"Vegetarianen äter inte kött."
Translation:The vegetarian does not eat meat.
54 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
"kött" seems too much like "kot/кот" in Russian, which means cat. So whenever I see kött I have a little flashback to when I was learning a little bit of Russian, and I always think that meat in Swedish is supposed to be a cat...
That is one kind of meat... The more graphic or strange the image the better you might remember it, but to each his/her own...
Meat is kött, then the mean would be köttet or kötten? Since meat is not living, i guess it should be köttet?
That's right, but I don't think it has a lot to do with livingness, or am I wrong?
Because a fork doesn't live either and it's still "gaffeln" and not "gaffelt" or "gafflet" when definite.
Same goes for "child" which is "barnet" and not "barnen" when definite. And a child does live.
Almost all living things are en-words, with barn being one of the few exceptions. That's probably what they meant.
"Kötten" does however have a meaning. It is definite plural for "kött", in the sense of for example several different kinds of meats.
Why isn't it correct to translate this sentence as: "The vegetarian is not eating meat."?
See my answer to EllieLemke.
Sometimes studying languages that have strong similarities can be more difficult this way: a difference in meaning that is neutralised when translating into a language that is very different can be kept when translating into a language that is very close.
Isn't vegetarianen plural? Why isn't it the vegetarians do not eat meat?
No, it's the definite singular. The plurals are vegetarianer (indefinite) and vegetarianerna (definite).
90
the way i think of it, it's similar to shirt but that's where the ö sound comes into play, it's like shuurrt pretty much
kött uses the SHORT ö vowel, so rather than shiiiiirt (dragging out the main vowel) it's more like shirtt (clipping the vowel a litle short). Still, to most English speakers the vowels sound similar but with slightly different mouth shapes. The English [ɜː] in "shirt" is produced with little effort, but in svenska it seems to me [œ] for short ö and [øː] for long ö are pronounced with more intense, forward lips, a bit more work for the mouth
- 596
Just to keep it interesting, there aren't just a long and a short ö, there is also a open and more closed ö – and both can be long and short. I just found this video which I think describes it very well:
does anyone know why the 'k' doesn't sound like 'kuh' in the pronounciation of kött? especially with an 's' in front of it?
Before the so-called soft vowels of e, i, y, ä and ö, K and SK are pronounced differently.
It is not. Adjectives have to agree with what they're describing in number and/or definiteness and/or grammatical gender.
Does Swedish use the definitive ending in the same way that the definite article is udes in english when talking about a class/category of something? As in, for example, The polar bear lives at the North Pole ?
Yes, that definitely happens. Although it wouldn't be my first interpretation without proper context.
o my god.. so quick and fast. is it nomal? i just can her only vegetarianen e #$@%@% and kott.
It sounds normal to me. With time, patience and practice, you'll get the hang of it. :)
Most of the time, knowing a similar language helps me, but sometimes it trips me up. My brain keeps wanting to see the Swedish -en as plural. I'll get it eventually, but it's still frustrating.
We generally don't allow slang in translations. I have nothing against the word, to be clear - just don't think it should be accepted in a language course.
Does not and do not are the same thing, so it should accept one or yhe other in this sentance.
In the present tense, "does not" is for one person, and "do not" is for more than one person. They mean the same thing, but they can't be used interchangeably.
"eats no meat" is marked incorrect but this is synonymous with "does not eat meat"
