Hindi, Urdu: Daraa huaa, Daraayaa huaa

MonsieurGonzalito

Senior Member
Castellano de Argentina
Friends,

There is something very basic about what past participles mean, when a verb has a causative counterpart, that I can't fully grasp.
As far as I know:

Darnaa = to fear, to be frightened
Daraanaa = to frighten

However, every place I look, "frightened" is translated as Daraa huaa, which I find odd.
The (past, passive) participle of "to fear" is "feared", as in "A feared enemy, a feared leader". Someone causing fright, not suffering it.

A "frightened boy" shouldn't be Daraayaa laRkaa instead?
This is very confusing .. o_O
 
  • Jashn

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    Like you, I'm a student of the language, so this is my understanding. Please take it with a grain of salt.

    darnaa
    e.g. vo dar gayaa
    He was frightened/scared
    The state of mind of the person who is experiencing the emotion, without indicating what caused the fear, is described

    daraanaa
    If you caused someone else to be frightened, you would use the causative.
    e.g. mainne usko daraayaa
    I frightened/scared him
    The causative is used to indicate who caused the object to feel fear.

    So the causative would not be used to translate the phrase, 'a frightened boy', because the phrase does not describe who caused the fear, only that the boy is scared.

    That's my understanding, anyway.
     

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina
    e.g. vo dar gayaa
    He was frightened/scared
    The state of mind of the person who is experiencing the emotion, without indicating what caused the fear, is described
    So you are saying that a more proper translation of Darnaa would be "to be afraid, to be fearful", rather than the external agency suggested by "scared" or "frightened". OK.

    Then, it is fair to say that the passive (as well as past) nuance of the English past participle should not be assumed in the H/U past participle?
    That would make sense, and support your reasoning.

    So the noun modified by the adjectival participle (in this case, the laRkaa) "underwent" some process (as discussed here), but not (necessarily) in a passive way?
     

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    For transitive verbs like maarnaa, the perfective participle modifies the noun that would have been the object of the verb and indicates that the noun has undergone the action indicated by the verb... For example, karnaa is also a transitive verb, and uskaa kiyaa huaa kaam = the work done by him is a perfectly natural noun phrase.
    The perfective participle in UH does have a "passive" sense, as described above, but only for transitive verbs.

    Darnaa, on the other hand, is syntactically intransitive. It takes a subject, and it can take a complement marked with se, but it does not take a direct object. To say "I fear him" using Darnaa in HU, you would say maiN usse Dartaa huuN.

    In other words, while it's superficially true that Darnaa means "to fear," there's an important syntactic difference in that "to fear" in English is transitive while Darnaa in UH is intransitive.

    As an intransitive verb, the semantics of the attributive uses of the participles of Darnaa function more like the semantics of the attributive uses of the participles of marnaa, rather than those of maarnaa. If you like, a Daraa huaa laRkaa is thus a boy who has "undergone the process" of becoming scared.

    Daraayaa laRkaa
    Daraayaa huaa laRkaa is a legal noun phrase, but it means something more like "the boy who was made to be frightened." In other words, it strongly suggests that someone or something has made the boy be scared, without naming who that person/thing is. In contrast, a Daraa huaa laRkaa is just a boy who's scared.

    This is very confusing ..
    I suspect the reason for the confusion is that... The attributive use of the perfective participle of intransitive verbs doesn't have any clear analog in English. For example, "to die" is an intransitive verb, but you cannot use the participle "died" attributively to say "*the died man" (instead, we have a whole separate adjective "dead" to deal with this situation). In contrast, in HU, marnaa is an intransitive verb and you can in fact use its perfective participle attributively to say maraa huaa aadmii. Similarly, sonaa is an intransitive and you can say so'ii hu'ii laRkii (= a girl who has "undergone the process" of falling asleep).

    I'm not sure if one has attributive usages of past participles of intransitives in Spanish (and I'd be interested to know!).
     
