# Urdu: hazaaroN khwaahisheN aisii



## Abu Talha

Hello,

In Ghalib's shi3r:
ہزاروں خواہشیں *ایسی* کہ ہر خواہش پہ دم نکلے
بہت نکلے میرے ارمان لیکن پھر بھی کم نکلے

_hazaaroN khwaahisheN *aisii* kih har khwaahish pah dam nikle
bohat nikle mere armaan lekin phir bhii kam nikle_

I want to ask if, purely from a grammatical standpoint, aisii in the first line could be replaced with aisiiN ایسیں , or whether this word actually exists.

If I were to rearrange the sentence and say ہزاروں ایسی خواہشیں کہ _hazaaroN aisii khwaahisheN kih ..._, then _aisii_ is the only word that fits. However, in the original form, a replacement with _aisiiN_ does not sound too bad to my ears. However, as I mentioned, I am unsure whether this word exists (at least I could not find it in a couple of grammar books) and whether changing the placement of words should affect it in any way.

What do you think?

Thanks.


----------



## Alfaaz

(Warning: not good at Urdu grammar at all, will answer just on the basis of what "sounds right")


> could be replaced with aisiiN ایسیں , or whether this word actually exists.
> What do you think?



Really interesting question! I believe such a word probably doesn't exist (not sure). A while back there was a thread in which (I think it was Qureshpor) who provided examples (cannot find the thread), and it was concluded the following would be wrong: 

tamaam khawaateen ja *raheeN* theeN

and should be instead...

tamaam khawaateen ja *rahi* theeN

Just as you have mentioned above, in this case using "rahi" could sound wrong and rude (beti jaa _rahi_ thi; walidah jaa *rahi* theeN; jo lafz beti ke liye wohi buzurg walidah ke liye) but it is correct. 

Aik armaan aisa, ke us peh dam nikle
HazaaroN armaan aise, ke har armaan peh dam nikle (aiseN wouldn't be used here...or would it?)

khaahish aisi-----khaahisheN aisii

aisa aur khaakah hai; aise aur khaake hain; aisi aur tasweer hai; aisi aur tasaaweer hain....confusing....


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks very much for your expert opinion Alfaaz SaaHib.


Alfaaz said:


> Just as you have mentioned above, in this case using "rahi" could sound wrong and rude (beti jaa _rahi_ thi; walidah jaa *rahi* theeN; jo lafz beti ke liye wohi buzurg walidah ke liye) but it is correct.


It's interesting that you compare the feminine plural verb conjugation with this case. Personally _waalidah jaa rahii thiiN_ does not sound rude to me because of the plural _thiiN_.



> Aik armaan aisa, ke us peh dam nikle
> HazaaroN armaan aise, ke har armaan peh dam nikle (aiseN wouldn't be used here...or would it?)
> 
> khaahish aisi-----khaahisheN aisii


Hmm..., I think for the masculine armaan, it is a different matter. If we treat _aisaa_ like a regular marked masculine noun, it will only carry nasalisation(?) if followed by a postposition, other wise it would be _aise_ for plural. 

I found a verse by Mir (I guess) where this is done:

_aa'ine kii mashhuur pareshaaN-nazarii hai
tuu saadah hai *aisoN* ko nah diidaar diyaa kar_

I think what is happening here is that if you say "to such people", you would say _aise logoN ko_. However, if you want to drop _log_, then _aise_ is declined accordingly and you say _aisoN ko_.

So under the assumption that _aisaa_ and _aisii_ can be treated as marked masculine and feminine nouns respectively, lets see what we can do with another feminine marked noun which is not a relative pronoun more regular, e.g., _moTii_ (fat)

So we can say
_hazaaroN moTii kitaabeN
_
but should we say
_hazaaroN kitaabeN moTii_ OR _hazaaroN kitaabeN moTiiN_?


----------



## marrish

daee said:


> Hello,
> 
> In Ghalib's shi3r:
> ہزاروں خواہشیں *ایسی* کہ ہر خواہش پہ دم نکلے
> بہت نکلے میرے ارمان لیکن پھر بھی کم نکلے
> 
> _hazaaroN khwaahisheN *aisii* kih har khwaahish pah dam nikle
> bohat nikle mere armaan lekin phir bhii kam nikle_
> 
> I want to ask if, purely from a grammatical standpoint, aisii in the first line could be replaced with aisiiN ایسیں , or whether this word actually exists.
> 
> If I were to rearrange the sentence and say ہزاروں ایسی خواہشیں کہ _hazaaroN aisii khwaahisheN kih ..._, then _aisii_ is the only word that fits. However, in the original form, a replacement with _aisiiN_ does not sound too bad to my ears. However, as I mentioned, I am unsure whether this word exists (at least I could not find it in a couple of grammar books) and whether changing the placement of words should affect it in any way.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks.



