There is a difference between (1) Raj has an obligation to not drink milk, and (2) Raj does not have an obligation to drink milk. The English translation clearly intends (2). As for the Hindi sentence, I understand that if it was translated this way, it should also mean (2). But, if "Raj ko X hai" means "Raj has to X", then here X=not drink milk. So, I'd be inclined to think that the Hindi sentence would have to mean (1). If somebody with a stronger grasp of Hindi could clarify, I would appreciate it! Also, if it does indeed mean (2), then how would one express (1) in Hindi? Thanks, aur dhanyawad!
I wonder if (1) would be...राज को नहीं दूध पीना।, keeping the act of drinking milk specific. Or maybe it would be said as राज दूध नही सकता है। Good question. I would love to get input on this as well!
I just asked a question along these lines re another sentence. I wonder if the answer is that this construction wouldn't be used at all to express (1) - maybe it'd be rephrased using the subjunctive. Maybe something like 'It is necessary that Raj does not drink milk'?
However, even though I am a native speaker, I will freely admit that I could be wrong... I didn't really pay attention to the proper technical aspects of the language while I was still in India and could take Hindi in school, and so my basics are not the best.
Does someone know why there is no 'है' at the end of the sentence? Thank you!