Yeah I would say this translation is straight up wrong. If it has to be a single object then "a bulb of garlic" is the best you can do.
"Garlic is a white onion" is accepted so it's okay but the one with "A garlic" in should definitely not be the recommended answer.
A garlic could refer to a cultivar of the genus of garlic. As in: "A garlic originating in Canada is..." It is, admittedly a bit constructed, but possible.
I've read through the discussion here, and I must say: It does not matter whether the statement in Swedish is true or false. It is what it is. The question is how best to translate it. In other words, it doesn't matter whether garlic is a white onion or not, just whether the Swedish sentence is saying that it is ...
Yeah, i would also like more false statements to translate in the training modules(not the learning ones) to see if you're paying attention and learning the words
This sentence appeals to me because of the wordplay: vitlök and vit lök. Besides, when I run out of onions, I use just a bit of garlic in ground beef, so garlic really is a substitute for onion, at least for me.
At least in Italy you can buy "l'aglio rosso", in Swedish "röd vitlök" :)
Here in Ukraine you can buy white onion which is not garlic, so är det en vit lök som är inte en vitlök :)
In Slovakia as well - you can get white, yellow and red onions. And I could never think of garlic as a type of onion :)
Funny that it's pretty much the same in Filipino - 'bawang' is garlic and 'puti' is white
They are two different species of Allium. So no, garlic is not really a white onion.
Allium is considered "the onion genus" which includes garlic, onion, leek, etc. So it could go either way.
In English, “onion” is pretty much just used for the species allium cepa, not the whole genus — so garlic is not a white onion. But Swedish “lök” seems to be used more often in the wider sense of the genus, so vitlök är möjligtvis en vit lök.
Giving you five Lingots for this reply. I think this Svenska statement is totally weird and no way anyone could conclude that garlic (Allium sativum) is a white onion (Allium cepa). Very bad translation. Just think of the difference between garlic soup and onion soup!
I'm worried when I see you say "bad translation." There is nothing wrong with the translation. Perhaps the original Swedish sentence is false (or perhaps not). But if the Swedish statement is false, then an accurate translation will also be false. But that makes the translation accurate, not bad.
Exactly, it's a translation curveball but that doesn't mean it should be translated to change the sentence content. The original Swedish isn't even false - the family of plants is called lökväxter in Swedish. That said, since so many are having troubles with this sentence, it might not be a good fit for the 2.0 course.
Thank you, you have explained what I was trying to say much better then I did. The thing is that I really don't think an English speaker could translate the Swedish in any way that would make sense to the English speaker and still be agreeable to the Swedish speaker. It is sort of like a trick question and since the objective here is to learn Swedish trick questions that cannot be answered correctly should not be included. Otherwise, we get into a Mad Hatter's Tea Party situation and spend our time trying to figure out how a raven and writing desk are alike. :-)
Does "en vitlök" mean a bulb of garlic, a clove of garlic, a garlic plant, or something else?
garlic (n.) Middle English garlek, from Old English garlec (West Saxon), garleac (Mercian), "garlic," from gar "spear" (in reference to the clove), see gar, + leac "leek" (see leek).
Garlic itself puts me off garlic. Although, garlic soup is great if you are suffering from altitude sickness in the Himalayas!
I wrote "en vit lök är en vitlök". Couldn't it be an acceptable answer ?(it sounds the same or did i miss something?)
The point of the exercise is to show the difference it makes in Swedish when you use a compound noun rather than a space. Hence:
- vitlök = garlic
- vit lök = white onion
If you switch the two around, you get a different sentence. And while the truth contents may be the same, it's not really a direct-enough translation in a language course.
Garlic is not an onion! In English a white onion is something quite different to garlic.
It's an onion in Swedish, and you're being asked to translate the words of a Swedish sentence. Whether it's actually a true statement in English as well doesn't really matter for the sentence content.
Interestingly, the allium genus is called lök in Swedish, and is often referred to as the onion genus in in English - but it's the term for garlic in Latin! :)
" That it's actually a true statement in English as well doesn't really matter for the sentence content." Really? Please tell me what you think of these sentences: 1. Jag sprang i en ras. 2. Förhoppningsvis kommer jag att göra bussen i tid. They're grammatically correct in Swedish, but you probably don't like the translation. In the same way. we don't like the translation of the garlic/white onion sentence.
That's really not the same thing. I'm talking about truth statements in sentence content, but your examples are about meaning and verb grammaticality, respectively. Compare these two:
- Swans are green
- Swans wander green
The first one is comparable to the onion / garlic sentence: perfectly understandable though undeniably false. The second one just makes no sense.
Look, I respect that you dislike the translation, though I suspect that you also remember these words much better than others in the course as a result. The overwhelming majority of our sentences are completely sensical, but we like to throw in an occasional curveball - and other users do enjoy that.