# Urdu, Hindi: जलती हुईं  جلتی ہوئیں



## MonsieurGonzalito

The following 2 verses are from the song "Noor-e-Xudaa", sung in the Indian movie "My name is Khan".


او! جلتی ہوئیں تنہائیاں
روٹھی ہوئیں پرچھائیاں

ओ! जलती हुईं तन्हाइयाँ
रूठी हुईं परछाइयाँ

_Ho! Solitudes have been burning_
_Shadows have been upset_

An educated Urdu speaker has told me that the two _huii's _in the verses,  should, in fact, be singular (ہوئی) .

He must be right, but I don't understand why, because "the solitudes" and "the shadows" are both plural.
His explanation is that "they are been used as adjectives", which only adds to my confusion.

Could someone kindly explain to me why those 2 participles are expected to be singular? I am missing some obvious grammar point ...
Thanks in advance.

​


----------



## Englishmypassion

Hi MG,
I never hear *हुईं* (irrespective of whether the subject is plural or singular) - I don't think it exists!
 Please take a look: वे गाती हुई - Google Search


For masculine subjects, "hua" (singular), "huwe" (plural) but for feminine  "हुई" (for all).

 I'm NO expert.


----------



## desi4life

Englishmypassion said:


> Hi MG,
> I never hear *हुईं* (irrespective of whether the subject is plural or singular) - I don't think it exists!
> Please take a look: वे गाती हुई - Google Search
> 
> 
> For masculine subjects, "hua" (singular), "huwe" (plural) but for feminine  "हुई" (for all).
> 
> I'm NO expert.



*हुईं *certainly exists grammatically and is very common in written use. This might be of interest (section C): Hindi grammar
In speech, the difference between *हुईं *and *हुई *is subtle, so you might not have noticed or paid attention to which is used.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thanks, @Englishmypassion 
I am 100% sure that the nasalized form exists as a plural for feminines
होना - Wiktionary
Lesson 18
My little "Essential Hindi Grammar" book (Everaert) shows it

But I am surprised that some grammar references omit it altogether, prescribing हुई for both plural and singular as you say.
Perfect Participles
My dear "Complete Hindi" (Snell) also omits is

I am confused


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thank you, @desi4life 
Could it be that Urdu has a different standard, or that the nasalized form is falling even more into disuse for the Urdu register?


----------



## Englishmypassion

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> But I am surprised that some grammar references omit it altogether, prescribing हुई for both plural and singular as you say.
> Perfect Participles
> My dear "Complete Hindi" (Snell) also omits is
> 
> I am confused



MG, I was confused only about the plural form *हुईं -* I knew well the form with a dot over it existed for other verbs, even though only used by puritans and pedants in contemporary writing. (How could I forget that "thii*n*" existed - my dad slapped me for not having put that point over "thii" in "Mahilaayen gaana ga rhi thhii" (Oops) when I was almost ten. Later I realized that my dad was unnecessarily fussing about it and I could've done without receiving that tangy slap, as even highly educated people, except pedants/linguists, don't use the plural feminine verb form even in writing. Not just "huiin" (which I don't even remember having seen anywhere else except now above), I mean, for no verbs do they usually use that plural form even in writing in contemporary Hindi, except Puritanical/pedantic writing or writing aimed at teaching Hindi. So you can forget the plural feminine form and say "Mahilaayen bazaar ja rhi thii" or Ladkiyon ne pustaken khariidii" except if you're teaching Hindi or taking Hindi exams or doing something academic like that.

Another tangy slap I received was for not using that halant sign with "t" in "arthaat" अथा॔*त्*!


----------



## desi4life

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Thank you, @desi4life
> Could it be that Urdu has a different standard, or that the nasalized form is falling even more into disuse for the Urdu register?