    Last edited:

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina
    Thank you @aevynn.
    Only now I understand the enormous relevance that the verb being transitive or intransitive has, in understanding the nature of part participles (even in English or Spanish).

    I think once one sees it under that perspective, H/U, English, and Spanish work more or less in the same way.

    The attributive use of the perfective participle of intransitive verbs doesn't have any clear analog in English. For example, "to die" is an intransitive verb, but you cannot use the participle "died" attributively to say "*the died man" (instead, we have a whole separate adjective "dead" to deal with this situation).
    I'm not sure if one has attributive usages of past participles of intransitives in Spanish (and I'd be interested to know!).

    I believe you are confusing 2 phenomena here:

    1) one, is that English, Spanish, or H/U have their own distinct collections of "resultative adjectives" that can replace their corresponding perfect participles, (in a way that is impossible to translate from any language to any other).
    In Spanish, "muerto" is indeed a participle. In English you have full/filled, complete/completed, etc.

    2) intransitive verbs's participles can be used attrributively, for example: (along with my H/U attempts, to keep this on point)

    We are going to give the vaccine only to the recently arrived folks.
    Le daremos la vacuna sólo a la gente recién llegada.
    ham nae aae logoN ko hii vaiksiin deNge

    Little did they knew about the events happened yesterday.
    Poco sabían ellos acerca de los hechos ocurridos ayer.
    ve kal ke guzaare ghaTnaaoN ke baare meN bahut kam jaante thaa
     

    littlepond

    Senior Member
    Hindi
    Little did they knew about the events happened yesterday.
    I am not a native speaker of English, but for me, this sentence is incorrect (or at best, a sentence with a carelessly omitted "that").

    The correct sentence would be "Little did they know about the events that happened yesterday."

    ve kal ke guzaare ghaTnaaoN ke baare meN bahut kam jaante thaa

    Correct sentence: "veh kal guzrii ghaTnaaoN ke baare meN bohat kam jaantaa thaa"
     

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina
    I am not a native speaker of English, but for me, this sentence is incorrect (or at best, a sentence with a carelessly omitted "that").

    The correct sentence would be "Little did they know about the events that happened yesterday."
    I am not sure about this, but, whatever the case, the structure I mention is possible. If you prefer:
    ... as to the events transpired ...
    Intransitive participles in adjectival function (and not necessarily subordinated into their own adjetcival propostion through "that") do exist.


    "veh kal guzrii ghaTnaaoN
    Not wanting to stray too much from the main subject, I am curious about what that -ii in guzarii is agreeing with.
    - kal (undertstood as feminine)?
    - an implied chiiz?

    The aim of my example was to make it agree with the events "ghaTaa" (which are masculine, I think).
     

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    Thank you for the examples from Spanish! I'm reasonably convinced that Spanish at least works similarly to UH in this regard. :)

    English, on the other hand... @littlepond jii is right that "*... about the events happened yesterday" is not acceptable without the "that," and swapping out "happened" for "transpired" or "occurred" does not help. Your "recently arrived" example is a good one. But it is a bit of an exception. After digging around a bit on the internet, I ran across a discussion in another forum about attributive uses of the English past participle. Here are some relevant quotes from that forum:
    The past participle of an intransitive verb, when used on its own, has an active meaning. But: there are only a few intransitive verbs (e.g. collapse, escape, retire, fail, freeze, depart) whose past participles can be used on their own (attributively only); that is why I earlier called them "exceptions". With most intransitive verbs, the past participle cannot be used on its own. For example, you cannot say any of the following:

    The slept people
    The run athlete
    The lived family
    The died man
    The spoken teacher
    The written friend
    The come guest
    The won competitor
    The ended film
    The complained customer
    The shouted child
    The disagreed member
    The protested workers
    The skated woman
    etc.
    Most (not all) of those that work seem to be ones that refer to some kind of "transformation" of the person or thing they refer to. But there is no consistency – for example, we can say "a well-travelled person" but not "a travelled person". We can say "the recently arrived guest" but not normally "the arrived guest".
    I guess the point is, I spoke too strongly earlier and there are a few intransitives whose past participles can be used attributively in English, but they're few and far between.

