There is no verb for "to have" in Hindi, therefore the meaning must be created through various other constructions.
In the case of "having" a relative, this is how you need to say it. This is a different sense of "having" then you would say if, for example, you "have" a key (i.e. something you can hold in your hand). In the latter case, you say /mere pās/ (kind of like "near me"). In the former case (this example), it's like one is saying, "of-me, two sisters, are". Remember, /merī/ is just the grammatically proper way of saying /maiṅ kī/ (of me).
maiṅ kī SISTER = sister of me -- although this is wrong because it must be / merī SISTER/. My point is that what is really being said is "sister-of-me."
Wow, thank you, you've just solved a huge mystery for me!! This has been confusing me for ages.
But, there is no verb "to have" in Hindi? That is mind-blowing, I would never have imagined that a language could function without that verb.
Most languages dont, and in some more you can use similiar methods to avoid saying it.
Well, that's interesting! I know a total of eight European and African languages (fluent in four) and this is the first time I'm encountering a language without a verb that indicates possession (e.g. to have).
In the previous exercise we had "Neha ke bete he" sentence, where the meaning of "have" was conveyed by "ke". Will it be correct to say the word Ke in "तेरी दो बहनें हैं", Neha ke do behne he"? Will "Neha bete he" be correct without ke?
Compare seb to seb and santare to santare.
Neha ki bahan hai. = Neha has a sister teri bahan hai = You have a sister
teri = tu ki