# Hindi/Urdu: jo ki, jab ki



## souminwé

I don't really know when to use *jab ki *or _*jo ki *_instead of just *jo/jab*. Here is an example I read on BBC yesterday:

_*Adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe par doctor-on ko calne men mushkil pesh aa rahi thi, jab ki vo thake hue *_
अदालत में पेशी के मौके पर डॉक्टरों को चलने में मुश्किल पेश आ रही थी, जबकि वे थके हुए.  
عدالت میں پیشی کے موقع پر ڈاکٹروں کو چلنے میں مشکل پیش آ رہی تھی جب کہ وہ تھکے ہوئے 

I'm reading this as "_as if they were tired_", that doesn't seem connected to _*jab*_ in anyway. 
I don't have an example on _*jo ki*_, but if anyone insight on that it will be greatly appreciated. 
Does _*jahaan ki*_ exist as well (it sounds like something I've heard before).


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> I don't really know when to use *jab ki *or _*jo ki *_instead of just *jo/jab*. Here is an example I read on BBC yesterday:
> 
> _*Adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe par doctor-on ko calne men mushkil pesh aa rahi thi, jab ki vo thake hue *_
> अदालत में पेशी के मौके पर डॉक्टरों को चलने में मुश्किल पेश आ रही थी, जबकि वे थके हुए.
> عدالت میں پیشی کے موقع پر ڈاکٹروں کو چلنے میں مشکل پیش آ رہی تھی جب کہ وہ تھکے ہوئے
> 
> I'm reading this as "_as if they were tired_", that doesn't seem connected to _*jab*_ in anyway.
> I don't have an example on _*jo ki*_, but if anyone insight on that it will be greatly appreciated.
> Does _*jahaan ki*_ exist as well (it sounds like something I've heard before).



*The sentence quoted appears incomplete to me.

 jab kih is used in a contransting context to imply where as, as well as a simultaneous event to impart the meaning of the English while.

Lahore, jo kih ek qadiim taariiKhii shahr hai, us meN nah sirf bahut puraanii 'imaarateN paa'ii jaatii haiN balkih jadiid-tariin 'imaaratoN ke namuune bhii milte haiN.

Here jo kih means which.

Karachi, jahaaN (kih) raat ko bhii din jitnii gahmaa-gahmii rahtii hai, raushaniyoN kaa shahr kahaa jaataa hai.

**jahaaN (kih) means where.*
*
*


----------



## souminwé

Full sentence:
*Adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe par doctor-on ko calne men mushkil pesh aa rahi thi, jab ki vo thake hue aur cahre ka rang zard lag raha tha*

Does this help? I still don't understand how _*jab ki*_ is being used here.

Doesn't _*jo*_ on its own suffice for _"which_"?


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> Full sentence:
> *Adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe par doctor-on ko calne men mushkil pesh aa rahi thi, jab ki vo thake hue aur cahre ka rang zard lag raha tha*
> 
> Does this help? I still don't understand how _*jab ki*_ is being used here.
> 
> *I don't think the writer of this sentence is going to win too many literary awards!*
> 
> *I think it might be an idea to wait for other friends' inputs. I am not sure if the use of "jab kih" is correct in this sentence. The more likely substitude would be "kyuuN kih" or "chuuNkih" [because].*
> 
> *adaalat meN peshii ke mauqa' par DaakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil  pesh aa rahi thi kyuuN kih vuh thake hu'e the aur un ke chihroN kaa rang zard lag rahaa  thaa.*
> 
> Doesn't _*jo*_ on its own suffice for _"which_"?
> 
> *Yes, "jo" on its own can suffice. *


----------



## Illuminatus

This sentence is both incomplete and wrong. 

Complete sentence: 

*Adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe par doctor-on ko calne men mushkil pesh aa rahi thi, jab ki vo thake hue they aur cahre ka rang zard lag raha tha*

However, it's still wrong. _jabki_ is similar to _although_, so it would introduce contradicting information in the discourse. For instance—

बच्चे बहुत बार अपने माँ-बाप को भूल जाते हैं जबकि उनके माँ-बाप हमेशा उनका ख़याल रखते हैं. = Although parents always take care of their kids, children often forget their parents. 

In your example, if the doctors were having trouble walking (chalne mein mushkil pesh aa rahi thii), saying that they were tired is not contradictory but supporting information. A translation of the sentence would be:

The doctors were having trouble walking on the day of their appearance in court, although they were tired and their faces zard (I am not too sure what zard implies here, so I have left it like that).

_kyonki_ would be more appropriate here, although that is also not a good fit because the fact that they were tired is a symptom of their fatigue, not the cause.



souminwé said:


> Full sentence:
> *Adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe par doctor-on ko calne men mushkil pesh aa rahi thi, jab ki vo thake hue aur cahre ka rang zard lag raha tha*
> 
> Does this help? I still don't understand how _*jab ki*_ is being used here.
> 
> Doesn't _*jo*_ on its own suffice for _"which_"?


----------



## Qureshpor

Illuminatus said:


> A translation of the sentence would be:
> 
> The doctors were having trouble walking on the day of their appearance in court, although they were tired and their faces zard (I am not too sure what *zard* implies here, so I have left it like that).



