The final exam for the 12th graders (2)

Dear native English speakers,
would someone check my problems for the 12th graders of the Sports Class?

２ 日本語の意味に合うように( あ )～( と )に一語ずつ入れなさい。1×20 = 20
①あの背の高い男性は、あなたのおじいさんですか。
( あ ) that ( い ) man your grandfather?
(あ) Is (い) tall
②あなたは、毎日テレビを見ますか。
( う ) you ( え ) TV every day?
(う) Do (え) watch
③今日は忙しいですか。
( お ) you ( か ) today?
(お) Are (か) busy
④私のおじは毎日クラシック音楽を聞きます。
My ( き ) listens ( く ) classical music every day.
(き) uncle (く) to
⑤おばのメアリーは毎朝、近所の公園で走っています。
Aunt Mary ( け ) in the ( こ ) park every morning.
(け) runs/jogs (こ) nearby
⑥昨日、イギリス人の女性が私に会いに来ました。
A ( さ )( し ) came to see me yesterday.
(さ) British/English (し) woman
⑦日本人は牛肉を食べますか。
( す ) Japanese people eat ( せ )?
(す) Do (せ) beef
⑧あなたのお姉さんはテニスがうまいんですか。
( そ ) your sister ( た )( ち ) tennis player?
(そ) Is (た) a (ち) good
⑨ぼくは消防士になりたい。
I want to ( つ ) a ( て )( と ) .
(つ) be/become (て) fire (と) fighter

３ 下線部に３～４語の英語を入れて、日本語に合う英文を作りなさい。2×10 = 20
①あの男性は彼女のお父さんですか。Is ?
Is that man her father? that man か her father のどちらかが書けていれば１点。
②あなたのお母さんは歌手ですか。Is ?
Is your mother a singer? your mother または singer のどちらかが書けていれば１点。
③私は毎朝５時に起きます。 I every morning.
I get up at five every morning. get up, at five のどちらかが書けていれば１点
④私はいつも昼食後コーヒーを飲む。I lunch.
I always drink/have coffee after lunch. always, drink/have coffee, afterのうち一つでも書けていれば１点。
⑤ケンは家で英語を話している。Ken home.
Ken speaks English at home. 三単現のsがないだけ、またはspeaks English が書けていれば１点。
⑥その生徒は、歩いて学校に行っています。The
The student walks to school. 三単現のsがないだけ、または ２語以上書けていれば１点
⑦私にはこの問題は解けない。 I problem.
I can't/cannot solve this problem. ２語書けていれば１点。
⑧イスラム教徒は豚肉を食べない。 Muslims .
Muslims don't[/do not] eat/have pork. １語間違いの場合１点。
⑨私の両親は朝食にごはんを食べます。My breakfast.
My parents eat/have rice for breakfast. parent(s)または２語以上書けていれば１点。
⑩メグは、毎週月曜日にここに来ます。Meg .
Meg comes here every Monday. ２語以上書けていれば１点。

Thanks in advance.
HIrashin

All look good I think except for "Muslims don't[/do not] eat/have pork." I think you can only say "have" for "eat" if you are talking about a meal, otherwise it just sounds like "have" in its normal sense. Even as a Muslim you could have some pork in your fridge for someone else to eat or whatever reason, but you wouldn't "have pork for breakfast" because that would mean you eating it.

OK, I'll change my answer to :
Muslims don't[/do not] eat pork.

Thanks for the help, Michael2.

You can leave it as it is. As Michael2 said, it makes sense in the context of a meal or eating which was obviously your intent. [→ イスラム教徒は豚肉を食べない]

hirashin said:

OK, I'll change my answer to :
Muslims don't[/do not] eat pork.

Click to expand...

I agree with this change. "Muslims don't[/do not] have pork." does not sound natural to me as a translation of イスラム教徒は豚肉を食べない。For me, "eat" works with this specific sentence, but "have" does not. I agree with @Michael2.

To avoid dispute, I'll put some condition to the question :「eatを使うこと」"Use eat".

I don't disagree with the others.

I'll have the pork clearly means I'll eat the pork or I'd like to order the pork.
I won't have the pork means I won't eat the pork or I won't order the pork.
Muslims don't have pork can mean Muslims don't eat pork but as you can see from Google this usage is relatively rare: Google"muslims+don%27t+have+pork"

Anyway my point was that it's not wrong. I agree with the others that it's not something one would naturally say.

Tbh I would actually go as far as saying it would be wrong. You can use have instead of eat when referring to specific meals or times, as the pork is in those examples (note also as it is specific it is using pork with the) but without reference to those specific times it is too confusing with the actual meaning of have. You could never say I don't have potatoes without it being construed as simply not possessing any potatoes, not not eating them.

