# Hindi: rehnaa as an auxiliar with participles



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

My grammar book says that the verb _rehnaa _used as an auxiliar, and combined with the participle of the main verb, conveys the idea of duration, iteration, progressiveness of the action. As in:


> _chhipkalii taak lagaaye *baiThii rehtii hai  = *the lizard *keeps sitting* ..._



So far, so good.
But then, the book goes on saying that present participles are used for stative actions (describing a state or situation, rather than an action proper), while the past participles are used for actions proper.
This doesn't match what I see on the internet.

_For example, this poem:_


> _prem aur bhaav kii lehreN hii *uThtii rehtii hai*  = waves ... *keep rising *_



or this piece of news about the electoral importance of UP:


> _puure uttar pradesh meN pashchimii uttar pradesh kaa rol  baRaa aham hai.  isiilie vaqt-vaqt par ise alag karne kii maaNg *uThtii rehtii hai* = ... the demand for separating it *keeps being raised *from time to time_



In the previous examples, I see nothing "stative" in those risings/raisings (other than the general progressiveness/repetition of the action).

So, my question is: Could I have used _uThii_ instead, in the 2 examples above?  What would have been the difference?


----------



## littlepond

"uThii" would make it one-time, past occurrence, rather than something habitual in the present, so how could you use it? I don't see why would you think of "uThii"!

By the way, "lehreN ... uThtiii raihtii hai*N*"


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> "uThii" would make it one-time, past occurrence, rather than something habitual in the present, so how could you use it? I don't see why would you think of "uThii"!



These, for example, seem to me like multiple instances of the turban "rising" (for an effect of ongoing annoyance, on either side, then on both sides). Still, the perfect participle is used.


> _pagRii kabhii daahinii or, kabhii baaiiN or, tathaa kabhii-kabhii donoN or gol aakaar *uThaa rehtaa thaa*_



Another:  the first action (staying asleep) seems habitual, the second (opening the wad of sermons towards the others?) is one-time (today's). But both use perfective on the main verb (I believe it is a "looking at the speck on your brother's eye" situation)


> _apne to TaaNg phailaakar dam-dam baje tak din meN  *soe rehte ho*, aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusriiN ke lie _*khol rahe ho*




[EDITed to add another example]


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> These, for example, seem to me like multiple instances of the turban "rising" (for an effect of ongoing annoyance, on either side, then on both sides). Still, the perfect participle is used.



You do not seem to be comparing like with like. "pagRii" in your example is not keeping on rising (and sinking), which is what "lehreN" were doing: it is rather in a continous "risen" state, that is, the "uThii" state. It's in one state, that is to say. Hence, in that sentence, it cannot be "uThtiii raihtii hai," and for _lehreN_, it cannot be "uThi raihtii haiN," unless you were some god and you frozen the waves when they were in their crested stage!



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Another:  the first action (staying asleep) seems habitual, the second (opening the wad of sermons towards the others?) is one-time (today's). But both use perfective on the main verb (I believe it is a "looking at the speck on your brother's eye" situation)



I fail to see what you see similar between "soe raihte" and "khol rahe"!


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

@littlepond jii, your answers make me realize that my grammar book is wrong on several accounts.

There is really no "special construction" [_rehnaa _auxiliar] + [participle], worth a grammar section. Such appearances are indistinguishable from what one would normally interpret, when seeing _rehnaa  _conjugated next to a participle. There is no additional "grammaticalization" of _rehnaa_.

There is also no discussion worth having about "multiple vs single instances", or about "stative vs. non-stative", other than in a most general sense in relation to what participles and gerunds normally express.

Additionally, the example:


> _chhipkalii taak lagaaye *baiThii rehtii hai = *the lizard *keeps sitting* ..._


(which is from the grammar), is most unfortunate, for a grammar written in English. Because precisely the verb "to sit" idiomatically doesn't lend itself to be used as a participle in that language. What the lizard is doing is "staying sat", really.

This is the book you once recommended me to ignore ("Essential Hindi Grammar", by Christine Everaert), but I keep stubbornly trying to find some value in it .


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> My grammar book says that the verb _rehnaa _used as an auxiliar, and combined with the participle of the main verb, conveys the idea of duration, iteration, progressiveness of the action. As in:


I would say this is fair summary.

