# Urdu: daftar ke talon ki chabian Ali Saheb ke kamre ko lejao



## مر هر

salams

can someone please check if my translation is correct?

Original: daftar ke talon ki chabian Ali Saheb ke kamre ko lejao
My version: Take the keys of the locks of the office to the room of Mr. Ali.

thanks


----------



## marrish

Hi,

Your translation is basically correct and you used all the plural forms which are there in the Urdu sentence.

My version: Bring the keys to the locks of the office to Mr. Ali's room.

Note: in my personal opinion we wouldn't say _kamre *ko* le jaa'o_ in contemporary Standard Urdu, _kamre *meN* le jaa'o_ instead.


----------



## مر هر

Thanks, marrish

my textbook is from early 1900's... I do believe there are small differences from today's language


----------



## Faylasoof

مر هر said:


> salams
> 
> can someone please check if my translation is correct?
> 
> Original: daftar ke talon ki chabian Ali Saheb ke kamre ko lejao
> My version: Take the keys of the locks of the office to the room of Mr. Ali.
> 
> thanks


 I agree with marrish SaaHib's suggestion that _kamre *ko* le jaa'o _is not correct! Instead it is _kamre *meN* le jaa'o. _You can even say_: yeh chiiz fulaaN fulaaN *ke *_*kamre le jaa'o* !   



marrish said:


> Hi,
> 
> Your translation is basically correct and you used all the plural forms which are there in the Urdu sentence.
> 
> My version: Bring the keys to the locks of the office to Mr. Ali's room.
> 
> Note: in my personal opinion we wouldn't say _kamre *ko* le jaa'o_ in contemporary Standard Urdu, _kamre *meN* le jaa'o_ instead.


 BTW, we would normally translate_ le jaa'o to_ mean _take _and not _bring_ though even the latter would work as the correct action would be performed. However, for _to bring_ we would usually say _le aa'o, _as you know.



مر هر said:


> Thanks, marrish
> 
> my textbook is from early 1900's... I do believe there are small differences from today's language


 No, I wouldn't say this as what we are saying is not contemporary  as such. The above suggestions that we are giving were standardised long, long ago!


----------



## مر هر

Faylasoof, thanks for the answers 

The "kamre ko lejao" I took from the textbook. The author (Prof. Aziz-ur-Rahman) who wrote it.
The most plausible is that there was a printing error...

Well, thank you both anyway


----------



## marrish

مر هر said:


> farlasoof, thanks for the answers
> 
> the "kamre ko lejao" I took from the textbook. The author (prof. Aziz-ur-Rahman) who wrote it.
> the most plausible is that there was a printing error...
> 
> well, thank you both anyway


It is definitely not a printing error. According to this book, it is the correct manner. I quote below what he has to say about it:

*The use of the Preposition "to"
*The preposition "to" must be translated by ''ke paas'' (and not by ''ko'') when it is used before a human being (or a Pronoun), with any of the following Verbs, (which it will be noticed, involve movement from one place to another):-

jaanaa  To go جانا
aanaa To come آنا
bhejnaa To send بھیجنا
laanaa To bring لانا
lejaanaa To take to لیجانا
pahuNchnaa To reach پہنچنا
Note:-Before inanimate objects "to" take its ordinary form "ko".

*Examples
*
_posT maasTar SaaHib ke paas jaa'o.
__Daak xaane ko jaa'o.
__kal subH mere paas aa'o.
__parsoN mere ghar ko aa'o.
_
(I have used different method of transliteration)*

My advice is not to use these forms. We don't speak like this.*


----------



## Faylasoof

مر هر said:


> Faylasoof, thanks for the answers
> 
> The "kamre ko lejao" I took from the textbook. The author (Prof. Aziz-ur-Rahman) who wrote it.
> The most plausible is that there was a printing error...
> 
> Well, thank you both anyway


 You are welcome! A printing error is possible but I have heard some people actually say this (..._kamre ko lejao_) which is wrong of course. Never mind, we are here to help.

