# Hindi: Please find attached



## amiramir

Hello all,

I realize you probably have no occasion to use the above phrase in Hindi, but any idea how people would say it (in a normal manner) if at all?

I'd like to say, "Please find attached the signed contract." 

To be honest, I'm having trouble with the whole sentence, including signed and attached. At least I think I'm ok with अनुबंध for contract.

Thank you.


----------



## hindiurdu

Are you saying it or typing it out?

Normal speech: ज़रा साथ लगे कॉन्ट्रैक्ट पर नज़र डाल लें (zaraa saath lage contract par nazar Daal leN) - the zaraa gives a certain degree of respect.
Typed out official: कृप्या साथ लगे अनुबंध / संविदा-पत्र पर दृष्टि डाल लें (kripyaa saath lage anubandh par drishTi Daal leN)


----------



## Englishmypassion

Kripaya sanlagna ("hastaksharit" understood?) anubandh dekh len/dekhiye/dekh leejiye.
hindiurdu ji, doesn't "nazar/drishti daal len" seem to imply to "have a _quick_ look"?


----------



## amiramir

Thank you both. I never would have come up with your suggestions. *संलग्न* is genius. Never heard the word before, but its constituent parts make a lot of sense for 'attached.'

How is *संलग्न* pronounced? Is it actually pronounced as written? Or is it pronounced संलग्ना ?


----------



## Englishmypassion

It's pronounced as it's written, amir. No extra matra/stress at the end.


----------



## amiramir

Many thanks, Emp ji. I'm not an expert, but for me nazar daal lena does imply a quick look, but I will of course await the opinions of more qualified people.


----------



## hindiurdu

Englishmypassion said:


> Kripaya sanlagna ("hastaksharit" understood?) anubandh dekh len/dekhiye/dekh leejiye.
> hindiurdu ji, doesn't "nazar/drishti daal len" seem to imply to "have a _quick_ look"?



Correct. My logic was: Find attached = please ensure they are present and in order = Nazar Daal leN. To be honest, drishti does not sound so natural in this context unless said humorously or in a formal context of some kind. I'd go with nazar.

संलग्न is a word I have definitely seen, as well as the form संलगित, but they are not so common in normal speech in my experience. Also, I would say it as sanlagn. Because it is not a word used in common speech, if I were saying it at all, I would say it only formally without the vulgarized sanlagan, which is more likely given HU tendencies. Sanlagit seems more correct to me. Also, this is just an opinion, but to me words like lagn, kalan etc carry a noun flavor as an activity. Lagn = attachment, Sanlagn = attachment with something, Kalan = calculus, Sankalan = calculation of something, Sankalak = calculator. Sanlagit = attached, Sankalit = calculated. Gaṇan = computation, Sangaṇan = computation of/among something, Sangaṇak = computer, Sangaṇit = computed. Similarly, chalan (to run) - sanchalan (to run with/among) - sanchalit (something that is run). chaalan (to operate, supervise the running of), sanchaalan (to operate with), sanchaalak (operator, regulator), sanchaalit (operated, supervised, run with something or under some sort of regulator). Layan (fusion, merger) - Sanlayan (fusion with/among something) - Sanlayit (fused). Naabhikiiy Sanlayan (Nuclear Fusion) or Parmaaṇuk Sanlayan (Atomic Fusion). OTOH all this is highly Sanskritized stuff and I do not know the language, so will let Dib or other knowledgeable people step-in. It is revealing to me that the base verb forms here are the original Sanskritized forms (and resemble Persian -an, so might be the original formal proto-Indo-Iranian forms, actually - speculation). As opposed to the normal Hindi-Urdu-Punjabi -naa or the Kashmiri -un. I have never heard someone say sanchaalnaa and conjugate that - this indicates (to me, ymmv) that these are treated as "inorganic"/"non-nativized" formal imports into Hindi from Sanskrit. Note gachchhan = to go in Sanskrit. gatshun/gatchhun = to go in Kashmiri. But sangachchhan (to go together) seems valid in Sanskrit. No such thing in Kashmiri or Hindi. Again, makes sanlagn feel like an inorganic import into Hindi (to me), ie okay for formal writing but not speech.


