"I do not have time."
Translation:Jag har inte tid.
Really? I think people are trying to be so precise that get out from the grammar's and the street's realities.
So let's take a look on the English grammar:
I don’t have/ I have no
‘I don’t have’ and ‘I have no’ have the same meaning, but can be used in different situations.
According to grammar rules, we must use ‘I don’t have’ with physical possessions, and use ‘I have no’ with attitudes and desires.
I don’t have any money. They don’t have any meat.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. My new teacher has no patience. The boss had no right to fire me. However, today both are used interchangeably since they have the same meaning.
You can say:
I don’t have any money. or
I have no money.
NOTE: When you use ‘I have no’ the sentence will sound more dramatic or emphatic.
I have no job!
Ah, good point! If you used the pattern where you move the object of action to the front for emphasis, this sentence would be "tid har jag inte". With actual pronouns, it's acceptable to squeeze them in between the verb and the "inte" in those constructions. With other nouns it might be technically grammatically correct, but sound strange.