Urdu: Maine

[lcfatima]

Can someone explain precisely why in for Urdu speakers who are influenced by Punjabi you get the mujhe/mujhko construction as maine, aapne, tumne, etc.

As in: Aapne nahin jaana hai?"
"Nahin, maine nahin jaana."

 

[francois_auffret]

To tell you the truth, I've never ever heard, in a casual conversation mujhe jaana hai.... even from Karachi walley.... I don't think I've ever heard it in India neither...

The funny thing is that in the past it is more mujhey jaanaa thaa rather than maine jaanaa thaa... or in the future.... mujhey jaanaa hoga.... and not maine jaanaa hogaa...

I also thought it was the influence of Panjabi... I'm not sure anymore now....

 

[lcfatima]

I am specifically asking about the mujhe becomes maine thing. I hear this construction a lot.

another example:

agar tumne maaf nahin kiya to maine khaana nahin khaana hai.

Here you see the "ne" in the first clause marking the ergative case as usual, then in the second clause it is that Punjabi-ish maine meaning mujhe/mujhe ko.

Francois, why do you find "mujhe jaana hai" as marked? Can you explain more?

 

[francois_auffret]

I am specifically asking about the mujhe becomes maine thing. I hear this construction a lot.

another example:

agar tumne maaf nahin kiya to maine khaana nahin khaana hai.

Here you see the "ne" in the first clause marking the ergative case as usual, then in the second clause it is that Punjabi-ish maine meaning mujhe/mujhe ko.

Francois, why do you find "mujhe jaana hai" as marked? Can you explain more?

I really have no explanation on this.... Mujhe jaanaa hai is actually the 'correct' and grammatical form which should be used. But I think that the main ne has become so widespread that it started being written too now... In the sentence you give

agar tumne maaf nahin kiya to maine khaana nahin khaana hai.

If I replace main ne by mujhe it would sound so artificial... or may be just wrong, I think, because the only 'written' or 'bookish' way of saying that would be main khaana nahin khaoonga rather that mujhe khanaa nahi khaana, What do you think??)

This main ne thing is a very tough question... First because it usage is not fixed yet... (You will agree with me that with the future (hoga) you will rather use mujhe and in the past (tha) I think both can work)

Then, it may come from Punjabi.... But even in Punjabi the ne particle is ergative and main noo and not main ne should be logically used.... Back to square one then for the Punjabi explanation...

 

[lcfatima]

Yes, I do get the same feeling as expressed in your synopsis.

I do think "mujhe" is prefered to "maine" by Hindustani origin native Urdu speakers though, for example by the muhaajir origin Karachi vallay.

 

[lcfatima]

I asked a few people and can confirm that to Indian origin Urdu speakers, non-Punjabis, that sounds marked and "paindu" to say "maine" for "mujhe" and it is the kind of thing they classify with saying feer for phir, haan ji for jee haan, etc.

 

[panjabigator]

My Hindi/Urdu professor and I discussed this the other day when I "slipped" and said "maine" instead of "mujhe." She said she almost never hears "mujhe" used in this type of phrase in Lahore and adapts her speech pattern to "maine." With Indians, I have only noted this usage with Panjabi and Hindi speaking Panjabis. Never with any other community (although Gujarati would make sense considering that "ne" translates to the Hindi/Urdu "ko").

Essential Urdu Grammar by Schmidt labels this tendency as an option and doesn't even intimate at being a Panjabi marked choice, which leads me to believe that this construction is now so widespread that it is ubiquitous even among non-Panjabi Urdu wallas.

Now here is the thing. I myself never understand why the "ne" is used here. In Panjabi, "mujhe jaanaa hai" actually becomes "mai.n jaanaa hai." In the first singular and plural and the second person singular, there is no post position employed. The third person (and second person plural) can use either a "ne" or "nu" here, and I don't believe that either is at all nuanced, but the "ne" does seem to be preferred. There's got to be some research on it. I will do some digging and see what I find.

But even in Punjabi the ne particle is ergative and main noo and not main ne should be logically used.... Back to square one then for the Punjabi explanation...

Very true, but for some reason, something else seems to be going on here. "Ne" fills the role for ergativity here and is preferred to "nu." The only thing I can surmise is that this "ne" fills another role other than transitivity.

Where's a linguist when you need one?

I asked a few people and can confirm that to Indian origin Urdu speakers, non-Punjabis, that sounds marked and "paindu" to say "maine" for "mujhe" and it is the kind of thing they classify with saying feer for phir, haan ji for jee haan, etc.

Are you saying that the Karachite prefers "jii haa.n" over "haa.n jii?"

 

[lcfatima]

Not just Karachi-ites. That is a myth that all Karachiites are pure Urdu speaking, all people living in Punjab are Punjabi origin. I am saying that to people who are immigrants or decentents of immigrants from Hindustan who are classified as "Urdu speaking," that saying haan ji, feer, etc. sounds too Punjabi, sounds paindu, or too truck driver or whatever. Jee haan is preferred.

