"Vem äter upp all mat?"

Translation:Who is eating all of the food?

January 2, 2015

This discussion is locked.


So is it the same as 'eat up'?


Yes, it means that you finish all the food.


then why is "to finish" not possible?


Because you can finish the food in ways other than eating it. Maybe you sold it all! The Swedish sentence mentions eating.


I was wondering why would it not be alla because it's like all the food is that imply plurality?


It's a mass noun, just like in English – you'd say a lot of food rather than many foods (that would mean something else).


I wrote 'who eats all food' and I was wondering if I should put a 'the' before food as it seemed more right. The awnser was correct but sugested answer with 'the'. Can someone make it clear?


I can't quite understand this sentence. Upp and all both seem to mean "all" to me, and since its "who ate all the food" shouldn't it be "maten" rather than "mat"? What am I missing here?


It's more like äta upp means to eat to completion, but it doesn't really say that you're eating all of the food - just that you're eating all of what you're eating. So if you add the all as well, it means that not only are you eating of all the available food - you're also eating until there's nothing left of anything.


Thanks! But why “mat” instead of “maten”?


Just standard definite vs indefinite in Swedish here, actually. If you say maten, you're talking about some food specifically. But if you say mat, you're just talking about whatever food you have in general, so to speak.

In practice, these can be pretty interchangeable for the most part.


But with maten it would be alla maten. Am I right?


No, alla is the plural form but food is a mass noun.


Maybe I'm skipping a head in lessons (I can't wait to get to past tense!), but is the definiteness part of why changing this sentence to "Who ate all of the food?" alters it to "Som åt all maten?" Like, that which was eaten is a definite quantity, therefore, it's 'maten?' Although, I don't know why it would be 'som' instead of 'vem.'


Genius explanation!


English is 'who "ate" all the food?" No!?


I think that would be Vem ät upp all mat. But "Who ate all the food" feels so much more natural that I keep making this mistake when I'm trying to go fast!
I suppose the context here could be that something keeps happening: "Someone always eats the food in the canteen before I get there! Well, who eats all the food?"


Close, the past tense is åt: Vem åt upp all mat?.
ät is the imperative form: Ät din gröt! 'Eat your porridge!'


Who says "who eats all the food?"


..any mother with teenage boys when she's looking into an empty fridge again!


Perhaps you've never had room mates?


Should "Who will eat all of the food?" be accepted? It makes more sense to me than the present tense translation.


I would be much more likely to interpret this sentence in Swedish as e.g. "Who's that guy, eating all of our food?" - so the present tense is better in English as well. I agree the translation gets clunky, though. Changing the default might be a good idea - how do you feel about "Who is eating all of the food?"


That’s much clearer!


Great, thanks for confirming. I'll see to it. :)


Why is who ate all the food wrong


äter is the present tense - the past is åt.


If upp indicates leaving no leftovers, isn't the English translation somewhat imprecise?


It is, yes. The whole äta upp thing is problematic. It does imply completion - but it doesn't make it explicit. If English said e.g. "... eating all of the food", Swedish would translate that differently, into e.g. ... äter upp all maten. Neither way is really good here. It's an excellent example of a place where Duolingo would benefit from being able to show hints in relation to phrases or concepts.


Does the tense matter for some reason in this sentence? I got marked wrong for past tense.

Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.