# Hindi, Urdu: mil ke yuuN chalte caleN



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

What does _"mil ke yuuN chalte caleN" _mean in the following stanza?

_kahiiN bair na ho،  ko'ii Ghair na ho
*sab mil ke yuuN chalte caleN*
jahaaN Gham bhii na ho aaNsuu bhii na ho ..._

My attempt is "all, having met waking, keep walking that way", but I am not convinced ...

The verses belong to the song "Aa Chal Ke Tujhe", written and sung by Kishore Kumar. In the song, a war veteran returns home to find his son mute and traumatized, but encourages him to "keep walking" (hence the title) towards some idyllic place. The song is a little smarmy but it doesn't lack beauty.


----------



## littlepond

"all, together, keep walking in such a way (that)"


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thanks, @littlepond
(that "ke" is कि, then. The  _*yuuN *_should have given me the hint  )


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Actually, then ...
The song itself, whose Bollyname is "Aa Chal Ke Tujhe" (and sometimes even "Aa Chalke Tujhe"), should be, strictly speaking, "Aa Chal Kih Tujhe"! (Because it goes: "aa chal *kih* tujhe, maiN le ke chaluuN = keep walking, *that* I would have taken you ...")


----------



## Alfaaz

MonsieurGonzalito said:
			
		

> that "ke" is कि, then. The _*yuuN *_should have given me the hint


 In _sub mil ke yuuN chalte chaleN_, the word is _ke_ not کہ - _keh_:

سب مل کے یوں چلتے چلیں

مل کے = مل کر -_ together; in unison; harmoniously; etc. _


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Oh, thanks, @Alfaaz!
It seems that I am seeing کہ's everywhere now


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Actually, then ...
> The song itself, whose Bollyname is "Aa Chal Ke Tujhe" (and sometimes even "Aa Chalke Tujhe"), should be, strictly speaking, "Aa Chal Kih Tujhe"! (Because it goes: "aa chal *kih* tujhe, maiN le ke chaluuN = keep walking, *that* I would have taken you ...")



It is "ke" in both the songs, not "ki". "ke" meaning after having done something.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Sorry, but I am still a little confused. The title of the song comes from the first stanza, which goes:

_aa cal *ke* tujhe maiN le *ke* caluuN 
ek aise gagan ke tale 
jahaaN Gham bhee na ho aaNsee bhii na ho 
bas pyaar hii pyaar pale_

I understand the rest of the verses, but, what is the second "ke" doing there? 
_After keeping walking, having taken you (with me), I shall go ...?_


----------



## littlepond

^ Yes, both "ke" are in the "after having done something" sense. You could replace "le ke" with "liye-liye" (or even simply "liye") if too many "ke" are making it difficult for you to parse the syntax.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Nice! I understand. Thanks, @littlepond.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Small correction to my own translation attempt above:
_"le chalnaa" _should be translated as one action, as explained already (to me) here
so, a more accurate translation would be: 

_"Keep walking, and I shall have led you" (to such a place ... etc.)_

The first absolutive is implied in the "and" so that the translation sounds less forced.


----------



## Alfaaz

In my opinion, your (MonsieurGonzalito) observation/opinion was correct and the lyrics are:

آ چل *کہ* تجھے میں لے کے چلوں اک ایسے گگن کے تلے
جہاں غمّ بھی نہ ہو آنسو بھی نہ ہو بس پیار ہی پیار پلے​
Let's see what other forum members think!

Urdu literary examples:

چلو کہ چل کے کسی دشت کو کریں آباد
فضائے شہر تو قاتل ہے جسم و جاں کے لیے

رحمان خاور

آؤ کہ کوئی خواب بنیں کل کے واسطے

ساحر لدھیانوی​


----------



## littlepond

After having thought more about it, the first "ke" does look like "ki" (that): both "ke" wouldn't make much sense. Apologies, @MonsieurGonzalito jii, for further confusing you, when you had it right in the first place.


----------



## bakshink

^ Yes, both "ke" are in the "after having done something" sense. You could replace "le ke" with "liye-liye" (or even simply "liye") if too many "ke" are making it difficult for you to parse the syntax. 
liye-liye is wrong. It doesn't make sense.
It has to be read as..
A chal ke ( A chal kar) Come walking, walk with me, ( Walking here is symbolic an act required for going to a world under a new sky) In the movie it is sung by the father ( a soldier) for his son who had become a mute after witnessing the whole family die in fire. I haven't seen the movie but as I understand from this song, it is about wishing to take his son to the a new world.
Tujhe main le ke chaloon ( Main tujhe le kar chaloon) I may take you, let me take you ( because it is a wish) to a new horizon ( A world under such a sky) 
Jahan gam bhi na ho or hon- (singular or plural both are o.k.) - where there is/are no sorrow(s)
Aansu bhi na hon- Nor there are any tears.
bas pyar hi pyar pale ( where only love prospers)


----------



## desi4life

littlepond said:


> After having thought more about it, the first "ke" does look like "ki" (that): both "ke" wouldn't make much sense. Apologies, @MonsieurGonzalito jii, for further confusing you, when you had it right in the first place.



