Hindi/Urdu: Non-existent / unknown relative clauses

[Pokeflute]

Hi all,

How would you translate the following into Hindi/Urdu?

(a) "I need a book that explains the subject well"
(b) "I want a boyfriend who buys me lots of chocolates"
(c) "There aren't any places in the town that serve alcohol"

My attempts:
(a) mujhe aisii kitaab ki zaroorat hai jo ye vishay/topic acchi tarah se samjhaaegi
(b) mujhe aisa boyfriend chahiye jo mere liye bahut saare chocolates khariid (xariid) dega
(c) gaaNv meN koi aisi jagah hai hi nahiN jismeN/jahaaN daaru milega

A few questions:

1. Is there a difference between "koi aisaa" and "aisaa"? Either in meaning or in sentence structure?
2. For the final verb, is there a difference between the future, present, present+subjunctive and subjunctive? (e.g., "ye topic acchi tarah se sumjhaaegi/samjhaati hai/samjhaati ho/samjhaaye)?
3. For locations, (example (c)), are both "jahaaN" and "jismeN" allowed?

 

[Qureshpor]

(a) "I need a book that explains the subject well"
(b) "I want a boyfriend who buys me lots of chocolates"
(c) "There aren't any places in the town that serve alcohol"

الف۔ مجھے ایک (ایسی) کتاب کی ضرورت ہے جو موضوع کو اچھّی طرح واضح کرتی ہے۔

ب۔ مجھے ایک بوئے فرینڈ چاہیئے جو میرے لئے بہت سے چاکلیٹ خریدے۔

ج۔ شہر میں ایسی جگہیں نہیں ہیں جہاں شراب ملتی ہے۔
​

Your translations are pretty good. I've amended them with Urdu in mind.

My attempts:
(a) mujhe aisii kitaab kii zaroorat hai jo mauzuu3 achchii tarah se samjhaae gii.
(b) mujhe aisaa boyfriend chahiye jo mere liye bahut saare chocolates xariide gaa
(c) shahr meN koii aisii jagah hai hii nahiN jahaaN sharaab mile gii.

A few questions:

1. Is there a difference between "koi aisaa" and "aisaa"? Either in meaning or in sentence structure?
2. For the final verb, is there a difference between the future, present, present+subjunctive and subjunctive? (e.g., "ye topic acchi tarah se sumjhaaegi/samjhaati hai/samjhaati ho/samjhaaye)?
3. For locations, (example (c)), are both "jahaaN" and "jismeN" allowed?

الف۔ میرے خیال میں کوئی کے ساتھ معنی میں تاکید پیدا ہوتی ہے۔ emphais

ب۔ جی ہاں ضرور فرق ہے۔

ج۔ جہاں اور جِس میں دونوں مستعمل ہیں لیکن سیاق و سِباق کو مدِّ نظر رکھنا چاہیئے۔ context​

 

[Pokeflute]

Thank you!

sawaal number 2 ke regards - aapke khyaal se, un options meN se, kyaa kyaa fark paRtaa hai? matlab, tense kis ciiz par depend kartaa hai?

maiN is topic par itnaa dhyaan detaa hooN kyooNki Spanish bhaashaa meN (mere tujarbe meN) jab aap nahiN jaante ki ciiz asal meN exist karta hai to subjunctive ka istemaal compusary hota hai. maiN jaannaa chahtaa thaa ki Hindi/Urdu meN to kyaa koii aisaa rule bhii hotaa hai?

Spoiler: English translation in case I've made a mistake 😅

Regarding question 2, what do you think the exact difference is between the options? Or rather, what does the choice of tense depend on? I ask because in Spanish the subjunctive is obligatory when the object is hypothetical or nonexistent. So I was wondering if Hindi/Urdu had a similar condition.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Your second point is too large to answer accurately on a post. But since Spanish is mentioned, I will allow myself to offer some comparisons, leaving the HU part to the experts.

