Friends,
This subject has been touched upon in threads like this one, but I would like to approach it in a more analytical way.
The 2 sentences below use the verb bolnaa, which is often used by grammars as an example of a verb that can be interpreted transitively or intransitively according to the presence or absence of complements:
1. bachchaa bolaa hai = "The boy has spoken"
2. bachhe ne jhuut bolaa hai = 'The boy has told lies"
The following 2 sentences use the verb sunnaa, with and without an object:
3. 3aurat ne meraa savaal nahiiN sunaa = "The woman has not heard/listened to my question"
4. 3aurat ne nahiiN sunaa = "The woman has not listened/heard"
The first thing I would like to know is, of course, if the sentences are grammatically correct, and if they mean what I think they mean.
If they are correct, then it would seem that some verbs have a "presumption of transitivity" stronger than other verbs, independently of the presence of an object. Specifically, sunna would have a stronger said presumption of transitivity than bolnaa.
So, my second question is:
Does #4 sound natural to native speakers? Do you feel that the object is "there", but it has not been expressed because it is known elsewhere or it is obvious from previous speech?
And finally, how would you manage to use sunna to express the (in my eyes, intransitive) ability of hearing, the sense of hearing (or lack thereof), rather than listening "to" anything in particular?
In other words how would you complete this sentence:
5. ye 3aurat bahrii hai. jab vo 2 sal kii thii, tab se ...
- us_ne nahiiN sunaa ?
- vo nahiiN sunii ?
Thanks in advance for any answers or comments.
This subject has been touched upon in threads like this one, but I would like to approach it in a more analytical way.
The 2 sentences below use the verb bolnaa, which is often used by grammars as an example of a verb that can be interpreted transitively or intransitively according to the presence or absence of complements:
1. bachchaa bolaa hai = "The boy has spoken"
2. bachhe ne jhuut bolaa hai = 'The boy has told lies"
The following 2 sentences use the verb sunnaa, with and without an object:
3. 3aurat ne meraa savaal nahiiN sunaa = "The woman has not heard/listened to my question"
4. 3aurat ne nahiiN sunaa = "The woman has not listened/heard"
The first thing I would like to know is, of course, if the sentences are grammatically correct, and if they mean what I think they mean.
If they are correct, then it would seem that some verbs have a "presumption of transitivity" stronger than other verbs, independently of the presence of an object. Specifically, sunna would have a stronger said presumption of transitivity than bolnaa.
So, my second question is:
Does #4 sound natural to native speakers? Do you feel that the object is "there", but it has not been expressed because it is known elsewhere or it is obvious from previous speech?
And finally, how would you manage to use sunna to express the (in my eyes, intransitive) ability of hearing, the sense of hearing (or lack thereof), rather than listening "to" anything in particular?
In other words how would you complete this sentence:
5. ye 3aurat bahrii hai. jab vo 2 sal kii thii, tab se ...
- us_ne nahiiN sunaa ?
- vo nahiiN sunii ?
Thanks in advance for any answers or comments.