According to (German, because we use that expression, too) Wikipedia, the origin is unclear, but it probably comes from the French "donner de canards" - "to give ducks", which means "to lie". Why that is, no one really knows, though. Says that the duck may have been assumed to be an unreliable brooder.
Because, in English at least, something can be said in that tone with a question mark to show that it was a questionable question.
So this would be (again, in English at least) the answer to "What is that?"
Idiot: "What is that?"
Sarcastic person: "Erm, that's probably a duck?"
Because this is not a.. do you say "interrogative question"? It's not a standard question where the subject and object are inverted. That would be "Er det vist en and?", like in English.
Although vist wouldn't really fit here if you're unsure what it is. Måske would be better.
Daniel, would that even make a difference in English? :)
When you have den, det or de in such a predicative position (i.e. separated from the noun it refers to by a verb), you can translate it as either "it/they" or "that/those". Danish doesn't care.
- Jeg tror det er umuligt. - I think it/that is impossible.
- Den var så smuk. - It/that was so beautiful.
- De er mine venner. - They/those are my friends.
You can increase the "that"-ness, though, by saying "den der", "det der" or "de der" if you want. It'll have a meaning of "that object over there".
The audio is wrong. Det er vist en and. Here vist should not sound like that in this sentence. The audio of ..vist.. is a re-use of a word from . i.e. Jeg har vist dig min nye bil .. eller jeg har vist dig vejen (hen til skolen) eller. Here, however, it should be pronounced more like.. veest en and