***
About the maine jaana hai thing, I asked a handful of people also about saying
"Maine nahin chahiye" and "maine nahin pata hai," and both sentences sounded off to those I asked. I suspected they would. I am not sure why "maine yeh nahin khaana hai" with a verb is okay, but with pata, maloom, chahiye, etc. it sounds off.

One thing I can say is that people don't always say what they say that they say, so I will have to observe more.

I can say for sure though that in my Lucknow origin Punjab settled in-laws home, maine, haan jee, also double syllabilizing single syllable words (darakhat for darakht, habbas for habs, goshat for gosht)---all of those things are markers of low class agricultural Punjabi origins. It is sheer snobbery, linguistically there is nothing wrong with this and this is all socially constructed, but nevertheless, haanjee will get you made fun of in certain circles.

One person I asked brought up the other obvious mutation of mujhe: mereko/tereko. Perhaps there is something innate about mujhe/mujhko that lends to mutation.

 

[BP.]

Sorry to re-kindle a dormant thread but this is one of the things I've been soldiering against........Somebody doing her PhD in some aspect of Urdu recently sent me a questionnaire and there they were in all there glory the words 'maiN nay'. Wrote an angry tirade over the papers. You see, maiN and 'maiN nay' don't mix well.

'Mujhay' is the composite form of 'mujh ko'. There's no use of 'maiN-nay' in Urdu when trying to express intent. Its simply grammatically wrong. Its 'mujay jaana hai'. I've only heard Punjabi colleagues say 'maiN-nai'. Some Gujarati/Memon guys do say 'mairay-ko'.

'maiN nai' is used in the past tense , e.g. the line of poetry "MaiN nay pairoN maN paayal to baaNdhi naheeN...".

 

[panjabigator]

Several questions: Is this a new function of <ne> in Urdu, and if not, how long has it been around? Were the great Sufis Baba Farid and Waris Shah using <ne> in a similar fashion within their spoken Urdu? Ok, I acknowedge that we can't really surmise speech patterns then, but you get my drift. My next question is if we can call this <ne> shift gramaticalization.

Belligerent Sahab, which would a Sindhi, Balochi, and Pakhtuun use: <mujhe> or <mai.n ne>?

And while we are on the topic, what is the consensus of <mere ko> and <tere ko>? It's definitely stigmitized, but is it regional to any Pakistani ilaqa?

By the way, <xosh amdiid! Belligerent sahab. aap ne apnii madaarii zabaan lakhnavii aur purbii farmaayii hai.n. kaunsii purbii aatii hai aap ko? mere xyaal se lakhnaa'o ke aas paas ilaqe me.n avadhi bolii jatii hai (ya phir bolii jaatii thii), magar aajkal ke lakhnaa'o me.n, rikshe walo.n se 'alaavaa, mai.n ne faqat urdu aur hindi hi sunii.n>

 

[Faylasoof]

panjabigator sahab, This grammatically incorrect use of “maine jaana hai” is new in the sense that, I believe, it wasn’t common (amongst the educated ) before partition. It is quite likely Punjabi influence where, I think, you’ll say [please correct my Punjabi attempt, if wrong]: mainu jaana hai (I have to / must / would like to go ). I’m not familiar with the works of Baba Farid or Waris Shah in sufficient detail to answer your query. However, in pre-partition India, the use of “maine” instead of “mujhe or mujhko” in this context would have been recognised as an unforgivable grammatical folly even in the Punjab. The poet-philosopher Iqbal, a Punjabi, wrote in both Farsi and Urdu. Looking through his Urdu works it is abundantly clear that he didn’t make the blunder of confusing a proper Punjabi expression with Urdu. Here is Iqbal (replacing “mujhe” with “maine” makes the verse completely unintelligible: “mujhe phooNka hai soz-e-qatra-e-ashk-e-mohabbat ne, ghazab ki aag thee paani ke chhote se sharaar mein” It is not relevant if people (Sindhis, Balochis, Pathans, Punjabis etc., anyone in fact, speak WRONG Urdu!! They do so because they have been taught incorrectly – declining educational standards are more widespread the world over than we realise. In the enterprise of keeping high Urdu standards, I wholeheartedly support Belligerentpacifict saahab’s crusade!

 

[BP.]

gator bhayya, I'll try answer in the same order as your questions.

As for Baba Farid or Waris Shah or any other Punjabi stalwarts using 'nay' while expressing intent - I'm not even aware of any of their work in Urdu, and its a shame I know too little Punjabi to really appreciate their Punjabi work. Will work on that lacuna (can you help?) once I'm done learning some Hindi vocab., which in itself is pretty interesting.

I'm not a linguist and not familiar with all the terms. What does 'shift grammaticalization' mean? If you mean a change in a grammar rule along the chronological line, then yes, it has become widespread during the last 50 something years. Our parents friends don't make this 'mistake' if you will, but mine do.

