"Sugar is not good."
Translation:Zucker ist nicht gut.
You are correct. Everyone cuts down on "fats," when they should be just cutting down on Zucker. "Low fat" diet propaganda is very destructive.
Tip: you can use "doch" here, if you like.
"Doch, Zucker ist gut!" = "Yes, contrary to what you just said, sugar is good!".
So, I thought the rule was, when there's not an article use kein(e). Why is this an exception to the rule?
Because, first and foremost, ‘kein’ is an adjective (or determiner, if you prefer), it modifies nouns, it can't be used with other parts of speech. Here, ‘gut’ is being negated, which is an adjective, and adjectives cannot be modified by ‘kein’.
You can't say, "Zucker ist ein gut." Therefore, you cannot say, "Zucker ist kein gut." Nicht is used with adjectives, kein is like the opposite of ein.
It isn't. ‘Nicht’ generally precedes what it negates or it comes at the end of the clause when negating the verb (or the whole sentence). Here ‘gut’ specifically is being negated (sugar is not good, but it is sweet, white, sticky and many other things).
How do you know when it's the verb (is), object (sugar), or descriptor (good) being negated?
That is actually an incredibly hard question to answer. You could think of it like this: what is the implied question? That thing that you're questioning (i.e. the thing that in the question is replaced by an interrogative pronoun/adverb) is what you negate in the statement. That is definitely not a perfect answer though.
One thing I feel confident to say is that there is never any need to negate the copula ‘to be’ in German, negating the predicate does the job. Negating the subject would have a different nuance that could be captured by English as well: ‘kein Zucker ist gut’ = ‘no sugar is good’, ‘there is not any sugar that is good’.
When the verb carries meaning, then you have to look at what part of the sentence still holds true and which new piece of information makes it false: that is what's being negated. Of course this is more of a rule of thumb and consolidated conventional usages about the placing of ‘nicht’ take precedence over the specific semantics, especially when more than one part of the sentence could be negated to the same effect (in fact, in those cases German often allows more than one word order, for example: ‘I don't like pizza’ = ‘ich mag keine Pizza’ or ‘ich mag Pizza nicht’, although one of the two might be more appropriate in a given context).
When would you negate the whole clause as opposed to a part. If one part is wrong does that not make the whole wrong? There by making "Zuckar ist gut nicht" viable?
About your first question (which I forgot about while writing the first comment, sorry), the whole sentence is effectively negated if you negate part of it, but which part you negate matters in terms of focus and it can have different implications. Although the best way of thinking of what ‘nicht’ does at the end of sentence, is negate the verb or, rather, the predicate phrase. ‘Negation of the whole sentence’ was an oversimplification on my part.
Please see my answer above.
In short: because ‘Zucker ist gut nicht’ is wrong, i.e. conventional usage dictates negating the predicative adjective in copula constructions.
Sure, you could consider ‘ist gut’ as a whole predicate and thus put ‘nicht’ at the end negating it (like, in principle, following German logic), but that's not the path German grammar decided to take.
The ch is the h in hue or human, a sort of "hy" sound. Once you can repeat that sound by itself (hy hy hy), just put it in the middle of the word knit and you've basically got it.
So in other words:
hue = /çu/ ≈ hyū
nicht = /nɪçt/ ≈ nihyt
You could also think of it like a light sh as in sheep or shop (This is not the same sound as before, but it can help get you to the light ch sound in German).
Why any other negative words like kein, keine,keinen~~given here as choice~~are not to be used?plz help
Nicht is basically equivalent to "not" while kein et al are none or a zero article
try telling that to my taste buds
also, this is the second time in a row i've gotten this phrase. i think duolingo's trying to tell me something...