# Hindi/Urdu: nasalization of rahii/rahiiN



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> What about "hum hotey/bantey rahtey*N* haiN" or "hum ho/ban rahey*N* haiN"? Though "becoming" is honaa/banna, "hum honaa haiN" is completely meaningless for me.



Is this nasalisation really there in correct Urdu/Hindi? Or is this some different dialect?

*Moderator Edit: Split from here.*


----------



## marrish

^Would be interesting to know as it is a feature that is new to me.


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> Is this nasalisation really there in correct Urdu/Hindi? Or is this some different dialect?



I ran those sentences again in my mind. Typo for the first one - should have been rahtay haiN. For the second one, I tend to nasalize it while speaking but I think correct Hindi would be rahey haiN (raha hai (m), rahi hai (f), rahey haiN (m plural or with respect), rahiN haiN (f plural or f with respect). Wait for another native to confirm.


----------



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> I ran those sentences again in my mind. Typo for the first one - should have been rahtay haiN. For the second one, I tend to nasalize it while speaking but I think correct Hindi would be rahey haiN (raha hai (m), rahi hai (f), rahey haiN (m plural or with respect), rahi*N* haiN (f plural or f with respect). Wait for another native to confirm.



Thanks for the clarification. No need to wait for a "native". Some "non-natives" also know what is correct and what is not. Is this another typo, or are you typing the manner of your speech again?


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> Thanks for the clarification. No need to wait for a "native". Some "non-natives" also know what is correct and what is not. Is this another typo, or are you typing the manner of your speech again?



No, that's not another typo - it's what I meant (just like raha becomes rahey, rahi becomes rahiN for fem pl or fem with respect).


----------



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> No, that's not another typo - it's what I meant (just like raha becomes rahey, rahi becomes rahiN for fem pl or fem with respect).



I believe when the auxiliary verb "haiN" is present, the feminine plural of the main verb does not have the nasal. So "rahii haiN" and NOT "rahiiN haiN".


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> Thanks for the clarification. No need to wait for a "native". Some "non-natives" also know what is correct and what is not.



I was not referring to grammar, but usage.


----------



## marrish

Quite interesting, thank you for clarification, nineth.-


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> I believe when the auxiliary verb "haiN" is present, the feminine plural of the main verb does not have the nasal. So "rahii haiN" and NOT "rahiiN haiN".



I tried playing this in my head a few times. Must say it is a close call. Both sound correct. From personal experience I vote for _rahiiN haiN. 
_
Example, _hazraat jagah diiji'e, xawatiin aa rahiiN haiN._


----------



## nineth

UrduMedium said:


> I tried playing this in my head a few times. Must say it is a close call. Both sound correct. From personal experience I vote for _rahiiN haiN.
> _
> Example, _hazraat jagah diiji'e, xawatiin aa rahiiN haiN._



I agree with this. If someone uses "rahi haiN" instead of "rahiiN haiN", I would simply not notice and consider it normal. The reason is - when normally speaking fast, we don't pronounce the "ha" or pronounce it very lightly - so it would just sound something like "raii haiN". I can no longer remember which way it should be written / the grammatically correct version - around 14 or 15 years ago, I would have immediately said which of the two was right. When speaking slowly, I would now use rahiiN haiN.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I tried playing this in my head a few times. Must say it is a close call. Both sound correct. From personal experience I vote for _rahiiN haiN. _Example, _hazraat jagah diiji'e, xawatiin aa rahiiN haiN._



I don't believe you'll get a tick for this sentence in an Urdu/Hindi test, but we are digressing from the original topic.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> I don't believe you'll get a tick for this sentence in an Urdu/Hindi test, but we are digressing from the original topic.


 Agreed. I fully see your point about grammar. But spoken usage-wise there's clearly a slight nasal after _rahii _both for fem (plural) and fem (singular, respect). If I were _writing_, I'd likely write "_rahii_" also as it sounds more grammatically correct.


----------



## UrduMedium

UrduMedium said:


> Agreed. I fully see your point about grammar. But spoken usage-wise there's clearly a slight nasal after _rahii _both for fem (plural) and fem (singular, respect). If I were _writing_, I'd likely write "_rahii_" also as it sounds more grammatically correct.