Michael2 said:

Tbh I would actually go as far as saying it would be wrong. You can use have instead of eat when referring to specific meals or times, as the pork is in those examples (note also as it is specific it is using pork with the) but without reference to those specific times it is too confusing with the actual meaning of have. You could never say I don't have potatoes without it being construed as simply not possessing any potatoes, not not eating them.

Click to expand...

Then you would be wrong. Unless you can provide some definitive reference about the rules you are stating.
Have | Definition of Have by Merriam-Webster
12 : to partake of e.g. have dinner, have a piece
In Oxford have | Definition of have in English by Oxford Dictionaries
4.2 Eat or drink.

That's a difference between "wrong" and unnatural, confusing or vague.
And saying Muslims don't have pork is not very confusing.
The only logical meaning is that Muslims don't eat pork not that they don't have pork in their refrigerators or cupboards.

Here's another example:
Vegans don't have eggs, honey, meat, fish or poultry

Interesting. But the dictionary definitions above are purely descriptions of the meaning of have as eat that we have already discussed, e.g have dinner. I agree that Vegans don't have eggs sounds natural, but I think that's because the omitted modifier is in their diets, so the definition of a vegan diet does not contain that item, or that item is not possessed in the definition. When it's a subjective decision not to eat something, like Muslims don't have pork, Jewish people don't have shellfish, etc and it's supposed to be referring to consumption, not possession, I would say it's a different matter. The have there sounds too much like pure possession to me, whether that may the obvious conclusion or not. It's easier to understand with pork because it's the consumible version of something, but if you said Muslims don't have apples it would most logically just be pure possession of them.

Also, a google search for Muslims don't have pork shows up no hits I could find. All sentences found either used abstain, allowed or eat, etc

Regardless of what you think about it, it's not grammatically incorrect. And it's not even particularly unnatural.

Here are some examples from the first page of Google results.
Muslims don't have pork.
Muslims don't have pork, most of the Christians do.
See, this is why us muslims don't have pork.

All of these make perfect sense. No one will be confused by the intended meaning.

It's not grammatically incorrect, it's semantically incorrect.
Those examples you "cite" are any random person writing on the internet. You could prove anything with that argument. The hits I was referring to are the title hits. None of them show "Muslims have pork" even when that is the search term.
Just because someone is not confused by something has no beaing on whether it's correct or not.
It's only comprehensible because as I said pork is the food stuff. If you altered pork to a raw material it would be way too ambiguous, i.e. "Jewish people don't have sea shells", "Japanese people have rice"

Michael2 said:

It's not grammatically incorrect, it's semantically incorrect.

Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean? Not only does the grammar work the meaning is clear for the sentence in question as we already established. We're not talking about sea shells or rice.
Even the Japanese example makes sense in context.

Here's a poem by yours truly:
Morning habits
Japanese people have rice.
That's so nice.
Americans have toast.
They like that the most.
:

You don't know the difference between semantics and grammar?

Michael2 said:

You don't know the difference between semantics and grammar?

Click to expand...

Perhaps not. I think you are arguing that it's grammatically correct but nonsensical. But it makes perfect sense and, moreover, follows one of the dictionary definitions of "have" albeit not the most common one. Just because it's rare or ambiguous doesn't mean it's wrong.

It doesn't follow the dictionary definitions because they describe it as being used for 1) meals 2) taking a piece of something, or 3) requests for, or offers of food or drink. Here it is being used as a factual statement which none of the dictionaries say it can be used for. In any case, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. We know what is and isn't used. If I said "Do you have pork?" to one of my Muslim friends there is no way that should be taken to mean "Do you eat pork?" especially as one of them runs a take-away. With no context at all in Hirashin's case I don't think it should be marked as correct. They may well possess it in some other capacity but not eat it.

Michael2 said:

It doesn't follow the dictionary definitions because they describe it as being used for 1) meals 2) taking a piece of something, or 3) requests for, or offers of food or drink. Here it is being used as a factual statement which none of the dictionaries say it can be used for. In any case, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Click to expand...

You didn't read the dictionaries very closely. Or maybe you don't understand how they work. They clearly say that "have" can mean "eat or drink" (Oxford) or "partake" (Webster). It's not limited to the specific examples given.
You can make all the noise and circular arguments you want but the sentence in question Muslims don't have pork is grammatically and semantically correct. I never said it was unambiguous or the best choice.

Yeah, we know it can be used to imply eating and drinking, the dictionaries aren't any help there. The specific definitions given are limited to the definitions I gave above. It is not used to state a general truth, otherwise all the other examples I've given would be acceptable, which they are not.