Friends,
The following 2 sentences come from very different backgrounds.
This first one comes from an Urdu religious song, Aaqaa:
jahaaN bhii dekhuuN, teraa nishaan hai
The second comes from some Hindi online magazine's advices about gardening:
jyoN jyoN yah paudhaa baRhtaa jaae_gaa, logoN ko chhaaNv de_gaa
What both sentences have in common, is that they have a relative clause without a correlative counterpart.
For the first sentence, I was told that omitting the "vahaaN" lends more gravity, more lyrical character to the verse (and it also fits the metre, which is important).
But what whould be the effect of omitting a "tyoN tyoN" on the second sentence?
And more generally, I am wright in assuming that the "normal", "unmarked" thing is to always use the correlative word, and that when it is omitted it is usually deliberate, in order to produce some effect?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
The following 2 sentences come from very different backgrounds.
This first one comes from an Urdu religious song, Aaqaa:
jahaaN bhii dekhuuN, teraa nishaan hai
The second comes from some Hindi online magazine's advices about gardening:
jyoN jyoN yah paudhaa baRhtaa jaae_gaa, logoN ko chhaaNv de_gaa
What both sentences have in common, is that they have a relative clause without a correlative counterpart.
For the first sentence, I was told that omitting the "vahaaN" lends more gravity, more lyrical character to the verse (and it also fits the metre, which is important).
But what whould be the effect of omitting a "tyoN tyoN" on the second sentence?
And more generally, I am wright in assuming that the "normal", "unmarked" thing is to always use the correlative word, and that when it is omitted it is usually deliberate, in order to produce some effect?
Thanks in advance for your comments.