"Nein, Schuhe hat er nicht."

February 10, 2013


still can't distinguish between er and ihr

February 15, 2013

I think er is pronounced like 'air' and ihr like 'ear'.

February 15, 2013

Not related to this specific exercise, is it possible to say 'Nein, er hat nicht Schuhe' instead?

February 23, 2013

you can say: "Nein, er hat keine Schuhe"

March 1, 2013

It would be, 'Nein, er hat Schuhe nicht.' (The 'nicht' goes at the end)

April 13, 2013

Can we say that? That would be my natural way of saying it, I don't see the why the exercise is like this. Are these two forms possible and they mean exactly the same?

April 23, 2013

Both are correct. 'Nein, Schuhe hat er nicht' emphasises that shoes are what he doesn't have (as in, he has everything except for shoes), and 'Nein, er hat Schuhe nicht' emphasizes that he is the person without shoes (as in, everyone has shoes except for him). Both mean the same thing in that the poor guy doesn't have shoes, but they express slightly different ideas. In English we would accomplish the same thing my just putting verbal emphasis on the either 'he' or 'shoes.'

May 15, 2013

Why "No, he hasn't shoes" isn't accepted? WTF

February 19, 2013

because that isn't correct english

February 20, 2013

Isn't 'No, shoes has he not' viable?

April 5, 2013

It's viable only if you're Yoda.

April 28, 2013

So you say swedes are Yodas? That would be pretty wicked, unfortunately though, that aint true. It's just that our language supports that level of plasticity, so I reasoned about the translation with a grammar that works with my mother tongue. Silly me!

April 28, 2013

Would you speak like that in English? You are thinking too literally. German has a variable word order, the verb just needs to be attached to the subject (and in the second position), and that's about it.

April 8, 2013

Well I don't know, I would definitely have that word ordering in Swedish, which is my mother tongue. Would you, in your language, back in Jakarta?

April 28, 2013

That would be great if you were translating into Swedish. But you're not. It's therefore an incorrect translation.

April 29, 2013

Can't this be "No, shoes don't have him"?

May 14, 2013

No, because "er" is in the nominative case, showing that he is the subject. I believe "No, shoes don't have him" would be, "Nein, Schuhe hat ihn nicht."

February 13, 2014
Learn German in just 5 minutes a day. For free.