Urdu/Hindi: questions about the presumptive

[tolxeta]

What’s the correct way to express the present continuous presumptive? I’ve gotten conflicting messages from different sources, with Schmidt in ‘Urdu: An Essential Grammar’ p115 using رہنا as in the continuous present tense, whereas Naim in ‘Introductory Urdu Volume 1’ p107 just uses the imperfective participle, which Schmidt p122 only uses for the habitual presumptive. The result is that they translate the exact same example differently, “he must be coming”, which Schmidt p88 translates as:

vo ā rahā hō gā

and Naim p107 as:

woo aataa hoogaa

which Schmidt p89 instead translates as the habitual presumptive "he must come".

Also, I’m aware the perfective participle is used for the perfective past presumptive, but how should this be applied to ہونا, i.e. “X must have been Y” or “X must have been in Z” etc. E.g. “he must be intelligent” would be “vo zahiin hogaa”, but how would you translate “he must have been intelligent”? “Someone must be at home” would be “koii na koii gHar par hogaa” (Schmidt p31), but how would you translate “someone must have been at home”?

I haven’t found any exposition on what to use for the presumptive of other forms of the past:
How would one express the past continuous presumptive, i.e. “X must have been doing Y” as opposed to the simple past perfective “X must have done Y”? The only example I’ve found is in Naim p125:

woo kheeltaa hoogaa jab us-koo goolii lagii
He must have been playing when the bullet hit him”

which uses the imperfective participle, which Naim also uses for the present continuous presumptive (as mentioned above, and which awaits clarification), so it’s not clear how he would distinguish between the two possible meanings when context isn’t sufficient to remove ambiguity.
What about the phrases which in their non-presumptive form would use the imperfective combined with the past of ہونا as the auxiliary, like the past habitual presumptive, e.g. how would you translate “he must have gone/been going there every day”?

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Remember that, in English, "must" introduces not only compulsion, but sometimes presumption.

“Someone must be at home” would be “koii na koii gHar par hogaa” (Schmidt p31), but how would you translate “someone must have been at home”?

1. It if just presumptive, but with a degree of certainty

ko'ii ghar par hu'aa ho_gaa

If it is presumptive and improbable

ko'ii ghar par hu'aa ho

(this is my understanding based on grammars. However, I believe native speakers in practice alternate quite freely between simple future and subjunctive to express all kinds of hypothetical situations, so let's wait for what they have to say, I don't speak HU).

What about the phrases which in their non-presumptive form would use the imperfective combined with the past of ہونا as the auxiliary, like the past habitual presumptive, e.g. how would you translate “he must have gone/been going there every day”?

2. If I got the idea of what "HU conjugation" stands for right (and my guess is apparently as good as anyone's, since there is no such thing as a "standard HU conjugation chart", then HU focuses on 2 things when organizing verb inflection (i.e. "verbal tenses"):
- whether or not the verbal idea is presumptive
- whether or not the verbal idea is perfective

Therefore, IMO, talking about a "past habitual presumptive" is incorrect. Rather, one would talk about an "imperfective presuntive" versus a "perfective presuntive".
In your example, the "every day" part is distracting, what matters is the contrast between "he must have gone" versus "he must have been going". IMO, they are both perfective, since they convey completion by the time of the narration.

My understanding is that, (what you and I seem to understand as) "core" verbal conjugation, i.e., [participles] + honaa, doesn't suffice to express an idea as complex as "he must have been going", and for that you would have to resort to some periphrasis with rehnaa and/or jaanaa.
(Here I really defer to the native speakers, because I always embarass myself, but it would be something like these):
vo jayaa gayaa ho_gaa
vo jaa'e gayaa ho_gaa
vo jaataa rahaa ho_gaa
vo jaayaa rahaa ho_gaa
vo jaanaa rahaa ho_gaa
(or something like that. notice that, with the verb "to go" = jaanaa in particular, there is the additional difficulty that one has to use the regular "jaayaa" form in contexts where the verb is both auxiliar and principal).


