# Hindi/Urdu: kiya karta tha



## souminwé

I've often heard the phrase *raha karta tha, *and I made the na-daan assumption that *raha karna *was a set phrase.

But, I've heard *kiya karta tha *loads of times since, so now I'm wondering if this _past_ + *karna *form is applicable to all verbs and has its own meaning.

How is *raha karta tha* or *kiya karta tha* different simple *rehta tha* or *karta tha*? 

Example:

*maiM jad-o-jahad kiya karta huuM*


----------



## BP.

I'd assume that _verb + kartaa t.haa_ would be the equivalent of used to _+ verb_.


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> I've often heard the phrase *raha karta tha, *and I made the na-daan assumption that *raha karna *was a set phrase.
> 
> But, I've heard *kiya karta tha *loads of times since, so now I'm wondering if this _past_ + *karna *form is applicable to all verbs and has its own meaning.
> 
> How is *raha karta tha* or *kiya karta tha* different simple *rehta tha* or *karta tha*?
> 
> Example:
> 
> *maiM jad-o-jahad kiya karta huuM*



The word is "jidd-o-jahd" actually.

Actions that habitually or frequently used to occur in the past over a period of time.*

vuh shahr jaataa thaa = He used to go to the city.

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

This verbal compound would express an act done more than once, not in the sense of "continuously, without a break" but rather as an act done repeatedly or frequently, i.e intervals of noticeable length*.

vuh shahr jaayaa kartaa thaa.

He (regularly) went to the city.

* Fron C.M.Naim's Urdu Grammar.


----------



## greatbear

Both mean "used to" (nothing like regular or irregular; both "karta tha" and "kara karta tha" mean an action over a long period of time or habitual actions).
What would decide the usage for me is what follows. Constructions like "rahta tha", "karta tha" distance the reader a little bit more from the story.
"School ke raaste par meri mulaqat roj ek bhaloo se hua karti thi" excites some more interest than a bit tepid "School ke raaste par meri mulaqat roj ek bhaloo se hoti thi." The former gives you a sense of immediacy and adventure, that you are now going to recount something what happened one day when you met the bear. The second is a bit kind of been-there-done-that thing.


----------



## Qureshpor

Greatbear SaaHib.



greatbear said:


> Both mean "used to" (nothing like regular or irregular; both "karta tha" and "kara karta tha" mean an action over a long period of time or habitual actions).
> 
> Couple of points.
> 
> 1) It is not always easy to replicate one language's tense sense into another. "Used to" is one way of describing it. The point is that the two forms"kartaa thaa" and "kiyaa kartaa thaa" are not the same! And by the way, "karaa" is totally wrong even in Hindi!
> Here is a link to this tense.
> 
> http://dsal.uchicago.edu/digbooks/digpager.html?BOOKID=PK1983.N2_1999_V1&object=148
> 
> What would decide the usage for me is what follows. Constructions like "rahta tha", "karta tha" distance the reader a little bit more from the story.
> "School ke raaste par meri mulaqat roj ek bhaloo se hua karti thi" excites some more interest than a bit tepid "School ke raaste par meri mulaqat roj ek bhaloo se hoti thi." The former gives you a sense of immediacy and adventure, that you are now going to recount something what happened one day when you met the bear. The second is a bit kind of been-there-done-that thing.
> 
> *You might be excited by seeing a bhaaluu every day (roj?)** but the "kiyaa kartaa thaa" is an act done repeatedly or frequently between relatively longer intervals.*


----------



## greatbear

No, QP sir, there is no question of a difference of intervals. "Main us zamaane mein Bombay rahaa karta tha"; that does not mean that I used to live repeatedly in Bombay with intervals in between! (I assure you, I didn't used to vanish in the Kanheri caves.)

On the other side, there's nothing wrong with "Gaon mein har saal mela lagta tha". It's the same as "Gaon mein har saal mela laga karta tha". The only difference is what is the surrounding situation, which decides what to use.

By the way, "karaa karta tha" is a colloquial usage.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> No, QP sir, there is no question of a difference of intervals. "Main us zamaane mein Bombay rahaa karta tha"; that does not mean that I used to live repeatedly in Bombay with intervals in between! (I assure you, I didn't used to vanish in the Kanheri caves.)
> 
> On the other side, there's nothing wrong with "Gaon mein har saal mela lagta tha". It's the same as "Gaon mein har saal mela laga karta tha". The only difference is what is the surrounding situation, which decides what to use.
> 
> By the way, "karaa karta tha" is a colloquial usage.



In this case, let us agree to disagree Greatbear SaaHib. I don't claim to be a grammarian but the grammarian that I have quoted (C.M.Naim) says, "Urdu speakers blur the distinction and use the two interchangeably, particularly in simple contexts, but normally the above distinction is maintained". I suppose Hindi speakers are only human too. They probably also "blur" this distinction!

"karaa kartaa thaa" might be "colloquial" but the topic in hand is "kiyaa kartaa thaa".


