"Sheep get lambs."
Translation:Får får lamm.
19 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
We have a similarly confounding sentence in English: "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." It plays on the different meanings of 'buffalo' and is a complete and grammatically correct sentence, though it doesn't look like one.
In German, we have “Wenn Fliegen hinter Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach.”, using the animals flies and the verb to fly. I guess it's harder to construct sentences like this in German with its countless flexions.
In Serbo-Croatian we have "Gore gore gore gore.", meaning "Up there the mountains burn worse."
I prefer "Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach."
Just as correct and more "Fliegen" in a row, no clue why the other version is more common.
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. :)
the meat of 'får' is btw called 'lamm', too, even if not all of it comes from Gotland: lammkött. And don't mix up lamm with lam !
It's only called lammkött if the animal was slaughtered at less than a year of age. Otherwise it's fårkött.
"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
Presumably, you're referencing these frustrating sentences? https://youtu.be/GQx3ACpbXhk?t=2m30s
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'?
I'd say no; avla in modern Swedish is closer to "breed" - as in humans breeding a kind of animal.
We have one in turkish müdür müdür müdür? It means Is the principal principal?