# Urdu: le jaayaa gayaa لے جایا گیا



## marrish

Hello,

I heard the following clause as a part of a longer sentence:

_laRkii ko saamne gaaRii meN *le jaayaa gayaa*_. لڑکی کو سامنے گاڑی میں *لے جایا گیا*

How would you analyse it?

PS Do provide transliteration please for those who don't read Urdu.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Simple, to me it appears that the girl was taken away against her will right before their eyes. However, honestly speaking it depends upon the context and further elaboration.


----------



## Sheikh_14

it could also be used for the wounded in the case of an ambulance, but in any case it does create the impression that one was manhandled or picked up. With this construct matters are usually amiss.


----------



## marrish

Thanks for your response, yes, this is the meaning according to the wider context, specifically manhandled applies here.

I think you are right it is  normal sentence  but what about it's grammar. Any takes?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Here is my attempt.

1. the verb _jaanaa _has a regular perfect participle, _jaayaa_, that was kept from the time that (according to Platts) Prakrits switched to the verb _gam-_ in order to form the nowadays irregular participles of _jaanaa_: _gaayaa, ga'ii, ga'e_. (Grammarians call this _jaayaa _in a lot of crazy ways, but, for the sake of simplicity, let's call it a participle).

2. This form, apparently fossilized in the masculine direct singular _jaayaa_, is still used idiomatically in some modern constructions, such as repeteadness: _"vah shaam ko jaayaa kartii hai",  _incapacity _"mujhse nahiiN jaayaa gayaa", etc.

3. _It seems that the phrase in passive voice, which requires a past participle followed by a conjugated _jaana _auxiliar.

4. For verbs that can be already reinforced with _jaanaa_, it would seem that speakers can resort to this "regular participle" in order to express the passive voice (I don't know what happens in the mind of a competent speaker, but I would assume the idea is to elegantly express the 2 resulting, consecutive _jaanaa_ forms: one for the reinforcement, the other for passivity). Hence: _bhuul jaayaa gayaa, aa jaayaa gayaa, ho jaayaa gaayaa, le jaaya gaayaa, etc._

[EDITed for clarity]


----------



## Pokeflute

This to me seems like the passive. I agree.

Regarding the conjugation, for some (most?) speakers, animate subjects must take ko for the passive.

So “the boys were seen” is “laRkoN ko dekhyaa gayaa”, not “laRke dekhe gaye”

This can occur with inanimate objects too, though this often carries some notion of “dramatization” (much like “ko” does in non-passive sentences).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Pokeflute said:


> Regarding the conjugation, for some (most?) speakers, animate subjects must take ko for the passive.
> 
> So “the boys were seen” is “laRkoN ko dekhyaa gayaa”, not “laRke dekhe gaye”


I believe it is a little more complex than just "animate vs inanimate". Rather, is the consequences animation has in "determined-ness". 
It would also seem that _laRke dekhe gaye_ is possible, especially if one is speaking about some undetermined boys.


> _parijnoN meN  aakrosh_ [indignation]_ hai ki(h) ghaTnaa _[incident]_ se kuchh der pahle raahul ke saath gaaNv ke hii *paaNch laRke dekhe gae the*,  jin meN se ek laRke kii pahchaan kar use pulis ke Havaale kar diyaa gayaa, lekin ba3d meN use chhoR diyaa gayaa hai_


घर के बाहर लाडले को मिली खौफनाक मौत, सनसनी

In any case, I am not sure how this subject is relevant to my attempted explanation. My focus was: whether or not the verb in question is apt to take _jaanaa _as an auxiliar in the first place, before being passivized:
_bhuul jaanaa => bhuul jaayaa gayaa,  aa jaanaa =>  aa jaayaa gayaa, ho jaanaa => ho jaayaa gaayaa, _ etc.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Hello,
> 
> I heard the following clause as a part of a longer sentence:
> 
> _laRkii ko saamne gaaRii meN *le jaayaa gayaa*_. لڑکی کو سامنے گاڑی میں *لے جایا گیا*
> 
> How would you analyse it?
> 
> PS Do provide transliteration please for those who don't read Urdu.