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> In this case, let us agree to disagree Greatbear SaaHib. I don't claim to be a grammarian but the grammarian that I have quoted (C.M.Naim) says, "Urdu speakers blur the distinction and use the two interchangeably, particularly in simple contexts, but normally the above distinction is maintained". I suppose Hindi speakers are only human too. They probably also "blur" this distinction!
> 
> "karaa kartaa thaa" might be "colloquial" but the topic in hand is "kiyaa kartaa thaa".



I am not a grammarian either, but rather than any blurring, the two convey two different nuances to me (as in my "bhaloo" post). Languages are living for me; as long as they are conveying two different nuances to me, they are different. Of course, since they are different, they convey no blur at all to me: so let's agree to disagree, QP sir.

I thought, correct me if wrong souminwé, the topic is/was "this _past_ + *karna *form".


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> *"kiyaa kartaa thaa" is an act done repeatedly or frequently between relatively long intervals*.



I too have read this in my grammar books.


----------



## Qureshpor

May I request forum members to air their views on this thread please. Do you believe that "kartaa thaa" is the same as "kiyaa kartaa thaa"?


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> May I request forum members to air their views on this thread please. Do you believe that "kartaa thaa" is the same as "kiyaa kartaa thaa"?



Going by the grammar books, no. If I say maiN dauDtaa thaa I am saying I used to run. There is no implication of how often. I used to do it, but now I don't. Maybe I did it only 2 times in my life in a previous era, but now I don't. If I say maiN dauDaa kartaa thaa I intend to say I used to swim *often*, *repeatedly*, but now I don't. 

More opinions on this would be welcome.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Going by the grammar books, no. If I say maiN dauDtaa thaa I am saying I used to run. There is no implication of how often. I used to do it, but now I don't. Maybe I did it only 2 times in my life in a previous era, but now I don't. If I say maiN dauDaa kartaa thaa I intend to say I used to swim *often*, *repeatedly*, but now I don't.
> 
> More opinions on this would be welcome.



Wrong; if you ran only 2 times in your life, you cannot say "main daurtaa thaa"! Just as the English "I used to run" cannot also be used if you ran only twice in your life.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Wrong; if you ran only 2 times in your life, you cannot say "main daurtaa thaa"! Just as the English "I used to run" cannot also be used if you ran only twice in your life.



As a native English speaker I disagree. Maybe Hindi is different. But in any case, according to the grammar books, kartaa thaa form emphasizes the frequent, repetitive nature. I will attempt to get some direct quotes.


----------



## nineth

There is no functional difference between the two and both would translate to "used to + infinitive" in English. However, "jaaya karta tha" brings out the repetitive / habitual nature better than "jaata tha". Some people use "jaata tha" for conditional past as well, i.e., "If you had come, I would have gone there" - "agar tum aatey thay to maiN vahaaN jaata tha" instead of "agar tum aatey thay to maiN vahaaN gaya hota".  So, "jaaya karta tha" does not suffer from that ambiguity.  



> kiyaa kartaa thaa" is an act done repeatedly or frequently between relatively long intervals.


This is incorrect. There is no implication on the length of intervals between each occurrence.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> As a native English speaker I disagree. Maybe Hindi is different. But in any case, according to the grammar books, kartaa thaa form emphasizes the frequent, repetitive nature. I will attempt to get some direct quotes.




Tony, I have already had a discussion with greatbear over the issue of "kartaa thaa" vs "kiyaa kartaa thaa". Here is an attempt to put this matter in some sort of logical order. 

I think the solution to this issue lies in understanding the basic past form. It might be beneficial to look at three scenarios.

1) Past: *khataa rahaa*

Quote from C.M. Naim, author of an Urdu grammar book mentioned in one of my posts in this thread.

"rahnaa" adds a durative nuance to the meaning of the primary verb, that the act was done over a stretch of time either continuously, without a break or at least quite frequently. Usually however, it would be the first case."

*vuh chupchaap khaataa rahaa.*

Now, if we give this past event a habitual twist, we get..

*vuh har vaqt khaataa rahtaa thaa.
*
2) Past: *dekhaa kiyaa
*
Quote: "This verbal compound would express an act done more than once, not in the sense of "continuously without a break" but rather an act done repeatedly or frequently, i.e at intervals of noticeable length. Some Urdu speakers blurr this distinction and the use the two interchangeably, particularly in simple contexts, but normally the above distinction is maintained."

*dekhaa kiye* tumheN ham ban ke diivaanah (past)

*dekhaa karte the *tumheN ham ban ke diivaanah (habit)

3) Past: *dekhaa 

*I think a good example might be..

darpan ko *dekhaa* tuu ne jab jab *kiyaa* siNghaar (past)

(jab tuu ne siNghaar kiyaa to tuu ne darpan dekhaa)

tuu darpan ko *dekhtii thii*, jab tuu siNghaar *kartii thii *(habit)

*Conclusion
*
*kiyaa kartaa thaa* is generated from *kiyaa kiyaa* whilst *kartaa thaa *is based on *kiyaa* alone.


