"The apple is not here, but there."
Translation:Az alma nem itt van, hanem ott.
Because 'nem X, hanem X̅' is the structure to learn in this lesson. If the second subsentence starts with 'hanem,' you have to use 'nem' to negate the meaning of the first subsentence.
- There is apple. = "Van alma."
- There is no apple. = "Nincs alma."
- Here is the apple. = "Itt van az alma."
- The apple is not here, but there. = "Az alma nem itt van, hanem ott."
You would say 'nem itt van' when you know where apple is. If you hear somebody say 'nem itt van,' you can urge him/her to tell you its location.
- The apple is not here. = "Nincs itt az alma."
You would say 'nincs itt' when you don't know or don't want to tell where it is.
Is it possible to say az alma nem itt hanem ott or do you have to include van in this sentence. We often leave it out in the third person
It's left out when you talk about what something is like (green, strong, French, ...).
But you need it when you talk about where something is (here, at the bus stop, ...).
itt/ott indicate a location: something is here or there. You could translate as "in this location, in that location".
ide/oda indicate a destination of motion: something moves here or there. You could translate as "to this location, to that location".