It's used in both Hindi and Urdu, and I don't agree with Englishmypassion's opinion that it and other feminine plural verb forms are "pedantic" and "puritan". The related topic of plural nouns was discussed in another thread: Hindi-Urdu: when semantically plural nouns are used in the singular


----------



## Englishmypassion

What would you say about the usages in the books/pages linked to in post 2? Especially this book: Girija (which is otherwise a literary work)

And these books: वे गाती हुई - Google Search


----------



## Alfaaz

MonsieurGonzalito said:
			
		

> An educated Urdu speaker has told me that the two _huii's _in the verses, should, in fact, be singular (ہوئی) .
> 
> He must be right, but I don't understand why, because "the solitudes" and "the shadows" are both plural.
> His explanation is that "they are been used as adjectives", which only adds to my confusion.
> 
> Could someone kindly explain to me why those 2 participles are expected to be singular? I am missing some obvious grammar point ...


This and related topics were discussed in multiple previous threads. Some of the relevant threads are listed below:

Urdu: Nasalization of ending for formality
Urdu: Difference between hua, hota/hoti, hoga/hogi, hoge
Hindi/Urdu: nasalization of rahii/rahiiN
Urdu, Hindi: chaahiye vs chaahiyeN
In the particular example provided in your opening post, it seems ہوئی would be correct. 

However, this does not mean that ہوئیں doesn't exist (as a different part of speech). Literary examples:

جن میں ہم کھیل کر جوان ہوئے
وہی گلیاں *ہوئیں *تماشائی

عبید الله علیم

فصلیں جل کر راکھ *ہوئیں*
نگری نگری کال پڑا

ناصر کاظمی

اب نہ دہرا فسانہ ہائے الم
اپنی قسمت پہ سوگوار نہ ہو
فکرِ فردا اتار دے دل سے
عمر رفتہ پہ اشکبار نہ ہو
عہدِ غم کی حکایتیں مت پوچھ
ہو *چکیں* سب شکایتیں مت پوچھ
آج کی رات سازِ درد نہ چھیڑ

فیض احمد فیض​


----------



## Alfaaz

MonsieurGonzalito said:
			
		

> _Ho! Solitudes have been burning_
> _Shadows have been upset_


 The English translation should be _burning solitudes_ and _upset shadows_.


----------



## Qureshpor

See these posts for an explanation into the deletion of one nasal.

Urdu: Nasalization of ending for formality (#8)

Urdu: ہم نو بجے گھر واپس آئیں ہیں
(#2 and #4)


----------



## desi4life

Englishmypassion said:


> What would you say about the usages in the books/pages linked to in post 2? Especially this book: Girija (which is otherwise a literary work)
> 
> And these books: वे गाती हुई - Google Search



What about the usages of हुईं in the following literary sources? हुईं - Google Search
And the news articles here: हुईं - Google Search
And in all the literary and non-literary sources here: हुईं - Google Search

So, as you can see, the feminine plural ending for verbs is very common in *normal *writing.

@MonsieurGonzalito It would be nice to get clarification though about why the feminine plural ending is not grammatically needed in the example provided in the OP.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I believe the key is the "avoid double nasalization" rule that @Qureshpor points out.

The author, poetically, placed the plural nasalized subjects at the end of the sentence.

au! jaltii huii tanhaaiyaaN
riṭhii huii parchaaiyaaN

I am assuming that using a normal word order, the nasalization would have been kept (?)

au! tanhaaiyaaN jaltii huiiN
parchaaiyaaN riṭhii huiiN

I found a very similar example in the grammar book suggested:
-- Digital South Asia Library
with this exact word order example

I think I understand it now. Thanks, everybody for jumping in so eagerly with explanations!


----------



## littlepond

Englishmypassion said:


> MG, I was confused only about the plural form *हुईं -* I knew well the form with a dot over it existed for other verbs, even though only used by puritans and pedants in contemporary writing. (How could I forget that "thii*n*" existed - my dad slapped me for not having put that point over "thii" in "Mahilaayen gaana ga rhi thhii" (Oops) when I was almost ten. Later I realized that my dad was unnecessarily fussing about it and I could've done without receiving that tangy slap, as even highly educated people, except pedants/linguists, don't use the plural feminine verb form even in writing.



