"Those children are standing."
Translation:वे बच्चे खड़े हैं।
11 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Why is it that for the word खड़े, we do not need raha to indicate the present tense of the noun:
Why is the translation "These children are standing" and not "These children stand" ?
खड़ा (खड़े when plural) is an adjective and not a verb. You can't conjugate it like verbs. It just means that the state of the subject is that they are standing.
You can combine it with the verb होना('to be') to make 'खड़ा होना' but this verb refers to the action of standing up.
So, the present continuous form 'मैं खड़ा हो रहा हूँ।' means that I am in the process of standing up.
बैठना ('to sit') is a verb but it is used somewhat similarly. The present perfect form 'मैं बैठा हूँ' means that I am seated (which is what is usually meant by the sentence 'I am sitting'). The present continuous form 'मैं बैठ रहा हूँ' means that I am in the process of sitting down.
Why is it that वे बच्चियाँ खड़ी हैं not accepted? Is बच्चियाँ not an acceptable plural form of बच्ची? वे बच्चियाँ खड़े हैं didn't work either, but I suspect that the conjugation is incorrect anyhow
वे बच्चियाँ खड़ी हैं should have been accepted. You can report if you see the sentence again.
बच्ची is the singular form. बच्चियाँ is the plural.
Note: All feminine nouns have plural forms that are different from the singular forms.
Since they are standing, can we say वे बच्चे खड़ रहे हैं। I tried and it is wrong. Is it?
No. खड़ा is not a verb (unlike 'stand' in English) so it cannot be conjugated like one.
It is actually an adjective. You can think of it as 'upright'.