Why is "The cow wears no hat" not accepted? I feel it's closer to the german sentence.
Why is it 'keinen Hut'? I know that Hut is masculine. 'Apfel' is also masculine but 'Das ist kein Apfel' in the same lesson is saying 'kein' should be used for masculine. Maybe i missed a point. Appreciate some help on this.
tragen "to wear" is a transitive verb and takes a direct object in the accusative case.
So you need masculine accusative keinen here.
sein "to be", on the other hand, is not a transitive verb and it does not take an object -- instead, it connects or links a subject to a predicate, and predicates are in the nominative case in German.
Thus your example sentence has masculine nominative kein Apfel.
I never understood why sentences like this with both a negator, verb and a noun use "kein" instead of "nicht" "Die Kuh tragt einen Hut nicht" seems logical as the verb is still being negated... Can someone please explain further
The same reason you wouldn't say "The cow wears no hat" in English: languages have certain forms which are usually used, and using forms which are unusual sounds unnatural. While "Die Kuh trägt einen Hut nicht" is not technically wrong in my opinion, it is not a speech form typical of German speakers, and if you say this in Germany, people will immediately recognize you as an English speaker who is not used to German forms. The same works in reverse: a German speaker who is not used to English forms might say, in English, "The cow wears no hat" when in fact, native English speakers would almost certainly say "The cow is not wearing a hat".
@LateBit - If one wanted to say "the cow is not wearing a hat, it is eating a hat" - so that the verb is being negated, could one then use 'nicht'?
No, because the object is indefinite, countable, and singular — there you need kein even if you’re negating the verb rather than the object.
If the object were definite and/or countable and/or plural, then you could use nicht.
LateBlt - I am not too sure about your argument, at least as for English goes.
I'm sorry but...can we go back to "I am no banana"? I feel like something important was lost there...
Because you forgot the indefinite article. kein- is "not a...", so you need the "a" as in "The cow does not wear a hat".
Also, you have a misspelling in "doesbt" -- the "b" should be an "n" followed by an apostrophe.
Why is the following translation marked as being incorrect?:
"The cow does not wear any hat!"
"any" with the plural works a bit like a negative indefinite article, like a negative version of "some" -- "I see some clouds. I do not see any clouds."
But with a singular countable noun, "some" and "any" generally refer to a type: "I see some cloud" = I see a cloud of some sort, I see some sort of cloud; "I do not see any cloud" = I do not see any kind of cloud (at all), I do not see a cloud of any type. It's stronger than merely an indefinite article.
So that singular use of "any" corresponds more to keinerlei (= of no kind, of no sort) in German.
mizinamo - One the following exercise:
One is asked to translate the following sentence:
"Ich trage keine Kleidung."
And the provided answer is:
"I do not wear any clothes."
But would that not then translate back into?:
"Ich trage keinerlei Kleidung."
I got a little confused now. Is it because the noun "clothes" is not just a singular noun, but also a collective noun?
clothes is a plural noun. (A pluraletantum: one with no singular.)
However, if you used the collective noun clothing instead, it would work similarly.
The keinerlei meaning of any is for singular countable nouns, I would say.
mizinamo - Thanks for expanding my terminology, "plurale tantum", that is definitely a new one for my repertoire of terms.
I cannot wait for DuoLingo to start offering a Latin course.
I must have quickly thought of its Spanish counterpart, "ropa", since I was practicing my Catalan skills prior to this, and automatically concluded that it was also the singular form for English. But it was the other way around. Yikes! Well, lesson learned, thanks again coach!