"पीटर को जूलिया से मिलना है।"
Translation:Peter has to meet Julia.
32 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Why not "Peter meets with Julia"? Where does the "has to" come into thr sentence?
It's"milna" that suggest it's an obligation. "Peter meets Julia" would have been using "milta"
I'm not 100% sure, but I got a guess. I suppose because meet with and meet are slightly different?
To meet someone means to be introduced to that person (for the first time) and meet with simply means to accompany someone (regardless of the degree to which the individuals are acquainted).
It sounds good, but I have to doubt that explanation because my friends use "meet" to mean "see" as in like, "we'll meet when I get back to town" meaning "we'll meet UP (see each other) when I get back to town." Which would kind of imply the other way... Idk.
This would be a completely acceptable translation. I'd report it.
(Note that in Hindi the से is not optional the way "with" is in English.)
903
"A modal verb is a type of verb that is used to indicate modality – that is: likelihood, ability, permission, request, capacity, suggestions, order, obligation, or advice. Modal verbs always accompany the base (infinitive) form of another verb having semantic content."- Wikipedia
No, not in this case.
Peter must/has to/needs to meet Julia: पीटर को जूलिया से मिलना है ।
Peter wants to/should/needs to meet Julia: पीटर को जूलिया से मिलना चाहिये ।
Some English expressions can be translated with either construction, but "want" is the part that definitely doesn't overlap.
(Note also that Indian English sometimes makes more of a distinction between the expressions "need to", "have to", "should", and "must" than other dialects, probably because of these two different Hindi idioms.)
- 1236
No .. I disagree with what emrys29 says below. To HAVE TO and to WANT TO are two very different Hindi formats. Peter wants to meet Julia is 'peetar jooliya se milana chaahata hai' ... pure and simple.
- 1236
so why is "Peter MUST meet Julia" not correct? Means the same thing no??? OK... maybe a subtle difference ?
I would report it. That is an acceptable English translation (in American/British/Australian/etc. dialects).
- 1236
I agree .... that's what I was taught... but I see that there seems to be some interpretation that MUST means 'wants to' .. .which I don't get. To me 'have to' and 'must' have always been the same thing
Could someone please explain the grammatical construction here? I'm not sure I understand.
- 1236
OK.. there are a number of rules and formats here .... and I can only use plain English as I am not up on the grammatical terms so much. 1. The form for "have to" is that you always use 'ko' e.g. 'Peter ko' .... and then you use the root of the verb (in this case 'milana' - to meet, followed by simple ending 'hai' etc... So... another example to illustrate this. I MUST eat food now. (or I HAVE to eat food now) would be.... "mujhe abhee khaana khaana hai"... (not that as far as I was taught, mujko and mujhe are interchangeable in many cases) ...does that make sense.? OR 'You have to go to Delhi' is 'Aapako dillee jaana hai" 2. The use of the verb 'milana' to meet has a special rule... You must use 'se' for the person being met . So in this example it is '... Julia se milana.... ' Another example but forgetting point 1 for now might be.. 'I will meet my grandfather' which would be (using this rule) 'Mei apne dada se milunga' (where apna is used because it is MY grandfather and that's another form in Hindi also'). Or 'I am going to meet Peter' is 'main peetar se milane ja raha hoon' ( मैं पीटर से मिलने जा रहा हूं). I hope this answers what you were asking about. :)
Great explanation Can please tell us why in the 2 last examples there is no ko?
When you want to use "have/has to" you must add "ko" to person (mujhko, aamir ko,... ) . And you must change the verb with "...naa +hai" (mujhko jana hai) (aamir ko likhna hai) And we always must write "se" after the person whom someone wants to meet. (mai aamir se milta hun) (aamir mujhse milte hai)
"Peter must meet Julia" should be accepted. Too many of these answers demand Indian English or just shit English (see, "non-veg") The translations should be in proper English. Rewarding "Has to" but objecting to "must" is just uneducated. They are like that only!
- 420
As an indian it sound more like" Peter wants to meet julia" not has to but it is also correct
- 1236
No...it cannot mean he wants to meet Julia. The grammatical form here means 'Peter HAS to meet Julia' ... that is indicated by the "KO" after Peter and the ending of the sentence being simply 'hai'. For Peter WANTS to meet Julia, you drop the "KO" : पीटर जूलिया से मिलना चाहता है and you see it has an entirely different ending 'chaahata hai'.
- 1236
You can't just make it up my friend.... It does not say Peter needs to meet Julia.... To say that in Hindi would be: peetar ko jooliya se milane kee jaroorat hai. This is not that..... This is simply a different Hindi grammatical form: Has to, not Needs to.... Learn it and use it. :) ... To illustrate the form simply, let's say : Peter has to play. = Peter ko khelana hai. Same form... same HAS TO... (not needs to)