# Hindi: tumhaaraa/tumhaarii maargdarshak



## Wolverine9

Platts and Bahri list _maargdarshak _as a masculine noun, so should it be _tumhaaraa maargdarshak_ instead of _tumhaarii maargdarshak_, or does it depend on context?


----------



## tonyspeed

Wolverine9 said:


> Platts and Bahri list _maargdarshak _as a masculine noun, so should it be _tumhaaraa maardarshak_ instead of _tumhaarii maargdarshak_, or does it depend on context?



I would say, like most other such nouns referring to people, it depends on context.

Would one say tumhaaraa shikshak, if the teacher is a woman?

Platts says:



> _mārg-darsak_ *(f. -ikā*)



Someone else will have to tell you if margdarshikaa is used in practice.

shikshak also has a female counterpart: shikshikaa.


----------



## Wolverine9

I should add the complete sentence for the purpose of context:

"tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii *tumhaarii *maarg-darshak banii rahe."


----------



## Chhaatr

Wolverine9 said:


> Platts and Bahri list _maargdarshak _as a masculine noun, so should it be _tumhaaraa maargdarshak_ instead of _tumhaarii maargdarshak_, or does it depend on context?



In the now closed English Translation thread I had suggested tumhaarii because the sentence was:

tumhaare pyaar kii roshinii tumhaaraa maargdarshak bane.

Using "tumhaaraa" after roshinii in the above context sounds odd to my ears because in that sentence "roshinii" is the guide.  Probably, I should have also suggested you to change "maargdarshak" to "maargdarshikaa".

In the context of this thread it will have to be "tumhaaraa maargdarshak".


----------



## Wolverine9

So how does the following sentence now sound:"tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaaraa maarg-darshak banii rahe."

And to verify, it should remain _banii _instead of _banaa _because _roshnii _is feminine, correct?


----------



## Chhaatr

"tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaarii maargdarshikaa banii rahe"


----------



## Wolverine9

OK, thanks.


----------



## insouciantguru

"Tumhaare pyaar ka roshan tumhaara maargdarshak banaa rahe" 

-is another way to circumvent this problem although it changes the meaning a tad.


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> "Tumhaare pyaar ka roshan tumhaara maargdarshak banaa rahe"
> 
> -is another way to circumvent this problem although it changes the meaning a tad.


What would "pyaar kaa roshan" be?


----------



## Qureshpor

Allow me to sort the wheat from the chaff please.


tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaarii/tumhaaraa maarg-darshak banii rahe


tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaarii maarg-darshak banii rahe.


In this sentence "tumhaarii" is linked to "roshanii and agrees with its feminine gender. 


tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaaraa maarg-darshak banii rahe.


Here "tumhaaraa" is linked to "maarg-darshak" and agrees with its gender.


The two sentences are *not* identical in meaning. In the first one is it is your light and in the second one it is your maarg-darshak.


----------



## insouciantguru

QURESHPOR said:


> What would "pyaar kaa roshan" be?



It would mean "lit" or "lighted". It is the male version of "roshni", much less commonly used. And it may sound odd to some readers.


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> It would mean "lit" or "lighted". It is the male version of "roshni", much less commonly used. And it may sound odd to some readers.


It can not be masculine of roshanii because roshanii is a noun and roshan is an adjective.


----------



## insouciantguru

It is a noun, true. I got a little mixed-up as Roshan can also be a man's name (proper noun), just as Roshnii is a woman's name.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> Allow me to sort the wheat from the chaff please.
> 
> 
> tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaarii/tumhaaraa maarg-darshak banii rahe
> 
> 
> tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaarii maarg-darshak banii rahe.
> 
> 
> In this sentence "tumhaarii" is linked to "roshanii and agrees with its feminine gender.
> 
> 
> tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaaraa maarg-darshak banii rahe.
> 
> 
> Here "tumhaaraa" is linked to "maarg-darshak" and agrees with its gender.
> 
> 
> The two sentences are *not* identical in meaning. In the first one is it is your light and in the second one it is your maarg-darshak.



That's a good observation.  So either _tumhaaraa _or _tumhaarii _is acceptable in this context.  It's just that the meaning slightly changes.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> That's a good observation.  So either _tumhaaraa _or _tumhaarii _is acceptable in this context.  It's just that the meaning slightly changes.


Upon further contemplation, I would like to amend my thought process. Apologies for any possible confusion caused.

The sentences ought to be:

tumhaare pyaar kii roshanii maarg-darshak banii rahe

May the light of your love continue to remain a guide (for you)

tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaaraa maarg-darshak banii rahe.

May the light of your love continue to remain your guide


----------



## Chhaatr

If a slight change in meaning is acceptable then one can even say:

tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaaraa maargdarshan kartii rahe
(may the light of your love continue to guide you)


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Allow me to sort the wheat from the chaff please.
> 
> 
> tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaarii/tumhaaraa maarg-darshak banii rahe
> 
> 
> tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaarii maarg-darshak banii rahe.
> 
> 
> In this sentence "tumhaarii" is linked to "roshanii and agrees with its feminine gender.
> 
> 
> tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaaraa maarg-darshak banii rahe.
> 
> 
> Here "tumhaaraa" is linked to "maarg-darshak" and agrees with its gender.
> 
> 
> The two sentences are *not* identical in meaning. In the first one is it is your light and in the second one it is your maarg-darshak.




