Hindi: हाँ, मैं थका हुआ हूँ

P

petercolag

Member
Montreal, Canada
English - Canada
I am unclear about the conjugation of the verb "होना" in the following sentence:

हाँ, मैं थका हुआ हूँ। (Haan, main thakaa huaa hoon.)

I understand this sentence to mean "Yes, I am tired".

Why is the conjugation of the verb "हुआ हूँ" (huaa hoon). Why could I not simply write it as follows?:

हाँ, मैं थका हूँ। (Haan, main thakaa hoon.)

From what I understand this sentence is incorrect in Hindi, but I have not been able to find a grammatical explanation of the reason why it is wrong.

I am also not clear on what type of conjugation "हुआ हूँ" is. I understand the tense to be present, but I am unsure about the aspect.

Thanks for your help!
 
    • Both sentences are correct, but convey different meanings.

    हाँ, मैं थका हूँ।
    haa.n, mai.n thakaa hoo.n
    Yes, I'm tired.

    हाँ, मैं थका हुआ हूँ।
    haa.n, mai.n thakaa huaa hoo.n
    Yes, I've become completely exhausted/knackered.

    The verb honaa means to be, to become, to happen. So in the second example, the usage of the compound verb थका होना/thakaa honaa emphasizes that you've become exhausted, more than just tired. The second example is in the present perfect, which is why you have the past participle of 'honaa', 'huaa', followed by the first person singular present indicative conjugation of 'honaa', 'hoo.n'.
     
    Last edited:
    Both are correct and mean approximately the same, the logic being थका is a participle, not an adjective. This participle has two forms, one 'bare', like this one, another with huaa added on. There's some difference in idiomatic usage.

    honaa here remains normally conjugated.

    I wouldn't vouch for such a dramatic change in meaning like tired and exhausted - just tired, wearied out is fine for both. I hope I'm not wrong.
     
    marrish said:
    Both are correct and mean approximately the same, the logic being थका is a participle, not an adjective. This participle has two forms, one 'bare', like this one, another with huaa added on. There's some difference in idiomatic usage.

    honaa here remains normally conjugated.

    I wouldn't vouch for such a dramatic change in meaning like tired and exhausted - just tired, wearied out is fine for both. I hope I'm not wrong.
    Click to expand...


    According to all the grammar books I've read, you are correct. It would be nice to know in what circumstances a native speaker adds the huaa though. It does seem to add some degree of emphasis, possibly topicalisation.
     
    Thanks for the updates and clarifications.

    How about मैं थक गया हूँ। (main thack gaya hoon)? Does it express more or less the same idea as the other two (i.e. "I am tired") ?
     
    petercolag said:
    How about मैं थक गया हूँ। (main thack gaya hoon)? Does it express more or less the same idea as the other two (i.e. "I am tired") ?
    Click to expand...

    That means "I have become tired": the adjectival usage "thakaa huaa hooN" or "thakaa hooN" on the other hand indicates that one is in the tired/exhausted/weary state. For all practical purposes, not much difference. But in sentences like "maiN kaam kar-kar ke thak gayaa hooN", the adjectival usage would be awkward.

    As for "thakaa huaa honaa" vs. "thakaa honaa", not much difference: both convey the same nuance and intensity. The latter can be sometimes slightly more intense, as it is a rarer usage.
     
    I can think of one context that थका हूँ potentially covers, but not थका हुआ हूँ - it's to express that "(It has happened once or twice in the past that) I became tired", e.g.
    अमर: भाई, सोने से कोई नहीं थकता। (Bro, nobody gets tired of sleeping.)
    अकबर: नहीं यार, सोने से कभी कभी खुद मैं ही थका हूँ। (No, man, I myself got tired of sleeping sometimes.)

    However, I'd request proficient/native Hindi speakers to double-check my proposition, before learners pay heed to it. There is a risk that I am loan-translating the distinction between Bengali ক্লান্ত হয়েছি (klanto ho'echhi) and ক্লান্ত হয়ে আছি (klanto ho'e achhi)।
     
    Last edited:
    Dib jii, the मैं थका हूँ in your sentence is a past tense; in the OP's question, the मैं थका हूँ is present tense itself, with थका as the adjective, the state of being ("bolo, bolo, maiN kyaa hooN? khush? nahiN! sundar? shaayad! thakaa? haaN, haaN, thakaa!"). So, I don't think there is a relation ...

    That said, your sentence is grammatically correct; however, a native speaker would more likely say "नहीं यार, सोने से कभी कभी खुद मैं ही थक जाता हूँ", since the first person also used habitual present. Even if you want to use the past, then more natural would be "नहीं यार, सोने से कभी कभी खुद मैं ही थक चुका हूँ".
     