    ----

    veh kal guzrii ghaTnaaoN ke baare meN bohat kam jaantaa thaa
    Not wanting to stray too much from the main subject, I am curious about what that -ii in guzarii is agreeing with.
    ghaTnaa is feminine.
     

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina
    I just realized that what was discussed here might have an important corollary:


    Since:

    1. darnaa is intransitive, and it really means "to be afraid"

    and

    2. only transitive verbs' participles have a suggestion of passivity

    then:

    a phrase like:

    kutte se daraa huaa laRkaa


    would not be valid, correct? Because there is no passivity in darnaa, hence no "agent complement" can be used.
    In the HU mindset, it should be:

    kutte se daraayaa huaa laRkaa

    i.e. "a boy caused to be afraid by the dog".

    (And moreover, in general, only transitive verbs' participles can have an agent.)
    Is my reasoning correct?
     

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    Close, but your reasoning is not quite correct and the conclusion is inaccurate :)

    Note that there's a difference between a syntactic subject and a semantic agent [*]. It's syntax that's relevant here. You would be right if you had reasoned that there's no room in an attributive participial clause of an intransitive verb for the subject of that intransitive, since that subject is the noun being modified (in other words, the head noun of the noun phrase controls into the subject position of the participial clause). But the optional complement that Darnaa takes is not the subject; it is a postpositional complement (marked by the postposition "se"), and those are fine to carry into attributive participial clauses.

    For the sake of comparison... You pointed out for us that "arrive" is one of the rare English intransitives whose past participle does admit attributive usages (at least if it's prefixed by a "recently" or something like that). Note that "arrive" can take an optional complement that is a prepositional phrase (eg, marked by the preposition "in," as in the sentence "They recently arrived in Ellis Island"). And you can in fact carry that prepositional phrase into an attributive participial clause, as in "He took a photograph of immigrants recently arrived in Ellis Island."

    And I don't speak Spanish, but based on your example involving occurrir earlier... I would guess that occurrir can also take prepositional complements which can be carried in attributive participial clauses, and that it would be valid to say something like "acerca de los hechos occurridos en la ciudad ayer" to mean "about the events that occurred in the city yesterday." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this!

    Long story short: "kutte de se Daraa huaa laRkaa" is legitimate noun phrase and just means "a boy who is afraid of the dog."

    ---
    Footnote:

    [*]: Consider the sentence "wo kuttoN se Dartaa hai" = He's afraid of dogs. Here "wo" is certainly the subject. It's not clear to me what to call the agent of this sentence, but probably the answer is "nothing is the agent." In syntactic frameworks (like LFG) in which semantic roles like "agent" play an important role, it's perfectly okay if the main argument of some intransitives is not an agent. If I were doing such an analysis of Darnaa and assigning semantic roles to its arguments in the sentence "wo kuttoN se Dartaa hai," I would probably say that "wo" is the experiencer and "kuttoN se" is the stimulus.
     
    Last edited:

    Pokeflute

    Senior Member
    English - American
    And I don't speak Spanish, but based on your example involving occurrir earlier... I would guess that occurrir can also take prepositional complements which can be carried in attributive participial clauses, and that it would be valid to say something like "acerca de los hechos occurridos en la ciudad ayer" to mean "about the events that occurred in the city yesterday." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this!
    Not a native Spanish speaker, but this sounds perfectly fine to me. We can also find something similar on Google:

    "Historiadores revisaron los hechos ocurridos en la Batalla de Carabobo y no todo es tal y como lo aprendimos"

    (invalid) "Historians revisited the occurred-in-the-Battle-of-Carabobo events and not everything is exactly like how we learned"

    (I'm guessing this is valid) "itihaaskaaroN ne Battle of Carabobo meN huii (bittii?) ghaTnaa'eN dobaaraa khojiiN aur sab vaise hi nahin hua jaise hamne siikhaa tha"

