"राज के हाथों में पाँच उँगलियाँ हैं।"
Translation:There are five fingers in Raj's hands.
22 Comments
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।
- 25
- 25
- 25
- 25
- 25
- 23
- 23
- 17
- 12
- 11
- 10
- 6
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 1427
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?
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.
- 20
- 17
- 16
- 11
- 2
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.
- 20
- 8
- 5
- 2
- 2
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!^)
- 18
- 9
- 4
- 2
- 6
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...
- 25
- 20
- 6
- 5
- 3
- 478
Does this sentence sound as disturbingly gory in Hindi as it does in English?
- 24
- 15
- 104
Sorry DL, this sentence makes no sense unless one of Raj's hands has no fingers.
- 25
- 25
- 24
- 23
- 20
- 17
- 13
- 12
- 12
- 12
- 11
- 11
- 10
- 7
- 6
- 4
- 2
Considering that इस औरत के पैरों में दस उँगलियाँ हैं (https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/28074852) we must conclude that either Raj is missing five fingers or that woman has twenty toes.
- 25
- 17
- 10
- 409
Raj is holding Aamir's severed fingers as they ride to the hospital.
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
- 18
'In' is incorrect, and the sentence is unnatural. Try : Raj's hands have five fingers
This is very weird. If there are five fingers in raj’s had that would be disappointing. If raj’s had has five fingers were all good. The correct solution is Raj’s hand has five fingers.
- 25
- 25
- 20
- 6
- 4
What is given is a literal translation in English ( that's why incorrect in sense) ! It has 2 b , as others have written Raj's hand ( not hands!) has five fingers! Even the Hindi sentence seems to be incorrect, is it that Raj has two hands but only five fingers ( and not ten as a general case)? Because hands हाथों is plural हाथ is singular! So how about saying राज के हाथों में पॉंच पॉंच उँगलियॉं हैं । या राज के हाथ को पाँच उँगलियाँ हैं ।
- 25
- 25
- 20
- 6
- 4
And for them who want more -- रजनी के हाथों में पॉंच पॉंच चुडियॉं हैं । will be translated to "Rajani (a girl/lady/woman) is wearing five bangles in each of her hands ! Correct me if I'm wrong.
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
- 25
- 16
- 1143
Aside from the philanges theft - are thumbs counted as fingers in Hindi, or is it as ambiguous as English is?