Over the years in Pakistan, Urdu has become more and more Punjabized. This is because of Panjabis' overwhelming acceptence of Urdu. But they've invented their own 'dabistan' ('maktaba-e-fikr' or school of thought) instead of adhering to either to that of Delhi or Lucknow. That should already tell you that most Panjabis in Pakistan use 'maiN nay' instead of 'mujhay'. But so have others more likely to mix with them, congregate together and intermarry, notably Pukhtuns and Muhajirs. Then its all the time on the tele and in the papers, so naturally the Pakistani dabistan-e-Urdu has taken that turn, we like it or not. That doesn't make 'maiN nay' grammatically right though! Only popular, but not correct. Like 'mashkoor' in lieu of 'shaakir' or 'shukr guzaar'. But its true that the problem is not having learnt the language properly, the lack of proper schooling is the culprit. Faylasoof miaN gave the example of Iqbal, education made that difference.

'mairay ko' as I said earlier (and I think you missed reading that part) is popular among the Gujaraati community, spread from Karachi to KathiawaR to Mumba'i, and among those Urduvalay who speak the baazaari language of Delhi (I'm NOT talking of the aristocratic khaRa Dehelvi accent). And of course all the youth who can't sleep until they've seen at least one Bwood flick, from where they pick this lingo. I haven't yet heard this outside of the Karachi+its suburbs ka Ilaaqa.

Tashakkur sad baar for your welcome. Biraadar-e-azizi, it might shock you but Purbi language isn't/wasn't spoken in any Purbi region (east India, bengal etc). My great-grandparents are from Lucknow and Kanpur, and the ancient-sounding dialect they spoke was called Purbi('Eastern' in Persian). It was the language that Amir Khusro did some of his poetry in and many qavvalis to this day are in Purbi (eg 'aaj rang hai', 'man kunto maula', 'naina mila'i kay'). For me the distinguishing feature of this dialect is the borrowing of entire phrases and not just words of Farsi and sewing them together with Hindi. I think this dialect is called Brij Bhaasha nowadays. The shift to Urdu began during gramps' generation when they attended Aligarh U and mixed with Urdudaans of disparate backgrounds. Then '47 was a watershed in this transition to a more standardized Urdu. By my generation the link is practically lost, and so is that with Farsi proper, though at a personal level I'm trying to resuscitate them links.

Falsafi bhayya, thanks for rallying for the cause of grammatical correctness. The problem is that Urdu in school books for the Urdu language course may be correctly explained, but the teachers don't speak it right and the parents at home don't speak it right. The poor book isn't even read thoroughly so it can't make a dent in whatever incorrect grammar the spoken word is pouring into kids' brains.
I'm only trying to rectify my own mistakes, those of close friends and those of language lovers on this forum.

 

[panjabigator]

It is quite likely Punjabi influence where, I think, you’ll say [please correct my Punjabi attempt, if wrong]: mainu jaana hai (I have to / must / would like to go ).

In the first and second person, you don't need the <nuu.n> (Urdu: <ko>).
<mai.n jaaNaa hai> = <mujhe jaanaa hai>
<tusii.n jaaNaa hai> = <aapko jaanaa hai>
<asii.n jaaNaa hai> = <hamvko jaanaa hai>

but, in the plural (except the given <asii.n>) and third person (both singular and plural),

<asii.n lokaa.n ne jaaNaa hai> = <ham logo.n ko jaanaa hai>
<tusii.n lokaa.n ne jaaNaa hai> = <aap logo.n ko jaanaa hai>
<oh ne jaaNaa hai> = <us ko jaanaa hai>
<ihnaa.n ne jaaNaa hai> = <inho.n ne jaanaa hai>

The <ne> and <nuu.n> here are interchangeable in some sentences. <mai.n ne jaaNaa> is, surprisingly, incorrect and unheard of Panjabi. Hope this helps.

 

[panjabigator]

Tashakkur sad baar for your welcome. Biraadar-e-azizi, it might shock you but Purbi language isn't/wasn't spoken in any Purbi region (east India, bengal etc). My great-grandparents are from Lucknow and Kanpur, and the ancient-sounding dialect they spoke was called Purbi('Eastern' in Persian). It was the language that Amir Khusro did some of his poetry in and many qavvalis to this day are in Purbi (eg 'aaj rang hai', 'man kunto maula', 'naina mila'i kay'). For me the distinguishing feature of this dialect is the borrowing of entire phrases and not just words of Farsi and sewing them together with Hindi. I think this dialect is called Brij Bhaasha nowadays. The shift to Urdu began during gramps' generation when they attended Aligarh U and mixed with Urdudaans of disparate backgrounds. Then '47 was a watershed in this transition to a more standardized Urdu. By my generation the link is practically lost, and so is that with Farsi proper, though at a personal level I'm trying to resuscitate them links.

So are you a Braj Bhasha speaker? It is an AMAZING language, with very beautiful poetry and a playful rhythm. I've read the Khusro lines with Farsi and Braj Bhasha (sometimes called Bhakha) interspersed together, and it's sheer linguistic beauty. I'll see if I can find a line and post it.

 

[Illuminatus]

In India, this usage is very very typical of Punjabi people, and is one of those things you do when you want to imitate an accent!