    (see littlepond's corrections) "itihaaskaaroN Battle of Carabobo meN biitii ghatnaa'eN dobaaraa khojiiN aur sab vaise hi nahiN huaa thaa jaise hamne siikhaa thaa"

    "kutte de Daraa huaa laRkaa"

    "kutte se", right :p
     
    Last edited:

    littlepond

    Senior Member
    Hindi
    (I'm guessing this is valid) "itihaaskaaroN ne Battle of Carabobo meN huii (bittii?) ghaTnaa'eN dobaaraa khojiiN aur sab vaise hi nahin hua jaise hamne siikhaa tha"

    Yes, valid, but "biitii" (there is no "bittii"); also, it would be "nahiiN huaa thaa" here.

    Preferable construction would be "Carabobo ke yuddh kii ghaTnaaeN." (Note this late edit, @Pokeflute jii.)
     

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina
    So, if I understand this correctl, then, the "kutte se" in

    kutte se Daraa huaa laRkaa

    is not an agent complement, but what we call in Spanish a "régimen", a pre/post positional construction linked by a specific pre/post position that is "required, commanded, directed" by the verb, as in "I trust in you / confío en tí" (whatever we choose to call "you" semantically here).

    And this roughly the same as when we say in English "scared of the dogs" or in Spanish "temeroso de los perros".

    "of the dogs" and "de los perros" are not agent complements proper, but such prepositional constructions that happen to denote some agency, or cause.

    HU, unfortunately, confusingly, seems to use the same postposition (se) for this.
     

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina
    FWIW this sounds off to me (as a native English speaker). I've heard/read this before (so it's definitely grammatical to others), but I personally would say "We are going to give the vaccine only to the folks who just arrived / who have recently arrived".

    I think this is good evidence that the English verbs that can be used attributively are the exception, not the norm (and for whatever reason, my idiolect doesn't let "arrived" be used like this).
    Even in Spanish these kind of intransitive participle-only constructions sound sometimes a little "terse", not ungrammatical, understood, but mostly confined to idiomatic or set expresions.
    Not to stray too much from the subject, but out of curiosity I started a thread in the English Spanish forum, asking about one of said set expressions.

    It would seem that, as @aevynn pointed out earlier, once one starts "softening" the intransitive participle with other complements, the intransitive participle starts sounding, if not ideal, at least more palatable to anglophone ears (I wouldn't know).
     
    Last edited:

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    I started a thread in the English Spanish forum, asking about one of said set expressions.
    FWIW, I think you can use "royaa huaa" attributively in UH:

    uskaa royaa huaa chehraa dekh kar mujhe taras aa gayaa.
    I had pity on him after seeing that he'd been crying.

    Note though that the nuance of "royaa huaa chehraa" would be that the crying, even if completed, is at least recent enough that its vestiges are still visible (or at least somehow still relevant). In particular, you probably wouldn't use something like this if you wanted to say that someone cried and then cleaned themselves up completely to present a strong face to the world, which is what you explain the implication of "venir llorado de casa" to be.
     

    Pokeflute

    Senior Member
    English - American
    Could you say something like

    "ghar meN rokar (ghar meN ronaa khatam karke) laRkii aa rahii hai"

    Where "ghar meN rokar" is used attributively (or would this be read as equivalent to "laRkii (subject) ghar meN rokar (action 1) aa rahii hai (action 2)")

    (IIRC this form is also considered a participle, just conjunctive instead of perfective/imperfective)

    ________

    If so, I wonder if the distinction holds w/ other verbs:

    saRii pahantii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gaii - the woman (in the middle of) putting on a sari got mad
    saRii pahanii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gayii - the woman wearing (lit. who put on) a sari got mad
    saaRii pahankar aurat naraaz ho gayii - the woman fully finished wearing her sari, and then got mad
     
    Last edited:

