# Urdu: Maine



## lcfatima

Can someone explain precisely why in for Urdu speakers who are influenced by Punjabi you get the mujhe/mujhko construction as maine, aapne, tumne, etc.

As in: Aapne nahin jaana hai?"
        "Nahin, maine nahin jaana."


----------



## francois_auffret

To tell you the truth, I've never ever heard, in a casual conversation *mujhe jaana hai*.... even from Karachi walley.... I don't think I've ever heard it in India neither...

The funny thing is that in the past it is more mujhey jaanaa thaa rather than maine jaanaa thaa... or in the future.... mujhey jaanaa hoga.... and not maine jaanaa hogaa...

I also thought it was the influence of Panjabi... I'm not sure anymore now....


----------



## lcfatima

I am specifically asking about the mujhe becomes maine thing. I hear this construction a lot. 

another example:

agar tumne maaf nahin kiya to maine khaana nahin khaana hai.

Here you see the "ne" in the first clause marking the ergative case as usual, then in the second clause it is that Punjabi-ish maine meaning mujhe/mujhe ko.

Francois, why do you  find "mujhe jaana hai" as marked? Can you explain more?


----------



## francois_auffret

lcfatima said:


> I am specifically asking about the mujhe becomes maine thing. I hear this construction a lot.
> 
> another example:
> 
> agar tumne maaf nahin kiya to maine khaana nahin khaana hai.
> 
> Here you see the "ne" in the first clause marking the ergative case as usual, then in the second clause it is that Punjabi-ish maine meaning mujhe/mujhe ko.
> 
> Francois, why do you find "mujhe jaana hai" as marked? Can you explain more?


 
I really have no explanation on this.... *Mujhe jaanaa hai* is actually the 'correct' and grammatical form which should be used. But I think that the *main ne* has become so widespread that it started being written too now... In the sentence you give

*agar tumne maaf nahin kiya to maine khaana nahin khaana hai.*

If I replace *main ne* by *mujhe* it would sound so artificial... or may be just wrong, I think, because the only 'written' or 'bookish' way of saying that would be *main khaana nahin khaoonga *rather that *mujhe khanaa nahi khaana*, What do you think??)

This *main ne* thing is a very tough question... First because it usage is not fixed yet... (You will agree with me that with the future (hoga) you will rather use *mujhe *and in the past (tha) I think both can work)

Then, it may come from Punjabi.... But even in Punjabi the *ne* particle is ergative and *main noo* and not *main ne* should be logically used.... Back to square one then for the Punjabi explanation...


----------



## lcfatima

Yes, I do get the same feeling as expressed in your synopsis.

I do think "mujhe" is prefered to "maine" by Hindustani origin native Urdu speakers though, for example by the muhaajir origin Karachi vallay.


----------



## lcfatima

I asked a few people and can confirm that to Indian origin Urdu speakers, non-Punjabis, that sounds marked and "paindu" to say "maine" for "mujhe" and it is the kind of thing they classify with saying feer for phir, haan ji for jee haan, etc.


----------



## panjabigator

My Hindi/Urdu professor and I discussed this the other day when I "slipped" and said "maine" instead of "mujhe." She said she almost never hears "mujhe" used in this type of phrase in Lahore and adapts her speech pattern to "maine." With Indians, I have only noted this usage with Panjabi and Hindi speaking Panjabis. Never with any other community (although Gujarati would make sense considering that "ne" translates to the Hindi/Urdu "ko"). 

Essential Urdu Grammar by Schmidt labels this tendency as an option and doesn't even intimate at being a Panjabi marked choice, which leads me to believe that this construction is now so widespread that it is ubiquitous even among non-Panjabi Urdu wallas. 

Now here is the thing. I myself never understand why the "ne" is used here. In Panjabi, "mujhe jaanaa hai" actually becomes "mai.n jaanaa hai." In the first singular and plural and the second person singular, there is no post position employed. The third person (and second person plural) can use either a "ne" or "nu" here, and I don't believe that either is at all nuanced, but the "ne" does seem to be preferred. There's got to be some research on it. I will do some digging and see what I find.



> But even in Punjabi the ne particle is ergative and main noo and not main ne should be logically used.... Back to square one then for the Punjabi explanation...


 
Very true, but for some reason, something else seems to be going on here. "Ne" fills the role for ergativity here and is preferred to "nu." The only thing I can surmise is that this "ne" fills another role other than transitivity. 

Where's a linguist when you need one?



lcfatima said:


> I asked a few people and can confirm that to Indian origin Urdu speakers, non-Punjabis, that sounds marked and "paindu" to say "maine" for "mujhe" and it is the kind of thing they classify with saying feer for phir, haan ji for jee haan, etc.


 
Are you saying that the Karachite prefers "jii haa.n" over "haa.n jii?"


----------



## lcfatima

Not just Karachi-ites. That is a myth that all Karachiites are pure Urdu speaking, all people living in Punjab are Punjabi origin. I am saying that to people who are immigrants or decentents of immigrants from Hindustan who are classified as "Urdu speaking," that saying haan ji, feer, etc. sounds too Punjabi, sounds paindu, or too truck driver or whatever. Jee haan is preferred. 

***
About the maine jaana hai thing, I asked a handful of people also about saying
"Maine nahin chahiye" and "maine nahin pata hai," and both sentences sounded off to those I asked. I suspected they would. I am not sure why  "maine yeh nahin khaana hai" with a verb is okay, but with pata, maloom, chahiye, etc. it sounds off.

One thing I can say is that people don't always say what they say that they say, so I will have to observe more. 

I can say for sure though that in my Lucknow origin Punjab settled in-laws home, maine, haan jee, also double syllabilizing single syllable words (darakhat for darakht, habbas for habs, goshat for gosht)---all of those things are markers of low class agricultural Punjabi origins. It is sheer snobbery, linguistically there is nothing wrong with this and this is all socially constructed, but nevertheless, haanjee will get you made fun of in certain circles.

One person I asked brought up the other obvious mutation of mujhe: mereko/tereko. Perhaps there is something innate about mujhe/mujhko that lends to mutation.


----------



## BP.

Sorry to re-kindle a dormant thread but this is one of the things I've been soldiering against........Somebody doing her PhD in some aspect of Urdu recently sent me a questionnaire and there they were in all there glory the words 'maiN nay'. Wrote an angry tirade over the papers. You see, maiN and 'maiN nay' don't mix well.

'Mujhay' is the composite form of 'mujh ko'. There's no use of 'maiN-nay' in Urdu when trying to express intent. Its simply grammatically wrong. Its 'mujay jaana hai'. I've only heard Punjabi colleagues say 'maiN-nai'. Some Gujarati/Memon guys do say 'mairay-ko'.

'maiN nai' is used in the past tense , e.g. the line of poetry "MaiN nay pairoN maN paayal to baaNdhi naheeN...".


----------



## panjabigator

Several questions: Is this a new function of <ne> in Urdu, and if not, how long has it been around?  Were the great Sufis Baba Farid and Waris Shah using <ne> in a similar fashion within their spoken Urdu?  Ok, I acknowedge that we can't really surmise speech patterns then, but you get my drift.  My next question is if we can call this <ne> shift gramaticalization.  

Belligerent Sahab, which would a Sindhi, Balochi, and Pakhtuun use: <mujhe> or <mai.n ne>?  

And while we are on the topic, what is the consensus of <mere ko> and <tere ko>?  It's definitely stigmitized, but is it regional to any Pakistani ilaqa?  

By the way, <xosh amdiid! Belligerent sahab.  aap ne apnii madaarii zabaan lakhnavii aur purbii farmaayii hai.n.  kaunsii purbii aatii hai aap ko?  mere xyaal se lakhnaa'o ke aas paas ilaqe me.n avadhi bolii jatii hai (ya phir bolii jaatii thii), magar aajkal ke lakhnaa'o me.n, rikshe walo.n se 'alaavaa, mai.n ne faqat urdu aur hindi hi sunii.n>


----------



## Faylasoof

panjabigator sahab,   This grammatically incorrect use of “maine jaana hai” is new in the sense that, I believe, it wasn’t common (amongst the educated ) before partition. It is quite likely Punjabi influence where, I think, you’ll say [please correct my Punjabi attempt, if wrong]:    mainu jaana hai (I have to / must / would like to go ).    I’m not familiar with the works of Baba Farid or Waris Shah in sufficient detail to answer your query. However, in pre-partition India, the use of “maine” instead of “mujhe or mujhko” in this context would have been recognised as an unforgivable grammatical folly even in the Punjab. The poet-philosopher Iqbal, a Punjabi, wrote in both Farsi and Urdu. Looking through his Urdu works it is abundantly clear that he didn’t make the blunder of confusing a proper Punjabi expression with Urdu. Here is Iqbal (replacing “mujhe” with “maine” makes the verse completely unintelligible:  “mujhe phooNka hai soz-e-qatra-e-ashk-e-mohabbat ne,    ghazab ki aag thee paani ke chhote se sharaar mein”      It is not relevant if people (Sindhis, Balochis, Pathans, Punjabis etc., anyone in fact, speak WRONG Urdu!! They do so because they have been taught incorrectly – declining educational standards are more widespread the world over than we realise.        In the enterprise of keeping high Urdu standards, I wholeheartedly support Belligerentpacifict saahab’s crusade!


----------



## BP.

gator bhayya, I'll try answer in the same order as your questions.

As for Baba Farid or Waris Shah or any other Punjabi stalwarts using 'nay' while expressing intent - I'm not even aware of any of their work in Urdu, and its a shame I know too little Punjabi to really appreciate their Punjabi work. Will work on that lacuna (can you help?) once I'm done learning some Hindi vocab., which in itself is pretty interesting.

I'm not a linguist and not familiar with all the terms. What does 'shift grammaticalization' mean? If you mean a change in a grammar rule along the chronological  line, then yes, it has become widespread during the last 50 something years. Our parents friends don't make this 'mistake' if you will, but mine do.

Over the years in Pakistan, Urdu has become more and more Punjabized. This is because of Panjabis' overwhelming acceptence of Urdu. But they've invented their own 'dabistan' ('maktaba-e-fikr' or school of thought) instead of adhering to either to that of Delhi or Lucknow. That should already tell you that _most_ Panjabis in Pakistan use 'maiN nay' instead of 'mujhay'. But so have others more likely to mix with them, congregate together and intermarry, notably Pukhtuns and Muhajirs. Then its all the time on the tele and in the papers, so naturally the Pakistani dabistan-e-Urdu has taken that turn, we like it or not. That doesn't make 'maiN nay' grammatically right though! Only popular, but not correct. Like 'mashkoor' in lieu of 'shaakir' or 'shukr guzaar'. But its true that the problem is not having learnt the language properly, the lack of proper schooling is the culprit. Faylasoof miaN gave the example of Iqbal, education made that difference.

'mairay ko' as I said earlier (and I think you missed reading that part) is popular among the Gujaraati community, spread from Karachi to KathiawaR to Mumba'i, and among those Urduvalay who speak the baazaari language of Delhi (I'm NOT talking of the aristocratic khaRa Dehelvi accent). And of course all the youth who can't sleep until they've seen at least one Bwood flick, from where they pick this lingo. I haven't yet heard this outside of the Karachi+its suburbs ka Ilaaqa.

Tashakkur sad baar for your welcome. Biraadar-e-azizi, it might shock you but Purbi language isn't/wasn't spoken in any Purbi region (east India, bengal etc). My great-grandparents are from Lucknow and Kanpur, and the ancient-sounding dialect they spoke was called Purbi('Eastern' in Persian). It was the language that Amir Khusro did some of his poetry in and many qavvalis to this day are in Purbi (eg 'aaj rang hai', 'man kunto maula', 'naina mila'i kay'). For me the distinguishing feature of this dialect is the borrowing of entire phrases and not just words of Farsi and sewing them together with Hindi. I think this dialect is called Brij Bhaasha nowadays. The shift to Urdu began during gramps' generation when they attended Aligarh U and mixed with Urdudaans of disparate backgrounds. Then '47 was a watershed in this transition to a more standardized Urdu. By my generation the link is practically lost, and so is that with Farsi proper, though at a personal level I'm trying to resuscitate them links.

Falsafi bhayya, thanks for rallying for the cause of grammatical correctness. The problem is that Urdu in school books for the Urdu language course may be correctly explained, but the teachers don't speak it right and the parents at home don't speak it right. The poor book isn't even read thoroughly so it can't make a dent in whatever incorrect grammar the spoken word is pouring into kids' brains.
I'm only trying to rectify my own mistakes, those of close friends and those of language lovers on this forum.


----------



## panjabigator

> It is quite likely Punjabi influence where, I think, you’ll say [please correct my Punjabi attempt, if wrong]: mainu jaana hai (I have to / must / would like to go ).



In the first and second person, you don't need the <nuu.n> (Urdu: <ko>).  
<mai.n jaaNaa hai>  = <mujhe jaanaa hai>
<tusii.n jaaNaa hai> = <aapko jaanaa hai>
<asii.n jaaNaa hai> = <hamvko jaanaa hai>

but, in the plural (except the given <asii.n>) and third person (both singular and plural),

<asii.n lokaa.n ne jaaNaa hai> = <ham logo.n ko jaanaa hai>
<tusii.n lokaa.n ne jaaNaa hai> = <aap logo.n ko jaanaa hai>
<oh ne jaaNaa hai> = <us ko jaanaa hai>
<ihnaa.n ne jaaNaa hai> = <inho.n ne jaanaa hai>

The <ne> and <nuu.n> here are interchangeable in some sentences.  <mai.n ne jaaNaa> is, surprisingly, incorrect and unheard of Panjabi.  Hope this helps.


----------



## panjabigator

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Tashakkur sad baar for your welcome. Biraadar-e-azizi, it might shock you but Purbi language isn't/wasn't spoken in any Purbi region (east India, bengal etc). My great-grandparents are from Lucknow and Kanpur, and the ancient-sounding dialect they spoke was called Purbi('Eastern' in Persian). It was the language that Amir Khusro did some of his poetry in and many qavvalis to this day are in Purbi (eg 'aaj rang hai', 'man kunto maula', 'naina mila'i kay'). For me the distinguishing feature of this dialect is the borrowing of entire phrases and not just words of Farsi and sewing them together with Hindi. I think this dialect is called Brij Bhaasha nowadays. The shift to Urdu began during gramps' generation when they attended Aligarh U and mixed with Urdudaans of disparate backgrounds. Then '47 was a watershed in this transition to a more standardized Urdu. By my generation the link is practically lost, and so is that with Farsi proper, though at a personal level I'm trying to resuscitate them links.



So are you a Braj Bhasha speaker?  It is an AMAZING language, with very beautiful poetry and a playful rhythm.  I've read the Khusro lines with Farsi and Braj Bhasha (sometimes called Bhakha) interspersed together, and it's sheer linguistic beauty.  I'll see if I can find a line and post it.


----------



## Illuminatus

In India, this usage is very very typical of Punjabi people, and is one of those things you do when you want to imitate an accent!

