I noticed when I took the Delhi metro last month that the order of the
list of people to give up your seat for is given in the exact opposite
order in Hindi vs. English.
First of all, could someone in Delhi who's taken the Metro please
confirm what the exact sentences are? I think the English was, "Please
give up your seat for women, the elderly, and the
handicapped." (though I might have that 100% reversed--i.e. it might
be "... for the handicapped, the elderly and for woman").
Then, I can't remember the Hindi sentence, but I remember the list was
reversed: ... handicapped, elderly, and then woman) seat de.n" (or
reversed if I got the English reversed)
It got me to thinking that they had really done a good job with the
translation of this, because it seems to me that the order ought to be
reversed between these two languages. In English, the order is a)
following the verb and in order of increasing importance--giving up
your seat for the handicapped is more important than for elderly, and
elderly is more important than for woman (but if I got the order
reversed, then it would be in order of decreasing importance).
Whereas, I'd bet dimes to dollars (or 100 Rs notes :-) that the order
in Hindi ought to be reversed for the most natural translation.
> I noticed when I took the Delhi metro last month that the order of the
> list of people to give up your seat for is given in the exact opposite
> order in Hindi vs. English.
> First of all, could someone in Delhi who's taken the Metro please
> confirm what the exact sentences are? I think the English was, "Please
> give up your seat for women, the elderly, and the
> handicapped." (though I might have that 100% reversed--i.e. it might
> be "... for the handicapped, the elderly and for woman").
> Then, I can't remember the Hindi sentence, but I remember the list was
> reversed: ... handicapped, elderly, and then woman) seat de.n" (or
> reversed if I got the English reversed)
> It got me to thinking that they had really done a good job with the
> translation of this, because it seems to me that the order ought to be
> reversed between these two languages. In English, the order is a)
> following the verb and in order of increasing importance--giving up
> your seat for the handicapped is more important than for elderly, and
> elderly is more important than for woman (but if I got the order
> reversed, then it would be in order of decreasing importance).
> Whereas, I'd bet dimes to dollars (or 100 Rs notes :-) that the order
> in Hindi ought to be reversed for the most natural translation.
Interesting observation. From my experience I would say that in Hindi
normally a list like that is written in the decreasing order of
importance. But I thought it would be the same in English too. Can you
cite some sources which can explain the English order or have some
traditional examples (preferably from formal text)?
I don't know of anything published, but it was something I was
thinking about in an earlier thread (http://groups.google.com/group/ hindi/browse_thread/thread/ad9e7fb62b2810f1/42fceed9621ec1a3?
lnk=gst&q=order#42fceed9621ec1a3), which had to do with the order of
constituents in Hindi being based on the Principle of Natural
Information Flow.
When I see (what I understand to be good) translations from Hindi to
English, it seems to me that to get the correct English order, you
read the Hindi in this order: subject, then verb, and then read
backwards from the verb towards the subject... here's a few examples:
मैंने रामको गैंद दिया
'I gave the ball to Ram' (spoken when the focus is on *what* was
given)
मैंने गैंद रामको दिया
'I gave Ram the ball' (spoken when the focus is on *to whom* it was
given)
मैंने आँगन में रामको गैंद दिया
'I gave the ball to Ram in the courtyard'
मैंने रामको आँगन में गैंद दिया
'I gave the ball in the courtyard to Ram' (???)
मैंने रामको गैंद आँगन में दिया
'I gave in the courtyard the ball to Ram'
This last one creates odd English when following my rule of thumb, but
in Hindi it is very naturally said when the new/non-established
information is not to whom (i.e. Ram) or what was given (i.e. the
ball), but rather *where* it was given (i.e. in the courtyard).
To get more natural English, you'd probably have to front the location
phrase (i.e. 'In the courtyard I gave the ball to Ram') and/or use a
cleft construction (i.e. 'It was in the courtyard that I gave the ball
to Ram').
Anyway, based on this principle I thought it made sense that the order
of constituents in a list would also be reversed... as mentioned in
the first post.
However, when I think about a list of indirect objects like the
following, it seems to me that you are right and they should be
translated from left to right:
मैंने राम, शयाम, और ठाम को गैंद दिए।
'I gave balls to Ram, Shyam and Thom'.
What about a list of direct objects?
मैंने रामको रोटी, चावल, और सब्ज़ी दी।
'I gave bread, rice, and vegetables to Ram'.
which would be a counter-examples to my original hypothesis. Although,
maybe it only works when the list is internally ordered in increasing
or decreasing order of importance... (whereas 'Ram, Shyam and Thom'
and 'bread, rice, and vegetables' are probably internally equivalent
to each other, that might not be the case with 'women, the elderly,
and the handicapped').
Anyway, I still would like to see the Delhi Metro examples if anyone
in Delhi can confirm them :-)
Bob
On Mar 18, 8:26 am, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 7:06 pm, Bob Eaton <pete_dembrow...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting observation. From my experience I would say that in Hindi
> normally a list like that is written in the decreasing order of
> importance. But I thought it would be the same in English too. Can you
> cite some sources which can explain the English order or have some
> traditional examples (preferably from formal text)?
This is really an interesting observation, but I do not agree that the
order needs to be (or should be) reversed while translating. I have
not yet had a chance to ride the Metro, and would wait for someone to
confirm your observation, which I am sure is correct. But I do not
agree that such a reversal of order has any basis in grammar or
general usage.
