"The man is eating the chicken, not the rice."
Translation:Mannen äter kycklingen, inte riset.
Why when saying 'does not eat..' is it 'ater inte', but 'not the rice' is 'inte riset'?
huh, thought about it some more and might have found the fallacy in my question... does 'inte' come before the noun it is referring to? If so, I was merely confused by the lack of a verb before 'inte riset'..
I remember in one of the previous lessons there was mentioned the "je" as the formal analogue of "inte". Or am I wrong? If those two words are analogues, then why the variant with "Mannen aeter kycklingen, je riset" is incorrect?
It's ej that is a more formal alternative to inte. Used mostly on signs and very rarely in the spoken language (only in some set phrases).
Mannen äter kycklingen, ej riset. is an accepted answer (although it does sound odd) but we don't accept versions like aeter instead äter, the machinery is not built that way.