Urdu Hindi: paagal ho gae ho

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Friends,
In the question: kyaa tum paagal ho gae ho?

I understand that ho jaanaa = "to become, to experience a change or state, etc.".
But if the main verb of the sentence is the second ho, then the question becomes an "existential/stative one": Are you ... ?
Then (following my reasoning), ho gae is not a verb really, but some sort of participial phrase reflecting such change of state (I offered
"maddened" in a previous thread).

kyaa tum paagal ho gae ho? = "Are you maddened?"

If this "are you maddened" is not the structure of the HU phrase, then I would need someone to please explain to me what the second "ho"does in the sentence, since for "Have you gone/become mad? ", "kyaa tum paagal ho gae?" would have sufficed.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

 

[Qureshpor]

پاگل ہونا to be mad (یہ ایک کیفیّت ہے جو پہلے سے چلی آ رہی ہے۔)

تم پاگل ہو You are mad.

پاگل ہو جانا to become mad (یہ ایک نئی صورت حال ہے)

تو پاگل ہو گیا ہے You have become mad. = تو [پاگل ہو گیا ہؤا] ہے = You [one turned mad] are.

یہ جملہ حسبِ ذیل جملے کے مُترادِف ہے۔

تم [پاگل ہو گئے ہوئے] ہو You ["one turned mad"] are .

آگاہی

ہونا = to be AND to become

جب میں بیمار ہؤا When I was ill / When I became ill

جب میں بیمار تھا When I was ill

ہو جانا = to become

جب میں بیمار ہو گیا When I became ill

 

[littlepond]

"kyaa tum paagal ho gae?"

That's an incomplete sentence, though, in most contexts.

kyaa tum paagal ho gae/chale ho? - have you gone crazy?
kyaa tum paagal ho gae/chale the? - had you gone crazy?

Note that if you remove "kyaa," there can be a sea change.

"maiN ne tumse bas itnaa hi kahaa aur tum paagal ho gae!" - I said just this much to you and you went crazy.
You cannot have "ho gae the" here unless you also said "kahaa thaa."
Of course, the present would remain the same:
"maiN ne tumse bas itnaa hi kahaa aur tum paagal ho gae ho!" - I said just this much to you and you have gone crazy.

The "second" ho in these sentences, as in any normal sentence ("main mistrii ban gayaa hooN," "tum ab dost ban gaye ho," "voh maihboob ban gayaa hai"), indicates a completion. If someone has gone crazy, completion has to be there. In my mental map, the hooN verbs (hooN, ho, hai, etc.) always denote a certain completion (compare "usne kahaa ki ..." with "usne kahaa hai ki ...") with respect to the present (the anchor), in a way behaving like the French passé composé does as opposed to passé simple (but the distinction in French is lost now).

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Oh, I am an idiot:

paagal ho jataa hai = [verbal root of honaa] + [jaanaa conjugated in present]
paagal ho gae ho = [verbal root of honaa] + [jaanaa conjugated in recent past]
paagal ho gae [hue] = [verbal root of honaa] + [perfect participle of the compound verb ho jaanaa]

I am sorry, this is very basic. Should think before posting questions ...

 

[littlepond]

paagal ho gae [hue] = [verbal root of honaa] + [perfect participle of the compound verb ho jaanaa]

But what's this "hue"?

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

But what's this "hue"?

a perfect honaa participle "augmenting" the participle ho gae (marking it as a participle proper, and not a conjugated verb)
kuchh log garmi se paagal ho gae hue

 

[littlepond]

a perfect honaa participle "augmenting" the participle ho gae (marking it as a participle proper, and not a conjugated verb)
kuchh log garmi se paagal ho gae hue

There is no such sentence and no such "augmentative." "kuchh log garmii se paagal ho gaye" (some people went crazy because of the heat). No "hue" is possible to add.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

I am not saying "Some people went crazy because of the heat". I am saying "some people gone crazy because of the heat", a nominal phrase without any conjugated verb.
To "augment" is just a grammatical term (which I don't like much, BTW) to indicate what the participle of honaa does to the other participle, i.e., to indicate that it is a participle as opposed to a conjugated ("finite" in the English jargon) verb.

