"¿Comerías carne de tortuga?"
Translation:Would you eat turtle meat?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.