This is unique to modern english because of a mix of three languages after the Norman invasion of england in 1066. Anglo-Saxon (English) serfs produced animals and Norman (french) lords ate the meat. Cow - Beef Pig - Pork Deer - Venison Sheep - Mutton Calf - Veal But chicken was more readily available to commoners and thus has the same name. So I'd imagine an english learning spanish speaker would have a hard time conceptualizing the reason to call meat of animals different names. I know this reply is a year later, but w/e.
"Poultry" includes every bird we keep and breed for eggs and meat--ducks, turkeys, some pheasants, et cetera. It's a broad animal classification that can be used for their meat, but it doesn't refer specifically to chickens.
Yes, my point was that there is in fact a French derived term for the meat of the chicken, like the rest of his examples.
However, there are instances in Spanish where the same thing occurs:
Cow - Vaca; Beef - Carne de Res
Fish (alive) - Pez, Fish (to eat) - Pescado
Except that it ain't unique to English, at least Slavic languages surely have this distinction as well.
No, it certainly isn't unique to English. English got it mostly from French, and I believe that French has affected other languages, although I can't speak to Slavic languages. But one thing you have to realize is that. bistec is really the only word for meat that isn't related to the animal name in Spanish. Although vaca is cow, res is the collective noun cattle or livestock. And what finally hit me on the head a year or so ago was that pescado is related as well. Pescado is the past participle of the verb pescar, to fish. So what you are calling that fish on your plate is essentially "fished". Except for carne de res, most.of the common meats are most often just called by the animal's name, but those which are rarer are preceded by carne de. Of course what is common varies. We don't eat much goat in the US (unfortunately) but cabre works for goat meat as well as goat in Spanish.
Fell into the same trap. We could probably argue the point if it was lamb or beef, but I guess turtle meat isn't so common. Also, thinking how "lamb meat" would sound odd to us, I wonder how "lamb chop" or "leg of lamb" sounds to Spanish speakers.
I don't know, as a native English speaker I would say turtle meat, but I'd just say lamb. I'd also say horse meat. I think foods that aren't as commonly eaten can easily be said with meat as a clarification (although either way is fine). For example, I would say eat turtle meat, horse meat, but eat lamb, chicken.
I think Withoutakare is correct. I'm Jewish and we don't eat pork. Within our small community, I've sometimes heard it referred to as pig meat because it's not a commonly eaten meat for us.
Because lamb isn't an animal (in the sense of species or other taxonomic grouping) whereas turtle (or sheep) is. People say "lamb" instead of "sheep meat". When the horse meat scandal occurred, that is exactly what it was called.
In this context, it's obvious through the word "eat" what they mean, but in other cases it wouldn't be clear if you were referring to a living animal or their dead flesh.
I'm a native British English speaker, and "Would you eat human?" (as another example) sounds wrong to me, whereas "Would you eat human meat?" sounds more natural.
I am American and I agree. If it is not something that you really think of people eating, you generally will add the word meat. It did occur to me that I wouldn't be as likely to say it with snake, but maybe that's because they seem less like they would taste like meat. In Spanish it's not really clear cut. They use the animal name for pork and lamb, in addition to most of the things we also use the animal name for like turkey duck and lobster. But they have a "meat" name for fish (pescado vs pez) and call beef carne de vaca or carne de rez. I know we got our meat names from French, so that's inconsistent, but Spanish seems random.
I don't know if I agree about the native speaker part. Certainly I would understand it and might well say it, but alternative meats often do have the word meat added. There was a whole discussion about the Harvard Club serving horse meat many years ago. I always heard it referred to as horse meat or horsemeat. I was never a member so I don't know how it was listed on the menu. But I certainly agree that turtle should be accepted. Certainly Spanish often uses carne where we would not. No native speaker would translate carne de vaca as cow meat.
It does. Did you use "tortoise". If so, please report it to Duo so they can accept that as a correct answer.
Is there a way to make a distinction between the two? Are turtles, terpins and tortoises all just tortugas?