Now, it is my turn to be a little surprised that you are not aware of "zard"! A man who is a poetry lover would possibly have heard Sahir's immortal words..jinheN naaz hai Hind par vuh kahaaN haiN?

yih sadiyoN se be-Khvaab, sahmii sii galiyaaN
yih maslii hu'ii adh-khilii *zard* *kaliyaaN
yih biktii hu'ii khokhlii rang-raliyaaN
jinheN naaz hai Hind par vuh kahaaN haiN?
kahaaN haiN kahaaN haiN kahaaN haiN?

*yellow, but "pale" in the context of the original sentence.


----------



## Illuminatus

I'd heard of zard in such contexts as you mentioned, and had taken it to be some attributive modifier whose exact meaning I wasn't aware of, so didn't hazard a guess when translating souminwé's sentence. 

Thanks!


----------



## greatbear

Illuminatus said:


> _kyonki_ would be more appropriate here, although that is also not a good fit because the fact that they were tired is a symptom of their fatigue, not the cause.



Exactly! Hence "kyonki" also would be wrong here. The best thing, if the sentence is not to be rephrased, would be to insert a semicolon in the place of "jab ki". I would also put "unke" before "chehre" to make it (more) complete: 'woh thake hue the and chehre zard lag rahe the' begets a question in my mind, whose faces?

By the way, I also did not know the meaning of "zard"; thanks a lot for the explanation and beautiful couplet, QP. I still don't understand a word in that, "raliyaaN"; I have often heard it along with "rang" but does it exist independently? And what does it mean, if so?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> By the way, I also did not know the meaning of "zard"; thanks a lot for the explanation and beautiful couplet, QP. I still don't understand a word in that, "raliyaaN"; I have often heard it along with "rang" but does it exist independently? And what does it mean, if so?



You are welcome, greatbear SaaHib. 

This is what Platts says about "rang-raliyaaN". I can not answer the second part of your question because I don't know. I don't think it exists on its own. My Punjabi psyche tells me that it could be connected to the intransitive verb "ralaNRaa" which means "to meet up/to get mixed". rang ralaNRaa would then make sense. Mind you, this is purely a guess.

_rang-raliyā__ṅ_, s.f. pl. Sports, pastimes; music and dancing; rejoicings, gaieties: merriment, pleasure, mirth, revelry; pleasant society (of a lover):

Here is a little more on zard, incorporating the word 3ilaaj/'ilaaj/ilaaj. The poet is Khvaajah Miir Dard 1712-1781/1785.

dekh mujhe tabiib* aaj, puuchhaa jo Haalat-i-mizaaj 
 kahne lagaa kih laa-'ilaaj**, bandah huuN maiN KHudaa nahiiN 
 chihrah tiraa bhii *zard* hai, aah*** laboN pih sard**** hai 
 yih to miyaaN vuh dard hai jis kii koii davaa nahiiN 

 [Dard] 

* tabiib/doctor
** laa 'ilaaj/incurable
*** aah/sigh
***sard/cold


----------



## Faylasoof

So we are all in agreement that both _jo keh_ / _jo ki _and _jab keh_ / _jab ki_ are not appropriate here. Also, both the inclusion of *the* (illuminatus) and *unke* (greatbear) makes a needed improvement on the original. But I would disagree that QP’s original suggestion of _kyoNkeh _/ _chuuNkeh  _wouldn’t fit. In fact these two were the first that came to my mind when I read the first post:

_3adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe3 par doctoroN / daakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahii thii * kyoNkeh* _/ _*chuuNkeh*  vo thake hue the aur unke cheroN* ka rang zard lag rahaa tha_

[* I changed _chehre_ to _chehroN_ as we are talking about the plural _doctoroN / daakTaroN_. It is best to keep to the rules of plurality agreement.]

_At the time of the hearing the doctors were experiencing  difficulty walking *because* they were tired and their faces appeared off colour _/ _they appeared off colour!_


We of course don’t need to do a literal translation of the expression _rang_ _zard honaa / lagnaa_  (literally _to be / appear of yellow (colour)!_)  in _chehre kaa rang zard honaa / lagnaa_.

_chehre kaa rang zard honaa_ is usually used to indicate sickness / tiredness (fatigue) / fear. Here it is fatigue / tiredness.


----------



## Illuminatus

"kyonki" fits the "thake huey the" part but not the "chehre ka rang" part. A pale face is a symptom of fatigue, not the cause of it. 

If the zard part weren't there, I would definitely say that _kyonki_ fits best. Even now, it's OK, just that it doesn't seem so convincing.


----------



## Faylasoof

Illuminatus said:


> "kyonki" fits the "thake huey the" part but not the "chehre ka rang" part. A pale face is a symptom of fatigue, not the cause of it.
> 
> If the zard part weren't there, I would definitely say that _kyonki_ fits best. Even now, it's OK, just that it doesn't seem so convincing.


 I wouldn't disagree with your first sentiment but I would with the second! There is _*aur*_ (= _and_ ), connecting two separate sentences! 

Sentence 1:_  3adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe3 par doctoroN / daakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahii thii * kyoNkeh* _/ _*chuuNkeh*  vo thake hue the_

*aur* 

Sentence 2: _unke cheroN* ka rang zard lag rahaa thaa_

  Please consider the alternative:

_unke cheroN* ka rang utraa thaa_

Here is the new version:_ 

3adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe3 par doctoroN / daakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahii thii * kyoNkeh* _/ _*chuuNkeh*  vo thake hue the_* aur *_unke cheroN* ka rang utraa thaa 

_Same construct!The presence or absence of _zard _makes no difference!


