Theory #4 - Nepali Particles - Lai And Le - Theory

Front 1

Particle: लाई (lai)

Back 1

It marks the indirect object (dative marker). it shows where the action’s effect takes place. Can also be translated to : for, to.

Front 2

विद्यार्थी (bidyarthi): Student

पुस्तकालय (pushtakaalaya) : Library

खेलौना (khelauna) : Toys

Take the following sentence:

I will build the students a new library.

In that sentence, the students is the indirect object. If we translate this to Nepali:

मविद्यार्थीहरुलाई नयाँ पुस्तकालय बनाइदिन्छु। (ma bidhyarthiharu lai naya pustakaalaya banaidinchu)

Back 2

We can see that ‘लाई' marks the indirect object 'बिध्यार्थीहरु’ (which means students). Just to know, indirect objects are those words which the action of the doer falls upon. So that means that ‘lai’ shows who is taking the action of the doer. This is opposite to ‘le’ which shows who is doing the action.

Front 3

Let’s take another sentence:

तिमीले मलाई पानी दियौ। (timile malai pani diyau)

You gave me water.

Back 3

मलाई is actually म + लाई. As usual, ‘म’ is the indirect object. Can also be rephrased to : You gave water to me.

Front 4

मैले मेरो भाइलाई खेलौना किन्देको छु। (maile mero bhai lai khelauna kindeko chu)

I bought toys for my brother.

Back 4

My brother is the indirect object, therefore भाइ (bhai; brother) is followed by ला

Front 5

I have noticed one thing that the indirect object can take prepositions to and for if we rephrase it. The opposite is also true. Therefore, if we rephrase the english sentence, it can also be : I bought my brother toys. Yet, my brother still remains an indirect object.

Back 5

There is also another thing, some verbs like ‘to meet’, ‘to ask’, take an take an indirect object, though their English counterparts do not:

मैले मेरो साथीहरुलाई बाटोमा भेटे। (maile mero sathiharu lai batoma bhete)

I met my friends on the road.

Front 6

It can also be used to mark a direct object if the direct object is definite. But since definiteness is virtually absent in Nepali due to lack of articles, sentences like : 'I saw a boy' and 'I saw the boy' can be both translated to the same word: केटालाई देखे! (ketalai dekhe)

Back 6

Further examples:

घरले घामलाई छेक्यो। (gharle gham lai chekyo)

The House blocked the Sun.

तिमीले झ्याललाई फुटाइद्योउ! (timile jhyaal lai phutaidyou!)

You shattered the window!

Front 7

लाई can also be :to or for:

इसकिलाई (isaki lai)

For Isaki

घरलाई (ghar lai)

To the house

Back 7

Note: लाई is usually omitted in sentences when lai modifies the direct object, like:

इसकिले भात (लाई) खायो। (isaki le bhat (lai) khayo)

Isaki ate rice

Front 8

SUMMARY:

Lai is used to mark indirect objects. In short words, it points out who is receiving the doer’s action.
Lai is also used to mark direct objects but this is usually optional
Lai can be translated to : to, for

Back 8

-

Front 9

EXERCISE:

Where will the right particle go?

1. Isaki _ Hari _ pustak diyo. (lai, le)

(Isaki gave Hari a book)

2. Hami _ bus _ ghar _ purayo. (le, lai, samma)

(The bus took us till home)

Back 9

ANSWERS:

1. le, lai

2. lai, le, samma

Front 10

Particle: ले (le)

Back 10

Before, we learnt how to mark indirect objects. Now let’s learn how to mark subjects.

It serves as an instrumental and ergative marker, in its latter capacity it is applied to the subject obligatorily in the transitive perfective/ perfect and optionally in other transitive aspects.

In simple words, the subject it modifies achieves an action on something (i.e. it shows the action-doer) and is used in sentences having transitive verbs (Intransitives don’t take le).

Front 11

1st Use: To show the doer of an action

The main use is to show that the subject it modifies does an action on something. This is reverse to ‘lai’, which shows who receives the action.

Back 11

रामले सितालाई कुट्यो (ram le sitalai kutyo)

Ram beat Sita

This shows that the action (to beat) is done by the doer Ram. As a side note the action (to beat) is being received by Sita, which is denoted by ‘lai’.

मैले सितालाई १० दिये (maile sitalai 10 diye)

I gave Sita 10

This shows that the action (to give) is done by doer ‘Ma’. Words like ‘ma’ get changed when you add ‘le’ to them. More in the bottom.

Front 12

2nd Use: to indicate the instrument (of an action):

Take the following sentence:

मार्तोलले सिसालाई फुटायो। (martol le sisa lai phutayo)

The hammer shattered the glass.

Back 12

We know what the lai particle does. In this case lai is marking a definite direct object, that’s why i wrote ‘the glass’ and not ‘a glass’. (for more info. about lai, click here)

Now, how did the glass shatter? What shattered it? Here is where the le particle comes to play. Since the subject is the hammer, le modifies it and the subject achieves an action on the object it affects, in this case, the glass. The le particle shows that the action the subject is doing affects the object. But of course, the sentence would be incomplete without the verb. So, the le particle points out that the action (verb) is being done to the object.

