Hindi: gender of "titles" with ko in the past

[Pokeflute]

Hi all,

I had a follow up question to this tread here, but did not want to sidetrack the discussion.

In the thread, it was pointed out that "titles" (or generic people) become masculine in the passive when ko is involved (e.g., mujhe naukraanii banaayaa gayaa hai).

Does this extend to the past tense as well?

For example:

"jantaa ne indiraa gaandhii ko bhaarat kaa pradhaan mantrii banaa diyaa" (vs. kii pradhaan mantrii banaa dii)
"samiir ne niilam ko apnaa aashiq samjhaa" (vs. apnii aashiqaa samjhii)

Or should the 2nd be "apnii aashiqaa samjhaa" (female title but masculine agreement)

 

[aevynn]

Does this extend to the past tense as well?

One would indeed say X ne mujhe naukraanii banaayaa even in the active voice, but...

"titles" (or generic people) become masculine

I think it might not be that the "titles" become masculine, but rather that the object complements are unavailable to the verb for agreement purposes, so the verb takes on default-masculine-singular morphology when agreement with the subject and direct object is blocked by postpositions. In other words, the gender/number of the object complement is irrelevant as far as the morphology of the verb is concerned, even though that gender will still be relevant to the internal structure of the object complement. For example: One finds the sentence

maiN_ne use apne khel kii sahelii banaayaa​

in Harivansh Rai Bachchan's autobiography. The object complement apne khel kii sahelii is still feminine (syntactically witnessed by the kii), but the verb banaayaa "does not see" this object complement as far as agreement is concerned. It also "cannot see" its (in context, masculine) subject maiN_ne or its (in context, feminine) direct object use because of the postpositions, so, feeling like it lacks anything to agree with, it takes on default-masculine-singular morphology. (Hopefully my anthropomorphization of banaayaa is okay )

"jantaa ne indiraa gaandhii ko bhaarat kaa pradhaan mantrii banaa diyaa" (vs. kii pradhaan mantrii banaa dii)
"samiir ne niilam ko apnaa aashiq samjhaa" (vs. apnii aashiqaa samjhii)

Or should the 2nd be "apnii aashiqaa samjhaa" (female title but masculine agreement)

Again, the verb will never take on feminine morphology here (your sentences cannot use *banaa dii or *samjhii), but a complicating factor with these examples (at least for me, but I doubt that I'll be alone in this...) is that the gender of the words pradhaan mantrii and 3aashiq is not so rigid. I'm personally fine with all of the following:

... indiraa gaandhii ko bhaarat kaa pradhaan mantrii banaa diyaa.​

... indiraa gaandhii ko bhaarat kii pradhaan mantrii banaa diyaa.​

... indiraa gaandhii ko bhaarat kii pradhaan mantriNRii banaa diyaa.​

... niilam ko apnaa 3aashiq samjhaa.​

... niilam ko apnii 3aashiq samjhaa.​

... niilam ko apnii 3aashiqA samjhaa.​

 

[Pokeflute]

Oh wow… that’s quite interesting

Thank you for the clarification!

I’m assuming this holds for other passive/ergative structures in Hindi (eg ek aadmni ko pratii din apnii ashiqaa / apnaa aashiq / apnii aashiq) ko cuumnaa chaahiye) as well then?

(NB cuumnaa here is चूमना… if the romanization is confusing)

 

[littlepond]

apnaa aashiq

apne aashiq

 

[aevynn]

I'm not sure if the sentence in #3 exhibits the same phenomenon? It seems like chuumnaa only licenses a subject and direct object, and not an object complement, so there isn't any "funny business" with its agreement patterns. But maybe I've misunderstood your question?

If your question was if verbs that do license object complements (like banaanaa or samajhnaa or maannaa) can agree with those object complements in chaahi'e constructions, the answer is indeed no. To say "You should make me your servant," it would be aap_ko mujhe naukraanii banaanaa chaahi'e (not *banaanii chaahi'e).

 

[Pokeflute]

No you’re right! However your example answers my original question so thank you