# Urdu-Hindi: The verb "to have"



## Qureshpor

*Urdu/Hindi grammar books inform us that in these languages there is no verb for "to have". This sense is conveyed using other means.

I have a book

mere paas ek kitaab hai

How many children does he/she have?

us ke kitne bachche haiN?

I had knowledge about this matter.

mujhe is amr ke baare meN 'ilm thaa...etc etc

But, we do have a perfectly good verb for "to have".

zindagii apnii jab is shakl se guzrii Ghalib
ham bhii kyaa yaad kareN ge kih Khudaa rakhte the!!

Any views?
 
*


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> *rakhte the!!
> *



Technically wouldn't this be to place or to keep?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Technically wouldn't this be to place or to keep?



*zindagii apnii jab is shakl se guzrii Ghalib
ham bhii kyaa yaad kareN ge kih Khudaa rakhte the!!

When my life has been spent so wretchedly, O Ghalib
Would I ever say, "Yes I did have God on my side"!

True, "rakhnaa" does have the meanings of "putting/placing/keeping" but it also has the sense of "having".
*


----------



## Faylasoof

_rakhnaa_ =  to put; keep etc.

 We really don’t have a word for ‘have’, just like Arabic!

_rakhnaa_  gives the meaning of ‘have’ only in certain translations into English:

*miir moHammad taqii apnaa taxallus miir (Mir) rakhte the.* 
*miir moHammad taqii ne apnaa taxallus miir (Mir) rakhaa thaa.* 

 Mir Mohammad Taqi ‘kept’ / had Mir as his nom de plume / pen name.

 Urdu-Hindi are much like Arabic in that we are resigned to using words which only in translation appear  as ‘have’, e.g. in Arabic we have *lii* = to me = I have;  *ma3ii *= by / with me = I have; *3indii* = with me / on me ( at this moment) = I have.


----------



## Todd The Bod

QURESHPOR said:


> *zindagii apnii jab is shakl se guzrii Ghalib*
> *ham bhii kyaa yaad kareN ge kih Khudaa rakhte the!!*
> 
> *When my life has been spent so wretchedly, O Ghalib*
> *Would I ever say, "Yes I did have God on my side"!*
> 
> *True, "rakhnaa" does have the meanings of "putting/placing/keeping" but it also has the sense of "having".*


 
It seems like it literally says "When this life has passed from my face Ghalib, will we (I) remember we were keeping God?"  Am I incorrect on my literal translation?


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> _rakhnaa_ =  to put; keep etc.
> 
> We really don’t have a word for ‘have’, just like Arabic!
> 
> _rakhnaa_  gives the meaning of ‘have’ only in certain translations into English:
> 
> *miir moHammad taqii apnaa taxallus miir (Mir) rakhte the.*
> *miir moHammad taqii ne apnaa taxallus miir (Mir) rakhaa thaa.*
> 
> Mir Mohammad Taqi ‘kept’ / had Mir as his nom de plume / pen name.



*Is it not possible that this verb did also contain the "have" meaning which has, over a period of time, been gradually diluted? For one, I can not accept that, for example, in the Ghalib shi'r, he is talking about "having kept God"! One does not "keep" God (na'uuzu bi_llaahi) as one keeps property!

Platts, by the way, does include "have" amongst "rakhnaa"'s meanings.

*H رکهنا रखना _rakhnā_ [Prk. रक्खणअं; S. रक्षणीयं,  rt. रक्ष्], v.t. To protect, preserve, keep, take care of, save; to keep, maintain; to keep, put, place, lay (upon or before), set, station, deposit, lay down, pledge, stake; to keep back, reserve; to put by, put aside; to leave; to stop; to possess, own;* to have*, hold, harbour, entertain; to deem, esteem, consider; to engage, employ, take into service; to apply, ascribe, impute:—_rak-ćhoṛnā_, v.t. To put away, lay aside; to place, keep; to have; to keep back, withhold, detain; to give in charge:—_rakh-denā_, v.t. (intens.) To put down, put by; to place, keep, &c. (=_*rakhnā*_):—_rakh-kar kahnā_, To speak with reservation: to speak in innuendoes:—_rakh-lenā_, v.t. (intens.) To take in, entertain; to engage, employ; to take in charge; to keep, &c. (=_rakhnā_).