I did search for pictures on flickr.com but in the few dozen I checked
I couldn't find detailed pictures of the interior.
Unrelated, but your sentences below should be ... मैंने राम को ...
गेंद दी।
Note the spelling of गेंद, its gender (generally faminine) and the
space between राम and को.
Regards,
- Raman
On 18 मार्च, 15:21, Bob Eaton <pete_dembrow...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know of anything published, but it was something I was
> thinking about in an earlier thread (http://groups.google.com/group/ > hindi/browse_thread/thread/ad9e7fb62b2810f1/42fceed9621ec1a3?
> lnk=gst&q=order#42fceed9621ec1a3), which had to do with the order of
> constituents in Hindi being based on the Principle of Natural
> Information Flow.
> When I see (what I understand to be good) translations from Hindi to
> English, it seems to me that to get the correct English order, you
> read the Hindi in this order: subject, then verb, and then read
> backwards from the verb towards the subject... here's a few examples:
> मैंने रामको गैंद दिया
> 'I gave the ball to Ram' (spoken when the focus is on *what* was
> given)
> मैंने गैंद रामको दिया
> 'I gave Ram the ball' (spoken when the focus is on *to whom* it was
> given)
> मैंने आँगन में रामको गैंद दिया
> 'I gave the ball to Ram in the courtyard'
> मैंने रामको आँगन में गैंद दिया
> 'I gave the ball in the courtyard to Ram' (???)
> मैंने रामको गैंद आँगन में दिया
> 'I gave in the courtyard the ball to Ram'
> This last one creates odd English when following my rule of thumb, but
> in Hindi it is very naturally said when the new/non-established
> information is not to whom (i.e. Ram) or what was given (i.e. the
> ball), but rather *where* it was given (i.e. in the courtyard).
> To get more natural English, you'd probably have to front the location
> phrase (i.e. 'In the courtyard I gave the ball to Ram') and/or use a
> cleft construction (i.e. 'It was in the courtyard that I gave the ball
> to Ram').
> Anyway, based on this principle I thought it made sense that the order
> of constituents in a list would also be reversed... as mentioned in
> the first post.
> However, when I think about a list of indirect objects like the
> following, it seems to me that you are right and they should be
> translated from left to right:
> मैंने राम, शयाम, और ठाम को गैंद दिए।
> 'I gave balls to Ram, Shyam and Thom'.
> What about a list of direct objects?
> मैंने रामको रोटी, चावल, और सब्ज़ी दी।
> 'I gave bread, rice, and vegetables to Ram'.
> which would be a counter-examples to my original hypothesis. Although,
> maybe it only works when the list is internally ordered in increasing
> or decreasing order of importance... (whereas 'Ram, Shyam and Thom'
> and 'bread, rice, and vegetables' are probably internally equivalent
> to each other, that might not be the case with 'women, the elderly,
> and the handicapped').
> Anyway, I still would like to see the Delhi Metro examples if anyone
> in Delhi can confirm them :-)
> Bob
> On Mar 18, 8:26 am, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 7:06 pm, Bob Eaton <pete_dembrow...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting observation. From my experience I would say that in Hindi
> > normally a list like that is written in the decreasing order of
> > importance. But I thought it would be the same in English too. Can you
> > cite some sources which can explain the English order or have some
> > traditional examples (preferably from formal text)?
On Mar 18, 1:41 pm, Raman <raman.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unrelated, but your sentences below should be ... मैंने राम को ... > गेंद दी।
Quite, but they should be so only because Bob has indicated via his translations to English of the sentences in question that राम was in fact given a ball. Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong, technically, with saying "मैंने आँगन में राम को गैंद दिया".
मैंने ख़ुद अपने एक दोस्त को -- संदल की लकड़ी का बना -- गैंद दे रखा है :)
> On Mar 18, 1:41 pm, Raman <raman.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unrelated, but your sentences below should be ... मैंने राम को ... > > गेंद दी।
> Quite, but they should be so only because Bob has indicated via his > translations to English of the sentences in question that राम was in > fact given a ball. Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong, > technically, with saying "मैंने आँगन में राम को गैंद दिया".
> मैंने ख़ुद अपने एक दोस्त को -- संदल की लकड़ी का बना -- गैंद दे रखा है :)
I was simply trying to say that absent the (externally supplied) contextual clarification that गैंद was supposed to refer to "ball" in Bob's sentences, there is no way to confidently assert that मैंने राम को गैंद दिया is incorrect Hindi, or that it should in fact be मैंने राम को गेंद दी...
-UVR.
On May 1, 9:59 pm, Kaul <raman.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please clarify what you are trying to say. > In the quoted part of my message, my purpose was only to say the > following three things:
> - गेंद, and not गैंद is the standard spelling > - गेंद is normally feminine, therefore दी > - राम को, and not रामको, is standard usage
> I have seen गेंद used as masculine also, but is there a standard > usage? > I could not connect what you were saying with the quoted part of my > message.
> - Raman
> On Apr 30, 9:36 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 1:41 pm, Raman <raman.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Unrelated, but your sentences below should be ... मैंने राम को ... > > > गेंद दी।
> > Quite, but they should be so only because Bob has indicated via his > > translations to English of the sentences in question that राम was in > > fact given a ball. Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong, > > technically, with saying "मैंने आँगन में राम को गैंद दिया".
> > मैंने ख़ुद अपने एक दोस्त को -- संदल की लकड़ी का बना -- गैंद दे रखा है :)
|
