Hindi,Urdu: difference between absolutive and adverbial past participle usages

MonsieurGonzalito

Senior Member
Castellano de Argentina
Friends,

I am trying to understand the difference in meaning between a (transitive) verb in absolutive, referring to some object, and the same verb expressed as an (adverbial, oblique) perfect participle.

For example, if I want to dissuade someone from coming back wearing the same dirty clothes, I guess I coudl say:

1.vahii gaNde kapRe pahan kar vaapas nahiiN aanaa chaahie
2.vahii gaNde kapRe pahne hue vaapas nahiiN aanaa chaahie


What is the sublte difference in meaning, if any, given that both refer to a "wearing" that already happened?
Thanks in advance.
 
  • littlepond

    Senior Member
    Hindi
    For example, if I want to dissuade someone from coming back wearing the same dirty clothes, I guess I coudl say:

    1.vahii gaNde kapRe pahan kar vaapas nahiiN aanaa chaahie
    2.vahii gaNde kapRe pahne hue vaapas nahiiN aanaa chaahie


    What is the sublte difference in meaning, if any, given that both refer to a "wearing" that already happened?
    Thanks in advance.

    It depends on what you are expecting the other person to do while he is away.

    Construction 1 if you think he will change his clothes on going away, then change back to come here (let's say, you are in hospital, he's come to visit you, now he is going from hospital to home, then he will go to office from home, then back to home, and later he will again visit you): in that case, you can use "vahii gande kapRe paihan kar na aa jaanaa!" You are assuming he will change into something to go to office, and then he will return to home, but you are asking him not to change back into that old set of clothes which he was wearing the last time he visited you.

    Note that you can also use Construction 1 if it's a first-time occurrence (there is no "vaapas").

    So when can you not use Construction 1? If in your imagination the person wouldn't have had time to change.

    Construction 2, you can use in all situations. Note that "hue" is optional here, and I wouldn't use "hue" in this scenario for better fluidity.

    Also note: It is "gande," not "gaNde." No "aanaa chaahie" - that seems like some school morals teaching textbook, and I doubt many real-world scenarios will need this for "gande kapRe"!
     

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina
    1.vahii gande kapRe pahan kar na aa jaanaa
    2.vahii gande kapRe pahne hue na aa jaanaa


    Thanks for your explanation, @littlepond. I am still missing something, because of the inadequate verb I chose to ask about this.
    So, "pahanna" means the isolated act of "putting on/changing into" some clothes, or the continual effect of "wearing" them? (the dictionary says both, but dictionaries are often wrong and miss things that are obvious to real speakers).

    If the former.
    So when can you not use Construction 1? If in your imagination the person wouldn't have had time to change.
    Why can't I use (1)? Couldn't I be referring to "having put on" the clothes just once?
     

    amiramir

    Senior Member
    English-USA
    Thanks for your explanation, @littlepond. I am still missing something, because of the inadequate verb I chose to ask about this.
    So, "pahanna" means the isolated act of "putting on/changing into" some clothes, or the continual effect of "wearing" them? (the dictionary says both, but dictionaries are often wrong and miss things that are obvious to real speakers).

    Yes, pahanna is the physical act of putting on the clothes. See this link here, which very clearly shows the putting on of something (ponerse) vs. having on (llevar (puesto)). The fact that both can be covered by 'wear' in English confuses the issue.
     

    littlepond

    Senior Member
    Hindi
    So, "pahanna" means the isolated act of "putting on/changing into" some clothes, or the continual effect of "wearing" them? (the dictionary says both, but dictionaries are often wrong and miss things that are obvious to real speakers).

    "paihan-naa" means to put on some clothes. "paihne hue honaa" means "the continual effect of wearing."

    voh saaRii paihan rahii hai - she is putting on a sari
    voh saaRii paihne hue hai* - she is in a sari

    If the former.

    Why can't I use (1)? Couldn't I be referring to "having put on" the clothes just once?

    I didn't understand your question. In post 2, I already mentioned that you can use Construction 1 for one-time occurrences.

    *Some may also say "voh saaRii paihnii huii hai" to match with the woman's gender.
     

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    This has basically already been answered above, but just putting two and two together:
    1.vahii gaNde kapRe pahan kar vaapas nahiiN aanaa chaahie
    2.vahii gaNde kapRe pahne hue vaapas nahiiN aanaa chaahie


    What is the sublte difference in meaning, if any, given that both refer to a "wearing" that already happened?
    gande kapRe pahan kar = after putting on dirty clothes
    gande kapRe pahne hue = while wearing dirty clothes

    In general, the perfective participle, especially when followed by a huaa, conveys that the action, though completed, continues to have some ramification at the time of reference. This is why the perfective participle of pahannaa carries this sense of "continual wearing" (if the action of putting on some clothes continue to have some ramification at the time of reference, the reason is probably that the person is still wearing those clothes!). This kind of thing also showed up here (cf. #15 and some of the following posts) in the distinction between royaa huaa and rokar, and there was also this relevant observation by Dib jii about gayaa huaa often meaning something like "gone and is still away."
     
    Last edited:
    Top