Could you say that "The boy eats no apples"? It's a bit weird syntax wise, but still makes sense.
Then the translation would be "Pojken äter inga äpplen.", since you can kind of count the apples: No apples, one apple, two apples. The boy might eat apples at another occasion, but not this time.
To get the gist of not eating apples at all (probably at any time), you would say "äter inte äpplen" = "does not eat apples".
A slight semantic difference though. This sentence seems to imply the boy doesn't eat apples at all, whereas "eats no apples" ("äter inga äpplen") sounds like it's referring to some previously mentioned apples not being eaten by the boy.
Does äpple not conform to the "e" ending rule or is it considered to have a different ending? I would expect the plural to be äpplar based on the rules before the exercise.
äpple is a Ett-word, so it follows a different rule.
- ett äpple - an apple
- äpplet - the apple
- äpplen - apples
- äpplena - the apples
I am slightly confused because I put "the boy does not eat apples" and it said I was wrong. It corrected me with "the boy does not eat any apples." Which word makes it a definitive?
The boy does not eat apples. is the preferred translation so it should definitely not complain about that. Either you had some typo without noticing or there is a bug. If it doesn't accept the main translation again, for you or anyone else who reads this, please grab a screenshot so we can report it properly.
That works, but pojken äter inga äpplen has a more direct equivalent in "the boy eats no apples". The best translation is the one 4oYBlxtO gave above.