Czy to zdanie jest poprawne?

Witam, chciałbym się dowiedzieć, czy to zdanie, jest napisane poprawnie.

'F*ck food chemistry! It's a good food, man.'

W wolnym tłumaczeniu miałoby znaczyć

'J*bać chemię spożywczą! To dobre żarcie, człowieku.'

Przepraszam za użycie przekleństwa w zdaniu, ale to bardzo istotne, nadaje sens. Dziękuję za odpowiedzi.

good chow?

a food = potrawa

No, wiem, ze potrawa. Jednakże chodzi mi o zdanie, czy jest napisane poprawnie.

napisales 'to dobra potrawa"

????

Moze kup sobie slownik jak nie wiesz ze 'food' moze miec takie znaczenie.
I po co tyle pytajnikow.

>Moze kup sobie slownik jak nie wiesz ze 'food' moze miec takie znaczenie.
Longman, Oxford nie podają znaczenia 'potrawa' dla food. Najnowszy słownik kolokacji też nie, dlatego good food. Może w slangu jest a food.
>>I po co tyle pytajnikow.
don't look for any meaning in the number of questions marks. It's not my way to count clicks while tapping at my keyboard.

zacznij może od wpisania w Google 'a popular food'

to jest rzadkie uzycie, a + food, ale poprawne; tego typu znaczenie food wystepuje glownie w l.mn.

I meant a real dictionary, the one that would transcend your both intelect and imagination, the one that would set you back some bundle.

Food, n
1d – an article of food; a kind of food

And don't tell me what and when to look for.

dzięki (za konkretną odpowiedź). Wcześniej się z tym nie spotkałem, stąd moje znaki zapytania pod tym, a nie wszystko jest w najnowszych słownikach.

no coz, musisz zalatwic sobie wielki slownik Oxfordzki (taki, jaki sav posiada)
ogromna masa informacji, a wsrod nich takie, jak to, ze a food to nie tylko pojecie jedzenia, ale rowniez pojecie osoby
to sa takie poboczne uzycia, ktorych w szkolach nie ucza na porzadku dziennym

Wiesz, slownik slownikiem, moze nie musi tego akurat zalatwiac. Mialem kiedys odbicie i zamowilem
dawno temu ( tylko za niego zeszla mi rownowartosc ok 400USD z karty wtedy) jak bralem Webster. Ma 12 tomow w sobie, jest glownie uzywany do prac naukowo-jezykowych, oprocz wspolczesnych znaczen jest skupiony na etymologii slowa. Ale wazne jest ze to wszystkie hasła ( 600 000) sa wertowane po rzez 3[tel]przykładow uzycia od 1200... do teraz.

Tu akurat mowimy o reklasyfikacji rzeczownikow ktore przekakuja do policzalnych w podziale na quantity albo quality. Wspominalem o tym dawno temu ( nie w XII wieku naturalnie)

Jestem dopiero na drugim roku. Powoli...Najpierw sprawy podstawowe.

>>to sa takie poboczne uzycia, ktorych w szkolach nie ucza na porzadku dziennym

Mnie w szkole nie nauczono nic. (co nie znaczy, że nie ma dobrych naucz. ale niewielu ich, chodzi o metody nauczania)
(refleksja) Ostatnio znajoma (liceum) pokazała mi wypracowanie (poprawione) przez nauczyciela. Co więcej, nie poprawił on prostych błędów. Dziwne zbudowane zdania uznawał za poprawne.
To żeby student go poprawiał to chyba coś nie tak.
Wiele zależy od szkoły, która Cie uczy. Dziś mamy tylu prywaciarzy...

Dostępny ten słownik w Polsce? Jaka nazwa?
I'd be thankful if you gave the details to me.

W zasadzie nie polecalbym nikomu uczacemu sie takiego slownika bo po prostu moze sie nie przydac. No chyba ze ktos jest tak pierd****ty jak ja to moze sprobowac. Ale radze sie zastanowic jednak czy jest taka potrzeba.
Pomylilem sie tez. Ma zawartosc 16 tomow , nie 12. Dwie plyty, ok 2 gb, co 3 miesiace 'pyta' o weryfikacje ( you put the data disk into the drive).

Mozliwe ze jest dostepny w UK. W Polsce nie jest dostepny bo kto by chcial cos takiego kupic ?
Tu masz link do ebay :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oxford-English-Dictionary-CD-ROM-4-0-NEW-/15[tel]?pt=US_Texbook_Education&hash=item2317b8c77e

Jak pojdzie z US to dojdzie oplata celna.

This second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary amalgamates the text of the first edition,
published in twelve volumes in 1933, the Supplement, published in four volumes between 1972
and 1986, and approximately five thousand new words, or new senses of existing words, which
have gained currency since the relevant volume of the Supplement was published. The editorial
policies which informed each of the constituent parts of this edition are detailed in the
Introduction, which also includes information on the way in which the task of bringing the parts
together was accomplished.

The aim of this Dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the words that have formed the
English vocabulary from the time of the earliest records down to the present day, with all the
relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history, pronunciation, and etymology. It embraces
not only the standard language of literature and conversation, whether current at the moment, or
obsolete, or archaic, but also the main technical vocabulary, and a large measure of dialectal
usage and slang. Its basis is a collection of several millions of excerpts from literature of every
period amassed by an army of readers and the editorial staff.

Ta for a useful guideline.
By way of digression, getting through all the contents that dictionary has seems impossible through its resources, which is conditional upon length of our life. Now we know how you have got so many English words, especially those technical ones, walking dictionary;). There are words galore that you have passed on to the forum users, including me.

As to the dictionary, I will be after some second-hand one at reduced price, because buying the new one would make me skint.

>Now we know how you have got so many English words, especially those technical ones, walking dictionary;) There are words galore that you have passed on to the forum users, including me.

You're way off the beam on that. I don't fire it that often. Frankly, I'm not much into semantics at all.
I think this is not about how many 'big' words you know but rather about how effectively you can use those you know in the right place at the right time without fumbling as if you were after three thick lines of happy dust. It's about the felicity in terms of both the style and manner (using a big word here).

I have some 30 other books on generative syntax and the earlier PSR ( phrase structure rules ),
not to mention the Chomskyan X-bar theory. That's been the happy dust for me for quite some time.
Many would find it really tough to wrap their brains around it and I'm no exception. I can see sometimes the flicker of light at the end of the tunnel and it happens more and more often.
Hope it's not a sick trucker in the eighteen wheeler. In fact, I spent much more than these 400 bucks on things like that.

@savagerhino sorry to butt in but you do know that you sound like a very articulate native speaker of English, don't you?

when I first realised you were Polish, I thought I would fall off my chair ... so there's no need to be modest ;)

I fail to see what difference it makes, whether a speaker is 'native' or not - are we to suppose that all native English/American speakers are 'articulate' - don't make me laugh. Perhaps you can elighten me on this, though.
The idea behind any form of communication is to transport your intentions into the mind of your 'audience' - and using the most appropriate 'language' (big words, if you like) is very often the key.

@terri

No, I didn't mean that all native speakers of a language are articulate.

That's why I said: "a very articulate native speaker of English." The sentence doesn't imply that all native speakers of a language are articulate. You're twisting my words here.

And anyway, why would you even want to interpret what I said in this way when all I tried to do is compliment someone on their vocabulary?

YOur post implied a certain degree of surprise that a non-native speaker could ever reach the level of a 'very articulate native speaker'. There are thousands of non-natives who have reached that standard and they don't need anyone complementing them on this. They know that already.