 

[aevynn]

^ Typically, one does not "augment" the perfective participle with hu'aa/e/ii(N) when the verb itself is compounded with a light verb. For example, all three of the below are possible. They have slightly different semantics and will therefore be appropriate in slightly different contexts, but all three are possible:

maiN_ne sharaab pii hai​

maiN_ne sharaab pii hu'ii hai​

maiN_ne sharaab pii lii hai​

But it sounds very unnatural to me to say: *maiN_ne sharaab pii lii hu'ii hai.

Completely analogously, the following three are also possible depending on context:

​

kuchh log paagal hu'e haiN​

kuchh log paagal hu'e hu'e haiN​

kuchh log paagal ho ga'e haiN​

Again, it sounds very unnatural to me to say *kuchh log paagal ho ga'e hu'e haiN.

 

[Qureshpor]

Again, it sounds very unnatural to me to say *kuchh log paagal ho ga'e hu'e haiN.

But it's way to explain "tuu paagal ho gayaa hai" (You have gone mad) as "tuu [paagal ho gayaa hu'aa] hai"

Urdu / Hindi : hua hua hai (#s 13, 14)

 

[aevynn]

But it's way to explain "tuu paagal ho gayaa hai" (You have gone mad) as "tuu [paagal ho gayaa hu'aa hai] hai"

Urdu / Hindi : hua hua hai (#s 13, 14)

I'm not sure I entirely understand, Qureshpor jii. I do not think I have ever heard anyone say things like "garam ho gayaa hu'aa paanii" or "so gayaa hu'aa bachchA," and these sound unnatural to me in the same way as the counterexamples I proposed in #9. (And just like in #9, the analogs without light verbs "garam hu'aa hu'aa paanii" and "soyaa hu'aa bachchA" both sound okay.) But it could just be me, so I defer to the expertise of the maahiraan-e-zubaan such as yourself!

 

[Qureshpor]

I'm not sure I entirely understand, Qureshpor jii. I do not think I have ever heard anyone say things like "garam ho gayaa hu'aa paanii" or "so gayaa hu'aa bachchA,"

I know they sound "unnatural" but what you are saying in essence is that we don't have "jaanaa" followed by "honaa".

In Farahang-i-Asifiyyah (an Urdu dictionary of great merit), the word "kaahiidah" is defined as:

sifat : ghaTaa hu'aa, kam shudah, laaGhar-shudah, dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa

sifat, you will know means "adjective". So, if "dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa" is an adjective, then it can be placed before a noun.

dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa kuttaa

garm ho gayaa hu'aa paanii

paagal ho gayaa hu'aa aadamii

..........so gayaa hu'aa bachchah

In the two posts that I've pointed you to, I am saying "ho gayaa" is equivalent to "hu'aa", hence from "ho gayaa hu'aa" we get "hu'aa hu'aa" which is normally frowned upon but is a perfectly logical formation.

The definition goes on to say...

"jaise tan-i-kaahiidah"

which would be "dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa tan" or "dublaa hu'aa hu'aa tan".

 

[Alexu]

Completely analogously, the following three are also possible depending on context:

kuchh log paagal hu'e haiN
kuchh log paagal hu'e hu'e haiN
kuchh log paagal ho ga'e haiN

Again, it sounds very unnatural to me to say *kuchh log paagal ho ga'e hu'e haiN.

And how about "kucch log garmii se paagal ho gaye dikhaaii de rahe the" ?

 

[littlepond]

And how about "kucch log garmii se paagal ho gaye dikhaaii de rahe the" ?

Again, no such sentence.