Sea turtle and desert tortoise. Turtles are marine animals and tortoises are land animals in English. Spanish only uses "tortuga modified with "del mar" or "de la tierra."
Going to use this one the moment I arrive in Spain.
"Hello, nice to meet you. Would you eat turtle meat?"
To me it sounded like the accent was on the first syllable. The accent should have been on the second syllable.
She definitely stressed the first syllable. Wrong. It's a "tortuga", not a "tórtuga".
There is a difference with turtle as in tortuga, and tortoises as in morrocoys generaly tortoises is used to translate morrocoys that are land turtles though there are some cases where tortuga is used for some land turtles there is a difference
And not one comment about "Snapper Soup" which uses turtle as the main protein source?? 10Nov16
My first thought was no, because "could you eat"="would you be able to eat"="podrias comer." But then I got to thinking about the close relationship "could" and "would" sometimes share. Perhaps, if you were merely questioning the probability, not the capability, then "could" could be used. However, to avoid ambiguity, using "would" would be a better option.
I typed "Would you eat meat of a turtle" which was marked wrong and to me sounds more grammatically accurate in English than "Would you eat meat of turtle"... What are thoughts from linguists?
Was "Would you eat meat of turtle" offered as an answer? If so I'd report it. It may be a direct translation from the Spanish, but that doesn't make it natural English. Adding the indefinite article is a little better, but "Would you eat meat from a turtle" or "Would you eat the meat of a turtle" would be better still.
Regardless, all of these are attempts at near literal translations. Keep in mind that the Spanish "[noun] de [noun]" structure normally translates more naturally into English as "[noun as adjective] [noun]." So here "turtle meat" is much more natural than any "meat of turtle" structure.
I agree that meat of turtle is off, but turtle meat is the most natural and grammatical English translation. This is a consistent way to translate Spanish noun + de + noun constructions. They are generally either possessive in English or cases where one noun in effect modifies the other. In English the prepositional phrase is not required in most cases.
I don't know if there are animal abuse issues, but turtle meat is actually quite healthy.
No, not actually wrong. But Duo likes to translate the de clauses on Spanish as the appropriate English common form, either possessive or one noun modifying the other. You can't say turtle meat in Spanish any other way in Spanish besides carne de tortuga, but Turtle meat is the most common way to say it in English.
"Would you eat the meat of A turtle" was NOT accepted. WTF. Thats about as close these sentences get to a literal translation while remaining grammatically correct. Am I wrong?
The problem is that it is too close to literal. While it is perfectly grammatically correct, it does not meet the common for common convention. Spanish has no option here than to use the prepositional phrase with de English speakers, however, generally trake advantage of English's ability to allow one noun to modify one another, whether through possession or our simpler naming convention. We normally would translate something like las llaves del coche de mi hermana into my sister's car key. While this is much less stringy it is still much more common to naturally say turtle meat than the meat of the turtle. While going very far astray from literal can avoid the particular point about Spanish grammar and syntax that Duo is trying to make, these standard ways of expressing things that are inherent in the nature of the language are (or should be) always assumed in the translation. It shows greater mastery of Spanish when you translate into English's natural flow and syntax.
In this sentance is there a way to know when to use the word woud you? or do you.?
I agree. I've not been to Jamaica and I've never heard pig meat instead of pork. But adding meat after the name of an animal that is not commonly eaten in America is common. We have really à limited number of meats that we think of as food in the US compared to many parts of the world, so that even goat, which is one of the more common meats internationally, seems "strange". But you will often hear goat meat, Buffalo meat, ostrich meat and even deer meat instead of venison.
Same in England, except for venison, we do hear of that fairly commonly.
Yes you will hear venison a lot more. Deer hunting is an old tradition. But as an urban dwelling American I am only aware of one American I know who hunts at all, although they're out there. But many Americans have never had Venison or even thought about it a lot. I never had until I lived on a farm in Germany where the hunters would pay the owner in venison for the privilege of hunting on their land. I think that's the key. You are more likely to add meat to the word if you don't consider eating the meat as "normal" food.