# Urdu, Hindi: chaahiye vs chaahiyeN



## Qureshpor

Once again, C.M.Naim in his preface to his "Introductory Urdu: Volume 1 (Revised,Third Edition South Asia Language & Area Centre, University of Chicago 1999) when talking about differences between Hindi and Urdu says..

"In the indirect constructions employing/chaahiye/we find that Urdu also uses a plural form,/chaahiyeN/.

Hindi: mujhe kitaab chaahiye
                : mujhe kitaabeN chaahiye

Urdu: mujhe kitaab chaahiye
              : mujhe kitaabeN chaahiyeN

Now it has been suggested in other threads that the plural is possibly the consequence of Punjabi influence. Let's take a little look at Punjabi formations and compare them with Urdu.

manuuN ik seb chaahiidaa e        = mujhe ek seb chaahiye (hai)
manuuN das seb chaahide ne      = mujhe das seb chaahiyeN (haiN)*

manuuN ik kitaab chaahiidii e                  = mujhe ek kitaab chaahiye (hai)
manuuN das kitaabaaN chaahiidiyaaN ne = mujhe das kitaabeN chaahiyeN (haiN)

You will notice that in Punjabi nasalisation is present only when the object is feminine plural whereas in Urdu nasalisation is there for both the masculine and feminine plurals. 

* In older Urdu, we come across examples where two nasalised verbs appear next to each other. Let's take a look at a shi'r by Khudaa-i-suKhan Mir Taqi Mir.

naa-Haq ham majbuuroN par yih tuhmat hai muKhtaarii kii
chaahte haiN so aap kareN haiN ham ko 'ibas bad-naam kiyaa


But Modern Urdu does not allow two nasals as above to come together. The rule is that the first nasal is dropped. So in the above Mir line, we would end up with "kare haiN". If we had "vuh kartiiN haiN", this would, in the modern language be "kartii haiN".

Now, let us look at some "chaahiye" examples. Let's begin with "model" sentences for each set. Let D=Delhi, L= Lucknow

1) maiN ne juutaa Khariidnaa chaahaa [D,L]
1) maiN ne kitaab Khariidnaa chaahii [L]
1) maiN ne kitaab Khariidnii chaahii [D]

1A) mujhe juutaa Khariidnaa chaahiye (hai)[D,L]
1B) mujhe kitaab Khariidnaa chaahiye (hai)[L]
1C) mujhe kitaab Khariidnii chaahiye (hai)[D]

2) maiN ne juute Khariidnaa chaahe [L,D?]
2) maiN ne kitaabeN Kharidnaa chaahiiN [L,D?]

2A) mujhe juute Khariidnaa chaahiyeN (haiN)=mujhe juute Khariidnaa chaahiye (haiN)[L,D?]
2B) mujhe kitaabeN Khariidnaa chaahiyeN (haiN)=mujhe kitaabeN Khariidnaa chaahiye (haiN)[L,D?]

3) maiN ne juute Khariidnaa chaahaa [L]
3) maiN ne kitaabeN Khariidnaa chaahaa [L]

3A) mujhe juute Khariidnaa chaahiye (hai) [L]
3B) mujhe kitaabeN Khariidnaa chaahiye (hai)[L]

4) maiN ne juute Khariidne chaahe [D]
4) maiN ne kitaabeN KhariidniiN chaahiiN=maiN ne kitaabeN Khariidnii chaahiiN[D]

4A) mujhe juute Khariidne chaahiyeN (haiN)= mujhe juute Khariidne chaahiye haiN[D]
                                                                  = mujhe juute Khariidne chaahiyeN[D]

4B) mujhe kitaabeN KhariidniiN chaahiyeN (haiN)=mujhe kitaabeN Khariidnii chaahiye haiN[D]
=mujhe kitaabeN Khariidnii chaahiyeN[D]

I am not too sure about option 2 whether it is soley Lucknow or if it is Lucknow and Delhi. In any case, option 2 and 3 result in the Lucknow idiom and 4 results in the Delhi idiom. In option 2 and 4, plurality is indicated by plural noun AND plural verb but in 3, it is only the noun that is in the plural. I hope all this is as clear as mud!