Edit: I just noticed that marrish SaaHib has the book! I don't! So it is not a typo!


----------



## مر هر

Wait... I didn't understand. "ko" is right if used before a object, like in my sentence?
I understood wrong or marrish and faylasoof said different things?


----------



## Faylasoof

مر هر said:


> Wait... I didn't understand. "ko" is right if used before a object, like in my sentence?
> I understood wrong or marrish and faylasoof said different things?


 No we are saying the same thing! What he said was:





marrish said:


> It is definitely not a printing error. According  to this book, it is the correct manner. I quote below what he has to  say about it:
> 
> *The use of the Preposition "to"
> *The preposition "to" must be translated by ''ke paas'' (and  not by ''ko'') when it is used before a human being (or a Pronoun),  with any of the following Verbs, (which it will be noticed, involve  movement from one place to another):-
> .......
> .......
> *Examples
> *
> _posT maasTar SaaHib ke paas jaa'o.
> __Daak xaane ko jaa'o.
> __kal subH mere paas aa'o.
> __parsoN mere ghar ko aa'o.
> _
> (I have used different method of transliteration)*
> 
> My advice is not to use these forms. We don't speak like this.*


 The quotation above from the book is just to show what the author is trying to say, but we don’t agree!

BTW, and this is a minor point compared to the main issue at hand, from where I am (Luckhnow), a key is کنجی   कुंजी _kunjii_ and a lock is قفل _qufl_ (= padlock  / lock)!


----------



## marrish

Indeed, it might be conceived that I haven't separate my opinion from the quotation clearly.

We don't agree, indeed.

*I'm wondering whether the usage prescribed by the said professor is outdated or is it defined by a possible dialect influence?
*
Faylasoof SaaHib, nice suggestion as to what the main issue is. We use _qufl_ as well, so it is not only a Lucknow parlance I think. For the rest, we use _kunjii_ very much in Punjabi as well.


What do other expert friends on this forum think of the quotation which I provided?


----------



## marrish

marrish said:


> *I'm wondering whether the usage prescribed by the said professor is outdated or is it defined by a possible dialect influence?
> *


Another possibility is that he tried to define a rule for the sake of simplicity of the learning material. His book is called Teach yourself Urdu in two months.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Indeed, it might be conceived that I haven't separate my opinion from the quotation clearly.
> 
> We don't agree, indeed.
> 
> *I'm wondering whether the usage prescribed by the said professor is outdated or is it defined by a possible dialect influence?
> *
> Faylasoof SaaHib, nice suggestion as to what the main issue is. We use _qufl_ as well, so it is not only a Lucknow parlance I think. For the rest, we use _kunjii_ very much in Punjabi as well.
> 
> 
> What do other expert friends on this forum think of the quotation which I provided?


 I have a feeling that to some extent it is outdated and / or regional!  As I say above, I've heard some people still say things like "woh ghar ko nahiiN aa'e" but as far as I can recall it was from some members of two generations ago. However, my grandparents did not speak like this so I always wondered whether it was regional. 

As a side note, yes _kunjii_ and _qufl _are of much wider use - not just Lucknow, but by saying "We say it like this ..." I might have given the impression to the OP that everyone says it like this or that _chaabii _and _taalaa, _which are also used widely, might somehow be considered odd by me i.e. I was in anyway objecting to it, which of course I don't. They are just different. Was just playing it safe!


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Another possibility is that he tried to define a rule for the sake of simplicity of the learning material. His book is called Teach yourself Urdu in two months.


 This too is a possibility we need to keep in mind! Grammar can get very complicated!


----------



## Abu Talha

I'm not an expert (at all), so this is more a query than a response.

If you wanted to say, "Take these keys to the post office," or "... to the house" you would omit any postposition and say, "yih chaabiyaaN Daak xaane le jaa'o" and "yih chaabiyaaN ghar le jaa'o" respectively. 