----------



## greatbear

I would still read it as "consequence BECAUSE reason A + reason B" rather than "consequence BECAUSE reason AND independent statement supplying extra information." I would rather reconstruct it, changing it minimally, in the following manner to avoid all confusion:

adaalat meiN peshi ke mauqe par doctoroN ko chalne meiN mushkil pesh aa rahi thi*; pehle se hi *ve thake hue the aur unke chehre ka rang zard lag rahaa thaa (I'd have preferred "... zard maloom padtaa tha/ho rahaa tha").
I've no objection to using "chehre" even if we are talking of many faces, since each doctor has (presumably) got one face! Of course, "chehroN" satisfies the grammatical agreement principles.

Thanks for the clarification regarding "raliyaaN", QP.


----------



## Qureshpor

Illuminatus said:


> I'd heard of zard in such contexts as you mentioned, and had taken it to be some attributive modifier whose exact meaning I wasn't aware of, so didn't hazard a guess when translating souminwé's sentence.
> 
> Thanks!




As a matter of interest, what do you call "yolk" in Hindi?


----------



## Qureshpor

In my view, as I have indicated earlier, "jab kih" does not fit the sense of the sentence. 

*3adaalat meN peshii ke mauqa' par DaakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahi thii jab kih vuh thake hu'e  aur un ke chihroN kaa rang zard lag rahaa thaa.*

Let's break up the sentence to bring some clarity into it.

*3adaalat meN peshii ke mauqa' par DaakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahi thii.

*vuh kyuN?

*kyuN kih **vuh thake hu'e the.

*bhalaa yih aap ko kaise patah chalaa?

bha'ii, dekhaa nahiiN aap ne? *un ke chihroN kaa rang zard [lag rahaa] thaa.*

Let's write the whole sentence again.

*3adaalat meN peshii ke mauqa' par DaakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahi thii kyuN kih vuh thake hu'e the aur (*isii vajh se*) un ke chihroN kaa rang zard [lag rahaa] thaa.*


----------



## Faylasoof

I’m astonished that some people have had difficulty in determining how *kyoNkeh / chuuNkeh *on the one hand and *aur *on the other are interacting in the sentence below:


Faylasoof said:


> _3adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe3 par doctoroN / daakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahii thii _*kyoNkeh* / *chuuNkeh*_ vo thake hue the *aur* unke cheroN* kaa rang zard lag rahaa thaa_
> 
> _At the time of the hearing the doctors were experiencing difficulty walking _*because*_ they were tired *and *their faces appeared off colour _/ _they appeared off colour!_


The above is not only idiomatically correct but grammatically too. The usage of the conjunction *aur* is not as restricted as is being suggested below:


> …I would still read it as "consequence BECAUSE reason A + reason B"


This is not the only way how *aur* is used either in Urdu-Hindi or English for that matter. It is quite normal to use *aur* to mean:


> …BECAUSE reason AND independent statement supplying extra information."


 … and this is how it is being used in the above suggested sentence.

All this also takes into account common human experience which is reflected in the way we use language. I doubt very much if facial colour / complexion or indeed facial expression was ever considered as the _cause_ of either people having difficulty walking or being tired! If only that were so, then I’m sure these doctors could be easily remedied of their problem by just colouring their cheeks with rouge! It is highly doubtful that this’ll work but one can always try!  So _chehre kaa raang zard honaa_ cannot ever be cited as the _cause_ of tiredness! We know it is a symptom of fatigue and never the cause! This is what common sense tells us!

To suggest that people would get confused is to give them very low credit for their intelligence and understanding of both normal experience and how languages work, and in this case how *aur* is functioning above. However, in case we need to cater for those who for whatever reason might misunderstand that to many of us native Urdu speakers certainly would be perfectly clear (and should be clear too to both Hindi and English speakers – the latter can be seen in the English translation above, besides which there are plenty of other examples one could give) then below are one or two _minor _changes which should clear things up further:

_3adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe3 par doctoroN / daakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahii thii _*kyoNkeh* / *chuuNkeh*_ vo thake hue the aur unke cheroN* kaa rang *bhii* zard lag rahaa thaa_

… and to make it even clearer for those who still might be befuddled, here is another addition:

_3adaalat mein peshi ke mauqe3 par doctoroN / daakTaroN ko chalne meN mushkil pesh aa rahii thii _*kyoNkeh* / *chuuNkeh*_ vo thake hue the aur *is ke 3alaawah* unke cheroN* kaa rang* bhii*  zard lag rahaa thaa_

_At the time of the hearing the doctors were experiencing difficulty walking _*because*_ they were tired and *apart from this* their faces appeared off colour _/ _they appeared off colour *too*!_

I would keep _aur_ here despite having _is ke 3alaawah_, just for added emphasis.  

Also, as I mentioned above, we can also drop “_unke chehroN kaa zard lag rahaa thaa_” and replace it with “_unke chehroN kaa raang utraa thaa_”.  Just as good.


> ….I've no objection to using "chehre" even if we are talking of many faces, since each doctor has (presumably) got one face! Of course, "chehroN" satisfies the grammatical agreement principles.


 Nobody suggested that a doctor has more than one face, non-figuratively speaking of course! But I do see that at least we have acceptance of the plurality agreement rule!


