Hindi/Urdu: chahiye

L

lcfatima

Senior Member
In a teapot
English USA
I have a grammatical question. Are we supposed to nasalize chahiye to chahiyeN with a plural? If so, is it when the subject is plural or the object?

I feel I have heard some nasal voiced types say chaNhiye or chaNhiyeN. Is that some type of regional accent, or is that the plural?

If it is supposed to be nasalized according to the rules, can you kindly give me a very simple sample sentence contrasting the singular with the plural?
 
    • lcfatima said:
    I have a grammatical question. Are we supposed to nasalize chahiye to chahiyeN with a plural? If so, is it when the subject is plural or the object?

    I feel I have heard some nasal voiced types say chaNhiye or chaNhiyeN. Is that some type of regional accent, or is that the plural?

    If it is supposed to be nasalized according to the rules, can you kindly give me a very simple sample sentence contrasting the singular with the plural?
    Click to expand...

    Grammar books that I read teach चाहिए چاہئےas an invariable.
     
    I have heard it used by Pakistani Urdu speakers like BP mentions, as in "mujhe do aarDer chicken tikka chahiyeN." My husband says it should be pluralized, but I do recall learning it as chahiye only as Omlick confirms. Perhaps this is a particular feature Pakistani Urdu accent?
     
    Could it be a relic of Panjabi? Panjabi declines it by gender and number, and of course, nasalizes it (only in the feminine plural): <çāhīdā/çāhīde/çāhīdī/cāhīdī'ā.n>.

    I discussed this with an Urdu wala before and we too were confused. Does Snell nasalize it? I don't think Urdu does it, but I've seen it plenty in written Hindi.
     
    panjabigator said:
    Could it be a relic of Panjabi? Panjabi declines it by gender and number, and of course, nasalizes it (only in the feminine plural): <çāhīdā/çāhīde/çāhīdī/cāhīdī'ā.n>.

    I discussed this with an Urdu wala before and we too were confused. Does Snell nasalize it? I don't think Urdu does it, but I've seen it plenty in written Hindi.
    Click to expand...

    This might well be possible. It seems that Punjabi nasalizes a lot more than Urdu - we just had that discussion about <parā.nThā vs. parāThaā>. For us it is always the latter.

    Here I have to be with Omlick! It is چاہئے -- non-nazalised. However, I'll admit that I have heard the nazalised form often, incorrect though it is.
     
    We hear chahiye.n everyday. Maybe its a colloquial fusion of chahiye and hai.n. But to me it looks like usual conjugation just like in hae and its plural hai.n.
     
    The following text has been written on online text editor which interprets transliterated text. This obviously shows that there is no nasalization for the heck of it. With plural object we will use chahinye.The words exist and are used differently. For those who can't read hindi text.
    हमें ये पुस्तकें चाहियें, Humein ye pustakein (books) chahinyein.This nasalization is to distinguish between the singular and the plural objects.
    This differentiation exists in the present and the past tense too. See the following examples.    स्त्रियाँ नाच रहीं थीं, Striyaan naach rehin theen.
    आदमी गा रहे थे Aadmi ga rahe thhe. While for feminine subject in the above example we use rahin thheen but for masculine we don't.
    बड़ा     आदमी है, बड़े लोग हैं, BaRRa aadmai hai, BaRRe log hain. The nasal differnetiation between singular and plural exists in the present tense both for masculine and feminine subjects.
     
    In Urdu it is grammatically incorrect to nasalize this plural though one hears it all too often. Just like a myriad other grammatically incorrect forms one has to suffer, e.g. <laa parwaahii!!> and <inkisaarii!!> etc. etc. We've been thru' these before so I wouldn't bother elaborating.
     
    Reviving this interesting dialogue with another tidbit, this time from Usha Jain's "Introduction to Hindi Grammar": "The plural of चािहये चािहयें, but some speakers use चािहये for both singular and plural agreement." (page 130).

    Could this be a difference between Hindi and Urdu then? I had just assumed it to be a matter of preference.

    Edit: I just checked with Shmidt's Essential Urdu, and she confirms Usha Jain's Hindi grammar. Pg 137, point 643, if anyone is following along.
     
    Last edited:
    Hi people,
    I just started to learn Hindi/Urdu. I had read a colonial-era Grammar, and tried to read Manto's Toba Tek Singh from Pritchett's site.

    kih ikhlāqī qaidiyoñ kī t̤arh pāgaloñ kā tabādilah bhī honā chāhiʾe yaʿnī jo musalmān pāgal, hindūstān ke pāgal-khānoñ meñ haiñ uñheñ pākistān pahuñchā diyā jāʾe
    (that like criminal offenders, lunatics too ought to be exchanged: that is, those Muslim lunatics who were in Hindustan's insane asylums should be sent to Pakistan)

    I understand that "chāhi'e" is a form of "chāhnā", corresponding to the "ought" in translation. But I can't find a form like this in my conjugation table. Is this a past tense? Why isn't it "chāhe (haiṅ/the)"? Thanks!
     