For a word like kamraa, it seems like it requires a posposition and _meN_ would mean, "Take them *inside* the room." If it were possible to omit the postposition (which I am not sure you can do), I would say, yih chaabiyaaN Ali SaaHib ke kamre le jaa'o for "*to* the room."


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> I'm not an expert (at all), so this is more a query than a response.
> 
> If you wanted to say, "Take these keys to the post office," or "... to the house" you would omit any postposition and say, "yih chaabiyaaN Daak xaane le jaa'o" and "yih chaabiyaaN ghar le jaa'o" respectively.
> 
> For a word like kamraa, it seems like it requires a posposition and _meN_ would mean, "Take them *inside* the room." If it were possible to omit the postposition (which I am not sure you can do), I would say, yih chaabiyaaN Ali SaaHib ke kamre le jaa'o for "*to* the room."




Theoretically, I think, one could miss the postposition and say "kamre le jaa'o" but I don't believe the "meN" is missed out in natural speech. I don't think "meN" implies "inside" normally although, if it was emphasised, it could. For inside, one would use "ke andar".


----------



## Faylasoof

daee said:


> I'm not an expert (at all), so this is more a query than a response.
> 
> If you wanted to say, "Take these keys to the post office," or "... to  the house" you would omit any postposition and say, "yih chaabiyaaN Daak  xaane le jaa'o" and "yih chaabiyaaN ghar le jaa'o" respectively.
> 
> For a word like kamraa, it seems like it requires a posposition and _meN_ would mean, "Take them *inside*  the room." If it were possible to omit the postposition (which I am not  sure you can do), I would say, yih chaabiyaaN Ali SaaHib ke kamre le  jaa'o for "*to* the room."





QURESHPOR said:


> Theoretically, I think, one could miss the postposition and say "kamre le jaa'o" but I don't believe the "meN" is missed out in natural speech. I don't think "meN" implies "inside" normally although, if it was emphasised, it could. For inside, one would use "ke andar".


 In a sense I agree with both your points QP SaaHib! While we tend to use the postposition "meN" here it can be omitted, as I said above:


Faylasoof said:


> I agree with marrish SaaHib's suggestion that _kamre *ko* le jaa'o _is not correct! Instead it is _kamre *meN* le jaa'o. _You can even say_: yeh chiiz fulaaN fulaaN *ke *_*kamre le jaa'o* !


 ... and yes "meN" here is being used here to imply "to"(!) and not "in / inside"! For emphasis we can also put a stress on "meN" so not have to use "ke andar".

BTW, _kamre ko le jaa'o _by itself means _take the room away / remove the room _(!), just like when we say _is shaxs ko le jaa'o_ = _take this person / remove this person_!


----------



## Abu Talha

Faylasoof said:


> In a sense I agree with both your points QP SaaHib! While we tend to use the postposition "meN" here it can be omitted, as I said above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faylasoof said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with marrish SaaHib's suggestion that _kamre *ko* le jaa'o _is not correct! Instead it is _kamre *meN* le jaa'o. _You can even say_: yeh chiiz fulaaN fulaaN *ke *_*kamre le jaa'o* !
Click to expand...

 Ah, apologies! I missed that bit when reading this thread. 

By the way, would you also say _yih chaabiyaaN kamre le jaa'o_ without the possessive? I think it should be fine, as you can substitute kamre with ghar and there is no problem. What do you guys think?


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> BTW, _kamre ko le jaa'o _by itself means _take the room away / remove the room _(!), just like when we say _is shaxs ko le jaa'o_ = _take this person / remove this person_!


It would be the chance to repeat my question at #10 that the book in question differentiates between the use of ''ko'' in regard to persons and inanimate things.
To be precise, I have to repeat that I agree with you that _kamre ko le jaa'o_ would mean what it means.


----------

