Urdu, Hindi: deicitc transformation in other kinds of framed narration

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Friends,
In the following sentence, is the use of the simple future bhaageN_ge grammatical? (as opposed to some other verbal tense or mood)

laRkoN ko lagtaa thaa ki(h) luuT ke baad vo(h) bhaageN_ge

The reason I ask, is because I am starting to realize that HU tends to avoid deictic transformations inside any temporally-framed narration whatsoever, and not only those inside what could be considered a "referred speech".
(Unless what the boys "thought" could also be loosely considered some sort of "referred speech").

Thanks in advance for any answer or comment.

 

[Qureshpor]

The reason I ask, is because I am starting to realize that HU tends to avoid deictic transformations inside any temporally-framed narration whatsoever, and not only those inside what could be considered a "referred speech".

Could you please change this to language that ordinary mortals can understand.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

I was just asking if
laRkoN ko lagtaa thaa ki(h) luuT ke baad vo(h) bhaageN_ge

is OK. Suppose, in the context of someone recalling a frustrated robbery.

 

[Qureshpor]

I was just asking if
laRkoN ko lagtaa thaa ki(h) luuT ke baad vo(h) bhaageN_ge

is OK.

مجھے تو یہ جملہ اِتنا اچھّا نہیں لگتا۔

لڑکوں کو لگتا تھا کہ لُوٹ کے بعد وہ بھاگیں گے۔

بہتر جملہ شاید یہ ہو۔

لڑکوں کو لگتا تھا کہ لُوٹنے کے بعد وہ بھاگ نکلیں گے۔

یا

لڑکوں کو لگتا تھا کہ لُوٹنے کے بعد وہ بچ نکلیں گے۔

میں یہ فرض کر رہا ہوں کہ لُوٹنے والے لڑکے ہیں۔

از راہِ کرم یاد رکھئے گا کہ اردو میں باد نہیں بعد لکھا جاتا ہے اور بھاگینگے ایک ساتھ نہیں لکھا جاتا بلکہ یہ دو لفظ الگ الگ لکھے جاتے ہیں۔

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

I am assuming that the boys are the criminals, as in,

laRkoN ko lagtaa hai ki(h) laRkii se baig churaa kar, vo(h) bhaag nikleN_gee.

لڑکوں کو لگتا تھا کہ لُوٹنے کے بعد وہ بھاگ نکلیں گے۔

یا

لڑکوں کو لگتا تھا کہ لُوٹنے کے بعد وہ بچ نکلیں گے۔

laRkoN ko lagtaa thaa ki(h) luuTne ke ba3d vo(h) bhaag nikleN_ge.
yaa
laRkoN ko lagtaa thaa ki(h) luuTne ke ba3d vo(h) bach nikleN_ge.


So, you are still using the future بھاگ نکلیں گے. That answers my question.

BTW, why don't you like the simple form bhaageN_ge instead of bhaag nikleN_ge, bhaag jaaeN_ge, etc.?
bhaagnaa is not so much used as a single verb?

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

On the underscored in nikleN_ge for نکلیں گے, etc., I am just trying to follow a reasonable convention so that Hindi speakers can also contribute.
But, strictly speaking, couldn't I just choose to write نکلین٘ـگے with a nuun Gunaa? That would also be "legit Urdu", wouldn't it? 😊

 

[Qureshpor]

BTW, why don't you like the simple form bhaageN_ge instead of bhaag nikleN_ge, bhaag jaaeN_ge, etc.?
bhaagnaa is not so much used as a single verb?

در اصل میں صرف بھاگنے میں شاید بچ نکلنے یعنی فرار ہونے کے معنی نہیں پاتا اِس لئے میں نے مناسب سمجھا کہ فعل بھاگنے کو تنہا استعمال کرنا موزوں نہیں محسوس ہوتا۔
​

But, strictly speaking, couldn't I just choose to write نکلین٘ـگے with a nuun Gunaa? That would also be "legit Urdu", wouldn't it? 😊

جدید اردو میں عموماً فعل مستقبل کا مادہ الگ لکھا جاتا ہے۔

 

[littlepond]

BTW, why don't you like the simple form bhaageN_ge instead of bhaag nikleN_ge, bhaag jaaeN_ge, etc.?
bhaagnaa is not so much used as a single verb?

"bhaageNge" is used, but here, something like "bhaag nikleNge, bhaag sakeNge" etc. would be suitable.

 

[aevynn]

The reason I ask, is because I am starting to realize that HU tends to avoid deictic transformations inside any temporally-framed narration whatsoever, and not only those inside what could be considered a "referred speech". (Unless what the boys "thought" could also be loosely considered some sort of "referred speech").

Are you asking about the following situation?

(1-E) I will be able to run away.​

(2-E) He thought that he would be able to run away.​

​

(1-S) Podré escapar.​

(2-S) Pensó que podría escapar.​

​

(1-UH) maiN bhaag sakuuN_gaa.​

(2-UH) use lagaa kI wO bhaag sake_gaa.​

If so, yes: there isn't any analog for this transformation to "conditional" verb morphology. (Hopefully the Spanish sentences aren't incorrect...!) Some further comments:

* In English, not undergoing this type of transformation in verb morphology is marginally acceptable (in some instances and/or in some varieties).

* I do think that "what the boys 'thought' could also be loosely considered some sort of 'referred speech.'" At least, the relevant syntactic points all seem to apply, and in particular, it is not impossible to say:

(3-UH) use lagaa kI maiN bhaag sakuuN_gaa.​

with the same intended meaning as (2-UH), as discussed here.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

One more question regarding this:
The ki(h) elision, also works for this extended definition of "referred speech"?
In other words, is it acceptable to say:

"kaptaan jaantaa thaa [x] jahaaz Duub jaae_gaa", without ki(h)?