For whatever it is worth, I ran a poll on a social media site (among my "friends") as follows:

Urdu-Hindi poll: please vote how you would say this (A or B) ...

A) bakriyaaN char *rahii* haiN
B) bakriyaaN char *rahiiN* haiN

So far the A's are 7 and the B's are 6.  Close match!!


----------



## BP.

UrduMedium said:


> For whatever it is worth, I ran a poll on a social media site (among my "friends") as follows:
> 
> Urdu-Hindi poll: please vote how you would say this (A or B) ...
> 
> A) bakriyaaN char *rahii* haiN
> B) bakriyaaN char *rahiiN* haiN
> 
> So far the A's are 7 and the B's are 6.  Close match!!


A. B doesn't stand a chance with me!


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> For whatever it is worth, I ran a poll on a social media site (among my "friends") as follows:
> 
> Urdu-Hindi poll: please vote how you would say this (A or B) ...
> 
> A) bakriyaaN char *rahii* haiN
> B) bakriyaaN char *rahiiN* haiN
> 
> So far the A's are 7 and the B's are 6.  Close match!!



I am not surprised to see goats nasalising their speech!

Jokes apart,you will find this kind of "double nasal" in the poetry of Sauda,for example. But such usage has been "matruuk" for a long time. If we follow human speech patterns to represent what is correct and what is not, then Rafi marHuum's following song should be written thus...

ye dunyaa*N*, ye mehfil, mere kaam kii nahiiN!


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> I am not surprised to see goats nasalising their speech!
> 
> Jokes apart,you will find this kind of "double nasal" in the poetry of Sauda,for example. But such usage has been "matruuk" for a long time. If we follow human speech patterns to represent what is correct and what is not, then Rafi marHuum's following song should be written thus...
> 
> ye dunyaa*N*, ye mehfil, mere kaam kii nahiiN!



Haha! _bakriyaaN _nasalizing --- very appropriate 

Please share some examples of Sauda's double nasalization. 

Seems like in written lit this may have become _matruuk_, but not in spoken language. My poll is now running 8 to 7 in favor of "B".


----------



## UrduMedium

Also curious to understand better the grammar justification for lack of _rahiiN _..

Using parallel from masculine subjects:

bakraa char *rahaa* hai (singular)
bakre char _*rahe *_haiN (plural)

bakrii char _*rahii *_hai (singular)
bakriyaaN char _*rahii/rahiiN*_ haiN (plural)

So if _rahaa _changes to _rahe _in the masculine scenario, why should the _rahii _not change to _rahiiN_?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Haha! _bakriyaaN _nasalizing --- very appropriate
> 
> Please share some examples of Sauda's double nasalization.
> 
> Seems like in written lit this may have become _matruuk_, but not in spoken language. My poll is now running 8 to 7 in favor of "B".



Please....mat bhuuliye gaa kih bakriyoN se ziyaadah insaanoN kii ta3daad hai.

muNh ko saaqii ke yuuN vuh dekheN haiN
aag se juuN jale ko seNkeN haiN


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> If we follow human speech patterns to represent what is correct and what is not, then Rafi marHuum's following song should be written thus...
> 
> ye dunyaa*N*, ye mehfil, mere kaam kii nahiiN!



QP saahab- ye mehfil shaayad aap ke kaam kii na ho, par aap janaab is mehfil ke baRe kaam ke haiN


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Also curious to understand better the grammar justification for lack of _rahiiN _..
> 
> Using parallel from masculine subjects:
> 
> bakraa char *rahaa* hai (singular)
> bakre char _*rahe *_haiN (plural)
> 
> bakrii char _*rahii *_hai (singular)
> bakriyaaN char _*rahii/rahiiN*_ haiN (plural)
> 
> So if _rahaa _changes to _rahe _in the masculine scenario, why should the _rahii _not change to _rahiiN_?



It did, but not any more! But if you feel this is correct, by all means carry on with the double negative but you won't find it in anyone's writing who has an ounce of knowledge of Urdu (and Hindi)!

Language does not always follow well defined logical patterns. 

kaalaa bakraa
kaale bakre
kaalii bakrii
kaaliyaaN bakriyaaN!

Do you say "kaaliyaaN bakriyaaN"? But even this form was in existence once, as it still is in Punjabi. I shall see if I can find an example. In the mean time ponder over this..

ve suurateN ilaahii kis des meN bastiyaaN haiN
ab jin ke dekhne ko aaNkheN tarastiyaaN haiN!