To my ears, it sounds a bit silly. Anyhow, it is never spoken in Rajasthan/Maharashtra/UP/MP etc

 

[lcfatima]

In the first and second person, you don't need the <nuu.n> (Urdu: <ko>).
<mai.n jaaNaa hai> = <mujhe jaanaa hai>
<tusii.n jaaNaa hai> = <aapko jaanaa hai>
<asii.n jaaNaa hai> = <hamvko jaanaa hai>

My husband says mainu jaaNa a and also tenu jaaNa a are used. Maybe in dialects of Pakistani Punjabi this is the nu to ne.

 

[Koozagar]

My husband says mainu jaaNa a and also tenu jaaNa a are used. Maybe in dialects of Pakistani Punjabi this is the nu to ne.

For expression of intent, 'mainu' is not used, as far as I know. I would agree with PG, 'maiN Lahore jaana aay' would be the common construction in speech.

 

[Qureshpor]

Over the years in Pakistan, Urdu has become more and more Punjabized. This is because of Panjabis' overwhelming acceptence of Urdu. But they've invented their own 'dabistan' ('maktaba-e-fikr' or school of thought) instead of adhering to either to that of Delhi or Lucknow. That should already tell you that most Panjabis in Pakistan use 'maiN nay' instead of 'mujhay'. But so have others more likely to mix with them, congregate together and intermarry, notably Pukhtuns and Muhajirs. Then its all the time on the tele and in the papers, so naturally the Pakistani dabistan-e-Urdu has taken that turn, we like it or not. That doesn't make 'maiN nay' grammatically right though! Only popular, but not correct. Like 'mashkoor' in lieu of 'shaakir' or 'shukr guzaar'. But its true that the problem is not having learnt the language properly, the lack of proper schooling is the culprit. Faylasoof miaN gave the example of Iqbal, education made that difference.

I won't bother offering a rebuttal but will say this much.

dil ko be-taabiyoN ne luuT liyaa
diin WahaabiyoN ne luuT liyaa
raat qissah sunaa ke RaaNjhe kaa
ham ko PanjaabiyoN ne luuT liyaa!

(Syed Inshaullah Khan Insha?)

 

[Koozagar]

I won't bother offering a rebuttal but will say this much.

dil ko be-taabiyoN ne luuT liyaa
diin WahaabiyoN ne luuT liyaa
raat qissah sunaa ke RaaNjhe kaa
ham ko PanjaabiyoN ne luuT liyaa!

(Syed Inshaullah Khan Insha?)

wah wah! will post a detailed response later.

 

[Qureshpor]

Fatima SaaHibah has asked an interesting question. Essentially, the query is to do with..

mujhe/hameN jaanaa hai
tujhe/tumheN/aap ko jaanaa hai
use/unheN jaanaa hai

vs

maiN ne/ham ne jaanaa hai
tuu ne/tum ne/aap ne jaanaa hai
us ne/unhoN ne jaanaa hai

The former, with "ko" (whether implicit or explicit) from a grammatical perspective is termed as the "dative" and the latter, with "ne", is called the "ergative".

Questions:

1) Which option is grammatically correct?

2) Where does the "ne" (ergative) usage originate from?

3) What are the literary trends of this usage?

4) What is the position of linguists on this matter?



1) Which option is grammatically correct?

Without a shadow of doubt, the "ko" form is the correct one. BUT, the "ne" version is now deemed to be also correct for it expresses "want/desire" only where as the "ko" form expresses both "want/desire" and "necessity". Here are views of two Urdu grammar writers.

"In the everyday Urdu of Pakistan, the logical subject of the sentence may be followed by "ko" or by "ne": maiN ne Dinar par jaanaa thaa, "I was supposed to go (out) to dinner". In dialects which have this option, the case of "ko" tends to be restricted to external circumstances under the speaker's control, whereas "ne" refers to circumstances permitting internal choice, or neutral circumstances. This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi.."

(Urdu: An Essential Grammar by Ruth Laila Schmidt [Routledge 1999]

This, I hope answers PG's question, " Is this a new function of <ne> in Urdu...?".

"Since the fifties, influenced by standard usage in Punjabi, many Pakistani Urdu writers and speakers commonly use the postposition "ne" in this indirect construction, instead of the original "ko" which is still the standard in India*. Both usages are now equally correct in Urdu".

* One of my non-Punjabi friends who has lived in his childhood in Delhi has told me that he has heard this usage there. In fact, he himself has employed this usage.

(Naim.C.M: Introductory Urdu (Volume one): South Asian Language & Area Center, University of Chicago 1999)

More on this in answer to question 4).

2) Where does the "ne" (ergative) usage originate from?

Several people in this thread have suggested that this is a typically Punjabi usage, both in Pakistan and India. I have my doubts for the reasons PG, francois_auffret and Koozagar SaaHibaan have offered. But, on this point I would have to go along with Faylasoof SaaHib when he says, "It is not relevant if people (Sindhis, Balochis, Pathans, Punjabis etc,. anyone in fact) speak WRONG Urdu!!! They do so because they have been taught incorrectly". For the "etc", I would like to add "ahl-i-zabaan" as well, for they too are "guilty" of this "misusage". Regarding "WRONG Urdu", one would need to be conscious of this usage with the new meaning mentioned above.

