"Peacocks do not fly."

Translation:मोर नहीं उड़ते।

October 3, 2018

This discussion is locked.


This statement is not actually true FYI. Peafowl can and do fly, just not far. They can fly up into a tree or onto a roof top and cross a field.


True. I know because i keep finding them on my damn roof


This was going to be my comment!


Correct. And when they fly it is an amazing sight.


Why doesn't the sentence end with Hain?


है/हैं is not necessarily, and generally omitted, in negative sentences.


Yes , but not all the time .There is no rule in hindi to do so and even it could be more familiar if you add हैं in this sentence.


You can add the word " hain -हैं " here and It's more familiar.


More familiar meaning less formal? It seems like I see "hain" included in the Duolingo examples mostly when the plural form would be unclear from the rest of the sentence alone. Is that also a common usage?


Wouldn't मोर नहीं उड़ते होते हैं be more appropriate because the statement applies more broadly?


Q: Why not "habitual" होत or होते ? [as in Duolingo TIPS]

A: Habitual is for adjectives, NOT verbs like उड़ते [in this case]


Verbs can have habitual aspect, but that is उड़ते [हैं] here.

I think discussion about 'habitual' adjectives as if a separate concept complicates it unnecessarily - it's just using the verb 'to be' होना (in the habitual aspect, indicative mood) like any other. उड़ता है, [something] होता है, [something] खाता है, etc.


check the Tips on the topic and see how it applies [in this case] to answer and explain Karl's suggestion. not complicated, just incorrect application of basic Hindi grammar.


I'm not saying Karl is correct, I'm agreeing with you (mostly), I just think it's a confusing way to explain it.

'Habitual adjectives' (it also works with nouns for what it's worth) are not some special case - it's just using the verb होना in the habitual aspect (a property of the verb, not the adjective or noun!) होता है, et al., in exactly the same way as any other verb can be used in the habitual aspect.

You're correct that you can't (/don't need to) attach होता/होते/होती to a verb to make it habitual - but that's because the way you do that is to conjugate it as -ता/-ते/ती + है/हैं in the same way, होना isn't special.

When we say काला होता है for example, we're applying the habitual form of 'to be' to 'black'. It's not grammatically different from applying the habitual form of खाना‍ 'to eat' to 'apple':‍ सेब‍ खाता है for 'eats food'.

It perhaps seems different because standard English doesn't use 'to be' this way. But some dialects do ('I be ...') and I think it's a clearer more direct and correct way to understand the Hindi.


मोर नहिं उदते होत हैं is wrong hindi grammar


Comment section is fun to read as always ^ω^


Isn't मयूर also used in Hindi to refer to a peacock? I reported it.

[deactivated user]

    मयूर एक संस्कृत शब्द है, सामान्यतः हम अपने वाक्यों में 'मोर' शब्द ही प्रयुक्त करते हैं|


    YOu don't need hai when the verb is negative?


    True, but there still has to be a verb in the sentence.
    So if है is the only verb, you need to keep it.


    Dont we use 'hi' in the ending? Peococks is plural but mor is singular ?


    मोर is both the singular and masculine form, so 'peacock' and 'peacocks' is translated the same; in the Hindi we can only tell it's plural from the conjugation of the verb उड़ते (vs. opposite being the case in English).


    Why it's udte and why not udti or udta


    why not udti

    मोर is masculine

    or udta

    'peacocks' is plural


    Actually, pago peacocks can fly. Kids might be learning but their rest of the life they actually might think that peacocks can't fly. Please remove this from page and add peacocks can fly so that they learn things that actually are true.


    Shouldn't "है" come after उड़ते?


    It can be omitted when the verb is negated by नहीं

    Learn Hindi in just 5 minutes a day. For free.