"This is not a shoe."
Translation:Das ist kein Schuh.
Why is it "kein schuh", and not "keinen Schuh"? I thought "kein" was supposed to be used the same way as "ein". If I am not completely mistaken, Schuh is the object here and therefore akkusative, which means it should be "einen Schuch", and from that train of thought it should be "keinen Schuh". What am I missing here?
Actually "Schuh" is in nominative case because it follows the verb "sein" (ist) and since it is a masculine noun "kein Schuh" is correct.
But shouldn't be there a mixed inflection in the adjective, hence making
Here's a short explanation for nicht/kein: http://www.nthuleen.com/teach/grammar/negationexpl.html
Why is "Das ist keiner Schuh" wrong and "Das ist kein Schuh" right, when at the next question I get "Er trinkt kein Wein" to be wrong and "Er trinkt keiner Wein" to be right? This is most confusing, because they are both masculine.
Is there some specific reason why some forms are wrong, or they are just being evaluated as wrong in this lesson, when they really shouldn't?
"Er trinkt keiner Wein" is wrong as well.
"Das ist kein Schuh/Wein/Mann" is correct because for a singular, masculine, Nominativ object, the indefinite article is "ein" oder "kein"-- one doesn't add the -er suffix.
If the singular, masculine object is Akkusativ, however, one uses the -en suffix (not -er). So, "Er trinkt keine
Remember, case isn't so much about position in the sentence, and when using a linking verb (z.B., "sein: bin/bist/ist/sind/seid/war . . . ") what looks like a direct object (normally Akkusativ) is not, and remains Nominativ.
No -- when you are introducing something new, you use neuter singular, e.g. dies or das would work.
Dieser would work for "this one", i.e. when you already know what kind of objects you want to speak about (and therefore their gender) and you want to single out one of them.
It is, for two reasons:
- der Schuh, being masculine, would never have eine as an article.
- anytime you consider using nicht ein[e/er/en/es/em], you should probably use kein[e/er/etc] instead.
The latter reason is more stylistic/custom than the former, which is a "hard" rule.
I thought it would be "keine schuh" kein "kein schuh"
It's neither of those. It's kein Schuh.
schuh with a lowercase s doesn't exist in German. The capitalisation is part of the correct spelling.
because keine is "not a" and kein is "not" ?
That's not true.
kein in all of its forms means the same thing, whether it's kein, keine, keinen or something else.
In the nominative case (e.g. after das ist...), use kein before masculine or neuter nouns, keine before feminine or plural nouns.
Countable nouns in the singular require a translation with "not a"; uncountable nouns generally translate as "not", as do plural nouns:
- Das ist kein Hund. (masculine, countable) = That is not a dog.
- Das ist keine Katze. (feminine, countable) = That is not a cat.
- Das ist kein Pferd. (neuter, countable) = That is not a horse.
- Das sind keine Tiere. (plural) = Those are not animals.
- Das ist kein Saft. (masculine, uncountable) = That is not juice.
- Das ist keine Schokolade. (feminine, uncountable) = That is not chocolate.
- Das ist kein Bier. (neuter, uncountable) = That is not beer.
Why is "dieser ist kein schuh" wrong?
That would mean "This one is not a shoe" rather than "This is not a shoe."
Use neuter singular (das, dies) when introducing something new to the conversation with "this is, that is, these are, those are".
dieser would single out one masculine object out of a group of masculine objects that you have previously talked about, rather than introducing a new topic.
So because nothing is happening to the shoe
It's because the verb here is sein (to be).
You would also use the accusative case with verbs such as haben (to have, own, possess), even though "have" is not an action that "happens" to the object that you own.
sein is special, though, in that it takes the nominative case on the right. (Along with a couple of other verbs, such as werden "become".)