"My grandfather's name is not Aamir but Raj."
Translation:मेरे नाना का नाम आमिर नहीं राज है।
1. दादा (dada) For father's father
2. नाना (nana) For mother's father
3. दादाजी (dadaji) the ji is added to many words to show respect. And it is more usual to hear dadaji than just dada.
4. नानाजी (nanaji)
Could anyone comment on how direct of a translation this is? It seems a little rough.
It's a pretty direct translation. The Hindi sentence is missing the word for 'but' because its not necessary. Otherwise its almost a literal translation.
"... is Aamir not Raj."
This is the literal translation. This definitely does not follow the English logic.
Don't forget that with a noun, "X नहीं है" means "is not X" and therefore you can derive that "X नहीं" on its own means "not X." Don't forget that this is a language that uses postpositions, not prepositions. (You use the equivalent of "prepositions" to modify things from behind.)
(X में = in X, X से = from X, X पर = on X, etc.)
So "आमिर नहीं राज" means "Not Amir, Raj."
I don't forget things so easy and I do understand how Hindi negation works. I simply stated that this is definitely not the way English negation works. Furthermore, my mother tongue is Hungarian, a non-Indo-European language with a rich postposition system and without prepositions, and we neither have a negation system similar to Hindi.
You totally mess up negation and pre- or postposition systems. They have nothing to do with each other, a negation word's position in the sentence (or in any structure) cannot be explained on the ground of how pre- or postpositions work in a certain language.
I simply answered the statement "it's almost a literal translation". No it isn't because the persons' names (in nominative) and the negation word are arranged in a totally different way in Hindi than in English, therefore a literal translation would carry exactly the opposite meaning.