"No, we do not have babies."
Translation:No, no tenemos bebés.
So, it is not necessary to explicitly state the nosotros because we can imply it from the conjugated verb. Is this generally the case or are there any good rules on when to be explicit ?
You mainly only need to be explicit with the 3rd person conjugations (the forms used with él/ella/usted and ellos/ellas/ustedes), because the other conjugations (in most tenses, but not all) can only refer to one person. "Tengo" can only be "I have", "tienes" can only be "you have", "tenemos" can only be "we have", but "tiene" can be "he has, she has, or you-formal has" and "tienen" can be "they have, or you-plural have" so those ones might need clarification. All other ones are only stated explicitly for contrast or emphasis. Here's a good link about this: http://spanish.about.com/od/pronouns/a/subject_pronoun.htm
neiht- tiene cant be he is, but he has. Tienen can only be they have, not they eat. Tener and comer are 2 different verbs with 2 different meanings
Sorry about that! I didn't even realize that I accidentally changed the verb. I know the difference between them XD thanks for catching that.
You defiantly don't have to explicitly state the nosotros in this sentence (I didn't and it was accepted as correct), and there's no way that it could be confused with anything else. It's actually always correct to use just the conjugated verbs but it's often a good idea to clarify who you're talking about. I think neiht20 explained that pretty well.
If you took the first "no" in English, the sentence would still mean the same, right? It is exactly the same in Spanish, just that it feels like the person is answering a question: "¿Tenéis bebés? No, no tenemos".
"No tenemos bebes" means that we do not have babies. The prompt is asking us to say "no, we do not have babies", which is "No, no tenemos bebes." It creates a slight difference in that it answers a question and provides emphasis.
Typically, you would need to be explicit only with the 3rd person forms (él,ella,usted/ellos,ellas,ustedes), because the singular forms shares the same conjugations and the plural forms share conjugations as well. All other forms are usually implied enough to not need it.
Because "hijos" translates to "children". You can have children which aren't necessarily babies. "Baby"=bebé.
Shouldn't it be appropriate to say "No, no tenemos unos bebés?" That is what I did but it said it was wrong... what about the article makes it wrong?
It's because that would be translated as "No, we don't have some babies", the "some" is not necessary, and it is not part of the original sentence.
Also, this is just what I think, but if you say "No, no tenemos unos bebés" you're not necessarily denying that you have babies, you're just denying that you have some/few babies, you could have many children. While "No, no tenemos bebés" is flat out rejecting that you have babies altogether.
I just went through a different lesson where I learned "¿Qué hace tu tía?" So although I wanted to write "no tenemos bebés", I wrote "bebés no tenemos". I think I can just barely see the difference and reasoning... Could someone explain it, please?
The reason why the "tu tía" came after the verb in your other example is because the verb and subject are sometimes flipped in questions, but they can be left alone in statements. The other thing is that "bebés" is not the subject in this case, it is the object. If you were wanting to put the subject after the verb you would say "no tenemos nosotros", although I'm not sure if that sounds natural or not.