"Han har ingen katt."

Translation:He has no cat.

November 23, 2014

This discussion is locked.


What is the actual difference between inte and inga/ingen/inget?


"Inte" is an adverb, it modifies a verb.

"Ingen / inget / inga" is an adjective, it modifies a noun.


but with what criteria do i choose when to use inga/ingen/inget? is it ingen - en words inget - ett words inga - plural?


Yes, you have it exactly right!


tack, this makes sense now. :)


Could I say "Jag inte har en katt?" or does the verb (har) always come before inte?


That sentence does not work. You have to say "jag har inte en katt". Commonly, "inte" goes after the verb it modifies, BUT in a subclause it goes before the verb.

Heres an example, with main clause and subclause separated:

"Han säger inte | att han inte kan komma"

"He's not saying | that he can't come"


”Not” vs. ”no”. It literally says ”He has no cat.”


I translated as He does not have a cat, and it was counted as wrong, but one of the accepted translations was He hasn't got a cat, which in Australian English is pretty awful, with the redundant use of the word got.


Same here! I am not a mother tongue English speaker, but I am pretty sure that "He does not have a cat" should be correct as well.


Yes, this is one of the limitations of Duolingo, Just make sure to report that your answer should be accepted. Hopefully it will adapt.


The purpose of this sentence is to learn 'ingen', one of the three forms of 'no' (=none). "Han har ingen katt"="He has no cat" The other translations do have the same meaning but are translations of "Han har inte en katt". Too bad, because then you have not learned the difference between "ingen/inget/inga" and "inte".


Why is "he doesn't have any cat" wrong?


A better translation of that into Swedish would be Han har inte någon katt.


Both "he has no cat" + "he does not have a cat" + "he has not got a cat" are all synonymous in English and should be accepted.


Not grammar... "He has no cat" is not grammar duo...


The grammar is fine! Subject verb negation object. No problem. Although, the guy needs cats!!

More common would be, "he does not have cats" but.. we're not learning English here ;-)


He does not have a cat, should be an accepted translation. The word 'got' is considered bad English by many English speakers. (like my mother, who to this day still corrects anyone who uses it)


If my mother were alive today, she would do too! God bless your mom :-)


Surely "he hasn't a cat" is the proper translation here?


"He hasn't a cat" doesn't work, but "He hasn't got a cat" should be fine

[deactivated user]

    "He hasn't a cat" is archaic but perfectly acceptable. "He hasn't got a cat" is more colloquial and rather redundant.


    It's perfect, just a contraction of has + no. Perfect for DL anyway ;-)


    I get that ingen is singular but being cats countable shouldn't it translate to "no catS"?


    I've read all below and I really still don't get when I should use ingen/et/a and when I should use inte. Could someone please explain it in incredibly basic language, with examples?


    inte (= not) is used to negate verbs: Han äter inte 'He is not eating'.

    ingen/inget/inga (= no) is used for negating nouns. Which form depends on the gender and number of the thing you don't have.
    en gender words - ingen
    en katt - Han har ingen katt ('He has no cat')

    ett gender words - inget
    ett hus - Han har inget hus ('He has no house')

    plural for both genders - inga
    Han har inga katter ('He has no cats')
    Han har inga hus ('He has no houses')


    Thanks. I think I got confused because I thought that the 'ingen' was an adverb to 'har'. On that note, is there a natural way to write the sentence using 'inte' in regards to 'har', like it would be in English? Or is that unnatural/otherwise wrong in Swedish?


    I have the same question, which one is more natural? Jag har inga barn/ Jag har inte barn?


    I wouldn't say more natural. "Jag har inte barn" is plain wrong.


    What about Jag har inta igna barn, for I haven't got any children?


    Why "a cat" not "cat"?? Does ingen includes the article?


    The Swedish sentence has ingen katt and the English sentence has no cat, so it's the same in both languages.


    Why is he does not have a cat wrong


    Is there an easy way of telling the gender of a word/noun? For example a general rule in Spanish is that if the word ends with or has the main syllable contain an a it is feminine.. for eg "la mesa" (the table) "la puerta" (the door) whereas masculine words generally end in or have an o in them as the major syllable "el techo" (the roof) el sillón (the couch/lounge).. (of course there is always exceptions in every language). Is there a general phonic rule like this for Swedish please?


    can't we say he does not have any cat?


    I thought nej means no. Can someone help.


    "Nej" is the opposite of "ja" (no versus yes). "Ingen"/"inget" is "no" as "not a".


    What is the difference: she has no cats????


    She does not have any cats is a wrong answer? Why


    I wrote He hasn't any cat - he (han) has(har) not any (ingen) katt (cat) and it was wrong. Read most of the comments but still don't understand why "he hasn't any cat" does not work? How would you say He hasn't any time or money for example? Or must you always use ingen (inget, inga) as "no" instead of not any?


    In English, "he has no cat" (han har ingen katt) is a grammatically correct but weird thing to say. It would be more common to say "he doesn't have a cat" (han har inte en katt). Is it an equally weird turn of phrase in Swedish, or is one as good as the other?

    Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.