"नेहा कभी नहीं रोती।"
Translation:Neha never cries.
14 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
How do you say 'Neha sometimes doesn't cry' then?
Before this sentence came up, I thought this was the way - कभी नहीं [verb] - no है, like the नहीं is coupled with the verb, so कभी stands alone; vs कभी नहीं [verb] है where कभी नहीं can be considered phrasal, never.
Best I can think is quite contrived - नेहा कभी रोना नहीं करती [with or without है]।
Is there any way to distinguish never and sometimes doesn't without changing the verb to करना?
Sometimes is कभी-कभी . According to Google translate (and I might actually agree with it on this): नेहा कभी-कभी रोती नहीं है Neha sometimes doesn't cry.
But GT doesn't keeps it in simple tense when I try to make it continuous: Sometimes Neha is not crying: कभी नेहा रोती नहीं है
And this is the current limit of my knowledge.
I guess the problem has to do with the differences in consonants with English. In English we have only one pronunciation of 't'. In Sanskrit and Hindi there are something like 4 different pronunciations, depending on the exact position of the lips, tongue, and throat. 'To cry' and 'bread' sound the same in English. I'm guessing that a native Hindi speaker could not possibly confuse 'to cry' with 'bread'.
Yes, ट (as in रोटी, the bread) has your tongue curled back on the roof of your mouth, त (as in रोती, cries (f.)) is dental.
If you say them aloud to yourself I think you'll find they sound quite different. Our English 't' is somewhere in the middle to my ear (/tongue!) but at least to native Hindi speakers, arguably closer to ट; hence that one's used for loanwords, e.g. टमाटर।
Thank you for this! But as a native English speaker, I can assure you that त is almost exactly how we say the letter T, just at the top of the teeth, and definitely not with the tongue curled back to add high-pitched white noise to the "t" sound, as in ट or the two "tha" sounds. English speakers cannot hear (distinguish) many of the unique consonants in Sanskrit, Hindi, and Mandarin. Not that English is nicely phonetic, like Spanish, but just that the great variety of English phonemes are different from Hindi and Mandarin (Mandarin is rich, with 409 different phonemes and hundreds of thousands of commonly-used word-syllable characters.)
What OJFord meant to say is that native Hindi speakers hear the English 't' (which is pronounced with the tongue behind the teeth but not touching it like for त) as being similar (to the point of almost being indistinguishable) to ट.
This is the reason that some Indian English speakers use the ट sound for 't'.
You are right that to native (non-subcontinental) English speakers, त sounds closer to the English 't' that ट.
मैं भी native English speaker! Just learning here too. As Vinay says, I meant how it sounds to native Hindi speakers (which I am not).
To this Englishman's ear, 't' is neither as toothy as त nor as .. I don't know how to describe that 'echoy' quality of the reflexive sounds - as ट।
Certainly when I say the 't' in 'certain' for example, my tongue is touching the gum behind my incisors; not actually against the teeth. I believe it's called an 'alveolar consonant'.
By contrast, त is a 'dental consonant'; your tongue should actually be touching the back of your teeth. It also (comparing Hindi I hear to English I speak) seems more plosive to me.
I don't think it's just silly nitpicking, aside from finding it interesting, I found that studying the vowels & consonants tables here , and practising (even exaggerating) what my tongue etc. should be doing, helped me not only speak better but also hear the difference more clearly, and get the spelling right as a result.
Your latest post may indeed be correct. I have never been able to understand the directions for making the Sanskrit or Hindi consonants, and I have no idea what native Hindi speakers make of English phonemes. Judging by TV shows, there exists a more or less standard English pronunciation that we can all understand and speak. I'm learning Hindi after having learned some basic Sanskrt, so I think I understand a little about the differences with English, but I could certainly be wrong! The use of technical linguistic terms leaves my mind spinning.