_"chhipkalii taak lagaaye *baiThii rehtii hai = *the lizard *keeps sitting"*_

I would translate the relevant part as: ......remains seated/sitting. (...stays put).


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> So far, so good.
> But then, the book goes on saying that present participles are used for stative actions (describing a state or situation, rather than an action proper), while the past participles are used for actions proper.


Not quite sure about this. vuh likhtaa rahtaa hai (likhnaa is not a stative verb)

_prem aur bhaav kii lehreN hii *uThtii rehtii haiN* = waves ... *keep rising*_

.......... waves continue to rise/ keep rising.

_"puure uttar pradesh meN pashchimii uttar pradesh kaa rol baRaa aham hai. isiilie vaqt-vaqt par ise alag karne kii maaNg *uThtii rehtii hai* = ... the demand for separating it *keeps being raised *from time to time."_

..... from time to time keeps surfacing/ continues to be raised.

_"pagRii kabhii daahinii or, kabhii baaiiN or, tathaa kabhii-kabhii donoN or gol aakaar *uThaa rehtaa thaa"*_

...was lifting

_"apne to TaaNg phailaakar dam-dam baje tak din meN *soe rehte ho (stay asleep)*, aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusriiN ke lie _*khol rahe ho" (are opening)*

I am not too clear about "apne to TaaNg..." as TaaNg is feminine.


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> _"apne to TaaNg phailaakar dam-dam baje tak din meN *soe rehte ho (stay asleep)*, aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusriiN ke lie _*khol rahe ho" (are opening)*
> 
> I am not too clear about "apne to TaaNg..." as TaaNg is feminine.


_Taang_ is usually feminine, but I believe the phrase _apne to_ here is being used adverbially here, as it often is colloquially. For a roughly synonymous sentence, try replacing with _x(w)ud to_. Or, translating into English, something like "You yourself snooze comfortably away till 10am, ..."



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> There is really no "special construction" [_rehnaa _auxiliar] + [participle], worth a grammar section. Such appearances are indistinguishable from what one would normally interpret, when seeing _rehnaa _conjugated next to a participle.


I think I agree with this. Adding to this, _rahnaa_ conveys essentially the same "persistent state" sense when it occurs in front of adjectives, eg, _us_kaa kamraa hameshA Saaf-suthraa rahtaa hai_ ("His room always stays neat and tidy"). Also, I was reminded of our discussion in this other thread. In the construction being discussed in this thread, I believe it is _gayaa_ rather than _jaayaa_ that is used. For example, I believe the following should be acceptable, even if a little unusual: _wo(h) din-bhar kaam par gayaa rahtaa hai_ ("He's away at work all day"). In contrast, saying *_jaayaa rahtaa hai_ sounds decidedly wrong. I don't know if this should be taken as evidence that this participle plus _rahnaa_ construction isn't grammaticalized in the same way as the other constructions we discussed in the other thread, but it kind of feels that way...


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> _Taang_ is feminine, but I believe the phrase _apne to_ here is being used adverbially here, as it often is colloquially. For a roughly synonymous sentence, try replacing with _x(w)ud to_. Or, translating into English, something like "You yourself snooze comfortably away till 10am, ..."


Is "apne to" equivalent to "aap to"? If that's the case, why "apne"? is this linked to "apnaa" or "aap ne"? It does seem "gulaabii" Hindi to me, if I haven't completely misunderstood the sentence. What's "dam dam baje tak" mean?


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> Is "apne to" equivalent to "aap to"? If that's the case, why "apne"?


Yes, "aap to" in the sense of "x(w)ud to" is also fine. As for "why," I guess just because language isn't a straitjacket. It can be used in productive and flexible ways.



Qureshpor said:


> What's "dam dam baje tak" mean?


It's just an innocent typo. If you take a look at the attachment from post #3, it says "दस-दस बजे तक."


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> Is "apne to" equivalent to "aap to"? If that's the case, why "apne"? is this linked to "apnaa" or "aap ne"? It does seem "gulaabii" Hindi to me, if I haven't completely misunderstood the sentence.



It rather seems to me a language of the highest quality: fertile, imaginative, poetic.