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> *
> Is it not possible that this verb did also contain the "have"  meaning which has, over a period of time, been gradually diluted? For  one, I can not accept that, for example, in the Ghalib shi'r, he is  talking about "having kept God"! One does not "keep" God (na'uuzu  bi_llaahi) as one keeps property!
> 
> Platts, by the way, does include "have" amongst "rakhnaa"'s meanings.
> 
> *H رکهنا रखना _rakhnā_ [Prk. रक्खणअं; S. रक्षणीयं,   rt. रक्ष्], v.t. To protect, preserve, keep, take care of, save; to  keep, maintain; to keep, put, place, lay (upon or before), set, station,  deposit, lay down, pledge, stake; to keep back, reserve; to put by, put  aside; to leave; to stop; to possess, own;* to have*, hold, harbour, entertain; to deem, esteem, consider; to engage, employ, take into service; to apply, ascribe, impute:—_rak-ćhoṛnā_, v.t. To put away, lay aside; to place, keep; to have; to keep back, withhold, detain; to give in charge:—_rakh-denā_, v.t. (intens.) To put down, put by; to place, keep, &c. (=_*rakhnā*_):—_rakh-kar kahnā_, To speak with reservation: to speak in innuendoes:—_rakh-lenā_, v.t. (intens.) To take in, entertain; to engage, employ; to take in charge; to keep, &c. (=_rakhnā_).


 Yes I understand what you mean but what I said was this:


Faylasoof said:


> _
> rakhnaa_ =  to put; keep etc.
> 
> We really don’t have a word for ‘have’, just like Arabic!
> 
> _rakhnaa_ gives the meaning of ‘have’ only in certain translations into English:
> 
> *miir moHammad taqii apnaa taxallus miir (Mir) rakhte the.*
> *miir moHammad taqii ne apnaa taxallus miir (Mir) rakhaa thaa.*
> 
> Mir Mohammad Taqi ‘kept’ / had Mir as his nom de plume / pen name.
> 
> Urdu-Hindi  are much like Arabic in that we are resigned to using words which only  in translation appear  as ‘have’, e.g. in Arabic we have *lii* = to me = I have;  *ma3ii *= by / with me = I have; *3indii* = with me / on me ( at this moment) = I have.


 All these  (including Platts) is due to usage!
Standard Arabic grammars and lexicons will also give _have_ as a meaning for the examples I give (li / 3ind / ma3a ) esp. when discussing usage.



Todd The Bod said:


> It seems like it literally says "When this life has passed from my face Ghalib, will we (I) remember we were keeping God?"  Am I incorrect on my literal translation?


 Pretty good attempt Todd! But it is literal, as you say. QP's (qureshpor's) translation is what you should look at! *
*


----------



## BP.

Todd The Bod said:


> It seems like it literally says "When this life has passed from *my face* Ghalib, will we (I) remember we were keeping God?"  Am I incorrect on my literal translation?


I don't think _shakl _means _face_, esp. here it  means _manner_. I'll give you some synonyms - _D.hab_, _tarz_, _andaaz _etc.

Also, _keeping _is off for a translation. I'd say _have_.

If you had difficulty getting at the meaning, Ghaalib is presenting the atheist's usual and familiar argument.

Edit: Just realized sahibe qarshi had already translated it for you.


----------



## Faylasoof

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I don't think _shakl _means _face_, esp. here it  means _manner_. I'll give you some synonyms - _D.hab_, _tarz_, _andaaz _etc.
> 
> Also, _keeping _is off for a translation. I'd say _have_.
> 
> If you had difficulty getting at the meaning, Ghaalib is presenting the atheist's usual and familiar argument.
> 
> Edit: Just realized sahibe qarshi had already translated it for you.