This sentence is clearly not an example of prose which will be a contender for some literary prize!

Without additional context, the sentence could be understood as:

1) laRkii ko saamne (vaalii) gaaRii meN le jaayaa gayaa.

The girl was taken in the car facing us.

2) laRkii ko (mere/hamaare/sab ke) saamne gaaRii meN le jaayaa gayaa. 

The girl was taken in the car right in front of me/us/ all of us etc


I would think it is more likely the second option that is implied.


----------



## aevynn

At the moment I can only think of three types of verb+verb compounds in which the "content verb" is morphologically perfective, and one of those three is uncommon/archaic. They are:

(1) kiyaa karnaa ("frequentative")
(2) kiyaa jaanaa ("passive" or "incapacitative")
(3) kiyaa chaahnaa ("desiderative" -- the uncommon/archaic one)

It appears that, when _jaanaa_ participates as the "content verb" in any of these three types of compoounds, it conjugates as _jaayaa_. The sentence in the OP is of type (2), and @MonsieurGonzalito already mentioned (1) and (2) in #5 above. For more about type (3), see below.

Are there other verb+verb compounds in which the "content verb" is morphologically perfective? And if so, is it true that when _jaanaa_ participates as the "content verb" in those compounds, it conjugates as _jaayaa_?

----------
The uncommon/archaic type (3) is discussed here in this thread, and on p. 193 of Kellogg's 1876 grammar:




Probably it is discussed other places as well. There are numerous examples one finds when Googling, but one occurs in Henry Martyn's 1817 "Hindoostanee" translation of the Bible ("carefully revised with the assistance of Mirza Fitrut, and other learned natives"), where in Luke 24:28, one finds this:

... aisaa zaahir hotaa thaa ki wuh aage jaayaa chaahtaa hai​... he made as though he would have gone further.​

----------


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I believe it is a little more complex than just "animate vs inanimate". Rather, is the consequences animation has in "determined-ness". It would also seem that _laRke dekhe gaye_ is possible, especially if one is speaking about some undetermined boys.


 The syntactically most intriguing aspect of this for me is... When you're referring to a specific person and would mark the direct object of the corresponding active sentence with _ko_, this marking becomes optional in the passivization:
​(A) wo(h) mujhe andar le gayaa.​(B) maiN andar le jaayaa gayaa.​(C) mujhe andar le jaayaa gayaa.​​Both (B) and (C) are legitimate passivizations of (A).

----------


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> This form, apparently *fossilized in the masculine direct singular* _jaayaa..._


It isn't fossilized with this gender/number marking --- or at least, not in "passive" / "incapacitative" sentences of type (2). For example, in Rahi Masoom Raza's _dil ek saadaa kaagaz_, one finds the sentence, "... ye(h) baat bhuul jaayii jaaye yaa na(h) bhuulii jaaye" (ie, "... should this be forgotten or not," where "bhuul jaayii jaaye" is the feminine passive subjunctive of _bhuul jaanaa_ and "bhuulii jaaye" is the feminine passive subjunctive of _bhuulnaa_).


