"There is not enough food."
Translation:Maten räcker inte.
154 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
English can express this in a number of ways, e.g. "there isn't enough food", "the food does not suffice", "we don't have enough food", etc.
As you can see, whether to use the definite or indefinite depends on the phrase used. Swedish works the same way - we'd use the definite and indefinite in the same expressions here. :)
I'm a German speaker and so my guess - and it is a guess, so please anyone correct me - is that it is the same as the German verb "reichen", which has the same etymology as the English "to reach", so think of it as "the meat doesn't reach" (far enough) - i.e. there isn't enough of it
No, but it's close. Firstly, we're talking about whether or not there is actually enough food existing, so you should use "finns". Secondly, when constructing it like that with "nog" preceding the noun it modifies, you need to say "nog med mat". However, "nog" can also come after the noun, in which case it's just "mat nog".
Hope that helps.
You do not have a subject. If you put "maten" before the verb, it becomes a subject. "mat" after "inte" is the object of the sentence. The verb "räcka" means "to be enough", "to suffice".
That would mean "A lot of food is not enough", but there are several other reasons it doesn't work at all:
- mat is a mass noun so you need mycket
- mången is the singular en-word noun, so it's matched with tillräcklig without the t
- mången is largely archaic and should not be used, nor taught here
Is there no more literal (as in "more literal", not "no more") translation from English (got "There is not enough food" -> "Maten räcker inte")? Comparing with German, I think there are some different nuances between the literal-to-english translations "Es gibt nicht genug Essen", "Es ist nicht genug Essen da" and the literal-to swedish "Das Essen reicht nicht". Like the difference between an active and a passive wording. The "es gibt" variant could also very well be referring to the whole world (in context or course), while the other two can only apply to a more specific situation. There is a literal (active) variant in English with "suffice" for "räcker", but at least to me that's a different meaning referring more to the quality of the food. Enough ranting :), how can I say that in Swedish without the food "actively" räckering?
Shouldn't the sentence " There is not enough food be translated as"Det finns inte tillräckligt med mat."? I typed that in and it was marked wrong. I looked up the sentence. "Maten räcker inte." and it means "The food is not enough." So, how and why is my answer wrong? Anyone out there know? Just thought I'd ask.
Why is Det räcker inte mat" not acceptable? The given translation, when retranslated back to English sounds like "the food is not enough"; to me this means there should be something more/other than food, whereas the given English sentence was "there is not enough food". Which to me would mean there should be more food.