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    "ghar meN rokar (ghar meN ronaa khatam karke) laRkii aa rahii hai"
    This sentence is fine, and there are some straightforward variants you could use instead (eg, using "apnaa ronaa-dhonaa puuraa karke"). But I wonder if there might be a more colorful and/or idiomatic way of conveying this idea that someone cries themselves dry, tidies themselves up, puts on a strong face, and goes out into the world. I'm struggling to come up with anything. [@littlepond jii? @Qureshpor jii? :)]

    Grammatically:
    IIRC this form is also considered a participle, just conjunctive instead of perfective/imperfective
    I have also seen the -kar/-ke form called a "conjunctive participle," but...
    Where "ghar meN rokar" is used attributively
    This "conjunctive participle" can't be used attributively as a direct modifier on a noun, so that's an important difference when comparing with the other two participles (another important syntactic difference involves control, as briefly noted here). In other words, the syntactic parse of your proposed sentence is indeed this:
    "laRkii (subject) ghar meN rokar (action 1) aa rahii hai (action 2)"
    And...
    saRii pahantii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gaii - the woman (in the middle of) putting on a sari got mad
    saRii pahanii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gayii - the woman wearing (lit. who put on) a sari got mad
    saaRii pahankar aurat naraaz ho gayii - the woman fully finished wearing her sari, and then got mad
    You've translated the sentences correctly, but the third sentence has a different syntactic structure. The (im)perfective participial clauses are being used attributively on the noun in the first two, but the conjunctive is being adverbially in the third sentence.
     

    littlepond

    Senior Member
    Hindi
    FWIW, I think you can use "royaa huaa" attributively in UH:

    uskaa royaa huaa chehraa dekh kar mujhe taras aa gayaa.
    I had pity on him after seeing that he'd been crying.

    Yes! The more common variant is though "royaa-royaa chehraa" and "ruaasaa chehraa" (the latter's meaning may slightly differ in some contexts).

    There is also "piTaa huaa chehraa." And of course, again, "piTaa-piTaa chehraa." There is also "piTelaa chehraa" (just like "ruaasaa") but some might consider it non-standard.

    (Both "ronaa" and "piTnaa" are intransitives, with the difference that "ronaa" only has a causative related verb ("rulvaanaa"), but no transitive relation, whereas "piTnaa" as both "piiTnaa" and "piTvaanaa.")

    Could you say something like

    "ghar meN rokar (ghar meN ronaa khatam karke) laRkii aa rahii hai"

    You can say that but it's a weird sentence, as if "ronaa" were a task that the girl has managed to do or achieve. You would rather say something like "laRkii ghar se bohat ro-dho kar/ke aa rahii hai." (The same "ronaa-dhonaa" was suggested by @aevynn jii.)

    If so, I wonder if the distinction holds w/ other verbs:

    saRii pahantii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gaii - the woman (in the middle of) putting on a sari got mad
    If that is the meaning (woman in the middle of wearing a sari), I would say "saaRii paihante hue aurat naaraaz ho gayii."
    Better would be "paihante-paihante" or the more literal "paihante same" instead of "paihante hue."

    saRii pahanii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gayii - the woman wearing (lit. who put on) a sari got mad
    Yes, with that very restrictive definition of "the" in English. That is, if there were a group of women, and only one was wearing a sari, and she got angry, you could say this.

    saaRii pahankar aurat naraaz ho gayii - the woman fully finished wearing her sari, and then got mad
    This weird sentence can mean what you say (literally, that is what it means), but it would mean something else, rather, depending on context. (For example, it may be implied that the sari had a defect.)
     
    Last edited:

    littlepond

    Senior Member
    Hindi
    But I wonder if there might be a more colorful and/or idiomatic way of conveying this idea that someone cries themselves dry, tidies themselves up, puts on a strong face, and goes out into the world.

    I don't think all of this fits into any standard idiomatic expression in Hindi.

    The first part is there, of course: "ro-ro ke aaNsoo sookh jaana."
     

    Pokeflute

    Senior Member
    English - American
    Thanks both of you!

    This makes a lot of sense. Will have to spend some time digesting all of this.
     
    Top