"राज के हाथों में पाँच उँगलियाँ हैं।"

Translation:There are five fingers in Raj's hands.

July 19, 2018

This discussion is locked.


This sounds like Raj is holding five disembodied fingers in his hands. Or, that Raj has five fingers embedded inside his hands (which don't include fingers to begin with? I think that a हाथ consists of a हथेली−more or the less the palm—and उँगलियाँ, the fingers). So really what you're saying is that Raj's hands (we can assume two...?) each have five fingers, which we are very happy to hear! In that case, I would phrase the Hindi as: राज के [दो] हाथों की पाँच उँगलियाँ हैं।


Yes, this is funny. I assumed the proper translation had to be "five fingers on his hand" because "There are five fingers in Raj's hands" makes no sense, unless Raj is severely lacking the average number of fingers on both hands, which would normally average to ten fingers. But does your correction clear that discrepancy?


Yes, it should be "on" his hands, not "in" his hands. Sounds like he's holding fingers. Gross.


Duolingo should also accept this translation: Raj is not Mickey.


Well I have the same problem and seems no one has actually answered the question


There once was a man named "Angulimala" who turned bad after a sequence of events and collected other people's fingers to make a necklace (hence: anguli-finger + mala-necklace). He was aiming for 1000 fingers. After collecting 999 fingers he met the Buddha and became a monk. Perhaps this sentence refers to him at an early stage, haha!^)


I would not mark incorrect for answering with "on Raj's hands" instead of "in Raj's hands" as this use of "in" is nonstandard in American English. The word for word translation is correct with "in" but the meaning is better preserved with "on". There is another instance of a similar translation issue with "taking water" vs "drinking water" -- "taking" is fairly nonstandard except for medications in American English.


Raj is holding Aamir's severed fingers as they ride to the hospital.


Actually the fingers in Raj's hand could still be attached to somone elses hand.. He could be holding Aamirs uninjured hand ...No need for them to be severed.


Am a native English speaker and came here because I was wondering about this sentence...thanks everybody before me for commenting...I don't feel crazy anymore...


I was doing this course and I typed as the answer as Raj's hand has five fingers. That is proper Grammer. They need to change that. Very bad


Saying he has five fingers in his hands sounds like he is holding someone else's fingers! On instead of in would be more clear. Better yet, Raj's hands have five fingers.


Does this sentence sound as disturbingly gory in Hindi as it does in English?


Sorry DL, this sentence makes no sense unless one of Raj's hands has no fingers.


Ditto to what has been said here... but also "In Raj's hand there are five fingers" should be accepted as a translation of this awkward phrase


Aside from the philanges theft - are thumbs counted as fingers in Hindi, or is it as ambiguous as English is?


Can someone tell me if this is only an unlucky sentence in the English language or also in Hindi? Would it be common for people in India to say it like this?


Wouldn't the SOV word order of Hindi require "five fingers" to come first?


never mind, i was enlightened by a native in another post where he said that the hindi word order is flexible. this may seem strange to english speakers, but not, say, to russian speakers, where word order is also flexible.


My nose never worked so hard like at pronouncing this sentence with all nasal sounds ^^


Duo, you are not using the proper English preposition here.


It should say "Raj has five fingers on each hand" or "There are five fingers on Raj's hands"


Or raj's both hands have five fingers


Or ''Raj's both hands have five fingers''


There is no answer


The Hindi course is the one I have most trouble with not being able to get into the Duo English mindset. As a native English speaker, it is really hard to know how much violence I have to do to the English language to have an acceptable translation. This one is particularly bad and the translation doesn’t even convey the actual sense. Raj’s hand has five fingers is what an anglophone would say.


I agree. the sentence may imply detached fingers. I am not sure if this lesson is looking for literal translation only or the translation with understanding of the sentence?


Raj ek pyschopath hai.


Please make it TEN.


Please amend suitably. प्रति हाथ में पाँच उंगलियाँ। या दोनों हाथों में दस उंगलियां


Raj has ten fingers in his (both)hands. Or indicate " in a hand" Or specify in the question that he has deformity.


wouldn't it be "on Raj's hands"


This app is very very good


After two years the default for this sentence still has not been corrected. No one in any normal (non-gruesome) context would ever say "There are five fingers in Raj's hands." Would anyone in Hindi every say this?


Why not "Raj's hand has 5 fingers"?


I have given correct answer but it says wrong


"in raj's hands are five fingers" - marked wrong


Ok this is funny but this is the fifth time I am discussing the order of the words. the flow and translation if off. "There" is not "Raj". Its better if its "Raj's hands have five fingers" also "Raj's hand has five fingers" I'm guessing it is the second one because if it's the first one, this means out of Raj's two hands has only five fingers. and five are missing. either on one hand or a mix of the two. As much as this amuses me, it still needs corrected


would it not be ten fingers, because it says hands.


Its weird sentence...


You guys are dumb


This sentence make sense, because it shows that Raj isn't " Hrithik Roshan "


Why dosent it a rajs hand has five fingures


How to say "peter has 4 fingers on his left hand"


My answer is correct button in go


Dude its impossible five fingers ARE YOU KIDDING ME?


Fish fingers? French fries?

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