*Ĉu mi estas la sola homo, kiu pensas ke la frazo sonas stranga en la angla?
The phrase is a little strange when translated word for word into English. A translation that sounds more natural is "La koko estas besto, kaj ĝi vivas." or "The chicken is an animal, and it lives."
This is actually a good question, since I've seen evidence that Esperanto often handles predicate adjectives differently than English does.
In English, "sounds" can be an active verb or a stative verb, depending on how it's being used. So something can sound strangely, meaning it's giving off a sound in an unusual manner, or it can sound strange, meaning that "strange" is describing the thing in question. You can feel bad, in which case you're describing the state of your health or emotions, or you can feel badly, in which case you're saying that your sense of touch is impaired.
But I've seen English sentences that are clearly using a stative verb and predicate adjective be translated into Esperanto using the adverb form.
In both cases, from my experience with Esperanto (and Ido), "to feel bad" and "to feel badly" would translate as "mi sentas malbone"; however, with the former, I would add "min" to clarify. Note that Zamenhof used both the adjective and the adverb for the predicate, for example see http://vortaro.net/#sin%20senti
vivas is a verb, not an adjective.
The chicken [is an animal] and [lives/is-alive].
The chicken is [an animal] and [alive].
But even if it were an adjective, it does not violate parallelism, because you certainly can say the second one, with the "is" covering both "an animal" and "alive".
Thank you for correcting me; but still "is an animal" is a predicate with a verb and an object, while "lives/is alive" is a predicate consisting of a verb ("is" in the latter is being used as part of a verb, not as a transitive verb). I believe that this does violate parallelism.
Rarely? Been afraid to talk in this chat thingy because I see so many people get attacked for next to nothing, but seriously, I've never seen an English Bible that called it a rooster, and plenty of English speakers have grown up learning "Bible English". In fact, I went to a catholic high school, and certain nuns there made a point of insisting that words like "cock", "ass", and "❤❤❤❤❤" were animal names, and not to be used in any other way. I've also heard quite a few more farmers call it a cock than a rooster... and who would be talking about them more than farmers?
It is all rather confusing thought, how everything seems to be male without that "in" suffix, except for chickens and cows and professionals... and any other exceptions I haven't figured out yet. Inanimate objects maybe? Dolls? Puppets? How's a person supposed to guess?
And without that affix, it is of unspecified gender, not male. A language does not need grammatical gender for its nouns to have masculine or feminine meaning. In Esperanto, some nouns refer to masculine beings, a few to feminine beings, but the large majority leave the gender unspecified.
Nor does Esperanto prohibit it. You could use "si" to make it more clear, but since there is no other "it" to be considered in that context, "gxi" is also fine. If the gender of the "koko" is known (or assumed), one could also use "sxi" to indicate female, "hi" to indicate male, or "li" to indicate epecine/male third person. And yes, chickens are people too. LOL!
All creatures are beasts and all animals are creatures.
In English (at least UK English) the words “beast’, “animal” and “creature” are equivalent.
I have just checked my copy of Webster’s dictionary, and “beast” includes both vertebrate and invertebrate creatures. So, it seems to apply in US English too.
I just reported the “beast” translation as missing again, but since most people that I know seem to use “beast” to mean tetrapod then I won’t be surprised if it isn’t corrected.