Ser ut som en älg. Luktar som en älg. Smakar som en älg. Ja. Det är definitivt en älg.
I wrote "It definitely is a moose" and was marked wrong. I know this has a slightly different meaning than "It's definitely a moose". Is there such a distinction in Swedish as well (if so, then how?) or was this translation simply not added yet?
"It's surely a moose" is also marked as wrong, but it seems to convey the same meaning.
Hm, I don't think so, as "surely" isn't as sure or definite as "definitely", is it? :D I mean, there's still a trace of doubt in "surely".
My impression is that, without further context, the two adverbs are so close in meaning as not to be distinguishable. But I am not a native English speaker.
No, despite there being "sure" in the word, it 'surely' actually implies doubt, whereas 'definitely' really implies the absence of it.
Det is just a formal subject here. It doesn't take the gender of the object/animal/person in question. It's like saying "The (previously unknown or unspecified) something or someone is a moose". I think it would be a different matter, though, if in the sentence before, the moose was already mentioned, e.g.: Titta, en älg! Den äter gräs! In this case, den can refer back to älg, therefore it has to be utrum.
As for definitivt: Appending the -t has got nothing to do with älg being neutrum or utrum, it's just that you have to use the adverb form of definitiv (similar to definitely in English).
Incorrect. Moose is the US English name for Alces alces, and elk is the British English name for the same species. However, elk in US English is a different animal.
why is it ONE moose and not A moose. How do you say It is definitely a moose? Thanks
"a moose" is actually the default translation. It could be either from the Swedish sentence.
The -t ending for the definite singular ett-word is usually also shared with the adverb form. And here, we have an adverb - you can tell because the English says "definitely a moose" rather than "definite a moose". :)