"The boy does not hear me."

Translation: Gutten hører meg ikke.

[lenefj]

Why doesn't ikke come right after hører in this case?

[Iorua]

Good question.

Both are equally fine, but they may mean different things depending on emphasis in the English sentence:

• "Gutten hører meg ikke": The boy does not hear me
• "Gutten hører ikke meg": The boy does not hear me / They boy does not hear me (but he may hear others / other things)

You cannot say "Gutten hører meg ikke" (with emphasis on meg).

Not all the correct translations were added, but it is fixed now.

[Z.97]

Well couldn't you say "Gutten ikke hører meg"?

[AgneSpokaite]

Ikke comes after the verb

[aislineep]

while translation-wise that makes sense for english, it doesn't work. you have to put ikke after the verb.

jeg spiser ikke kjøtt.
i do not eat meat.

spiser involves the do before the eat, so the direct translation would be "i do eat not meat." which is not right.

[SoulAhn]

So you mean if I say "Gutten hører meg ikke", I'm not emphasizing meg?

[anachron]

“Gutten hører ikke meg” is also a valid sentence, with mostly the same meaning. I say mostly, because this version has a tone which may indicate that the boy is (selectively) deaf towards me.

[jeffreyolson01]

Maybe he's being eaten by a bear?

[oxccxbi]

Nei, ulven spiser ham.
Bjørnen klemte ham bare

[KitsuneRin]

'Gutten hører ei meg.' I don't understand why it states that is a correct answer D: Where does 'ei' come from?

[waterink]

I read in some comments elsewhere that "ei" is the counterpart of "ikke" in some dialects.