The correct sentence is "kuchh log garmii se paagal hue dikh rahe the" (one can omit "hue"), but the more normal sentence would be "kuchh log garmii se bad-haal dikh rahe the."

 

[Qureshpor]

And how about "kucch log garmii se paagal ho gaye dikhaaii de rahe the" ?

From an Urdu perspective "dikhaa'ii de rahe the" is the norm as opposed to "dikh rahe the".

Your sentence is not quite right....and in essence it can be thought of as comprising two separate sentences that have been combined.

kucch log garmii se paagal ho ga'e the.

kuchh log garmii se paagal dikhaa'ii de rahe the

So, by combining these two, your sentence would be ...

kucch log garmii se paagal (hu'e) dikhaa'ii de rahe the.

You can of course choose a better alternative for "paagal" unless the heat had driven them crazy!

 

[littlepond]

From an Urdu perspective "dikhaa'ii de rahe the" is the norm as opposed to "dikh rahe the".

Note that "dikhaaii de rahe the" is fine in Hindi, too, and would be more common than "dikh rahe the." My correction was more about the wrong syntax of @Alexu jii.

 

[aevynn]

In Farahang-i-Asifiyyah..., the word "kaahiidah" is defined as:
sifat : ghaTaa hu'aa, kam shudah, laaGhar-shudah, dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa

Thank you for this example, Qureshpor SaaHib! This "dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa" also sounds very clunky and unnatural to me, but apparently not to whoever wrote this dictionary entry, and that's okay. I enjoy the diversity of this speech community!

sifat : ghaTaa hu'aa, kam shudah, laaGhar-shudah, dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa
...
if "dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa" is an adjective, then it can be placed before a noun.
dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa kuttaa
...
The definition goes on to say... "jaise tan-i-kaahiidah" which would be "dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa tan"...

This line of logic feels tenuous to me. Here is part of the entry for "feline" from the Oxford English Dictionary:

The fact that "feline" is an adjective that has the indicated meanings does not mean that the following English sentences are grammatical --- or at least, they certainly don't sound grammatical to me:

*Fanaticism has within it a more than of or pertaining to cats or their species tenacity of life.​

*Human madness is oftentimes a most resembling a cat in any respect thing.​

"hu'aa hu'aa" which is normally frowned upon

"hu'aa hu'aa" elicits no frowns from me! You will notice that I had a double-hu'aa sentence in post #9 above. And in fact...

And how about "kucch log garmii se paagal ho gaye dikhaaii de rahe the" ?

I agree with #14 and #15 above in that this sentence is an ungrammatical "asterisk sentence" for me as well. I am fine with "garmii se paagal dikhaa'ii..." or "garmii se paagal hu'e dikhaa'ii..." or even "garmii se paagal hu'e hu'e dikhaa'ii..."

To elaborate by way of analogy, the following two sentences are fine:

(1a) kuchh log ghaas par baiThe dikhaa'ii de rahe the​

(1b) kuchh log ghaas par baiThe hu'e dikhaa'ii de rahe the​

If one replaces the adjective-like phase "ghaas par baiThe [hu'e]" in sentences (1a--b) with the adjective-like phrase "garmii se paagal," one obtains:

(2) kuchh log garmii se paagal dikhaa'ii de rahe the.​

On the other hand, if swaps out the verb phrase "ghaas par baiThnaa" in sentences (1a--b) with the verb phrase "garmee se paagal honaa" and conjugates appropriately, one obtains:

(3a) kuchh log garmii se paagal hu'e dikhaa'ii de rahe the.​

(3b) kuchh log garmii se paagal hu'e hu'e dikhaa'ii de rahe the.​

Sentences (2) and (3a--b) all sound acceptable to me, and all three have slight differences in nuances.

 

[Qureshpor]

Thank you for this example, Qureshpor SaaHib! This "dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa" also sounds very clunky and unnatural to me, but apparently not to whoever wrote this dictionary entry, and that's okay. I enjoy the diversity of my speech community!

