If you wanted to add another verb, would you add it in the infinitive form after "ikke?" For example, to say "You don't have to eat the cheese" would you say "Du behøver ikke spise osten?"
Where is the difference between "spise" and "spiser"?
'spiser' is Present Tense of the verb, 'spise' is Infinitive form (at spise = to eat)
Shouldn't the English sentence be 'You don't need to'?
What about "Du skal ikke?" I thought this is also correct but I got the message from duolingo that it's wrong.
That would be "you must not", which is a prohibition.
I thought the same
Why doesn't "du har ikke" make sense as a translation here?
I think har is more have, so du har ikke would mean to not have something.
Is there a difference between "you have to" as in someone tells you to and "you just have to" as in you want it so badly you can't refrain from doing it? Or are they both behøver? To me behøver makes most sense in the second case.
Why not: "I har ikke til" or "Du har ikke til"?
Because that is litteraly translated from English. If you want to study the Grammar/Word Order, take a look at German or Dutch. It is quite similar.
Actually yeah. In English, it means "you do not need to", rather than "you do not have [something] to" (which, tbh, doesn't really make sense).
Could we also say " Du er ikke nødt til" ?
"to not have to do something" or "to not be obliged to do something"
You do not have to work. --> Du behøver ikke at arbejde.
For Dutch/Flemmish speaking people : Ik (be)hoef geen.. Zo onthoud ik het.
This confuses me a bit. Does behøver mean "have to" along with "need (to)"? Like müssen and sollen in German?
"Det behøver du ikke" er en fast vendning på dansk - just saying
Why not say Du har ikke brug for det? can that also work?
What about "Du må ikke"? Takk.
I think that means "you're not allowed to".