Why is "You have no apples" wrong? In English (as a native speaker) I wouldn't say "You have no apple" singular. It just sounds wrong. I'd say "apples" but this was marked as incorrect. Similarly, I'd say "You don't have any apples" rather than singular "You don't have an apple".
Because the English sentence doesn't end with "... the apple".
One can assume that "heb/hebt/hebben geen" will be "do not have a/an". You do not have apples. = Je hebt geen appels. You do not have the apples. = je hebt de appels niet.
Another thing: 1.) "... een [object]" and "... a/an [object]" always becomes "... geen [object]."
2.) "... the [object]" will become "... de/het [object] niet." when negating a verb.
Generally speaking, "niet = not / do not" and "geen = no / not a/ not any (negating a quantity)"
Goed geluk, tot ziens!
The translation that I was offered was, "you do not have any apple". It should be, "You do not have any apples". Even though we have singular "appel" in Dutch, in English "an apple" and "any apples" are both correct translation for this sentence, since "geen" translates as "negation + any" and "any" (like "many", "some", etc) takes a plural noun (or a mass noun), never a singular one.
I hope you mean indefinite articles, geen is the negative of een.
niet would negate the verb, but that implies that you don't do that verb with an apple but you do something else with it, which doesn't seem possible if you don't have it. So this verb may not work so well with niet.
I think you could say :"I do not eat the apple." "Ik eet de appel niet." or "Ik eet niet de appel." So the apple is still there for someone else to eat or juggle.
If you said "Ik eet geen appel." then "I do not eat any apple." or "I eat no apple." So then, I don't eat this apple or that one either. Perhaps, I prefer oranges. So you see, the meaning is slightly different. You could say "I do not eat an apple." but you still need to know that it doesn't matter which apple. This is not a definite apple. It would not matter which apple you offered me, I am not going to eat it. Of course, in English this last sentence could also mean that I don't eat one apple, I could eat many of them, but not just one. I am not sure if that works in Dutch too?
Again, if someone says "you do not have an apple." that would be surprising if you have many of them, since if you have many, then you also have them individually.
Try reporting the British version, but even they may be likely to say "You haven't any apple." or "You have no apple." I think they may also say "You have not got an apple." In American English we add "do" with "not" so it is "You do not have an apple." or "You have no apple." but we often say "You have no apples." using the plural, even though the amount is zero.
Something I wonder about Dutch is why on earth does it sound like one continuous word when spoken, most letters just don't seem to be pronounced. This isn't exactly a complicated sentence yet I really struggled to understand it on normal speed because the voice lost most of the middle part of the words and it blended into something like "jehenapel"
The (automatic) pronunciation of this sentence is not ideal. (Dutch is my native language and I use it every day.)
De (automatische) uitspraak van deze zin is niet optimaal. (Nederlands is mijn moedertaal en ik gebruik ze elke dag.)
But in almost all languages the pauses between words in the spoken language by native speakers are very short and sometimes absent. When learning a new language, it almost always seems that sentences are one chain of sounds rather than individual words. Dutch is certainly not unique.
Maar in bijna alle talen zijn de pauzes tussen de woorden in de door moedertaalsprekers gesproken taal heel kort en soms afwezig.
Als men een nieuwe taal leert lijkt het bijna altijd zo dat zinnen een aaneenschakeling van klanken zijn in plaats van individuele woorden. Nederlands is daar zeker niet uniek in.