3) What are the literary trends of this usage?

Modern Urdu grammar books (e.g. Ruth Laila Schmidt and C.M.Naim mentioned above) are begining to include the "ne" form. Whilst Schmidt, a European scholar states that.." This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi", Naim from Barabanki says, "Both usages are now equally correct in Urdu".

Couple of quotes from Fatima SaaHibah.

I do think "mujhe" is prefered to "maine" by Hindustani origin native Urdu speakers though, for example by the muhaajir origin Karachi vallay..".

"I asked a few people and can confirm that to Indian origin Urdu speakers, non-Punjabis, that sounds marked and "paindu" to say "maine" for "mujhe"..."

.......................................................................

And here are a couple of quotes from "paindus".

“is ko kisii kaa Khayaal nahiiN aa rahaa apne 'ilaavah to us ne kyaa karnaa hai?”
(Iftikhar Arif: Pind= Lucknow; From Jashn-i-Iftikhar Arif on Youtube)

Below is a piece of dialogue from the drama serial “Tanhaa’iyaaN”.

A. maiN tumheN kaafii pilaataa huuN. baRii zabardast! chalo uTho!
B. main nahiiN jaa’uuN gii.
A. do ghaNTe meN tumhaaraa daftar bhaag to nahiiN jaa’e gaa!
B. main ne nahiiN jaanaa {(I told you) I won’t go}

(Haseena Moin: Pind=Kanpur)

In another forum, the following couplet from a renowned modern Ghazal-go poet, Zafar Iqbal, was posted by a staunch Urdu lover, Syed Zafar. Yours truly commented about its structure and a lengthy discussion ensued.

yih ghar jis kaa hai us ne vaapas aanaa hai kabhii is meN
isii Khaatir dar-o-diivaar chamkaa’e rakhte haiN

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....aapas+aana+hai+kabhi+is+meN+#73e126a42e50389a

A gentleman who happens to be an “ahl-i-zabaan” (from India) makes the following very pertinent remarks in the above mentioned discussion.

“Briefly, I would say that I am in agreement with Zafar Saheb that the 'tarkeeb' --- "us ne waapas aana hai" --- is quite OK. This sort of usage has been seen in Urdu writings for many many years, though we may not be able to quote any specific examples here.

As in "lab-o-lehja", variants in general Urdu usages can be found even in writings. It is quite on the cards that the above usage may be used commonly in the Punjab, but that (in itself) does not make it questionable. Possibly, "ahl-e- zabaan" may not use this 'tarkeeb', but then the Urdu world is not peopled by "ahl-e-zabaan" alone”.

On the same forum, on 15th August 2011, a Ghazal by Abbas Tabish was posted with the matla'...

tuu ne vaise bhii mire dil se nikal jaanaa thaa
mere lahje mirii aavaaz meN Dhal jaanaa thaa

It appears therefore that the “ne” construction is coming within the acceptability fold.

4) What is the position of linguists on this matter?

Linguists are not necessarily concerned with whether something is grammatically correct or not. They analyse the material they find in real life and attempt to offer an explanation for its usage. The following is taken from Miriam Butt’s paper entitled “The Dative-Ergative Connection” published in 2006.

Naadiya ko zoo jaanaa hai

Naadia has/wants to go to the zoo

Naadia ne zoo jaanaa hai

Naadia wants to go to the zoo

The erative again seems to signal greater control over the action in the sense that only the want modality is expressed with an ergative subject, when the dative can express both necessity and desire."

http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/butt-eiss6.pdf

Elena Bashir in her paper, "Urdu and Linguistics: A Fraught But Evolving Relationship" says the following..

"One example of such change is the reanalysis of the ergative marker ne to indicate agency and even future intention.This change has been long noted and much discussed in the literature and has by now become emblematic of Pakistani Urdu* as a seperate variety".

http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/26/11ElenaBashir.pdf

* I would just like to add that I do not personally subscribe to the divisive "Indian Urdu" and "Pakistani Urdu" terms. Sure, there are regional variations within India and Pakistan but these differences do not in themselves warrant seperate terminology.

 

[lcfatima]

Very fascinating. Thanks for compiling the example usages and research.

 

[marrish]

I've decided to blow a new life to this thread in order to come to more conclusions. All the participants have expressed their doubts, questions and opinions, there was a detailed exchange of linguistic examples, and, last but not least, the substantial research presented by QP SaaHib in post #20.

Up to now there have been many points in the discussion which stirred my curiosity, be it linguistic or discursive; but I haven't made up my mind yet with regard to this phenomenon.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that the title of the thread would better do as 'Urdu: maiN ne'.
At the first glance I thought it dealt with regional form of mahiine, like tiin maine hu'e...

And now the question I've had pretty much trouble with:

Could you please 'dissect' the following sentence and air your views regarding its grammar?

