Is the gendre of a compound word determined by the last component like for example in German ? Like every "...kött" is "ett ...kött"?
Yes, ”skinka” and ”fläsk” the ”-kött” part just means meat so it’s not really necessary.
thank you :) The two get conflated fairly regularly where I live, so I actually wrote down "ham" in my vocab book. Had to fix it when I hit this one ^_^
I'm native Greek and this sentence seems to me like the dog eats the pork, in the sense that pork is its prey (unless there is en varg crossbreeding here). So, is there a difference in Swedish in saying that the dog or the wolf eats/ preys upon the actual animal as a whole? My hypothesis is that maybe you would drop the -kötten synthetic when not reffering to a single piece of meat or processed units from the animal's entity.
This is true sometimes. "Vargen äter älgen" typically means the wolf eats one animal, "Jag äter älgköttet" means a piece of meat. The kött-suffix is not always needed, one can say "Jag smakade älg igår" = "I tasted moose[meat] yesterday".
Though fläsk is only used for the meat. The animal, pig, is called gris. Same with nötkött that is only the meat, and the animal cow = ko. (Or "nötkreatur" in some contexts.)
Because "pork" has the definite article ending: fläskköttet meaning "the pork".
A rough rule is that "sk" in Norse languages became "sh" in English, so my guess for "flask" would have been "flesh". :-) English did a lot of weird systematic changes, like kirk to church (k-ch).
In English "the dog eats pork" is general/non specific. One would mainly say "the dog eats THE pork" to make a contrast, say if pork and beef were both available. Is Swedish like English in that regard?