# Urdu-Hindi: lena, karna, etc. masculine forms



## Alfaaz

*Background:
*I remember there was a thread discussing karna and it remaining karna regardless of gender agreement issues. One can hear such sentences often on TV (especially in dramas/movies):

_"Tumhe saari raat jaag kar kitaab parhna hogi" _instead of _"parhni hogi"
"Tasweer to tumhe lena hogi, warna phir mein tumse kabhi baat na karongi"
"Chai to aapko peena hogi! Hum mehmaan ko youn naheen jane dainge!" 
"Tamaashah mat banao; dauraan-e-taqreeb chehre per muskuraahat sajana hogi!"
"Azaadi haasil karna hogi!"

_*Questions:* Does the rule of leaving the word karna masculine apply to other words as well? Or do the words remain masculine due to the hogi being feminine? Such usage seems to give a more formal or royal tone (Indo-Pak movies Umrao Jaan Ada, Gharnata, Yeh Amn, Zarqa, Mughal-e-Azaam, Devdas, Jodha Akbar type)...


----------



## Illuminatus

I don't know about Urdu, but as far as Standard Hindi is concerned, I'm pretty sure all the sentences you've mentioned are ungrammatical. At least in my idiolect, they are definitely ungrammatical.

Some examples from online media as proof: 

A Google search for "करना होगी" returns 10100 results while "करनी होगी" returns 491000 results. That is _karni hogi_ is roughly 50 times more common than _karna hogi_. We shouldn't blindly trust search results, but this is a case of overwhelming evidence.
But I see where this question's coming from. If I Google search for the Urdu spelling, I get 70200 for "کرنا ہوگی" and 32000 for "کرنی ہوگی", so it does appear that _karna hogi_ is more common in Urdu compared to _karni hogi_.

तीसरी स्थिति होगी कि हमारे सामने चुनौतियां आएंगी, लगातार संघर्ष रहेगा और इसी में से हमें सफलता _हासिल करनी होगी.
_उलूक की तरह रात में भी जगने की शक्ति _हासिल करनी होगी_, अपनी बुद्धि को ताक पर रखकर भेड़चाल चलने की *कला सीखनी होगी*।
एमडी या डॉक्टरेट की डिग्री _हासिल_ करने वालों को तीन साल तक नियमित रूप से देश की *सेवा **करनी होगी|

*


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> *Background:
> *I remember there was a thread discussing karna and it remaining karna regardless of gender agreement issues. One can hear such sentences often on TV (especially in dramas/movies):
> 
> _"Tumhe saari raat jaag kar kitaab parhna hogi" _instead of _"parhni hogi"
> "Tasweer to tumhe lena hogi, warna phir mein tumse kabhi baat na karongi"
> "Chai to aapko peena hogi! Hum mehmaan ko youn naheen jane dainge!"
> "Tamaashah mat banao; dauraan-e-taqreeb chehre per muskuraahat sajana hogi!"
> "Azaadi haasil karna hogi!"
> 
> _*Questions:* Does the rule of leaving the word karna masculine apply to other words as well? Or do the words remain masculine due to the hogi being feminine? Such usage seems to give a more formal or royal tone (Indo-Pak movies Umrao Jaan Ada, Gharnata, Yeh Amn, Zarqa, Mughal-e-Azaam, Devdas, Jodha Akbar type)...



Alfaaz, this topic has been discussed at length in the "chaahiye" thread. 

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1398107&highlight=baat+karnii

Other relevant threads are: 

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1547905


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=7774599#post7774599


In a nutshell, both, "aap ko ko'ii bhii kitaab xariidnaa nahiiN paRe gii" AND "aap ko ko'ii bhii kitaab xariidnii nahiiN paRe gii" are grammatically correct. The first, generally speaking, is the Lucknow idiom and the second is the Delhi style. Grammmar books will attest to this.

A good friend of mine once sent me a grammatical analysis for this kind of thing. Let me reproduce it here. I shall copy it here verbatim sticking to his transcription.

*"(o) laRkA haE.
(o) laRkE kA `irAda haE.
(o) laRkE kI aOqAt haE.

Here, in the direct case the noun remains unchanged; but in the oblique it adopts the 'E' form (laRkA -> laRkE)

(I provided two oblique forms so that both the masculine possessive & feminine singular possessive will be covered to prevent any confusion arising from that.)

Contrast with

(o) laRkI haE.
(o) laRkI kA `irAda haE.
(o) laRkI kI aOqAt haE.

Here, the feminine noun retains its form regardless of whether it is direct or oblique.

Now, for the sake of argument, assume that "bAt karnA" (or "bAtE.n karnA") is a singular masculine noun. If so, we should be able to drop it directly into the masculine declensions without flinching

(o) bAt karnA haE.
(o) bAt karnE kA `irAda haE.
(o) bAt karnE kI aOqAt haE.