I think the question was clear before: since raushanii is feminine, should margdarshak also be feminine? This actually confuses the situation. Wolv-ji was asking for a E->H translation, not a H->E translation.


The second note is it that in prose one would not say raushanii tumharii -  maybe in verse.

In speaking there would be no such confusion:
"tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii(,)  *tumhaarii *maarg-darshak banii rahe."

And finally saying "tumhaare pyaar kii raushanii tumharii" to mean your light of your love sounds awkward. 
If it's your love's light, how can it be someone else's? That would be redundant.


----------



## greatbear

Since "roshnii" is fem., it should be "tumharii" in the sentence under question (regardless of whether one changes "margdarshak" to "margdarshikaa", the latter being a hardly used word). Chhatr is perfectly right. Another example: if I know the new teacher is a lady, I would ask "tumhaarii naii shikshak kaun hai?" (of course, I could use "shikshikaa", but the same phenomenon is at work as in modern French, where it is common to see and hear "ma professeur" for a lady teacher instead of "mon professeur).

Agree with TS above; in normal prose, it would be "tumharii roshnii" if any attempt of clubbing them together were meant: here "tumhaaraa/ii" is clearly only for "maargdarshak"; in addition, it wouldn't make much sense.


----------



## Qureshpor

tumhaare desh kii dhartii *tumhaarii pahchaan *banii rahe (pahchaan: feminine noun)
tumhaare desh kii dhartii *tumhaaraa maan* banii rahe (maan: masculine noun)
tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii *tumhaaraa maarg-darshak* banii rahe (maarg-darshak: masculine compound noun)


----------



## greatbear

^ "maargdarshak" is a person/personification, whereas "maan" is not: so the logic given above is false. Let's replace the Hindi word with the English word "teacher" (which otherwise is both masc. or fem. in Hindi, depending on the gender of the actual teacher):

tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumhaaraa teacher banaa rahe 
tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii tumharii teacher banii rahe 
tumhaare pyaar kaa uphaar tumhaaraa teacher banaa rahe 
tumhaare pyaar kaa uphaar tumhaarii teacher banii rahe


----------



## Qureshpor

"beTaa, puraane vaqtoN ke log jab raat ke andhere meN safar karte the to taare *un kaa maarg-darshak *hote the."

"tumhaaraa sab se *baRaa* maarg-darshak *tumhaarii* apnii hii *aatmaa* hai."


----------



## greatbear

^ Both the examples above don't prove anything. The first one, if I were to translate it into English, would be "stars used to be their guide" (NOT their guides): stars is plural, yes, but they are being taken as one, collective identity as a guide. In the second example, who is the guide is revealed only later; to say "tumhaarii" initially when we don't know what the speaker is going to talk about would be kind of letting the cat out of the bag. In other words, the second sentence, for me, cannot be recast as "tumhaarii apnii hii aatmaa tumhaaraa sab se baRaa maargdarshak hai" - it would have to be "tumharii sab se baRii margdarshak/ikaa hai".


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> I should add the complete sentence for the purpose of context:
> 
> "tumhaare pyaar kii roshnii *tumhaarii *maarg-darshak banii rahe."


This is a very simple question and my intuitive answer in the closed thread was -aa but it appears a quite interesting matter and I'm glad we can discuss it.I tend to accept the opinions of the Hindiphone members simply because 'maargdarshak' is not a word of my first language but it is theirs. On the net, I've seen both approaches to the gender; and apRt from this, maargdarshak is frequently used as an adjective, which is automatically liable to grammatical gender. I have seen the contributions of QP SaaHib and I can find myself in his logic. So for the moment the issue seems not to be one-sided to me. It is so nice we have a linguistic discussion from which we can learn something!


----------



## Qureshpor

In the first example of # post 21, one can change "kaa" to "ke" to imply "guides.

"beTaa, puraane vaqtoN ke log jab raat ke andhere meN safar karte the to taare*un ke maarg-darshak hote the."
*
In the second one, the word order can be reversed.

"*tumhaarii apnii hii aatmaa *tumhaaraa sab se *baRaa maarg-darshak *hai *."

*हृदय की पुस्तक को अपना मार्गदर्शक बनाओ !

Translation into Urdu: 

dil kii kitaab ko apnaa raah-numaa banaa'o!


----------



## greatbear

^ In the first example, no one said that one cannot change "guide" to "guides" (and "kaa" to "ke"): if each star is going to do its own guiding business, then "guides" would be appropriate, and if the stars in unison are gonna do the guiding, "guide" would be appropriate. Hope it serves as both English and Hindi lesson.

By the way, if you are saying "kaa" can be changed to "ke", then it seems you are now contradicting your own earlier position!

As for the "aatmaa" example, no, the reversed word order is wrong for me (and I believe for Chhatr, too).


----------



## marrish

Just for my information, greatbear and anyone who might care to answer. Do you perceive _roshnii tumhaaraa maargdarshak_ as unacceptable, even though it is not an animate noun or maybe both are possible?


----------



## greatbear

^ It is unacceptable to me: animatedness has nothing to do with it, in particular since by calling it a "maargdarshak", you are personifying (animating) it.


----------



## Chhaatr

marrish said:


> Just for my information, greatbear and anyone who might care to answer. Do you perceive _roshnii tumhaaraa maargdarshak_ as unacceptable, even though it is not an animate noun or maybe both are possible?



Marrish saaHib, for me it will have to be "roshnii tumhaarii".


----------



## marrish

Thank you gb and Chhaatr SaaHib.


----------

