Папа сказал, что для плова лучше взять говядину, а не свинину.

Because папа is one of the common Russian nouns that are masculine in meaning but have an -а / -я ending.

So even though it looks like a typical feminine noun, it takes masculine agreement:

• Папа сказал = Dad said
• not Папа сказала

Other similar words are:

• дядя = uncle
• дедушка = grandpa

So with папа, always think: masculine person, masculine agreement.

Because the subject is папа, and папа is grammatically masculine.

In the past tense, Russian verbs agree with the subject in gender:

• сказал = masculine
• сказала = feminine
• сказало = neuter
• сказали = plural

So:

• Мама сказала = Mom said
• Папа сказал = Dad said

Even though папа ends in -а, it still uses the masculine form сказал.

Here что means that and introduces a subordinate clause:

• Папа сказал, что... = Dad said that...

It connects the main statement with what was said.

A very common pattern is:

• [someone] + сказал / думает / знает / видел, что...

Examples:

• Я знаю, что он дома. = I know that he is at home.
• Она сказала, что придёт позже. = She said that she would come later.

Also, in Russian, a comma is normally used before что in this kind of sentence.

Because the preposition для requires the genitive case.

So:

• плов = nominative
• плова = genitive

That is why you get:

• для плова = for pilaf

This is a very important pattern:

• для супа = for soup
• для работы = for work
• для детей = for children

So after для, ask yourself: What is the genitive form?

Both can be possible in Russian in some contexts, but лучше взять sounds natural here because it refers to a specific choice / one-time action: what meat to take for this dish.

• взять is perfective: to take, to choose, to get as a completed action
• брать is imperfective: to take, be taking, take habitually/process-wise

Here Dad is giving advice about this particular situation:

• для плова лучше взять говядину
  = for pilaf, it’s better to take/use beef

If you used брать, it could sound more like a general habit or repeated practice, though context matters.

A useful shortcut:

• лучше + perfective infinitive often = best thing to do in this specific case

Because they are in the accusative case as direct objects of взять.

The verb взять means to take / choose, so the thing being chosen goes into the accusative:

• взять говядину = take beef
• взять свинину = take pork

Both говядина and свинина are feminine nouns ending in -а, so their accusative singular becomes -у:

• говядина → говядину
• свинина → свинину

Compare:

• Я люблю музыку.
• Она купила машину.
• Надо взять говядину.

Russian often has separate words for the animal and the meat, just like English has cow/beef and pig/pork.

For example:

• корова = cow
• свинья = pig
• говядина = beef
• свинина = pork

So говядина does not mean cow; it specifically means beef.
And свинина specifically means pork.

This is normal vocabulary, not a grammar issue, but it is something learners often notice because the words are not built transparently from the everyday animal names.

а не marks a contrast between two alternatives:

• говядину, а не свинину = beef, not pork
• more naturally: beef rather than pork

The word а often means something like:

• whereas
• but
• and on the other hand

In this sentence, it sets up a contrast:

• one option is recommended
• the other is rejected

So а не is stronger and clearer than just не. It signals: this one, not that one.

Compare:

• чай, а не кофе = tea, not coffee
• сегодня, а не завтра = today, not tomorrow

In this sentence, лучше is the comparative form of хорошо / related to лучший, and in structures like this it works as better / it is better to.

Russian commonly uses:

• лучше + infinitive

Examples:

• Лучше подождать. = It’s better to wait.
• Лучше поехать утром. = It’s better to go in the morning.
• Для плова лучше взять говядину. = For pilaf, it’s better to use beef.

So you do not need a separate word for it is:

• лучше взять literally feels like better to take

This is a very common Russian pattern.

Because the sentence has two clauses:

1. Папа сказал
2. что для плова лучше взять говядину, а не свинину

The second clause is introduced by что = that, so Russian punctuation requires a comma:

• Папа сказал, что...

This is similar to English writing with:

• Dad said that...

Russian uses commas quite regularly before subordinating conjunctions like что, если, когда, потому что, etc.

Yes. Russian word order is fairly flexible, and changing it often changes emphasis rather than the basic meaning.

The original sentence is very natural:

• Папа сказал, что для плова лучше взять говядину, а не свинину.

But you could also say:

• Папа сказал, что лучше взять говядину для плова, а не свинину.
• Для плова папа сказал, что лучше взять говядину, а не свинину.

These versions are understandable, but the original sounds smooth and neutral.

A rough idea of the emphasis in the original:

• для плова sets the context
• лучше взять говядину gives the recommendation
• а не свинину adds the contrast

Russian has no articles like a / an / the.

So говядину can mean different things depending on context:

• beef
• some beef
• the beef

In this sentence, the meaning is naturally something like:

• it’s better to use beef
• it’s better to get beef

Because the context is cooking, English often uses the bare noun too:

• Use beef, not pork

So Russian relies on context, not articles, to show whether something is definite or indefinite.

Good question: in Russian, взять is often broader than English take.

In this sentence, depending on context, it can mean:

• take
• get
• buy
• choose
• use

So для плова лучше взять говядину means something like:

• for pilaf, it’s better to use beef
• for pilaf, it’s better to get beef
• for pilaf, it’s better to choose beef

Russian often uses взять in a practical decision-making sense:

• Возьми хлеб. = Take/get some bread.
• Надо взять такси. = We should take a taxi.
• Лучше взять говядину. = Better to go with beef.

Yes. Плов is a specific dish, and in English it may be translated in different ways depending on the audience:

• plov if you want to keep the cultural name
• pilaf as the nearest common English equivalent
• rice dish only if you are simplifying, though that is less exact

For a learner of Russian, the important thing grammatically is just that:

• плов is a masculine noun
• after для, it becomes плова

So:

• плов
• для плова

Yes, but then it would lose the specific context.

Without it:

• Папа сказал, что лучше взять говядину, а не свинину. = Dad said it’s better to take/use beef, not pork.

That still makes sense, but для плова tells you for what purpose the advice is being given.

So the full sentence is more informative:

• it is not saying beef is always better in every situation
• it is saying beef is better for pilaf

That phrase limits the recommendation.