مگر ہم نے اِس کی قیمت بڑھانی تھی نہ بڑھائی magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

 

[Qureshpor]

Could you please 'dissect' the following sentence and air your views regarding its grammar?

مگر ہم نے اِس کی قیمت بڑھانی تھی نہ بڑھائی magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

kyaa aap vaaHid Haazir se muxaatib haiN yaa jam3 Haazir se? In other words who are you addressing marrish SaaHib?

 

[marrish]

is laRii meN aap hii vaaHid Haazir haiN, janaab!

is baar bhii ba-zaahir merii laa-parvaa'ii ke baa'3is yih baat pinhaaN rahii kih maiN kis se muxaatib huuN, magar yih mas'alah Ghayr-munfarid tarz-e xitaab kaa lagtaa hai kih taa Haal ko'ii navaazish nah hu'ii.

Let me renew my request: each and every member of the forum is welcome to offer some analysis to my sentence, those registered and those who might read this post. I'm naturally expressedly addressing the friends who have contributed to this thread already, that is lcfatima SaaHibah, francois_auffret SaaHib, janaabaan-e panjabigator SaaHib, BelligerentPacifist SaaHib, Faylasoof SaaHib, Illuminatus SaaHib and Koozagar SaaHib and the last but not least, Qureshpor SaaHib.

It is such a tiny sentence, please don't hesitate!

 

[marrish]

UM saahab, apart from my request to analyze the above sentence, could you please share your view on the phenomenon as described in this thread? Are you familiar with this usage in your environment?

 

[marrish]

I'm really restless about this sentence that appears to be a very concise manner of expression:

magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

I think it can be split in two parts:

ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaa'ii - we haven't increased its price.

In this clause, the particle 'ne' denotes the agent, but when one attempts to extract the other clause, one is put before a choice:

1) ham ne is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii

- assuming that the particle 'ne' serves both clauses, analogically to 'nah', which occurs only once in the sentence under consideration but obviously influences both clauses, or:

2) ham is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii.

We can rephrase the sentence in this way:

magar ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii


Is there anyone who could help in ascertaining whether the option 1) or 2) is the right way of thinking?

 

[Qureshpor]

^ marrish jii, I was waiting for UM jii to respond. ba-har Haal..

magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

I understand this sentence to mean...

magar ham ne nah to is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii aur nah hii baRhaa'ii.

But neither did we intend to increase its price nor did we actually increase it.

Your sentence would still come under faulty grammar since the purists would say that the correct version ought to be..

magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. (hameN/ham ko replaces ham ne)

 

[marrish]

^ marrish jii, I was waiting for UM jii to respond. ba-har Haal..

magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

I understand this sentence to mean...

magar ham ne nah to is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii aur nah hii baRhaa'ii.

But neither did we intend to increase its price nor did we actually increase it.

Your sentence would still come under faulty grammar since the purists would say that the correct version ought to be..

magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. (hameN/ham ko replaces ham ne)

Qureshpor jii, I'm deeply indebted to you for daring to touch this matter. I concur with you understanding of this sentence.

As far as your remark regarding the faulty grammar is concerned, I do agree that another way to render it wold be
magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

It seems that the particle 'ne' is totally redundant in your sentence.

With respect to the faulty grammar I have some reservations to classify this sentence this way. By the way, would you say that it is 'regional Urdu'?

 

[Alfaaz]

Your sentence would still come under faulty grammar since the purists would say that the correct version ought to be..
magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. (hameN/ham ko replaces ham ne)

Sorry to interrupt, but I didn't understand this...

In another thread on this topic, BP SaaHib had mentioned "Main ne pairoN mein payal to bandhi nahiN, kyuN sada aarahi hai"....If I remember correctly, it was established that this is correct with the following:
The lady didn't wear an anklet (past), but is still hearing jingles (present)

Similarly, Faiz's "mujh se pehli si maHabbat mere maHbuub nah mang, main ne samjha tha keh tu hai to...." was mentioned and it was established that this is correct with the following:
The poet is asking his lover now (present), but had thought about his lover (past)

So in the example sentence above (if I am reading and understanding it correctly), shouldn't humne work as it is discussing the past?
magar hum ne is kii qiimat baRhaani thi (past) nah baRhaa'ii (present or past).......

 

[Qureshpor]

So in the example sentence above (if I am reading and understanding it correctly), shouldn't hum ne work as it is discussing the past?
magar hum ne is kii qiimat baRhaani thi (past) nah baRhaa'ii (present or past).......

This sentence is of the type..

ham ne Lahore jaanaa thaa (magar jaa nah sake).

This ought to be..

hameN/ham ko Lahore jaanaa thaa (magar jaa nah sake)

So, ham ne qiimat baRhaanii thii (magar nahiiN baRhaa'ii) is wrong.

 

[UrduMedium]

^ marrish jii, I was waiting for UM jii to respond. ba-har Haal..

magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

I understand this sentence to mean...

magar ham ne nah to is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii aur nah hii baRhaa'ii.