----------



## tonyspeed

Is jo kih/ki used in Hindi?  I am running into for the first time reading Urdu. جو کہ


----------



## littlepond

^ Of course! (in Hindi, "jo ki") There is no difference between Urdu and Hindi for usage of such basic elements of grammar!


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

It would seem that, generally speaking in HU, _ki(h)_  can be used to further link subordinated propsitions that would otherwise be already sufficiently subordinated by some other relational nexus?

for example:

_tuu hii to vah raushnii hai [*ki jis se* maiN Ghaafil huaa]

ham bhuule haiN [*ki kab* kyaa huaa]_


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _tuu hii to vah raushnii hai [*ki jis se* maiN Ghaafil huaa]_


"ki" is optional here.


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _ham bhuule haiN [*ki kab* kyaa huaa]_


How can it be without "ki"? I don't see any other subordination/relational identifier here.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> I don't see any other subordination/relational identifier here.


_kyaa _or_ kab_

"we have forgotten [what happened, when]"

"we have forgotten [when happened what]"


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _kyaa _or_ kab_
> 
> "we have forgotten [what happened, when]"
> 
> "we have forgotten [when happened what]"



I think you are parsing Hindi from mentally thinking everything in the way English is spoken: this does not seem to me the first time that you have been doing this and hence getting into trouble.

"ham bhuul chuke haiN _ki_ kal yahaaN bijlii girii thii" (1)
"ham bhuul chuke haiN _ki _yahaaN kab(-kab) kyaa(-kyaa) huaa (hai/thaa)" (2)

I am assuming you would find "ki" fine in (1) and yet it's troubling you somehow in (2), even though the syntax is the same.

What have we forgotten? That ("ki") ...

Lightning had struck (supplementary info--when: yesterday, where: here)
What (had) happened (supplementary info--when: when all, where: here)


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I don't understand your syntactic reasoning, @littlepond-jii

I am pretty sure that both _kyaa _and _kab _can be interrogative adverbs working as relational nexuses, and link subordinated sentences to the main one, without the intervention of _ki(h)_:

Examples with _kyaa_:

_jaane khone se maiN [*kyaa *paatii thii]

hamko dekho [ho gayaa yah *kyaa*]

yah dil de haaraa baavlaa chhoraa puuchhe [*kyaa *address moraa] => _(this is horrible, even to me  ).
_
[yah ishq hai *kyaa*], sab ko pataa

yah tumheN na jaane [*kyaa *huaa]_

Examples with _kab_:

_na jaane [*kab *aaeNge aur Dolii meN le jaaeNge]

hamko bin bataae tuune [yah *kab *kar liyaa] / tere saiyaaN jii se kaahe tuune "breakup" kar liyaa?

[*kab "*change" huaa] yah samajh nahiiN aae

vah ik qatraa aaNkhoN se, na jaane [*kab *behnaa hai]

tuu na jaanegaa [*kab *baazii maiN dhoke se maar jaauuN]_


So I am sure there is something else going on.

Is it that _bhulnaa _+ [a full subordinated proposition with subject and predicate, indicating what is forgotten] always requires _ki(h)_?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I don't understand your syntactic reasoning, @littlepond-jii
> 
> I am pretty sure that both _kyaa _and _kab _can be interrogative adverbs working as relational nexuses, and link subordinated sentences to the main one, without the intervention of _ki(h)_:
> 
> Examples with _kyaa_:
> 
> _jaane khone se maiN [*kyaa *paatii thii]
> 
> hamko dekho [ho gayaa yah *kyaa*]
> 
> yah dil de haaraa baavlaa chhoraa puuchhe [*kyaa *address moraa] => _(this is horrible, even to me  ).
> 
> _[yah ishq hai *kyaa*], sab ko pataa
> 
> yah tumheN na jaane [*kyaa *huaa]_



You've mixed different types of "kyaa" there! Let's make it simpler:

ham _xyz _bhuul chuke haiN (e.g. "ham ye galiyaaN bhuul chuke haiN")

I assume you have no problem with the above sentence. Now you are replacing "xyz" with a complete phrase in itself: there has to be "ki."
"ham bhuul chuke haiN *ki*_ xyz_ yahaaN par hai." It is not possible to have "ham bhuul chuke haiN _xyz_ yahaaN par hai."

Let's take one of your own examples now.

"yeh ishq hai kyaa, sab ko pataa" - well there's a comma here doing the job of "ki"! Let's remove the comma then:

"sab ko pataa hai *ki *yeh ishq kyaa (cheez) hai" (because "sab ko _xyz _pataa hai").
You cannot have "sab ko pataa hai yeh ishq kyaa hai"!

Again, "chhoraa _xyz_ puuchhe": hence, "chhoraa aiDras puuchhe" directly or "chhoraa puuchhe *ki* mera aiDras kyaa hai." Again, a comma (i.e., a pause from the speaker) can replace "ki": hence, "chhoraa puuchhe, mera aiDras kyaa hai."



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Examples with _kab_:



"kab" is irrelevant to the discussion. It is simply additional time information.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Let's leave _puuchhnaa _aside, because what comes after can be interpreted as a referred speech, and HU is a little particular about that.



littlepond said:


> "ham bhuul chuke haiN *ki*_ xyz_ yahaaN par hai." It is not possible to have "ham bhuul chuke haiN _xyz_ yahaaN par hai."