3. As for "he must have gone", same as in .1, only this time with a perfective participle:
It if just presumptive, but with a degree of certainty

vo gayaa ho_gaa

If it is presumptive and improbable

vo gayaa ho

 

[aevynn]

An overarching remark: HU verbs have a morphological position for aspect markers and another position for tense markers. The presumptive ho_gaa occupies the morphological position that's usually occupied by tense markers, so the only morphological position left "free" is the position that's normally occupied by aspectual markers. This suggests that it might be too much to hope for to expect that presumptives will morphologically distinguish all of the tense/aspect combinations that are distinguished in the indicative, and one might then expect that context-sensitive idiosyncrasies will arise. I think this expectation is borne out.

The form kar rahaa ho_gaa can be used for both present and future situations. For example:

vO abhii ghar pahunch rahaa ho_gaa.​

He must be getting home right about now.​

vO abhii naashtaa kar rahaa ho_gaa.​

He must be eating breakfast right now.​

kal ham raat ke nau baje ghar pahunch rahe hoN_ge.​

We will (presumably) be getting home at nine PM tomorrow.​

The form kartaa ho_gaa can convey a habitual presumptive:

vO roz raat ke nau baje ghar pahunchtaa ho_gaa.​

He presumably gets home at nine PM every day.​

With certain verbs, it can also convey that an imminent future presumption, especially when it is infixed with hii:

vO ghar pahunchtaa hii ho_gaa.​

He must be just about to get home.​

He will presumably get home very soon.​

​

vO aataa [hii] ho_gaa.​

He must be just about to arrive.​

Note that the English "he must be coming" can also carry this imminent future sense, whence the translation of Naim's from page 107 cited in the OP.

The form kiyaa ho_gaa typically conveys perfective past presumptions, and @MonsieurGonzalito jii has already told us that hu'aa ho_gaa is how one conjugates honaa into this form. Note that the polysemy of honaa (to be, to become, to happen, ...) introduces polysemy of hu'aa ho_gaa as well:

vO ghar par hu'aa ho_gaa.​

That must have happened at home.​

OR: He must have been at home.​

vO be_hosh hu'aa ho_gaa.​

He must have become unconscious (ie, fainted).​

OR: He must have been unconscious.​

In this vein, it's worth observing that the presumptive rahaa ho_gaa has its expected meaning of "must have stayed," but it also has a somewhat idiosyncratic meaning of "must have been":

vO ghar par rahaa ho_gaa.​

He must have been at home.​

OR: He must have stayed at home.​

(NOT: That must have happened at home.)​

vO be_hosh rahaa ho_gaa.​

He must have been unconscious.​

OR: He must have stayed unconscious.​

(NOT: He must have become unconscious.)​

​

vO zahiin rahaa ho_gaa.​

He must have been intelligent.​

Regarding non-perfective past presumptions... First off, I'm not a huge fan of the sentence cited in the OP from Naim's page 125. I'm sure this type of construction occurs, but it doesn't sound all that natural to me personally. If one really wants to use a ho_gaa, I somewhat prefer the sound of:

vO kheltaa rahaa ho_gaa jab us_ko golii lagii.​

He must have been playing when the bullet hit him.​

That being said, it may be more common to express non-perfective past presumptions just using adverbs of presumption or other circumlocutions instead:

be_shak kI vO khel rahaa thaa jab us_ko golii lagii.​

He was undoubtedly playing when the bullet him him.​

He must have been playing when the bullet hit him.​

vO zaruur roz vahaaN jaayaa kartaa thaa.​

He surely used to go there every day.​

It must be that he used to go there every day.​

Anyway, I'm sure I haven't exhausted the landscape of UH presumptives here, but I hope this helps.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

vO ghar par hu'aa ho_gaa.That must have happened at home.