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> It did, but not any more! But if you feel this is correct, by all means carry on with the *double negative* but _you won't find it in anyone's writing who has an ounce of knowledge of Urdu_ _(and Hindi)_!



Hazrat xafaa kyuuN hote haiN? aap kii baat to ham pehle hii maan chuke haiN (or is that chukeN haiN ), yih to sirf itminaan-i-qalb ke liye daryaaft karne kii jasaarat kii thii!


----------



## greatbear

I think many and many Hindi and Urdu speakers say "rahiiN" instead of "rahii" in the sentence under debate: and for me, usage is as much sacrosanct as some grammar book. I also say "rahiiN" but write "rahii".


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> I believe when the auxiliary verb "haiN" is present, the feminine plural of the main verb does not have the nasal. So "rahii haiN" and NOT "rahiiN haiN".


  Interesting. I will be listening for this form in all the serials from now on. However, in the serials they tend to use standard Hindi except when trying to portray a particular kind of regional speech.  I think it's import to understand that while rahiiN haiN might be in use, it is not considered standard.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> QP saahab- ye mehfil shaayad aap ke kaam kii na ho, par aap janaab is mehfil ke baRe kaam ke haiN



3izzat-afzaa'ii kaa shukriyah (aur xafaa honaa kaahe ko?) vagarnah man aanam kih xud daanam (or hamaan xaak-am kih hastam..Sa3dii)

aaN-jahaanii Mukesh also sang about this wor(l)d.

dunyaaN banaane vaale kyaa tere man meN saamaa'ii
kaahe ko dunniyaaN banaa'ii!

Question is this. Why do people (who know their language) not write the nasal if it is there? Do they bear in mind the sacredness of the written word?


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> 3izzat-afzaa'ii kaa shukriyah (aur xafaa honaa kaahe kaa?) vagarnah man aanam kih xud daanam (or hamaan xaak-am kih hastam..Sa3dii)
> 
> aaN-jahaanii Mukesh also sang about this wor(l)d.
> 
> dunyaaN banaane vaale kyaa tere man meN saamaa'ii
> kaahe ko dunniyaaN banaa'ii!
> 
> Question is this. Why do people (who know their language) not write the nasal if it is there? Do they bear in mind the sacredness of the written word?


To the native speaker language is what is spoken, not written. Many will never learn to read or write. For something like this, unless someone points out one will not even know the difference. Those who read and write, write _rahii _because that is what they have always seen and they are unaware of the subtle difference. I never knew I had been making an unconscious choice throughout my life for _rahiiN _over _rahii _(while speaking)_, _until this thread. 

Also, in spoken language, as nineth suggested earlier, the "h" in rahii/rahiiN is not pronounced, leading to ra'iiN. And to top that, the nasal is lighter than usual (less pronounced than in kyuuN, e.g). There may be phonological explanation for it. I think that is where this discussion belongs rather than grammar.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Question is this. Why do people (who know their language) not write the nasal if it is there? Do they bear in mind the sacredness of the written word?



Because grammar and written language are all about conventions, neither sacredness nor reality. A French speaker says "j'ai pas ..." invariably and writes "je n'ai pas ..." invariably. Written language is more close to formal codes; spoken language is closer to living, breathing language.
Avoiding the nasal in "rahiiN haiN" would make the "h" of "rahiiN" very hard, and as nineth and UM have already said, that "h" is in fact very light. While writing, one doesn't have to "speak": one only follows what one has been taught or what one has seen. Just like an English speaker will write "psychology" and keep on doing it, never removing the "p", even if he is not pronouncing it.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> To the native speaker language is what is spoken, not written. Many will never learn to read or write. For something like this, unless someone points out one will not even know the difference. Those who read and write, write _rahii _because that is what they have always seen and they are unaware of the subtle difference. I never knew I had been making an unconscious choice throughout my life for _rahiiN _over _rahii _(while speaking)_, _until this thread.
> 
> Also, in spoken language, as nineth suggested earlier, the "h" in rahii/rahiiN is not pronounced, leading to ra'iiN. And to top that, the nasal is lighter than usual (less pronounced than in kyuuN, e.g). There may be phonological explanation for it. I think that is where this discussion belongs rather than grammar.