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> Yes, "aap to" in the sense of "x(w)ud to" is also fine. As for "why," I guess just because language isn't a straitjacket. It can be used in productive and flexible ways.


To my mind, the sentence would make a lot of sense if it was presented in one of three ways.

1) _"*apnii *to TaaNg phailaa kar das-das baje tak din meN so'e rahte ho aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusroN ke liye khol rahe ho".

2) "*aap *to TaaNg phailaa kar das-das baje tak din meN so'e rahte ho aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusroN ke liye khol rahe ho".

3) "*apne *to *paaNv *phailaa kar das-das baje tak din meN so'e rahte ho aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusroN ke liye khol rahe ho".... _


aevynn said:


> _Taang_ is usually feminine, but I believe the phrase _apne to_ here is being used adverbially here, as it often is colloquially.


I thought "TaaNg" was always feminine. If TaaNg is considered masculine as well, in Hindi, then I suppose this sentence could make some sense.

_"*apne *to TaaNg phailaa kar das-das baje tak din meN so'e rahte ho aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusroN ke liye khol rahe ho". _

If the sentence is "colloquial", then shouldn't "phailaa kar" be written as "failaa kar"?


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> To my mind, the sentence would make a lot of sense if it was presented in one of three ways.
> 
> 1) _"*apnii *to TaaNg phailaa kar das-das baje tak din meN so'e rahte ho aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusroN ke liye khol rahe ho".
> 
> 2) "*aap *to TaaNg phailaa kar das-das baje tak din meN so'e rahte ho aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusroN ke liye khol rahe ho".
> 
> 3) "*apne *to *paaNv *phailaa kar das-das baje tak din meN so'e rahte ho aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusroN ke liye khol rahe ho".... _



But those three sentences that you are suggesting are banal, there's nothing beautiful about them. It is "apne to" which gives the sentence its beauty. And there's nothing incorrect about the usage of "apne to."



Qureshpor said:


> I thought "TaaNg" was always feminine. If TaaNg is considered masculine as well, in Hindi, then I suppose this sentence could make some sense.



It makes sense to the other speakers here (with "TaaNg" as feminine). If it doesn't make sense to you, OK, but it's not that everything in this world has to make sense to everyone, right? The PTV Urdu translations of the TV series _Ertuğrul_ hadn't made sense to me either, but they did make sense to you. Our world is like that.



Qureshpor said:


> If the sentence is "colloquial", then shouldn't "phailaa kar" be written as "failaa kar"?



Both "phailaanaa" and "failaanaa" are used colloquially (by both Hindi and Urdu speakers).


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> I thought "TaaNg" was always feminine.


I have only ever used _Taang_ as feminine myself, and using it as masculine feels jarring[^1] to me (though, again, the sentence we've been discussing above does *not* sound jarring to me). But maybe this gender assignment on _Taang_ isn't universal, as demonstrated from the following Google Books snippet from what appears to be a murder-mystery-type novel by राहुल called कत्ल की सौगात ---



HU is spoken by quite a large spectrum of people, so variations in gender assignments are inevitable I suppose.

---
[^1]: At least, it seems jarring to me at the moment, but who knows -- maybe @Pokeflute jii will find us a well-known _filmii_ dialogue that used _Taang_ as masculine without me ever noticing!


----------



## marrish

aevynn said:


> I have only ever used _Taang_ as feminine myself, and using it as masculine feels jarring[^1] to me (though, again, the sentence we've been discussing above does *not* sound jarring to me). But maybe this gender assignment on _Taang_ isn't universal, as demonstrated from the following Google Books snippet from what appears to be a murder-mystery-type novel by राहुल called कत्ल की सौगात ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HU is spoken by quite a large spectrum of people, so variations in gender assignments are inevitable I suppose.
> 
> ---
> [^1]: At least, it seems jarring to me at the moment, but who knows -- maybe @Pokeflute jii will find us a well-known _filmii_ dialogue that used _Taang_ as masculine without me ever noticing!


Are you going to change your gender assignment of टाँग from feminine to masculine if you hear/read it used so in a random place by a random person? It sounds rhetorical though you did indicate in the footnote that you were open the possibility of a change in your notion of it sounding jarring.