So far so good. This fits. But, let's see what happens if we assume "bAt karnI" is a singular feminine noun and drop it into the feminine declension.

(o) bAt karnI haE.
(o) bAt karnI kA `irAda haE.
(o) bAt karnI kI aOqAt haE.

I'm sure you must have found the last two sentences revolting! Even if you have been using the first line on a daily basis.

Based on this, it is pretty clear which form fits the grammatical model better. In terms of 'lateral compatibility' with current grammar, the "bAt karnA" as singular masculine wins hands down. One could ofcourse say that "bAt karnI" (and indeed all infinitive verbs of this nature) should be treated as a special (new?) category of  declensions. I couldn't argue against that. But, as the current grammar stands, the feminine form doesn't align to the established declensions."




*


----------



## nineth

Illuminatus said:


> I don't know about Urdu, but as far as Standard Hindi is concerned, I'm pretty sure all the sentences you've mentioned are ungrammatical. At least in my idiolect, they are definitely ungrammatical.



Same for me. In addition, I find these very odd and very uncomfortable to hear - almost to the point that I can't bear them!


----------



## marrish

I find the masculine form perfectly correct and much better in Urdu (elegant). I don't know about Hindi but in Punjabi it's not used, the infinitive must always agree in gender with the object. Many thanks for Qureshpor SaHib for providing this explanation. It would be valuable if somebody could provide at least one example of the masculine usage from Hindi literature, if existent. Also it's eventual occurence in the languages/dialects of UP would add to the discussion.


----------



## greatbear

Just like to _nineth_, they are quite unbearable to me as well, another (UP) Hindi speaker.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for the replies and comments (especially QP's explanation helps understand the grammatical reasoning)! Agree with marrish that it sounds a bit more elegant/eloquent, but can relate to nineth and greatbear's comments as it  might sound a bit too Shahi Darbar type or plain wrong (to those who are not used to hearing such sentences)!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I find the masculine form perfectly correct and much better in Urdu (elegant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).  I don't know about Hindi but in Punjabi it's not used, the infinitive  must always agree in gender with the object. Many thanks for Qureshpor  SaHib for providing this explanation. It would be valuable if somebody could provide at least one example of the masculine usage from Hindi literature, if existent. Also it's eventual occurence in the languages/dialects of UP would add to the discussion.




*Here are two examples.

*वह कैसे जानें गे कि किस शब्द के नीचे *बिन्दी लगाना चाहिये (Balmukund Gupta: Hindi meN bindii)*
vah kaise jaaneN ge kis shabd ke niiche *bindii lagaanaa chahiye**

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/308gupta.pdf

chhoTaa kaaGhaz laayaa hai! are, davaa'ii kii puRiyaa nahiiN banaanaa, chiTThii likhnaa hai.

* *http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m7-TrTLs2wMC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=चिट्ठी+लिखना+पड़े+गी&source=bl&ots=8KwWqoTFOw&sig=_2NWrbEs1wROK9k84hnzyNAFp10&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dOAIT8jYFoav8APq4simAQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=चिट्ठी लिखना पड़े गी&f=false*


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> *Here are two examples.
> 
> *वह कैसे जानें गे कि किस शब्द के नीचे *बिन्दी लगाना चाहिये (Balmukund Gupta: Hindi meN bindii)*
> vah kaise jaaneN ge kis shabd ke niiche *bindii lagaanaa chahiye**
> 
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/308gupta.pdf
> 
> *Are you sure it isn't a typo? The writer usually has agreement, as in "यहाँ तक कि जिन शब्दों के नीचे बिंदी नहीं लगानी चाहिए, उनके नीचे भी उन्होने बिंदी लगा दी थी";
> *
> chhoTaa kaaGhaz laayaa hai! are, davaa'ii kii puRiyaa nahiiN banaanaa, chiTThii likhnaa hai.
> 
> * *http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m7-TrTLs2wMC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=चिट्ठी+लिखना+पड़े+गी&source=bl&ots=8KwWqoTFOw&sig=_2NWrbEs1wROK9k84hnzyNAFp10&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dOAIT8jYFoav8APq4simAQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=चिट्ठी लिखना पड़े गी&f=false
> 
> *Interestingly, the writer uses "jab" for "ab" and "houNgaa" instead of "hooNgaa" ("o Jagadish, jab maiN tum logoN par naaraaz nahiN houNgaa"), so he's certainly got a a bit different style of Hindi than what I have heard so far. Thanks for the link, QP. Would anyone be knowing if "jab" for "ab" a common occurrence in certain parts or milieux?


----------



## Illuminatus

This somehow sounds Bihari to me, and in Bihari-speak, chitthi would be masculine, I think.

hamko chithhi likhna hai. or hum chitthi likha.