Well, my views about some natives are not very complementary and this native does NOT pronounce "rahiiN haiN"!! Again there are some who can read and write; yet they are hardly better than those who are illiterate. But, if you care to go back in time, the discussion began on the way the written word was portrayed, i.e ..

"What about "hum hotey/bantey rahtey*N haiN" or "hum ho/ban raheyN haiN"? Though "becoming" is honaa/banna, "hum honaa haiN" is completely meaningless for me."
*
I think one thing is clear. Any title of any post needs to be specified whether it is common, colloquial and at times even vulgar language that is under discussion or the chaste, standard language.


----------



## UrduMedium

greatbear said:


> Because grammar and written language are all about conventions, neither sacredness nor reality. A French speaker says "j'ai pas ..." invariably and writes "je n'ai pas ..." invariably. Written language is more close to formal codes; spoken language is closer to living, breathing language.
> Avoiding the nasal in "rahiiN haiN" would make the "h" of "rahiiN" very hard, and as nineth and UM have already said, that "h" is in fact very light. While writing, one doesn't have to "speak": one only follows what one has been taught or what one has seen. Just like an English speaker will write "psychology" and keep on doing it, never removing the "p", even if he is not pronouncing it.



This is very true. Well said, GB.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> This is very true. Well said, GB.



It would be interesting to know when and why some native/s decided to write "rahii haiN" and not "rahiiN haiN".


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Because grammar and written language are all about conventions, neither sacredness nor reality. A French speaker says "j'ai pas ..." invariably and writes "je n'ai pas ..." invariably. Written language is more close to formal codes; spoken language is closer to living, breathing language. Avoiding the nasal in "rahiiN haiN" would make the "h" of "rahiiN" very hard, and as nineth and UM have already said, that "h" is in fact very light. While writing, one doesn't have to "speak": one only follows what one has been taught or what one has seen. Just like an English speaker will write "psychology" and keep on doing it, never removing the "p", even if he is not pronouncing it.


  Psychology was never pronounced in English according to spelling because it is a borrowed word. In the same way that वृक्ष is a borrowed word and should be spelled व्रिक्ष because the vast majority of Hindi speakers do not even attempt to make a true ऋ sound, and the real sound is for all real purposes Sanskrit and not Hindi.  A slightly more fitting analogy might be the Ph in philosophy. Due to language erosion, Koine Greek speakers stopped pronouncing the aspirated Ph sound and replaced it with an F. Similarly, the original form of the word rahii is probably as spelled, but due to language erosion, some "native speakers" pronounce it as rahiiN. In all honesty, it is slightly easier to say rahiiN especially when speaking fast and saying rii instead of rahii. The contrast between rahii and haiN can be somewhat jarring.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Psychology was never pronounced in English according to spelling because it is a borrowed word. In the same way that वृक्ष is a borrowed word and should be spelled व्रिक्ष because the vast majority of Hindi speakers do not even attempt to make a true ऋ sound, and the real sound is for all real purposes Sanskrit and not Hindi.  A slightly more fitting analogy might be the Ph in philosophy. Due to language erosion, Koine Greek speakers stopped pronouncing the aspirated Ph sound and replaced it with an F. Similarly, the original form of the word rahii is probably as spelled, but due to language erosion, some "native speakers" pronounce it as rahiiN. In all honesty, it is slightly easier to say rahiiN especially when speaking fast and saying rii instead of rahii. The contrast between rahii and haiN can be somewhat jarring.



Thank you Tony SaaHib for the above explanation. If one were speaking fast and wanted to use the singular verb, would the nasal still creep in due to speed of delivery?

vuh khaa riiN hai?

Or, is it the presence of the following nasal in the plural verb (haiN) that induces the nasal in the "rahii"?

vuh khaa riiN haiN.

Does this apply to thii/thiiN too?

vuh khaa riiN thii/riiN thiiN.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Psychology was never pronounced in English according to spelling because it is a borrowed word. In the same way that वृक्ष is a borrowed word and should be spelled व्रिक्ष because the vast majority of Hindi speakers do not even attempt to make a true ऋ sound, and the real sound is for all real purposes Sanskrit and not Hindi.