Well, it would be quite extraordinary to hear "thii" without the nasal in that sentence: most native speakers' ears would be shocked, and it has nothing to do with puritanism. The nasal element is something ingrained in us: if it's not there when it should be there, then it sounds more gross than even the wrong gender ascribed to some word.

Meanwhile, MonsieurGonzalito jii has understood the mechanics quite well in post 13.


----------



## Alfaaz

Qureshpor said:
			
		

> See these posts for an explanation into the deletion of one nasal.


Qureshpor SaaHib, could you please give your views on/grammatically analyze the couplet by عبید الله علیم?

جن میں ہم کھیل کر جوان ہوئے
وہی گلیاں ہوئیں تماشائی​


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, could you please give your views on/grammatically analyze the couplet by عبید الله علیم?


muNh ko saaqii ke yuuN vuh dekhe*N* hai*N*
aag se juuN jale ko seNke*N* hai*N
*
This is grammatically correct but (at least in Urdu), due to the presence of two juxtaposed verbs ending in a nasal vowel, the first nasal is dropped.

ham nau baje ghar vaa-pas aa'ii*N* hai*N*

Again, this is grammatical correct but the first nasal is dropped.

ruuThii hu'ii parchhaa'ii
ruuThii hu'ii parchhaa'iyaaN

You will agree that "ruuThii hui'ii" is an adjective (feminine) in the form of a past participle of the verb "ruuThnaa". Also you will agree that feminine adjectives (ending in -ii) do not take the plural form.

e.g kaalii parchhaa'iyaaN.... NOT kaaliyaaN parchhaa'iaaN...on the pattern of which we would expect "ruuThiyaaN hu'iiN parchhaa'iyaaN"!

Hence:

jaltii hu'ii tanhaa'iyaaN
ruuThii hu'ii parchhaa'iyaaN

(So, my explanation for one nasal dropping out does not quite fit the issue we have in the OP. Nevertheless, it is still relevant).

Coming to your example:

*galii* tamaashaa'ii *hu'ii
galiyaaN* tamaashaa'ii *hu'iiN*

Here we are simply dealing with a feminine noun sg/pl matching a past feminine verb sg/pl. This could be compared with:

laRkii ne *kitaab* *xariidii*
laRkii ne *kitaabeN* *xariidiiN*


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for the detailed explanation!


			
				Qureshpor said:
			
		

> You will agree that "ruuThii hui'ii" is an adjective (feminine) in the form of a past participle of the verb "ruuThnaa". Also you will agree that feminine adjectives (ending in -ii) do not take the plural form.
> ...
> (So, my explanation for one nasal dropping out does not quite fit the issue we have in the OP. Nevertheless, it is still relevant).
> ...
> Here we are simply dealing with a feminine noun sg/pl matching a past feminine verb sg/pl. This could be compared with:


Yes, I agree with all of your aforementioned points and this is what I was trying to highlight above as well...


			
				Alfaaz said:
			
		

> However, this does not mean that ہوئیں doesn't exist (as a different part of speech).


...that it is not always just a matter of avoiding two consecutive nasals; rather, there are other grammatical aspects involved as well.


----------



## marrish

In addition to the replies so far a couple of points which may help in understanding. Please ignore if not helpful.





MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Could someone kindly explain to me why those 2 *participles* are expected to be *singular*? I am missing some obvious* grammar point* ...


I quote from Platts' Urdu Grammar (1874): 
"In the compound participles formed with هُوا _hū’ā_, both parts of the compound are inflected in the same way, but the plural termination of the feminine is usually added to the last هُوا _hū’ā_ alone: e.g. چلی ہوئیں _chalī_ _hū’īñ_.​
"As the plural is obvious from the termination of the last part of the compound, the addition of the same termination to the first part also is unnecessary, and is now rarely made. We occasionally meet with the full plural termination _āñ_, as چلیاں _chaliyāñ_, but current usage is averse to the form."​which is similar to Qureshpor's Grammar (2019):





Qureshpor said:


> You will agree that "ruuThii hui'ii" is an adjective (feminine) in the form of a past participle of the verb "ruuThnaa". Also you will agree that feminine adjectives (ending in -ii) do not take the plural form.


