The latter would be Vegetarianen äter en frukt. Swedish and English are often very similar.
No, the adjective is vegetarisk.
Han är vegetarian 'He is a vegetarian'
Maten är vegetarisk 'The food is vegetarian'
Not that, in the second example, you are describing it as edible to vegetarians. I don't know about anybody else, but this confused me a bit.
Not sure I understand you correctly, but it's true that vegetarisk only means 'edible to vegetarians', which is why vegetarisk cannot be used about people, only about food. Whereas vegetarian in English covers both.
Please stick to English or Swedish in the forums.
Swedish doesn't use indefinite articles prior to being things such as e.g. professions - or vegetarians.
"The vegetarian eats fruit." Sounds wrong, shoudn't it be "fruits" in proper english ?
No. In spoken English, you almost never say "fruits" except when you are specifically showing that there is more than one fruit. It's the same with meat or fish when they are referring to the food.
Some times I translated or understand is as "The vegetarian -is eating- the fruit". So when I could say that? How to distinguish between -is eating- and -eats- ? Tack!
Why do I hear an "oh" sound in the word Vegetarianen? Is that how its supposed to be?
No, it's just that the Swedish long A-sound is a little different from a handful of other European languages. Think of it as the English A-sound you'll find in bar and far.
If you're American. Or you speak close to RP English. But many English accents don't use that vowel very much, they use [a:] for bar and far, and so for those speakers the [ɑː] here might sound more like an "o" (a little similar to [ɔː] in words like "port" or "thought")
how can i know when to use the diferent times of the verb? like when is "eats" and when "is eating" or "ate"? thanks
Both 'eats' and 'is eating' are äter, Swedish doesn't have that distinction.
But 'ate' is past tense, in Swedish it's åt.
Yes, a vegan is not the same as a vegetarian. And also, you missed the t in "the".
How do we know when to pronounce the "g" as a hard "g," when it is silent, and when it sounds like a "y?" Examples:
Hard G: “vegetariANen” (the vegetarian). Silent G: “i morgon” (tomorrow), which is pronounced: ee-mor-ON” "Y" sound: “vargan” (the wolf) which is pronounced: var-YAN”
The basic rule is that g is hard before the 'hard' vowels a, o, u, å and soft before the soft vowels 'e, i, y, ä, ö'. Exceptions are common in loan words, which is what we have here.
The dropped g in morgon is just one of those things that tend to happen in very common words.
but i did that 5 times and it saids that it's wrong and i dident have a typo
Yes, it's perfectly fine. English and Swedish can both do this, unlike e.g. French.
I didn't know that, thank you. I found this article that explains it : http://www.englishteachermelanie.com/when-is-it-ok-to-use-foods-and-fruits/
BTW, I can see the same question (and others) have been made below, but they were not displayed on the android app (on the contrary, the app told me no comment had been made yet on this). So, sorry for the repetition.
(ps : how did you know i'm french =))
Yeah, it's a known bug in the Android app, very annoying. I thought for the longest time that so many of our users were idiots for not reading any comments, until I found out they literally were not able to. Quite humbling.
Haha, have you ever met someone calling themselves "Guillaume" who didn't speak French? :p
Can't we put an "s" to "fruit" in english? If I eat more than one fruit... Can I say: I eat fruitS?
Yes, but not as a direct translation here. If the plural "fruits" was explicit, it would have been frukter in Swedish.
Just because i forgot the s at the end of eat does not mean the whole sentence is wrong
The typo system is automated. It considers any typo that turns a word into another word an error, and an error means the sentence is rejected. There are pros and cons to this system but it's not a huge annoyance and we can't change it.
We are usually supposed to use en frukt or frukten, even fruktar would make sense, why is frukt sufficient?
Same reason as English using just "fruit", I suppose - in unknown quantities, you can simply treat the singular as a mass noun.
For verbs-example "eat" - How do you know when you should say "eats" versus "is eating"?
In English, you use "is eating" is it's an ongoing action, and "eats" if it's in general.
Swedish doesn't make a difference, though, so just äter translates to both, and you derive the intended meaning from context.