To my ears, it sounds a bit silly. Anyhow, it is never spoken in Rajasthan/Maharashtra/UP/MP etc


----------



## lcfatima

> In the first and second person, you don't need the <nuu.n> (Urdu: <ko>).
> <mai.n jaaNaa hai> = <mujhe jaanaa hai>
> <tusii.n jaaNaa hai> = <aapko jaanaa hai>
> <asii.n jaaNaa hai> = <hamvko jaanaa hai>



My husband says _mainu jaaNa a_ and also _tenu jaaNa a_ are used. Maybe in dialects of Pakistani Punjabi this is the _nu_ to _ne_.


----------



## Koozagar

lcfatima said:


> My husband says _mainu jaaNa a_ and also _tenu jaaNa a_ are used. Maybe in dialects of Pakistani Punjabi this is the _nu_ to _ne_.



For expression of intent, 'mainu' is not used, as far as I know. I would agree with PG, 'maiN Lahore jaana aay' would be the common construction in speech.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Over the years in Pakistan, Urdu has become more and more Punjabized. This is because of Panjabis' overwhelming acceptence of Urdu. But they've invented their own 'dabistan' ('maktaba-e-fikr' or school of thought) instead of adhering to either to that of Delhi or Lucknow. That should already tell you that _most_ Panjabis in Pakistan use 'maiN nay' instead of 'mujhay'. But so have others more likely to mix with them, congregate together and intermarry, notably Pukhtuns and Muhajirs. Then its all the time on the tele and in the papers, so naturally the Pakistani dabistan-e-Urdu has taken that turn, we like it or not. That doesn't make 'maiN nay' grammatically right though! Only popular, but not correct. Like 'mashkoor' in lieu of 'shaakir' or 'shukr guzaar'. But its true that the problem is not having learnt the language properly, the lack of proper schooling is the culprit. Faylasoof miaN gave the example of Iqbal, education made that difference.




I won't bother offering a rebuttal but will say this much.

dil ko be-taabiyoN ne luuT liyaa
diin WahaabiyoN ne luuT liyaa
raat qissah sunaa ke RaaNjhe kaa
ham ko PanjaabiyoN ne luuT liyaa!

(Syed Inshaullah Khan Insha?)


----------



## Koozagar

QURESHPOR said:


> I won't bother offering a rebuttal but will say this much.
> 
> dil ko be-taabiyoN ne luuT liyaa
> diin WahaabiyoN ne luuT liyaa
> raat qissah sunaa ke RaaNjhe kaa
> ham ko PanjaabiyoN ne luuT liyaa!
> 
> (Syed Inshaullah Khan Insha?)



wah wah! will post a detailed response later.


----------



## Qureshpor

Fatima SaaHibah has asked an interesting question. Essentially, the query is to do with..

mujhe/hameN jaanaa hai
tujhe/tumheN/aap ko jaanaa hai
use/unheN jaanaa hai

vs

maiN ne/ham ne jaanaa hai
tuu ne/tum ne/aap ne jaanaa hai
us ne/unhoN ne jaanaa hai

The former, with "ko" (whether implicit or explicit) from a grammatical perspective is termed as the "dative" and the latter, with "ne", is called the "ergative".

Questions:

1) Which option is grammatically correct?

2) Where does the "ne" (ergative) usage originate from?

3) What are the literary trends of this usage?

4) What is the position of linguists on this matter?



1) Which option is grammatically correct?

Without a shadow of doubt, the "ko" form is the correct one. BUT, the "ne" version is now deemed to be also correct for it expresses "want/desire" only where as the "ko" form expresses both "want/desire" and "necessity". Here are views of two Urdu grammar writers.

"In the everyday Urdu of Pakistan, the logical subject of the sentence may be followed by "ko" or by "ne": maiN ne Dinar par jaanaa thaa, "I was supposed to go (out) to dinner". In dialects which have this option, the case of "ko" tends to be restricted to external circumstances under the speaker's control, whereas "ne" refers to circumstances permitting internal choice, or neutral circumstances. This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi.."

(Urdu: An Essential Grammar by Ruth Laila Schmidt [Routledge 1999]

This, I hope answers PG's question, " Is this a new function of <ne> in Urdu...?".

"Since the fifties, influenced by standard usage in Punjabi, many Pakistani Urdu writers and speakers commonly use the postposition "ne" in this indirect construction, instead of the original "ko" which is still the standard in India*. Both usages are now equally correct in Urdu".

* One of my non-Punjabi friends who has lived in his childhood in Delhi has told me that he has heard this usage there. In fact, he himself has employed this usage.

(Naim.C.M: Introductory Urdu (Volume one): South Asian Language & Area Center, University of Chicago 1999)

More on this in answer to question 4).

2) Where does the "ne" (ergative) usage originate from?

Several people in this thread have suggested that this is a typically Punjabi usage, both in Pakistan and India. I have my doubts for the reasons PG, francois_auffret and Koozagar SaaHibaan have offered. But, on this point I would have to go along with Faylasoof SaaHib when he says, "It is not relevant if people (Sindhis, Balochis, Pathans, Punjabis etc,. anyone in fact) speak WRONG Urdu!!! They do so because they have been taught incorrectly". For the "etc", I would like to add "ahl-i-zabaan" as well, for they too are "guilty" of this "misusage". Regarding "WRONG Urdu", one would need to be conscious of this usage with the new meaning mentioned above. 

  3) What are the literary trends of this usage?

Modern Urdu grammar books (e.g. Ruth Laila Schmidt and C.M.Naim mentioned above) are begining to include the "ne" form. Whilst Schmidt, a European scholar states that.." This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi", Naim from Barabanki says, "Both usages are now equally correct in Urdu".

  Couple of quotes from Fatima SaaHibah.

  I do think "mujhe" is prefered to "maine" by Hindustani origin native Urdu speakers though, for example by the muhaajir origin Karachi vallay..".

  "I asked a few people and can confirm that to Indian origin Urdu speakers, non-Punjabis, that sounds marked and "paindu" to say "maine" for "mujhe"..."

.......................................................................

  And here are a couple of quotes from "paindus".

  “is ko kisii kaa Khayaal nahiiN aa rahaa apne 'ilaavah to us ne kyaa karnaa hai?”
  (Iftikhar Arif: Pind= Lucknow; From Jashn-i-Iftikhar Arif on Youtube)

  Below is a piece of dialogue from the drama serial “Tanhaa’iyaaN”.

  A. maiN tumheN kaafii pilaataa huuN. baRii zabardast! chalo uTho!
  B. main nahiiN jaa’uuN gii.
  A. do ghaNTe meN tumhaaraa daftar bhaag to nahiiN jaa’e gaa!
  B. main ne nahiiN jaanaa {(I told you) I won’t go}

  (Haseena Moin: Pind=Kanpur)

  In another forum, the following couplet from a renowned modern Ghazal-go poet, Zafar Iqbal, was posted by a staunch Urdu lover, Syed Zafar. Yours truly commented about its structure and a lengthy discussion ensued.

  yih ghar jis kaa hai us ne vaapas aanaa hai kabhii is meN
  isii Khaatir dar-o-diivaar chamkaa’e rakhte haiN

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....aapas+aana+hai+kabhi+is+meN+#73e126a42e50389a

  A gentleman who happens to be an “ahl-i-zabaan” (from India) makes the following very pertinent remarks in the above mentioned discussion.

  “Briefly, I would say that I am in agreement with Zafar Saheb that the 'tarkeeb' --- "us ne waapas aana hai" --- is quite OK.  This sort of usage has been seen in Urdu writings for many many years, though we may not be able to quote any specific examples here. 

  As in "lab-o-lehja", variants in general Urdu usages can be found even in writings.  It is quite on the cards that the above usage may be used commonly in the Punjab, but that (in itself) does not make it questionable.  Possibly, "ahl-e- zabaan" may not use this 'tarkeeb', but then the Urdu world is not peopled by "ahl-e-zabaan" alone”.

On the same forum, on 15th August 2011, a Ghazal by Abbas Tabish was posted with the matla'...

tuu ne vaise bhii mire dil se nikal jaanaa thaa
mere lahje mirii aavaaz meN Dhal jaanaa thaa

  It appears therefore that the “ne” construction is coming within the acceptability fold.

4) What is the position of linguists on this matter?

  Linguists are not necessarily concerned with whether something is grammatically correct or not. They analyse the material they find in real life and attempt to offer an explanation for its usage. The following is taken from Miriam Butt’s paper entitled “The Dative-Ergative Connection” published in 2006.

  Naadiya ko zoo jaanaa hai

  Naadia has/wants to go to the zoo

  Naadia ne zoo jaanaa hai

  Naadia wants to go to the zoo

  The erative again seems to signal greater control over the action in the sense that only the _want_ modality is expressed with an ergative subject, when the dative can express both _necessity_ and _desire_."

http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/butt-eiss6.pdf
 
Elena Bashir in her paper, "Urdu and Linguistics: A Fraught But Evolving Relationship" says the following..

"One example of such change is the reanalysis of the ergative marker ne to indicate agency and even future intention.This change has been long noted and much discussed in the literature and has by now become emblematic of Pakistani Urdu* as a seperate variety".

http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/26/11ElenaBashir.pdf
 
* I would just like to add that I do not personally subscribe to the divisive "Indian Urdu" and "Pakistani Urdu" terms. Sure, there are regional variations within India and Pakistan but these differences do not in themselves warrant seperate terminology.


----------



## lcfatima

Very fascinating. Thanks for compiling the example usages and research.


----------



## marrish

I've decided to blow a new life to this thread in order to come to more conclusions. All the participants have expressed their doubts, questions and opinions, there was a detailed exchange of linguistic examples, and, last but not least, the substantial research presented by QP SaaHib in post #20. 

Up to now there have been many points in the discussion which stirred my curiosity, be it linguistic or discursive; but I haven't made up my mind yet with regard to this phenomenon.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that the title of the thread would better do as 'Urdu: *maiN ne*'. 
At the first glance I thought it dealt with regional form of _mahiine_, like _tiin *maine* hu'e_...

And now the question I've had pretty much trouble with: 

Could you please 'dissect' the following sentence and air your views regarding its grammar?

_مگر ہم نے اِس کی قیمت بڑھانی تھی نہ بڑھائی magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii._


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Could you please 'dissect' the following sentence and air your views regarding its grammar?
> 
> _مگر ہم نے اِس کی قیمت بڑھانی تھی نہ بڑھائی magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii._



kyaa aap vaaHid Haazir se muxaatib haiN yaa jam3 Haazir se? In other words who are you addressing marrish SaaHib?


----------



## marrish

_is laRii meN aap hii vaaHid Haazir haiN, janaab!

is baar bhii ba-zaahir merii laa-parvaa'ii ke baa'3is yih baat pinhaaN rahii kih maiN kis se muxaatib huuN, magar yih mas'alah Ghayr-munfarid tarz-e xitaab kaa lagtaa hai kih taa Haal ko'ii navaazish nah hu'ii.
_
Let me renew my request: each and every member of the forum is welcome to offer some analysis to my sentence, those registered and those who might read this post. I'm naturally expressedly addressing the friends who have contributed to this thread already, that is lcfatima SaaHibah, francois_auffret SaaHib, janaabaan-e panjabigator SaaHib, BelligerentPacifist SaaHib, Faylasoof SaaHib, Illuminatus SaaHib and Koozagar SaaHib and the last but not least, Qureshpor SaaHib.

It is such a tiny sentence, please don't hesitate!


----------



## marrish

UM saahab, apart from my request to analyze the above sentence, could you please share your view on the phenomenon as described in this thread? Are you familiar with this usage in your environment?


----------



## marrish

I'm really restless about this sentence that appears to be a very concise manner of expression:
_
magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

_I think it can be split in two parts:

_ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaa'ii _- we haven't increased its price.

In this clause, the particle 'ne' denotes the agent, but when one attempts to extract the other clause, one is put before a choice:
_
1) ham ne is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii _

- assuming that the particle 'ne' serves both clauses, analogically to 'nah', which occurs only once in the sentence under consideration but obviously influences both clauses, or:

_2) ham is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii_.

We can rephrase the sentence in this way:

_magar ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii
_

Is there anyone who could help in ascertaining whether the option 1) or 2) is the right way of thinking?


----------



## Qureshpor

^ marrish jii, I was waiting for UM jii to respond. ba-har Haal..

_magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.

_I understand this sentence to mean...

magar ham ne nah to is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii aur nah hii baRhaa'ii.

But neither did we intend to increase its price nor did we actually increase it.

Your sentence would still come under faulty grammar since the purists would say that the correct version ought to be.._

magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. (__hameN/ham ko replaces ham ne)_


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ marrish jii, I was waiting for UM jii to respond. ba-har Haal..
> 
> _magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.
> 
> _I understand this sentence to mean...
> 
> magar ham ne nah to is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii aur nah hii baRhaa'ii.
> 
> But neither did we intend to increase its price nor did we actually increase it.
> 
> Your sentence would still come under faulty grammar since the purists would say that the correct version ought to be.._
> 
> magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. (__hameN/ham ko replaces ham ne)_



Qureshpor jii, I'm deeply indebted to you for daring to touch this matter. I concur with you understanding of this sentence. 

As far as your remark regarding the faulty grammar is concerned, I do agree that another way to render it wold be 
_magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.
_
It seems that the particle 'ne' is totally redundant in your sentence.

With respect to the faulty grammar I have some reservations to classify this sentence this way. By the way, would you say that it is 'regional Urdu'?


----------



## Alfaaz

> Your sentence would still come under faulty grammar since the purists would say that the correct version ought to be.._
> magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. (__hameN/ham ko replaces ham ne)_


Sorry to interrupt, but I didn't understand this... 

In another thread on this topic, BP SaaHib had mentioned "Main ne pairoN mein payal to bandhi nahiN, kyuN sada aarahi hai"....If I remember correctly, it was established that this is correct with the following: 
The lady didn't wear an anklet (past), but is still hearing jingles (present) 

Similarly, Faiz's "mujh se pehli si maHabbat mere maHbuub nah mang, main ne samjha tha keh tu hai to...." was mentioned and it was established that this is correct with the following: 
The poet is asking his lover now (present), but had thought about his lover (past)

So in the example sentence above (if I am reading and understanding it correctly), shouldn't humne work as it is discussing the past?
magar hum ne is kii qiimat baRhaani thi (past) nah baRhaa'ii (present or past).......


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> So in the example sentence above (if I am reading and understanding it correctly), shouldn't hum ne work as it is discussing the past?
> magar hum ne is kii qiimat baRhaani thi (past) nah baRhaa'ii (present or past).......



This sentence is of the type..

ham ne Lahore jaanaa thaa (magar jaa nah sake).