Really interesting question but the answer is no. I think that neither grammar nor usage provides in such a possibility. 
This word, ایسی aisii can be defined in grammar as a correlative determiner whose function is analogous to an adjective.
It is here in its feminine form. Let's make a short comparison of nominative forms of a proper adjective and aisaa/aisii:



masc. fem.masc.fem.singularاچھااچھیایساایسیpluralاچھےاچھیایسےایسی


On basis of this we can say that adjectives don't behave like verbs _(رہا rahaa رہے, rahe, رہی rahii, رہیں rahiiN) nor like nouns (گھوڑا ghoRaa, گھوڑے ghoRe, گھوڑی ghoRii, گھوڑیاں ghoRiyaaN). 
_
There are other languages you might be exposed to which decline the adjectives more than Urdu does.


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> Hello,
> 
> In Ghalib's shi3r:
> ہزاروں خواہشیں *ایسی* کہ ہر خواہش پہ دم نکلے
> بہت نکلے میرے ارمان لیکن پھر بھی کم نکلے
> 
> _hazaaroN khwaahisheN *aisii* kih har khwaahish pah dam nikle
> bohat nikle mere armaan lekin phir bhii kam nikle_
> 
> I want to ask if, purely from a grammatical standpoint, aisii in the first line could be replaced with aisiiN ایسیں , or whether this word actually exists.
> 
> If I were to rearrange the sentence and say ہزاروں ایسی خواہشیں کہ _hazaaroN aisii khwaahisheN kih ..._, then _aisii_ is the only word that fits. However, in the original form, a replacement with _aisiiN_ does not sound too bad to my ears. However, as I mentioned, I am unsure whether this word exists (at least I could not find it in a couple of grammar books) and whether changing the placement of words should affect it in any way.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks.




daee SaaHib, "aisaa" is an adjective and this is how it works. Let us compare it with "achchhaa"

achchhaa laRkaa >>> achchhe laRke
achchhii laRkii   >>> achchhii laRkiyaaN 

Urdu does not require the plural feminine noun to have a plural feminine adjective agreement (Punjabi does).

aisaa armaan >>> aise armaan (masculine agreement)

aisii xvaahish >>> aisii xvaahisheN (feminine agreement)


----------



## Alfaaz

> Thanks very much for your expert opinion Alfaaz SaaHib.


Your welcome, but I am certainly not an expert (not even mediocre at such grammar issues as stated previously)!



> but should we say
> _hazaaroN kitaabeN moTii _ OR _hazaaroN kitaabeN moTiiN_?



just guessing, not sure...



> On basis of this we can say that adjectives don't behave like verbs _(رہا rahaa رہے, rahe, رہی rahii, رہیں rahiiN)_



So _raheeN_ can be used... (Maybe I was thinking of the wrong thread in the previous post...?)......_tamaam khawaateen ja *raheeN* theeN _would be correct...?


----------



## Abu Talha

marrish said:


> Really interesting question but the answer is no. I think that neither grammar nor usage provides in such a possibility.
> This word, ایسی aisii can be defined in grammar as a correlative determiner whose function is analogous to an adjective.
> It is here in its feminine form. Let's make a short comparison of nominative forms of a proper adjective and aisaa/aisii:
> ...
> On basis of this we can say that adjectives don't behave like verbs _(رہا rahaa رہے, rahe, رہی rahii, رہیں rahiiN) nor like nouns (گھوڑا ghoRaa, گھوڑے ghoRe, گھوڑی ghoRii, گھوڑیاں ghoRiyaaN)._





QURESHPOR said:


> daee SaaHib, "aisaa" is an adjective and this is how it works. Let us compare it with "achchhaa"
> 
> achchhaa laRkaa >>> achchhe laRke
> achchhii laRkii   >>> achchhii laRkiyaaN
> 
> Urdu does not require the plural feminine noun to have a plural feminine adjective agreement (Punjabi does).
> 
> aisaa armaan >>> aise armaan (masculine agreement)
> 
> aisii xvaahish >>> aisii xvaahisheN (feminine agreement)


Thanks very much for your insightful views, Marrish and Qureshpor Saahibs. I hope you will allow me to ask you all a couple more questions.

If we place adjectives before the nouns they qualify then the feminine adjectives remain singular, just like in the examples you have graciously provided.

aik achchhaa laRkaa >>> das achchhe laRke
aik achchii laRkii >>> das achchhii laRkiyaaN

But what happens if we place the adjective after the noun. I'm not sure, but perhaps it will now be called substantive?