All of those are fine, because the propositions in green are not interrogative, or have interrogative words (_kyaa, kab_) acting as nexuses. 



littlepond said:


> You cannot have "sab ko pataa hai yeh ishq kyaa hai"!


Why not?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> All of those are fine, because the propositions in green are not interrogative, or have interrogative words (_kyaa, kab_) acting as nexuses.



But I don't see anything interrogative in "sab ko pataa hai yeh ishq kyaa hai" either: I only see something rhetorical. Would you say "what" is interrogative in "I know what kind of a thing you are referring to" (= "I know the kind of thing you are referring to")? I would say it's a qualifying word (adjective) meant only for rhetorical purpose: I don't see any real question there (as opposed to "Hey, what are you referring to? Could you please elaborate?").


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> Would you say "what" is interrogative in "I know what kind of a thing you are referring to"


Yes. And it is crucial to this discussion, because that "what" is linking the proposition to the main sentence.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Yes. And it is crucial to this discussion, because that "what" is linking the proposition to the main sentence.



Really? I would say "what" is linking in the sentence "I know what you are saying" but not in "I know what kind of a thing you are referring to"--or do you mean to say that in the sentence "I know the kind of thing you are referring to," "the" is linking one part of the sentence to another? Because here "what" and "the" perform the same role: qualifying "kind."


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> Really? I would say "what" is linking in the sentence "I know what you are saying" but not in "I know what kind of a thing you are referring to"


Actually, no. In both cases "what"/"to what" are the nexuses.





Now, here comes my (no doubt poor)  attempt at this in HU:

_mujhe pataa hai  [*kis *chiiz *ko *tum maNsuub  karte ho]_

(I don't know what is idiomatic for _maNsuub karnaa_, or if that verb is correct, or if it uses oblique at all, but you get the idea).

But suppose it uses _*kyaa *_...


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

In essence, what I don't understand is how the _kyaa _in:

_ham bhuule haiN (ki(h))  kab *kyaa *huaa._

is different from the _kyaa _in:

_yah tumheN na jaane *kyaa *huaa._

Why one seems to have less "relational power" than the other, to the extent of necessitating the extra _ki(h)._
At least in their English (or Spanish)  translations, both are interrogative particles perfectly able to function as autonomous relational nexuses.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Actually, no. In both cases "what"/"to what" are the nexuses.
> View attachment 61307



The above diagram does not indicate to me what you are saying. Anyway, ...



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Now, here comes my (no doubt poor)  attempt at this in HU:
> 
> _mujhe pataa hai  [*kis *chiiz *ko *tum maNsuub  karte ho]_



I didn't understand this example much, as in Hindi I am not aware of the usage of "maNsuub karnaa." There is a "mansuubaa" (masculine noun) in Hindi.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> In essence, what I don't understand is how the _kyaa _in:
> 
> _ham bhuule haiN (ki(h))  kab *kyaa *huaa._
> 
> is different from the _kyaa _in:
> 
> _yah tumheN na jaane *kyaa *huaa._
> 
> Why one seems to have less "relational power" than the other, to the extent of necessitating the extra _ki(h)._
> At least in their English (or Spanish)  translations, both are interrogative particles perfectly able to function as autonomous relational nexuses.



I still don't get it how you see them as same type. Let's remove the unneeded parts from both the sentences and then parse:

_ham bhuul gaye haiN ki kyaa huaa thaa_ (the only unneeded part I could remove was "kab")

_tumhe kyaa huaa?_

I fail to see see what "relational power" you are seeing in a simple phrase like "tumhe kyaa huaa"!


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

For me, the minimum expression of the sentences discussed is:

_1. na bhuule kyaa huaa.

2. na jaane kyaa huaa._

You are saying that #1 needs _ki _and I don't understand why.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _1. na bhuule kyaa huaa._



It is not a grammatically possible phrase, and it makes no sense either, so the question of this reduction does not exist.

Let's reduce my reduction further: "ham bhuul gaye haiN."



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _2. na jaane kyaa huaa._



But that was not your sentence. Your sentence reduces to "tumhe kyaa huaa" (and "na jaane" means "I don't know," but that's supplementary information: "I don't know that what happened to you", "maiN nahiiN jaantaa ki tumhe kyaa huaa"). "na jaane kyaa huaa" is a different sentence altogether: it means "I don't know what happened (somewhere)"--which was not your phrase!


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> maiN nahiiN jaantaa ki tumhe kyaa huaa


This sentence will do.

Why _kyaa _needs a _ki _there, where in other contexts (like the ones I gave as an example in #23, where _kyaa _is fulfilling the exact same function, some of them even using jaannaa), it doesn't?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> where in other contexts (like the ones I gave as an example in #23, where _kyaa _is fulfilling the exact same function, some of them even using jaannaa), it doesn't?



Could you give some example similar sentence where you are not seeing "ki"? Post 23 is full of all kinds of sentences, many of which are not the same type of sentences (as I said earlier).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

For example:

_maiN nahiiN jaantaa ki tumhe kyaa huaa
ham ko dekho ho gayaa yah kyaa_

Why to "know" [what happened to you] I need _ki_, but to "look" [what happened to us] I don't? 
Doesn't _kyaa _fulfill the subordinating function sufficiently in both cases?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> For example:
> 
> _maiN nahiiN jaantaa ki tumhe kyaa huaa
> ham ko dekho ho gayaa yah kyaa_
> 
> Why to "know" [what happened to you] I need _ki_, but to "look" [what happened to us] I don't?
> Doesn't _kyaa _fulfill the subordinating function sufficiently in both cases?