This ought to be..

hameN/ham ko Lahore jaanaa thaa (magar jaa nah sake)

So, ham ne qiimat baRhaanii thii (magar nahiiN baRhaa'ii) is wrong.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ marrish jii, I was waiting for UM jii to respond. ba-har Haal..
> 
> _magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.
> 
> _I understand this sentence to mean...
> 
> magar ham ne nah to is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii aur nah hii baRhaa'ii.
> 
> But neither did we intend to increase its price nor did we actually increase it.
> 
> Your sentence would still come under faulty grammar since the purists would say that the correct version ought to be.._
> 
> magar hameN/ham ko is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. (__hameN/ham ko replaces ham ne)_



My apologies, marrish saahab. Somehow I missed the question addressed to me until seeing my name in this post. Yes the sentence sounds familiar to me, with the exception of what QP saahab suggested above (_hameN_ to replace _ham ne_). Although _ham ne_ is also commonly heard. Normally the nah or nahin is not repeated in such statements, but it is understood to apply in both cases.

Also from what I was able to gather from your post #26, "_ham is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii" _does not sound correct.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> With respect to the faulty grammar I have some reservations to classify this sentence this way. By the way, would you say that it is 'regional Urdu'?



C.M.Naim does not consider your type of sentence wrong but on the whole most people who know about correct usage deem it wrong and say that this is Punjabi style. I have said this elsewhere that I am not certain about this and I have quoted examples from non-Punjabi speakers.

I have also indicated that the sentence with "ne", according to Ruth Laila Schmidt (Urdu-An Essential Grammar), adds another aspect to the meaning, namely that whereas "ko" gives an external compulsion, "ne" gives an internal choice.


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz jii, you are most welcome to participate and your contribution can by no means be thought of as an interruption! I hope you will understand why I didn't invite you by name to take part in this discussion, since I've requested the attention of friends who have already contributed here over a period of years.

What I can make out of this sentence and the use of 'ne' in connection to tenses (if I understand your question correctly), it is indeed used to address the past. However, in English, we have a tense called 'present perfect' which extends from the past to the present. This would be aptly correlated with the sentence I presented being ''ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaa'ii hai'' but I don't consider myself as having the authority to change this sentence. 

The translation which our Qureshpor SaaHib offered is very good but I'm thinking that it could be also possible to say 'we haven't increased its price'.


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> My apologies, marrish saahab. Somehow I missed the question addressed to me until seeing my name in this post. Yes the sentence sounds familiar to me, with the exception of what QP saahab suggested above (_hameN_ to replace _ham ne_). Although _ham ne_ is also commonly heard. Normally the nah or nahin is not repeated in such statements, but it is understood to apply in both cases.
> 
> Also from what I was able to gather from your post #26, "_ham is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii" _does not sound correct.




UM saahab, thank you for replying and confirming that ham ne is commonly heard as well. I absolutely agree that nah is not repeated in such kind of sentences but it is a question of good style versus a bad one. UM saahab, there is no need to apologize since you have been the most prompt person to offer a contribution, this being within a scope of one day, in stark contrast to other members, out of whom the most haven't responded yet at all.

The case of repeating nah or not doing so is not really the point of my query, since we are proceeding on using 'ne', which we all best know is widely heard with constructions expressing intention to do or not to do something.

I agree with your opinion regarding my post #26, it is indeed a mere speculation which is not correct, so the only option left is that the clause reads:
_
ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaanii thii._


----------



## Alfaaz

> Alfaaz jii, you are most welcome to participate and your contribution can by no means be thought of as an interruption! I hope you will understand why I didn't invite you by name to take part in this discussion, since I've requested the attention of friends who have already contributed here over a period of years.
> 
> What I can make out of this sentence and the use of 'ne' in connection to tenses (if I understand your question correctly), it is indeed used to address the past. However, in English, we have a tense called 'present perfect' which extends from the past to the present. This would be aptly correlated with the sentence I presented being ''ham ne is kii qiimat nah baRhaa'ii hai'' but I don't consider myself as having the authority to change this sentence.
> 
> The translation which our Qureshpor SaaHib offered is very good but I'm thinking that it could be also possible to say 'we haven't increased its price'.


I hope you didn't misunderstand...I used "sorry to interrupt" because you all seemed to be discussing one topic....and I came with a (kind of) random question suddenly out of nowhere!  

Thanks for the explanation! (I think I remember a little about this from English and Latin studies, and now Qureshpor SaaHib's description above about the "kind of sentence" makes a little bit more sense that you have mentioned present perfect...!)


----------



## marrish

All I can do is to praise you, Alfaaz jii, for picking the meaningful part of Qureshpor SaaHib's response, and him for using 'your kind of sentence'.

But after all, present perfect or not, it is not relevant for this discussion. 

Your contribution is certainly not off-topic since we are busy with the use of ''ne''.


----------



## Qureshpor

ek latiifah

ek martabah "All India Radio" ke saabiq mudiir/chairman se kisii ne daryaaft kiyaa kih janaab yih baataiye kih "*maiN ne* vahaaN jaanaa hai" Thiik hai yaa "*mujhe* vahaaN jaanaa hai". unhoN *ne* javaab diyaa, "*maiN* *ne* vahaaN jaanaa hai" durust hai. is par puuchhne vaale *ne* Hairat kaa izhaar kiyaa kih janaab aap itne baRe urdu-daan hote hu'e yih kaise farmaate haiN! is par Hazrat *ne* kahaa kih, "miyaaN baat siidhii sii hai. "*mujhe* vahaaN jaana hai" se sirf yih pataa chaltaa haik jaanaa kahaaN hai. jab kih "*maiN ne* vahaaN jaanaa hai" se ye bhii ma3luum ho jaataa hai kih aa'e kahaaN se haiN!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> ek latiifah
> 
> ek martabah "All India Radio" ke saabiq mudiir/chairman se kisii ne daryaaft kiyaa kih janaab yih baataiye kih "*maiN ne* vahaaN jaanaa hai" Thiik hai yaa "*mujhe* vahaaN jaanaa hai". unhoN *ne* javaab diyaa, "*maiN* *ne* vahaaN jaanaa hai" durust hai. is par puuchne vaale *ne* Hairat kaa izhaar kiyaa kih janaab aap itne baRe urdu-daan hote hu'e yih kaise farmaate haiN! is par Hazrat *ne* kahaa kih, "miyaaN baat siidhii sii hai. "*mujhe* vahaaN jaana hai" se sirf yih pataa chaltaa haik jaanaa kahaaN hai. jab kih "*maiN ne* vahaaN jaanaa hai" se ye bhii ma3luum ho jaataa hai kih aa'e kahaaN se haiN!



Dear Qureshpor SaaHib, thank you for introducing this ''latiifah''!!! It being so hilarious, it is difficult for me to pose further questions about it because it would condemn me as a guy who lacks the sense of humour totally, but please, tell us, vuh Hazrat kahaaN se aa'e the?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Dear Qureshpor SaaHib, thank you for introducing this ''latiifah''!!! It being so hilarious, it is difficult for me to pose further questions about it because it would condemn me as a guy who lacks the sense of humour totally, but please, tell us, vuh Hazrat kahaaN se aa'e the?



The implication marrish SaaHib is this: When someone says "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai", he/she informs the listener not only that he/she wishes to go there but also the listener finds out that he/she has come from the Punjab!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> The implication marrish SaaHib is this: When someone says "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai", he/she informs the listener not only that he/she wishes to go there but also the listener finds out that he/she has come from the Punjab!


This is what I gathered from the above, but please, do me a favour, you as a Punjabi expert, how would you say the sentence from the _latiifah_ and the sentence which was posted by me in Punjabi?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> This is what I gathered from the above, but please, do me a favour, you as a Punjabi expert, how would you say the sentence from the _latiifah_ and the sentence which was posted by me in Punjabi?



marrish SaaHib, I have always known that in Punjabi, "ne" is not used. But, if people wish to say that this is Punjabi influence, what can one say but have a good laugh!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> marrish SaaHib, I have always known that in Punjabi, "ne" is not used. But, if people wish to say that this is Punjabi influence, what can one say but have a good laugh!




I join you in the laughter, more so after this nicely rendered anecdote ! Would you mind to translate these sentences into Punjabi, just for the record?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> This is what I gathered from the above, but please, do me a favour, you as a Punjabi expert, how would you say the sentence from the _latiifah_ and the sentence which was posted by me in Punjabi?



_ Urdu: magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.
_
Punjabi: par nah asaaN ehdii kiimat vadhaaNRii sii nah vadhaa'ii.

_Urdu: mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai._

Punjabi: maiN othe jaaNRaa e.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> _ Urdu: magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii.
> _
> Punjabi: par nah asaaN ehdii kiimat vadhaaNRii sii nah vadhaa'ii
> 
> _Urdu: mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai_
> 
> Punjabi: maiN othe jaaNRaa e



Thank you so much for this. It is exactly the way I would say them in Punjabi, and this fact is a matter of satisfaction for me whose knowledge of Punjabi is limited.

It is beyond speculation that Punjabi doesn't employ 'ne' in these sentences.

I'm still wondering what was being implied by classifying the usage of 'ne' in the sense as dealt with in this thread as regional (of course might be!).


----------



## Alfaaz

> _Urdu: mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai.
> 
> _Punjabi: maiN othe jaaNRaa e.



I could be wrong, but I have also heard: 
_Main-nu othe jaaNRaa ae_.....

Urdu: _mujhe le chal, le chal mujhe kaheeN duur un waadiyoN mein....
_Punjabi translation: _mainnu le chal, le chal mainnu kitte duur uNRaa waadiyaaN (w)ich...._ (sorry if this is a bad example, off-topic different kind of sentence,............. or just a poor translation of an Urdu sentence into Punjabi )


----------



## Qureshpor

^ In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You can not be serious"! I don't know of any kind of Punjabi in which one would find the sentence you have provided!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You can not be serious"! I don't know of any kind of Punjabi in which one would find the sentence you have provided!


 Why, mukarramii, maiN nuuN lai chal would be perfectly good Punjabi!


----------



## Alfaaz

I just edited the post to give another (probably wrong) example! 



> ^ In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You can not be serious"! I don't know of any kind of Punjabi in which one would find the sentence you have provided!


; Maybe I heard a "fake Punjabi" or unaware person then....


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> ; Maybe I heard a "fake Punjabi" or unaware person then....



I could imagine myself addressed by this term of ''fake Punjabi'' since it is not my mother tongue, but I can't imagine myself speaking Punjabi like this.


----------



## marrish

Letting aside Punjabi, since this language appears not to have anything to do with the topic, as ascertained previously by panjabigator SaaHib and Koozagar SaaHib, and by Qureshpor SaaHib recently, I'm still wondering why this thread is called ''regional Urdu'''.


----------



## Alfaaz

^ (Edit: Read your post after posting!)


> but I can't imagine myself speaking Punjabi like this.


So does that mean that the example above was wrong...and the quote below was a sarcastic remark.....?



> Why, mukarramii, maiN nuuN lai chal would be perfectly good Punjabi!



So does that mean that nuuN isn't used at all, or just wouldn't be used in "mainnu othe jaane e" for "mujhe wahaaN jaana hai".....? 

Another example scenario, not sure, maybe it is a different kind of sentence/word usage: 

Punajbi:
_Son: maiNRuu otthe jaaNR de maaN! Oyeeeee Shaukeya (with a Sultaan Rahi accent)! kitthe rakhiiyaa ae mera gandaasa? Bandook kitthe ae? (__  __with thundering music in the background)_
_Mother: Main tennu Hukam deni aaN, Ruk jaa we paagLaa! (   __with disturbing/depressing music in the background...Punjabi film mother style)_

Urdu translation:
_Son: Mujhe wahaaN jaane daiN/dijiye Ammi Huzuur! Are O Shaaauuukat (with a Dilip Kumar or Nadeem accent)! kahaaN rakhaa hai humara gandaasa? Banduuq kahaaN hai? (with violin crescendos in bckgd)_
_Mohter: Hum tumhein Hukm dete hain, ruk jaa'o bewuquf shakhs! (Sabiha Khanum style, as in Ladlaa, with sad high pitched flute music in the background)_


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Alfaaz, without resorting to the dramatics of cinema, "mainuuN" (mujhe) is perfectly fine in Punjabi but NOT "mainuuN jaaNRaa e".


----------



## lcfatima

Does Gujarati construct X ko as X ne?

EDIT: Not and...as


----------



## marrish

lcfatima said:


> Does Gujarati construct X ko and X ne?



lcfatima SaaHibah, if I understand your question correctly, Gujarati ''ko'' is not the same as Urdu and Hindi ''ko''. In Gujarati, it is a pronoun, which in Hindi and Urdu is ''ko'ii''. As for ''ne'', your question is certainly not off-topic, because Urdu ''ko'' translates into Gujarati as ''ne''!

A Gujarati dictionary describes ''ne'' as follows:



> termination of the accusative and dative cases, and of the possessive case of a noun used in conjunction with a noun in the instrumental or locative case; used at end of sentence or after verb in imperative mood in the sense of importunity, reality; with a verb in the interrogative mood it expresses importunity or affirmation.​



Urdu ''mujhe'' ---> Gujarati ''mane''.


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> So does that mean that the example above was wrong...and the quote below was a sarcastic remark.....?
> 
> So does that mean that nuuN isn't used at all, or just wouldn't be used in "mainnu othe jaane e" for "mujhe wahaaN jaana hai".....?
> 
> Another example scenario, not sure, maybe it is a different kind of sentence/word usage:



As already explained by Qureshpor SaaHib, the first sentence you wrote is wrong. My comment referred to the first clause of your second sentence, which is correct. I don't understand where you managed to find sarcasm in that question of mine, I simply addressed QP SaaHib to say that not the whole of your text was wrong, indeed, the first clause of your second sentence was correct (although not related to the topic!).


----------



## Alfaaz

^I guess it kind of makes sense now...Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I still detect doubt! What is it that is not quite clear, Alfaaz ?


----------



## Alfaaz

> ^ I still detect doubt! What is it that is not quite clear, Alfaaz ?


I appreciate your asking; after discussing it with a few "pure Panjabi" speakers, I understand it now (and the problem above).

maiN ne kal wahaaN se kitaab uThaa'ii (thi). 
maiN kal uthoN kitaab chuki (si). 

mujhe aaj wahaaN se kitaab uThaani hai. 
maiN ajj uthoN kitaab chukni ae.

mujhe kaam karne ke liye khaamoshi chahiye. 
mainuN kam karan aaste/laeii khamoshi chaidi ae/di loR ae.

(Didn't mean to drag my Punjabi questions into the Urdu thread, but thanks to everyone for helping!)


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> I appreciate your asking; after discussing it with a few "pure Panjabi" speakers, I understand it now (and the problem above).
> 
> maiN ne kal wahaaN se kitaab uThaa'ii (thi).
> maiN kal uthoN kitaab chuki (si).
> 
> mujhe aaj wahaaN se kitaab uThaani hai.
> maiN ajj uthoN kitaab chukni ae.
> 
> (Didn't mean to drag my Punjabi questions into the Urdu thread, but thanks to everyone for helping!)



As my place of birth is not a million miles from Lucknow, I would say "uThaanaa"! And, despite my proximity to Lucknow, I  have managed to get a good grounding in Punjabi and as a consequence I would say "chukNRii"!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> As my place of birth is not a million miles from Lucknow, I would say "uThaanaa"! And, despite my proximity to Lucknow, I  have managed to get a good grounding in Punjabi and as a consequence I would say "chukNRii"!


