"Peter does not have hair on his head."

Translation:पीटर के सिर पर बाल नहीं है।

November 24, 2018

This discussion is locked.

[deactivated user]

    Would पीटर अपने सिर पर बाल नहीं है। be acceptable? Since it says "on his head"?


    No. The pronoun is unnecessary in this case because the literal translation of the Hindi sentence is 'There is no hair on Peter's head'.


    Since hair is plural shouldn't it be hei?


    I assume you mean हैं ('haiñ') vs. है ('hai')?

    As in English, ('your hair is long') it's plural but uncountable (in most everyday usage anyway), so we talk about the 'singular collection if hair' if you like, rather than the plurality of hairs it comprises.


    Thanks for the reply @OJFord. I asked because in other sentences I was surprised to meet hair is considered plural with plural verbs/adjectives.


    पीटर के सिर पर बाल नहीं है़


    Since (given the English, and asked to provide Hindi) Peter is the subject, should the answer not be 'पीटर अपने सिर पर बाल नहीं है'? Asked to do the reverse, translating from the given Hindi solution, I would have written 'There is no hair on Peter's head'.


    There is no way to literally translate the sentence 'Peter does not have hair on his head' into Hindi because Hindi does not have the verb 'to have'.
    So, the sentence पीटर के सिर पर बाल नहीं है। literally meaning 'There is no hair on Peter's head' is used to communicate that.

    Your sentence पीटर अपने सिर पर बाल नहीं है is grammatically incorrect because the verb is still conjugating with बाल while पीटर is left hanging.

    You can say something like पीटर अपने सिर पर बाल नहीं रखता (Peter does not keep hair on his head) but the Hindi sentence, while grammatically sound, sounds just as awkward as its English counterpart. (This is the preferred form in some Hindi dialects, however. See WickeyMuis' comment below).


    Oh that's interesting, and of course makes sense. Many thanks!


    In other lessons, bâl is treated as a plural (like German "Haare" or Italian "capelli" etc.), but here not (because of the singular hai). In German, such a collective use of "Haar" is equally possible but less common in everyday speech. How about Hindi?


    That is just a fact they overlooked. In Hindi "Hair" is almost always plural in sense: Your hair is red/he does not have hair.

    That is the reason many Hindi speakers would reverse translate the sentence to "I have hairs on my head." And when they mean a single strand of hair, they would more likely say: I found a hair here. Because we think of them as a countable noun.


    In this particular case, I would prefer saying: उसके सिर पर एक भी बाल नहीं है

    meaning: He doesn't have a single hair on his head.


    Can में be used instead of पर??


    में means in, पर on


    Baal is plural in Urdu and we call hair ser and not sir ( in punjabi they call it sir). I wonder if it's a mistake or that's how it's in Hindi


    I meant we call head ....


    Why is the trailing है needed? In other negations it can be omitted.


    है can only be omitted from negative sentences when there is another verb in the sentence apart from है. In this example, है is the only verb and cannot be dropped.

    • 1091

    Why it's के, instead of का?

    [deactivated user]

      'on Peter's head' has the postposition पर at the end for the English preposition 'on'. The use of the postposition puts the preceeding word in oblique case. The fact that the word सिर is oblique is not actually visible, because with consonant endings in male singular nouns, direct and oblique case are the same. If you use the genitive postposition का / के / की (= English 's), it agrees with the form of the object that is possessed, i.e. 'head' in this sentence . Since सिर is masculin singular oblique, you need to use के as the respective form. Hope this helps.


      First of all, many thanks to the team for an awesome Hindi class! Is there a reason why बाल is not treated as plural here? For example, मेरे बाल छोटे हैं, where the verb, adjective, and adjectival pronoun show "hair" is plural.


      There is no reason and पीटर के सिर पर बाल नहीं हैं is also a correct sentence.
      It's similar to how you can say both 'Peter doesn't have a single hair on his head' and 'Peter doesn't have any hair on his head' and they both mean the same.


      Question! The reverse translation of this would be "there is no hair on Peter's head". Is there a more accurate way to include "to have"? Maybe like पिटर अमना सिर पर बाल नही रखें हैं ?


      Not in standard Hindi. However, some Hindi dialects do something like that.


      Why isnt पास used


      I think because the translation is more like, "On Peter's head is no hair"

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