Not related to this specific exercise, is it possible to say 'Nein, er hat nicht Schuhe' instead?
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?
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.'
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!
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.
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?
That would be great if you were translating into Swedish. But you're not. It's therefore an incorrect translation.