 

[aevynn]

The ki(h) elision, also works for this extended definition of "referred speech"?

You might already be happy with "extended definition of referred speech," but I'd like to propose the hypothesis that the syntactic contexts in which the complementizer can be elided are when the complementizer heads a subordinate clause which is functioning as a direct object of the matrix verb. (Incidentally, this is common in English as well.)

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

You might already be happy with "extended definition of referred speech," but I'd like to propose the hypothesis that the syntactic contexts in which the complementizer can be elided are when the complementizer heads a subordinate clause which is functioning as a direct object of the matrix verb. (Incidentally, this is common in English as well.)

It happens at the exact same level, really?

How do

laazim hai [x] ham bhii dekheN_ge vo din
or
xudaa jaane [x] maiN fidaa huuN

sound to you?

 

[Pokeflute]

* In English, not undergoing this type of transformation in verb morphology is marginally acceptable (in some instances and/or in some varieties).

Anecdotal, but many Indians I know would find something like the following grammatical

> I hoped that he will go there

Whereas to me (an American) the sentence sounds strongly ungrammatical. I remember arguing with my (Indian) mom about this as a kid haha.

I always assumed it’s a direct influence from Hindi “mujhe aashaa thii ki vo vahaaN jaaega” (or the Gujarati/etc equivalent)

My understanding is that in Hindi the tense of the embedded clause is like imagining yourself at the moment mentioned. So if in the past you were hoping, from that perspective him coming would be in the future. So you use the future tense.

Hope that makes sense? It’s a general pattern you see a lot in Hindi embedded clauses in general IMO

For example “usne kahaa thaa ki maiN der aauuNgaa” (vs English “he said he’d come late” - note both the tense and subject of the embedded clause).

My understanding is also this trend is also changing due to English influence on South Asian languages (among many other changes) so it may not be true for everyone.

 

[Qureshpor]

For example “usne kahaa thaa ki maiN der aauuNgaa” (vs English “he said he’d come late” - note both the tense and subject of the embedded clause).

اُس نے کہا تھا کہ مَیں دیر سے آؤں گا۔

I believe your understanding is correct. In a sentence such as this one, the speaker is describing an event in the past from the point of view of the person who is going to come in the future from that past time reference. So, from a present perspective, the speaker said x in the past and then probably carried out his intention in the future relative to the original time frame.

Same applies for مجھے اُمید تھی کہ وہ وہاں جائے گا۔

If I were to say...

مجھے اُمید ہے کہ وہ وہاں جائے گا۔

I am hoping (now/Present) that he will go (in the future).

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

There are 2 things that I find lacking in grammars, regarding this referred speech subject:

- one, is that they fail to point out how "referred speech" is a much broader category than that which is introduced by straight enunciative verbs such as "he said" or "he asked". What comes after mujh_ko ashaa hai ki(h) ... is a form of referred speech, too.
It doesn't have to be an actual utterance, but could be something that is written, or a mental process, for example.

- the second surprising thing, which I didn't realize until @aevynn jii pointed it out in #11, is that eliding the ki(h) is mentioned in grammars as a side note on the subject of referred speech. us_ne kahaa [x] maiN ... , where in fact it seems to be a much broader pehonmenon, that encompasses all the language.
It is incredible that grammars don't clarify this, dedicating to it a full section, not just a side note on referred speech.

 

[aevynn]

It happens at the exact same level, really?

It is not exactly the same as English, but there is substantial overlap that I thought might be helpful to draw your attention to.

For example,

(1a) xudaa jaane [x] maiN fidaa huuN

sounds just fine (to me), and

(1b) God knows [that] I'm totally head-over-heels for him.​

also sounds fine in English. In both (1a) and (1b), the subordinate clauses are functioning as direct objects of the matrix verb "jaane" or "knows."

Similarly, it's fine in UH to say

(2a) mumkin hai [kI] aaj ho jaa'e_gaa.​

and it's fine in English to say

(2b) It's possible [that] it gets done today.​

In both (2a) and (2b), the subordinate clause is an (extraposed) subject -- not a direct object, so the hypothesis I proposed in #11 requires some broadening (see below).

However, there are points of departure between English and UH. For example, it is fine in UH to say

(3a) pataa nahiiN [kI] aaj ho paa'e_gaa yaa nahiiN.​

but in English, one has

(3b) I don't know whether it'll get done today.​

and one cannot drop the "whether" (or maybe, one cannot insert "that").

It also sounds fine to me to say

(4a) laazim hai [x] ham bhii dekheN_ge vo din

(at least syntactically, ie, insofar as I ignore the "butchering" of a very recognizable line of poetry...! ), whereas in English, one has

(4b) It is necessary that we too will see that day.​

and one cannot drop "that." In both (4a) and (4b), the subordinate clauses are again (extraposed) subjects rather than direct objects.

In light of the acceptability of examples (2a) and (4a) with extraposed subjects, maybe the hypothesis from #11 should be revised to "In UH, a null complementizer can head any subordinate clause which is an argument for the matrix verb." This too is a falsifiable hypothesis, and I'll be happy to see it falsified and revised. Meanwhile, examples (3b) and (4b) already show that the situation is not literally identical to English.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Does this elision of ki(h) lend any special gravity or solemnity to what is introduced, is it any more frequent in formal contexts?

[EDIT]: In Spanish, we can omit a "que" in, say, "Le ruego [que] me perdone" = "I beg [that] you forgive me", but in an exceptionally formal context.

 

[aevynn]

^ No special gravity or solemnity. In fact, the "elided" version often feels slightly less formal and more colloquial to me, but it's a marginal difference when there even is a difference at all.