"Raj's father has eaten the apples."
Translation:राज के पिता ने सेब खाये हैं।
32 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
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.
(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. :)
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.)"