# Hindi: Tareeka (tareeqa) in plural oblique



## amiramir

Hello all, 

I wonder if I can impose on your collective knowledge for a grammar explanation. I was searching for aloo recipes, and I came across one with the following line:

आलू की सब्जी कई तरीके से बनाई जाती हैं

While I agree with the sentiment (who doesn't?), I had a question regarding tareeka/tareeqa. In the phrase, कई तरीके से, why is tareeka in the singular oblique? I would have thought that 'in several ways' would require tareeka to be in oblique plural: i.e. kai tareek*on* se. 

Is tareeka like paisa in that it can be used interchangeably for the most part in the singular and plural? (i.e. us ne paison / paise ke vaaste aisa kiya tha)

Thank you for your help.

A


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I agree with you. It ought to be "tariikoN se". I am using "k" for "q" as the thread title is Hindi.


----------



## amiramir

Thank you very much. Maybe it's just a mistake on the writer's part and not evidence of standard practise in the writer's variety of Hindi.


----------



## littlepond

It's either a mistake or a typo. It should be "tariikon se". Plus, it should be "sabzii", not "sabjii" (dot should be there below "ja"). Also, "hain" should be "hai". Three mistakes in one short sentence: can't be typos!


----------



## amiramir

All true, thank you again.


----------



## bakshink

kayee tareeke se is also a correct usage.

Navneet


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Would "maiN ne ka'ii laRke se puuchhaa Navniit Jii kahaaN haiN" be correct, mahaaraaj?


----------



## marrish

कई तरीक़े से _ka'ii tariiqe se_ doesn't sound incorrect to me, just as आलू की सब्ज़ी *कई तरह से* _aaluu kii sabzii ka'ii tarah se_ or *कई प्रकार से* _ka'ii prakaar se _or even *कई क़िस्म की* बनाई जाती है _ka'ii qism kii banaa'ii jaatii hai_.


----------



## bakshink

Qureshpor said:


> ^ Would "maiN ne ka'ii laRke se puuchhaa Navniit Jii kahaaN haiN" be correct, mahaaraaj?



Hello Qureshpor

laDake and Tareeke have to be treated differently. Some usages are accepted..syntactically correct or not

laDake ka baap- Singular लड़के का बाप

laDake khelate hain- Plural- लड़के खेलते हैं 

LaDakon ne laDake ko pakaDa, laDaka dauDaa to use ke peechhe aur laDake bhaage ...Plural and Singular- लड़कों ने लड़के को पकड़ा, लड़का दौड़ा तो उस के पीछे और लड़के भागे |

Navneet


----------



## Qureshpor

I know Navneet Jii and you may well be absolutely right. To my mind it "ka'ii tariike/tariiqe se" does n't quite sit right. It is the post-position "se" that is the determining factor.

I've searched the net by typing in Urdu "ka'ii tariiqe se" but did not not get anything. For "ka'ii tariiqoN se", there are plenty of examples.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> कई तरीक़े से _ka'ii tariiqe se_ doesn't sound incorrect to me, just as आलू की सब्ज़ी *कई तरह से* _aaluu kii sabzii ka'ii tarah se_ or *कई प्रकार से* _ka'ii prakaar se _or even *कई क़िस्म की* बनाई जाती है _ka'ii qism kii banaa'ii jaatii hai_.



But "tarah", "qism" and prakaar do not decline. As for "paisah" remaining "paise" in the OP, here "paisah" is being used generically for money.


----------



## littlepond

^ Completely agree.


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> It's either a mistake or a typo. It should be "tariikon se". Plus, it should be "sabzii", not "sabjii" (dot should be there below "ja"). Also, "hain" should be "hai". Three mistakes in one short sentence: can't be typos!


I agree with everything you have said. With regard to sabzii and not sabjii, I would have mentioned this as well but from past experience, one or two Hindi speakers have indicated that there is nothing wrong with using j for z in such words (or words to that effect). So, I was hesitant in pointing this error. 

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1209988&highlight=over+correction


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> But "tarah", "qism" and prakaar do not decline. As for "paisah" remaining "paise" in the OP, here "paisah" is being used generically for money.


Why not, these three words do decline in plural oblique: 

तरह->तरहों _tarah->tar(a)hoN_; क़िस्म->क़िस्मों _qism->qismoN_; प्रकार->प्रकारों _prakaar->prakaaroN_. 

