1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Nein, ich habe keine Babys."

"Nein, ich habe keine Babys."

Translation:No, I do not have babies.

July 17, 2013



Proper English should also allow "No, I haven't any babies." Duolingua marks this as wrong and corrects it to "No, I haven't got any babies."


Hmm... although I am aware that conjugating "to have" in the same way as "to be" is still used in some regions and can be found in classic literature, I do not think it actually is accepted as "proper" modern English grammar... what geographic regions in Britain or elsewhere is that form still in use?


Interesting. You know, I just looked in the fridge and I haven't any eggs either. On the other hand, I haven't a clue why that is. I don't know why I hadn't gotten any yesterday at the store (somewhat awkward: "I had not got any..."). Isn't English grand? But I know nothing of British regionalisms.

It was the "got" that got me. I've always thought of getting as an activity, the end result of which is a state of possession or having.


In some/most British English dialects, including the standard form (although not my dialect), the "got" is common, if not mandatory. I honestly don't know what grammatical purpose it serves but it is certainly correct.


Thanks both for your comments.

I did not mean to imply that the simple "have" form (conjugated without the "do" auxiliary in Simple Present Negative and Question forms) is not acceptable - it is used and therefore valid - but only point out that it is not taught as standard English internationally.

Now I'm curious about the Simple Past: would the sentence "I didn't have a car until I was 20" be expressed in your regional usages as "I hadn't a car until I was 20" instead?

As for the "have got" form, a widespread variant very much still in use (by me as well), it is now generally being dropped from coursebooks too...


While I cannot comment on the OP's dialect, I can say that I agree with them. To me "No, I haven't any babies." sounds fine, if perhaps a little posh. Also, what do you mean by conjugating "to have" in the same way as "to be"? Surely that would make it equivalent to "amn't", which AFAIK is not particularly common. (It does exist however, including in my local dialect, although I think that might be a borrowing of Scots usage.)


what geographic regions in Britain or elsewhere is that form [haven't] still in use?

In educated and upper class English (the two are not the same).


Honestly, the only archaic usage I know of for "got" in this kind of sense actually comes from Shakespeare, when in one of his plays one character tells another he will "get" kings (meaning, he will have children, and at least some of them will eventually go on to take the throne).


Isn't it also right to say "No, I've got no babies"?


How come Babys is neuter even though plural?


It's not neutral. Baby is neutral. You can see that babies is a plural, here, because of "keine". Always look for hints from the others words as to the gender and stuff.


Why is "I have no babies " marked wrong


I don't have babies may mean I have only one baby,may not it?


It sounds like Clarkson and his "bebijeezis"


I miss that show and those dorks.


Is Baby a loanword from English?


Is Baby a loanword from English?



I think it must be, as it is also in Dutch.


All these comments and none mention as to why it's "babys" and not "baby".


please correct me if i am wrong .kein/keine translates to "not a" , here in above sentence it translates to simply not,what is the difference here ...?


Duo needs to mind his own business


he says baby NOT babys

Learn German in just 5 minutes a day. For free.
Get started