But neither did we intend to increase its price nor did we actually increase it.

Your sentence would still come under faulty grammar since the purists would say that the correct version ought to be..

magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. (hameN/ham ko replaces ham ne)

My apologies, marrish saahab. Somehow I missed the question addressed to me until seeing my name in this post. Yes the sentence sounds familiar to me, with the exception of what QP saahab suggested above (hameN to replace ham ne). Although ham ne is also commonly heard. Normally the nah or nahin is not repeated in such statements, but it is understood to apply in both cases.

Also from what I was able to gather from your post #26, "ham is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii" does not sound correct.

 

[Qureshpor]

With respect to the faulty grammar I have some reservations to classify this sentence this way. By the way, would you say that it is 'regional Urdu'?

C.M.Naim does not consider your type of sentence wrong but on the whole most people who know about correct usage deem it wrong and say that this is Punjabi style. I have said this elsewhere that I am not certain about this and I have quoted examples from non-Punjabi speakers.

I have also indicated that the sentence with "ne", according to Ruth Laila Schmidt (Urdu-An Essential Grammar), adds another aspect to the meaning, namely that whereas "ko" gives an external compulsion, "ne" gives an internal choice.

 

[marrish]

Alfaaz jii, you are most welcome to participate and your contribution can by no means be thought of as an interruption! I hope you will understand why I didn't invite you by name to take part in this discussion, since I've requested the attention of friends who have already contributed here over a period of years.

What I can make out of this sentence and the use of 'ne' in connection to tenses (if I understand your question correctly), it is indeed used to address the past. However, in English, we have a tense called 'present perfect' which extends from the past to the present. This would be aptly correlated with the sentence I presented being ''ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaa'ii hai'' but I don't consider myself as having the authority to change this sentence.

The translation which our Qureshpor SaaHib offered is very good but I'm thinking that it could be also possible to say 'we haven't increased its price'.

 

[marrish]

My apologies, marrish saahab. Somehow I missed the question addressed to me until seeing my name in this post. Yes the sentence sounds familiar to me, with the exception of what QP saahab suggested above (hameN to replace ham ne). Although ham ne is also commonly heard. Normally the nah or nahin is not repeated in such statements, but it is understood to apply in both cases.

Also from what I was able to gather from your post #26, "ham is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii" does not sound correct.

UM saahab, thank you for replying and confirming that ham ne is commonly heard as well. I absolutely agree that nah is not repeated in such kind of sentences but it is a question of good style versus a bad one. UM saahab, there is no need to apologize since you have been the most prompt person to offer a contribution, this being within a scope of one day, in stark contrast to other members, out of whom the most haven't responded yet at all.

The case of repeating nah or not doing so is not really the point of my query, since we are proceeding on using 'ne', which we all best know is widely heard with constructions expressing intention to do or not to do something.

I agree with your opinion regarding my post #26, it is indeed a mere speculation which is not correct, so the only option left is that the clause reads:

ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaanii thii.

 

[Alfaaz]

Alfaaz jii, you are most welcome to participate and your contribution can by no means be thought of as an interruption! I hope you will understand why I didn't invite you by name to take part in this discussion, since I've requested the attention of friends who have already contributed here over a period of years.

What I can make out of this sentence and the use of 'ne' in connection to tenses (if I understand your question correctly), it is indeed used to address the past. However, in English, we have a tense called 'present perfect' which extends from the past to the present. This would be aptly correlated with the sentence I presented being ''ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaa'ii hai'' but I don't consider myself as having the authority to change this sentence.

The translation which our Qureshpor SaaHib offered is very good but I'm thinking that it could be also possible to say 'we haven't increased its price'.

I hope you didn't misunderstand...I used "sorry to interrupt" because you all seemed to be discussing one topic....and I came with a (kind of) random question suddenly out of nowhere!

Thanks for the explanation! (I think I remember a little about this from English and Latin studies, and now Qureshpor SaaHib's description above about the "kind of sentence" makes a little bit more sense that you have mentioned present perfect...!)

 

[marrish]

All I can do is to praise you, Alfaaz jii, for picking the meaningful part of Qureshpor SaaHib's response, and him for using 'your kind of sentence'.

But after all, present perfect or not, it is not relevant for this discussion.

Your contribution is certainly not off-topic since we are busy with the use of ''ne''.

 

[Qureshpor]

ek latiifah

ek martabah "All India Radio" ke saabiq mudiir/chairman se kisii ne daryaaft kiyaa kih janaab yih baataiye kih "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" Thiik hai yaa "mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai". unhoN ne javaab diyaa, "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" durust hai. is par puuchhne vaale ne Hairat kaa izhaar kiyaa kih janaab aap itne baRe urdu-daan hote hu'e yih kaise farmaate haiN! is par Hazrat ne kahaa kih, "miyaaN baat siidhii sii hai. "mujhe vahaaN jaana hai" se sirf yih pataa chaltaa haik jaanaa kahaaN hai. jab kih "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" se ye bhii ma3luum ho jaataa hai kih aa'e kahaaN se haiN!