Why would चलके (= चलकर) and लेके (= लेकर) in the same sentence not make sense?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

[EDITED]
This is still confusing sorry. 
We either have 3 actions:

- the exhortation of the singer to his son to "keep walking"
- the singer "taking" his son: _le_
- the singer "going": _chaluuN_

Or only 2 actions, if we consider the "le" to be part of the verbal phrase "le chalnaa" (to lead, to carry):
- the exhortation to "keep walking"
- the singer "leading" his son

I much prefer option 2, but the fact that "chaluuN" is conjugated tends to indicate option 1.

In relation to the "ke"'s, I prefer the first one to be "kih" simply in order to not go crazy with the several levels of completed actions that would be required otherwise.
With all "ke"s' the translation would be something like:

_Having (you) kept walking, having taken you, I shall go ..._

With the first as "kih" it flows a little more naturally:

_Keep walking, that I, having taken you, shall go ..._

Or, using the trick of "and" to indicate a completed previous absolutive:

_Keep walking, that I shall take you and go_


----------



## littlepond

desi4life said:


> Why would चलके (= चलकर) and लेके (= लेकर) in the same sentence not make sense?



It doesn't make that much sense to me _only here_. "Come walk (to me) so that I can take you with me" - "aa chal, ki tujhe maiN le kar chalooN".

Of course, it _could _be both "chal kar" and "le kar": "Come, let me walk to you and let me take you with me". But that's not the way I am interpreting it (now, after thinking about it), that's all.


----------



## Frau Moore

The lyrics in Nastaliq would probably  clear the question of the "ki" or the "ke". I couldn´t find any. The Nagri text shows a "ke" ( aa cal ke) but can we be sure that it´s correct? As Littlepond said "ki" as well as "ke" make sense.

With "ki" I would translate as "COME, so that I etc etc..........." understanding the "cal" in "aa cal" as intensification of "aa", like "aa jaa". IMHO it would be enough to render it as "come" in English.

But if it was ke: aa cal ke tujhe maiN le kar caluuN I tend to understand as "having come, let me take you to etc." . And as the father has come back from war that sounds probable, don´t? Of course that´s not an "English" sentence now. "I´ve come to take you to etc."..... , "I´m here to take you with me to etc.", "I´m here cause I´d like  to take you to etc".............maybe these would be some fitting free translations of the meaning. 

What do you think?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Frau Moore said:


> And as the father has come back from war that sounds probable, don´t?


Good point!

I found exactly 4 Urdu renditions on the Internet:

These two say "kih":
- One facebook entry
- One entry in Urduweb (entry 8)

These two say "ke":
- One entry in tammernews
- One tweet

I guess we will never know ...


----------



## littlepond

Frau Moore said:


> But if it was ke: aa cal ke tujhe maiN le kar caluuN I tend to understand as "having come, let me take you to etc." .



"aa chal ke" cannot mean "having come". "having come" would be "aa ke".


----------



## bakshink

aa chal ke- means chal kar aa or chal kar aao - come walking to me, walk up to me. Aa chal ke- pause Tujhe main le ke chaloon. This is how it should be but while singing there are limitations of pauses and even structuring of the sentences has to be done for giving preference to rhyme than grammar.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

True, the first part is an imperative no matter what, sorry.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

For what it's worth, I asked an Urdu professor, and for him it is کہ


----------



## Alfaaz

An attempt to outline what the lyrics could convey depending on which word (_keh. vs. ke_) is used:

With کہ - _keh_:

_aa chal! *keh *tujhe maiN le ke chaluuN..._
_aa'o chalo! *keh *tumheN maiN le ke chaluuN..._

Approximate English translation: _Come on! that/for I shall take you to such a place where..._

With کے - _ke_:

_aa! *chal ke* tujhe maiN le ke chaluuN...

aa'o! *chal ke* tumheN maiN le ke chaluuN...
_
_→ aa! maiN tujhe *chal ke le ke* chaluuN..._
_→ aa! maiN *chal ke* tujhe* le ke* chaluuN..._
Approximate English translation: _Come! I by/while walking _(instead of running or cycling, etc.) _shall take you to such a place where..._

Do forum members suggesting that it is _chal ke/kar_ agree with the analysis above and do they think it makes sense (_chal ke le ke_) looking at it from the perspective above?


			
				bakshink said:
			
		

> aa chal ke- means chal kar aa or chal kar aao - come walking to me, walk up to me. Aa chal ke- pause Tujhe main le ke chaloon.


 _aa chal ke! tujhe maiN le ke chaluuN → chal ke aa! tujhe maiN le ke chaluuN_

This is certainly an interesting perspective_. _However, why would the father need to ask the son to walk up to him if the boy is already sitting next to him?


			
				littlepond said:
			
		

> "Come *walk (to me)* so that I can take you with me" - "aa chal, ki tujhe maiN le kar chalooN".
> 
> Of course, it _could _be both "chal kar" and "le kar": "Come, let me *walk to you* and let me take you with me".


 Where do the _to me/to you_ come from in your English translations?


----------



## Alfaaz

MonsieurGonzalito said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I asked an Urdu professor, and for him it is کہ


Thanks for also asking about this in addition to the topic being discussed in the other thread.


----------



## littlepond

Alfaaz said:


> Where do the _to me/to you_ come from in your English translations?



Agree, there's no necessary "to me" or "to you" in those lines. In situation (a), the speaker's exhortation is simply for the other to walk, and in situation (b), it simply describes the manner of moving.


----------