 These are exactly what I had in mind! I even thought of posting it above but then I saw QP's translation and dropped it!

Here that is exactly what it means. The _usage_ of _*rakhnaa*_ becomes very important.


----------



## Todd The Bod

Thanks, guys.  But literal translations help me remember the idioms so that I can use them myself later.  Also, it's fun guessing at how the idioms came about once you understand their literal translations.  That's the only reason I always ask for the literal translation as well.  Can I just use shakl as manner in regular speech, or is it only high register?


----------



## Faylasoof

Todd The Bod said:


> Thanks, guys.  But literal translations help me remember the idioms so that I can use them myself later.  Also, it's fun guessing at how the idioms came about once you understand their literal translations.  That's the only reason I always ask for the literal translation as well.  Can I just use shakl as manner in regular speech, or is it only high register?



Welcome Todd! 

I fully understand what you mean about keeping literal meanings in mind. That is how we start anyway.  

  In daily speech _shakl _can be used in a number of ways:

_us shaxs kii shakl kaisii thii?_
What did that person look like?
What features did that person have?  
What did that person's face look like? - for this we also say: _us shaxs kii shakl o Suurat kaisii thii?
etc._

_us chiiz kii shakl kaisii thii?_ 
What did that thing look like?
What was the shape of that thing.

etc. 

What manner of book is this? = What kind / type of book is this? =  _yeh kis waDh3 / nau3iiyat kii kitaab hai? = __yeh kis qism / TarH kii kitaab__ hai? etc.
_

From the above you'll note that we don't use  _shakl _to mean _manner_ in common speech. 

 _shakl = shape, form, figure, image. _But also,_ state, condition.

is kitaab kii shakl kaisii ho gaii hai = is kitaab kaa Hulyaa kaisaa ho gayaa hai = What state / condition has become of __this book !

muka33ab kii shakl kaisii hotii hai? = What is the shape of the cube / What shape does the cube have? 
_


----------



## Todd The Bod

Wow!  Thanks, Faylasoof!


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> All these  (including Platts) is due to usage!



*Thiik hai janaab. aap merii baat nah maaniye. lekin Mirza Ghalib kii baat par to zaraa tavajjuh diijiye!

baaNdhnaa bastan kushaadan kholnaa
daashtan rakhnaa hai suKhtan tolnaa

az Qaadir-Naamah (Ghalib)
*


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> *
> Thiik hai janaab. aap merii baat nah maaniye. lekin Mirza Ghalib kii baat par to zaraa tavajjuh diijiye!
> 
> baaNdhnaa bastan kushaadan kholnaa
> daashtan rakhnaa hai suKhtan tolnaa
> 
> az Qaadir-Naamah (Ghalib)
> *



Again, it is a translation! Ghalib was a great poet but not a lexicographer!He was going by standard usage!

The meaning of _rakhnaa_ is very clear (any standard Urdu dictionary will give it just as Platts mentions) with the primary meanings given at the start [ To protect, preserve, keep, take care of, save; to keep, maintain; to  put, place, lay (upon or before), set, station, deposit;  to possess, own;.... ]. The meaning _to have_ and other meanings- _and there are many other meanings_- coming later. 

As I said earlier, we are using _rakhnaa _in the meaning of _to have_ just like the various terms in Arabic are used. All by usage :



Faylasoof said:


> _
> rakhnaa_ =  to put; keep etc.
> 
> We really don’t have a word for ‘have’, just like Arabic!
> 
> _rakhnaa_  gives the meaning of ‘have’ only in certain translations into English:
> 
> *miir moHammad taqii apnaa taxallus miir (Mir) rakhte the.*
> *miir moHammad taqii ne apnaa taxallus miir (Mir) rakhaa thaa.*
> 
> Mir Mohammad Taqi ‘kept’ / had Mir as his nom de plume / pen name.
> 
> Urdu-Hindi  are much like Arabic in that we are resigned to using words which only  in translation appear  as ‘have’, e.g. in Arabic we have *lii* = to me = I have;  *ma3ii *= by / with me = I have; *3indii* = with me / on me ( at this moment) = I have.