 

[marrish]

ek latiifah

ek martabah "All India Radio" ke saabiq mudiir/chairman se kisii ne daryaaft kiyaa kih janaab yih baataiye kih "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" Thiik hai yaa "mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai". unhoN ne javaab diyaa, "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" durust hai. is par puuchne vaale ne Hairat kaa izhaar kiyaa kih janaab aap itne baRe urdu-daan hote hu'e yih kaise farmaate haiN! is par Hazrat ne kahaa kih, "miyaaN baat siidhii sii hai. "mujhe vahaaN jaana hai" se sirf yih pataa chaltaa haik jaanaa kahaaN hai. jab kih "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" se ye bhii ma3luum ho jaataa hai kih aa'e kahaaN se haiN!

Dear Qureshpor SaaHib, thank you for introducing this ''latiifah''!!! It being so hilarious, it is difficult for me to pose further questions about it because it would condemn me as a guy who lacks the sense of humour totally, but please, tell us, vuh Hazrat kahaaN se aa'e the?

 

[Qureshpor]

Dear Qureshpor SaaHib, thank you for introducing this ''latiifah''!!! It being so hilarious, it is difficult for me to pose further questions about it because it would condemn me as a guy who lacks the sense of humour totally, but please, tell us, vuh Hazrat kahaaN se aa'e the?

The implication marrish SaaHib is this: When someone says "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai", he/she informs the listener not only that he/she wishes to go there but also the listener finds out that he/she has come from the Punjab!

 

[marrish]

The implication marrish SaaHib is this: When someone says "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai", he/she informs the listener not only that he/she wishes to go there but also the listener finds out that he/she has come from the Punjab!

This is what I gathered from the above, but please, do me a favour, you as a Punjabi expert, how would you say the sentence from the latiifah and the sentence which was posted by me in Punjabi?

 

[Qureshpor]

This is what I gathered from the above, but please, do me a favour, you as a Punjabi expert, how would you say the sentence from the latiifah and the sentence which was posted by me in Punjabi?

marrish SaaHib, I have always known that in Punjabi, "ne" is not used. But, if people wish to say that this is Punjabi influence, what can one say but have a good laugh!

 

[marrish]

marrish SaaHib, I have always known that in Punjabi, "ne" is not used. But, if people wish to say that this is Punjabi influence, what can one say but have a good laugh!

I join you in the laughter, more so after this nicely rendered anecdote ! Would you mind to translate these sentences into Punjabi, just for the record?

 

[Qureshpor]

This is what I gathered from the above, but please, do me a favour, you as a Punjabi expert, how would you say the sentence from the latiifah and the sentence which was posted by me in Punjabi?

Urdu: magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

Punjabi: par nah asaaN ehdii kiimat vadhaaNRii sii nah vadhaa'ii.

Urdu: mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai.

Punjabi: maiN othe jaaNRaa e.

 

[marrish]

Urdu: magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

Punjabi: par nah asaaN ehdii kiimat vadhaaNRii sii nah vadhaa'ii

Urdu: mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai

Punjabi: maiN othe jaaNRaa e

Thank you so much for this. It is exactly the way I would say them in Punjabi, and this fact is a matter of satisfaction for me whose knowledge of Punjabi is limited.

It is beyond speculation that Punjabi doesn't employ 'ne' in these sentences.

I'm still wondering what was being implied by classifying the usage of 'ne' in the sense as dealt with in this thread as regional (of course might be!).

 

[Alfaaz]

Urdu: mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai.

Punjabi: maiN othe jaaNRaa e.

I could be wrong, but I have also heard:
Main-nu othe jaaNRaa ae.....

Urdu: mujhe le chal, le chal mujhe kaheeN duur un waadiyoN mein....
Punjabi translation: mainnu le chal, le chal mainnu kitte duur uNRaa waadiyaaN (w)ich.... (sorry if this is a bad example, off-topic different kind of sentence,............. or just a poor translation of an Urdu sentence into Punjabi )

 

[Qureshpor]

^ In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You can not be serious"! I don't know of any kind of Punjabi in which one would find the sentence you have provided!

 

[marrish]

^ In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You can not be serious"! I don't know of any kind of Punjabi in which one would find the sentence you have provided!

Why, mukarramii, maiN nuuN lai chal would be perfectly good Punjabi!

 

[Alfaaz]

I just edited the post to give another (probably wrong) example!

^ In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You can not be serious"! I don't know of any kind of Punjabi in which one would find the sentence you have provided!

; Maybe I heard a "fake Punjabi" or unaware person then....

 

[marrish]

; Maybe I heard a "fake Punjabi" or unaware person then....

I could imagine myself addressed by this term of ''fake Punjabi'' since it is not my mother tongue, but I can't imagine myself speaking Punjabi like this.

 

[marrish]

Letting aside Punjabi, since this language appears not to have anything to do with the topic, as ascertained previously by panjabigator SaaHib and Koozagar SaaHib, and by Qureshpor SaaHib recently, I'm still wondering why this thread is called ''regional Urdu'''.