The "whoever" is سیّد احمد دہلوی, a well known scholar of his day. His four volume dictionary was compiled in 1908. He also has several more publications to his name.

I am pleased to hear you enjoy the diversity of your speech community. Whatever your speech community may be

This line of logic feels tenuous to me. Here is part of the entry for "feline" from the Oxford English Dictionary:

It's perfectly logical to me but it is your prerogative to disagree and I respect this.

I agree with #14 and #15 above in that this sentence is an ungrammatical "asterisk sentence" for me as well. I am fine with "garmii se paagal dikhaa'ii..." or "garmii se paagal hu'e dikhaa'ii..." or even "garmii se paagal hu'e hu'e dikhaa'ii..."

It's good to have agreement now and again. Thank you.

As for the double "hu'aa hu'aa" /"hu'e hu'e", I, like you, have no problem with it and my "garm ho gayaa hu'aa" etc construction was introduced to work out how we get to "hu'aa hu'aa". To my mind "garmii se paagal hu'e dikhaa'ii dete haiN" and "garmii se paagal hu'e hu'e dikhaa'ii dete haiN" convey two different but connected nuances and for this reason this construction should be brought into the fold of respectability.

 

[Pokeflute]

As for the double "hu'aa hu'aa" /"hu'e hu'e", I, like you, have no problem with it and my "garm ho gayaa hu'aa" etc construction was introduced to work out how we get to "hu'aa hu'aa".

Is it not the same distinction as the following (for any verb):

thailaa phaaRaa phaTaa dikhaaii de rahaa thaa
thailaa phaaRaa phaTaa huaa dikhaaii de rahaa thaa

Similarly substituting "barbaad honaa" for "phaaRnaa" "phaTnaa" produces the double "huaa"

thailaa barbaad huaa dikhaaii de rahaa thaa
thailaa barbaad huaa huaa dikhaaii de rahaa thaa

Or does "huaa" vs "huaa huaa" have an added nuance?

 

[Qureshpor]

Similarly substituting "barbaad honaa" for "phaaRnaa" produces the double "huaa"

Why can't "phaaRaa hu'aa honaa" produce "phaaRaa hu'aa hu'aa"?

Or does "huaa" vs "huaa huaa" have an added nuance?

Yes, I do believe "hu'aa hu'aa" has an added nuance.

 

[littlepond]

thailaa phaaRaa dikhaaii de rahaa thaa

But one would usually say "thailaa phaTaa (huaa) dikhaaii de rahaa thaa." I personally would find "phaaRaa" very odd here, even incorrect.

 

[Pokeflute]

Ah apologies to you both! It should be "phaTaa".

"phaaRaa" is transitive and I wanted to compare intransitive (barbaad honaa) to intransitive (phaTnaa).

I've edited my post accordingly

 

[Qureshpor]

Ah apologies to you both! It should be "phaTaa".

"phaaRaa" is transitive and I wanted to compare intransitive (barbaad honaa) to intransitive (phaTnaa).

I've edited my post accordingly

Ah, that's a pity because "phaaRaa hu'aa" is perfectly fine and correct.

"phaTaa hu'aa" is "torn" by itself (the bag has got old and became torn)

On the other hand "phaaRaa hu'aa" is "torn" by an external agency.... a vicious dog or a person

Police are investigatng a roadside robbery and the victim's bag looks as if the offender has torn it to take its valuable contents.

Steve MaGarret to Danno : thailaa phaaRaa huaa dikhaaii de rahaa hai.

It looks as if the bag has been torn.

Danno: How right you are Sir!

 

[Pokeflute]

Why can't "phaaRaa hu'aa honaa" produce "phaaRaa hu'aa hu'aa"?

My understanding is that in Hindustani there are two verbs "honaa". One is an "active" verb meaning "to happen" and the other is a "stative" verb meaning "to be/exist". Let's call these "honaa-action" and "honaa-state"

These verbs share some conjugations but not all. For example the past tense of "honaa-action" is "wo huaa" whereas for "honaa-state" it is "wo thaa".