Now for some practical proof! 

1) On page 51 of Maulana Altaf Hussain Hali's muqaddimah-i-shi'r-o-shaa'irii, we find the following sentence. "shi'r meN kis qism kii baateN bayaan karnii chaahiyeN. There are more examples.

2) In "Baheshti Zevar" by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, there are similar examples.

3) The other day I phoned a friend who hails originally from Lucknow. He moved to Pakistan relatively late in life. He informed me that "chaahiyeN" IS used in Lucknow too and is quite correct.

4) Below, I quote a sentence from Sarwar.A. Raz, a well known Urdu poet (just type his name on the net and you will find him in plenty of places) who hails from Chandpur, India. I typed "chaahiyeN" in Urdu on the net and this was one of the results.

"jaisaa kih maiN ne 'arz kiyaa hai usuulan taraakiib meN sab alfaaz ek hii zabaan ke honaa chaahiyeN".

All the above should prove that "chaahiyeN", along with "chaahiye" are legitimate Urdu usages. It is not easy to find "chaahiyeN" in poetry because there are not many words that would rhyme with it. I have no doubt that one would find "chaahiyeN" in the works of Urdu masters.


----------



## marrish

Since I am acquainted with the state of the matters in Urdu in this respect and your post brings clarity to the topic, I have nothing worth mention to add as for now, but one question that intrigues me can be asked here as this thread is open to Hindi as well:

*Does Hindi* always have the singular "_chaahiye_" or do some speakers use the plural "_chaahiyeN_"? Although I didn't notice this being mentioned in grammar books, still I find that there are many phenomena that are not mentioned in the books (as we have frequently proven it in the threads )!


----------



## sapnachaandni

^ according to "hindii vyaakaran: ek naviin drishTikon" (हिंदी व्याकरण  एक नवीन दृष्टिकोण) by Kavita Kumar (कविता कुमार), page 209:

tumheN apnii maataa jii ko *chiTThii* (f. singular) likhn*ii* chaahiye
tumheN apnii maataa jii ko *chiTThiyaaN* (f. plural) likhn*ii* chaahiye
tumheN apnii maataa jii ko *patr* (m. singular) likhn*aa* chaahiye
tumheN apnii maataa jii ko *patr* (m. plural) likhn*e* chaahiye

according to *Hindi Grammar*, "chaahiye" always remains "chaahiye".


----------



## mundiya

In Hindi I've only seen "chaahiyeN" in typos, otherwise it's "chaahiye".


----------



## littlepond

marrish said:


> ... or do some speakers use the plural "_chaahiyeN_"?



Kam se kam, yeh Hindi bhaashi bahuvachan taur pe "chaahiyeN" kaa istemaal kartaa hai.


----------



## Dib

I am going slightly off-topic here in order to bring in a different point of view to the problem:
chaahiye(N) is a relic passive form of chaah- in the 3rd person in inflected present tense - in the modern language, usually called "subjunctive". So, etymologically, chaahiye ~ chaahiyeN would certainly have been the singular ~ plural at some point (just like kare ~ kareN). But as it happens often with relics, their underlying grammar may be lost with time, and so, some language varieties may have lost the historical plural form.

Now going really off-topic, the -iy-e = passive + 3rd person singular present/subjunctive, we encountered here (chaah-iy-e), is also the source of the polite imperative -iye. The original semantics of "kahiye" (please say!) or some precursor form of it was thus "it is said" and "let it be said".


----------



## sapnachaandni

littlepond said:


> Kam se kam, yeh Hindi bhaashi bahuvachan taur pe "chaahiyeN" kaa istemaal kartaa hai.


jii haaN, maiN ne ye sunaa thaa ki hindii bol-chaal meN "chaahiyeN" miltaa hai, par hindii vyaakaran meN "chaahiyeN" kaa zikr nahiiN kiyaa jaataa.


