"The man's sister wants golden dresses."
Translation:Mannens syster vill ha gyllene klänningar.
Chicken is sometimes a false friend in Swedish. Your sentence is one case of that, because en kyckling can never lay eggs. That would be en höna, ’a hen’. It seems we draw the line between chicken and hen somewhat differently.
When it's seen as food, there's rarely a problem, but this is probably mainly because people rarely eat höna these days. Chicken soup can be either kycklingsoppa or hönssoppa though.
Ah, interesting. Is sounds almost like pez vs. pescado in Spanish. Errata corrige: jag vill ha en höna som lägger guldägg.
Not at all, a rooster is en tupp. It's just that we don't draw the line between 'chicken' and 'hen' in the same place where English does. But kyckling is in many cases chick.
Ah, thanks. I'm still a little confused, though, I guess, because English doesn't really draw a "line" between chickens and hens, any more than English draws a "line" between "human" and "woman." Hens are (adult) female chickens, roosters are (adult) male chickens. But all of them (males and female adults, pullets, cockerels, and chicks) are chickens. So if hens aren't "kyckling" and "roosters" aren't "kyckling" - does "kyckling" apply only to the young ones? Or are some adults also kyckling - and if so, which?
The species is höns in Swedish. The adult female is höna, the 'rooster' is tupp, the chick is kyckling.
I think you sometimes see remnants of an old use of "chickens" to mean chicks; mostly in children's rhymes and the occasional pub name ("The Hen and Chickens").
It kind of like in French maybe? 'Poulet' being what you eat. 'Poule' being a hen and 'coq' being a rooster... Doesn't work for 'poussin' tho...
Why is "ha" required here? I entered "Mannens syster vill gyllene klänningar." and it's wrong as it has to be "vill ha". Can you not just say "wants" (vill) in Swedish like you can in English implying that you want to have?
Even in German, I'd say "Meine Schwester will goldene Kleider", for example, without "haben" and unless I specify some other actions (she wants to sell them or ... burn them), it will refer to ownership and nothing else.
I'm sorry if this question is repetitive, but why is the ending gyllene, isn't the ending for plural -a?
It's because in this sentence, she wants golden dresses in general, not some specific golden dresses (then it would have been de gyllene klänningarna and 'the golden dresses').
So... why is gula klanningar not correct? We're talking about multiple dresses here...