But the two sentences are again not of the same kind!

Since you didn't seem to understand my _xyz_'s, here's another attempt. "maiN nahiiN jaantaa" needs some object of "jaannaa": you have to "jaan" something. In this sentence, that object is another phrase in itself: "tumhe kyaa huaa." It could have been "tumhe kuchchh huaa" (the word "kyaa" is not important). Hence, a "ki" is needed to connect them. If the object hadn't been a phrase in itself but just a noun, then no "ki" would have been needed: for example, "maiN tairakii nahiiN jaantaa."

Now in "ham ko dekho," the object is already here. "tum ham ko dekho": there is no phrase here, there's a noun "ham" (the object of "dekho"), so why would "ki" be needed? The "ho gayaa hai kyaa" is appositive to "ham ko dekho": it's not an object of "dekho." Now instead of "ham," put a phrase, and lo and behold, "ki" will appear: "tum dekho ki maiN kya kartaa hooN."


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

True, 
_"ham ko dekho ho gayaa yah kyaa"  _is not a good example, because "_ham ko kyaa ho gayaa" _is modifying_ "yah", not the main verb_. 


Simplifying it: In:

"dekho kyaa huaa" => Look what happened!

the green thing:
- is a full sentence with its own object and predicate,
- it is an object of "dekho"
- it is linked to the main sentence by the "kyaa".


But in: 

"dekho kyaa maiN kartaa huuN" => Look what I am doing!

the green thing:
- is a full sentence with its own object and predicate
- it is an object of dekho
- AFAIK, it *should *be linked to the main sentence by a "kyaa". However, you feel a "ki" is necessary in this case. *Why*?  Because this second green sentence is a little more long/complex?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Following my reasoning (that the _ki _is not necessary if the subordinated sentence already has a linking relative nexus), the following sentences would not need a ki.

_tuu hii to vah raushnii hai ki jis se maiN Gaafil huaa

maiN nahiiN jaantaa __ki __tumhe kyaa huaa_

because they already have "jis se", "kyaa" respectively.

It seems that speakers sometimes feel the need to reinforce the subordinated character of some sentences with a grammatically superfluous _ki_, for idiomatic reasons unknown to me.


----------



## Alfaaz

I haven't gotten a chance yet to read the lengthy discussion above. However, here is a potentially relevant section in قواعد اردو by Maulawi Abdul Haqq, where it is explained that _keh _can be محذوف in certain cases. 

Urdu literary example:

میں بھی منہ میں زبان رکھتا ہوں 
کاش پوچھو کہ مدّعا کیا ہے 

ہم کو ان سے وفا کی ہے امید 
جو نہیں جانتے وفا کیا ہے 

مرزا غالب​
Grammar experts will hopefully be able to explain in further detail, but the two lines could be seen as follows:

کاش پوچھو (کہ) مدّعا کیا ہے​
جو نہیں جانتے (کہ) وفاء کیا ہے​


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Simplifying it: In:
> 
> "dekho kyaa huaa" => Look what happened!
> 
> 
> 
> - it is linked to the main sentence by the "kyaa".



No. It is linked by an elided "ki": the full sentence is "dekho ki kyaa huaa"! "dekho (ki) kyaa huaa" is same as "dekho (ki) pyaar huaa": "kyaa" and "pyaar" tell us about "huaa." None of them has anything to do with linking anything: both "dekho" and "kyaa huaa" are independent phrases in themselves. You are in fact contradicting yourself: if the green thing is a complete sentence, how can any linking word be a part of it?

"tum aisa karo jis se ki veh yahaaN aa jaae": here the linking words "jis se ki" are not part of the both independent phrases "tum aisa karo" and "veh yahaaN aa jaae."
Again, an example using your fixation "kyaa"--"tum ne aisaa kyaa kar diya jis se (ki) woh hamaare piichhe hii paR gayaa": here the linking words "jis se (ki)" are not part of the both independent phrases "tum ne aisaa kyaa kar diya" and "woh hamaare piichhe hii paR gayaa." (And, again, leave the poor, innocent "kyaa" alone!)

Note that in both the above example sentences, "jis se (ki)" can be replaced by "ki" alone as well.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> But in:
> 
> "dekho kyaa maiN kartaa huuN" =>
> - AFAIK, it *should *be linked to the main sentence by a "kyaa". However, you feel a "ki" is necessary in this case. *Why*?  Because this second green sentence is a little more long/complex?



"ki" has been always there. Many will elide "ki" here also in speaking: that doesn't mean "ki" is not there. "kyaa," again, has nothing to do with linking.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Following my reasoning (that the _ki _is not necessary if the subordinated sentence already has a linking relative nexus), the following sentences would not need a ki.
> 
> _tuu hii to vah raushnii hai ki jis se maiN Gaafil huaa_



The usual order would be "jis se ki": any "jis se" is always "jis se ki." It's simply that some of us elide "ki" sometimes (no particular reason for that). "ki jis se" order makes it poetic. Here, of course, as "jis se" qualifies "veh," "jis se ki" cannot be replaced by mere "ki."