----------



## marrish

littlepond said:


> Kam se kam, yeh Hindi bhaashi bahuvachan taur pe "chaahiyeN" kaa istemaal kartaa hai.


_aap kaa bahut bahut shukriyah_!


sapnachaandni said:


> jii haaN, maiN ne ye sunaa thaa ki hindii bol-chaal meN "chaahiyeN" miltaa hai, par hindii vyaakaran meN "chaahiyeN" kaa zikr nahiiN kiyaa jaataa.


aap kaa bhii shukriyah!


marrish said:


> ...plural "_chaahiyeN_"? Although I didn't notice this being mentioned in grammar books, still I find that there are many phenomena that are not mentioned in the books (as we have frequently proven it in the threads )!


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> In Hindi I've only seen "chaahiyeN" in typos, otherwise it's "chaahiye".


mundiya jii, how would one know if someone like littlepond jii was actually using "chaahiyeN" and it was not a typo?


----------



## Qureshpor

sapnachaandni said:


> ^ according to "hindii vyaakaran: ek naviin drishTikon" (हिंदी व्याकरण  एक नवीन दृष्टिकोण) by Kavita Kumar (कविता कुमार), page 209:
> 
> tumheN apnii maataa jii ko *chiTThii* (f. singular) likhn*ii* chaahiye
> tumheN apnii maataa jii ko *chiTThiyaaN* (f. plural) likhn*ii* chaahiye
> tumheN apnii maataa jii ko *patr* (m. singular) likhn*aa* chaahiye
> tumheN apnii maataa jii ko *patr* (m. plural) likhn*e* chaahiye
> 
> according to *Hindi Grammar*, "chaahiye" always remains "chaahiye".



aur Rupert Snell / S. Weightman kii kitaab "Teach Yourself Hindi" (1999) ke mutaabiq safHah 79 par likhaa hu'aa hai kih "Some Hindi speakers show plural agreement in the present tense by using the nasalized form चाहियें in agreement with plural subjects: उसे दो नई कमीज़ें चाहियें. He needs two new shirts"!


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor said:


> aur Rupert Snell / S. Weightman kii kitaab  "Teach Yourself Hindi" (1999) ke mutaabiq safHah 79 par likhaa hu'aa hai  kih "Some Hindi speakers show plural agreement in the present tense by  using the nasalized form चाहियें in agreement with plural subjects: उसे  दो नई कमीज़ें चाहियें. He needs two new shirts"!


jii haaN, pataa hai 


sapnachaandni said:


> littlepond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kam se kam, yeh Hindi bhaashi bahuvachan taur pe "chaahiyeN" kaa istemaal kartaa hai.
> 
> 
> 
> jii haaN, maiN ne ye sunaa thaa ki hindii  bol-chaal meN "chaahiyeN" miltaa hai, par *hindii vyaakaran meN*  "chaahiyeN" kaa zikr nahiiN kiyaa jaataa.
Click to expand...


----------



## Qureshpor

^ prantu "Teach Yourself Hindi" bhii to vyaakaaNR hii kii ek pustak hai!


----------



## sapnachaandni

^ aap kii baat sahi hai. us pustak meN "chaahiyeN" kaa zikr kiyaa gayaa hai, par us meN keval ye kahaa gayaa hai ki "*Some Hindi speakers* show plural agreement...", ye to kahaa nahiiN gayaa hai ki yahaaN niyam aisaa hai ki bahuvachan ruup meN "chaahiye" ke sthaan par "chaahiyeN" kaa prayog karnaa paRtaa hai. jahaaN tak maiN ne dekhaa hai, hindii vyaakaran meN aisii baat kahii nahiiN jaatii. yadi us putak meN aisii baat aa'ii ga'ii ho to hindii vyaakaran meN koii na'ii baat hogii.
shaayad aisaa kahnaa behtar hogaa ki hindii vyaakaran meN ye *niyam ke taur par* kahaa nahiiN jaataa ki bahuvachan ruup meN "chaahiye" ke sthaan par "chaahiyeN" kaa prayog karnaa paRtaa hai.