----------



## Qureshpor

Illuminatus said:


> This somehow sounds Bihari to me, and in Bihari-speak, chitthi would be masculine, I think.
> 
> hamko chithhi likhna hai. or hum chitthi likha.




So you think this is Bihari and not Hindi? Perhaps someone who is a Bihari or someone who is familiar with this language could come to our assistance. chiTThii, masculine, I somehow don't think so. Is "puRiyaa" masculine too? I shall try to look out for further examples.


----------



## Qureshpor

Are you sure it isn't a typo? The writer usually has agreement, as in "यहाँ तक कि जिन शब्दों के नीचे बिंदी नहीं लगानी चाहिए, उनके नीचे भी उन्होने बिंदी लगा दी थी";
*
No, I am not sure. The best way to ascertain the authenticity of this sentence would be to go to the source from which Snell took this piece from. I was aware of the "usual" agreement but this type of agreement is used by Urdu-vaalas too. What I am attempting to show is that Hindi writers use the "masculine" form too. Let us see what else we can come up with.*


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I find the masculine form perfectly correct and much better in Urdu (elegant). I don't know about Hindi but in Punjabi it's not used, the infinitive must always agree in gender with the object. Many thanks for Qureshpor SaHib for providing this explanation. It would be valuable if somebody could provide at least one example of the masculine usage from Hindi literature, if existent. Also it's eventual occurence in the languages/dialects of UP would add to the discussion.




What better person to quote than the "Grand Old Man" lovingly known as "Baba-i-Urdu" namely Maulavi Abdul Haq? Please go straight to page 189 of the document itself where he talks about "baat karnii" and "baat karnaa". He says that the latter is favoured by ahl-i-Lucknow.

http://ia700308.us.archive.org/11/items/QawaidUrdu/QawaidUrdu.pdf

nahiiN dil lagii Daagh yaaroN se kah do
kih aatii hai Urdu zabaaN aate aate!

C.M.Naim (from Barabanki) in his introduction to "Introductory Urdu, 3rd edition published in 1999 by University of Chicago" states the following when talking about differences between Hindi and Urdu. "In another indirect construction, Hindi usually has the infinitive, functioning as a complement, agreeing with the grammatical subject of the verb; Urdu, however, commonly has two more possibilities

Hindi: mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnii haiN
...........................................................

Urdu: mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnii haiN

      : mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnaa haiN

      : mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnaa hai


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Originally Posted by *marrish*
> 
> I find the masculine form perfectly correct and much better in Urdu (elegant).   I don't know about Hindi but in Punjabi it's not used, the infinitive   must always agree in gender with the object. Many thanks for Qureshpor   SaHib for providing this explanation. It would be valuable if somebody   could provide at least one example of the masculine usage from Hindi   literature, if existent. Also it's eventual occurence in the languages/dialects of UP would add to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What better person to quote than the "Grand Old Man" lovingly known as  "Baba-i-Urdu" namely Maulavi Abdul Haq? Please go straight to page 189  of the document itself where he talks about "baat karnii" and "_*baat karnaa". He says that the latter is favoured by ahl-i-Lucknow*_.
> 
> http://ia700308.us.archive.org/11/items/QawaidUrdu/QawaidUrdu.pdf
> 
> nahiiN dil lagii Daagh yaaroN se kah do
> kih aatii hai Urdu zabaaN aate aate!
> 
> C.M.Naim (from Barabanki) in his introduction to  "Introductory Urdu, 3rd edition published in 1999 by University of  Chicago" states the following when talking about differences between  Hindi and Urdu. "In another indirect construction, Hindi usually has the  infinitive, functioning as a complement, agreeing with the grammatical  subject of the verb; Urdu, however, commonly has two more possibilities
> 
> Hindi: mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnii haiN
> ...........................................................
> 
> Urdu: mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnii haiN
> 
> : mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnaa haiN
> 
> : mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnaa hai
Click to expand...

_*QP SaaHib, I can confirm that this is how we say it!*_ For us the agreement is not necessary so for us it is always *baat karnaa / chiiz lena* etc. and _never_ _*baat karnii *_and _*chiiz lenii*_. In fact we would consider the latter inelegant Urdu!  However, we also accept that others say things differently! We've been through this before as you mentioned above. 



Alfaaz said:


> *
> Background:
> *I remember there was a thread discussing karna and it remaining karna regardless of gender agreement issues. One can hear such sentences often on TV (especially in dramas/movies):
> 
> _"Tumhe saari raat jaag kar kitaab parhna hogi" _instead of _"parhni hogi"
> "Tasweer to tumhe lena hogi, warna phir mein tumse kabhi baat na karongi"
> "Chai to aapko peena hogi! Hum mehmaan ko youn naheen jane dainge!"
> "Tamaashah mat banao; dauraan-e-taqreeb chehre per muskuraahat sajana hogi!"
> "Azaadi haasil karna hogi!"
> 
> _*Questions:* _*Does the rule of leaving the word karna masculine apply to other words as well*_? Or do the words remain masculine due to the hogi being feminine? Such usage seems to give a more formal or royal tone (Indo-Pak movies Umrao Jaan Ada, Gharnata, Yeh Amn, Zarqa, Mughal-e-Azaam, Devdas, Jodha Akbar type)...


