"le jaanaa" would work for a thing; for a person in this situation, it would make it feel more of a burden or that the person is unable to take care of him/herself, etc.; it can also be more rough-sounding when context implies that a person has to be taken somewhere. "le kar/ke jaanaa" feels more involved, more careful (not necessarily caring), when it comes to a person.Also, I feel like there's a slight difference in meaning between le jaanaa and leke/lekar jaanaa, but I'm having trouble pinpointing it precisely... But maybe that's a topic for another thread
It does work, and is very standard. "kal maiN apne computer ko repairing ke liye dukaan le jaa rahaa hooN". You can also say "le ke jaa rahaa hooN", that makes the future more immersive.Thanks.
Is it fair to say in the progressive that le jaanaa doesn't work, even for a thing?
- Tomorrow I'm taking my computer to the store to be repaired.
Kal maiN computer theek karne ke liye dukaan (le ja rahaa huN sounds off, no? Or maybe I am overthinking it). Would leke ja rahaa huN be any better in this context?
so I silly-ly decided in my head that all infinitive stem + progressive jaanaa is disallowed (because actions aren't complete). Along the lines of 'he is dying (not: vo mar jaa rahaa hai, but rather voh mar rahaa hai).It would be based on 'ho jaanaa', wouldn't it? main taiyaar ho jaataa huuN, phir chalte haiN is alright but ho jaa rahaa huuN not. The 'jaanaa' modifier indicates more or less that the action is completed (likewise denaa, lenaa, chhoRnaa, baiThnaa etc when made into 'intensive' verbs) so the present continuous tense is incompatible with 'ho jaanaa'.