Translation is not always literal. For example, to express hunger in Spanish, you would say "yo tengo hambre," which *literally* translates to "I have hunger," but of course any English speaker would just say "I'm hungry." Likewise, in Spanish, a side dish (like ham or French fries) would be preceded by "con" (for "with"), even though in English you'd say "and." So, in English, "a hamburger and fries." In Spanish, "a hamburger with fries." The translation of Green Eggs and Ham is correct because it represents how Spanish speakers would say it: green eggs with ham.
In English, isn't there a difference between "Green Eggs and Ham" and "Green Eggs with Ham"? Like, when we use "with," we mean that the foods are served together as a unit, that they need each other to be complete. This doesn't disprove the above commenter, but I'm really curious to see if anyone else feels that nuance.
Yeah, "Huevos Verdes Con Jamon" means Green Eggs with Ham. However, the book is actually published as Huevos Verdes Con Jamon in Spanish speaking countries
It's the fourth best-selling English-language children's book of all time. Certainly a classic here in the US, but not sure about it's popularity in non-English language areas.
But what happens if you're not acting in a Shakespearean play? But even if you did act in a Shakespeare play and someone asks you what you do, I think saying "I'm Shakespearean" would be a bit of an odd thing to say!
Yeah, I was gonna say; this wording smacks of Columbus "discovering" America. Eskimos were certainly waltzing in and out of there since ~4500 BCE, but even if the question means "permanent settlement", I don't think Erik can qualify either, since the Norse wound up leaving, too. (As Zefyrinus alludes, it was the Inuit who came – in ~1300 – and wound up staying.) Can you clarify what you mean, O Quizzymaster?
How can you not accept New Zealand? Requiring New Zealand's seems a little pedantic, I'm unsure how 72% of people managed to correctly add the 's unless they have seen the question before.