Why is it "mere bete" instead of "mera beta"? Son is singular and there is not post-position to make it go into the oblique, so this doesn't seem to make sense
The "का" in "मेरे बेटे का" is indeed a postposition.
Having difficulty understanding why it refers to the son in Plural. The sentence is referring to only one son, so why would the plural be used?
It's not the plural form. बेटे is the oblique form of बेटा in this sentence. It is required because it is followed by the postposition -का
Hate to be that person, but English is not my first language, (and duolingo doesn't offer any explanation), but what exactly does oblique mean?
Why doesn't मेरा बेटा का नाम पीटर है work?
The genitive particle -का requires the oblique form of बेटा which is बेटे, and the possessive adjective मेरा also has to agree with it, so: मेरे बेटे का नाम.
So i understand that in this case "mere bete" is genitiv singular and not plural, because of "-ka", right?
हाँ। But be aware: बेता का ; ka is not a suffix, but an independant word, so don't write them together. But in general it works like a Genitive.
What would be the plural sentence?
Let's say the other son's name is Paul. मेरे बेटों के नाम पीटर और पाॅल हैं।
Why its not mera beta? It's singular right?
Why son is used in plural form here?
Why is it wrong to write "name" before "my son"? I feel the answer should be obvious, but my brain isn't catching up on Hindi word order...
The default order for saying "Y of X" in Hindi is "X का Y". So owner before owned. :)
why used बेटे for Peter (singular)