If borrowings were to determine pronunciations, then why do French do pronounce the "p" of "psychologie"? After all, the word is as much a borrowing into French as into English.People would have to be really etymologically learned (and poetically dumb, maybe) if they were to start pronouncing things based on what's borrowed or not.

Your example of वृक्ष reinforces what I've been saying: many people can't even pronounce the क्ष, and yet they do write it. Where we differ is what you call as language "erosion", I call as language "evolution".

In the meanwhile, I don't understand your putting scare quotes around 'native speakers', for people like me and UM will continue to be native speakers: how much we know our languages or not is another thing altogether, but that doesn't prevent us from being native speakers of it.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Hazrat xafaa kyuuN hote haiN? aap kii baat to ham pehle hii maan chuke haiN (or is that chukeN haiN ), yih to sirf itminaan-i-qalb ke liye daryaaft karne kii jasaarat kii thii!



itmi'naan-i-qalb ke liye do ash3aar.

jab kabhii un kii tavajjuh meN kamii paa'ii *ga'ii*
az sar-i-nau daastaan-i-shauq duhraa'ii *ga'ii*

un kaa Gham un kaa tasavvur un ke shikve ab kahaaN
ab to yih baateN bhii ai dil ho *ga'iiN* aa'ii *ga'ii

*Sahir


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> If borrowings were to determine pronunciations, then why do French do pronounce the "p" of "psychologie"? After all, the word is as much a borrowing into French as into English.People would have to be really etymologically learned (and poetically dumb, maybe) if they were to start pronouncing things based on what's borrowed or not.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_(letter)


> "In Greek loanwords in Latin and modern languages with Latin alphabets, Psi is usually transliterated as "ps". In English, due to phonotactic constraints, its pronunciation is usually simplified to /s/ at the beginning of a word."


  "Native speakers" of English don't pronounce the 'p' - it is awkward for them since there are no such consonant clusters in natural, non-borrowed English words.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> "Native speakers" of English don't pronounce the 'p' - it is awkward for them since there are no such consonant clusters in natural, non-borrowed English words.



There are no such consonant clusters in "natural", non-borrowed French words too, and yet the French do pronounce that "p". You see, borrowings don't always determine the course of the game.


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> To the native speaker language is what is spoken, not written. Many will never learn to read or write. For something like this, unless someone points out one will not even know the difference. Those who read and write, write _rahii _because that is what they have always seen and they are unaware of the subtle difference. I never knew I had been making an unconscious choice throughout my life for _rahiiN _over _rahii _(while speaking)_, _until this thread.


Whilst I agree with your points, UM SaaHib, but do you happen to use the plural form of chaahiye, chaahiyeN, whether in writing or in speech?


----------



## nineth

greatbear said:


> Because grammar and written language are all about conventions, neither sacredness nor reality. A French speaker says "j'ai pas ..." invariably and writes "je n'ai pas ..." invariably. Written language is more close to formal codes; spoken language is closer to living, breathing language.
> Avoiding the nasal in "rahiiN haiN" would make the "h" of "rahiiN" very hard, and as nineth and UM have already said, that "h" is in fact very light. While writing, one doesn't have to "speak": one only follows what one has been taught or what one has seen. Just like an English speaker will write "psychology" and keep on doing it, never removing the "p", even if he is not pronouncing it.



+1 posts like these save my time.


----------



## UrduMedium

UrduMedium said:


> Haha! _bakriyaaN _nasalizing --- very appropriate
> 
> Please share some examples of Sauda's double nasalization.
> 
> Seems like in written lit this may have become _matruuk_, but not in spoken language. My poll is now running 8 to 7 in favor of "B".



Interestingly my poll led to very fruitful exchange. One person was particularly incensed at rahiiN haiN. She did a bit of literary research in support of rahii haiN which I thought was worth sharing ...

_I opened a single page of Qurratul Ain Haider’s Gardish-e-Rang-e-Chaman and found the following examples: (I have paraphrased slightly the non-essential words here for ease of writing):
“… takht ravan par khari larkian gaanay gati phireeN” (not gateeN phireeN)
“dilnavaz or in ki saath valiyan bhairveen alaap rahi haiN” (not rahiN haiN)
“vo sub Franceesi sharabeen kaafi miqdar mai ura chuki theeN” (not chukiN theeN)

And when mentioning a single person:
“vo namukammal razai utha kar sehan me chali gaee”

And on the next page when mentioning a single older person (respectfully) she says:
“… likha parhi kay baad hath jhar kar khari huiN” (not khariN huiN)

One can keep checking additional authoritative figures ...