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _maiN nahiiN jaantaa __ki __tumhe kyaa huaa_



"ki" has to be there. Of course, one can always elide the "ki" but it would sound crude, the sentence. "kyaa" has nothing do with linking, as I said earlier.

With that, I don't think I am going to continue in this thread now onwards, unless something new comes up, because it does not seem my reasoning has led you anywhere.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> You are in fact contradicting yourself: if the green thing is a complete sentence, how can any linking word be a part of it?


By "full sentence" I mean, a sentence with a subject and a predicate. I am not contradicting myself.
A sentence can be "full" in this sense, yet be subordinated to another.



Alfaaz said:


> کاش پوچھو (کہ) مدّعا کیا ہے         _kaash puuchho (kih) mudd'aa kyaa hai_​
> جو نہیں جانتے (کہ) وفاء کیا ہے     _jo nahiiN jaante (kih) vafaa' kyaa hai_​





littlepond said:


> "kyaa," again, has nothing to do with linking.


On the contrary. In my opinion, _kyaa _is the real linking word in the above sentences, and (_kih_) is superfluous. Especially in the second sentence, which cannot be easily interpreted as an indirect speech.


----------



## Alfaaz

میں بھی منہ میں زبان رکھتا ہوں
کاش پوچھو کہ مدّعا کیا ہے

ہم کو ان سے وفا کی ہے امید
جو نہیں جانتے وفا کیا ہے

مرزا غالب​
Transliteration:

_maiN bhii muNh meN zabaan rakhtaa huuN
kaash puuchho keh mudda3aa kyaa hai

ham ko un se wafaa2 kii hai ummiid
jo nahiiN jaante wafaa2 kyaa hai_

_Mirza Ghalib_


----------



## aevynn

I think it's important to draw a distinction between two types of clauses: relative clauses and interrogative complements. Wh-words are used in English for both of these clause types, but the two types of clauses are syntactically distinct. Let me say a few words about English, just to establish some common ground. My rudimentary understanding of Spanish is that Spanish functions like English in this respect, but I don't know enough Spanish to really probe this assessment. I'll switch to UH afterwards. 

In English, let's compare the following sentences:

(E-A) I know the person who came yesterday. 
(E-B) I know who came yesterday. 

Sentence (E-A) exhibits "who came yesterday" as a relative clause. The complement of the matrix verb "know" is "the person who came yesterday," and the relative clause "who came yesterday" modifies "the person." The word "who" functions as a relativizer in this sentence (or a "relative nexus," as @MonsieurGonzalito jii might prefer to call it). In contrast, sentence (E-B) exhibits "who came yesterday" as an interrogative complement of the matrix verb directly. There's no noun that "who came yesterday" is modifying [1].

The fact that these two clause types look similar in English is something special and it doesn't mean they're the same type of syntactic structure. These two types of clauses can look quite different in other languages. It's not even necessary that "question" words are required for both types of clauses. For example, I think in Japanese (in transliteration), one would have 

(J-A) kinou kita hito wo shitte-iru. 
Gloss: yesterday came person OBJ know.
(J-B) kinou dare ga kita ka wo shitte-iru. 
Gloss: yesterday who SUBJ came QUES OBJ know. 

The crucial point to note in the above example is that (J-A) does not use any question words. These two types of clauses are also syntactically quite distinct in UH.

(H-A) maiN us bande ko jaantaa huuN jo kal aayaa thaa. 
(H-B) maiN jaantaa huuN ki(h) kal kaun aayaa thaa. 

In (H-A), it's correct to say that "jo" is a relativizer. I don't think it's correct to say that "kaun" is a relativizer in (H-B). The clause "ki(h) kal kaun aayaa thaa" in (H-B) is not modifying some other noun in the sentence; rather, that clause is itself the complement of the matrix verb "jaantaa huuN."

I tend to agree with @littlepond jii that interrogative complements in UH are preceded by a "ki(h)" by default. This word marks off that entire clause as a complement to the matrix verb, just as it marks off other non-interrogative sentential complements [2]. Sometimes dropping this "ki(h)" is just fine (and I don't know exactly what situations this is permissible), but this is a kind of secondary phenomenon. 

And here are brief remarks about some of the specific sentences mentioned above (not exhaustive because the list of examples discussed above is too long): 

* The phrase "[na(h)] jaane..." (meaning a rhetorical "Who knows...") has shown up a few times in the discussion above. This phrase is an idiom and its complement is idiomatically obligatorily not marked by "ki(h)." You must say "na(h) jaane kal kyaa huaa thaa" without "ki(h)," but as soon as you change the tense, the "ki(h)" appears again by default. For example, one would probably say "maiN nahiiN jaantaa ki(h) kal kyaa huaa thaa" (though again, sometimes people might optionally drop "ki(h)" in a sentence like this). In other words, the impermissibility of "ki(h)" in "[na(h)] jaane...." is a lexical quirk of this idiom rather than a general syntactic phenomenon.

* I would analyze "hamko dekho kyaa huaa" as "dekho [ki(h)] hamko kyaa huaa" -- in other words, the clause "[ki(h)] hamko kyaa huaa" is an interrogative complement to the matrix verb "dekho." (I don't see how to make sense of an analysis where "hamko" is the direct object of the matrix verb...) Similarly, I would analyze "ye ishq hai kyaa, sab ko pataa" as "sab ko pataa [hai] [ki(h)] ye ishq kyaa hai." 