Another issue:
ओ! जलती हुईं तन्हाइयाँ او! جلتی ہوئیں تنہائیاں 


Alfaaz said:


> The English translation should be _burning solitudes_ and _upset shadows_.


but you don't seem to think so, but along this line it might become clearer:


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> The author, poetically, placed the plural nasalized subjects at the end of the sentence.
> au! jaltii huii tanhaaiyaaN
> riṭhii huii parchaaiyaaN


It's not a sentence to begin with; and adj.+noun is the the expected, standard, down-to-earth word order. What you're describing below is the unusual one:


> I am assuming that using a normal word order, the nasalization would have been kept (?)
> 
> au! tanhaaiyaaN jaltii huiiN



"Rem. d. The adjective occasionally follows the noun it qualifies. This is especially the case if the attribute is to be emphasized or brought prominently to notice. In the older writings, moreover, feminine adjectives following the nouns they qualify sometimes take the plural termination of substantives; as راتیں بھاریاں _rāteñ bhāriyāñ_, ‹heavy or wearisome nights;› کوٹھریاں بہت اونچیاں _koThriyāñ bahut ūñchiyāñ_, ‹very lofty rooms;› but this construction is now obsolete."​


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> Another issue:
> ओ! जलती हुईं तन्हाइयाँ او! جلتی ہوئیں تنہائیاں
> 
> 
> 
> Alfaaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The English translation should be _burning solitudes_ and _upset shadows_.
> 
> 
> 
> but you don't seem to think so, but along this line it might become clearer:
Click to expand...

 Could you please elaborate marrish SaaHib?


----------



## marrish

^ Your translation is spot on, I have a slight doubt if the OP has understood it yet.

Edit: Re. the expression itself... I believe the article from the Siyasat Daily, Hyderabad (India) about an Urdu poet خورشید احمد جامیؔ Khurshid Ahmad "Jami" is plausible where it says:

جامیؔ نے اپنی غزلوں میں مرکبات کی بجائے زیادہ تر مفردات کو اظہار خیال کا ذریعہ بنایا ہے اور نئے نئے لفظی سانچے استعمال کئے ہیں مثلاً سلگتے واقعات ، خیالات کی جھیلیں ، سوالات کے جنگل ، یاد کے جھومر ، *جلتی ہوئی تنہائیاں* ، الفاظ کے شیشے ، قلم کے چاند، زخموں کے لباس وغیرہ ۔​
("Jaamii" ne apnii GhazaloN meN murakkabaat kii bajaa'e ziyaadah tar mufradaat ko izhaar-e-xayaal kaa zarii3a banaayaa hae aur *na'e na'e lafzii saaNche isti3maal ki'e haiN* masal-an sulagte waaqi3aat, xayaalaat kii jhiileN, sawaalaat ke jaNgal, yaad ke jhuumar, *jaltii hu'ii tanhaa'iyaaN*, alfaaz ke shiishe, qalam ke chaaNd, zaxmoN ke libaas waGhairah.)

qissah kotah, the collocation was grammatically sound when coined by this poet!


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> ^ Your translation is spot on, I have a slight doubt if the OP has understood it yet.


I see. (I thought the _you _was referring to me.)


----------



## marrish

^Sorry for miscommunication 


Englishmypassion said:


> Hi MG,
> I never hear *हुईं* (irrespective of whether the subject is plural or singular) - I don't think it exists!
> Please take a look: वे गाती हुई - Google Search


This search is useless! The phrase in quote marks returns "14" results, one of which this thread.


