# Urdu : The use of hua



## Cilquiestsuens

Hello,


What do native speakers think of these (not standard?) uses of huaa / huee / huii...

1. Uskaa yeh gaanaa chal gayaa huaa hai

2. Aapka ghar ban gayaa huaa hai

3. Woh kitaab kharaab huii huii hai...

Do you have it in your Urdu. Is it colloquial ? Wrong ?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## panjabigator

I think the first two are correct Urdu (participial, no?).

I say the third one and I think it may be colloquial, but it might be grammatically incorrect.  Good question--I've been meaning to ask myself.


----------



## Illuminatus

Surprisingly, I find the first two non-idiomatic, whereas the last one fine (although I would rarely use it with Kitaab). In such sentences, we normally add intensifiers like _Vaise bhi_.
For eg. _Meri kismat to vaise bhi pehle se hi kharab hui hui hai (Though, kaharab hai sounds more natural).

_For the first two sentences, a more natural variant is:

_Uska gaana (vaise bhi) chal chuka hai_
_Aapka ghar (vaise bhi) ban chuka hai_.

The _vaise bhi _adds the meaning _anyhow.

Your house has (anyhow) been built_


----------



## Faylasoof

Hi,

I’m afraid all three are incorrect for the following reasons:

<chal jaanaa>, from which we get <chal gayaa>, is a (compound) verb. <hoona>, from which you get <huaa>, is also a verb. You don’t need the 2nd verb here. It is simply redundant. 

The following are the correct forms:

1. Uskaa yeh gaanaa chal gayaa hai


2. Aapka ghar ban gayaa hai


3. Woh kitaab kharaab huii hai...


… and Illuminatus, for your sentence too we do not need the 2nd hui – _as you point out yourself_. So we would normally say: 


_Meri kismat to vaise bhi pehle se hi kharab hui hai _

Alternatively, one can say:

_Meri kismat to vaise bhi pehle se hi kharab *hogai *hai _


Regards


----------



## Illuminatus

I think the meanings conveyed are different.

_Aapka ghar ban gayaa hai: Your house has been built.

Aapka ghar ban gayaa hua hai: Your house is already in the state of 'having been built'.

_Sorry it sounds a bit clumsy in English, but these two sentences mean slightly different things to me. The second is more emphatic.

BUT, I will certainly replace the second one with the more natural _Aapka ghar to banaa hua hai._


----------



## Faylasoof

If you wish to say:

_<Your house is already in the state of __'having been built'>__._

Then I would say it like this:

*Your house has already been built*

This is standard English conveying the above idea. In Urdu-Hindi it would then be:

*Aapka ghar to banaa hua hai*

The <to> gives an added effect for <already>.

Additionally, if we say:

*Aapka ghar to ban gayaa hoga *

Then it means:

*Your house must already have been built*.

Also, if we say:

*Aapka ghar ban gayaa hoga *

Then it translates as:

*Your house must have been built*

*….* and 

*Aapka ghar ab to ban gayaa hoga*

… means

*Your house must already have been built by now*.


_This is incorrect: _Aapka ghar ban gayaa hua hai


----------



## Illuminatus

I agree_ ban gayaa hua hai _obviously sounds clumsier than _banaa hua hai.

_I was, however, afraid to label it as grammatically incorrect. By all means, I won't say it or advise anyone to choose it over other forms.


----------



## Faylasoof

Actually, I too hesitated for a while before labelling it so. To my ears it sounded not quite right. I seem to recall that there was a rule about all this. 

I shall have to now dig out my old books. Anyway, as you say it does seem rather clumsy.


----------



## Faylasoof

Leading from yesterday, I missed these ones!

*Your house has been built*

Can also be translated as:

*Aapka ghar ban choka hai*


*Your house has already been built*

As: *Aapka ghar to ban choka hai*


*Your house must have been built.*

As: *Aapka ghar ban choka hogaa*


*Your house must have been built (by) now.*

As: *Aapka ghar to ab ban choka hogaa*


Etc., etc. 

[Here, obviously, there is no Urdu-Hindi difference.]


----------



## Illuminatus

Please replace _choka_ with _chuka_ in the above sentences.


