"Barnet elsker egget."
Translation:The child loves the egg.
In the French course you are never allowed to translate 'aimer' with love. Duolingo means that in English you can only love people and pets. Why can a child love an egg here?
I believe it has to do with how they've decided to teach the French distinctions, everything is fair game in English.
In Norwegian we can use both 'er glad i' and 'elsker', with the former often seeing more use in situations where you in English would say 'care for' or 'like', but also in situations where most English speaking people would say 'love', but we Norwegians feel that 'elsker' is too strong of a word.
The distinction between the two used to be clearer, but 'elsker' has become a little more prevalent as of late, influenced by the English language.
The French use "aimer" very broadly. The fr/en course seems to have decided to accept "love" as a translation only for people and pets, but that doesn't mean it's impossible in English to love anything else, merely that you would need an even stronger verb to express the same sentiment in French, e.g. "adorer".
I agree with both of you. However, I think English and American people use 'love' much more than Norwegians use 'elsker'. That's why I thought it a bit strange to accept 'love' here and not in the translation from French.
I'm having trouble reconciling your two posts. In the first one you seem to object to using "love" as a translation for "elsker" on the grounds that love is too strong a word. In the second you seem to be arguing that its meaning is weaker. Surely it can't be both stronger and weaker? If English uses "love" less liberally than French uses "aimer" and more liberally than Norwegian uses "elsker" then I wouldn't expect the Norwegian course to follow the model of the French course. If anything I would expect the two to have the opposite behaviour.
I am sorry that you got confused. I meant that love is used in English by American and English people much more that a Norwegian normally use elsker. so I found it strange that you could not translate 'aimer' with 'love'. Elsker is much stronger than love. My American friend might say: 'I love your shoes'. I don't say: 'Jeg elsker dine sko.' I would say: 'Jeg liker dine sko'. Or: ' Så fine sko du har.' (How nice shoes). 'Barnet elsker egget' is a bit strange to me. It means that the child loves this specific egg. 'Barnet elsker egg' means that he loves eggs. I can imagine a mother saying that more easily.
I think I'm still confused. The translation exercise which led to the discussion was translating "Barnet elsker egget." into English. Since "elsker" is stronger than "love" it seems that one would need to translate it either with "love" or an even stronger term in English. The situation when translating from French to English is exactly the opposite.
I'm not sure the question of whether "Barnet elsker egget." is a strange thing to say really arises. Lots of duo sentences describe unusual situations, e.g. green elephants. The idea is to render them as faithfully as possible into the target language. Of course the original sentence should be grammatically correct and should have at least one possible interpretation, but I don't think one can really require more than that.
What I mean is that to say 'barnet elsker egget' is a statement I would rarely make. Normally I would use 'liker' instead. However I can imagine someone saying it looking at a child eating an egg very fast or being very happy eating an egg. If tne Norwegian sentence was: 'barnet liker egget.' it could be translated to 'the child loves the egg'. Or to 'the child likes the egg'.
It's probably a trick question. It's an unusual sentence but it's still correct Norwegian.
Um, maybe she loves the taste of the fried egg her mother may or may not of just given her.