For example,

Adjective before noun:
das achchh*e* laRke aur das bur*e* laRke
das achchh*ii* laRkiyaaN aur das bur*ii* laRkiyaaN

Adjective after noun:
das laRke achchh*e* aur das laRke bur*e
*das laRkiyaaN achch*ii* aur das laRkiyaaN bur*ii* 
OR 
das laRkiyaaN achch*iiN* aur das laRkiyaaN bur*iiN* ?

EDIT: The reason I'm highlighting this difference is because if adjectives come after a noun then it seems to me that it is as if they are a replacement of the noun they follow, and thus should be declined fully. This is why it is definitely aisii khwaahisheN because the adjective comes before the noun. But in khwaahisheN aisii, it comes after, and thus should could perhaps be declined?

das achchiiN aur das buriiN


----------



## marrish

daee said:


> Thanks very much for your insightful views, Marrish and Qureshpor Saahibs. I hope you will allow me to ask you all a couple more questions.
> 
> If we place adjectives before the nouns they qualify then the feminine adjectives remain singular, just like in the examples you have graciously provided.
> 
> aik achchhaa laRkaa >>> das achchhe laRke
> aik achchii laRkii >>> das achchhii laRkiyaaN
> 
> But what happens if we place the adjective after the noun. I'm not sure, but perhaps it will now be called substantive?
> 
> For example,
> 
> Adjective before noun:
> das achchh*e* laRke aur das bur*e* laRke
> das achchh*ii* laRkiyaaN aur das bur*ii* laRkiyaaN
> 
> Adjective after noun:
> das laRke achchh*e* aur das laRke bur*e
> *das laRkiyaaN achch*ii* aur das laRkiyaaN bur*ii*
> OR
> das laRkiyaaN achch*iiN* aur das laRkiyaaN bur*iiN* ?
> 
> EDIT: The reason I'm highlighting this difference is because if adjectives come after a noun then it seems to me that it is as if they are a replacement of the noun they follow, and thus should be declined fully. This is why it is definitely aisii khwaahisheN because the adjective comes before the noun. But in khwaahisheN aisii, it comes after, and thus should could perhaps be declined?
> 
> das achchiiN aur das buriiN



Adjectives follow the declination which you can see in my previous answer, it doesn't play any role whether they precede the noun or follow it. Plural feminine adjectives don't decline (nor in nominative case neither in 'oblique'). 

Just as QP SaaHib mentioned, and I suggested, your reasoning might be under influence of other languages, maybe Punjabi (there are other, too!).


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> But what happens if we place the adjective after the noun. I'm not sure, but perhaps it will now be called substantive?
> 
> For example,
> 
> Adjective before noun:
> das achchh*e* laRke aur das bur*e* laRke
> das achchh*ii* laRkiyaaN aur das bur*ii* laRkiyaaN
> 
> Adjective after noun:
> das laRke achchh*e* aur das laRke bur*e
> *das laRkiyaaN achch*ii* aur das laRkiyaaN bur*ii*
> OR
> das laRkiyaaN achch*iiN* aur das laRkiyaaN bur*iiN* ?
> 
> EDIT: The reason I'm highlighting this difference is because if adjectives come after a noun then it seems to me that it is as if they are a replacement of the noun they follow, and thus should be declined fully. This is why it is definitely aisii khwaahisheN because the adjective comes before the noun. But in khwaahisheN aisii, it comes after, and thus should could perhaps be declined?




The thing to remember daee SaaHib is that in Modern Urdu (and I would consider Ghalib, a modern poet), the adjective only agrees in gender with the feminine noun following or preceding it but *not in number*. There are no such words as "aisiiN, buriiN, achchhiiN".

Now if you were living in older times, then the situation would have been to your liking!

mulaa'im ho ga'iiN dil par birah kii saa3ateN kaRiy*aaN
*pahar kaTne lage un bin jinhoN bin kaaTtiiN ghaRiyaaN*

Sauda (There is "ixtilaaf" in the second line but we need not worry about it here.)


----------



## Abu Talha

Thank you, everyone, for your excellent explanations.


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> I found a verse by Mir (I guess) where this is done:
> 
> _aa'ine kii mashhuur pareshaaN-nazarii hai
> tuu saadah hai *aisoN* ko nah diidaar diyaa kar_
> 
> I think what is happening here is that if you say "to such people", you would say _aise logoN ko_. However, if you want to drop _log_, then _aise_ is declined accordingly and you say _aisoN ko_.




