"उसकी तीन बेटियाँ हैं।"
Translation:He has three daughters.
47 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
2513
But literally, "his three daughters are," right? Can the final verb to be there also mean "there are"?
- 479
Literally it's more like "to him three daughters are". And yes, the final verb can also mean "there are"
Well, logically, isn't it more like "three daughters are his/hers/its"?
Agreed, I was struggling with it but this way of thinking makes it clear. Thanks!
Hey guys,how can I understand that "uski" is related to "he" coz I translated "she has three daughters" but the right answer is "he"!I git confused!
As people have said above, "She has three daughters" is also correct!
So this verb means 'to be' and 'to have'? These are pretty different words in english...
Yes. You decide between का, की, के depending on the gender/number of the possession not the possessor.
- 546
There is no proper "to have" verb in hindi... I got that confirmation by a native speaker. Either it is "with me" (ke pas) or that hai/hain at the end of the sentence to say that the person exist in relation with the subject (that is my personal understanding, I don't have my native speaker handy right now). Moreover, yes uski should be translated as his or her (he/she has) and both should be accepted as an answer...
To add to what you are saying about ways to express "have," my understanding is that the के पास (ke pas) construction can only be used with inanimate objects - for example, in a sentence like "I have food." For people, you have to use this construction.
does it mean हैं is also used to mean "have", not only to "be"? Please respond.
- 1358
The transliteration of the sentence is "He of three daughters are" without the "hain" verb ending there would be no sentence. It would be a meaningless phrase like "three daughters of he" with the translation "his three daughters". When you add the "hain" at the end you are saying that those three daughters exist and then we translate it to "He has three daughters."
I thought it was "his/her three daughters". I understand the solution too but would you say "his/her three daughters" the same way ? Thanks
Uhhh, in a way, I guess? But this sentence "Uski teen betiyan hain" actually has "hain" in the sentence which makes the "has" in the translation: "He has 3 daughters". If I wanted to say "Their three daughters", I'd say "Unki teen betiyan/उनकी तीन बेटियां".
I am getting confused again. How do we know that it is he and not she in this case?
- 2513
I'm pretty sure this could mean she has three daughters or even it has three daughters as well.
On appearance it seems to me that it can simply be translated as "There are three daughters of him." This may equate with "He has three daughters", which is the preferred sentence in English...
Wouldn't we use the verb "to have" here?
Is there a reason we aren't using that verb (does it exist?) or do you always have to get around it by showing possession (उसकी) and saying they "are" (हैं) ?
There is no "to have" in Hindi. For my own personal understanding, and the way I remember how to structure this, is to think of it as 'To him/her are three daughters. That's not a transliteration, but it helps me understand the flow of the language better.
As a native speaker, I'd say "उनकी तीन बेटियां हैं" but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. There's a change from उसकी to उनकी.
Is there a verb for "to have"? I did read all the other comments, and I sort of understand what is going on here, but is this the only way to say He/She has three daughters?
रखना meens keep/have/put, according to wiktionary. के पास is used to show ownership, but is not a verb. I remember using this phrase in India to ask for a ciggy. Would like to have an Indian's opinion. This has been asked several times in this discussion, but no answer. Perhaps a later Hindi lesson here will help us with this though.
My understanding is that the के पास (ke pas) construction, which hasn't been covered in this course yet, can only be used with inanimate objects. For example, in asking for a cigarette. For people ("He has three daughters") you have to use this construction.
'वे तीन बेटियां हैं' would be 'They are three daughters'.
'उसकी तीन बेटियाँ हैं' translates literally to something like 'His three daughters exist'. Since Hindi does not have a verb 'to have', we use such phrasing to talk about 'having' relatives.
- 569
Do we use USKI for both singular and plural? ??how can we understand use BETIYAM or BITI?
Yes. You use 'uski' when the noun phrase that follows is either feminine singular or feminine plural.
बेटी is singular and बेटियाँ is plural.
उसकी एक बेटी है - He has one daughter.
उसकी दो बेटियाँ हैं - He has two daughters.