Talk:पलटाना

I don't think the reflexive/intransitive makes sense as a separate definition. As I understand it, that only happens explicitly in passive constructions with, e.g. . As for , the is implicit, so there is an object and it is transitive still. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 17:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You are not wrong but there certainly are some verbs which behave reflexively even without the added after them. One good example will be: . However, there are verbs in this very category which behave differently. For example,  also belongs to the same verb class as  however it cannot be / is not used reflexively like . I am making a list of verbs and sorting them in the google sheet I linked before to understand what exactly is the pattern behind it. I'll ping you once I am more clear with what is happening here.


 * can be used both transitively and intransitively. The here is not implied because adding that changes the meaning/nuance of the sentence. It adds the nuance of the intentionality of the action which is absent without it. For example,   and  show different verb agreement patterns depending on whether the  is used or not. If it were implied, it wouldn't have actually changed the verb agreement pattern, and also the in the 2nd sentence it is being emphasised that the car was driven and not anything else, kind of. In general, we can't say that the reflexive pronoun is implied there.


 * Combining my above two points, &  mean different things, or at least are not used interchangeably.

However, do tell me if I understood wrong what you mentioned. —Itsmeyash31 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this analysis. A transitive verb takes a direct object. In both of those examples with, the direct object of the verb is . The verb is transitive in both cases. You're right that verb agreement functions differently due to the introduction of , but is an optional direct object marker. To be precise, it is required only for animate objects, for inanimate objects it indicates definiteness and saliency. So:
 * The focus is on the act of driving the car being done by him.
 * The focus is on him driving one specific car.
 * It's a very nuanced difference, yes, but both of them clearly have the car as the direct object. Without, it can be said that is in an unmarked accusative case, or the noun adjunct of the verb. Either way, there's a direct object.
 * One important thing to note is that verb agreement in Hindi is very flexible. It doesn't tell us much about who the object is and who the subject is. So, e.g. vs. . It's obvious that semantically, the car is the direct object, but they display different verb agreements. Naturally, this doesn't mean subjecthood/objecthood are not indicated in Hindi grammatically, it's just we need to look for different criteria for it than verb agreement. The subject in Hindi always controls reflexives, for one.
 * So, I'm not sure these kinds of verbs can be analyzed as intransitive. There's some implicit object in . —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 01:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You are right. I agree with your first part. Yes, the sentences I gave doesn't really explain what I wanted to explain. However, I can provide some examples to show that the 3rd class of verbs (the -आना ending verbs) can behave both reflexively/intransitively and transitively. Let's take the verb . Now, if I construct a sentence, e.g., it could only be translated as "You will get yourself sold" or "You will get sold" (if you know Spanish, "te vas a vender") which are reflexive sentences. It has a reflexive meaning. Many verbs of the 3rd class/category have dual functions and some verbs of that class are used as only reflexive, some only as transitive and some as both. The verb is an example of a verb where the same verb can be used as both transitive and reflexive. And, finally,  is an example of a verb which can only be transitive and never reflexive.


 * 1)  — You will get (yourself) sold.
 * 2)   — Those things will get sold today itself.
 * 3)  — You will get (yourself) flipped over. / You will get (someone/something) flipped over.
 * 4)  — You will get (yourself) beaten.
 * 5)  — You will make (someone/something) do.


 * The sentence can never have any direct object attached to it, not even . If we use  the sentence becomes  which is grammatically wrong. The correct sentence would be . Which does supports my claim that the 3rd category of verbs can be used in a reflexive manner. I'll make a list of all verbs of the 3rd category which can be used in a reflexive manner soon, in the same google sheet.


 * The grammar of the 3rd category of verbs of Hindi is the same as that of English verbs. One cannot really just by looking know which ones are reflexive, which ones transitive and which can be used like both. example in English:


 * 1) Bird flies. — He flies (itself.)
 * 2) He flies an aeroplane.
 * 3) The man broke the glass and the glass broke. («broke» in «broke the glass» is transitive but is reflexive/intransitive in «the glass broke.»)


 * However, I must say this reflexive form of verbs is more commonly used in the eastern dialects of Hindi than the western and northern ones. I am from the east but live in the north so I use it natively but don't notice it being used in the north much, so that is how I know. But do tell me if these examples are clear, or if you find some flaws again in my argument. —Itsmeyash31 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)