Translation:Man is the only animal who possesses the language.
Non, la tranduction n'est pas correcte. Les autres animaux parlent des langages. Comme l'oiseau, le lion, la baleine, et plus. Mon chat parle la langue "meow meow" C'est ce qu'il dit habiteuellement: "meow, meow, meow meow MEOW!!! (tranduction: je veux de la nourriture MAINTENANT!!!) ^.^ Les animaux ont leurs langues secrets ^.^ (J'espere que tu comprends mon francais, ou l'idee de cela, au moins. Desole pour mon manque d'accents) Bonne journee!
I just learned, when using "j'espère que", the future tense follows. So it would be "j'espère que tu comprendras..." So much to learn!!
Le/la/les = the = specific, that one right there
Le/la/les = general, all examples of something, the idea of something
Only context can tell which meaning is intended.
When a noun is used in a general sense in some narrow circumstances, such as a title of a book or profession, the article can be dropped. Otherwise, general type nouns require a modifier of some kind.
Of course what you say is absolutely correct however I suspect that @JenCraven is questioning the use of the definite article in the English sentence.
I assume that you are are not suggesting that the English sentence given at the top of this page is correct.
No, it is not.
My mistake. I thought he was talking about French (even though on rereading his comment it is clear he was not). English speakers would include the article only when they intended the specific.
Actually, this kind of mistake in English is exactly the kind of mistake French speakers make because of the different use of the article between the two languages. This sentence looks like it was translated by a native French speaker.
Duo sometimes uses quotes from other sources. So I suppose in context you could include an article. ...Man is the only animal who possesses the language (that you have just finished describing)....... But inventing a whole scenario just to accommodate what looks like a typical French to English error is sort of stretching it a bit.
My apologies to JenCraven for not having troubled myself enough to read his short comment correctly.
Native English speaker here. Yes, "mankind" is gender neutral. When people use the word, they almost never mean only people of the male sex; they mean people in general, regardless of age or gender. Sometimes you'll see the word "humankind" instead. It means the same thing.
Man can mean mankind, though it has other definitions. Generally, if you say "a man" or "the man", you're referring to an adult of the male sex, but if you say "man" without an article, you're referring to humanity, i.e. all men, women, and children.
What you say is correct. However, people who wish to change the English language to accomplish their social engineering goals take the view that words mean what only they want them to mean.
By redefining old words and demanding they be replaced with new words, they get to define the language that is used to carry the debate. That means they get to define the terms of the debate.
Northernguy is of course correct to point out that the original sentence is not about "the power of speech" which is really a different concept and to allow it would be too much of a stretch.
However, even if you had not used "power of speech" your suggested sentence would still have been incorrect.
"L'homme" = "the man" = "man"
For it to be "men" the original would have to be "les hommes"
Also "man" in this sentence implies human beings generally. However using "men" in this sentence would imply that women don't have language.