    Thank you very much, littlepond, for your comment. I agree that my use of "thakaa huuN" was purely verbal, like you pointed out. However, I do not agree that it is not related to the adjectival use of "thakaa" or any other perfect participle form. They seem to me to be two semantic specializations (I have gotten tired vs. I am tired) of the same original structure (maiN thakaa huuN).

    I put in some more thought into it, and I think, I'd venture an explanation of sorts to tonyspeed's enquiry. Please, comment.

    tonyspeed said:
    It would be nice to know in what circumstances a native speaker adds the huaa though. It does seem to add some degree of emphasis, possibly topicalisation.
    Click to expand...

    I think it is not about emphasis or topicalization, but it is another (emerging) aspectual distinction. Let's take another verb where this distinction is very clear - "jaanaa".

    Ex 1. "Tonii dillii gayaa hu'aa hai":
    This describes:
    A) a single completed instance of the event of going to Delhi, and
    B) its main implication is that the state achieved by the subject through this event still persists, i.e. in this case, either Tony is still absent from the location of conversation and/or he is still present in Delhi, depending on the context.

    Ex 2. "Tonii dillii gayaa hai":
    This option is more vague.
    A) It tells nothing about the number of instances of the event, but it does imply that the event is complete, and
    B) the event's effects are somehow still felt. This can be the persistence of the state achieved by the subject like in 1B (i.e. Tony is still away and/or in Delhi), but may also simply be a memory or experience gathered through the event (going to Delhi), which is still relevant in the present context.

    So, (1) would seem to be a semantic subset of (2). With some verbs, the structure in (1) may be more common, e.g. thaknaa, for others both may be common in the sense of (1), e.g. baiThnaa.

    This is, of course, just an attempt to try and make sense of what I hear. It may all be wrong, especially because I can't claim to have mastered these nuances perfectly.
     
    Excellent example, Dib jii. Let me offer how these sentences are felt by me, and I think by many other native Hindi speakers.

    "Tony dillii gayaa huaa hai": going to your point B, as you yourself remarked, it focuses on the state of things. Let's have an example: "Tony dillii gayaa huaa hai, yahaaN chaar karjdaar baiThe hue haiN, vahaaN raajaa shatranj kii baajii khele jaa rahaa hai, aur aap yahaaN mujh se Tramp banaam klinTan kii baateN farmaa rahe haiN?!!!!" Here, you cannot replace the "huaa" instances with anything else: the state of things is important. In this state of affairs, something is happening: to emphasise the state of affairs, the "huaa" variant has to be used.

    Now let's take "Tony dillii gayaa hai". "Tony abhii chaar din paihle hii to dillii gayaa hai, aur phir koii aisaa bhii nahiN kii us ne tumse koii roj Teliifon kaa vaadaa kiyaa ho/thaa, to phir tum kyoN chintaa kiye jaa rahii ho?" The emphasis is not on the state of Tony's having gone to Delhi: the emphasis is on action, not state.

    Let's take a more interesting example. Let's imagine a creditor visiting Tony the debtor's home. The wife says:
    (1) "Jii, Tony aap ke paise kaa bandobast karne hii dillii gayaa hai" - emphasis on action, Tony has done something
    or
    (2a) "Jii, Tony dillii gayaa huaa hai, aap ke paisoN kaa intezaam jald hii ho jaayegaa" - emphasis on the state of Tony's being in Delhi, thus a much less promising promise (since emphasis not on action, but on state)
    (2b1) "Jii, Tony to dillii gayaa huaa hai, mujhe is baare meN kuchh nahiN maloom" - the wife shaking off the creditor, emphasising Tony's state of being away (again thus choosing not to emphasise an action)
    If the same (2b1) were to be written as (2b2) "Jii, Tony dillii gayaa hai, mujhe is baare meN kuchh nahiN maloom", with the wife still doing the same shaking off, the sentence however becomes automatically very aggressive now (for the creditor to hear: assuming the creditor is a native speaker), since the emphasis is now on action, not state. The wife is "actively" saying, "Hey, why are you bothering me? Tony has done this, Tony has done that, you better bother him, not me". In (2b1), she takes a softer approach, expressing her inability or helplessness or not taking any stand - sitting on the fence.

    I hope this made sense, though!

    Note: For those who do not like my j's and z's, please do not ruin the thread by off-topic comments on them.
     
