"I cannot cook rice."
Translation:Ik kan geen rijst koken.
I interpret the correct answer, "Ik kan geen rijst koken", as "I can cook no rice" or "I can't cook any rice." Wouldn't "I cannot cook rice", meaning "I don't have the ability to cook rice", be "Ik kan niet rijst koken"?
I didn't report this as an error because I am unsure about it.
Does anyone have a appropriate answer for this ? It seems confusing to quite some of us. I also thought that "geen" was placed somewhere where "een" would be in the affirmative sentence, but here it would make no sense: "I can cook a rice"
I think it's because you're not negating your ability to cook in general, you just cannot cook rice.
Therefore, you're negating the object. As it's a non-specific direct object, we need to use geen (and only geen).
Now, if you were to negate your ability to cook in general, then you would use niet: Ik kan niet koken.
See the difference?
Hope this helps!
For more information, please follow this link: http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=WordOrder.47
I was allowed to enter 'ik kan rijst niet koken'... I get that my word order here is fine when using 'niet' but now I'm a bit unsure on the use of 'niet' in here given there's no 'de'. Is this emphasis, or something else?
that's because ik kan rijst niet koken implies some sort of a contrast: I can't cook rice... (but I can eat it).
No, sorry. Please read my previous comment: I explain the reasoning behind the use of geen in this sentence.