Althoug it is mostly true that, generally speaking, in Spanish subjunctive implies uncertainty and some degree of "contextual negation", there is no hard-and-fast rule in that regard. The use of Spanish subjunctive is, unfortunately, highly idiomatic and situational, and it can be viewed as a large collection of use cases than have to basically be memorized.

The kind of sentence you propose with jab = "when" = "cuando" is an excellent example of that.

In Spanish we would idiomatically use subjunctive after a "cuando" pretty much regardless of the level of certainty of the thing to occur. "Cuando termine, the aviso" = "When I finish, I'll let you know"
Spanish speakers would use the above subjunctive termine even if there were 100% certainty that the work would be finished.

In HU, instead, I believe that the main, "philosphical" idea is that the presumptive element is per se embedded (always, and to a bigger or lesser degree) in the future forms themselves (1). In this regard, HU is more logical and less idiomatic than Spanish.

So probably a HU speaker would use future in this case, and say something like: jab maiN puuraa kar luuNgaaa, to maiN aap_ko bataa duuNgaa.

And he would retain the expressive possibility of using of the subjunctive for situations of real whim/doubt/uncertainty.
(By "real" uncertainty, I mean an uncertainty beyond the inherent uncertainty of any future event).

In other words: I believe (I am not sure) that a HU speaker could still say something like "jab maiN puuraa kar luuN ..." if he wanted to attach reservations, conditionality, psychological distance, or uncertainty to the first event.(2)


HU speakers please correct me.

______________________________________
(1) Many people even speak about a "presumptive mood" comprising all verbal flexive patterns, simple or compound, that involve a future form. I don't know to which degree one can legitimately shoehorn the concept of "mood" in HU grammar, but you get the idea.

(2) In Spanish we can't do this, because we already "burned" the present subjunctive for a very specific idiomatic usage after the "cuando". So we would need to attach extra explanatory phrases to convey that "actual" doubt or uncertainty: "Cuando termine (suponiendo que termine), ... ", etc.

 

[Pokeflute]

In Spanish we would idiomatically use subjunctive after a "cuando" pretty much regardless of the level of certainty of the thing to occur. "Cuando termine, the aviso" = "When I finish, I'll let you know"
Spanish speakers would use the above subjunctive termine even if there were 100% certainty that the work would be finished.

This is true; the subjunctive in Spanish is not just used for uncertainty.

There are a few areas the subjunctives overlap between the two languages, but, as you note, there are also plenty of areas where they do not overlap.

You make a good point - the relative/correlative structure of Hindi/Urdu is quite different from Spanish's conjunction system. So it's probably best to just keep the concepts totally separate in my head.

In HU, instead, I believe that the main, "philosphical" idea is that the presumptive element is per se embedded (always, and to a bigger or lesser degree) in the future forms themselves (1). In this regard, HU is more logical and less idiomatic than Spanish.

So probably a HU speaker would use future in this case, and say something like: jab maiN puuraa kar luuNgaaa, to maiN aap_ko bataa duuNgaa.

And he would retain the expressive possibility of using of the subjunctive for situations of real whim/doubt/uncertainty.
(By "real" uncertainty, I mean an uncertainty beyond the inherent uncertainty of any future event).

Interesting - so you're saying that in any of these relative/correlative sentences, the indicative (future, present, past, etc.) vs. the subjunctive is more a question of emphasizing doubt.

That makes sense - it's less obligatory and more just extra emphasis...

I'm curious now what the difference would be between:
- samjhaaegi vs. samjhaati hai
- samjhaae vs. samjhaati ho

 

[amiramir]

There is a related thread here.

 

[Pokeflute]

Ah someone else with my thought process

Thanks for the link! So I take it - "samjhaae" would be wrong, but the other 3 correct?

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

I didn't say anything about relative-correlative sentences per se.