For:

_He / She *has* a lot of money _

We commonly say:  

_uske *paas* bahut / beHadd paisah hai_

etc.

Of course we can and do say:

_woh bahut paisah (maal o dulat =wealth) *rakhtaa / rakhtii* hai_

... _and other ways too_, e.g.

_woh bahut paise *waalaa (waalii)* / maal  *daar * hai_
etc., etc.

He / She _*has / possesses*_ a lot of money /wealth.
 

Use of _*paas, waalaa/ waalii, daar *_(from Farsi _*daashtan*_)etc. can replace _*rakhnaa*_ here and in countless other examples.

So, _

I *have* no books _

  becomes,

_mere *paas* kitaabeN nahiiN haiN_

That is how we commonly render it because in Urdu-Hindi we have no word with the _primary__ meaning _of _to have_, unlike in Farsi - the word _*daashtan*_.


----------



## Qureshpor

Recently in an another thread littlepond Jii used "rakhnaa" for keeping/having as far as I could understand. 


littlepond said:


> Hindi: (kyaa) aapke paas (kuchh) anDe haiN?
> 
> "Do you keep eggs?" would be "Kyaa aap anDe rakhte haiN?"


Going by this thread, at least one Urdu speaker was of the view that "rakhnaa" can not be equated with "to have". It would be interesting to have views of Urdu and Hindi speakers to discuss this topic further.


----------



## tonyspeed

Qureshpor said:


> Recently in an another thread littlepond Jii used "rakhnaa" for keeping/having as far as I could understand.
> 
> Going by this thread, at least one Urdu speaker was of the view that "rakhnaa" can not be equated with "to have". It would be interesting to have views of Urdu and Hindi speakers to discuss this topic further.



In my opinion, this would be translated "keep". Of course, if you "keep" something the having is implied unless he/she has run out of eggs currently. In that case, rakhnaa and (ke paas) honaa would differ in meaning.


----------



## Qureshpor

OK, let's ask this question. Who would use the following sentence when the meaning is...."Do you keep eggs?"

"kyaa aap anDe rakhte haiN?"

I am keeping both these sentences in quotation marks for obvious reasons.


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> OK, let's ask this question. Who would use the following sentence when the meaning is...."Do you keep eggs?"
> 
> "kyaa aap anDe rakhte haiN?"
> 
> I am keeping both these sentences in quotation marks for obvious reasons.



I would. But that maybe because I am paraphrasing from a frequent Bengali idiom using the same verb in the same meaning in the same context ("apnara ki Dim rakhen?")


----------



## littlepond

I am in agreement with the fact that "rakhnaa" can also mean "to have", but only in limited situations: whether it is by usage or whether it was an original meaning now diluted, that I don't know. One can say "mere paas film jaane ka ticket hai" but not really "main film jaane kaa ticket rakh rahaa hooN" - however, "kyaa aap koii gaaRii rakhte haiN?" is better than "kyaa aap ke paas koi gaaRii (raihtii) hai?"  It seems that only for a habitual tense (present/past/future), one can use this usage of "rakhnaa" - it is awkward or nonexistent probably for other tenses.


----------



## Qureshpor

I came across the following in Plats, " A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language"....

"Possession may also be signified by the postposition "paas" and the gentitive of the possessor, instead of the Dative: as

"us ke paas kuttaa hai....He has a dog...; and less commonly, by the verb "rakhnaa" "to keep", "have" with the accusative of the thing possessed; as 

ko'ii farzand nah rakhtaa thaa.. He had no child."


----------

