# Urdu-Hindi: paRe paRe vs paRii paRii



## Qureshpor

From the sentences below, are there any which deem to be incorrect?

A) Ahmad paRaa paRaa biimaar ho gayaa.

B) Anand paRe paRe biimaar ho gayaa.

C) Salma paRe paRe biimaar ho ga'ii.

D) Sadhna paRii paRii biimaar ho ga'ii


----------



## Alfaaz

> A) Ahmad paRaa paRaa biimaar ho gayaa.
> B) Anand paRe paRe biimaar ho gayaa.



Interesting question! They all seem to convey slightly different meanings (might be wrong): 
paRe paRe makes it seems like a thing of the distant past/for a very long time....
while paRaa paRaa makes it seem like a matter close by....
or maybe not!

_qaleen yahaaN paRa paRa kharaab ho gayaa hai (duaraan-e-iftaar, chand lamHe qabl).....?
qaleen yahaaN paRe paRe kharaab ho gayaa hai (asaar-e-qadeemah).....?

_What's the correct answer?


----------



## BP.

I'd only use A and C, but that could be down to our propensity of using the plural for the 1st, the 2nd and rather rarely even the 3rd person! "aap kaysee hay.n Salma" is normal phrasing for me, so maybe I can more easily imagine Salma getting ill paRee paRee.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I'd only use A and C, but that could be down to our propensity of using the plural for the 1st, the 2nd and rather rarely even the 3rd person! "aap kaysee hay.n Salma" is normal phrasing for me, so maybe I can more easily imagine Salma getting ill paRee paRee.




But BP SaaHib, "paRe paRe" is not plural. It is more the oblique ending for an adverbial situation.


----------



## BP.

Yes, but the all adjectives rhyming regardless of their part of speech is something we might unconsciously tend towrds. Sorry for confusing others along with myself however.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> From the sentences below, are there any which deem to be incorrect?
> 
> A) Ahmad paRaa paRaa biimaar ho gayaa.
> 
> B) Anand paRe paRe biimaar ho gayaa.
> 
> C) Salma paRe paRe biimaar ho ga'ii.
> 
> D) Sadhna paRii paRii biimaar ho ga'ii



All of them are correct to my ear. Here are the meanings they convey to me:

A) Ahmad laid (so long) in bed and got ill. He laid so long that he got ill.
B) Aanand got ill doing nothing; Aanand became depressive.
C) Salma's case was the same.
D) Sadhna followed the footsteps of Ahmad.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> From the sentences below, are there any which deem to be incorrect?
> 
> A) Ahmad paRaa paRaa biimaar ho gayaa.
> 
> B) Anand paRe paRe biimaar ho gayaa.
> 
> C) Salma paRe paRe biimaar ho ga'ii.
> 
> D) Sadhna paRii paRii biimaar ho ga'ii


 All are correct, QP SaaHib! If anything, the second sounds a bit more "polite" than the first!


----------



## nineth

I can't believe that all of you have got it wrong (except Faylasoof to some extent). B and C give respect / are polite. If you use aap for a person, you would use paRe/paRe. Also, for B, C, the right usage is gayay (instead of gayaa / ga'ii).


----------



## marrish

nineth said:


> I can't believe that all of you have got it wrong (except Faylasoof to some extent). B and C give respect / are polite. If you use aap for a person, you would use paRe/paRe. Also, for B, C, the right usage is gayay (instead of gayaa / ga'ii).


 nineth jii, thank you for your kind comment, and your meaning is really appreciated. No doubt you are right that when one addresses a person with _'aap'_, and also when one speaks of a person using _'aap'_ (at least in Urdu), one uses ''_paRe_'' form (I wouldn't use _''paRnaa''_ at all here when using _''aap''_!). 

But I'm not sure what you mean in your last sentence: are you saying that _gayaa/ga'ii_ is not right at all?


----------



## Faylasoof

nineth said:


> I can't believe that all of you have got it wrong (except Faylasoof to some extent). B and C give respect / are polite. If you use aap for a person, you would use paRe/paRe. Also, for B, C, the right usage is gayay (instead of gayaa / ga'ii).


 I beg to differ from you ninethji even though you at least partially agree with me! All the above are idiomatically correct! For 'B', you can use either gayaa (as above), which is less polite - in fact rude in our book! - or ga'e (your gayay) which is the polite form we use! 'B' as it is above is _not_ wrong! When you are referring to a junior you can use choose to use either! Salma is a feminine name so you'd have to use ga'ii or ga'iiN - again the latter if you wish to be polite!


----------



## nineth

marrish said:


> But I'm not sure what you mean in your last sentence: are you saying that _gayaa/ga'ii_ is not right at all?



No, it all depends on how much respect you want to give. When mixed with other forms that give respect. ga'ii may be completely fine to a little odd, and gaya is just about okay to completely wrong / odd. For example, it's wrong / weird to say,

Rashtrapathiji (The President) khaatay khaatay vahaaN gaya.  <--   never say this to anyone you would use aap with
Mera dost khaatay khaatay vahaaN gaya  <--- completely fine (using gayay is wrong here)
Mera dost khaata khaata vahaaN gaya 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Meray pitaaji khaatay khaatay vahaaN gayay 
Meray pitaaji khaata khaata vahaaN gayay 
Angela Merkel khaatay khaatay vahaaN gaii (ok, but neither as bad as the first one, nor as good as the one below)
Angela Merkel khaatay khaatay vahaaN ga'iiN / gayay


----------



## marrish

nineth said:


> Angela Merkel khaatay khaatay vahaaN gaii (ok, but neither as bad as the first one, nor as good as the one below)
> *Angela Merkel khaatay khaatay vahaaN gayay*


Thanks for the feedback, as far as polite forms are concerned, we use the same in Urdu, as per your examples.
This one we would use, too, at the first place, but we can also say Angela Merkel khaate khaate vahaaN ga'iiN. Do you have this form in your language?