But, in line with what I said earlier, for that (a) sentence, I would use in HU:

- future if I didn't have any particular book in mind, and I looked for any one who explains the subject.
- subjunctive if I had any doubts about the book's ability to explain the subject, even after I found the book.
- present "indicative" [non-subjunctive] if I had a particular book in mind which I am almost sure to find and I know with absolute certainty that it explains the subject well.

Like I said, I believe that HU charges the uncertainty proper of a future action on the future itself, and reserves the subjunctive for additional, non-future-event-related causes.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

I'm curious now what the difference would be between:
- samjhaaegi vs. samjhaati hai
- samjhaae vs. samjhaati ho

In relation with this second part of your question, namely: "OK, when I decide to go presumptive, what is the best tense/aspect to use?", I believe that in that regard HU works (roughly) the same as English or Spanish.

The speaker would use a tense/aspect that properly places in time the explanatory action of the book, in relation to his needing action.

I need a book that:
- explains the subject
- has explained the subject (has a proven record of doing it)
- will have explained the subject (once I am done reading it)

This tense dimension is different from, and can intersect with, the uncertainty given by the HU presumptive:
I need a book that:
- might explain the subject
- might have explained the subject
- will probably have explained the subject

Or so I think, competent speakers please correct me.

 

[littlepond]

My attempts:
(a) mujhe aisii kitaab ki zaroorat hai jo ye vishay/topic acchi tarah se samjhaaegi

samjhaae

(b) mujhe aisa boyfriend chahiye jo mere liye bahut saare chocolates khariid (xariid) dega

khariide (and "saarii chocolates")

(c) gaaNv meN koi aisi jagah hai hi nahiN jismeN/jahaaN daaru milega

gaaoN meN koii aisii jagah nahiiN jahaaN (par) daaru/sharaab miltii ho/hai (OR jo sharaab bechtii ho)

A few questions:

1. Is there a difference between "koi aisaa" and "aisaa"? Either in meaning or in sentence structure?

"aisaa" alone would make it a declaration rather than a simple statement.

3. For locations, (example (c)), are both "jahaaN" and "jismeN" allowed?

Here, you cannot replace "jahaaN" with "jis meN." In some situations (when the place is standing for "in a place"), you can.

 

[aevynn]

I'm curious now what the difference would be between:
- samjhaaegi vs. samjhaati hai
- samjhaae vs. samjhaati ho

All four of these feel possible to me [but that could just be me, since @littlepond jii's posts above and in the other thread seem to indicate a decisive preference for the subjunctive over the indicative in these sentences], but maybe I can comment on the difference between the ones on the left and the ones on the right. These differ in aspect, and I think the differing aspect forces different readings for the implicit "explainee." The simple subjunctive/future samjhaa'e(_gii) sounds like it's talking about a one-off explanation event, and I'd understand

​

... jo ye(h) TAupik achchhii taraH samjhaa'e(_gii).​

with an implicit mujhe -- I'm looking for a book that'll explain this topic well to me. In contrast, the habitual aspect of samjhaatii ho/hai implies regular or repeated or habitual explanation events, and I'd correspondingly understand

​

... jo ye(h) TAupik achchhii taraH samjhaatii ho/hai.​

as talking about a book that explains this topic well generally (to anyone, to everyone, etc).

In the sentence of the other thread, we can't really play the same "game" with kamaanaa. I think the reason kamaa'e might be awkward is because the speaker is most likely talking about a hypothetical spouse who regularly or habitually earns a lot of money, so it's very natural to use the habitual aspect.

 

[Pokeflute]

FWIW @aevynn I've encountered both the subjunctive and indicative as well, hence my question above. I wonder if the reason @littlepond prefers the subjunctive is (as you say) there's an implicit "to me".

Thanks all!

 

[littlepond]

@aevynn jii, @Pokeflute jii, you are right, one could also have "samjhaatii hai/ho" even with "mujhe," but because of "mujhe," the first thing that will come to my mind is "samjhaae."