"Neha can not come to the village."
Translation:नेहा गाँव नहीं आ सकती।
21 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
From a Hindi speaker:
आ सकना is a clause showing ability to come. To negate it the नही should come before it, in order to sound correct.
नेहा गाँव आ नहीं सकती: However, this can be said, if you're wanting to put an emphasis on the negation of आ only. Perhaps नेहा गाँव आ नहीं सकती, पर वह जा सकती हैं।
This is really confusing.
I don't understand why नेहा गाँव आ नहीं सकती marked wrong here and नेहा गाँव नहीं आ सकती as correct but just before पक्षी उड़ सकते हैं लेकिन तैर नहीं सकते was marked as correct but पक्षी उड़ सकते हैं लेकिन नहीं तैर सकते was marked wrong.
How is "can not come" different than "can not swim" in these two examples?
Check out some of the other comments.
Both versions of placement of nahin can be considered grammatically correct. Mostly there is just an inconsistency in how Duolingo is teaching and scoring these grammatical forms. The problem isn't you, it's Duolingo.
However, in Duolingo's defense, they may have created the sentences with a more subtle, native sensibility in mind than the elementary grammar rules dictate.
Note the comments above about how word order (I would say in Hindi generally) often reveals subtle emphases.
The other thing to consider is that the ability to "come" and the ability to "swim" "fly" "walk" are different types of ability. When we are making statements about the ability to fly, we are making general statements about inherent or acquired skills. Yet, statements about whether you can "come" or not has to do with circumstances. Therefore, in the context that we speak of such things, we may want to create different emphases.
To answer one of your questions directly: पक्षी उड़ सकते हैं लेकिन तैर नहीं सकते is "correct" because it wants to emphasize the difference between flying and walking. In order to put the emphasis on तैर, the word is moved forward in the sequence. Can we say नेहा गाँव आ नहीं सकती ? Absolutely. Yet नेहा गाँव नहीं आ सकती will be considered the "default" word order, so that's probably why they marked it "correct." Again, more variations should be accepted here as "correct"=valid possibilities, but what we are seeing is "correct"=preferred/best answer.
Shouldn't में be used here for 'to'? i.e. नेहा गाँव में नहीं आ सकती |
Seema, में means "in", whereas the meaning wanted in this sentence is "to."
If you say "in," it sounds like maybe there is a gate or a wall around the village that one goes "inside," like Neha can't come inside the border of the village. In this sentence however, it's like Neha is in Delhi and there is a village 10 miles away which she simply cannot come TO because she is busy or because her car is broken, etc.
To say "to," no word is required.
I'm not a native speaker, and for some reason, I keep getting words like on, in, to, etc. confused. I'm starting to get it. Thank you for clarifying.
Yes, I've heard the term ghostposition since using Duolingo. :) And, I do see how it sounds more elegant without the 'ghostposition' को. Thanks again!!
Yes, and I find the grammar a bit difficult to learn. English is my native language.
Thanks! English is my native language, too. Sometimes when I was learning/teaching Indian language we used a fun term, "ghost-position." It's a play on words, based on "post-position." Words like में and को are post-positions (that's the grammatical term). However, sometimes in Hindi the meaning of को ("to") is there without actually being said. It's like it's there in your mind, but you don't say it, hence it's a "ghost." So, in the sentence, नेहा गाँव नहीं आ सकती... It is actually saying नेहा गाँव को नहीं आ सकती। But it is more elegant and more common in speech to leave out the को even though we kind of know it's there.