Front 13

Another sentence:

आगोले पोल्छ (aago le polcha)

Fire burns (the skin)

'पोल्छ' in this sense means to make a burn in the skin. Now, if we write ‘आगो' then what does the fire do? It burns! So, the 'le' is showing that the fire’s action (to burn) is being achieved on the object (the skin) with the verb acting as the action that is being done. So, if we replace पोल्छ with जलाउछ, what will the result be? Why don’t you try to guess?

Back 13

Last Sentence:

इसकिले कागजलाई काट्यो । (Isaki le kagaj lai katyo)

Isaki cut the paper.

Here, Isaki (subject) does work on the paper (the direct object) by cutting (action).

If paper is the direct object, then why is the indirect object marker used? This is because, like earlier explained, lai can also be used to mark direct object if it is definite.

The main role of le is the one above, because ’le’ shows that the word it modifies achieves an action on something.

Front 14

3rd use: It can indicate the cause, reason or circumstance of an action. In this case, it is followed by ‘garda’ :

रामले गर्दा सीता रोयी। (ram le garda sita royi)

Because of Ram, Sita cried

But the catch is, Ram still did work which, in this case, denoted by ‘garda’. These two send the sense of ‘because of’.

Let’s look at other sentences:

Back 14

A Sentence:

मैले मँगाको खाना नै आएन। (maile mangaako khaanaa nai aayena)

The food I ordered hasn’t arrived (yet).

मँगाको खाना is treated as one word while नै is like an emphasis. Now, le here modifies मँगाको खाना because you accomplished an action (by ordering food). What about आएन? It is to show the something’s (the ordered food) state to you. Since it hasn’t arrived, the something’s state of existence (or rather, arrival) is negative. So even if you remove the नै आएन, the sentence would make sense as ‘The food I ordered’ although it’s state of existence is unknown.

Front 15

Now, what if the sentence has two le’s? Let’s see an example below:

A Sentence:

इसकिले भनेको कुरा नै मैले बुझिन (isaki le bhaneko kura nai maile bujhina)

I didn’t understand (a) thing Isaki said

Back 15

Yes, I have poorly translated here, on purpose. Anyways, The words ‘भनेको कुरा’ is treated as one here, and it translates to ‘said thing’. Now, what did Isaki do that the listener didn’t understand? Please note that ‘मैले’ is usually eliminated here. So, from above examples, we can say that the subject (Isaki) did something that the speaker happened to do something. What did they do? The first ‘Le' modifies the word 'भनेको कुरा’ and the second modifies ‘बुझेन’. So, the speaker didn’t understand ( मैले बुझेन) the thing Isaki said (इसकिले भनेको कुरा). To be clear, Isaki achieved an action (to say something) and the speaker heard it and achieved another action (to not understand). Understand?

Front 16

Let’s make more sentences:

मुखले खान्छ (mukh le khancha)

(The) mouth eats

Here, le shows that the mouth does the ‘eating’.

Note that we can NEVER attach le if the sentence has no direct objects. For example, a sentence with no direct object will be: He died. If we translate this to Nepali, it will be : उ मर्यो। (no le). So, we conclude that le cannot be attached to sentences which do not have direct objects.

Back 16

Like mentioned earlier, it is obligatory to attach ‘le' to transitive perfectives. We know what ‘perfect’ is in grammar. So the rule is, we should always attach 'le' to perfectives. Example: मैले भात खाएको छु । This means ‘I have eaten rice’. Since this is a perfective sentence, it took the ‘le’ particle in it’s nepali counterpart. Therefore, when we make perfective sentences, we should always add lai to it’s subject.

Before, I had said that some words get modified when you attach le. These words are म (ma; I), तँ (ta; rude version of you) and ऊ (uu; him) . When you add le to them, they become मैले (maile), तैले (taile) and उसले (usle) respectively.

So that is pretty much everything Le does!

Front 17

SUMMARY

Le modifies the subject to show that the subject achieved an action on something (the object). In simple words, it shows the doer of an action. This is reverse to ‘lai’ which shows who receives the action done by the doer.
Le is applied to indicate the instrument of an action
Le is mandatory to attach to the subject if the verb is in perfect tense.
Le is not used if the verb is intransitive or has no direct object.
Le is also conjoined with ‘garda’ to convey a sense of ‘because of’
Sometimes, words change when ‘le’ is attached. They are ma, ta and uu.

Back 17

-

Front 18

EXERCISE:


FILL IN WITH EITHER LE OR LAI:

1. Mai _ garda (because of me)

2. Isaki _ kagaj _ phyalo. (Isaki threw the paper)

3. Gham _ polcha. (Sun burns)

4. Isaki _ pakaeko khana pahuna _ deu. (Give the food Isaki cooked to the guests)

5. Ma _ kukur _ tokyo. (the dog bit me)

Back 18

ANSWERS:

1. le

2. le, lai

3. le

4. le, lai

5. lai, le