----------



## amiramir

Hindiurdu ji, thanks very for the very helpful and interesting response.


----------



## marrish

"Said in a normal manner": I agree with the responses but to be frank, I would say in Hindi: नीचे/साथ लगा हुआ कांट्रेक्ट आपकी सेवा में है। niiche/saath lagaa huaa kaaNTrekT aapkii sevaa meN hai.

While speaking or writing in business or official correspondence this could serve equally well beause there is nothing outstanding or sticking out like a sore thumb in this phrase and I believe it is unpretentious.

In case of an e-mail, it can work perhaps better with नीचे than with साथ. Substituting the form of लगना lagnaa by संलग्न saNlagna is possible but not to be necessary, it seems somehow made difficult and formalized while the former is neutral.

Only official [governmental] communication can fit best to संलग्न saNlagna. The same about brilliant hastaakSharit and even more.


----------



## hindiurdu

marrish said:


> "Said in a normal manner": I agree with the responses but to be frank, I would say in Hindi: नीचे/साथ लगा हुआ कांट्रेक्ट आपकी सेवा में है। niiche/saath lagaa huaa kaaNTrekT aapkii sevaa meN hai.



Hahahahaha. Sau baat ki ek baat. So true, Marrish sahab. I agree.


----------



## mundiya

"sanlagn" isn't a noun.  It's an adjective that means attached, associated, enclosed, etc.  Hence, Emp jii's sentence is perfectly fine.  Moreover, "lagn" doesn't mean attachment; "lagan" (from the verb lagnaa) does.


----------



## Englishmypassion

I think there is nothing wrong about sounding formal here. Isn't the given sentence _usually_ used in_ formal _context? I thought it is.


----------



## marrish

I mean that this sentence is fine but formal too, नीचे/साथ संलग्न हुआ कांट्रेक्ट (अनुबंध) आपकी सेवा में है। niiche/saath sanlagn(a) huaa kaaNTrekT aapkii sevaa meN hai. The use of three or four Sanskritic words, especially three adjectives clutched together that is saNlagna, hastaakSharit, lagaa hu'aa indicate that the necessary care has been taken of using formal Sanskrit tatsamas and abstaining from the commonly used from English kaaNTrekT. With hastaakShaarit we can say hastaakShar kiyaa hu'aa, and why not keep it in this special mode and say nimn-lagn(a) hastaakShar-dharii anubaNdh-patr aap kii seva meN prastut hai. I find a change in structure of "attached" and "signed" be creating space between on the one hand the contract having been attached and on the other hand that it had been signed. The direct vicinity of sanlagn and hastaakSharit in my opinion affects the lightness of the phrase somewhat too heavily. Perhaps it can be discussed or corrected?


----------



## Englishmypassion

I'm afraid, marrish jii, but I don't think "hastakshar-dhari" is a correct usage. I don't know why but "dhari" with hastakshar referring to a document sounds very odd to me. I guess it's because "dhari" is used with a living being, especially a person,  to mean "carrying"/ "having", e.g. bandookdhaari =(a person) carrying a gun),  jataadhaari = one having hairlocks.


----------



## littlepond

marrish said:


> "Said in a normal manner": I agree with the responses but to be frank, I would say in Hindi: नीचे/साथ लगा हुआ कांट्रेक्ट आपकी सेवा में है। niiche/saath lagaa huaa kaaNTrekT aapkii sevaa meN hai.



Lovely suggestion by marrish jii. I would not use "sanlagn" at all, as I myself would not have understood it: I wonder how many Hindi speakers would understand it, and even if they would, that would create a very strange opinion of the person writing using such language. Unless you do want to create such an opinion, amiamir jii.


----------

