Your assumption is correct but we must not forget that the type of construction being discussed continues to exist in the 20
th and beyond to the 21
st Century.
I will go along with your “Agreement 1” with the added stipulation that this form is found not only in literary works but also in normal speech albeit it is seemingly rare. I say seemingly because there are only two active mother tongue Urdu speakers on the forum namely marrish SaaHib and Faylasoof SaaHib. The latter’s views on this topic would be most welcome and that would indeed take the discussion forward.
With regard to “Agreement 2”, one thing should be noted. There are very many Urdu speakers whose colloquial, everyday speech is not much different from the literary, if at all. And even those who you would describe as speaking “street lingo” would also be employing 1
st person plural using such forms as “chaliye”, “dekhiye” etc.
1) Can you form a good colloquial Urdu dialogue where an apparent 1st plural -iye form is used other than chaliye and aa'iye? That should be possible if it is a general grammatical pattern, and not just an idiom limited to two verbs.
Yes, we can. Here is a piece of conversation from a certain Syed Zafar SaaHib*, in an Urdu Language Poetry Newsgroup written in 2004. This gentleman, with the grace of God, is still alive and kicking. I can provide a link to this piece if you so wish. You will notice I have copy/pasted and have not changed the transliteration to suit my style.
“.....door kyoN
jaa'iye, apne Sarwar sahib* hee kaa she'er le leeji'ye....”
2. [...] So, the question was: Does it remain good colloquial Urdu if they were in tuu-terms with each other? [...]
Well, both you and littlepond have every right to disagree with the grammatical analysis of “chaliye” in the dialogue provided. The author, whose qualifications I have already cited, himself translates “chaliye” as “Let us”. If, as you say, “chaliye” is an idiomatic use of 2
nd honorific imperative, then is “ham chaleN” also an idiomatic use of the 2
nd honorific subjunctive “aap chaleN”? You feel “chaliye” is aap dependent and it would n’t work if “aap” were replaced with “tuu”. I shall use C.M.Naim’s dialogue but will change it to the “tuu” pronoun and will remove other markers of polite speech.
alif: kyoN Shakiil, tujhe furst hai?
be: zaruur. kyaa (teraa) kahiiN jaane kaa iraadah hai?
alif: zaraa baRe bazaar tak
chalte haiN. (mujhe) kuchh chiizeN xariidnaa hai. aaj to der tak dukaaneN khulii raheN gii.
be: achchhaa (tujhe) bahut sii chiizeN xariidnii haiN?
alif: (nahiiN mujhe sirf) kuchh kapRaa xariidnaa hai. jaaRaa shuruu3 hone vaalaa hai. maiN ne sochaa kuchh garm kapRe banvaa lene chaahiyeN.
be:
chaliye! mujhe bhii ek garm patluun banvaanii thii. abhii to kapRaa sastaa ho gaa?
alif: haaN, varnah sardii shuruu3 ho ga'ii to phir daam baRh jaa'eN ge.
You will not have failed to notice “
chalte haiN”. This you will no doubt agree is “ham chalte haiN” and NOT “aap chalte haiN”! When “alif” mentions the onset of winter and thinks he should buy some cloth, "be" agrees to accompany “alif” by saying “Let’s go. I too was thinking of having a trousers made. The cloth would still be cheap, won’t it?” All, alif wanted was a bit of company.
* I don’t know about the ethnicity of Syed Zafar but the gentleman (Sarwar SaaHib) under discussion is from Jabalpur, India, a mother tongue Urdu speaker and a living Urdu poet. Here is a relevant quote from him.
Sarwar jo uTh ke seHn.e.Haram se nikal gayaa
kyaa
jaan'iye k uss kaa iraada kidhar kaa hai!
Would you agree “kyaa jaaniye” means “ham kyaa jaaneN”? Let me finish with a gem by SaaGhar Nizami (1905-1983 Aligarh)
yeh havaa, SaaGhar, yeh halkii chaaNdnii
jii meiN aataa hai, yaheeN mar
jaa'iye!!!
Urdu speakers would be interested in finding out if Hindi can add anything to this discussion. In theory there should n't be any difference between Urdu and Hindi usage of this "mood". I am sure our moderators would not have an issue with changing the title to incorporate Hindi as well.