"Raj's father has eaten the apples."
Translation:राज के पिता ने सेब खाये हैं।
32 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
ने is used before an action word, example- "उसने क्या किया?" What did he do? Do being the action word, "उन्हों ने सेब खाय थे" they ate an apple
In many other sentences in this series, the hai / haim can be dropped: raj के पिता ने सेव खाये. Why not here?
I believe the difference is, when you say "he has eaten" you are talking about his current status of what he has done in the past, therefore you both use खाया and है. If you are speaking strictly past ("he ate") you just use खाया
Why is it खाये instead of खाया? Also, any chance there will be grammar lessons uploaded for these later units?
At first I thought it's because it's the respectful version and you use it because it's referring to the father... but that's wrong.
In the past tense you match the verb to the object. In this case it's "apples" which is masculine plural, so it's खाये. For a singular "apple" it would have been "खाया".
With a verb there's "someone who does it" and "someone who experiences it".
- "Bob slept".
Here Bob did the sleeping. And Bob also experienced the sleeping. (This is an instransitive verb.)
- "Bob hit Steve".
Here Bob did the hitting but Steve experienced being hit. (This is a transitive verb.)
Technically these players are called "Agents" and "Patients".
-
Agent hit Patient.
-
Agent slept.
(Though really, "Subject slept". Subject being both the Agent and the Patient of the verb action being done).
In a sentence like "Bob hit Steve" we assume (in English) that it was Bob that did the hitting action and Steve who received the pain ... but there's nothing in those words to say that's the way it was. In English we just take things from word order.
But in some languages "Bob hit Steve" would be read as Bob receiving Steve's hitting action. And in yet other languages you might write, "Bob Steve hit" or "hit Bob Steve" and then which is what and who?
So, as it would often not be otherwise clear, languages sometimes "mark" who was the agent and/or who was the patient depending on their preferences.
For example, in English we don't write "he hit he" we instead have chosen to "mark" the patient by changing the word "he" to "him": "he hit him". We've changed "he" to "him" to let us know who the patient was. The second guy.
With this rule agreed, we could write "him he hit" or "he him hit" and, despite being structured atypically, you'd still know what was meant.
As another example: with "hit she he" it wouldn't be obvious whether the male threw the punch or the female. However, if we wrote "hit she him" we'd know the male received the punch. If we wrote "hit her he" we'd know the female received the punch.
... and that's because we marked the Patient. In English we draw attention to the person who experienced the verb.
In the Hindi past tense they've decided to mark the Agent instead. They mark the person who enacted the verb.
Both are great choices. :)
In Hindi they mark the Agent with "ne":
-
He-ne hit he.
-
Agent ne hit Patient.
-
Bob ne hit Steve.
-
Raj's father ne has eaten the apples.
Just to be clear, this is different to marking the "subject" or "object" of a sentence. Which is lucky, because focusing on who was the Agent and who was the Patient will make it all a lot more clear.
So, in summary:
"Ne" marks who did the action, and it's done to make things clearer. :)
This is a great explanation. Am i crazy for thinking it has something to do with past tense? Why do i seem to one see ne in the past tense?
[I married into a family of native Hindi speakers, but this is still an amateur explanation. ]
It's used in this past tense, it marks a case on the subject, but only used in this kind of past perfect tense, or whatever past tense this is
He ate/ He has eaten.
She went / She has gone.
The first type go alone, the second type have a "hain". Which is nice, because you just have to remember "more words in English needs more words in Hindi!. :)
है is singular, हैं is plural. Since the verb here agrees with सेब (which is pural), we use हैं. If the sentence was "Raj's father has eaten the apple", we'd use है.
It seems more likely you were asking about the rule for whether it needed either है or a हैं versus neither. (Rather than versus each other). That would seem more likely.
He ate/ He has eaten.
She went / She has gone.
The first version has no है or a हैं. When you say "has" you get a है or a हैं.
For others, the questioner's use of "or" is an "inclusive or" instead of an "exclusive or".
"Wouldn't you like to be rich... or have a fitter body... or have better friends...?"
This can be answered with "yes". "Yes, I'd like one of those, some of those or all of those". It's an "inclusive or".
"I'll grant you one wish. Would you like to be rich or beautiful or have better friends".
This one's an "exclusive or". You only get to choose one.
"Emm... ooohh... hummm... ok I'll have better friends, please. (And thanks.)"
-
राज के पिता ने सेब खाये = Raj’s father ate the apples (simple past)
-
राज के पिता ने सेब खाये हैं = Raj’s father has eaten the apples (past perfect) -> required answer