If you're saying that you have *only ever* used it as feminine and don't recollect having encountered it as masculine noun, I'd say it's best to stay on that path. It'd be quite contrary to the common sense to argue otherwise. That being said, one is of course free to pick up a trait from any such language/dialect/slang of the Hungarian spectrum which does just fine without the gender or number distinctions at all.

At last, the snippet from Hindi literature you've presented above indicates in no way टांग's treatment as a masculine noun especially considered several other occurrences in the book where that word is used invariably in clear-cut feminine-gender structures.
E.g. आपके बेटे के पेट में फोड़ा हो गया। आपके बेटे के टाँग में फोड़ा हो गया। आपके बेटे के बु़खा़र हो गया। आपके बेटे के आँख की बीमारी हो गई।


----------



## aevynn

marrish said:


> the snippet from Hindi literature you've presented above indicates in no way टांग's treatment as a masculine noun especially considered several other occurrences in the book where that word is used invariably in clear-cut feminine-gender structures.
> E.g. आपके बेटे के पेट में फोड़ा हो गया। आपके बेटे के टाँग में फोड़ा हो गया। आपके बेटे के बु़खा़र हो गया। आपके बेटे के आँख की बीमारी हो गई।


Thanks for pointing this out, marrish SaaHib. This analysis had not occurred to me (probably because I would have defaulted to "aap_ke beTe *ko*..." in these types of sentences instead). It's almost certainly the correct analysis given the other examples you've quoted, and you're absolutely right that this analysis means that the gender of Taang is not visible in the sentence I quoted.



marrish said:


> Are you going to change your gender assignment of टाँग from feminine to masculine if you hear/read it used so in a random place by a random person? It sounds rhetorical though you did indicate in the footnote that you were open the possibility of a change in your notion of it sounding jarring.


I very much doubt that my gender assignments will change. It's just that apparently there are a handful of nouns that some people systematically assign a different gender than I do (pyaaz, dard, etc), and I wanted to express that that variety is okay, but I may have gone overboard in thinking that Taang is also one of these gender-fluid words


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> _"apne to TaaNg phailaakar dam-dam baje tak din meN *soe rehte ho (stay asleep)*, aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusriiN ke lie _*khol rahe ho" (are opening)*
> 
> I am not too clear about "apne to TaaNg..." as TaaNg is feminine.





aevynn said:


> _Taang_ is usually feminine, but I believe the phrase _apne to_ here is being used adverbially here, as it often is colloquially. For a roughly synonymous sentence, try replacing with _x(w)ud to_. Or, translating into English, something like "You yourself snooze comfortably away till 10am, ..."





Qureshpor said:


> Is "apne to" equivalent to "aap to"? If that's the case, why "apne"? is this linked to "apnaa" or "aap ne"? It does seem "gulaabii" Hindi to me, if I haven't completely misunderstood the sentence. What's "dam dam baje tak" mean?





aevynn said:


> Yes, "aap to" in the sense of "x(w)ud to" is also fine. As for "why," I guess just because language isn't a straitjacket. It can be used in productive and flexible ways.





littlepond said:


> It rather seems to me a language of the highest quality: fertile, imaginative, poetic.





littlepond said:


> It is "apne to" which gives the sentence its beauty. And there's nothing incorrect about the usage of "apne to."


I don't know what "apne to" means with "TaaNg" as feminine but whatever it may mean to you and other Hindi speakers, are you still standing by comments quoted above other than mine? Do you agree with the possibilities I offered in # 11 or are you also of the view that



littlepond said:


> But those three sentences that you are suggesting are banal, there's nothing beautiful about them. It is "apne to" which gives the sentence its beauty. And there's nothing incorrect about the usage of "apne to."


I am asking this because no one has offered any logical or reasonable explanation for the use of "apne to" in the sentence quoted.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> At last, the snippet from Hindi literature you've presented above indicates in no way टांग's treatment as a masculine noun especially considered several other occurrences in the book where that word is used invariably in clear-cut feminine-gender structures.


marrish SaaHib (and aevynn SaaHib), in your experience with Hindi speakers and reading Hindi prose or poetry, have you ever come across the sentence of the type quoted, especially the use of "apne" in this sentence context?

