"Sheep get lambs."
Translation:Får får lamm.
"Sheep get lambs" is a painfully literal English translation. In English you have a baby, whereas in Swedish you get one. (When you think about it, the Swedish makes a lot more sense.)
It's antiquated, but historically "get" was used as a synonym for "beget (children)" on occasion.
Modern texts still use it infrequently in noun form to refer to offspring. Children of Dune (1976) includes the line:
> You must admit that the bastard get of Paul Atreides would be no more than juicy morsels for those two [tigers].
Finding examples of modern colloquial usage are harder (given that the other, vastly more common uses of "get" dominate search results), but you can still find it used for the offspring of horses (and, I presume, other animals).
Search google for "he and his get are" (with quotes) for a handful of examples of the above.
But surely the preferred and displayed English translation should use "have" as it is the more common word used in this situation by far.
No way, then we'd be stuck with a gazillion jokers wanting to translate the sentence into something about sheep eating lambs, because 'have' can mean 'eat' in English. We're simply not having that :D
Interestingly, on the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, sheep aren't called "får" but instead "lamm", while lambs are called "lammungar". (lamb children). A Gotlander friend of mine kept correcting me when I visited last summer and enthusiastically called out "FÅR!" whenever we happened to pass some of them. Just a little bit of dialectal trivia. :)
If you were not making the joke, would it be better to use 'avla' rather than 'få' in modern Swedish, or does the modern Swedish 'få' also mean 'avla' = 'beget'?