----------



## Faylasoof

In transliterations I've seen both. 

Of course each of us can do it for ourselves when we copy these sentences, but just as a matter of interest; is <choka> less appropraite / means something rude by chance / mere personal choice?


----------



## Illuminatus

When I read _Choka_, I read it as चोका, which of course meaningless.
_Chuka_, on the other hand, is चुका, which is the correct word.

When we transliterate Hindi, that's the way we do it.


----------



## Faylasoof

Ah! So that is the way you are reading it. But I have seen both in ROMAN Urdu-Hindi texts. One not familiar with the language can read the <u> of _Chuka_ not as we normally pronounce it, but as the <u> in the word _but_ and not _put_! Same letter, different sounds. Anyway, easily altered.


----------



## Illuminatus

Actually, since English is widely used in India to represent Hindi words, people have developed some standard transliteration systems, in which single vowels represent their pure sound only. (A - aa, E - ay, I - ee, O - n*o*te, U - oo) Basically, when we read the Hindi word written in Roman Script, we don't pronounce as if it were an English word.

EDIT:
We never use the transliteration system that books teaching Hindi use (the ones in which there are bars over a and c etc) and frankly, I don't understand it myself, having never used it.


----------



## BP.

Sorry for joining in late. The first two sentences seem odd, I've never heard them or anything like them before. The third too may not be grammatically correct, but I've seen this double use of <hona> to mean a past participle. It means <ho chukna>, meaning <already have/having been>.

I'm myself guilty of having used <hua hua hai> at least a few times in my life, though it was a long while back. Two hua's seemed too irresistible to not sequence together!

Illuminatus, Faylasoof (does his name mean philosopher in Latin?) is approaching his spellings from the Persian mentality as I surmise. Our short vowels (not even vowels in Urdu but Harakaat, the 'zabar', 'zair' and 'paish') are not so short in Farsi. I think he's used to his style of spelling words and can't change it, we'll have to put in some extra effort on our part.



Which brings me to a question I was thinking of opening a new thread on: Romanized Urdu/Hindi. There seem to be more than one standards being followed on this one site alone. Somebody a while ago suggested me to use a standard that went by the name UiRS. It had been put together after quiet an exhaustive research and made up for the lacunas we have in our current standards but was rather unintuitive to use. For instance, that person's name was Ahsan, written AHsn in UiRS.

I have the documentation somewhere, if you guys are interested I'll dig it out.


----------



## meray_paas

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but I have a question. Using the examples which Faylasoof  has provided, I would like to know the difference in meaning when using _hua _and _chuka_. Upon reading it, the meaning is understood that it tries to show that an action is completed. But are there any subtle differences when using the two:

_Aapka ghar ban chuka hai
__Aapka ghar banaa hua hai_

Reading the two, I interpret them to mean exactly the same thing.


----------



## BP.

_Aapka ghar ban chuka hai_ - (The building of) your house has been completed.

_Aapka ghar banaa hua hai_ - You have an (already built) house.

Didn't make them into interrogatives since the fact wasn't very decipherable from your 2 sentences.


----------



## bakshink

I don’t know about the grammatical correctness of the above three sentences but to me they are all correct (though the examples given are not correct) forms of speech and mean different from the alternative/ correct forms being advised. 
Uska yeh gana chal gaya hua hai or Uski yeh CD chal gayee huee hai stands for one CD of the singer in question has been received well.
Aap ka ghar ban gaya hua hai is the information being given to the owner (on his return) of a house by the contractor or someone who was making the house, when the owner was away on a trip to the moon, for example.
Wo GhaRRi kharab huii huii hai is a kind of an expression used for some phase which is temporary and will pass or something will be done, is being done, can be done to bring it back to shape.
Unki maali haalat baRRi kharab huii huii hai. 
_The so called roman script is one of the weakest ever created by Humanity, why should we lose our strength and borrow others' weaknesses !!!!!!_
_The script for a language is such that it represents the sounds for that language, and the fact that it does not represent sounds present in other languages should not go against it._
No language is perfect but using it to the best is an art or the skill of the writer and understanding the subtelities, the reach of the reader.
Humne dekhi hai in aankhon mein mehakti khushboo, Haath se chhoo ke ise rishton ka ilzam na do
Sirf ehsas hai ye ruh se mehsoos karo, pyar ko pyar hi rehne do koyee naam na do.
Could it be said in any better way in any other language? I am not sure. Can it be translated and yet it’s beauty retained? I am not sure.
Romanisation and using some standard code for transliteration,  See here- http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1350394
We have discussed this many times before. Will we change or try to change or try to make an effort to use a set of new rules and new codes for the words and refer to them when someone else uses the new set of characters? Self defeatist argument it appears to me.


