Hindi, Urdu: masculine participle in some constructions

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Friends,

I have a doubt regarding a couple of constructions where the participle is supposed to be idiomatically masculine, even if the person doing the action is feminine.
The first, is that antiquated use of chahnaa meaning "to be about to, imminence" rather than "to want".
My understanding is that, for a man, one would say:

"He is about to go (leave)" = vo jaayaa chahtaa hai

but for a woman, to say "She is about to die", would I still use the masculine participle: vo maraa chahtii hai ?

(BTW, I am aware, per some earlier threads, that the above example is increasingly weird for modern speakers, and it would mean something like "she wants [some man] dead" in normal speech).

The second case is with the "(in)capacity construction" Again, the gender of the participle is supposed to be always masculine (I think).
So, if I wanted to say: "Ram could (was able to) eat bread"

would I say
raam se roTii khaayaa gayaa
or
raam se roTii khaaii gaii?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

 

[littlepond]

First of all, all your sentences except "Ram se roTii khaaii gaii" are syntactically wrong, they don't make any sense. Now let's see what each sentence could be for a man and a woman:

He is about to go - voh jaane vaalaa hai ("vaalii" for fem.)
He wants to go - voh jaanaa chaahtaa hai ("chaahtii" for fem.)

She is about to die - voh marne vaalii hai ("vaalaa" for masc.)
She wants to die (i.e., suicide) - voh marnaa chaahtii hai ("chaahtaa" for masc.)

Ram was able to eat bread - raam roTii khaa sakaa (Sita "khaa sakii")

"raam se roTii khaii gaii" can be used for Ram able to eat bread only in specific contexts, not everywhere.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

But that chahnaa usage in the sense of something imminent (rather than "wanting to") does exist, doesn't it?
I am sure I read it somewhere in this forum (although I can't find it). Along with the fact of it being obsolete, if I remember correctly.

"raam se roTii khaii gaii" can be used for Ram able to eat bread only in specific contexts, not everywhere.

I am interested: what would be an example of such a context, in which the above would be more suitable than raam roTii khaa sakaa?

 

[littlepond]

But that chahnaa usage in the sense of something imminent (rather than "wanting to") does exist, doesn't it?

No. "chaahat" is always desire, and thus "chaahnaa" is always to want, to desire something. Sometimes, it can also mean to like something. It could sometimes mean to yearn for something as well, but for yearning, "hasrat" (which recently came up in another thread) is a better (the stronger) word.

I am interested: what would be an example of such a context, in which the above would be more suitable than raam roTii khaa sakaa?

"raam roTii khaa sakaa/paayaa" is a generic statement which reflects capability, and it is suitable at most places (but not all: see below).

"raam se roTii khaii gaii" feels as if there was some question or doubt or an element of surprise about the context of the action (for example: Ram had been sick, had been unable to eat well or digest anything more than a khichRii, and now, Ram's father has entered late at night and asked Ram's mother, "raam kaisaa hai ab? roTii khaii gaii us se aakhir?" Or, the father asked "raam kaisaa hai?" and the mother replied, "are, aaj to us se roTii bhii/tak khaaii gaii!" The father could also have asked, of course, "Ram roTii kha sakaa?" but that feels more as if Ram had a hand fracture, because of which he had been unable to take the roTii in his hand. The mother, also, could have replied "raam to aaj roTii bhii khaa sakaa" and this would pass because of the softeners "to" and "bhii," but "khaaii gayii" is the more idiomatic and better option for such a context.)

Note that (going back to your OP) for a very imminent action, you could also say "voh jaane ko hai" or "voh jaane lagaa hai." The latter could mean either "he is about to go" or "he has started to go" (which makes little sense usually). "voh jaane ko hai," which would be invariable for a male or female, denotes extreme imminence!

Off-topic: Also note that it is "voh" in general for singular, very few native Hindi speakers speak "vo," at least in my experience, for singular. It could be "vah" or "veh" in people's speech, but that "h" has to be there! The "h" (that slight breath of air at the end) is very light, so maybe you don't hear it. I don't know why you seem to repeat something in every thread that is neither in grammar nor in speech. For plural, of course, some speak "vo," some "ve," and some even again use "voh"!

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Off-topic: Also note that it is "voh" in general for singular, very few native Hindi speakers speak "vo," at least in my experience, for singular. It could be "vah" or "veh" in people's speech, but that "h" has to be there! The "h" (that slight breath of air at the end) is very light, so maybe you don't hear it. I don't know why you seem to repeat something in every thread that is neither in grammar nor in speech. For plural, of course, some speak "vo," some "ve," and some even again use "voh"!