 Yes, as far as we are concerned, this rule does apply to others too as I mention above! So_ karnaa_, _lenaa_, _denaa_, _xariidnaa_, _bechnaa_, _k-haanaa_ etc., all remain masculine even if the object noun is feminine, e.g. _*aap ko yeh kitaab (fem.) bechnaa hogii*_ and _not* bechnii hogii*_; _*yeh sabzii (fem.) k-haanaa hogii*_ etc.

So according to our speech and rules of Urdu, all of your above sentences are both idiomatic and grammatically correct! I'm not sure about the 'royal tone' bit you mention but this is how we say it!


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> So you think this is Bihari and not Hindi? Perhaps someone who is a Bihari or someone who is familiar with this language could come to our assistance. chiTThii, masculine, I somehow don't think so. Is "puRiyaa" masculine too? I shall try to look out for further examples.



I also think it Bihari dialect, since many Bihari speakers do speak like that, what comes across to most Hindi speakers as an "uneducated" or rustic version.


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> So you think this is Bihari and not Hindi? Perhaps someone who is a Bihari or someone who is familiar with this language could come to our assistance. chiTThii, masculine, I somehow don't think so. Is "puRiyaa" masculine too? I shall try to look out for further examples.


QP, I know as much that for many words their gender is reversed in Bihari.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I also think it Bihari dialect, since many Bihari speakers do speak like that, what comes across to most Hindi speakers as an "uneducated" or rustic version.




Couple of more examples.

*हमें यह बात उन्हें बताना भीचाहिए। आपको मम्मी के नाम एक चिट्ठी लिखकर हमें भेजना है।* 

hameN yah baat unheN bataanaa chaahiye. aap ko Mummy ke naam ek chiTThii likh kar hameN bhejnaa hai.

http://hindi.webdunia.com/एक-चिट्‍ठी-माँ/एक-चिट्‍ठी-माँ-के-नाम-1100407031_1.htm

*आज ईसा मसीह का जन्म होना है। प्यार की बातें बताना है।
*aaj Iisaa Masiih ka janm honaa hai. pyaar kii baateN bataanaa hai.

http://www.jagran.com/news/state-8649724.html


----------



## Illuminatus

Or you could hear any speech by minister Laloo Prasad Yadav. That's textbook Bihari for you, I think. Note, of course, that is different from when Bihari people speak standard Hindi, which are fewer such features. But, from my experience, they still face problems with gender. 

A junior of mine from college used to talk pretty standard Hindi otherwise, but his genders were all over the place, mostly erring towards using the male where Standard Hindi would use female.


----------



## Qureshpor

Illuminatus said:


> Or you could hear any speech by minister Laloo Prasad Yadav. That's textbook Bihari for you, I think. Note, of course, that is different from when Bihari people speak standard Hindi, which are fewer such features. But, from my experience, they still face problems with gender.



It appears that the internet is replete with Bihari. Unfortunately I do not have access to the Hindi of those writers who are considered to be masters in their language. I shall try to contact someone who may be "in the know" concerning this grammatical feature and see what he says. I shall return, as the saying goes!


----------



## marrish

I am sure I heard some Hindi-waalaas not genderising the verb; I am going to look for hard evidence, too. I wouldn't take offence, either, if this usage were to be tracked down to some Bihari influence on Urdu! Or, God forbid, Urdu influence on Hindi! And to my taste, gender-issues that the nouns happen to experience are not relevant to this thread.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> And to my taste, gender-issues that the nouns happen to experience are not relevant to this thread.



Only as much as:

mujhe roTii (feminine) khaanii hai.
mujhe roTii (feminine) khaanaa hai.
mujhe kabaab (masculine) khaanaa hai.


----------



## marrish

Yes, of course. What I mean by gender-issues with nouns is that gender switch in certain kinds of dialects is not relevant to the topic. Also, by using mujhe roTii khaanaa hai, roTii does not become masculine!


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> It appears that the internet is replete with Bihari. Unfortunately I do not have access to the Hindi of those writers who are considered to be masters in their language. I shall try to contact someone who may be "in the know" concerning this grammatical feature and see what he says. I shall return, as the saying goes!




As promised, I have returned!

In a private communication Dr. Rupert Snell, author of several books on Hindi language and literature and currently the director of "Hindi-Urdu Flagship", has confirmed to me that in Standard Hindi, "mujhe kuchh kitaabeN xariidnii haiN" is the only acceptable form.


----------