Englishmypassion said:


> What would you say about the usages in the books/pages linked to in post 2? Especially this book: Girija (which is otherwise a literary work)? And these books: वे गाती हुई - Google Search


I would only repeat that the search results in the links you provide above don't prove your thesis in any way. If they do prove anything, this is what I saw on the first page from the last link you gave with Google Books results:
लड़कियाँ छोपती *गाती हुई* नाच रही *थीं* gaatii hu'ii naach rahii thiiN
तो *वे* *गाती* *हुई* आती *हैं to ve gaatii huii aatii haiN
गाती* *हुई* चली जा रही *हैं gaatii huii chalii jaa rahii haiN
गाती* *हुई* टुकनी की परिक्रमा कर*तीं gaatii huii Tuknii kii parikramaa kartiiN.
Spot the dots!*
(I can't access "Girija" under your link).


----------



## Englishmypassion

marrish said:


> ^, I saw the following on the first page from the last link you gave with Google Books results:
> लड़कियाँ छोपती *गाती हुई* नाच रही *थीं* gaatii hu'ii naach rahii thiiN
> तो *वे* *गाती* *हुई* आती *हैं to ve gaatii huii aatii haiN
> गाती* *हुई* चली जा रही *हैं gaatii huii chalii jaa rahii haiN
> गाती* *हुई* टुकनी की परिक्रमा कर*तीं gaatii huii Tuknii kii parikramaa kartiiN.
> Spot the dots!*
> (I can't access "Girija" under your link).



Well, I never said the plural ending "hain" or other very last words aren't nasalized- I only said that about "huin". And _Girija_, which you can't open, was the most important and standard of them. I see this thread supporting my point that "huin" (before hain, thiin, etc) is not nasalized- it's been called dated etc above.

I made it clear in my very first post I'm not an expert in the subject.


----------



## marrish

Then we are on the same line. Only that "ve gaatii huii", even if there is plural ve, is completely normal without a nasal because it is not likely to occur as a stand-alone expression and will mostly be followed by the verb in plural. 
They walked (while) singing. vo (ve) gaatii hu'ii chal rahii thiiN. but They sang while walking vo chaltii hu'ii gaa rahii thiiN.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Oh, the OP means me! 
Thanks, @marrish, @Alfaaz, for pursuing this point.

I do understand that the translation is "_burning solitudes_ and _upset shadows"._
I understand that those two pairs of words are participles acting as adjectives, not verbs with an elided "honaa".
Therefore, I agree it is not a Subject-Predicate sentence.
Therefore, I understand that the word order employed has nothing unusual about it (forget my digression on that).
I understand that it is not uncommon to elide the nasalized feminine plural in certain contexts (such as repeated consecutive participles), and this on a purely grammatical basis, not because of the mostly "phonetic" rule brought by @Qureshpor 

My only remaining doubt is, in the original example of my post, the nasalization *IS* elided because of the phonetic rule. Is this true?


----------



## marrish

I appreciate the elaborate response, OP! "MonsieurGonzalito" didn't seem as instant in typing as OP is. As an extra advantage, one doesn't risk any spelling mistake.
I'd rather say that when a participle is acting as an adjective, it follows the adjectival declension which doesn't differentiate between f.sg. and f.pl. In your example, the nasalisation is NOT elided. The only way I bend my mind to understand it is to take each word apart: Oh! Burning (verb with omitted honaa, pl. fem.)! (what?) solitudes!, otherwise it is not the correct transcription.
So... when you understand it is not a Subject-Predicate sentence, what is it then? What's its case?

Edit: I find it relevant enough to translate it in case you missed:
"Jami" in his ghazals adopted a mode of expression with overly single epithets instead of compounds and used newly coined word formations, e.g. .... jaltii hu'ii tanhaa'iyaaN...).

("Jaamii" ne apnii GhazaloN meN murakkabaat kii bajaa'e ziyaadah tar mufradaat ko izhaar-e-xayaal kaa zarii3a banaayaa hae aur na'e na'e lafzii saaNche isti3maal ki'e haiN masal-an sulagte waaqi3aat, xayaalaat kii jhiileN, sawaalaat ke jaNgal, yaad ke jhuumar, *jaltii hu'ii tanhaa'iyaaN*, alfaaz ke shiishe, qalam ke chaaNd, zaxmoN ke libaas waGhairah.)


