# Urdu: -jaat as suffix



## Cilquiestsuens

Hello,

I wanted to ask if you know of any rule on the use of these Farsi plurals in Urdu....

I just remember two uses of it right now, in official parlance : *shu'bah-jaat* (departments) I think I have seen *mehkamah-jaat* also, same meaning. And there is also the official Urdu name of Northern Areas in PK *shumaalii ilaaqah-jaat*..

Do you know which words can take these plurals and what are the rules ?


----------



## Qureshpor

*The only rule that I am familiar with is that the "jaat" plural is added when the base word ends with a haa-i-havvaz and is, I think, a concrete noun.

Arabic: adviyah >>>>> adviyajaat (medicines: double plural)

Persian: mevah* >>>>> mevajaat (fruits)

But note bachchah >>>>bachchagaan****** (children)

* These endings at one time had -g as their terminal letter, as indicated by the -aan plural ending. This in Arabic became jiim, hence jaat instead of plane -aat. I don't know why -gaan did n't change to -jaan!
*


----------



## Koozagar

Masaalajaat


----------



## panjabigator

> *
> Persian: mevah* >>>>> mevajaat (fruits)
> 
> But note bachchah >>>>bachchagaan****** (children)*



Would these plurals be used in Urdu? I know them from Persian.


----------



## Koozagar

They are used. Not in rozmara but surely in written language.


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> Would these plurals be used in Urdu? I know them from Persian.



*Yes, as Koozagar Sahib has pointed out. For example, "bandagaan-i-Khudaa" (God's servants), bachchagaanah 'aadateN (Childish habbits).*


----------



## Faylasoof

The rule works pretty well nearly all the time for Urdu but funnily exceptions may exist in Farsi itself, e.g. for   سبزی_ sabzii_ the plural is سبزیجات_ sabziijaat_!

Here is another important example in Urdu: حوالہ_ Hawaalah_ (reference, allusion; charge,  care, custody;  possession;  consignment ; etc.) takes the plural حوالجات_ Hawaalajaat _and _not_ حوالات_ Hawaalaat_ = lockup, prison, jail!

I think for ادویہ_ adwiyah_ the more frequent plural used is  ادویات_ adwiyaat_.

.. and yes, in Pahlavi it was originally _mewag_ (for _mewah_ ميوه) and _wachchag_ (for _bachchah_ بچہ)

 Well, as for the use of the words_ mewajaat_ and _bachchagaan_ in Urdu, I’m sure nobody would throw anything at you if you happen to use them (in formal situations) but the use of the Prakrit plural forms (respectively, _mewe_ میوے and _bachche _بچے) are far more common. Similarly  سبزیجات_ sabziijaat_ is not really used in common Urdu though in certain Urduphone households I’ve heard it!


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> *... bachchagaanah 'aadateN (Childish habbits).*



_bachkaanah 3aadaat _says something to you?


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> _bachkaanah 3aadaat _says something to you?



*bachkaanah? Surely "bachchagaanah"!

It does n't matter if its "3aadateN" or "3aadaat".



*


----------



## panjabigator

What happens to the gender of these plurals?


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> What happens to the gender of these plurals?



*Gender, as per the singular.

baaGh (m) baaGhaat (m)

tarmiim (f) [amendment] tarmiimaat (f)
*


----------



## Koozagar

There is also Akhrajaat. Plural for kharcha=expense


----------



## Qureshpor

Koozagar said:


> There is also Akhrajaat. Plural for kharcha=expense


*
No, this would not fall in the -jaat suffix category. It is an Arabic plural but I think it might be wrongly formed. 
*


----------



## Koozagar

Good to know. Let's hear what others have to say. Is Akhrajaat wrongly formed?


----------



## eskandar

To the best of my knowledge اخراجات is correctly formed in Arabic and is also used in Persian to mean "expenses" (plural of اخراج). However it does not count as a word formed with the -jaat plural because the jiim is part of the word itself! Thus it's not akhraa + jaat (as in sabzi + jaat) but rather akhraaj + aat, which is a standard Arabic plural rather than -jaat from Persian.


----------



## Qureshpor

eskandar said:


> To the best of my knowledge اخراجات is correctly formed in Arabic and is also used in Persian to mean "expenses" (plural of اخراج). However it does not count as a word formed with the -jaat plural because the jiim is part of the word itself! Thus it's not akhraa + jaat (as in sabzi + jaat) but rather akhraaj + aat, which is a standard Arabic plural rather than -jaat from Persian.



*Allow me to explain my reservations.

As you will no doubt be aware, Arabic has a number of verb patterns from which verbal nouns are derived. Pattern I is a little awkward in the sense that there is no particular pattern for the verbal noun. II onwards, there are distinct patters.

Pattern I (Kharaja)'s noun is Khuruuj according to Hans Wehr's Arabic English dictionary. Kharj is also given but for some reason not with the Pattern I entry. It's plural is provided as Khuruujaat. I assume that Khuruuj probably has the same plural.

Pattern II's noun is taKhriij (from Kharraja). Pattern IV's is IKhraaj (from Akhraja) with a plural IKraajaat, I presume. So, you can see that "aKhraajaat" has not come in anywhere. Could it be a corruption of Ikhraajaat?
*


----------



## eskandar

Oh, now I understand why you suggested it might be wrongly formed. I was thinking the issue was in the plural ending, whereas what you're saying is that it should be ikhraajaat not akhraajaat, correct? I think you are probably right that akhraajaat is a corruption of ikhraajaat; I can't think of other examples, but I feel like I've seen similar borrowings from Arabic/Persian into Urdu with seemingly arbitrary vowel changes like that.


----------



## lcfatima

Was wondering about this -jaat suffix. I have seen it typically in masaalajaat (maSaalaH jaat) and saw it here in the forums on baqaayaa jaat meaning the remainder, which is apparently not a correct usage.

What other words would it be common to use with? What exactly does it mean? Is it from Persian?


----------



## marrish

It is indeed from Persian, lcfatima SaaHibah, as you rightly presume. It is a marker of the plural number which is used just in some situations, where normally the _-aat_ suffix would be used, with which you are of course familiar. The requirement of the interceding -j- is a phonetic necessity when the noun which has to be put in plural ends with a (silent) -h،  like in _Suubah_ صوبہ (a province), plural _Suube_ صوبے or صوبہ جات _Suubah-jaat_.


In the meanwhile I've found a thread where the topic is different but there are some original digressions worthy of mentioning:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1210413
*thaana-jaat, Theka-jaat, khaata-jaat!*


----------



## lcfatima

Thanks, somehow I missed the -jaat thread. Thanks.


----------