I concur with your remarks, Qureshpor SaaHib .


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> (Didn't mean to drag my Punjabi questions into the Urdu thread, but thanks to everyone for helping!)


Alfaaz jii, references to Punjabi have been made from the very beginning of this Urdu ''regional'' thread (be it unjustifiedly), so I believe your queries regarding Punjabi, as long as they deal with expressing intent or the use of ''ne'' (or as has been pointed out, its absence).


----------



## Alfaaz

> As my place of birth is not a million miles from Lucknow, I would say "uThaanaa"! And, despite my proximity to Lucknow, I have managed to get a good grounding in Punjabi and as a consequence I would say "chukNRii"!


 Thanks for the corrections! I also concur with your remarks! (was typing while going through a quick "crash course" in Punjabi...might make new threads in the future, if time permits, about some more concepts!)


----------



## marrish

With the hope of reaching at some conclusions soon, may I ask those friends who possess Urdu lexicons to share what they, for example Nur-ul-Lughaat or Kitabistan say about ''ne''?


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> With the hope of reaching at some conclusions soon, may I ask those friends who possess Urdu lexicons to share what they, for example Nur-ul-Lughaat or Kitabistan say about ''ne''?


 Following is an entry on "ne" from Feroz-ul-Lughaat Jaami3 (1st ed. 1897)

ne - (3alamat-i-faa3il) fi3l-i-muta3addii meN faa3il ke ba3d aataa hai. jaise _maiN ne xat paRhaa
_
I assume the past tense requirement is assumed although not specified. 

Since the OP example (_nahiiN, xxxx nahiiN jaanaa_) is not in the past tense, the _ne _should not be there. Did I oversimplify it?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Following is an entry on "ne" from Feroz-ul-Lughaat Jaami3 (1st ed. 1897)
> 
> ne - (3alamat-i-faa3il) fi3l-i-muta3addii meN faa3il ke ba3d aataa hai. jaise _maiN ne xat paRhaa
> _
> I assume the past tense requirement is assumed although not specified.
> 
> Since the OP example (_nahiiN, xxxx nahiiN jaanaa_) is not in the past tense, the _ne _should not be there. Did I oversimplify it?



UP SaaHib, OP examples are:

1) Aapne nahin jaana hai?"
2) "Nahin, maine nahin jaana." 

The correct forms in Standard Urdu ought to be..

1) (to) aap ko nahiiN jaanaa hai?

2) nahiiN, mujhe nahiiN jaanaa (hai).


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> UP SaaHib, OP examples are:
> 
> 1) Aapne nahin jaana hai?"
> 2) "Nahin, maine nahin jaana."
> 
> The correct forms in Standard Urdu ought to be..
> 
> 1) (to) aap ko nahiiN jaanaa hai?
> 
> 2) nahiiN, mujhe nahiiN jaanaa (hai).



Qureshpor SaaHib, I beg to differ; there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sentences as given in OP! I bet even the supporters of Punjabi-theory will agree with it.

_1) aap ne nahiiN jaanaa hai? 2) nahiiN, maiN ne nahiiN jaanaa. 3) bha'ii aap to jaaneN ge bhii nahiiN!_


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, I beg to differ; there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sentences as given in OP! I bet even the supporters of Punjabi-theory will agree with it.
> 
> _1) aap ne nahiiN jaanaa hai? 2) nahiiN, maiN ne nahiiN jaanaa. 3) bha'ii aap to jaaneN ge bhii nahiiN!_



"jaane jaane" meN bhii farq hotaa hai janaab!


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> My apologies, marrish saahab. Somehow I missed the question addressed to me until seeing my name in this post. Yes the sentence sounds familiar to me, with the exception of what QP saahab suggested above (_hameN_ to replace _ham ne_). Although _ham ne_ is also commonly heard. Normally the nah or nahin is not repeated in such statements, but it is understood to apply in both cases.
> 
> Also from what I was able to gather from your post #26, "_ham is kii qiimat (nah) baRhaanii thii" _does not sound correct.



UM saaHib,

Could you please expand a little on this point if possible. What sort of linguistic background were the speakers whom you heard using "maiN ne jaanaa hai" type of sentence? Do you use it at all?


----------



## UrduMedium

Honestly, it is hard to replay in one's mind specific instances of something like this. Sufficient it is to say that it does not sound unfamiliar. No, _I _do not use the _maiN ne_ in such situations. Neither do I think I use _mujhko_, but exclusively _mujhe_, for some unknown reason. Also, hard to classify the linguistic background when we are talking in such broad brushstrokes. However, for whatever it is worth, I asked someone in my family about this and the person immediately replied, "that's 'Lahore-style'". Hope this does not get me in trouble now.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Honestly it is hard to replay in one's mind specific instances of something like this. Sufficient it is to say that it does not sound totally unfamiliar. No, _I _do not use the _maiN ne_ in such situations. Neither do I think I use _mujhko_, but exclusively _mujhe_, for some unknown reason. Also, hard to classify the linguistic background when we are talking in such broad brushstrokes. However, for whatever it is worth, I asked someone in my family about this and the person immediately replied, "that's 'Lahore-style'". Hope this does not get me in trouble now



Thank you UM saaHib. Whatever the label might be, do you remember Urdu mother-tongue speakers ever using these types of sentences or do you think janaab-i-Iftikhar Arif SaaHib's case was just one off?


----------



## UrduMedium

^ I do not think it is one of at all. Its fairly widespread. May be I'll start observing more closely now, specially the native speakers.


----------



## BP.

I bring what some of us would call bad news: I very recently had conversations with a number of people, from a generation older than mine, living in Khi and identifying Urdu as their first language, and many of them have begun using _nee _for the future e.g. _main nee_, _us nee_ [e.g. _fulaana kaam karnaa hai_]. Quite a culture shock it was.


----------



## marrish

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I bring what some of us would call bad news: I very recently had conversations with a number of people, from a generation older than mine, living in Khi and identifying Urdu as their first language, and many of them have begun using _nee _for the future e.g. _main nee_, _us nee_ [e.g. _fulaana kaam karnaa hai_]. Quite a culture shock it was.



Thank you for sharing. Do you interpret it as the future?


----------



## BP.

I'm afraid so.


----------



## marrish

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I bring what some of us would call bad news: I very recently had conversations with a number of people, from a generation older than mine, living in Khi and identifying Urdu as their first language, and many of them have begun using _nee _for the future e.g. _main nee_, _us nee_ [e.g. _fulaana kaam karnaa hai_]. Quite a culture shock it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marrish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing. Do you interpret it as the future?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BelligerentPacifist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid so.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I share your assessment. Another question, or maybe a re-versified one: is the construction _maiN ne kaam karnaa hai _used for the future tense, in other words, does this construction fall into the category of the future tense?


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Gujarati ''ko'' ... is a pronoun, which in Hindi and Urdu is ''ko'ii''.



I don't think you've the right information here, at all!


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> I don't think you've the right information here, at all!



*કો *_પું_ - કોઇ; કોઇ પણ. [*ko* _m._ - _koi; koi paNR_ 

I'd like to disagree, I believe what I've said is correct.


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> *કો *_પું_ - કોઇ; કોઇ પણ. [*ko* _m._ - _koi; koi paNR_
> 
> I'd like to disagree, I believe what I've said is correct.



You've every right to disagree, but being a Gujarati speaker since my childhood, it doesn't hold much water to me and nor will to any Gujarati speaker.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> You've every right to disagree, but being a Gujarati speaker since my childhood, it doesn't hold much water to me and nor will to any Gujarati speaker.


Relax, it is not colloquial language that I quoted. You have every right to assert that no Gujarati speaker will know it in the ages to come.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I bring what some of us would call bad news: I very recently had conversations with a number of people, from a generation older than mine, living in Khi and identifying Urdu as their first language, and many of them have begun using _nee _for the future e.g. _main nee_, _us nee_ [e.g. _fulaana kaam karnaa hai_]. Quite a culture shock it was.



BP SaaHib, can we be certain that these Urdu speakers who are one generation removed from you have n't just begun to use the "ne" form but have been using it before now, i.e. in the past.


----------



## BP.

Fairly well in some cases and with complete certitude in others, in order of increasing closeness. It is one of several bi3aat that have crept in within just this decade, the other major one being aap...[karoo], which is worse!


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Fairly well in some cases and with complete certitude in others, in order of increasing closeness. It is one of several bi3aat that have crept in within just this decade, the other major one being aap...[karoo], which is worse!



If I were to ask you, BP SaaHib, to be a bit "mathematical" about the whole thing, could you draw some sort of a timeline and say when you first became aware of your close friends or relatives using the "ne" form (a decade, two decades or more) and the same for people whom you have heard speaking but you are not close to them?


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> I am specifically asking about the mujhe becomes maine thing. I hear this construction a lot.
> 
> another example:
> 
> agar tumne maaf nahin kiya to maine khaana nahin khaana hai.
> 
> Here you see the "ne" in the first clause marking the ergative case as usual, then in the second clause it is that Punjabi-ish maine meaning mujhe/mujhe ko.
> 
> Francois, why do you  find "mujhe jaana hai" as marked? Can you explain more?



In Punjabi, this would be..

je tusaaN maaf na kiitaa te maiN khaaNRaa na'iiN khaaNRaa

No "ne" !


----------



## panjabigator

But, in the plural:

je tusāN lokāN ne māf na kītā te maiN khāNRā na'īN khānā.

Ne in some constructions. And then, of course, some dialects don't use the "ne" at all in past tense constructions that involve ergativity, but that's an entirely different conversation.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> My husband says _mainu jaaNa a_ and also _tenu jaaNa a_ are used. Maybe in dialects of Pakistani Punjabi this is the _nu_ to _ne_.



The Punjabi "nuuN" (ko) is completely different from "ne". I have never heard sentences of the type:

_"mainu jaaNa a" _and " _tenu jaaNa a"
_
mainuuN jaaNRaa chaahiidaa e = mujhe jaanaa chaahiye (hai)

mainuuN jaaNRaa chaahiidaa e = mujhe jaanaa chaahiye thaa


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> With the hope of reaching at some conclusions soon, may I ask those friends who possess Urdu lexicons to share what they, for example Nur-ul-Lughaat or Kitabistan say about ''ne''?



Nur-ul-LuGhaat, interestingly, does n't even have the "ne" entry! Farhang-i-Asafiyyah  has the following:-

ne- ism-i-muzakkar- 3alaamat-i-faa3il jo muta3addii fi3l meN aa kar kalaam meN rabt paidaa kartii hai- va niiz Huruuf-i-muGhayyirah meN kaa ek Harf.

ham ne maanaa kih taGhaaful nah karo ge lekin
xaak ho jaa'eN ge ham tum ko xabar hote tak (Ghalib)

raat bhar kyaa kyaa jagaayaa naalah-i-shabgiir ne
aisii sotii thii kih karvaT tak nah lii taqdiir ne (naa-ma3luum)

Kitaabistaab has..

Particle. It follows subject of transitive verb used in the past tense; not translated into English.

So marrish SaaHib. The contents are not all that helpful!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Thank you for sharing. Do you interpret it as the future?



Although your question is addressed to BP SaaHib, in the "maiN ne Lahore jaanaa hai" type of sentence, the want/intent is there and hence it has a future significance. It does not (always) translate to "I will go to Lahore". Here is an example from BBC's Urdu News. 

ادارے کے اہلکاروں نے اسی ہفتے مذاکرات کے لیے تہران جانا ہے

Members of the organisation are to go to Tehran this (very) week for negotiations.


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> If I were to ask you, BP SaaHib, to be a bit "mathematical" about the whole thing, could you draw some sort of a timeline and say when you first became aware of your close friends or relatives using the "ne" form (a decade, two decades or more) and the same for people whom you have heard speaking but you are not close to them?


Yes no problem, most of them post 2006, _half _a decade.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Although your question is addressed to BP SaaHib, in the "maiN ne Lahore jaanaa hai" type of sentence, the want/intent is there and hence it has a future significance. It does not (always) translate to "I will go to Lahore". Here is an example from BBC's Urdu News.
> 
> ادارے کے اہلکاروں نے اسی ہفتے مذاکرات کے لیے تہران جانا ہے
> 
> Members of the organisation are to go to Tehran this (very) week for negotiations.



I find it a precise translation of the verbal form.


----------



## Qureshpor

I shall take the liberty and make an attempt to summarise this thread.

Firstly, the time span of this (ab)usage of "ne".

With regard to the written language, an Urdu speaking non-Punjabi, Indian friend of mine who is no where near from the Punjab or Delhi area said in 2008 in an Urdu poetry Newsgroup, "This sort of usage has been seen in Urdu writings for many many years....". This gentleman would be in his eighties or even older. It is of course difficult to work out when the earliest example of this kind of "ne" usage took place and the ethnicities of the authors of these writings. I have provided one example from a Pakistan Television Drama serial "tanhaa'iyaaN" by Haseena Moin  but in her defence one could say one of two things. Either she was possibly depicting a Punjabi character (I don't know if this was the case) or she herself has been influenced by her non-Kanpur environment.

For the spoken language, Faylasoof SaaHib puts this usage on the timeline to a period beginning before the partition, "This grammatically incorrect use of "maine jaanaa hai" is new in the sense that, I believe, it was n't common (amongst the educated) before partition. (Post 11). This implies that this usage did exist before partition albeit it was n't common. Faylasoof SaaHib does not mention the etnicity/ethnicities of the speakers but in Post 10 he states, "It is quite likely Punjabi influence". C.M. Naim in his Urdu grammar mentions that "Since the fifties, influenced by standard usage in Punjabi, many Pakistani Urdu writers and speakers commonly use the postposition "ne" in this indirect construction, instead of the original "ko". (Post 20). According to BP SaaHib, "It has become widespread during the last 50 something years". As BP SaaHib's post was written in 2008, this would put it in the region of 1958. So, it appears that the timeline begins at least before the partition and we may have become aware of it more so because of the higher frequency of its occurrence in the media and in people's speech.

Now going back to the thread's beginnings. Fatima SaaHibah asks the one million dollar question "Can someone explain precisely why in for Urdu speakers who are *influenced by Punjabi* you get the mujhe/mujhko construction as maine, aapne, tumne, etc. In Post 2 she goes onto mention the "*Punjabi-ish maine*". From this it is clear that she believes that this usage has its beginnings within the Punjabi speaking communities. BP SaaHib in his Post 9 confirms that "*I've only heard Punjabi colleagues *say "maiN ne"" and if there was any doubt in anyone's mind about its background, in Post 12 he puts the cause of this usage on Punjabi's influence on Urdu. Illuminatus in Post 15 lends support to this by saying that "In India, this usage is *typical of Punjabi people*..".C.M.Naim (Post 20) has been mentioned above who says, "Since he Fifties, i*nfluenced by standard usage in Punjab*i, many Pakistani Urdu writers and speakers commonly use the postposition "ne" in this indirect construction, instead of the original "ko". Faylasoof SaaHib, not in so certain terms as above in Post 10 mentions that "It is *quite likely Punjabi influence*".

