So I don't believe that Hindi differs from Urdu on this point.
Last edited by marrish; 22nd February 2013 at 12:05 PM. Reason: add Urdu
Meanwhile, in the manner of speaking, it should be rather "parmaatmaa".
terii aaNkhoN ke sivaa dunyaa meN rakhaa kyaa hai!?
What is there in the whole world, apart from your eyes!?
You might say..
mere John, tere baaloN ke sivaa dunyaa meN rakhaa kyaa hai!? meraa ghar! jo tumhaare baaloN meN hai!
Amongst this list, the only word that is in the vocative case is "rabbaa" which is not part of either Hindi or Urdu grammar. If it were there would be other vocatives formed on the same pattern. This is based on Punjabi grammar and xudaayaa is based on Persian vocative pattern.
The word is ammaaN, not ammaa. As it happens, neither is in the vocative case. It would be a joke or height of ignorance to state that baabaa, abbaa, parmaatmaa (may be we should include other non-declinable words ending in -aa such as daryaa as well here) are in the vocative case. One can use them as such where he/ai/are/o etc is understood but the -aa in them has nothing to do with the -aa in rabb-aa. When this -aa is removed, the basic word still remains. In other cases mentioned, we would be left with baab (door and chapter in Urdu), amm, abb, parmaatm, dary.
^ I prefer to state rather that these words do not decline in the vocative case, but when you say "O parmaatmaa", then "parmaatmaa" is being directly addressed to and is in the vocative case. That no change is occurring from its nominative form is something that I've already said before: I see no joke. The word "Urdu" comes from Turkish, that doesn't make it less Urdu; where "rabbaa" comes from is none of the concerns here: the word exists in spoken and written language (Hindi).
As far as "amma(N)" is concerned, it's "ammaa" that is far more common than "ammaN": it's also a joke that you continue to disregard the language as it is.
The argument is quite clear. Whether someone wishes to accept it or not, that is another matter. Neither Hindi nor Urdu have a vocative case that ends in "-aa". For a learner of Urdu/Hindi, as is the case with the OP, giving her "haay rabbaa" as a Hindi translation for "Oh my God.." implies that either "rabbaa" means "My God", which it does n't or that it is "God” in the vocative case, which it is. But this “-aa” case ending for the vocative is NOT part of Hindi (or indeed Urdu) language structure. However hard one tries to accommodate “ammaa” and “abbaa” as samples of Hindi vocative, one is left with no choice but to have a hearty laugh and reject them!“There are numerous words ending in -aa in Hindi in vocative, even if the words themselves come from different sources: "ammaa", "abbaa", "rabbaa", "baabaa", etc..
It is not surprising that when requested, none of the Hindi speakers have come up with written examples of this usage and the best that has been offered is..“The word "Urdu" comes from Turkish, that doesn't make it less Urdu; where "rabbaa" comes from is none of the concerns here: the word exists in spoken and written language (Hindi).”
Well, if one makes a claim then it should not be incumbent upon other people to substantiate it. Besides, Bollywood songs are not a written source. Not only this, we know what language these songs and the screenplay are in. Let’s us quote a participant from this thread.“You would find many Bollywood songs for that; do you really wish me to do the searching for you?”
Let us quote another participant.“As for Bollywood being a linguistic neutral ground - I would disagree. Bollywood Hindi is more or less Urdu, with a few words like "svikar" or "hinsak" thrown around. Bollywood is trying to market mainly to native Hindi speakers, Pakistanis and Punjabis (and perhaps to a minimal extent, Middle Easterners). Urdu is the de facto language of the business. Besides, Bollywood is not popular in South India. (souminwé)”
I don’t know what the connection of “rabbaa” as a vocative is with “Urdu” as a word being of Turkish origins or indeed Hindi, as a word, being of Persian origins! One ends in "-uu" and the other in "-ii". Neither in "-aa".“Bollywood is of course not at all reflective of language in India! Not even of India!”
I respect Wolverine9 for calling a spade a spade and his/her description of Hindi as “a type of creole” is quite apt for “the language as it is”. Perhaps he/she was over kind in using even this term!“As far as "amma(N)" is concerned, it's "ammaa" that is far more common than "ammaN": it's also a joke that you continue to disregard the language as it is.”
Last edited by Qureshpor; 24th February 2013 at 8:45 PM.
^ Actually, I was referring to Hinglish as a type of creole.
I think this discussion might be deviating from what the OP had in mind.
If you watch a film like, say, "Jab We Met" (note the title itself), most of the dialogues are in that kitsch of Hindi and English - and this is not something contrived, but the actual way most Indians, especially urban Indians (note that urban doesn't mean "metropolitan cities" but small towns, too) but also the rest, speak.
A higher level of initiation to the mysteries of searching on the Net, if it you haven't reached there yet: the results should be approached critically since it is no Oracle whose judgments are to be accepted without discrimination. I left this privilege of separating the wheat from the chaff with you as it was you who made reference to written Hindi sources using the word ''rabbaa''.
Last edited by marrish; 25th February 2013 at 10:59 PM.
Last edited by marrish; 25th February 2013 at 11:50 PM.