The fact that these have the same infinitive is (I believe) arbitrary. In Gujarati, for example, these are completely separate verbs - "thavuuN" (to happen/become honaa-action) and "hovuN" (to be/exist, honaa-state).

Important here is that the intransitive version of "karnaa" is "honaa-action". For example - "usne ise barbaad kiyaa/kar diyaa" vs "yeh barbaad hua/ho gayaa" mirrors "usne ise toRaa/toR diyaa" vs "yeh TuTaa/TuT gaya"

I bring this up because my conjecture is that: only "honaa-action" can take "huaa" as an adjective.

So you can have "phaTnaa" (verb) -> "phaTaa huaa" (adj) and "barbaad honaa" (verb, with "honaa-action") -> "barbaad huaa huaa" (adj). In both instances "huaa" is optional and conveys certain nuances/grammatical roles.

But you cannot have "khush honaa" (verb, but with "honaa-state") -> *khush huaa huaa (not allowed)

My guess at least

 

[Pokeflute]

Ah, that's a pity because "phaaRaa hu'aa" is perfectly fine and correct.

<snip>

Steve MaGarret to Danno : thailaa phaaRaa huaa dikhaaii de rahaa hai.

I actually asked a similar question here

 

[Qureshpor]

My understanding is that in Hindustani

I will have to say that there is no such language as Hindustani and my responses to you have been from an Urdu perspective.

If we can have "maraa hu'aa" and "maaraa hu'aa" then surely we can also have "phaTaa hu'aa" and "phaaRaa hu'aa".

 

[Pokeflute]

I will have to say that there is no such language as Hindustani and my responses to you have been from an Urdu perspective.

Understood - and noted that Hindi and Urdu may differ here as well

If we can have "maraa hu'aa" and "maaraa hu'aa" then surely we can also have "phaTaa hu'aa" and "phaaRaa hu'aa".

My understanding is both exist - one is just passive and the other "active"

I just wanted to simplify things by comparing intransitive verbs (as the more natural comparison for "phaRaa huaa" imo would be "barbaad kiyaa huaa")

 

[littlepond]

On the other hand "phaaRaa hu'aa" is "torn" by an external agency.... a vicious dog or a person

Police are investigatng a roadside robbery and the victim's bag looks as if the offender has torn it to take its valuable contents.

Steve MaGarret to Danno : thailaa phaaRaa huaa dikhaaii de rahaa hai.

It looks as if the bag has been torn.

Danno: How right you are Sir!

Yes, "phaaRaa huaa" is fine in such a context. Apologies, I hadn't thought of all possible contexts.

 

[Qureshpor]

Yes, "phaaRaa huaa" is fine in such a context. Apologies, I hadn't thought of all possible contexts.

No problem whatsoever @littlepond Jii. We are all here to learn from each other.

 

[Qureshpor]

My understanding is both exist - one is just passive and the other "active"

Indeed that is the case. One could say that the base (neutral) form is "phaTnaa". Then 1st degree causative is "phaaRnaa" and the 2nd degree causative is "phaRvaanaa". (If you've done 1st order and 2nd order differential equations, then you'll know what I mean )

From these one can have "phaTaa (hu'aa) honaa", "phaaRaa gayaa (hu'aa) honaa" and "phaRvaayaa gayaa (hu'aa) honaa".

One could say that "phaaRaa honaa" in reality is "phaaRaa gayaa honaa".

Using your (original) sentence, "thailaa phaaRaa hu'aa dikhaa'ii de rahaa thaa"...

If you use the full form, and using @aevynn Jii's words, it sounds somewhat "clunky and unnatural".

"thailaa phaaRaa gayaa hu'aa dikhaa'ii de rahaa thaa" (cf: dublaa ho gayaa hu'aa above)

Similarly, @Alexu SaaHib/ah's sentence above:

"kucch log garmii se paagal ho gaye (hu'e) dikhaaii de rahe the" ?