The first three are on page 133.
Next one page 132 and the last from page 135.

These are from my edition published by Danyal Publications, Victoria Chambers 2, Abdullah Haroon Rd, Karachi. First printing 1987, second 1988.


_and then some more ...

_We have produced more varied substantiation of what we all already believe. (That choice A is the correct one.)
I pulled out Josh Malihabadi, Manto, and Nayyar Masood, and Bibi found the references.

In Yadon ki Barat, there are innumerable examples, but a very fine passage at the top of page 198 includes almost a dozen phrases to serve as evidence fo the correct way of writing:
“katao me katariaN machalti haiN”
“chatanain tori jaati haiN”
“musamaat say chingarian barasti haiN”
“nauhoN ki god main raagniaN parvan charhtee haiN”

Later in the paragraph:
“ek ek aan ki hatheli par karoroN sudyaaN thirakti nazar aati haiN”

And on and on, and similarly on page 575, 629 etc.

Nayyar Masood says (page 1 of Taoos Chaman ki Maina):
“khushbouon ki laptaiN mujhe apni taraf khinchtee theeN”

Enough I say._


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I am surprised you needed to go to these lengths when you had a clear answer in post 6. Did your learned friend comment whether Quuratulain Haidar, Josh Maleehabadi and Manto and others pronounced or would have pronounced "rahii" as "rahiiN"?


----------



## marrish

marrish said:


> Whilst I agree with your points, UM SaaHib, but do you happen to use the plural form of chaahiye, chaahiyeN, whether in writing or in speech?


I forgot to add that _chaahiye*N*_ is deemed correct in Urdu.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ I am surprised you needed to go to these lengths when you had a clear answer in post 6. Did your learned friend comment whether Quuratulain Haidar, Josh Maleehabadi and Manto and others pronounced or would have pronounced "rahii" as "rahiiN"?



My effort was to poll usage, not right/wrong grammar. The poll itself generated some exchange and the person quoted was dead-set against any rahiiN haiN. Just some more context as you may have missed it.


----------



## Faylasoof

We’ve had similar discussions about nasalization before. We’d never nasalize _rahii_ to _rahiiN_ because for us it is incorrect _speech_, though we do hear the nasalized form from others and in their speech it may be normal.


----------



## greatbear

Faylasoof said:


> We’d never nasalize _rahii_ to _rahiiN_ because for us it is incorrect _speech_, though we do hear the nasalized form from others and in their speech it may be normal.



May I ask who are "we" in the sentence quoted above? You use "we" all the time, so I thought it would clarify a lot of discussions for me.


----------



## Faylasoof

^This has been explained before! In case you missed it, ‘we’ means native speakers of standard _lakhnawii urdu_!


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> My effort was to poll usage, not right/wrong grammar. The poll itself generated some exchange and the person quoted was dead-set against any rahiiN haiN. Just some more context as you may have missed it.


UM SaaHib, although I tend to think that this should be discussed in a new thread, still there is something that makes me join you in polling (not _baRe sadr ke intixaabaat!_) and ask one question which may be related. What do you use or hear: _phasnaa_ or _phaNsnaa_?


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> What do you use or hear: _phasnaa_ or _phaNsnaa_?


Both seem to be used equally by Urdu/Hindi speakers. (There doesn't seem to be any effect of whether the speakers are Urdu or Hindi natives or not...)


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> Both seem to be used equally by Urdu/Hindi speakers. (There doesn't seem to be any effect of whether the speakers are Urdu or Hindi natives or not...)


(Interesting...) I think I wasn't precise enough! Thank you for your answer anyway, but the one whose kind attention was required was especially UrduMedium SaaHib who said he recognized the nuun-Ghunnah in the speech pattern elsewhere. In other words I'm trying to ask for the personal usage of the two words: phaNsnaa/phasnaa and rahii/rahiiN. Everyone is free to answer, of course.


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> (Interesting...) I think I wasn't precise enough! Thank you for your answer anyway, but the one whose kind attention was required was especially UrduMedium SaaHib who said he recognized the nuun-Ghunnah in the speech pattern elsewhere. In other words I'm trying to ask for the personal usage of the two words: phaNsnaa/phasnaa and rahii/rahiiN.