Thanks for this valuable remark.


Would it be fair to say that this "capacity" value of [past.part.] + [jaayaa / gaaii] is much more commonly used to reflect incapacity? Even your example starts with an incapacity of sorts.

 

[littlepond]

Would it be fair to say that this "capacity" value of [past.part.] + [jaayaa / gaaii] is much more commonly used to reflect incapacity? Even your example starts with an incapacity of sorts.

One could say, a preceding incapacity. But note not always: for example, passive sentences (however, not that common in Hindi as in English) will also have this construction: viz. raam ke dwaaraa roTii khaaii gaii. (Note that the passive construction would rather use "dwaaraa" and not "se" here. But "se" is not prohibited in passive constructions! "aaj subah chaar miil tak raamuu se gaaRii chalvaaii gaii.")

 

[Qureshpor]

Friends,

I have a doubt regarding a couple of constructions where the participle is supposed to be idiomatically masculine, even if the person doing the action is feminine.
The first, is that antiquated use of chahnaa meaning "to be about to, imminence" rather than "to want".
My understanding is that, for a man, one would say:

"He is about to go (leave)" = vo jaayaa chahtaa hai

but for a woman, to say "She is about to die", would I still use the masculine participle: vo maraa chahtii hai ?

(BTW, I am aware, per some earlier threads, that the above example is increasingly weird for modern speakers, and it would mean something like "she wants [some man] dead" in normal speech).

The second case is with the "(in)capacity construction" Again, the gender of the participle is supposed to be always masculine (I think).
So, if I wanted to say: "Ram could (was able to) eat bread"

would I say
raam se roTii khaayaa gayaa
or
raam se roTii khaaii gaii?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Urdu/Hindi: huwa chaahta hai ہوا چاہتا ہے

Ram could not come.

Ram se aayaa nah gayaa

Ram could not eat bread.

Ram se roTii khaa’ii nah ga’ii.

The above construction is used in the negative.

Ram roTii khaa saktaa thaa.

Ram could eat bread.

Ram roTii khaa nah paayaa.

Ram could not eat bread.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Thanks for finding one of the threads!

 

[littlepond]

Ram roTii khaa saktaa thaa.

Ram could eat bread.

That one is wrongly translated. Correct translation:

Ram roTii khaa saktaa thaa

Ram could have eaten (the) bread. (thus implying that he did not, par khaaii nahiiN)

I guess @Qureshpor jii meant Ram roTii khaa sakaa thaa.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

I found another post about the archaic use:

Urdu: le jaayaa gayaa لے جایا گیا

 

[Qureshpor]

I am interested: what would be an example of such a context, in which the above would be more suitable than raam roTii khaa sakaa?

Ok. Let’s assume you enjoy eating roTii but have only eaten those made from wheat flour, the nice light variety. Our Ram on the other hand has experience of eating roTii made from wheat, maize and millet flours. On this particular occasion, their host @Qureshpor, being a rural Punjabi, serves @MonsieurGonzalito SaaHib and Ram Jii with “baajre kii do roTiyaaN” with water buffalo’s makkhan (butter) along with mustard saag, not knowing that @MonsieurGonzalito SaaHib is going to go through tough time negotiating with a millet roTii. He has one bite and puts his hands up whereas Ram becomes Qureshpor’s friend for life and relishes the roTii along with the makkhan and saag.

So…

Ram baajre kii roTii baRii aasaanii se khaa sakaa lekin @MonsieurGonzalito ne jald hii muNh pher liyaa.

Ram could/was able to eat millet-bread with ease but @MonsieurGonzalito soon turned his face away!

Edit: Apologies. I misunderstood your question.

 

[Qureshpor]

That one is wrongly translated. Correct translation:

Ram roTii khaa saktaa thaa

Ram could have eaten (the) bread. (thus implying that he did not, par khaaii nahiiN)

I guess @Qureshpor jii meant Ram roTii khaa sakaa thaa.

No, it is translated perfectly correctly.

Ram us din roTii khaa saktaa thaa lekin us ne kisii vajh se inkaar kar diyaa.

Ram could eat roTii that day but for some reason he declined.

Whether one uses “could eat / could have eaten” is a matter of personal preference.

kyaa Ram vahaaN roTii khaa sakaa thaa.

Was Ram able to eat roTii there?

Had Ram been able to eat roTii there?

It is not always possible to give exact meanings of various constructions without using fuller context.