3 replaced http://french.stackexchange.com/ with https://french.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Les garçons ont de l'eau. (The boys have [some] water)
Les garçons n'ont pas d'eau. (The boys do not have water)

Here are the things I am aware of:

  • I have read this answerthis answer
  • de la has been changed to de l' and means "some" here.
  • de means of
  • de la can also mean of the
  • d'eau is the contracted form of de eau and means of water

Despite the above facts, I still do not understand why in the second sentence, "de l'eau" has been changed to "d'eau". Why is the following sentence wrong?

Les garçons n'ont pas de l'eau.

For me, "Les garçons n'ont pas d'eau" is literally translated to "The boys do not have of water" which does not make sense to me.

Can I conclude that "The boys do not have meat" should be translated to "Les garçons n'ont pas de viande" instead of "Les garçons n'ont pas de la viande"?

Les garçons ont de l'eau. (The boys have [some] water)
Les garçons n'ont pas d'eau. (The boys do not have water)

Here are the things I am aware of:

  • I have read this answer
  • de la has been changed to de l' and means "some" here.
  • de means of
  • de la can also mean of the
  • d'eau is the contracted form of de eau and means of water

Despite the above facts, I still do not understand why in the second sentence, "de l'eau" has been changed to "d'eau". Why is the following sentence wrong?

Les garçons n'ont pas de l'eau.

For me, "Les garçons n'ont pas d'eau" is literally translated to "The boys do not have of water" which does not make sense to me.

Can I conclude that "The boys do not have meat" should be translated to "Les garçons n'ont pas de viande" instead of "Les garçons n'ont pas de la viande"?

Les garçons ont de l'eau. (The boys have [some] water)
Les garçons n'ont pas d'eau. (The boys do not have water)

Here are the things I am aware of:

  • I have read this answer
  • de la has been changed to de l' and means "some" here.
  • de means of
  • de la can also mean of the
  • d'eau is the contracted form of de eau and means of water

Despite the above facts, I still do not understand why in the second sentence, "de l'eau" has been changed to "d'eau". Why is the following sentence wrong?

Les garçons n'ont pas de l'eau.

For me, "Les garçons n'ont pas d'eau" is literally translated to "The boys do not have of water" which does not make sense to me.

Can I conclude that "The boys do not have meat" should be translated to "Les garçons n'ont pas de viande" instead of "Les garçons n'ont pas de la viande"?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackFrench/status/569595907852902401
2 edited tags
| link
1
source | link

Why is "de l'eau" changed to "d'eau" in the negative sentence?

Les garçons ont de l'eau. (The boys have [some] water)
Les garçons n'ont pas d'eau. (The boys do not have water)

Here are the things I am aware of:

  • I have read this answer
  • de la has been changed to de l' and means "some" here.
  • de means of
  • de la can also mean of the
  • d'eau is the contracted form of de eau and means of water

Despite the above facts, I still do not understand why in the second sentence, "de l'eau" has been changed to "d'eau". Why is the following sentence wrong?

Les garçons n'ont pas de l'eau.

For me, "Les garçons n'ont pas d'eau" is literally translated to "The boys do not have of water" which does not make sense to me.

Can I conclude that "The boys do not have meat" should be translated to "Les garçons n'ont pas de viande" instead of "Les garçons n'ont pas de la viande"?