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> At the moment I can only think of three types of verb+verb compounds in which the "content verb" is morphologically perfective, and one of those three is uncommon/archaic. They are:
> 
> (1) kiyaa karnaa ("frequentative")
> (2) kiyaa jaanaa ("passive" or "incapacitative")
> (3) kiyaa chaahnaa ("desiderative" -- the uncommon/archaic one)
> 
> It appears that, when _jaanaa_ participates as the "content verb" in any of these three types of compoounds, it conjugates as _jaayaa_. The sentence in the OP is of type (2), and @MonsieurGonzalito already mentioned (1) and (2) in #5 above. For more about type (3), see below.
> 
> Are there other verb+verb compounds in which the "content verb" is morphologically perfective? And if so, is it true that when _jaanaa_ participates as the "content verb" in those compounds, it conjugates as _jaayaa_?
> 
> ----------
> The uncommon/archaic type (3) is discussed here in this thread, and on p. 193 of Kellogg's 1876 grammar:
> View attachment 68329
> Probably it is discussed other places as well. There are numerous examples one finds when Googling, but one occurs in Henry Martyn's 1817 "Hindoostanee" translation of the Bible ("carefully revised with the assistance of Mirza Fitrut, and other learned natives"), where in Luke 24:28, one finds this:
> 
> ... aisaa zaahir hotaa thaa ki wuh aage jaayaa chaahtaa hai​... he made as though he would have gone further.​View attachment 68330​----------
> 
> The syntactically most intriguing aspect of this for me is... When you're referring to a specific person and would mark the direct object of the corresponding active sentence with _ko_, this marking becomes optional in the passivization:
> ​(A) wo(h) mujhe andar le gayaa.​(B) maiN andar le jaayaa gayaa.​(C) mujhe andar le jaayaa gayaa.​​Both (B) and (C) are legitimate passivizations of (A).
> 
> ----------
> 
> It isn't fossilized with this gender/number marking --- or at least, not in "passive" / "incapacitative" sentences of type (2). For example, in Rahi Masoom Raza's _dil ek saadaa kaagaz_, one finds the sentence, "... ye(h) baat bhuul jaayii jaaye yaa na(h) bhuulii jaaye" (ie, "... should this be forgotten or not," where "bhuul jaayii jaaye" is the feminine passive subjunctive of _bhuul jaanaa_ and "bhuulii jaaye" is the feminine passive subjunctive of _bhuulnaa_).


evynn SaaHib, so after all this, what does the sentence quoted by marrish SaaHib mean for you? The biblical sentence quoted could be translated as “It seemed he was about to go forward.”


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> what does the sentence quoted by marrish SaaHib mean for you?


I understood the sentence with the same meaning that you did here:


Qureshpor said:


> 2) laRkii ko (mere/hamaare/sab ke) saamne gaaRii meN le jaayaa gayaa.
> 
> The girl was taken in the car right in front of me/us/ all of us etc


and that appears to be the intended meaning, as @marrish jii already noted here:


marrish said:


> yes, this is the meaning according to the wider context, specifically manhandled applies here.



---------


Qureshpor said:


> The biblical sentence quoted could be translated as “It seemed he was about to go forward.”


Yes, I agree. I just presented the translation of the same phrase as it occurs in the King James Version of the Bible.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> Are there other verb+verb compounds in which the "content verb" is morphologically perfective?


Do _chalaa aanaa_ / _chalaa jaanaa _count?


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Do _chalaa aanaa_ / _chalaa jaanaa _count?


Sure!  I guess these ones aren't productive though: you can't replace _chalaa_ with perfective participles of other verbs.


----------



## aevynn

aevynn said:


> At the moment I can only think of three types of verb+verb compounds in which the "content verb" is morphologically perfective, and one of those three is uncommon/archaic. They are:
> 
> (1) kiyaa karnaa ("frequentative")
> (2) kiyaa jaanaa ("passive" or "incapacitative")
> (3) kiyaa chaahnaa ("desiderative" -- the uncommon/archaic one)
> 
> It appears that, when _jaanaa_ participates as the "content verb" in any of these three types of compoounds, it conjugates as _jaayaa_. The sentence in the OP is of type (2), and @MonsieurGonzalito already mentioned (1) and (2) in #5 above. For more about type (3), see below.
> 
> Are there other verb+verb compounds in which the "content verb" is morphologically perfective? And if so, is it true that when _jaanaa_ participates as the "content verb" in those compounds, it conjugates as _jaayaa_?


There is also...

(4) ki'e jaanaa ("repetitive" ?)