In summary... A verb can have (at least?) three types of complements: a noun phrase, an interrogative complement, and a non-interrogative sentential complement. Noun phrases can include relative clauses, and in English, interrogative complements look a lot like relative clauses, but they're not the same thing. In UH, "ki(h)" is used by default to mark off both interrogative and non-interrogative sentential complements, and sometimes that "ki(h)" can be omitted, but it isn't right to conflate these types of complements with relative clauses.

-----
Footnotes:

[1]: You might try to argue that there's a tacit "the person" in (E-B), but this is not a good analysis. There are verbs which can have a noun as a complement but not an interrogative clause. For example, the sentence "I believed the man who lied to me" is just fine, but "*I believed who lied to me" is somewhere between very awkward and ungrammatical. So what's going on in (E-A) and (E-B) is really that the verb "know" can take at least two types of complements (either a noun phrase or an interrogative clause). 

[2]: An example of "ki(h)" marking off a non-interrogative sentential complement is "maiN jaantaa huuN ki(h) wo(h) kal aayaa thaa" (meaning "I know that he came yesterday").


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thanks, @aevynn. So _ki(h)_ is the default for nominal subordinated sentences in HU. Just because. Period. The oddity/poetic license is when it is not.



aevynn said:


> (E-B) I know *who *came yesterday.





aevynn said:


> I don't think it's correct to say that "kaun" is a relativizer in (H-B).


Just out of curiosity: do you recognize any linking value at all, to that "who", in relation to the main sentence?
If so, how do you call it? (I know that it is not a relativizer).

In Spanish, our grammatical tradition tends to view such interrogative pronouns a having a subordinating quality (in addition to whatever function they are having in the subordinated sentence). Although now, you got me thinking ...




Hence my perplexity, in HU, when I am told that more subordination markers are needed, by default.
But I understand your previous answer.


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Just out of curiosity: do you recognize any nexus value at all, to that "who", in relation to the main sentence?
> If so, how do you call it? (I know that it is not a relativizer).


I think I would say that the "who" in sentence (E-B) is just the usual interrogative pronoun "who" (just like the "who" in the sentence "Who will come tomorrow?") [1]. The entire clause "who came yesterday" in (E-B) is 'subordinate' to the matrix verb "know" in the sense that if you drew a tree to map out the structure of (E-B), this clause would occupy the same position in that tree that a direct object of a verb would occupy. But I don't think it makes sense to say that the word "who" is what's 'causing' the subordination; in fact, probably there's no word that's 'causing' the subordination [2].



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> In Spanish, our grammatical tradition tends to view such interrogative pronouns a having a subordinating quality (in addition to whatever function they are having in the subordinated sentence). Although now, you got me thinking ...


You might start by thinking about the types of complements that different Spanish verbs can take, as I alluded to in footnote [1] in #44. There are verbs in English whose complement can be an interrogative clause but not a noun phrase or a non-interrogative sentence. For example, consider the verb "wonder" ---

I wonder who will come tomorrow. (Interrogative clauses can be a complement of "wonder")
*I wonder it. (Not grammatical; noun phrases cannot be a complement of "wonder")
*I wonder that he will come tomorrow (Not grammatical; non-interrogative sentences cannot be a complement of "wonder")

Playing around with verbs that behave like this in Spanish might suggest something about whether or not it's good to regard interrogative pronouns as having some kind of 'subordinating quality.' In English, I know that "common grammar" analyses sometimes differ from the kind of analyses that syntacticians conduct; the former is sometimes too naive and doesn't completely account for certain phenomena. I imagine there might also be this discrepancy in Spanish, and presumably this question about interrogative pronouns having a 'subordinating quality' in sentences like "No sé quién ha llamado por teléfono" is the type of question that syntacticians working on Spanish have studied some.  

---
Footnotes:

[1]: The word order of interrogative complements doesn't exactly match the word order of isolated interrogative sentences (compare "When will he come?" vs "I don't know when he will come"), but that's okay.

[2]: For the sake of comparison, there's also no specific word that 'causes' the subordination of "the apple" to the matrix verb in the sentence "I ate the apple." In contrast, probably it's reasonable to say the word "that" is 'causing' the subordination that occurs in the sentence "I know that he came yesterday."


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> *I wonder it. (Not grammatical; noun phrases cannot be a complement of "wonder")


I wondered that myself.    



aevynn said:


> But I don't think it makes sense to say that the word "who" is what's 'causing' the subordination; in fact, probably there's no word that's 'causing' the subordination [2].


OK. This is news to me, but it makes sense and I can't really think of any strong argument against it. 
Will investigate and play around with alternatives, as you suggest. Thanks!


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I wondered that myself.


Fair enough!


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

It would seem that the particle subordinating an indirect question (or similar constructions) to the main sentence is called a _complementizer_.

To my surprise, languages other than HU (Bavarian German, Dutch, Middle English, and even some contemporary varities of English) also feature an "explicit complementizer" (while Spanish would fall into the "silent complementizer" group, I guess).

Examples can be seen here (if one leaves aside all the Generative Grammar nonsense).
11  Wh- movement in English


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Also, thanks, @littlepond, for your patience.
You were vindicated in that interrogative words inside an indirect proposition have no intrinsic linking value. And that the extra link, which I considered superfluous, is actually needed and the default in many languages/contexts.
I am grateful for how much I learn in this forum.


----------

