Thanks @duaal , I’m not that good in German. I tried to put too much in one sentence. In Estonian you can be hungry (näljane) as well, but you most definitely have an empty stomach (on kõht tühi) or have a hunger (on nälg), have thirst (on janu), have hot (on palav). If you say someone is hot 
(on kuum) that means they are sexually attractive just like in Spanish
Is it possible to say both ways in German? And what about Frenchn
I don’t know about French (I haven’t practiced my French in years).
As far as I know in German it is uncommon.
In Dutch it is possible but not common to use “to be” to express this:
“Ik heb honger/dorst” - I have hunger/thirst,
“Ik ben hongerig/dorstig” - I am hungry/thirsty.
But it is “Ik heb het koud/warm.” - I have it cold/warm.
“Ik ben koud/warm” is also possible but has a slightly different meaning. Not subjective but your current state.
In German, you could say it two ways but Ich habe Hunger (lit: I have hunger) is more common, I think.
In French, I think the only simple option is: j’ai faim (lit: I have hunger).
faim is a noun, so “je suis faim” wouldn’t make any sense.
BUT, you could use the associated adjective and say:
je suis affamé[e]. I am ahungered.
Kudos @merleyost for starting an interesting discussion. And for being responsive to a community request.
After giving this a little thought, I’m going to say I see no reason why this should be censored. Religions can be freely criticized like this just like businesses and ideas can. The post is not attacking anyone.
If you think businesses can be freely criticized, which are a more concrete manifestation of the hopes and dreams and ideas of a (small) group of people, I don’t see how religions should be exempt.
Memrise has proven itself laissez-faire over criticism of itself, I don’t see why it should be stricter in its moderation of criticism of other things.
Ah, but it’s the “some of us actually think” part, which implies that other people don’t think, which could certainly be perceived as an attack on the other people. But I do not believe that was the intention. I perceived the comment as metaphor; studying language without understanding is as lame as studying [any]religion without understanding. As a religious person who seeks understanding rather than memorization, this metaphor makes sense to me.
At any rate, merleyost voluntarily edited the post, so no censorship or moderation was required.
The difference is that a criticism of a business for its objective practices, by veteran customers of that business, and in a thread specifically about that business’s practices, is entirely appropriate, and in keeping with the terms of services of this site.
But that’s not what this guy did. He made an uncalled for slur against one particular religion, which was totally unrelated to the subject of languages. This wasn’t in a thread that was debating the merits of religions in general, or Christianity in particular, where the identical comment might have been appropriate. His comment was totally inappropriate, and indefensible in the context of his post, and contrary to the high-minded terms of service of Memrise which state that the following “inappropriate content” is prohibited:
Content that is offensive, indecent, objectionable, tasteless, harmful, hateful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy, or publicity or human or personal rights, or any content that is racially, ethically , sexually, politically or otherwise humanly unacceptable;
How is his totally irrelevant and false blanket statement that Christianity is for “repeated practice but without understanding,” not considered tasteless, offensive, defamatory, inflammatory, ethically, and otherwise unacceptable, in the context of his first post in a language forum?
If we are allowed to go off on tangents, and make irrelevant slurs on people’s religions, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age or disability, then Memrise should come out and say so, and modify its terms of service accordingly.
xvg11 - Memrise never said the post was okay. The post was indeed moderated by Memrise, they just didn’t do it at a snap of your fingers.
If you don’t think threads should be taken off on tangents, then re-think your posting choice. At this point, with the relevant post both edited by the author and moderated, it is only your voice that is perpetuating and highlighting that which has disturbed you.
I only came here again because I received a notification that Arete_Hime tagged me in a post, and I saw that s/he asked a thoughtful and sincere question, which I thought deserved an equally thoughtful and sincere reply.
You may consider that taking the thread off on a tangent, or perpetuating something, but I don’t.
And now… Can anyone tell is hunger, thirst, cold and warm tengo or soy -words in Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian? Or can they be both.
Hello everyone,
@merleyost
I hope that things are clearer now after the explanations above. Well, I had the same problem while learning, when I translated from english to spanish. But, when I translated from french, I figured it out.
Let’s compare these sentences:
I am hungry = I feel/have hunger
I am thirsty = I have thirst
The food is cold/hot
Notice that the adjective is used with the verb “to be”, and the noun is used with “to have”
In Spanish, we say:
Tengo hambre (hambre is a noun and not an adjective) (in french: j’ai faim)
Tengo sed (sed is a noun) (in french: j’ai soif)
La comida esta fria/caliente (adjectives) (in french: le repas est froid/chaud)