So, to remove the "clunkiness", "phaaRaa gayaa hu'aa" is changed to "phaaRaa hu'aa", "paagal ho gaye hu'e" is changed to "paagal hu'e" (ho gaye = hu'e and second "hu'e" is deleted)

I just wanted to simplify things by comparing intransitive verbs (as the more natural comparison for "phaRaa huaa" imo would be "barbaad kiyaa huaa")

Well, as indicated above, the intransitive of "phaaRaa hu'aa " is "phaTaa hu'aa". I think "barbaad kiyaa hu'aa" for a bag is somewhat extreme, although I suppose one could say "tum ne meraa thailaa barbaad kar diyaa hai" (You have ruined my bag" but I still have doubts.

Understood - and noted that Hindi and Urdu may differ here as well

Your underatanding is much appreciated.

 

[Pokeflute]

So, to remove the "clunkiness", "phaaRaa gayaa hu'aa" is changed to "phaaRaa hu'aa", "paagal ho gaye hu'e" is changed to "paagal hu'e" (ho gaye = hu'e and second "hu'e" is deleted)

These are different no?

“phaaRaa jaanaa” is the passive, “paagal ho jaana” is ”hona” with the compound verb “ho”

The equivalent for “phaaRnaa” would be “phaaR jaanaa”, no?

 

[aevynn]

I like your way of distinguishing between honaa-action and honaa-state in #24, @Pokeflute jii!

But you cannot have "khush honaa" (verb, but with "honaa-state") -> *khush huaa huaa (not allowed)

I think x(w)ush honaa is possible with honaa-action (roughly "to become happy"), which means that x(w)ush hu'aa hu'aa is also syntactically acceptable to me. It is analogous with barbaad hu'aa hu'aa or paagal hu'aa hu'aa, though I'm harder pressed to construct a context where this would be felicitous.

does "huaa" vs "huaa huaa" have an added nuance?

"huaa" is optional and conveys certain nuances/grammatical roles.

If you're curious about what this nuance is, I thought the discussion here was apt: to me also, kuchh log paagal hu'e hu'e haiN roughly emphasizes the ongoing nature of the madness or "that the state achieved by the subject through this event still persists," while kuchh log paagal hu'e haiN is "more vague" and just expresses roughly that some people have gone mad.

 

[Qureshpor]

These are different no?

“phaaRaa jaanaa” is the passive, “paagal ho jaana” is ”hona” with the compound verb “ho”

Yes, they are indeed different but there is a connection between them. "phaaRaa jaanaa" is "to be torn"; "paagal honaa" is "to be mad", "paagal ho jaanaa" is "to become mad".

One could ask: is there much difference between "phaaRaa jaanaa" to be(come) torn and "paagal ho jaanaa" to become mad, bearing in mind that movement to "jaanaa" really describes a state

The equivalent for “phaaRnaa” would be “phaaR jaanaa”, no?

No.

 

[Qureshpor]

Just came across a good example of "hu'ii hu'ii". Youtube "Dunya News-14-09-2012-KYUN?" fast forward to 09:22. "... aur hamare aur un ke darmiaan kuchh kashmakash ki suurat bhii paidaa hu'ii hu'ii hai" (referring to the Muslims and the Western World in the context of current politics).

The above is from 15 September 2012 post. My reply was..

Thank you, UM SaaHib. If the speaker had said..

"..aur hamaare aur un ke darmiyaan kuchh kashmakash kii suurat bhii paidaa hu'ii hai", surely this has quite a different connotation to "hu'ii hu'ii hai". I am of the view, as I have tried to demonstrate in the earlier posts that this repetition provides the "state" in which the object/person finds it/himself.

Another point that can be added with double "hu'aa hu'aa" is that the state of affairs continues from the past to the present.