The "evidence" for Punjabi influence seems overwhelming. It would be nice if there was in existence an academic study on this subject and there may very well be one. It is quite possible that this usage has indeed come into existence as a result of Punjabi language and Punjabi people. But, in this thread, francois_auffret SaaHib, PG SaaHib, marrish SaaHib and yours truly are not so certain. Firstly, and most importantly, Punjabi grammar does not lend itself to this usage as has been shown in earlier posts. Secondly (and not necessarily a convincing argument), mother-tongue Urdu (and Hindi*) speakers do employ this usage in their daily lives, one example being Mr. Iftikhar Arif. Most likely and logical explanation would be that these people have been influenced by their Punjabi brethren. I don't know. What I would like to know is how other language communities such as Sindhi and Pashto speakers fit within this language issue. Do they say "mujhe jaanaa hai" or "maiN ne jaanaa jai"?

Whoever may be responsible for this "ne" construction, one can not deny that it is not  exactly identical in meaning to the "mujhe" form. This "ne" form brings with it an added dimension and as a consequence the language becomes richer and not poorer.

* A friend of mine (of Hindu background) who spent his childhood in Dehli said that he not only heard this usage there but also employed it too.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Nur-ul-LuGhaat, interestingly, does n't even have the "ne" entry! Farhang-i-Asafiyyah  has the following:-
> 
> ne- ism-i-muzakkar- 3alaamat-i-faa3il jo muta3addii fi3l meN aa kar kalaam meN rabt paidaa kartii hai- va niiz Huruuf-i-muGhayyirah meN kaa ek Harf.
> 
> ham ne maanaa kih taGhaaful nah karo ge lekin
> xaak ho jaa'eN ge ham tum ko xabar hote tak (Ghalib)
> 
> raat bhar kyaa kyaa jagaayaa naalah-i-shabgiir ne
> aisii sotii thii kih karvaT tak nah lii taqdiir ne (naa-ma3luum)
> 
> Kitaabistaab has..
> 
> Particle. It follows subject of transitive verb used in the past tense; not translated into English.
> 
> So marrish SaaHib. The contents are not all that helpful!



It's a pity there is no more information in those dictionaries but don't worry, there is one dictionary which attested still another usage of 'ne' in 1884 as follows:



> نے ने _ne [for orig. le, Ap. Prk. __लइए__, or __लहिए__; S. __लब्धे__], postp. of the agent or active case in High Hindī, and Urdū *(orig. a dialec.**dat**. affix of W. Hindī).*_



The dictionary is Platts'.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor SaaHib has prepared a handy synopsis of the opinions expressed here in this thread.

There remain some points which still deserve an answer and I agree with Qureshpor SaaHib’s approach to stipulate them and I hope my attempt is going to shed some more light on them. In order to get my point through I’m going to have to continue on some details in the convention of proposed summary. 

Further on, lcfatima said she thought _mujhe_ was preferred to _maiN ne_ “_by Hindustani origin native Urdu speakers, for example by the muhaajir origin Karachi vallay_”.

At first glance, I couldn’t understand the meaning of “_Hindustani origin native Urdu speakers_” correctly for I’d thought Urdu speakers of the Republic of India were being referred to and this too would have an interesting component for discussion. However upon seeing further example of residents of Karachi I realized that Pakistani Urdu native speakers were the reference group. Subsequently in post #6 it was revealed that Indian origin Urdu speakers, who were not Punjabis, were consulted as well and they classified this usage as ‘_paindu_’ (a Punjabi word!).

The purpose behind making this summation is to gather different contributions and to address the points being made. I do not intend to be judgmental since the belief that Punjabi influence is the cause for the prevalence of this construction is nothing new and this false notion is so dominant that jokes and anecdotes have come into existence! It would be nice to sum up all the  references to various groups of people who might be using it or who consider it not proper Urdu, in order to ascertain the concept of ‘regionalism’ as per the title thread. One cannot be ungrateful to lcfatima SaaHibah for initiating this important topic a couple of years ago since her input could be the catalyst for reaching important conclusions. This is the beauty of this forum!

Further along into the discussions, panjabigator SaaHib made a very important remark saying that in India, only people with knowledge of Punjabi were heard using this construction, while in Lahore, _maiN ne_ prevails. *What is even more important is the reference to Essential Urdu Grammar, the opinion of whose author I appreciate very much because she wisely didn’t even mention any Punjabi influence. *Panjabigator SaaHib states that “_this construction is so widespread that it is ubiquitous even among non-Panjabi Urdu wallas”_. BP SaaHib expressed his view about the grammatical incorrectness of this form.

In post #10 panjabigator SaaHib has posted a crucial question, from my point of view: 
_Is this a new function of <ne> in Urdu, and if not, how long has it been around?_
The contribution of Faylasoof SaaHib has been recalled by QP SaaHib above.

Let me reiterate also that Illuminatus SaaHib has shared the opinion regarding Punjabi influence, stating it sounded a bit silly to his ears, and adding further that it was never spoken in Rajasthan /Maharashtra/UP/MP etc. I’ll return to this point soon. Koozagar SaaHib rightly pointed out that Punjabi was not the cause of this construction.

As our time-machine gains acceleration, Qureshpor SaaHib makes a substantial contribution in post #20, where he poses four questions, which he himself subsequently addresses. I shall copy a passage because it contains a good reference, but not without a reason – I am compelled to question that reference on one point, which is the core business of this thread; this being the alleged ‘regionalism’.

_3) What are the literary trends of this usage?_

_Modern Urdu grammar books (e.g. Ruth Laila Schmidt and C.M.Naim mentioned above) are beginning to include the "ne" form. Whilst Schmidt, a European scholar states that.." This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi", Naim from Barabanki says, "Both usages are now equally correct in Urdu"._

In his answer 3) he goes on to cite some instances of the “_main ne jaanaa hai” form_ by a couple of Urdu speakers and states graciously where they were born (Kanpur, Lucknow, India). Proceeding further onto the opinion of linguists, he quotes a Elena Bashir, who says in her paper: 
*This change has been long noted and much discussed in the literature and has by now become emblematic of Pakistani Urdu as a separate variety".*

With respect to the sentence which I once posted to discuss it and I’ll be dealing with later, QP SaaHib said that that sentence would be deemed faulty grammar (by the purists).


As it is very difficult for me to join the club of the Punjabi theory, I’d say I'm equally reluctant to subscribe to the idea that this usage is a new phenomenon and it supposedly occurred after the Partition of the Subcontinent. This view has been expressed in the books of C.M. Naim, R.L. Schmidt and in E. Bashir ‘s paper. *Both grammarians agree on its correctness however they try to make us believe that it is not an ‘Urdu-e mu3allaa’ phenomenon (incorrect in Delhi), suggesting that this is a Pakistani phenomenon.* E. Bashir says that this makes Urdu in Pakistan a separate variety.

I have a strong feeling that their opinions must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. E. Bashir says this change has been long noted (in the context of Pakistan) but I am going to prove that this is far from reality and it can be interpreted as an attempt at imposing the author’s wishful thinking!

First of all, there have been many voices that this construction is also used by the native speakers of Urdu including those in India or more specifically, Delhi. I have heard Urdu speakers from Delhi using it and also Qureshpor SaaHib shared a reference which indicates it was present there.

According to Illuminatus, this is never heard in Rajasthan, but I’ll have to disagree with this. Far from reality! In Marwari dialect for example, _mujhe_ is *mana*, in Haryanvi – *manne*, Brajbhasha speakers say: ‘*tum ne*_ jarur ra:no chaye _‘you must remain here’.
If this hint weren’t sufficient we can take a look at a linguistic paper of Myriam Butt who mentions that 
• The ergative can appear with inﬁnitive+auxiliary constructions in Lahori and *Delhi* *dialects *of Urdu/Hindi (Butt and King 1991, Bashir 1999). Surprisingly E. Bashir who is the reference here is the author of the thesis of separate Pakistani variety but we see that even she seemingly had acknowledged the occurrence of this verbal construction in the Urdu of Delhi.


Regarding the question whether it occurs in the speech of Hindi speakers, let me quote several examples from the net: बाबा *हम* *ने* *खरीदना* तो नही था _baabaa ham ne khariidnaa to nahii thaa_ उसने कहा - *मैंने* *नहीं* *खाना* _us ne kahaa – mainne nahiiN khaanaa_ अब निर्णय *आपने* *लेना* *है* कि आप किसका साथ देते हैं _ab nirNRay aapne lenaa hai ki aap kiskaa saath dete haiN_ ऐसा *उसने* *नहीं* *करना* था _aisaa usne nahiiN karnaa thaa_ अगर किसी *ने* *चाय* *पीनी* हो तो स्टेशन के बाहर जाना पड़ता है _agar kisii ne chaay piinii ho to sTeshan ke baahar jaanaa paRtaa hai_

Qureshpor SaaHib, the meaning of ‘ko’ and ‘ne’ construction catches something different and this has been aptly described in that short sketch of M.Butt as follows:
• The ergative/dative alternation on subjects coincides with a diﬀerence in modality
• Bashir (1999) speculates that the ergative is encroaching on the domain of the dative.
– In this inﬁnitive construction, the ergative is marked and entails a subject who has control over the action.
– The dative is unmarked (Elsewhere Case): the subject may or may not have control over the action, the precise interpretation depends on the context.

A couple of posts ago I posted a sentence which I’m offering as a proof of _‘maiN ne jaanaa hai_’ not only being on the tongues of Delhi’s _ahl-e zabaan_ but also having been commited in print in 1917. In the preface to a lexicon of idioms of Urdu as heard from the noble ladies of Delhi court, it reads:

_go aaj se taqriib-an do saal peshtar jo ham ne is luGhaat kii qiimat kaa taxmiinah lagaayaa thaa wuh saaRhe tiin ruupayah fii jild thaa. aur ab jo kaaGhaz kii giraanii ne aaNkheN dikhaa diiN to hamaarii siTTii gum ho ga'ii. magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. _

*The author of the sentence is Maulavii Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii – the compiler of the major Urdu lexicon – Farhang-e Asafiyyah. I consider it a sufficient* _sanad_ for at least the Western variety of Urdu, which encompasses Delhi, of course.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> ..
> _Modern Urdu grammar books (e.g. Ruth Laila Schmidt and C.M.Naim mentioned above) are beginning to include the "ne" form. Whilst Schmidt, a European scholar states that.." This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi", Naim from Barabanki says, "Both usages are now equally correct in Urdu"._
> 
> In his answer 3) he goes on to cite some instances of the “_main ne jaanaa hai” form_ by a couple of Urdu speakers and states graciously where they were born (Kanpur, Lucknow, India).
> ..
> 
> *The author of the sentence is Maulavii Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii – the compiler of the major Urdu lexicon – Farhang-e Asafiyyah. I consider it a sufficient* _sanad_ for at least the Western variety of Urdu, which encompasses Delhi, of course.


 Thank you marrish SaaHib for this! 

I'd like to reiterate that in our Urdu, constructions like _maiN ne jaanaa / karnaa_ etc. are considered simply wrong (!) and while I really appreciate the effort, it really doesn’t matter whether one cites a person or two from here and there having been born in Kanpur or Lucknow  to have used it. I know some _lakhnaviis_ who say *اِژْدِحام *_i*zh*diHaam_ instead of our *اِزْدِحام  *_i*Z*diHaam_, and yet *اِژْدِحام*_ izhdiHaam_ we consider wrong!  If you all want to discuss this word further then please make a new thread! 

_«  maiN ne jaanaa » hamaare naHwii liHaaZ se bilkul GhalaT_ _samjhaa jaataa hai chaahe jo bhii ise SaHiiH qaraar de aur woh luGhatsaaz hii kyoN nah ho! dilli kii zabaan par uske gird o nawaaH kaa bhii athar huaa is hii wajh se dehlavii urdu aur lakhnavii urdu meN kuchh kuchh farq paayaa jaataa hai, bil-xuSuuS aaxir adwaar meN, chaahe woh farhang ho yaa ba3Dh naHwii nikaat, warnah yeh ek hii zabaan hai!  lughatsaazii kaa fan hamaare yahaaN bhii maujuud hai aur naHwii taraakiib se ham log bhii waaqif haiN aur hamaare 3etibaar se yeh (main ne jaanaa / karnaa wa ghairah) har giz SaHiiH nahiiN hai!__… aur janaab ahl-e-zabaan to ham bhii haiN !_

The point of all this is that one may come across a person from a city which boasts a preponderance of native Urdu speakers and may still use variant form(s) , but that doesn’t make it standard speech.  Maulavii Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii's usage that you provide is an interesting example and could just as surely be quoted to show how his Urdu changed and came to be affected by neighbouring influences, deviating from the standard Urdu of Delhi. 

I quite agree with Schmidt’s remark that _"_*This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi*_"_ - _*and it isn’t correct standard Urdu of Lucknow either! *_If anyone accuses us of being purists or speaking "prescriptively" then they are forgetting an important point. We have a standard grammar and standard speech forms and constructs like _maiN ne jaanaa / karnaa _just don't belong there.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> A couple of posts ago I posted a sentence which I’m offering as a proof of _‘maiN ne jaanaa hai_’ not only being on the tongues of Delhi’s _ahl-e zabaan_ but also having been commited in print in 1917. In the preface to a lexicon of idioms of Urdu as heard from the noble ladies of Delhi court, it reads:
> 
> _go aaj se taqriib-an do saal peshtar jo ham ne is luGhaat kii qiimat kaa taxmiinah lagaayaa thaa wuh saaRhe tiin ruupayah fii jild thaa. aur ab jo kaaGhaz kii giraanii ne aaNkheN dikhaa diiN to hamaarii siTTii gum ho ga'ii. magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii. _
> 
> *The author of the sentence is Maulavii Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii – the compiler of the major Urdu lexicon – Farhang-e Asafiyyah. I consider it a sufficient* _sanad_ for at least the Western variety of Urdu, which encompasses Delhi, of course.



marrish SaaHib, we are all indebted to you for your detailed presentation of the "maiN ne jaanaa hai" type of construction from its grammar perspective and "regional" usage. Thank you also for including a few examples from Hindi. The icing on the cake for me is the quote you have been able to find from the tongue of a person of no less a calibre than Maulavii Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii himself. I do not believe this is just one exception to the rule. There are bound to be many other examples in our literature of its usage by "ahl-i-zabaan". And without wishing to create any further antagonism between Lucknow and Dehli, this is what one "dihlavii" says about his Urdu. 

Naseem-i-Dihlavii ham muujid-i-baab-i-fasaaHat haiN
ko'ii Urdu ko kyaa samjhe kih jaisaa ham samajhte haiN!

