"Hunden äter kattens mat."

Translation:The dog is eating the cat's food.

November 23, 2014

This discussion is locked.


Clearly the moderators have never had a cat and a dog living together, or they'd know that katten äter hundens mat. And the dog only gets to eat when the cat has had its tribute.


Our dog eats our cat's food all the time, so much so that we can't actually feed them in the same room or he'll push her out of the way to get to her dinner


You are drinking the cat's milk, the dog is eating the cat's food ... this cat really can't catch a break.


Why is everyone eating the cat's food?


My dog does this all the time.


"The dog eats the food of the dog" is wrong? (No native English speaker)


Yes, because the dog is eating the food of the CAT in this case.


Of course I meant "cat" ;-)


So if I understand correctly, you're asking if "the dog eats the food of the cat" is as valid a translation as "the dog eats the cat's food"? If so, technically yes, that's correct, but it's an awkward construction to use in English. If you use "of the" you'll be understood, but it's more common to use possessives.


Yes, that was my question. In school we learned that the construction with 's is used with persons and the construction with "of" with things. So obviously a cat isn't a thing but I wasn't sure if it's grammatically treated as a person ;-)


Your class actually taught outdated English grammar. Using possessives for objects is actually not just acceptable, but preferred now -- English even has a word explicitly for this purpose: "its", which is the possessive form of "it". {...not to be confused with "it's", which is a contraction for "it is". A lot of native English speakers confuse the two, sadly.}

Just some examples: "The restaurant's chef is really skilled" is standard, but "The chef of the restaurant..." sounds awkward to native English ears. Likewise "the newspaper's headlines", "the store's circular", "the school's mascot" and so on are all natural; while "the headlines of the newspaper", "the circular of the store", "the mascot of the school", etc., all sound odd to my ears. Again, they're all technically correct, but it's significantly much more common to use the possessive form.

For the record, my English is American English, but I've spoken extensively with British English and Australian English natives and I generally hear possessives for inanimate objects from them as well.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask and hopefully I can help!


Ok, thank you very much. That's very interesting though I think I shouldn't be too astonished that rules learned in school are often a bit outdated since most of our book were written in the 70's or 80's...


can't "mat" be translated to "meal"?


No, meal means måltid. Mat means food.


"Meal" is more properly "måltid", as far as I remember.


The dog is eating the cats food


Funny enough - when this came up the first time my dog was actually eating the cat's food.


Soo let me take this straight! You are drinking my cat's milk, and a dog eats the cat's food. Why are you doing this to cats?


the cats hold the linguistic secrets of the world that are too powerful to be released


Is this just a weird example, or is it an idiom?


Just a weird example.


Wouldn't that be bad for the dog? :D


It depends on what's being fed, I suppose.


What is the difference between kattens and katternas?


Oh my god. Knowing Duolingo, I thought this sentence was stating "The dog is eating the cats" or something

I have never felt so happy to be wrong.


This reminds me of a strip from the newspaper comic "Pooch Café". Poncho's owner says, "if you keep eating the cats food, you might turn into a cat!" Then Poncho researches at the library. In the next panel, he tells his owner, "Don't scare me like that aagain!"


I wrote "the dog ATE the cat's food", but that was incorrect. Why is "ate" the wrong choice?


"ate" is the past tense, which is åt in Swedish.


So, whenever the possessive refers to a noun (I.E. Katten, djuret, etc (except for man and kvinnan?)) you just put an s at the end of it?


Yes, with very few exceptions. :)


There was no other option


Could you please elaborate?


Can this also be "The dog ate the cat's foodñ


No, "ate" is åt.


Whatd the difference between "eats" and "is eating"?


Swedish doesn't make a difference - we use the same for both.


Why not "katts mat"?


The -en is the definite suffix, so it's like removing "the" from "the cat's".

[deactivated user]

    Apparently "foos" is not a grammar mistake.


    Correct, it's a typo. :) You're generally allowed one typo per word as long as it doesn't turn into another word.

    [deactivated user]

      Yes but it didn't point out that I did a typo


      Ah, I see. We can't affect the typo system at all, though. Duolingo handles all of that separately from the course.


      What if i wanted to say just " cat's food" without "the"? Something like " Hunden äter katts mat" or can't i do that in Swedish?

      [deactivated user]

        "Hunden äter kattmat" = "The dog eats cat food" Is that what you wanted to know?


        It was not that, but i found the answer a little bit later. Tack så mycket anyway :*


        Why is the dog eats the cat his food wrong?


        "the cat his food" is not grammatical English - you needs "the cat's food".


        What would happen?


        Why is it now "Kattens" for plural "the cat" instead of Katterna?


        It's not the plural - it's the singular.

        • katt = cat
        • katten = the cat
        • kattens = the cat's

        And in the plural:

        • katter = cats
        • katterna = the cats
        • katternas = the cats'


        I had the exact answer and it marked me wrong - this is an error.

        Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.