पैसे paise is indeed used as a generic noun for money in the sentence from OP but you can even add a numeral and it still can go uninflected (I mean without the marker of oblique case) as in this sentence from Premchand's ''Jyoti'': 

"मोहन ने विद्रोह का भाव धारण किया—अगर उसने मुझसे चार पैसे के पान माँगे तो क्या करता ? कहता कि पैसे दे, तो लाऊँगा?"
_mohan ne vidroh kaa bhaav dhaaraNR kiyaa—agar usne mujhse chaar paise ke* paan maaNge to kyaa kartaa? kahtaa ki paise de**, to laauuNgaa?
_
*_chaar paise_: plural nominative of _ek paisaa_ - not generic but specific as a monetary unit; _chaar paise ke_: plural oblique.
**_paise de_: plural nominative of _paisaa_: generic for money.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Why not, these three words do decline in plural oblique:
> 
> तरह->तरहों _tarah->tar(a)hoN_; क़िस्म->क़िस्मों _qism->qismoN_; प्रकार->प्रकारों _prakaar->prakaaroN_.
> 
> पैसे paise is indeed used as a generic noun for money in the sentence from OP but you can even add a numeral and it still can go uninflected (I mean without the marker of oblique case) as in this sentence from Premchand's ''Jyoti'':
> 
> "मोहन ने विद्रोह का भाव धारण किया—अगर उसने मुझसे चार पैसे के पान माँगे तो क्या करता ? कहता कि पैसे दे, तो लाऊँगा?"
> _mohan ne vidroh kaa bhaav dhaaraNR kiyaa—agar usne mujhse chaar paise ke* paan maaNge to kyaa kartaa? kahtaa ki paise de**, to laauuNgaa?
> _
> *_chaar paise_: plural nominative of _ek paisaa_ - not generic but specific as a monetary unit; _chaar paise ke_: plural oblique.
> **_paise de_: plural nominative of _paisaa_: generic for money.


Yes, they decline in the manner of "tariiqoN" but not "tariiqe" and that is what I meant and you know it! vaise, "tarhoN" dil meN kaaNTe kii tarH khaTaktaa hai!

Even for "chaar paise ke paan" one can think of it in generic terms, like "chaar din kii zindagii". Same applies for "paise de" as in "rup'e de".


----------



## littlepond

"chaar paise" is an idiom: and it doesn't mean really four paises. It means "some money", so again generic. Mere dil mein bhi "tarhon" khatak rahaa hai. "prakaaron" bhii.


----------



## marrish

Answering both littlepond and QP SaaHib's contributions, I do agree that _tarhoN_ does not feel quite smooth as well as _prakaaroN _doesn't_. 

_Still it is perfectly possible to decline them in the plural oblique and there are many ways to use those inflected forms in which they don't sound so odd. I can quote some instances from acclaimed prose or poetry writers, in Hindi, but because I am not at home right now I can't do it.

I feel the question now is appearing to the topic of ''general'' or ''collective'' nouns and their behaviour with postpositions and numerals. Perhaps I'm not good at the grammar terminology but it can always be set right later on in this thread.

_ka'ii tariiqe se_ seems to me not a bad expression although the grammar rules which I managed to learn or discover by myself dictate the declension. I'd not be able to say it is incorrect, in fact, it appears to be an idiomatic use to my ear, that is why I signalised it in my first post that it sounded right.

I agree that "chaar paise" is an expression on the lines of "chaar din" but... I made my task very easy for myself and thought it was most likely to be found with ''"chaar"". Anyhow, I am quite certain about it that it is also the case with other numerals, but I will provide all of you with any relevant quotes or explanations after Monday.

The reason I tried to compare tariiqe, tariiqoN to prakaar, qism, tarah and others is that they fall in the same category. Perhaps it is just as you two feel tarhoN and prakaaroN odd, others feel they ought to use tariiqe and not tariiqoN.


----------



## Qureshpor

After receiving some guidance from a friend, I did find some examples of "ka'ii tariiqe se" on the net and if I was being totally honest, they did n't seem out of order in the contexts they were being used. Perhaps, there is legitimate reason why it (ka'ii tariiqe se) does n't totally sound out of place but I can't think of the logic. I have already indicated to Navneet Jii that he (and you) are probably right but I don't believe littlepond Jii and I are wrong either!!

tariikaa/tariiqah is obviously a count noun, like "mahiinah". Would you say both of the sentences given below are fine?

Ugranarain *ka'ii mahiine se* jel kii salaaxoN ke piichhe hai lekin phir bhii log us kaa naam sun kar sahm jaate haiN!

Hashmat Khan *ka'ii mahiinoN* *se* zulm Dhaa rahaa hai lekin poliis vaale Dar ke maare us kaa piichhaa nahiiN karte!


----------



## marrish

Both sentences are fine to me; I am not able to catch the grammar point of it. Just to be noted: I don't say yours and Navneet s and littlepond's takings are wrong - the point i am trying to formulate is that they are correct but not exclusively. As I mentioned, this thead is going to be a serious one, about different nouns (at least tariiqaa and paisaa) as per OP. 

I thought to share those nouns just for comparison. I don't have a grammar rule or theory ready with me so I look forward to the expansion of this thread.


----------