Oh, I see; (I thought about asking first if the poll is open to everyone, or if it is just a direct question to UM SaaHib...but then decided to just answer)


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> Oh, I see; (I thought about asking first if the poll is open to everyone, or if it is just a direct question to UM SaaHib...but then decided to just answer)


No need to ask, you can still answer!


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> UM SaaHib, although I tend to think that this should be discussed in a new thread, still there is something that makes me join you in polling (not _baRe sadr ke intixaabaat!_) and ask one question which may be related. What do you use or hear: _phasnaa_ or _phaNsnaa_?


 _phaNsnaa _for me


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> _phaNsnaa _for me


Thanks. Do you happen to know whether people who say _phaNsnaa _rather than_ phasnaa_ are more prone to say rahiiN?


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> Thanks. Do you happen to know whether people who say _phaNsnaa _rather than_ phasnaa_ are more prone to say rahiiN?


 Sorry I don't know to that detail. One thing though .. phaNsaa is very definite for me. rahii/rahiiN was close to a tossup. rahii sounds perfectly correct to me .. phasaa I doubt so ... Hope this helps.


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> Sorry I don't know to that detail. One thing though .. phaNsaa is very definite for me. rahii/rahiiN was close to a tossup. rahii sounds perfectly correct to me .. phasaa I doubt so ... Hope this helps.


I understand, just had a vague idea. Maybe _chaahiyeN_ could fit better to what I was thinking.


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> It did, but not any more! But if you feel this is correct, by all means carry on with the double negative but you won't find it in anyone's writing who has an ounce of knowledge of Urdu (and Hindi)!
> 
> Language does not always follow well defined logical patterns.
> 
> kaalaa bakraa
> kaale bakre
> kaalii bakrii
> kaaliyaaN bakriyaaN!
> 
> Do you say "kaaliyaaN bakriyaaN"? But even this form was in existence once, as it still is in Punjabi. I shall see if I can find an example.


paRhte phireN ge galiyoN meN in rextoN ko log
muddat raheN gii yaad yih baateN hamaariyaaN

Miir


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> paRhte phireN ge galiyoN meN in rextoN ko log
> muddat raheN gii yaad yih baateN hamaariyaaN
> 
> Miir


He just couldn't envision that his verses were not only to be read in the streets but also in different fora on the internet. Very gracious example of what you introduced above.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> paRhte phireN ge galiyoN meN in rextoN ko log
> muddat raheN gii yaad yih baateN hamaariyaaN
> 
> Miir


 This is typical of the older Urdu forms prevalent around Mir's time, so you do come across these esp. in his earlier poetry. Mir lived to a ripe old age and saw the transition to later forms too. BTW, some of my Hyderabadi relations still use these forms in speech!


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> This is typical of the older Urdu forms prevalent around Mir's time, so you do come across these esp. in his earlier poetry. Mir lived to a ripe old age and saw the transition to later forms too. BTW, some of my Hyderabadi relations still use these forms in speech!


Here are a couple of examples from Ghulam Hamadani Mushafi (1750-1824)

nargis ne gul kii diid ko aaNkheN jo kholiyaaN
kuchh jii meN jo samajh ga'iiN kaliyaaN nah boliyaaN

kisii se jo ham ne aaNkheN milaaiyaaN hotiiN
to yaar dekhte phir kyaa laRaaiyaaN hotiiN


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Here are a couple of examples from Ghulam Hamadani Mushafi (1750-1824)
> 
> nargis ne gul kii diid ko aaNkheN jo kholiyaaN
> kuchh jii meN jo samajh ga'iiN kaliyaaN nah boliyaaN
> 
> kisii se jo ham ne aaNkheN milaaiyaaN hotiiN
> to yaar dekhte phir kyaa laRaaiyaaN hotiiN


 Yes! This is roughly the same period I refer to. Only later on these forms dropped out from the northern dialect though in _dakkanii_ one still hears them.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Yes! This is roughly the same period I refer to. Only later on these forms dropped out from the northern dialect though in _dakkanii_ one still hears them.



Thank you Faylasoof SaaHib. Any views on the other "nasal" thread?


----------