What is the nuance, if any, between:

vo ghar para hu'aa ho_gaa
and
vo ghar para hu'aa ho
?

Is any "more presuntive" than the other?

 

[aevynn]

The subjunctive expresses more uncertainty, but I'm having trouble imagining a context where someone would say just vO ghar par hu'aa ho. I feel like it would most likely occur as a part of something bigger:

shaayad vO ghar par hu'aa ho.​

ho saktaa hai kI vO ghar par hu'aa ho.​

...​

 

[tolxeta]

Regarding the past habitual presumptive, lacking any dedicated verb conjugation to express it, how sensible (or not) would it be to use the perfective along with some qualifier in the form of an adverb of time, that clarifies that the intent is a habitual action? My expectation is that while the 'correct' way to say "I used to go there every day" would be:

"maiN har roz vahaaN jaataa tHaa"

I expect saying it as:

"maiN har roz vahaaN gayaa"

would still be intelligible, so likewise would it at least be intelligible to translate "he must have been going there every day" as:

"vo har roz vahaaN gayaa hogaa"

How would this compare to Naim's use of the imperfective? It occurred to me that at least the above form has the advantage of being explicitly in the past tense due to use of the perfective, and the habitual aspect that's expressed in the imperfective has been transferred here to the adverb of time, so it looks like this form combines expression of both the past and habitual aspect, whereas using the imperfective only expresses the habitual aspect whilst leaving the time ambiguous.

 

[littlepond]

but how would you translate “he must have been intelligent”?

voh zahiin rahaa hogaa

but how would you translate “someone must have been at home”?

"koii (zaroor) ghar par rahaa hogaa"

e.g. how would you translate “he must have gone/been going there every day”?

voh zaroor vahaaN har roz gayaa hogaa
voh zaroor vahaaN har roz jaataa rahaa hogaa

1. It if just presumptive, but with a degree of certainty

ko'ii ghar par hu'aa ho_gaa

This is a very strange Hindi for at least me. "kuchh ghar par huaa hogaa" is fine, but "koii"? Maybe some would accept it, but it remains weird Hindi for me. Rather, "koii ghar par hogaa."

If it is presumptive and improbable

ko'ii ghar par hu'aa ho

This sentence makes no sense. Rather, "koii ghar par ho (shaayad)." (as also pointed out by @aevynn jii in post 5)

vo jayaa gayaa ho_gaa
vo jaa'e gayaa ho_gaa

The above sentences make no sense.

vo jaataa rahaa ho_gaa

Yes.

vo jaayaa rahaa ho_gaa
vo jaanaa rahaa ho_gaa

The above sentences make no sense.

3. As for "he must have gone", same as in .1, only this time with a perfective participle:
It if just presumptive, but with a degree of certainty

vo gayaa ho_gaa

Another, and better, option would be "voh jaa chukaa hogaa" or "voh chalaa gayaa hogaa."

If it is presumptive and improbable

vo gayaa ho

No, not possible. Rather, "shaayad voh chukaa ho" or "shaayad voh chalaa gayaa ho."

My expectation is that while the 'correct' way to say "I used to go there every day" would be:

"maiN har roz vahaaN jaataa tHaa"

Yes

I expect saying it as:

"maiN har roz vahaaN gayaa"

would still be intelligible

No, the intent differs in between "I used to go there every day" and "I went there every day." The latter is specific, as in "I went there every day but could not find her." The same difference of intent is in Hindi.

would it at least be intelligible to translate "he must have been going there every day" as:

"vo har roz vahaaN gayaa hogaa"

That would be, rather, "voh har roz vahaaN jaataa rahaa hogaa."

 

[amiramir]

My expectation is that while the 'correct' way to say "I used to go there every day" would be:

"maiN har roz vahaaN jaataa tHaa"

This works of course. Also, what about maiN har roz vahaan jaayaa kartaa thaa?

 

[littlepond]

what about maiN har roz vahaan jaayaa kartaa thaa?

It is good.