    Last edited:
    Chahna means to wish, desire, like/love.
    Chahiye can have different meanings.
    Command: Mujhe ye chahiye- I want this.
    Ought to: Tumhein sharm aani chahiye- You ought to be ashamed.
    Need: Mujhe bazaar se kuchh chizein chahiyein- I need some things from the market.
    Bas ik sanam chahiye ashiqi ke liye- Just need a friend to love.
     
    Here it means should also be.
    "that like criminal offenders, lunatics should also be exchanged".
     
    Last edited:
    I am aware of this variation - do not have Schmidt but will check other Urdu grammars. Anyway, we never nasalize! What did you hear when you were in Lucknow? I mean from bona fide urdudaan!
     
    You know, I don't really recall off hand, but I'll enquire with some friends. Maybe I can prevoke a "chahiye" out of my Xala (host mother) and see if she nasalizes or not. Either way, I Lukhnavis have strong opinions about subpar Urdu, so it'll be interesting to hear her two cents on the subject.
     
    Welcome minus273!

    I agree with Bakshink. In this context, < chāhiʾe > does indeed mean <should>.

    Bye the way, just a small correction or two in your transliteration. The passage should be read as: < …keh axlāqī / akhlāqī qaidiyoñ kī t̤arh .. >
    Had a look at the original here.

    [ In transliteration I use < x = خ > and < kh = كھ > and we pronounce < كہ as keh >].

    In Urdu proper we do distinguish between <axlāq = morals, manners, character ethics> and <ixlāq = being worn out etc. > - used mostly in the higher Urdu register. In some online dictionaries I see now people are confusing the two. Incidentally, the normal Urdu term for a criminal is <mujrim مُجرِم> and not <axlāqī / akhlāqī qaidī >, though I think I can see why Manto chose it.

    Any further discussion of these points deserves a new thread.
     
    Faylasoof said:
    Welcome minus273!
    I agree with Bakshink. In this context, < chāhiʾe > does indeed mean <should>.
    Click to expand...
    And, pray, what relation does the form < chāhi'e > have with the verb chāh-? Where does the -i'- come from? Is this an impersonal participle? In this case, why isn't it chāhi'ā or like? Can you point out some grammar where forms analogous to < chāhi'e > are discussed?
    Thanks!
     
    Good question! But as Bakshink explained above (post # 2) the verb <chāhnā> has many meanings and uses, one of them being in the derived form <chāhi'e> to mean <should / must>. As you perhaps would already know, languages do follow some logic, as revealed by grammatical rules, but not everything seems / is logical.

    Just to give an example from English: to become angry = to get angry
    The first makes perfect logical sense as you are using an adjective (angry) to describe an emotional state of a person / being. But the second seems odd as the verb (to get) is used not with the noun (anger), as we expect, but with the related adjective (angry). Usage in languages is very difficult to explain and apart from saying that the oddity of usage is a recognised property of (all) languages and that is how they evolve, I can’t say much else.

    Certainly, the use of <chāhi'e + infinitive> is impersonal – equivalent to the English <one should / must OR it is necessary>.

    Schmidt’s online version of Urdu grammar explains this usage of <chāhi'e> on page 137, here. Please use should as the search term in the box – left column.

    In the examples she gives, this usage should become clear. My only “quarrel” with her in these sentences are:

    -use of < chīnī چینی instead of shakar شكر = sugar – always the preferred choice in original Urdu vocabulary, where chī nī is specifically reserved for Chinese!!>

    -use of < xarīdnī خریدنی instead of xarīdnā خریدنا>, again the original Urdu idiom always used the latter.

    -nasalization to give <chāhi'eñ چاہئیں instead of chāhi'e چاہئے > , again the latter was the original idiom.


    So the two sentences for us Lakhnawi Urdu speakers become:

    مجھے شكر خریدنا چاہئے
    mujhe shakar xarīdnā chāhi'e

    اسے انڈے خریدنا چاہئے
    use anDe xarīdnā chāhi'e


    Urdu in Pakistan has been influenced by Punjabi idiom.
     
    Thanks Faylasoof you give such rich explanations that I often pity at my limited knowledge.
    It's not off contest though and Minus 273 is a cool guy. Without confusing him more, I will say-

    Mujhe chini xareedni chahiye and
    Mujhe anDe xaridne chahiyei.n and we don't differentiate between "x" and "kh" because hindi has only "kh" though a dot below "kh" is sometime used in words of non-hindi origin.
     