Asghar Ali Khan Naseem Dihlavii (1794-1864)

One can understand "external influences" on the likes of Iftikhar Arif and Haseena Moin for their usage of the "maiN ne" form even though I can not imagine how someone who has shifted from Lucknow in his mid 20s will have his language affected by external influences. The learned author's credentials can be judged from reading the preface to the first volume of his four volume dictionary in the section entitled "sabab-i-taalif" on page 20. He may have visited and even stayed in Lahore but I do not believe his language would have been adversely affected by this move, considering that he was born and bred in a place not too far from the "Lahori Darvaazah" of "Qil3ah-i-mu3allah". I would personally go by what he, originating from Delhi, says about himself in the above given reference than what Schmidt says about Delhi speakers! 

This is what I would say is the "nichoR" of this thread.

1) One can not say with any degree of certainty that the "maiN ne" form has its basis on the tongues of Punjabi speakers. The claim that it is a Punjabi phenomenon is probably based more on prejudice than on any academic research.

2) With much more certainty one can now say that, to use Fatima SaaHibah's words "Hindustani origin native Urdu speakers" use this construction as well. Examples being Iftikhar Arif, Haseena Moin, Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii, all the people UM SaaHib has heard using this construction as well as many others who used such constructions in their writings, according to my Urdu speaking friend.

3) Could it be possible that the "maiN ne" construction employed by Punjabis (and others) is based on "dabistaan-i-dihlii" rather than originating from one that they have created themselves in the Punjab? ( BP SaaHib's Post 12). I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that Maulvii Sayyid SaaHib's quote has denied the existence of a "dabistaan-i-Punjab"!


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> ...One can understand "external influences" on the likes of Iftikhar Arif and Haseena Moin for their usage of the "maiN ne" form even though I can not imagine how someone who has shifted from Lucknow in his mid 20s will have his language affected by external influences....


I can imagine with facility and in HD. People who would have corrected me for this usage 20 years ago are now using it themselves. The same people wouldn't ever say pataa instead of ma3luum but now say that too. We forget that people live in an environment and imbibe it unconsciously. Mr. Iftikhar Arif left Lakhnou in while in his 60s I think he'd still have changed.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I can imagine with facility and in HD. People who would have corrected me for this usage 20 years ago are now using it themselves. The same people wouldn't ever say pataa instead of ma3luum but now say that too. We forget that people live in an environment and imbibe it unconsciously. Mr. Iftikhar Arif left Lakhnou in while in his 60s I think he'd still have changed.



Thanks. I suppose it depends on the person. I could live amongst people for a century (if I could live that long) who say "mere ko" or "aap baiTho" or "We was going" but I would never end up using any of these constructions! The question is, "Where did Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii pick the "maiN ne" construction from?"


----------



## BP.

Yes QP we agree on this that it depends on the person. The other people I talked about do not pay conscious attention to their diction as you, that's maybe because, unlike them, language is an important indulgence in your life. Wonder which case this reasoning puts Mr. IA in!


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> ...
> The icing on the cake for me is the quote you have been able to find from the tongue of a person of no less a calibre than Maulavii Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii himself. I do not believe this is just one exception to the rule. There are bound to be many other examples in our literature of its usage by "ahl-i-zabaan". And without wishing to create any further antagonism between Lucknow and Dehli, this is what one "dihlavii" says about his Urdu.
> 
> Naseem-i-Dihlavii ham muujid-i-baab-i-fasaaHat haiN
> ko'ii Urdu ko kyaa samjhe kih jaisaa ham samajhte haiN!
> 
> Asghar Ali Khan Naseem Dihlavii (1794-1864)


 Naseem Dehlavi is perfectly entitled to his opinion! I detect a "sour grapes" attitude in the remark. Who is he anyway? In poetic stature he is nothing compared to _lakahnavii _poets like Anis, Dabir, Auj, 3ishq and ta3ashshuq, not to mention the brothers Safi and Zariif and a good few more. The poetry of most of these poets is hardly known. Ignorance is bliss! It seems some people here have an issue with Lucknow and they too are entitled to their ossified opinions which really don't matter in the least to us because we know what Urdu is! 


QURESHPOR said:


> One can understand "external influences" on the likes of Iftikhar Arif and Haseena Moin for their usage of the "maiN ne" form even though I can not imagine how someone who has shifted from Lucknow in his mid 20s will have his language affected by external influences. The learned author's credentials can be judged from reading the preface to the first volume of his four volume dictionary in the section entitled "sabab-i-taalif" on page 20. He may have visited and even stayed in Lahore but I do not believe his language would have been adversely affected by this move, considering that he was born and bred in a place not too far from the "Lahori Darvaazah" of "Qil3ah-i-mu3allah". I would personally go by what he, originating from Delhi, says about himself in the above given reference than what Schmidt says about Delhi speakers!


 You seemed to be ignoring the fact that the Delhi dialect was affected by its surroundings. How do you think KhaRii Bolii evovled in the first place? It was not a "pure" dialect as it finally took shape. The process continued and we do see differences between Delhi and Lucknow Urdu dialects, some we've even discussed before. Besides, Schmidt's remark (_"This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi"_) cannot be ignored just because she is a "foreigner". One would assume she has based this remark after some study and unlike Maulavii Ahmad has obviously not pandered to what one suspects were local influences affecting the latter's Urdu. It was a "foreigner" - an _3ajamii _- called _Sibawayh_ who wrote the best grammar of Classical Arabic that even the later Arabs bowed to!! So being "foreign" on itself doesn't disqualify you to make a valid comment on a language or indeed write a grammar of a language. It all depends on how well one has studied the language. To use your own argument from previous posts, being a native doesn't guarantee correctness of language usage. But now you are contradicting yourself because it suits your purpose!!



QURESHPOR said:


> This is what I would say is the "nichoR" of this thread.
> 1) One can not say with any degree of certainty that the "maiN ne" form has its basis on the tongues of Punjabi speakers. The claim that it is a Punjabi phenomenon is probably based more on prejudice than on any academic research.


 Yes, we do need more research on this but there is no need to be so sensitive about this! One notices a huge sensitivity in many of your remarks in various posts over time when it comes to suspected Punjabi influence on some forms of Urdu speech. I think you need to cool down!


QURESHPOR said:


> 2) With much more certainty one can now say that, to use Fatima SaaHibah's words "Hindustani origin native Urdu speakers" use this construction as well. Examples being Iftikhar Arif, Haseena Moin, Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii, all the people UM SaaHib has heard using this construction as well as many others who used such constructions in their writings, according to my Urdu speaking friend.


 This is hardly an argument! In fact it is quite absurd to mention those who moved to a new environment and adopted what happens to be prevalent, wrong though it is, as evidence of any kind! Ghalat-ul-3aam! Never heard of it?


QURESHPOR said:


> 3) Could it be possible that the "maiN ne" construction employed by Punjabis (and others) is based on "dabistaan-i-dihlii" rather than originating from one that they have created themselves in the Punjab? ( BP SaaHib's Post 12). I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that Maul*a*vii Sayyid SaaHib's quote has denied the existence of a "dabistaan-i-Punjab"!


 There is no evidence for this though I'd be happy to read anything you bring to this aspect of the discussion. Maulavii Sayyid SaaHib's "denial" of the existence of a "dabistaan-i-Punjab" might imply that: i) He didn't consider such a thing to exist in the first place, ii) His judgement on matters linguistic was clouded and cannot be trusted! Therefore, use of constructs like "_maiN ne karnaa hai_" that might be used by him and others like him too comes under great doubt as to their validity!!  In fact, we consider these types of "_maiN ne _.." constructs to be completely wrong and in complete agreement with Schmidt's remark mentioned above about the same as far as standard Delhi Urdu goes!


----------



## Qureshpor

> Faylasoof said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naseem Dehlavi is perfectly entitled to his opinion! I detect a "sour grapes" attitude in the remark. Who is he anyway? In poetic stature he is nothing compared to _lakahnavii _poets like Anis, Dabir, Auj, 3ishq and ta3ashshuq, not to mention the brothers Safi and Zariif and a good few more. The poetry of most of these poets is hardly known. Ignorance is bliss! It seems some people here have an issue with Lucknow and they too are entitled to their ossified opinions which really don't matter in the least to us because we know what Urdu is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite understand your "sour grapes" reference, Faylasoof SaaHib. Naseem Dehlavii. Who is he? Who are you? Who am I? All of us are very small cogs in God's vast creation.
> 
> I did not have his poetic stature in mind at all when I quoted his couplet. Before this I had quoted DaaGh who you would agree does not need any introduction. And just as you claim to know what Urdu is, they too are making a similar claim and their claim can not be ignored at the expense of any one else's. It is best to leave the merits of individual poets and their relative stature to those literary critics who really know their subject. For you and I this is irrelevant for this discussion. Some people may have an "issue" with Lucknow and may even have "ossified" opinions but I don't see how this is relevant to me or to my post. But I would like to make one point, if I may. However sure one might be of some matter, it is good to have an open mind, just in case!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seemed to be ignoring the fact that the Delhi dialect was affected by its surroundings. How do you think KhaRii Bolii evovled in the first place? It was not a "pure" dialect as it finally took shape. The process continued and we do see differences between Delhi and Lucknow Urdu dialects, some we've even discussed before. Besides, Schmidt's remark (_"This usage is not correct in the standard Urdu of Delhi"_) cannot be ignored just because she is a "foreigner". One would assume she has based this remark after some study and unlike Maulavii Ahmad has obviously not pandered to what one suspects were local influences affecting the latter's Urdu. It was a "foreigner" - an _3ajamii _- called _Sibawayh_ who wrote the best grammar of Classical Arabic that even the later Arabs bowed to!! So being "foreign" on itself doesn't disqualify you to make a valid comment on a language or indeed write a grammar of a language. It all depends on how well one has studied the language. To use your own argument from previous posts, being a native doesn't guarantee correctness of language usage. But now you are contradicting yourself because it suits your purpose!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your powers of deduction are remarkable, Faylasoof SaaHib. How did you manage to work out that I gave preference to Maulavii Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii's knowledge of Urdu over Schmidt's because of the latter's "foreign" origins? This discriminatory line of thinking, in my view, would be bordering on racism! In my post I provided a reference where Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii SaaHib gives a kind of curriculum vitae. I don't know if you looked up that reference or not but based on that and my knowledge of Schmidt's linguistic background I formulated an opinion in favour of Dihlavii. The fact that "Schmidt" is a "foreigner" is purely coincidental. Had Schmidt been Lakhnavii or Dihlavii or Lahorii or whatever, I would have said the same. And I am well aware of Sibawayh's "al-kitaab" as well as many other 3ajamii scholars who have contributed and excelled over their "native" counterparts in various fields of human endeavour. But we need not go that far. Within our own countries non-native Urdu speakers have reached sublime heights which the "natives" not only appreciate but also envy. So, my dear Faylasoof SaaHib, I am not contradicting myself. Just being a native of any language does not make him/her an undisputed expert in his/her language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do need more research on this but there is no need to be so sensitive about this! One notices a huge sensitivity in many of your remarks in various posts over time when it comes to suspected Punjabi influence on some forms of Urdu speech. I think you need to cool down!
> 
> This is hardly an argument! In fact it is quite absurd to mention those who moved to a new environment and adopted what happens to be prevalent, wrong though it is, as evidence of any kind! Ghalat-ul-3aam! Never heard of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First paragraph. Thank you for your kind advice. Anyone with an open mind who cares to read the archives of this forum will see that over and over again a certain stereotypical, anti-Punjabi attitude has been displayed by some participants. One can either sit back and accept the truth and validity of certain assertions as Gospel or one can respond to them. I have decided to respond and I hasten to add, not in an emotional way. My responses or rebuttals have been carefully thought out and wherever possible, I have provided literary references. Just look at the first post of this thread. The case has been proven even before the trial has begun! These are the exact words, "Can someone explain precisely why in for *Urdu speakers **who are influenced by Punjabi *you get the mujhe/mujhko construction as maine, aapne, tumne, etc". The "Punjabi influence" has been given as a proven fact when we know that this not the case.
> 
> You may remember the Hindi/Urdu: chahiye thread. I would like you and other forum members to look at your post no. 23 and my posts 65 and 70. This is just one example of incorrect information being provided concerning the so called "Punjabi influence".
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1398107&highlight=chahiye
> 
> And now please allow me to offer you some sincere advice in the same vein that you have offered me. In this forum you have set out a stall which only sells Lakhnavii goods. Whilst this is a cause for pride, at the same time one has to admit with a heavy heart that the factory producing these goods is now practically non-existent. Your stall will be totally empty very soon and you need to stock up with some Dihlavii, Hyderabadi, Aurangabadi, Bhopali, Pakistani and other goods if you are to survive in your business. Otherwise there will just be Xaliil Xaan and his faaxtah and nothing else!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for this though I'd be happy to read anything you bring to this aspect of the discussion. Maulavii Sayyid SaaHib's "denial" of the existence of a "dabistaan-i-Punjab" might imply that: i) He didn't consider such a thing to exist in the first place, ii) His judgement on matters linguistic was clouded and cannot be trusted! Therefore, use of constructs like "_maiN ne karnaa hai_" that might be used by him and others like him too comes under great doubt as to their validity!!  In fact, we consider these types of "_maiN ne _.." constructs to be completely wrong and in complete agreement with Schmidt's remark mentioned above about the same as far as standard Delhi Urdu goes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The focus of this thread has been on the alleged Punjabi influence on Urdu speakers' usage of the "maiN ne" form in place of the "mujhe" form. It has been suggested that this is a purely Punjabi "orchestrated" phenomenon. A number of people in this thread have expressed doubts about this ready made conclusion. I (along with others) have sought to explain that this line of thinking is not logical because in equivalent Punjabi constructions, there is no place for "ne". To prove that this is not just Punjabi usage, I have given two examples (one verbal and one written) of educated mother-tongue Urdu speakers employing the "maiN ne" form. marrish SaaHib has come up with a written piece by another mother-tongue speaker depicting this usage. These illustrations have not been provided to prove that the "maiN ne" form is grammatically correct but to say that the "culprits" are found amongst the mother-tongue speakers too. Of course, the best example is the latest one and I have no doubt there will be many more. I asked a hypothetical question, "Could it be possible that the "maiN ne" construction employed by Punjabis (and others) is based on "dabistaan-i-dihlii" rather than originating from one that they have created themselves in the Punjab?" No, I don't have any evidence to bring to you but it was posed based on its usage by a Dihlavii gentleman of some considerable literary merit. If we ignore Professor Mahmood Sherani's "Punjab meN Urdu", who brought Urdu education into the Punjab? Was it people like Azad (Dehli) and Hali (Panipat) or did the Punjabis invent their own version? I would say that they have taken on board the language they have been given wholesale, warts and all!
Click to expand...


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by *Faylasoof*
> Naseem Dehlavi is perfectly entitled to his opinion! I detect a "sour grapes" attitude in the remark. Who is he anyway? In poetic stature he is nothing compared to _lakahnavii _poets like Anis, Dabir, Auj, 3ishq and ta3ashshuq, not to mention the brothers Safi and Zariif and a good few more…etc, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QURESHPOR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite understand your "sour grapes" reference, Faylasoof SaaHib. Naseem Dehlavii. Who is he? …….
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I shall ignore much of what was said above since I do not have time for long-winded and fruitless arguments. Besides, they’ll only serve to derail this thread! … and we don’t want that!