*achchhoN* ko buraa saabit karnaa dunyaa kii puraanii 3aadat hai
is mai ko mubaarak chiiz samajh maanaa kih bahut badnaam hai yaih


I shall leave the Urdu poet's name as a quiz for you!


----------



## tonyspeed

daee said:


> EDIT: The reason I'm highlighting this difference is because if adjectives come after a noun then it seems to me that it is as if they are a replacement of the noun they follow, and thus should be declined fully. This is why it is definitely aisii khwaahisheN because the adjective comes before the noun. But in khwaahisheN aisii, it comes after, and thus should could perhaps be declined?
> 
> das achchiiN aur das buriiN




The only reason for having an adjective after a noun I could see would be stylistic. In the normal written form, the adjective should always come before the noun.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Really interesting question! I believe such a word probably doesn't exist (not sure). A while back there was a thread in which (I think it was Qureshpor) who provided examples (cannot find the thread), and it was concluded the following would be wrong:
> 
> tamaam khawaateen ja *raheeN* theeN
> 
> and should be instead...
> 
> tamaam khawaateen ja *rahi* theeN




I don't remember the thread but allow me to provide one or two examples.

a) jitnii balaa'eN aa'iiN sab ko gale lagaayaa- past tense (Kaifi Azamii, a noted Urdu poet)

b) jitnii balaa'eN aa'iiN haiN maiN ne sab ko gale lagaayaa hai- present perfect

c) jitnii balaa'eN aa'iiN thiiN maiN ne sab ko gale lagaayaa thaa-past perfect

In Modern Urdu, the correct form is aa'ii haiN and aa'ii thiiN. The plural auxillary verb is sufficient. We do not need to make the main verb plural.


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> But what happens if we place the adjective after the noun. I'm not sure, but perhaps it will now be called substantive? QUOTE]
> 
> Did you have something like the below sentence in mind?
> 
> us vaqt makaan kii khiRkiyaaN khulii hu'ii thiiN aur yih khulii hu'ii khirkiyaaN ek xuub-suurat manzar pesh kar rahii thiiN.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> daee said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what happens if we place the adjective after the noun. I'm not sure, but perhaps it will now be called substantive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have something like the below sentence in mind?
> 
> us vaqt makaan kii khiRkiyaaN khulii hu'ii thiiN aur yih khulii hu'ii khirkiyaaN ek xuub-suurat manzar pesh kar rahii thiiN.
Click to expand...

Not really. I had in mind exactly what Tony's describing, i.e., only for stylistic reasons.





tonyspeed said:


> The only reason for having an adjective after a noun I could see would be stylistic. In the normal written form, the adjective should always come before the noun.


This having the adjective after the noun would be rare, but possible, don't you think, for regular adjectives like in the sentence I gave above, "das laRke achchh*e* aur das laRke bur*e*"? aisaa/aisii however could more frequently follow the noun for emphasis, and not just for style. I only gave this example because, since we were treating aisaa/aisii as a marked adjective, perhaps we could substitute more common adjectives to see if that helped us in our analysis.


----------



## tonyspeed

daee said:


> the sentence I gave above, "das laRke achchh*e* aur das laRke bur*e*"?



This to me just sounds like the haiN has been left off. das laRke achche* haiN* aur das laRke bure *haiN* - ten boys are good and ten boys are bad.
I think this is the same thought QP-saahib had. If the adjective comes afterward, it usually will be used with the verb 'hona' - to be or to become.

I think a full sentence might be more helpful.


----------



## Abu Talha

tonyspeed said:


> This to me just sounds like the haiN has been left off. das laRke achche* haiN* aur das laRke bure *haiN* - ten boys are good and ten boys are bad.
> I think this is the same thought QP-saahib had. If the adjective comes afterward, it usually will be used with the verb 'hona' - to be or to become.
> 
> I think a full sentence might be more helpful.


Hmm.. I see your point. I'm making this up as I go along so please excuse me if some of these examples are confusing. For a complete sentence, let me try with,

kal maiN baazaar gayaa. wahaaN mujhe mile das laRke achchhe aur das laRke bure.

