"A vegetarian does not eat meat."
Translation:En vegetarian äter inte kött.
Should "En vegetarisk äter inte kött" be accepted as a valid translation?
No. The correct translation of vegetarian in this case is "vegetarian", which is used when referring to a vegetarian person. If we want to translate sentences like "this dish is vegetarian", we would use "vegetarisk".
Hope this sorts things out.
Why is there an article 'en' here when there isn't one when you say, for example, she is a vegetarian / Hon är vegetarian?
It's only when we say someone 'is' a profession etc that we don't use the article. Not in other contexts.
Why doesnt it allow "En vegetarian äter ej kött". Ej and inte are basicly the same or?
It says "en vegetarian äter ej lunch" not kött so that is why it doesn't work, but yes ej and inte have the same meaning