    Thank you Bakshink for your kind words! The cheque is in the post!

    But coming back to it, I do realise that Modern Hindi and Urdu proper have differences, hence your choice versus mine above. However, I would repeat that the use of xarīdnī     instead of xarīdnā etc. are very much the influence of Punajabi idiom on Urdu as spoken in Pakistan. The original idiom of both Lakhnavi and Dehlavi Urdu would be as I show above.

    It is best to know and recognise both as one would come across them both.
     
    Like we have (come across) Fay !!
    And see what havoc has Punjabi let loose on Hindi songs, if you have heard a few recent ones. It's as if Hindi is there just to make it worse.
    "Chini Kum" the name of a movie you may have heard.It is a few years old starring Amitabh Bachchan and Tabbu. The word in Punjabi is "khandd". Shakkar we use for powder/amorphous form of GuRR.
    Awaiting my Cheque.
     
    Bakshink, I hope you didn't feel that I was running down Punjabi! Just stating a fact! Actually, even if there was no partition of India, there would have been some Punjabism in Urdu as the latter had already become a popular language in the Punjab, esp. in and around Lahore, and inevitably would have resulted in a Lahorii dialect as opposed to Dehlavii and Lakhnavii dialects.

    The current popularity of Urdu in Paksitani Punjab is both due to the relationship between the two lingos and also to poets like Iqbal and Faiz. This has resulted in both a positive side -acceptance of a "foreign" dialect,Urdu-KhaRii Bolii, by the most     populous province- and a not so positive side - the mixing of two distinct idioms. Hence, things like chāhi'eñ چاہئیں instead of our chāhi'e چاہئے etc.

    BTW, I've actually seen the film you mentioned and as I said earlier, in Urdu     chīnī چینی really is reserved for anything Chinese (people included) but qand قند is generally for a certain kind of sugar / sugar-candy (eg. qalaaqand - famous Lakhanvi sweet), while shakar (non-stressed <k>) is normal sugar, which most of my Pakistani Punjabi friends refer to as chīnī چینی.
     
    Thank you people! It's very helpful, the grammar link and the Hindi - Pakistani - Lakhnavi differences.
     
    Yes Lugubert, Schmidt's book is very good - apart from my reservations above. There seems a bias towards the Pakistani version of Urdu idiom. Although she gives the alternative, original idiom too (often in brackets), one may think that this is somehow used less. Infact in many parts of Inida, the original is still in vogue so you'll here xariidnaa hai instead of xariidnii hai etc. etc. the former bieng the correct form.
     
    I am Urdu speaking and if you are reading Manto you should take in mind that it belongs to purest Urdu.
    Here the word "Chahiye" means "should" but there are so many other meanings relating to the phrase.
    For example:
    Mujhe ye Chahiye, I need this.
    but
    Mujhe ye karna chahiye, I should do this.

    You know the differene there. Manto is one of the best Urdu writters ever and he wrote so many good novels and books. You should keep studying his books and should concern World Urdu Grammer.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Very interesting! I wonder if the nazalization is a Punjabi innovation that got borrowed into Pakistani Urdu, or if it's an old feature of the parent language that died out (or got "standardized out") in Dilli and Lukhnavi speech.
     
    I also have often heard nasalized chaahiyeN in Lahore. I always felt like I was being sloppy if I didn't! Dang. Not only must I worry about my own subpar Urdu, I must wonder if anything I heard in Lahore is correct....:eek:
     
    Hmmm, I'd be weary about prescriptivism there. What flies in Lucknow doesn't necessarily work in Hyderabad, Delhi, or Lahore. The reverse is also true, so when in Rome :cool:
     
    Myself and fellow students tried चाहिये sentences on our cooks in Mussoorie to tell them when we didn't want more चपाती. They thought we were referencing tea. Any ideas on how we failed - pronunciation or grammar?
     
    Be sure to say the word with 3 syllables: Cha-hi-ye.

    Don't make it 2 syllables -- sounds too much like chai hai.

    The ye portion should be a full e sound as Swedish hej, while the hai in the second example is like the a with an umlaut over it in Swedish (sorry I don't know how to make the keyboard write it!)
     
    Last edited:
    In addition to the nasalization issue, native speakers do have some variations on how they say this.

    chaa-hii-ye is one

    che-ii-ye (not H sound) is very common...perhaps a Punjabiphone thing
     
    Cilquiestsuens said:
    ?????