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

marrish said:


> I'd rather say that when a participle is acting as an adjective, it follows the adjectival declension which doesn't differentiate between f.sg. and f.pl.



From this follows that, if instead of "solitudes", what was burning had been dreams (_sapnaa_, masculine) you would get:

jalte *huaa* sapne ?

Answer "yes" to this, and we can all go home 



marrish said:


> So... when you understand it is not a Subject-Predicate sentence, what is it then? What's its case?



I don't know the technical term in English, but it would be a uni-member sentence, consisting of only a nominal phrase.  Within the nominal phrase, the participle is the nucleus (in the participle's adjectival character) and the "solitudes" are a direct object (in the participle's verbal character). The accidence is direct feminine plural for everything.


----------



## marrish

No! jalte hu'e sapne, because masculine diffes: sg. -aa, pl. e. It's f. that doesn't change.
I meant that it is an exclamation but not in the vocative, on top of that. Let's call it a day.


----------



## marrish

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> what was burned


what was burning.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

OK, I understand: 
- when a participle is syntactically an adjective, it follows the declension of adjectives. (now I get it, @marrish)
- the honaa participles will often reinforce the gerundive (-ing) value of the participle, often emphasizing its adjectival function in relation to a nearby noun (per Naim _"enhance its descriptive effect"_)
- feminine plural participles remain invariable because the pattern of feminine adjectives not changing in the plural has a "stronger pull" than the fact feminine participles do have a distinct plural form.

Additionally:
- this doesn't mean that feminine plural participles do not have a distinct, nasalized form (although some speakers choose to consider this nasalization antiquated, pedantic, etc)
- the "avoid repeated nasalization" rule exists, but would not get to apply to the examples I brought up, because all of the above takes precedence.


----------



## Frau Moore

Monsieur Gonzalit, your dear Snell does not omit the adjectival use of perfective participles.

Please reread chapter 18.1 in your Complete Hindi. 

" Used as an adjective, the participle (+ auxiliary) agrees with the noun it qualifies" Snell says. So -ii as ending for singular and plural feminine variable adjectives is also valid for participles when used as adjectives. 

He also gives an example for a feminine plural participle "phaTii (huii) kitaabeN".


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Frau Moore said:


> Monsieur Gonzalit, your dear Snell does not omit the adjectival use of perfective participles.


I never said it omitted treating the subject. I said that it "omitted" the nasalized ending for feminine plurals, when I thought (mistakenly) it was the correct option. I noticed the _phaTii huii kitaabeN_ and thought he was "omitting" the nasalization sign.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I noticed the _phaTii huii kitaabeN_ and thought he was "omitting" the nasalization sign.



In normal speech, I would always expect "phaTii huii*N* kitaabeN". "huii" without the nasalisation here makes me ... eek!


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> In normal speech, I would always expect "phaTii huii*N* kitaabeN". "huii" without the nasalisation here makes me ... eek!


Interesting. From an Urdu perspective, both written and spoken, I would expect "phaTii hu'ii kitaabeN" and this is also the case in reality. Would this be with the nasal in written Hindi too? Any examples from writers of merit? If this is the case then I suppose Hindi would have "ye kitaabeN phaTii hu'iiN Hain". Am I right?


----------



## littlepond

^ I do not speak for all the Hindi speakers, but only me and my milieu.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Well, the Naim reference grammar page that I mentioned before, (which is an Urdu grammar) says "we might also find aaNkheeN phailii huiiN" 
For a grammar to mention it, one would assume that using the plural form is, at least, "not unheard of".


----------



## desi4life

Qureshpor said:


> Interesting. From an Urdu perspective, both written and spoken, I would expect "phaTii hu'ii kitaabeN" and this is also the case in reality. Would this be with the nasal in written Hindi too? Any examples from writers of merit? If this is the case then I suppose Hindi would have "ye kitaabeN phaTii hu'iiN Hain". Am I right?



Based on the "Google search test", _phaTii hu'ii kitaabeN_ is much more common in Hindi. The feminine plural _hu'iiN_ is used in other contexts though as mentioned in this thread.


----------