----------



## marrish

_sapnachaandni jii meraa sawaal to yih thaa kih aayaa hiNdii bolne waale kabhii yih ruup isti3maal bhii karte haiN nah kih kyaa yih kitaaboN meN bayaan hu'aa hae lekin aap dostoN ke jawaab paRh kar yih ma3luum hu'aa hae kih kuchh log aisaa kah bhii lete haiN aur kam se kam ek kitaab maujuud to hae jis meN is baat kaa bayaan bhii hu'aa hae. shukriyah._


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> mundiya jii, how would one know if someone like littlepond jii was actually using "chaahiyeN" and it was not a typo?



Good question, Quresh jii.  In typos "chaahiyeN" is not limited to plural forms.  But I see your point if a sentence has "chaahiyeN" and is plural.

maiN littlepond jii kii raay se sahmat huuN.


littlepond said:


> Kam se kam, yeh Hindi bhaashi bahuvachan taur pe "chaahiyeN" kaa istemaal kartaa hai.


----------



## Qureshpor

Whilst looking for "uuNgh/uuNghnaa", I came across this shi3r.

xvaab-i-tasarruf se nah uuNgheN ge ham
*chaahiye haiN *usii kuuche kii havaa ke jhoNke

Imam Baksh Nasikh- 1776-1838 (امام بخش ناسخ)

Would you say (bearing in mind my post 1, part 2A, 2B) that the construction..

"*chaahiye haiN*" was at one stage "chaahiyeN haiN"

or whether..

chaahiye haiN has fused into "chaahiyeN"?


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> Would you say (bearing in mind my post 1, part 2A, 2B) that the construction..
> 
> "*chaahiye haiN*" was at one stage "chaahiyeN haiN"
> 
> or whether..
> 
> chaahiye haiN has fused into "chaahiyeN"?



I understand (from different sources including ODBL*) and mentioned in #6 that etymologically, chaahiye = chaah- + passive -i- (no more productive in modern H-U) + 3rd sing. pres. -e (subjunctive in modern H-U). So, chaahiyeN should be its genuine plural form, just like kare ~ kareN. "chaahiye hai" is indeed a survival of older (and still regionally/dialectally used) "kare hai" kind of construction. So, I am assuming their plurals should historically have been "chaahiyeN haiN" and "kareN haiN".

~~~

*ODBL = Origin and Development of the Bengali Language - Suniti K. Chatterjee
Though the name contains "Bengali", the work routinely discusses other IA languages to put Bengali into context.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ So, what you are saying both "chaahiyeN haiN" > chaahiye haiN and chaahiyeN are legitimate, independent formations.

No, I have no problem your bringing in the worthy gentleman, janaab Sunit Kumar Chatterjee. You will hear from him in the near future with respect to "Awadhi, Braj, Bojhpuri" thread! Stay tuned or watch this space as the saying goes!!


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> ^ So, what you are saying both "chaahiyeN haiN" > chaahiye haiN and chaahiyeN are legitimate, independent formations.



Well, independent in the sense that I don't think one is the contraction of the other form.



Qureshpor said:


> No, I have no problem your bringing in the worthy gentleman, janaab Sunit Kumar Chatterjee. You will hear from him in the near future with respect to "Awadhi, Braj, Bojhpuri" thread! Stay tuned or watch this space as the saying goes!!


----------



## Qureshpor

Thinking aloud a bit more...

Could this be a possibility....?

chaahiyeN haiN > chaahiye haiN* (first nasal dropped as is the norm in Modern Urdu)

and

chaahiyeN haiN > chaahiyeN (haiN dropped, because the nasal in chaahiyeN is sufficient to indicate plurality)

Further to above, as the context is sufficient to indicate the plural, the "haiN" is dropped from the first option.

mujhe do kitaabeN chaahiye.

jhoNke chaahiye (as in the earlier post)


----------

