This is translated wrong. "... and we do not have any deodorant" translates to "... eikä meillä ole yhtään deodoranttia"
Nah, we do not have any covers both ei ole and ei ole yhtään.
"Any" isn't required in the English either so both should be accepted. This isn't a guess what's in duo's mind game XD Including "yhtään" makes it more of a direct translation and more easily understood what's being asked for.
Both are accepted.
I agree. Duolingo should teach the language to non-native speakers. It makes sense to be as literal as possible to avoid confusion.
I heard this correctly and answered correctly as a result but my question is why "eikä" and not "emmekä"? Thanks very much.
Emmekä ole means "and we are not".
Eikä meillä ole means "and we do not have".
Emmekä meillä ole would be conflating these two.
Thank you yet again, Annika. Explaining the subtle distinctions really helps!
Why is it not "ei ole"? Isn't ei the negative word? Doesn't this mean "We're sweating and we have deodorant."?
Eikä is the negation. It is composed of ei and the -kä conjunction.
Thanks! How would you explain -kä, if maybe it doesn't have a translation?
It creates a conjunction when used with a negation verb. Wiktionary makes a better job in explaining than I could:
Think of eikä as "and not".
'We are sweating and we don't have a deodorant ' should be fine, no?
What is wrong with 'and we have no deodorant' ? I reported this.
Literally "We are sweating and neither do we have any deodorant." The "both" is implied here.