    Last edited:
    Dib said:
    Thank you very much, littlepond, for your comment. I agree that my use of "thakaa huuN" was purely verbal, like you pointed out. However, I do not agree that it is not related to the adjectival use of "thakaa" or any other perfect participle form. They seem to me to be two semantic specializations (I have gotten tired vs. I am tired) of the same original structure (maiN thakaa huuN).
    Click to expand...

    Of course, most perfect participles double up as adjectives, Dib jii, so maybe you are also right. In my mind, I always feel them to be two completely different things, even if morphologically they present themselves as same, often. In other words, "I am tired" = "I am weary", but there is a world of difference of meaning between "I have gotten tired" and "I have gotten weary": thus, the first "tired" is not the same as the second "tired" for me, though sometimes they are indeed interchangeable (the first and the second "tired"). I think I am talking in strange riddles, though, so I will try to write later with a better ability of expressing what I want to say!
     
    Thanks to all of you for the additional comments on this thread. For a relative "Hindi newbie" like myself, it has taken me some time to process and assimilate all this information, but I think I am getting the gist of it.

    Just to make sure I have a correct understanding, there is one further point that I would like to confirm:
    • In the sentence मैं थक गया हूँ। (main thack gaya hoon), what I understand is that we are dealing with the compound verb "थकना होना" (thaknaa jaanaa), which acts as the participle in this sentence (i.e., we are dealing with a present perfect conjugation - a completed action). Since the "main" verb in this case is "थकना” (Thaknaa), we use the stem "थक" (thak) in the conjugated compound verb. So, only the " जाना" (jaanaa) part is inflected and we get "थक गया" (Thak gayaa) as the conjugated "past participle" (in the case of a man).
    • This is to be contrasted with the sentence मैं थका हूँ। (Main thakaa hoon.), which is conjugated in the simple (indefinite) present tense and where थका (thakaa) plays only the role of an adjective and is not part of the verbal construct (i.e., it is not acting as a participle here). Since this is a simple (indefinite) present tense conjugation, we are dealing with an action which is still ongoing in the present.
    • So, the main difference between the sentences मैं थक गया हूँ। (main thack gaya hoon) and मैं थका हूँ। (Main thakaa hoon.) is that the first refers to a completed action (to have become tired), whereas the second refers to an action which is still ongoing in the present (to be tired).

    Could someone please confirm whether I am understanding this correctly and, if not, please provide me with some further clarifications?

    Thanks!
     
    It simply means that I am already tired....

    Example:

    Q: Tum thakey huey lagte ho?
    A: ha main thaka hua hu/thak gaya hu.

    Q: Kya tum mera ek kaam kar sakte ho ya thak gaye ho?
    A: Ha main bahoot thaka hua hu/thak gaya hu nahi kar pauga.

    Hope this helps
     
    Last edited:
    Jashn said:
    The second example is in the present perfect, which is why you have the past participle of 'honaa', 'huaa', followed by the first person singular present indicative conjugation of 'honaa', 'hoo.n'.
    Click to expand...

    @Jashn : After researching this topic some more, I am wondering whether the sentence "mai.n thakaa huaa hoo.n" is not simply a simple (indefinite) present conjugation, where "thakaa huaa" is actually a perfect participle which is being used as an adjective.

    I am basing this hypothesis on the following online references:

    1. Perfect Participles

    Here are the relevant excerpts:

    Perfect participles are often followed by a form of the perfect participle of होना (हुआ, हुए, हुई). The perfect participle of होना agrees with the main participle in gender, number, and case. The inclusion of a form of the perfect participle of होना may strengthen the aspect of the participle. It can also explicitly differentiate the participle from a finite verb.

    ...

    Perfect participles can be used as attributive adjectives and as predicate adjectives. This is different than imperfective participles, which are generally never used as predicate adjectives.
    ​
    2. https://taj.chass.ncsu.edu/Hindi.Less.18/grammar05.html

    The perfect form of a verb is also called the past participle. Past participles can be used as adjectives. They are often accompanied by an optional “helper” verb (हुआ, हुए, हुई, हुईं).

    ​
    I am therefore inclined to think that the sentence "mai.n thakaa huaa hoo.n" is conjugated in the simple (indefinite/habitual) present, and not in the present perfect. The fact that "thakaa" is declined here to agree in number and gender with the subject (i.e., "thakaa", and not just "thak") also seems to indicate that we are not dealing with a compound verb here. If I understand correctly, the verb here is "थकना" (thaknaa), so that the compound verb would have to be "थक होना" (thak honaa), and not "थका होना" (thakaa honaa). As a result, if this sentence were using the compound verb "थक होना", then I would expect the sentence to be "mai.n thak huaa hoo.n" rather than "mai.n thakaa huaa hoo.n".

    Your thoughts?




    ​
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top