_"apne to TaaNg phailaakar das-das baje tak din meN soe rehte ho, aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusriiN ke lie khol rahe ho."_


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> Do you agree with the possibilities I offered in # 11 or are you also of the view that


In Post 11, you are simply rephrasing the sentence according to what pleases you. Why stop at three ways to rephrase, then? A sentence can be rephrased in even more ways, though I haven't understood what you tried to achieve by those rephrasings, except that you took away all the beauty of the sentence.

I think everyone here understood that the sentence is not logical to you, but given that its speakers understand with unanimity what the writer means, it can be said to be very logical.



Qureshpor said:


> I am asking this because no one has offered any logical or reasonable explanation for the use of "apne to" in the sentence quoted.



Post 7 did that, but it didn't satisfy you, after which this thread has been unnecessarily dragging on.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

In this other example (from a review of the evolution of Coronavirus in different Indian States):

_vaayras kii sab_se adhik asar mahaaraaSHTr meN *dekhaa rahaa hai*_

Why is _dekhaa _(past participle) been used, if there is not any real "state"?

Is it to denote some "passivity/impersonality" of the sentence? i.e

"The biggest effect  of the virus *has continued to be seen* in Maharashtra"?:


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> In this other example (from a review of the evolution of Coronavirus in different Indian States):
> 
> _vaayras *kii* sab_se adhik asar mahaaraaSHTr meN *dekhaa rahaa hai*_
> 
> Why is _dekhaa _(past participle) been used, if there is not any real "state"?
> 
> Is it to denote some "passivity/impersonality" of the sentence? i.e
> 
> "The biggest effect  of the virus *has continued to be seen* in Maharashtra"?:


I think it should be "*kaa*" instead of "*kii*" and "*dekhaa jaa rahaa hai*".  ..."is being seen/witnessed".

dekhtaa hai > (passive) dekhaa jaataa hai > (continuous passive) dekhaa jaa rahaa hai


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> marrish SaaHib (and aevynn SaaHib), in your experience with Hindi speakers and reading Hindi prose or poetry, have you ever come across the sentence of the type quoted, especially the use of "apne" in this sentence context?
> 
> _"apne to TaaNg phailaakar das-das baje tak din meN soe rehte ho, aur aaj updesh kii gaThrii duusriiN ke lie khol rahe ho."_


No, Qureshpor SaaHib, I can't recall my having come across this before, but I haven't read that much Hindi. I believe it's just a variation on the reflexive pronoun _aap_, which, although conventionally is often seen along with _apne eg. vah aap gayaa, _or_ - vah apne aap gayaa_, seems here to have retained just the [_apne_] part only.

_apne aap to
aap to
apne_ (_aap_-implied) _to_.

Paraphrasing, _apne_ [_aap_]_ to [TaaNg phailaakar] [din meN] soe rahte ho aur aaj .... duusroN ke lie khol rahe ho._


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> No, Qureshpor SaaHib, I can't recall my having come across this before, but I haven't read that much Hindi. I believe it's just a variation on the reflexive pronoun _aap_, which, although conventionally is often seen along with _apne eg. vah aap gayaa, _or_ - vah apne aap gayaa_, seems here to have retained just the [_apne_] part only.
> 
> _apne aap to
> aap to
> apne_ (_aap_-implied) _to_.
> 
> Paraphrasing, _apne_ [_aap_]_ to [TaaNg phailaakar] [din meN] soe rahte ho aur aaj .... duusroN ke lie khol rahe ho._


Thank you for taking the time to explain this construction. Are you convinced "apne [aap]" is implied here? I for one am not. It simply does not sound right to my ears.

apne aap to TaaNg phailaa kar das das baje tak so'e rahte ho..........

I don't know what to make of the original sentence nor your improvised version. And where does the "adverbial" explanation fit in, as per aevynn SaaHib's #7?


----------



## marrish

^ There is yet another explanation I have up my sleeve. It's possible the speaker/writer contaminated two similar idioms by saying _TaaNg_ instead of _apne to goRe phailaa (pasaar) kar das das baje tak soe rahte ho.
— goṛe pasārnā (apne), To stretch out the legs; — to die; — to lead an idle life. _(Platts)


----------