----------



## nineth

marrish said:


> Thanks for the feedback, as far as polite forms are concerned, we use the same in Urdu, as per your examples.
> This one we would use, too, at the first place, but we can also say Angela Merkel khaate khaate vahaaN ga'iiN. Do you have this form in your language?



Yes of course - for feminine plural (or with respect for feminine singular).  In fact, I think it's the right one to use instead of gayay. For some reason, both appear to be fine to my ears (have edited my previous post).

Angela Merkel khaatay khaatay vahaaN ga'iiN


----------



## Qureshpor

Let us sort out "bani/banaa/bane", "Darte Darte vs Dartii Dartii" and this thread once and for all! Looking at all the replies from Forum friends it appears that the waters are rather muddy regarding these grammatical matters. We have got varying degrees of agreement and disagreement in the responses. I have said elsewhere in this Forum that there are still certain matters concerning Urdu grammar which I don't have a completely clear understanding of. It seems I am not alone! I have mentioned already that the examples I gave on initiating these threads were concerned more with difference in sentence types when employing masculine and feminine subjects rather than with number (and respect).

Platts wrote his "A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language" in 1874. Of course he had help from the best works by native grammarians of the time and he acknowledges this in his preface. Apart from grammar books he says, ..."And, lastly, I have at various times obtained much valuable information from several native scholars in India and especially from maulavis Shaikh Abdullah of Kanpur, Mohammad Riza of Ilahabad, Ali Asghar of Ajmer and Safdar Ali of Jabalpur, to whom I take this opportunity of offering my grateful thanks for the aid they were always so ready to afford me in my oriental studies".

The topic under consideration is dealt in the chapter called "The Participles", On page 331, section 421. he says..

"The participles are frequently used to indicate the state or condition (Haal) of the subject or object of an action while the action is taking place. Their agreement with the _subject _is in such cases determined by the following rules:

1) If the subject of the participle be likewise that of the finite verb, the participle agrees in gender and number. (I am providing a few examples from those that he quotes).

un se laRtaa bhiRtaa us chaah par aayaa.

yih kahtii hu'ii chalii ga'ii.

dastarxvaan bichhaa hu'aa thaa.

ko'ii 3aurat baiThii hu'ii thii.

yih bhaa'ii leTaa hu'aa jaagtaa thaa.

2) But if the subject of the participle is not the same as the finite verb, both participles are constructed _absolutely_ in the locative singular, the postposition being suppressed; and the subject of the Imperfect Participle is often omitted. (Again I quote a few examples from his extensive list).

saarii raat taRapte kaTii.

maiN ne rote-bisorte kahaa.

un se laRtaa bhiRtaa roTii ko bachaa'e us chaah par aayaa = tum kyoN but-bane baiThe ho.

vuh sar niiche kiye hu'e khaRaa thaa = tum kyoN but-bane baiThe ho

malikah maile kapRe pahne baahar niklii = tum kyoN but-bane baiThii ho

vuy chupke but kii tarH baiThe sunaa kii = As above

3) If the participle in either case {i.e Imperfect or Perfect} be repeated for emphasis or to indicate a lasting or continuous state, or even if such a state is implied without the repetition of the participle, it is always constructed ab_solutely, _even though its subject be the same as that of the finite verb. (Some examples from a list of his examples).

Darte Darte maiN paas gayaa.

manzil ba-manzil chalte chalte Naishaapur meN pahuNchaa.

lekin be-kaar baiThe baithe uktaa gayaa = vuh paRe paRe biimaar ho gayaa.

vuh chupke but kii tarH sunaa kii = vuh paRe paRe biimaar ho ga'ii.

From this one can conclude that only the "-e" ending verbal forms are correct and sentences like..

vuh paRaa paRaa biimaar ho gayaa.

vuh paRii paRii biimaar ho ga'ii.

tum kyoN but-banii baithii ho.

(vuh kyoN but-banaa baithaa hai)

are all wrong!

Maulavii Abdul Haq (Baba-i-Urdu) in his "Qavaa2id-i-Urdu" published in 1914 deems the "-e" ending forms as "fasiiH" (eloquent) but does not consider the others wrong.


----------



## Alfaaz

> From this one can conclude that only the "-e" ending verbal forms are correct and sentences like..
> 
> vuh paRaa paRaa biimaar ho gayaa.
> ............
> (vuh kyoN but-banaa baithaa hai)
> 
> *are all wrong!
> 
> *Maulavii Abdul Haq (Baba-i-Urdu) in his "Qavaa2id-i-Urdu" published in 1914 deems the "-e" ending forms as "fasiiH" (eloquent) but does not consider the others wrong.



Thanks for finally solving this! Shocking  and informative! I think I like the "Baba-e-Urdu's" opinion better (as all of them seem to give a different feel/tone depending on situations)!


----------



## marrish

Thank you for a lot of research and intellectual work, it makes sense now. As I said, I don't think the other forms are wrong but they might convey a different shade of meaning.


----------