For example, _wo(h) mujhe fon ki'e hii jaataa hai_ ("He just keeps on calling me"). Note that the fact that _ki'e_ can occur here means that the "content verb" in construction (4) should be regarded as a masculine oblique perfective participle[^*]. It is invariably in this form (eg, even if the subject is feminine, as in _salmaa mujhe tang ki'e jaatii hai_). Moreover, when _jaanaa_ participates as the "content verb" in (4), it conjugates as _jaa'e_. For example, one might say _maiN use hazaar daf3A kah chukaa huuN ki(h) paidal na(h) jaayaa kar, magar wo(h) phir bhii paidal hii jaa'e jaataa hai_ ("I've told him a thousand times not to go by foot, but he just keeps on doing it anyway!") but replacing the last few words with *_ga'e jaataa hai_ sounds decidedly wrong to me.

--
[^*]: As opposed to a singular non-1st-person subjunctive. People do colloquially regularize the perfective participle of _karnaa_ to _karaa_, in which case the masculine oblique perfective participle becomes _kare_ , and so _kare jaanaa_ also becomes possible in construction (4). Probably prescriptive grammars will frown on this usage, but it's quite frequent. In any case, even though this regularized participle of _karnaa_ now matches the subjunctive, I think it's safe to say that construction (4) uses a perfective participle rather than a subjunctive, since for example, with _lenaa/denaa_, one would say _li'e/di'e jaanaa_, with the participles, rather than with the subjunctive *_le/de_.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

What do you mean by "content verb"? The word providing most ot the meaning for a verbal phrase?
If so, in a phrase like "_fon ki'e hii jaataa hai", _isn't "_fon"_ the "content word/verb"_?_


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> What do you mean by "content verb"? The word providing most ot the meaning for a verbal phrase?
> If so, in a phrase like "_fon ki'e hii jaataa hai", _isn't "_fon"_ the "content word/verb"_?_


Yes, by "content verb," I just mean the verb in a verb+verb compound that isn't the auxiliary or light verb or whatever -- ie, the verb that contributes towards the 'primary semantic content' of the utterance (whatever that might mean). The "content verb" in _fon ki'e hii jaataa hai_ that I have in mind is _fon karnaa_. (I'm not sure if there's a more standard name for this concept...?)


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> 2. This form, apparently fossilized in the masculine direct singular _jaayaa_, is still used idiomatically in some modern constructions, such as repeteadness: _"*vah* shaam ko jaayaa kartii hai", _incapacity _"mujhse nahiiN jaayaa gayaa", etc._


_*parijnoN *meN *aakrosh*_ [indignation]_ hai ki(h) ghaTnaa _[incident]_ se kuchh der pahle raahul ke saath gaaNv ke hii paaNch laRke dekhe gae the, jin meN se ek laRke kii pahchaan kar use pulis ke Havaale kar diyaa gayaa, lekin ba3d meN use chhoR diyaa gayaa hai_

घर के बाहर लाडले को मिली खौफनाक मौत, सनसनी

I was under the impression that the thread title was "Urdu". This applies to #9 as well.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> (1) kiyaa karnaa ("frequentative")
> (2) kiyaa jaanaa ("passive" or "incapacitative")
> (3) kiyaa chaahnaa ("desiderative" -- the uncommon/archaic one)
> 
> It appears that, when _jaanaa_ participates as the "content verb" in any of these three types of compoounds,



Can _jaanaa _itself, being intransitive, be part of an incapacitative construction as the main verb?
Is a sentence like: 

_ham se jaayaa nahiN gayaa_

valid (in the sense of "We weren't able to go")?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> (3) kiyaa chaahnaa ("desiderative" -- the uncommon/archaic one)



Just out of curiosity, what exactly is uncommon/obsolete? 
-using participle + _chaahnaa _to indicate desire,
-using participle + _chaahnaa _to indicate imminence
-using participle + _chaahnaa _at all  (other than when translatable word-by-word like "he wants me dead, etc.")?

This construction is idescribed n Platts as well (under Compound Verbs/2/Desideratives), but I don't know how people really speak.


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Just out of curiosity, what exactly is uncommon/obsolete?


This one:


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> using participle + _chaahnaa _at all (other than when translatable word-by-word like "he wants me dead, etc.")


----------