I think we need to get one or two points cleared up. Firstly, the Urdu of the two recognized _dabistaans_ (Delhi and Lucknow) is essentially the same. There are some differences, e.g. a few noun genders and idioms etc., but the overall grammar is the same. So quoting a second or third rate poet in support of an argument no matter how direct or indirect but essentially faulty, is meaningless. Using such props to imply that the language of one is somehow superior to the other not only confuses the issue at hand but is plainly wrong. In both, this usage is a grammatical blunder!



			
				QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> …….
> 
> The focus of this thread has been on the alleged Punjabi influence on Urdu speakers' usage of the "maiN ne" form in place of the "mujhe" form. It has been suggested that this is a purely Punjabi "orchestrated" phenomenon. …….."Could it be possible that the "maiN ne" construction employed by Punjabis (and others) is based on "dabistaan-i-dihlii" rather than originating from one that they have created themselves in the Punjab?" No, I don't have any evidence to bring to you but it was posed based on its usage by a Dihlavii gentleman of some considerable literary merit. If we ignore Professor Mahmood Sherani's "Punjab meN Urdu", who brought Urdu education into the Punjab? Was it people like Azad (Dehli) and Hali (Panipat) or did the Punjabis invent their own version? I would say that they have taken on board the language they have been given wholesale, warts and all!



Yes, the focus of the thread is indeed what you say it is, which brings me to my second point. By saying that Maulavi Sayyed Ahmed’s use of “maiN ne karnaa” type statement is “icing on the cake” one is agreeing to an earlier comment by someone that as a native speaker he knows what he is talking about and therefore his use of this grammatically incorrect form should be trusted over the statement made by a non-native like Schmidt who has written one of the best if not the best modern Urdu grammar and who says this is not standard Delhi Urdu – and, BTW, it isn’t standard Lucknow Urdu either. The latter is hardly surprising since the language moved from one to the other because Delhi Urduphones moved to Lucknow, including, as I’ve said before, my own ancestors. The fact that “a Dihlavii gentleman of some considerable literary merit” uttered such a grammatical monstrosity is just that. One gentleman! It matters little what his literary merits were. What is wrong is wrong and this usage is totally incorrect according to our standard Urdu. There is little known as to what influences this person was under. He certainly wasn't using the standard form. That is for sure.

_The bottom line is that sentences like “main ne karnaa” are grammatically incorrect in the standard Urdu of both Delhi and Lucknow and it doesn’t matter who uses it! However, we do note that Urdu spoken by many though not all in Pakistan employs this grammatically incorrect form as the norm._ Now whether this is Punjabi influence or not is still open to discussion but one shouldn’t get sensitive about this issue! Your link above once again shows you being hypersensitive about this point. We were merely discussing the _possibility_ in _that_ thread too of such influence. So again I’d urge you to just cool down! 

This is highly presumptuous! Once again, there is no evidence for this! 

Also, please let us worry whether our _lakhanvii Urdu_ stall gets empty or not! By the sounds of it, Urdu employed by most in Pakistan speaks for itself. That stall may not be empty but whatever is in there certainly does not smell right – full of grammatical monstrosities like _maiN ne karnaa_ and all that arrant nonsense.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> I shall ignore much of what was said above since I do not have time for long-winded and fruitless arguments. Besides, they’ll only serve to derail this thread! … and we don’t want that!
> 
> I think we need to get one or two points cleared up. Firstly, the Urdu of the two recognized _dabistaans_ (Delhi and Lucknow) is essentially the same. There are some differences, e.g. a few noun genders and idioms etc., but the overall grammar is the same. So quoting a second or third rate poet in support of an argument no matter how direct or indirect but essentially faulty, is meaningless. Using such props to imply that the language of one is somehow superior to the other not only confuses the issue at hand but is plainly wrong. In both, this usage is a grammatical blunder!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the focus of the thread is indeed what you say it is, which brings me to my second point. By saying that Maulavi Sayyed Ahmed’s use of “maiN ne karnaa” type statement is “icing on the cake” one is agreeing to an earlier comment by someone that as a native speaker he knows what he is talking about and therefore his use of this grammatically incorrect form should be trusted over the statement made by a non-native like Schmidt who has written one of the best if not the best modern Urdu grammar and who says this is not standard Delhi Urdu – and, BTW, it isn’t standard Lucknow Urdu either. The latter is hardly surprising since the language moved from one to the other because Delhi Urduphones moved to Lucknow, including, as I’ve said before, my own ancestors. The fact that “a Dihlavii gentleman of some considerable literary merit” uttered such a grammatical monstrosity is just that. One gentleman! It matters little what his literary merits were. What is wrong is wrong and this usage is totally incorrect according to our standard Urdu. There is little known as to what influences this person was under. He certainly wasn't using the standard form. That is for sure.
> 
> _The bottom line is that sentences like “main ne karnaa” are grammatically incorrect in the standard Urdu of both Delhi and Lucknow and it doesn’t matter who uses it! However, we do note that Urdu spoken by many though not all in Pakistan employs this grammatically incorrect form as the norm._ Now whether this is Punjabi influence or not is still open to discussion but one shouldn’t get sensitive about this issue! Your link above once again shows you being hypersensitive about this point. We were merely discussing the _possibility_ in _that_ thread too of such influence. So again I’d urge you to just cool down!
> 
> This is highly presumptuous! Once again, there is no evidence for this!
> 
> Also, please let us worry whether our _lakhanvii Urdu_ stall gets empty or not! By the sounds of it, Urdu employed by most in Pakistan speaks for itself. That stall may not be empty but whatever is in there certainly does not smell right – full of grammatical monstrosities like _maiN ne karnaa_ and all that arrant nonsense.



Thank you, Faylasoof SaaHib, for the above. No one should be left in any doubt concerning your views on your Urdu and others'. We seem to be not only singing from different hymn sheets but also the language of each sheet is different. Good manners and common decency compels me to terminate this exchange of views at this juncture.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Regarding the question whether it occurs in the speech of Hindi speakers, let me quote several examples from the net: बाबा *हम* *ने* *खरीदना* तो नही था _baabaa ham ne khariidnaa to nahii thaa_ उसने कहा - *मैंने* *नहीं* *खाना* _us ne kahaa – mainne nahiiN khaanaa_ अब निर्णय *आपने* *लेना* *है* कि आप किसका साथ देते हैं _ab nirNRay aapne lenaa hai ki aap kiskaa saath dete haiN_ ऐसा *उसने* *नहीं* *करना* था _aisaa usne nahiiN karnaa thaa_ अगर किसी *ने* *चाय* *पीनी* हो तो स्टेशन के बाहर जाना पड़ता है _agar kisii ne chaay piinii ho to sTeshan ke baahar jaanaa paRtaa hai _


marrish SaaHib, blame Tony SaaHib for my re-starting this thread yet again! I have had a quick read of it and would like to ask you a couple of questions.

1. I know it has been a while but can you shed some light on the authors of these sentences? Where do they originate from, in geographical terms. It would be interesting to delve a little into this.

2. You quoted Platts entry for "ne". At the time I did not pay too much attention to it. Are you (or anyone else) aware of the "dative use of ne in "Western Hindi"?

H نے ने_ne [for orig. le, Ap. Prk. लइए, or लहिए; S. लब्धे], postp. of the agent or active case in High Hindī, and Urdū (orig. a dialec. dat. affix of W. Hindī)._


----------



## marrish

^I don't think I have to blame anyone. I'd rather thank tonyspeed SaaHib for being a catalyst. I can respond to your questions tomorrow, as soon as I get hold of my old notes, so please be patient. Maybe someone can be quicker than me to contribute here?


----------



## UrduMedium

I'd like to know more about the dative use of ne in Western Urdu-Hindi. It would be very helpful to have a few examples.


----------



## tonyspeed

It is interesting to note that the Butt paper suggests tha 'ne' is only used to express desire and not necessity. One of the theories is that ne is being inserted to get rid of the overloaded ko "mujhe jana hai" can mean "I want to go" or "I need to go." He claims usage of ne can only mean the former. Would you agree?


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> It is interesting to note that the Butt paper suggests tha 'ne' is only used to express desire and not necessity. One of the theories is that ne is being inserted to get rid of the overloaded ko "mujhe jana hai" can mean "I want to go" or "I need to go." He claims usage of ne can only mean the former. Would you agree?


Yes, I'd agree to the extent that it expresses intent rather than desire. The element of necessity may be well connected with the situation but the speaker doesn't emphasise it. I can't say anything about the theory of getting rid of _mujhe jaanaa hai_. I don't think that anyone does it on purpose to get rid of the mentioned construction. By the way, it's Mrs. Butt


----------



## mastermind1212

lcfatima said:


> Can someone explain precisely why in for Urdu speakers who are influenced by Punjabi you get the mujhe/mujhko construction as maine, aapne, tumne, etc.
> 
> As in: Aapne nahin jaana hai?"
> "Nahin, maine nahin jaana."



The correct words are , Apko nahi jaana hai ??  , nahi , mujhe nahi jaana.  There is a difference of words according to their region. But the correct words are correct. Even in English language we see that original spellings of few words are now changed for e.g.

1) Colour             changed to color.

2) Programme       changed to Program.

                   so there is not much to worry about. You can either use "Mujhe" or "maine". If you use maine then people would think that you are influenced from Punjabi.


----------



## Qureshpor

mastermind1212 said:


> The correct words are , Apko nahi jaana hai ??  , nahi , mujhe nahi jaana.  There is a difference of words according to their region. But the correct words are correct. Even in English language we see that original spellings of few words are now changed for e.g.
> 
> 1) Colour             changed to color.
> 
> 2) Programme       changed to Program.
> 
> so there is not much to worry about. You can either use "Mujhe" or "maine". If you use maine then people would think that you are influenced from Punjabi.


The correct words are:

aap ko nahii*N* jaanaa hai?
nahiiN, mujhe nahii*N* jaanaa. (N is for the nasal n)

People might not think this when they have read all the posts of this thread.


----------



## marrish

marrish said:


> ^I don't think I have to blame anyone. I'd rather thank tonyspeed SaaHib for being a catalyst. I can respond to your questions tomorrow, as soon as I get hold of my old notes, so please be patient. Maybe someone can be quicker than me to contribute here?


I couldn't find my notes but it should be easy to put the sentences I provided in the search machine (in their original script, not the transliteration) as they are faithfully presented in the post. I should have attached links to the sentences, which is a shortcoming on my part. Possibly we can trace the whereabouts of the authors from the sites they published the sentences.



> Originally Posted by *marrish*
> 
> 
> Regarding the question whether it occurs in the speech of Hindi speakers, let me quote several examples from the net: बाबा *हम* *ने **खरीदना* तो नही था _baabaa ham ne khariidnaa to nahii thaa_ उसने कहा - *मैंने* *नहीं* *खाना* _us ne kahaa – mainne nahiiN khaanaa_ अब निर्णय *आपने**लेना* *है* कि आप किसका साथ देते हैं _ab nirNRay aapne lenaa hai ki aap kiskaa saath dete haiN_ ऐसा *उसने* *नहीं* *करना* था _aisaa usne nahiiN karnaa thaa_ अगर किसी *ने* *चाय* *पीनी* हो तो स्टेशन के बाहर जाना पड़ता है _agar kisii ne chaay piinii ho to sTeshan ke baahar jaanaa paRtaa hai_


----------



## greatbear

I am just back from Punjab, and I invariably heard "maine nahiN karnaa" kind of constructions all throughout (including in the neighbouring regions and in Delhi, which is heavily influenced by everything Punjabi).


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> I'd like to know more about the dative use of ne in Western Urdu-Hindi. It would be very helpful to have a few examples.


I think what Platts described as W. Hindi are not only Rajasthani dialects/languages but something more. Unfortunately there were no examples available in the dictionary, but we can be sure that the situation used to be so as early as in the 19th century.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I think what Platts described as W. Hindi are not only Rajasthani dialects/languages but something more. Unfortunately there were no examples available in the dictionary, but we can be sure that the situation used to be so as early as in the 19th century.


Here is an example from Mulla (Asadullah) Wajhi's "Sabras" (1635/1636), an eminent figure in the court of Golconda, in the Deccan. Please do not forget that there was a migration of people  to the south from and around the Delhi area as a consequence of invasions.

jahaaN Ghamzah kare Ghamzah, vahaaN *3aashiq ne kyaa karnaa
*
(See page 46-47 of ther attached document for an explanation)

http://www.mgimo.ru/files/31392/6.pdf

The author of this document (Alexander Sigordkiy) also connects this usage with Punjabi. As has already been stated in this thread, there is no "ne" usage in obligation type of sentences in Punjabi.

"First  of  all,  the  ne  postposition  as  a subject  marker  in  infinitival modal  constructions  is  obviously  an impact  of  Punjabi  (where  ne  is  a subject  marker of modal constructions  with  obligation  modality  [Zograf 1990:  47]."


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Here is an example from Mulla (Asadullah) Wajhi's "Sabras" (1635/1636), an eminent figure in the court of Golconda, in the Deccan. Please do not forget that there was a migration of people  to the south from and around the Delhi area as a consequence of invasions.
> 
> jahaaN Ghamzah kare Ghamzah, vahaaN *3aashiq ne kyaa karnaa
> *
> (See page 46-47 of ther attached document for an explanation)
> 
> http://www.mgimo.ru/files/31392/6.pdf
> 
> The author of this document (Alexander Sigordkiy) also connects this usage with Punjabi. As has already been stated in this thread, there is no "ne" usage in obligation type of sentences in Punjabi.
> 
> "First  of  all,  the  ne  postposition  as  a subject  marker  in  infinitival modal  constructions  is  obviously  an impact  of  Punjabi  (where  ne  is  a subject  marker of modal constructions  with  obligation  modality  [Zograf 1990:  47]."


Most inspiring. We have got another mile stone now. I've read the document you were kind to attach and there is another excerpt which is interesting, especially in the light of Platts' definition of ''ne'':

p. 38 [...] _This  feature  of  Dakkhini  is  not  unique.  In  modern  Hindi  *the postposition ko (the historical synonym of ne)* behaves itself in  the same way in participle clauses [...] 
_
p. 50 _Hindi  has developed an  economic and elegant system of coding the two  privileged positions  of  subject  and  direct  object.  *Historical synonymy of postpositions ne  and ko, still existing in Hariani, Bangaru and some other dialects*, is removed._


In this perspective the reference to Punjabi appears uncalled for and, in the light of this thread, not correct.

Thank you very much for this finding.


----------



## marrish

नवशती हिन्दी व्याकरण _navshatii hindii vyaakaraNR_ (New Century Hindi Grammar) by बदरीनाथ कपूर Badrinath Kapoor, 2006, p. 84 right column second last verse has the following sentence:

*शायद उसने आना हो।* *shaayad usne aanaa ho*. Dr. Badrinath Kapoor is from Benares.


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you for this find. After Banaras we need to find an example from Calcutta. This will show that this usage is found in all corners of the compass.


