentence in Danish means "The kitchen is on fire".
The "ild" could be slang for a lighter, we say "har du ild?" when asking for lighters or matches, ie, there's a lighter in the kitchen.
To further your understanding, I'll give you a few examples of how things catch fire in Danish (pun intended):
Der er ild i huset - the house is on fire Der er ild i tøjet - the clothes are on fire Der er ild i lortet - the ❤❤❤❤ is on fire (yes, this means "party" as well)
Notice how it is not translated word for word into "there is fire in the ❤❤❤❤".
If we're talking about a fire inside, say, a stove, we would use the word "inde" to indicate that it is inside a more specific unit, for instance "der er ild inden i ovnen". For a pan, you could say "der er ild i stegepanden" - even though, physically, it will probably be some kind of food or alcohol on the pan, that has caught fire.
I hope that helped clarifying a bit on our alien tongue.
Why not? The Danish sentence literally means, "There is fire in the kitchen", but as a native English speaker I would never say that. Instead, I would say "there is a fire in the kitchen", whether I would be referring to a fire in the hob, or if the kitchen was on fire. Although not literally the same, "the kitchen is on fire" should be an acceptable answer.
I know this is old, but I (native English speaker) would definitely say "The kitchen is on fire" if and only if the kitchen itself (or its structures such as the cabinets or counter) were on fire (in such a way that when the fire is put out, a significant remodel/restoration would be in order). I would say "There is a fire in the kitchen" if what was burning was anything not structural to the kitchen (anything on/in an appliance, the appliance itself, or anything like curtains, towels, aprons, or whatever).
I suppose we could carry on picking the bones out of this discussion, but that would serve no purpose, especially for foreign students trying to follow its threads. I was not trying to discount anything by writing "as a native English speaker", but merely to indicate that i have naturally experienced this language in not only its official, but also many of its colloquial forms. Having participated on Duo for quite some time now, I have noticed how literal translations are sometimes rejected, and other times not, and in my opinion this is one case where the sentence in question should be accepted.
I was not clear last time. I was referring to the translation of the Danish sentence. 'The kitchen is on fire' is not an appropriate translation of the Danish sentence 'Der er ild i køkkenet'. In reference to your previous post, I never wrote contrary to "there is a fire in the kitchen".
You can write "there is a fire in the kitchen", ''the kitchen is on fire'', and ''there is a fire in the kitchen'', and they are all grammatically correct, BUT they are not all correct translations.
There is always a danger with making the 'as a native English speaker myself' reference to discount anyhting. Being a native English speaker myself, 'there is fire in the kitchen' is actually something I might say.
Edit: A word.
I missed the last part, 'Although not literally the same, "the kitchen is on fire" should be an acceptable answer.'
In this case, we do not know the location of the fire, so we could not say that it is the oven, on the stove, on the curtains, etc, only that there is fire.