Hindi, Urdu: quasi-objects with ne

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Friends,

I am reviewing the subject of verbs that can be interpreted both as transitive or intransitive.
For example:
badalnaa, bharnaa, bolnaa, laRnaa, samajhnaa, jhaaknaa

and the "bodily function that involve some emission" ones, for which the transitive usage usually implies a more "willing" or "intentional" emission:
musk(u)raanaa, ronaa, khaaNsna, bhauknaa, d(a)haaRnaa, chhiiNknaa, muutnaa, thuuknaa, etc.

One general thing that grammars say about these particular verbs (unfortunately, not giving many examples) is that, essentially "things are not as neat or logic as they should be" in relation to the speakers' choice to use or not use the ergative-ne sentence format with these verbs.

That many speakers consider acceptable using ne with the above verbs, even in sentences which can't really be considerered transitive (maybe by association with other usages of the same verb, which can).

For example, that for some people, a sentence like the one below would be acceptable:

1. bachche ne saare raat royaa


And moreover, that this "augmented" usage of ne is all the more likely when the sentence contains other postpositional complements that cannot properly be considered direct objects, but which semantically convey the same idea. The Saphiro Urdu grammar calls them "quasi-objects". Unfortunately no examples are given, so I had to invent some:

2.a. maiN_ne darvaaza(h) khaTkhaTaayaa
2.b maiN_ne darvaaze par khaTkhaTaayaa

3.a is paarTii ne chunaav laRaa hai
3.b is paarTii ne das siiToN par laRaa hai

So, my question is: are #1, #2.b and #3.b acceptable? (or, if not acceptable, at least "heard of" by this forum members?)

Thanks in advance for any comments

 

[littlepond]

1, 2b and 3b are unacceptable and never heard by me. Meanwhile, it should be "bachchaa saarii raat royaa."

 

[amiramir]

2.b maiN_ne darvaaze par khaTkhaTaayaa

I don't this sentence fits within your overall point. I would have thought khaTkhaTaanaa always takes ne. This sentence doesn't work because of the 'par' -- I think it's just object + khaTkhaTaanaa, rather than object +par + khaTkhaTaanaa.

Let's hope the native speakers will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Let me explain the source of my confusion.
Says Schmidt:

Intansitives which take ne:

A few intransitive verbs might take ne:

thuuknaa = to spit
jhaaNknaa = to peep
muutnaa = to urinate
khaTkhaTaayaa = to knock

In some cases the presence of a direct object, or quasi-direct object in the deep structure might explain the phenomenon:

darvaaza(h) khaTkhaTaayaa = to knock (on) a door
andar jhaNknaa = to peep inside

So, darvaaza(h) khaTkhaTaayaa sounds to me like a verb that is transitive (or behavng like one) with a normal direct object. (No "quasi" about it).

I do find examples on the Internet in the line of:

logoN ne andar jhaNkaa


So this "andar" (which is an adverb) could be an example of this quasi-object?
Or maybe andar can sometimes be a noun, and HU idiomatically says "Peeping the interior"?

 

[littlepond]

"jhaNknaa" will always take a "ne." "us ne jhaaNkaa to paayaa ki ..."

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

So this concept of "quasi-object" doesn't seem to be very useful. (Or at least, not in the examples given in the book).

- thuuknaa and muutnaa are "bodily functions involving emissions" so they follow those rules of deliberateness.
- khaTkhaTaayaa is not really intransitive
- jhaNknaa always take ne, independently of any quasi-object.

 

[Qureshpor]

2.b maiN_ne darvaaze par khaTkhaTaayaa

Urdu: maiN ne darvaaze par dastak dii

dastak (a knock on the door)

3.b is paarTii ne das siiToN par laRaa hai

Urdu: is paarTii ne das siiToN par (intixaab) laRaa hai

intixaab (election)

 

[aevynn]

I don't this sentence fits within your overall point... This sentence doesn't work because of the 'par' -- I think it's just object + khaTkhaTaanaa, rather than object +par + khaTkhaTaanaa.

I agree with this, and with this:

So this concept of "quasi-object" doesn't seem to be very useful. (Or at least, not in the examples given in the book).

Which means the rest of this is a somewhat inconsequential tangent, but...

I would have thought khaTkhaTaanaa always takes ne.

khaTkhaTaayaa is not really intransitive

I've encountered an intransitive usage of khaTkhaTaanaa, as in Dabbe men kuchh khaTkhaTaa rahaa hai ("Something's clanging around inside the box"). I think there are similar intransitive usages of most onomatopoetic verbs?

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

What about nahaanaa?

There seems to be plenty of "ne nahaayaa" on the Internet (as in "kuND meN logoN ne nahaaya")
Is it always intransitive? Can one "bathe something or someone"? Is there any reason why people would use it with ne?

 

[littlepond]

What about nahaanaa?

There seems to be plenty of "ne nahaayaa" on the Internet (as in "kuND meN logoN ne nahaaya")

There is no "ne nahaayaa."

Is it always intransitive? Can one "bathe something or someone"? Is there any reason why people would use it with ne?

One can of course bathe something or someone, but that is "nihlaanaa." And that of course comes with a ne.

 

[amiramir]

Related thread here.