----------



## marrish

From a book dealing with the analysis of the Haryanvi language I came to know that in this language the Urdu/Hindi sentence ab hameN jaanaa ho gaa is इब हम नै जाणा होगा ib ham nai jaaNRaa hogaa. I'm pretty sure Haryanvi and KhB have been closely related and influenced one another.

Another point about Urdu: in a newspaper published from Delhi and Lakhnau I read the following:

http://www.siyasitaqdeer.com/newspaper-view.php?newsid=2207&date=2014-08-30


اس موقعے پر وزیرِ اعظم نواز شریف نے کہا کہ اگر میں فوج سے رابطہ نہ بھی کرتا تو فوج نے یہ کردار ادا کرنا تھا کیونکہ دارلحکومت کی حفاظت کی ذمہ داری فوج کی ہے۔
us mauq3e par waziir-e-a3azam nawaaz shariif ne kahaa kih agar maiN fauj se raabitah nah bhii kartaa to fauj ne yih kirdaar adaa karnaa thaa kyoNkih daarulHukuumat kii Hifaazat kii zimmah daarii fauj kii hai. Literal quotation of Mr. Sharif or their own wording? Any way, the editors didn't seem to have any qualms about this fauj ne karnaa thaa at least.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> From a book dealing with the analysis of the Haryanvi language I came to know that in this language the Urdu/Hindi sentence ab hameN jaanaa ho gaa is इब हम नै जाणा होगा ib ham nai jaaNRaa hogaa. I'm pretty sure Haryanvi and KhB have been closely related and influenced one another.
> 
> Another point about Urdu: in a newspaper published from Delhi and Lakhnau I read the following:
> 
> http://www.siyasitaqdeer.com/newspaper-view.php?newsid=2207&date=2014-08-30
> 
> 
> اس موقعے پر وزیرِ اعظم نواز شریف نے کہا کہ اگر میں فوج سے رابطہ نہ بھی کرتا تو فوج نے یہ کردار ادا کرنا تھا کیونکہ دارلحکومت کی حفاظت کی ذمہ داری فوج کی ہے۔
> us mauq3e par waziir-e-a3azam nawaaz shariif ne kahaa kih agar maiN fauj se raabitah nah bhii kartaa to fauj ne yih kirdaar adaa karnaa thaa kyoNkih daarulHukuumat kii Hifaazat kii zimmah daarii fauj kii hai. Literal quotation of Mr. Sharif or their own wording? Any way, the editors didn't seem to have any qualms about this fauj ne karnaa thaa at least.


Thank you for this example from Haryanavi. There is certainly a strong possibility that it could have influenced other languages in its vicinity.

​Could the paper be quoting the Pakistani prime minister verbatim?


----------



## marrish

It's possible they quoted him verbatim but not nrcessary. I don't know if there is a way to check it. Perhaps reading Pakistani papers from that date could help. It's also possible that he spoke English.


----------



## marrish

This time there is even a shi3r to be presented:

مجروح ہوئے مائل کس آفتِ دوراں پر
اے حضرتِ من تم نے دل بھی نہ لگا جانا (Majrooh)
majruuH hu'e maa'il kis aafat-e-dauraaN par
ae Hazrat-e-man tum ne dil bhii nah lagaa jaanaa

I found it in the Farhang-e-Asafiyyah under من.ف۔کلمہ .


----------



## marrish

In a book named "*Karkhandārī Dialect of Delhi Urdu*" published in *1961 *in New Delhi, Dr. Gopi Chand Narang described the usage of this construction and I quote:

"The first person singular agent mæ̃ ne میں نے is also used as singular dative : e.g.

mæ̃ ne khɑnɑ pəkɑnɑ hæ میں نے کھانا پکانا ہے " 

_Gopi Chand Narang, Kark̠h̠andārī Dialect of Delhi Urdu, New Delhi 1961, p. 51._


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> In a book named "*Karkhandārī Dialect of Delhi Urdu*" published in *1961 *in New Delhi, Dr. Gopi Chand Narang described the usage of this construction and I quote:
> 
> "The first person singular agent mæ̃ ne میں نے is also used as singular dative : e.g.
> 
> mæ̃ ne khɑnɑ pəkɑnɑ hæ میں نے کھانا پکانا ہے "
> 
> _Gopi Chand Narang, Kark̠h̠andārī Dialect of Delhi Urdu, New Delhi 1961, p. 51._


بہت خوب دریافت کی ہے، آپ نے، مرّش صاحب۔ میرے خیال میں اب کوئی شکّ باقی نہیں رہا کہ میں نےلاہور جانا ہے والا لطیفہ اب اتنا  دلکش اور   مضحکہ خیز نہیں رہا جتنا کبھی تھا! بہت بہت شکریہ۔​


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> This time there is even a shi3r to be presented:
> 
> مجروح ہوئے مائل کس آفتِ دوراں پر
> اے حضرتِ من تم نے دل بھی نہ لگا جانا (Majrooh)
> majruuH hu'e maa'il kis aafat-e-dauraaN par
> ae Hazrat-e-man tum ne dil bhii nah lagaa jaanaa
> 
> I found it in the Farhang-e-Asafiyyah under من.ف۔کلمہ .


marrash SaaHib, I believe in this shi3r, in the second misra3, the meaning is....

ai Hazrat-i-man, tum ne dil bhii nah lagaanaa jaanaa

What do  you think?


----------



## Qureshpor

Summary of usage of "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" type of sentence by mother-tongue Urdu speakers, in chronological order.

1. 1635 meN Mullaa Asadullah Wajhii ne "Sabras" kii tasniif kii. Baabaa-i-Urdu, janaab-i-Abdul Haq ne ise 1932 meN apnii nigraanii meN Aurangabad se shaa'i3 kiyaa. aap safhah no. 182 mulaahazah kiijiye.

Sabras - Mulla Wajhi (Dakkani Urdu)

"jahaaN Ghamzah kare Ghamze vahaaN 3aashiq *ne* kyaa karnaa"

2. 1899 meN Abdul Halim Sharar ne ek naavil ba-naam “Hasan-Angelina” likhaa jis ke safhah no.9 par yih jumlah likhaa hu’aa hai.

jab xudaa ne bachaanaa hotaa hai to yuuN hotaa hai.

Hasan Anglina By Abdul Haleem Sharar : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

3. Sayyid Ahmed Dihlavi, in his book entitled “LuGhaatunnisaa’” published in 1917, over a hundred years ago, writes on page 2, "go aaj se taqriib-an do saal peshtar jo ham ne is luGhaat kii qiimat kaa taxmiinah lagaayaa thaa vuh saaRhe tiin ruupayah fii jild thaa. aur ab jo kaaGhaz kii giraanii ne aaNkheN dikhaa diiN to hamaarii siTTii gum ho ga'ii. *magar ham ne is kii qiimat baRhaanii thii nah baRhaa'ii."

Lughtun nis

4. Maulavii Nazeer Ahmed kii kahaanii- kuchh merii aur kuchh un kii zabaanii- Farhat Ali Beg –  July 1927 (page 40)

"den-len sab kuchh karte the magar Hisaab-kitaab sirf duusroN kii kitaaboN yaa un ke dil meN thaa. kuchh thoRaa bahut logoN ke kahne sun_ne se, mutafarriq parchoN par likh bhii liyaa thaa lekin itne baRe byopaar ke liye jaisaa daftar chaahiye ***vuh unhoN ne nah rakhnaa thaa nah rakhaa***"

Dr. Nazeer Ahmad Ki Kahani Kuchh Meri Aur Kuchh Unki Zabani  by Mirza Farhatullah Beg | Rekhta

5. janaab-i-Gopi Chand Narang ne 1961 meN ek kitaab jis kaa naam "Karkhandari Dialect of Delhi Urdu" hai, us ke safhah 51 par vuh farmaate haiN...

The first person singular agent maiN ne میں نے is also used as singular dative: e.g. maiN ne khaanaa pakaanaa hai

https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/karkhandari-dialect-of-delhi-urdu-gopi-chand-narang-ebooks?lang=hi&amp;pageId=&amp;targetId=&amp;bookmarkType=&amp;referer=&amp;myaction=


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> marrash SaaHib, I believe in this shi3r, in the second misra3, the meaning is....
> 
> ai Hazrat-i-man, tum ne dil bhii nah lagaanaa jaanaa
> 
> What do  you think?


Thank you for sharing your comments – now that you are asking, I'm no longer certain of either whether it is an example of the "maiN ne jaanaa" construction – but for the 2nd person plural 'tum', not 1st "maiN ne or ham ne" – or whether yours is the correct reading of the second misra3's meaning.

I'd be glad to go along with the latter, but I'm not convinced because I can't remember seeing such an elision of the infinitive _-naa_ marker.

Neither am I convinced of my earlier understanding any more so I have to expound on this point a little longer.

I consulted the text of the full Ghazal whose _matla3_'s meaning is along with your suggestion, that is "_jaanaa_" is the past participle of *jaan*_naa_ rather than the inf. _*jaa*naa_. The _matla3_ is:
*غیروں* کو بھلا سمجھے اور مجکو بُرا جانا  . \. سمجھے بھی تو کیا سمجھے جانا بھی تو کیا جانا
_GhairoN ko bhalaa samjhe awr mujko buraa jaanaa  ./. samjhe bhii to kyaa samjhe, jaanaa bhii to kyaa jaanaa_

But a completely different treatment of the "jaanaa" is introduced in the second misra3 of the second shi3r:
اک عمر کے دکھ پائے سوتے ہیں فراغت سے   .\.  اے غلغلہ محشر ہم کو نہ جگا جانا
_ik 3umr ke dukh paa'e sote haiN faraaGhat se ./. ae GhulGhula-e-maHshar, ham ko nah jagaa jaanaa _
In the above, the meaning _jaanaa_ gives is that of future imperative 2nd person sg.;


Further on, to illustrate my point I'm leaving out the first verses from the couplets that follow due to the constraints we have but I'm sharing the 2nd _misra3s _which provide the context, hoping that one or other could prove to be worthy of your attention. There must be at least one below (there is, choose one!), which supports my initial understanding:
More substance to the dry grammar matters 
سرمایہ صد آفت ہے دل ہی کا آ جانا_ sarmaayah-e-sad-aafat hae dil hii kaa aa jaanaa _

ماہیت اصلی کو اپنی نہ ذرا جانا _maahiyat-e-aslii ko apnii nah zaraa jaanaa_

یاں ہونٹ کا ہل جانا واں بات کا پا جانا _yaaN hoNT kaa hil jaanaa waaN baat kaa paa jaanaa_

میں نے تو کہا کیا تھا اور آپ نے کیا جانا _maiN ne to kahaa kyaa thaa aur-aap ne kyaa jaanaa_

اک شور قیامت ہی نالوں نے اُٹھا جانا     _ik shor-e-qiyaamat hii naaloN ne uThaa jaanaa_

اُن کو تو بہر صورت اک جلوہ دکھا جانا _un ko tuu ba-har suurat ik jalwah dikhaa jaanaa_

اُس نے دل عاشق کو مجبور وفا جانا _us ne dil-e-3aashiq ko majbuur-e-wafaa jaanaa_
and the second to the last is:
انجام ہوا اپنا آغاز محبت میں  // اس شغل کو جاں فرسا ایسا تو نہ تھا جانا
_  anjaam hu'aa apnaa aaGhaaz-e-maHabbat  meN / is shuGhl ko jaaN~farsaa aisaa to nah thaa jaanaa _

after which comes the contended maqta3 with "ne lagaa jaanaa". I leave the question open.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ marrish SaaHib, this is the beauty of Urdu poetry, that is to say "ma3nii-aafriinii". It is not surprising that the meanings of "jaanaa" are not the same in every line.

You are right I believe. Perhaps it means "lagaa kar jaanaa".


----------



## marrish

I would definitely keep it as one of the interpretative options the closing verse offers, while I think it follows the format of اک شور قیامت ہی نالوں نے اُٹھا جانا  (_ik shor-e-qiyaamat hii naaloN ne uThaa jaanaa), _as if to say,_ میری فریادیں محشر کا غوغا بپا کر (جانے)  والی ہیں merii faryaadeN to bilaa kisii qism ke shub,h-o-shak ke maHshar kaa GhoGhaa ba~paa kar *jaane* vaaliiN haiN: shaa3ir ke naale qiyaamat kaa shor uThaa paa'eN ge_۔ A simple example would be "kar jaanaa" as in e.g. "_woh dobaarah us se dhokah kar ga'e_". In the paraphrase, no understood '_kar (ke)_' is intended. I'm not sure if I can explain it better at this time.


----------



## Qureshpor

زور سے تھوڑی اسے پکارا کرنا ہے

ہم نے تو بس ایک اشارا کرنا ہے

یہ جو اسے ہر بات پہ غصہ آتا ہے

ہم نے اس کو پیار سے مارا کرنا ہے

زہرا قرار

Is the use of "ne" correct here?


----------



## marrish

An 1882 Hindi grammar already noted this.


> *In the Accusative and Dative, ta,îṅ is often substituted for ko ; ko is frequently both pronounced and written kuṅ or kûṅ, and around Dehli the particle ne is, oddly enough, sometimes used instead thereof.*



In 2011 Elena Bashir said this in _The Annual of Urdu Studies (I quoted it once before somewhere up-thread),_




The "separate variety of Pakistani Urdu" must've been thus thriving around Dehli until 1882 at the minimum.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> An 1882 Hindi grammar already noted this.
> 
> 
> In 2011 Elena Bashir said this in _The Annual of Urdu Studies (I quoted it once before somewhere up-thread),_
> View attachment 68138
> The "separate variety of Pakistani Urdu" must've been thus thriving around Dehli until 1882 at the minimum.


Just remind us the name of this 1882 Hindi Grammar book please.


----------



## Dinraat

Qureshpor said:


> Thanks. I suppose it depends on the person. I could live amongst people for a century (if I could live that long) who say "mere ko" or "aap baiTho" or "We was going" but I would never end up using any of these constructions!


*OR    *
"bhaiyya ye tu ne kiya *karaa*",
"mazaak(q) kar raaaa",
"main *tere ko* samjha raha yuN na *karaa* kar"


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> Just remind us the name of this 1882 Hindi Grammar book please.


It's Hindi Manual 1882, let me quote yet another excerpt here,


> Occasionally the agent is used, aoristically, with the infinitive, a practice which seems to be extending.
> Go, fellow !  what can those five Pâṇḍavas do against me?—
> Jâ re ! us pâṅch Pâṇḍavoṅ ne merâ kyâ karne kâ hai?
> जा रे उस पांच पाण्डवों ने मेरा क्या करन का है
> The sign of the agent may even be used in sentences bearing a future sense.
> 
> By such a one as thee excellent articles of food are to be prepared.—
> Tere sarîkhe ne achchhe achchhe khâne kâ mâl banânâ.
> तेरे सरीखे ने अच्छे अच्छे खाने का माल बनाना
> Fighting is to be done by heroes like me.—
> Laṛâˏî karnâ to hamâre sarîkhe bîroṅ ne karnâ.
> लड़ाई करना तो हमारे सरीखे बीरों ने करना


----------

