"The boy loves moose."
Translation:Pojken älskar älgar.
28 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Actually, 'fishes' can be used in certain circumstances, specifically in the same way that 'monies' can be used as a plural for many types of money (in some rare contexts).
For example, if you had Euros as well as US and Canadian dollars, this could collectively be referred to as monies. Generally speaking, I'm not sure why someone would not use the word cash to mean any amount or type/groupings of money.
Anyways, on 'fishes'; you can have a gold fish and even two gold fish; however, if you add different type of fish to the fish bowl, you would have many fish or fishes. It sounds strange but, "sleeping with the fishes," could be a line in a crime novel, as an example (and would mean: thrown in a body of water with all of the fish that may be there).
While what I am about to say may not be correct, this is how I conceptualize monies and fishes: If there are many of them in type and quantity and it is not important to actually know an accurate count or information about it.
Yes, the original Cree plural ('moosoutch') isn't used anymore, but when talking about the European elk ('älg'), the plural form 'elks' may still be used when referring to a specific group / selection rather than all elk there are. Not sure if the same works for 'mooses' though.
2551
Fascinating -- I never knew about "moosoutch" being the (original) plural of "moose" before.
Do you know how it was pronounced? That is, was the "ou" in "moosoutch" pronounced like the "oo" in "moose" or the "ou" in "South" ?
Thanks for sharing!
Mooses is incorrect, but a lot of people don't know that. Maybe you can teach them something new!
Giant cupped palmate antlers (Alces alces): "Moose" in America, "elk" in Europe. Limited European populations in Baltic states and Scandinavia.
Giant, branchlike velvety antlers (Cervus canadesis): "Elk" in America, "wapati" in Europe. Native to remote eastern Asia and northern North America, no populations in Europe.
If you say "älg" to a Swede, they'll be thinking of a Bullwinkle, not the deer-looking things.
So if I'm not mistaking, the boy in question loves the European elk (since otherwise it would be canadahjortar - canada deer - referring to wapiti), and the person who utters this statement speaks American English?
I think the execise should tell someting like (plr) after these ambiguous word cause the answer just accept plurar answers but singular is also right.
For this sentence, "moose" can only be plural. For "moose" to be singular here, it would have to be "the boy loves a moose".
Duolingo accepts either answer if it is ambiguous.
I know the g in älg is pronounce like a 'j', but would it be pronounced like a 'g' in other forms like älgs or älgar? And then, would it still be pronounced like a 'j' in älgen? Thanks!
I wrote 'gillar' for 'loves' since 'älskar' seldom gets used for so many things as 'loves' does, afaik. For a Swede 'älskar' is a really strong word. I will report this. Not accepting 'gillar' is not very idiomatic, afaik and I am a Swede btw. just saying
I have a follow up question here.
This question seems to mean that the boy loves moose, as in the creatures (plural); however, how would you say the boy loves moose, as a food (singular)?
Both sentences are the same in English, but I wonder if. "Pojken älskar älgar," does not mean that he loves eating moose. Would that be "Pojken älskar älg," if the context of the previous sentence was they were eating moose?
Maybe "älgkött". We might even say "moose meat" in English unless we were already talking about different kinds of meat.
Fair enough, I got this wrong the first time because I interpreted this as a meal statement as opposed to a statement on the animals.
I've asked around (locally in Western Canada) and everyone also assumed this was about eating moose meat.
If this comes up again I am going to use älgkött to see if it is accepted.
- 154
I did also interpret it as a statement about food and answered Pojken älskar älg which was accepted. This is how I (as a native Swede) would express it in a discussion where everybody is aware that the subject discussed is food. If no food-related discussion was already going on I would make my statement clearer by saying Pojken älskar älgkött.
Pojken älskar älgar I would always interpret as that the boy loves the animal "moose".
Here cannot we say "Pojken alskar alg." as no indication whether it is singular or plural is mentioned?
It's not really about singular vs plural. In English, if we say "The boy loves moose", it can only mean "moose meat". Similar to what we'd mean if we said "The boy loves lamb"; that would never be about a particular lamb.
In this thread, @KimWidman said that they would usually say "Pojken älskar älgkött" unless they were already talking about food."
But in this sentence - how can I know that it is signular or plural moose? I thought that the boy loves only one moose.. or it would be then "the moose"?
Singular moose would be (en) älg.
Pojken älskar älg → "The boy loves moose" (as a "material", like food--see the discussion above).
Pojken älskar en älg. → "The boy loves a moose" (there is a specific but yet-unidentified moose that the boy feels fondly towards.)
Pojken älskar älgen → "The boy loves the [one] moose" (there is a specific moose we know about, and the boy feels fondly towards it).
Pojken älskar älgar → "The boy loves moose [in general]" (the boy likes the species, the way we might say "I like cats").
Pojken älskar älgarna → "The boy loves the [many] moose" (a group of moose have been identified, and the boy feels fondly towards those specific moose).