----------



## Faylasoof

bakshink said:


> I don’t know about the grammatical correctness of the above three sentences but to me they are all correct (though the examples given are not correct) forms of speech and mean different from the alternative/ correct forms being advised.


 Sorry bakshink, could you tell us which three sentences are not correct! 




> Uska yeh gana chal gaya hua hai or Uski yeh CD chal gayee huee hai stands for one CD of the singer in question has been received well.
> Aap ka ghar ban gaya hua hai is the information being given to the owner (on his return) of a house by the contractor or someone who was making the house, when the owner was away on a trip to the moon, for example.
> Wo GhaRRi kharab huii huii hai is a kind of an expression used for some phase which is temporary and will pass or something will be done, is being done, can be done to bring it back to shape.
> Unki maali haalat baRRi kharab huii huii hai.


 Bhai Sahab, 

All of the above examples that you give are perhaps idiomatic for Punjabi forms (as PG seems to indicate in the other thread) but they are grammatically incorrect and unidiomatic for Urdu or Hindi! If people are using these forms now then it might be Punajbi influence, but all the same they are incorrect for both Hindi-Urdu. 

 I do however completely agree with you for a better set of rules for Romanisation. This has been done for Persian and there is a thread where this was mentioned. I shall look for it. My only concern is that some of us are not very tech savvy and may be put off by having to conform to what we come up with.


----------



## BP.

_sab kuchh chaltaa Theek hae siwaae dimaagh ke!_


----------



## bakshink

Dear Faylasoof,

I said all three sentences are correct and not incorrect.

You can't blame anything you don't agree with as Punjabi influence on Hindi/Urdu.Grammars for the languages were not written before the origin of the languages. But Grammatologists have always been trying hard to catch up with morphing and growing languages and end up being critics. Wrong or right, what is spoken is sooner or later accepted by the linguists as right. I don't speak Hindi among Punjabees but among Chinese, lately. Nee-hao!! I mean How are you!!


----------



## panjabigator

Can anyone determine grammatically why this sentence may sound awkward?


Illuminatus said:


> I agree_ ban gayaa hua hai _obviously sounds clumsier than _banaa hua hai.
> 
> _I was, however, afraid to label it as grammatically incorrect. By all means, I won't say it or advise anyone to choose it over other forms.



I was reading an early 20th century Panjabi short story the other day and I stumbled upon a <hoyā hoyā>.  So this is definitely permissible in Panjabi, but I can't figure out why.  I also think that after reading and rereading the trajectory of this thread, I find myself siding with the group that thinks this is a bit clumsy but perhaps still idiomatic and heard.  

Very interesting thread!


----------



## Qureshpor

*Cilquiestsuens Sahib.

Your thread essentially is about the existence of a double "hu'aa" in Urdu sentences. I have heard it spoken but have never felt the need to use it myslef. Having said this, I do believe it conveys an already past event and I can understand why the second 'hu'aa" has crept in but it is difficult for me to explain its exact significance. I will need some time to ponder over this and, hopefully, will return with some sort of logical explanation.*


----------



## Faylasoof

The extra _hu'aa_ in Urdu is not just redundant but I'm sure grammatically incorrect. It may have crept in due to lack of Urdu-Hindi grammar training and has, I feel,  no significance other than perhaps poor teaching!


----------



## panjabigator

I'm curious to know if the redundant participial construction (huaa huaa) is common in other South Asian languages, or is it regarded as incorrect? I've heard "hoyaa hoyaa" in Punjabi plenty, and though it would sound clumsy in written Punjabi, nothing about it strikes me as odd (or incorrect) in speech.


----------