Admittedly, the words are not in the normal order, which would be, wahaaN mujhe das achchhe laRke aur das bure laRke mile. But the point of the sentence with the unnatural, yet grammatically correct, ordering is to see how aisaa/aisii would fit there.

kal maiN baazaar gayaa. wahaaN mujhe mile das *laRke aise* kih har laRke ke sar pah Topii thii. _//can't think of anything better!_

So, you can see, aise after the noun fits more naturally, just like in the original verse (hazaaroN khwaahisheN aisi ...). I only used other adjectives like moTaa, achchhaa to see if they, being more regular adjectives, would give us insight on the number agreement. That matter, however, has been resolved, so that it seems the only correct sentence with laRkiyaaN would be,

kal maiN baazaar gayaa. wahaaN mujhe mil*iiN* das laRkiyaaN achchh*ii* aur das laRkiyaaN bur*ii*.

which proves that only ais*ii* and not ais*iiN* can follow khwaahisheN.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> *achchhoN* ko buraa saabit karnaa dunyaa kii puraanii 3aadat hai
> is mai ko mubaarak chiiz samajh maanaa kih bahut badnaam hai yaih
> 
> 
> I shall leave the Urdu poet's name as a quiz for you!


I don't know, but I I have to guess, I'd go with Mir.

I wonder, Qurespor Saahib, if you or anyone else, can translate these sentences literally into Punjabi? Thanks.

kal maiN baazaar gayaa. wahaaN mujhe das achchii laRkiyaaN aur das burii laRkiyaaN miliiN.
kal maiN baazaar gayaa. wahaaN mujhe miliiN das laRkiyaaN achchhii aur das laRkiyaaN burii.

hazaaroN khwaahisheN aisii kih har khwaahish pah dam nikle
hazaaroN aisii khwaahisheN kih har khwaahish pah dam nikle


----------



## Qureshpor

You started the thread by quoting Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib. Let me quote a couple of lines from the same genius which have the adjective after the noun.

thii *xabar garm* kih Ghalib ke uReN ge purze
dekhne ham bhii ga'e the pah tamaashaa nah hu'aa
*
zindagii apnii* jab is shakl se guzrii Ghalib
ham bhii kyaa yaad kareN ge kih xudaa rakhte the


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> I don't know, but I I have to guess, I'd go with Mir.
> 
> I wonder, Qurespor Saahib, if you or anyone else, can translate these sentences literally into Punjabi? Thanks.
> 
> kal maiN baazaar gayaa. wahaaN mujhe das achchii laRkiyaaN aur das burii laRkiyaaN miliiN.
> kal maiN baazaar gayaa. wahaaN mujhe miliiN das laRkiyaaN achchhii aur das laRkiyaaN burii.
> 
> hazaaroN khwaahisheN aisii kih har khwaahish pah dam nikle
> hazaaroN aisii khwaahisheN kih har khwaahish pah dam nikle



kal maiN bazaar giyaa. othe mainuuN das changiyaaN kuRiyaaN te das p_haiRiyaaN kuRiyaaN miliyaaN.
kal maiN bazaar giyaa. othe mainuuN miliyaaN das kuRiyaaN changiyaaN te das kuRiyaaN p_haiRiyaaN.

hazaaraaN khaahshaaN ehojaiyyaaN kih har xaahish te saah nikle
hazaaraaN ehojaiyyaaN khaahshaaN kih har xaahish te saah nikle


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> kal maiN bazaar giyaa. othe mainuuN das changiyaaN kuRiyaaN te das p_haiRiyaaN kuRiyaaN miliyaaN.
> kal maiN bazaar giyaa. othe mainuuN miliyaaN das kuRiyaaN changiyaaN te das kuRiyaaN p_haiRiyaaN.
> 
> hazaaraaN khaahshaaN ehojaiyyaaN kih har xaahish te saah nikle
> hazaaraaN ehojaiyyaaN khaahshaaN kih har xaahish te saah nikle


Thanks very much Qureshpor Saahib. Nice translation of the verse, by the way.


----------



## marrish

Another taking:

(ha)zaaraaN cháávaaN ehojeiyaaN ke har cháá te sáá nikle!


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> ہزاروں خواہشیں *ایسی* کہ ہر خواہش پہ دم نکلے
> بہت نکلے میرے ارمان لیکن پھر بھی کم نکلے
> 
> _hazaaroN khwaahisheN *aisii* kih har khwaahish pah dam nikle
> bohat nikle mere armaan lekin phir bhii kam nikle_




Just a minor point. The word (for the sake of "vazn") should be "mire" and not "mere".


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Another taking:
> 
> (ha)zaaraaN cháávaaN ehojeiyaaN ke har cháá te sáá nikle!




Being a lover of tea, I did not wish people to think that I had gone totally bonkers and was asking for thousands of cups of tea!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Being a lover of tea, I did not wish people to think that I had gone totally bonkers and was asking for thousands of cups of tea!


Remembering that a cup can make wonders with your creativity, all I can say you'd surely have had thousands of them by now! But if you really don't wish to be misunderstood, take it as چاہ!!!


----------