    Never heard that .... In Punjabi it is chahida / chahidii / chahidee ....

    So this change in (gender) and number could originate from Punjabi once more ?????
    Click to expand...

    yes you are right, in punjabi no such word exist... in punjabi actually word is ¨chahnay ¨
    like examople, asi tuano bara chahnay han,
     
    lcfatima said:
    In addition to the nasalization issue, native speakers do have some variations on how they say this.

    chaa-hii-ye is one

    che-ii-ye (not H sound) is very common...perhaps a Punjabiphone thing
    Click to expand...

    Once more this reminds me mostly of my Gujarati friends at school and not Punjabis!

    We can't let our Punjabi brothers take all the credit every time!!
     
    Last edited:
    appleofeye said:
    yes you are right, in punjabi no such word exist... in punjabi actually word is ¨chahnay ¨
    like examople, asi tuano bara chahnay han,
    Click to expand...

    She's referring to a Panjabiphone pronunciation in Hindi and Urdu.

    I'll have to investigate the Delhi dialect a bit more to pinpoint this "cheeye" thing. My mom hails from Delhi (my Nani is from old Delhi), so I'll pay attention to Delhiwale some more next trip.
     
    She's referring to a Panjabiphone pronunciation in Hindi and Urdu.
    Click to expand...

    That's right.

    I'll add that not articulating the 'h' sound between 2 vowels is a mark of a Punjabi accent in Urdu, like sheher as sher (slightly elongated vowel sound in middle) and so on.

    I think Gujaratis with heavy accents in Hindi/Urdu say "chiii-ye".
     
    Last edited:
    In Mumbai, I hear chaahie as two syllables much more often than 3. (Sounds like chai-ye). This is probably pretty common in fast speech.

    Faylasoof, what's wrong with the word "laaparvaahii?" It's pretty common in Hindi, "Vo laaparvaahii se kaam kartaa hai." Maybe it's like "boriyat," a commonly-used newly-invented word based off a real word.
     
    Birdcall said:
    In Mumbai, I hear chaahie as two syllables much more often than 3. (Sounds like chai-ye). This is probably pretty common in fast speech.

    Faylasoof, what's wrong with the word "laaparvaahii?" It's pretty common in Hindi, "Vo laaparvaahii se kaam kartaa hai." Maybe it's like "boriyat," a commonly-used newly-invented word based off a real word.
    Click to expand...

    I think he takes umbrage with the mixing of an Arabic prefix with a Persian word.
     
    Birdcall said:
    ...
    Faylasoof, what's wrong with the word "laaparvaahii?" It's pretty common in Hindi, "Vo laaparvaahii se kaam kartaa hai." ...
    Click to expand...
    Overlooking the issue of Perso-Arabic métissés, I'd just like to point out the orthographical error in the word: the h in laaparwaahii is extraneous and should be done away with. If we spell the word in Urdu-Persian script, a Hamza occurs in its place, pronounced either as a glottal stop or a y.
     
    In Devanagari, parvaah has a ha at the end, so adding ii to it and pronouncing it as laaparvaahii seems logical. I've never heard the glottal stop pronounced in Hindi; we like to slur vowels together. So is it wrong (according to the Perso-Arabic script) to pronounce the ha's in words like shaahi and tabaahi and gavaahi?

    So if laa-parvaahii is wrong b/c it's an Arabic prefix with a Farsi word, are laa-pataa (Arabic + Hindi) and samajh-daar (Hindi + Farsi) and be-chain (Farsi + Hindi) wrong? This seems like a very normal part of language.
     
    Birdcall said:
    So is it wrong (according to the Perso-Arabic script) to pronounce the ha's in words like shaahi and tabaahi and gavaahi?
    Click to expand...
    Not at all. These words all contain an h, compare {gunaah, shaah, tabaah} vs parwaa.

    In Devanagari, parvaah has a ha at the end, so adding ii to it and pronouncing it as laaparvaahii seems logical....
    Click to expand...
    That explains it. Still, we have in English words like mullah and nullah with an added h that didn't exist in the original language, a u in Punjab (causing it to be pronounced poonjaab) and so too in nullah, but this doesn't render the spelling in the lending language wrong.
    So we can continue appending an h to parwaa in Hindi but not in Urdu or Farsi.

    So if laa-parvaahii is wrong b/c it's an Arabic prefix with a Farsi word, are laa-pataa (Arabic + Hindi) and samajh-daar (Hindi + Farsi) and be-chain (Farsi + Hindi) wrong? This seems like a very normal part of language.
    Click to expand...
    So would it seem, but some people e.g. Basheer Badr or our own falsafii saahab tend to not agree, at least for the purpose of coining new words.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top