"घोड़ा एक जानवर होता है ।"

Translation:The horse is an animal.

July 23, 2018

This discussion is locked.


Why this Horse is an animal wasn't accepted? And by the way since it was general truth so there was no need to specify the before horse


It seems to me that Hindi uses the "singular as general" more than English does. Imagine a nature documentary: "The horse is an exceptional animal. It can run all day with a human on its back. The horse was first domesticated in..." Its clear that we're talking about horses in general, not one particular horse. It seems like Hindi uses this feature more than English does. I guess thats what the"hota" does - it makes the sentence into a general habitual sentence about "the horse".


"The horse" in this case would mean horses in general. "Horse is an animal" would be correct if "Horse" were the proper name of a specific horse.


You need either 'a' or 'the' otherwise it's not correct English, (unless we are talking someone whose name is "Horse"). 'Horses are animals' is OK English, but that's not the answer to this question, though perhaps it should be as, logically, it's saying the same thing.


I keep confusing “animal” (जानवर) with “young” (जवान). Hopefully I don’t embarrass myself in front of a native speaker.


is होता optional here ?


No. होता turns the sentence into a statement of general fact. If you were talking about one horse, you might drop होता but this particular sentence establishes that all horses always always are animals.


OK seriously, this case or tense or whatever it's defined as linguistically SURELY has an English equivalent which translated should be "Horses are animals." Can we make this acceptable or put this grammar point further in the tree so there is no confusion with adjectival conjugation?


I agree, reported.


The capitalization of "The" was a dead giveaway that it was the first word in the English answer.


Yeah, the word bank choices are crap for learning, too easy. In another one I knew I'd got an earlier gender wrong because I had already run out of 'choti's when I knew the next animal was feminine.


I get that hota/hoti/hote is used for a general statement of fact (ie, "in most cases" or "generally speaking"). But is it seriously needed in this sentence? Horses are ALWAYS animals, not just generally speaking or in the most common case. Horses are always (100% of the time) animals.


A Horse is an Animal is also correct. No problem


What happens when the होता is omitted?


In ungrammatical English, it's like 'The horse bes an animal' vs. 'The horse is an animal'. (But it's ungrammatical because we don't really use it, which makes it harder/more confusing to learn a language which does.)

Alternatively, think of the habitual aspect of a different Hindi verb, such as खाता, to eat. घोड़ा एक सेब खाता है 'the horse eats an apple' vs. घोड़ा एक सेब है 'the horse is an apple' .


Do we really need एक in this sentence? I thought that एक is used when you explicitly state a number (unlike a/an in English which needs to be in a sentence even when you don't really intend to emphasize the number).


It emphasises it, you certainly need it to translate 'one', and otherwise it's like 'an animal'. So no, the sentence works without it, just loses that emphasises.


I have to say it's confusing: Sometimes the general statement has hota/hoti/hote, and sometimes (just the sentence before this one) there isn't. Why? Is it optional?


Could it also be A horse is an animal?


Yes, that's actually a better translation for a general statement about horses. Either 'a horse is ...', 'horses are ...', or 'the horse species is ...' works.

(The last is a little awkward, but point is it needs to be 'horse something' if using 'the', unless it's clear from quite an academic context, otherwise it sounds like a specific horse.)

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