----------



## greatbear

nineth said:


> Some people use "jaata tha" for conditional past as well, i.e., "If you had come, I would have gone there" - "agar tum aatey thay to maiN vahaaN jaata tha" instead of "agar tum aatey thay to maiN vahaaN gaya hota".



Note that I don't think you have the correct structure here. "If you had come" would be "Agar tum aaye hote", not "agar tum aatey the", so the complete translation would be "Agar tum aaye hote, (to) maiN udhar/wahaaN gayaa hota".
I've also never heard "jaata that" for this so-called conditional past.


----------



## nineth

> Note that I don't think you have the correct structure here. "If you had  come" would be "Agar tum aaye hote", not "agar tum aatey the"



I don't see anything wrong in either form. For what you suggested, "aaye hote" is already conditional, you don't need the agar. "Tum aaye hote to maiN ...".



greatbear said:


> I've also never heard "jaata that" for this so-called conditional past.


In my mind, "I would have done this/that (conditional on something else), maps to "MaiN yeh/woh karta tha". So, "karta tha" is not just for habitual / repetitive action in the past (for me). "mainey yeh/woh kiya hota" is accurate as well, but it expresses some supposition, while the former expresses a strong intention/will to do something contingent on something else. For eg., for "If I had seen your mail, I would have definitely called you", would you use ".... maiNey tujhey avashya bulaaya hota" or "... main tujhey avashya bulaata tha"? I would use the latter.


----------



## greatbear

nineth said:


> I don't see anything wrong in either form. For what you suggested, "aaye hote" is already conditional, you don't need the agar. "Tum aaye hote to maiN ...".
> 
> 
> In my mind, "I would have done this/that (conditional on something else), maps to "MaiN yeh/woh karta tha". So, "karta tha" is not just for habitual / repetitive action in the past (for me). "mainey yeh/woh kiya hota" is accurate as well, but it expresses some supposition, while the former expresses a strong intention/will to do something contingent on something else. For eg., for "If I had seen your mail, I would have definitely called you", would you use ".... maiNey tujhey avashya bulaaya hota" or "... main tujhey avashya bulaata tha"? I would use the latter.



The latter is completely wrong, though, and not many Hindi and Urdu speakers would understand what you are meaning to say. Of course, it would be "maine tumhe zaroor phone kiyaa/karaa hotaa" (note that to call means to telephone, not "bulaana"; reverting back to "tumhe" since we started the discussion using "tum" and "tu").

"I would have done this" maps to "Maine yeh kiyaa/karaa hotaa". Also, "agar" is not redundant, just as in English "if" is not so: you could have said in English as well "Had you come ..." without using "if" - but that does not make "if" redundant.

There is one alternative colloquial construction, though: "agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN niklii thii" is equivalent to "agar ... hotaa, to train nahiN nikal gayii hotii".


----------



## Alfaaz

> for "If I had seen your mail, I would have definitely called you", would you use ".... maiNey tujhey avashya bulaaya hota" or "... main tujhey avashya bulaata tha"? I would use the latter.



Agar main ne tumhari email/barqi Daak dekhi hoti, to (main ne) zurur tumhe bulaaya hota...

I had called you avashya

*Question:* what does avashye mean (immediately or definitely)?


----------



## greatbear

"avashya" means sure, definitely. Synonym for "zaroor" in most contexts. Not a word too commonly used.


----------



## nineth

Alfaaz said:


> *Question:* what does avashye mean (immediately or definitely)?


It means "definitely", and it's too formal.


----------



## nineth

greatbear said:


> There is one alternative colloquial construction, though: "agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN niklii thii" is equivalent to "agar ... hotaa, to train nahiN nikal gayii hotii".



You mean "nikalti thi" or niklii hoti? niklii thi is incorrect here.


----------



## greatbear

nineth said:


> You mean "nikalti thi" or niklii hoti? niklii thi is incorrect here.



"niklii hotii" would be the correct usage, but "niklii thii" is a commonly encountered colloquial usage.
"nikalti thi" would be incorrect here.


----------



## nineth

greatbear said:


> There is one alternative colloquial construction, though: "agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN niklii thii" is equivalent to "agar ... hotaa, to train nahiN nikal gayii hotii".



The sentence "_agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN niklii thii_" is just not Hindi to me (colloquial or otherwise). Just parsing it hurts my head.


----------



## Alfaaz

> The sentence "_agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN niklii thii_" is just not Hindi to me (colloquial or otherwise). Just parsing it hurts my head.



How about: "agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa/pahuNchjata, to train naa chhoot ti/ chhooti hoti"


----------



## nineth

_chooTti or chhooTi hoti_ is fine, but I'm not sure what the purpose of your post here is. I'm not asking for a correct Hindi translation  - I'm just saying that "_agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN niklii thii_" is plain wrong.  As you may know, niklii thii is not the same as nikaltii; nikaltii, niklii hoti, and nikaltii thii are fine for this sentence as per me (though _greatbear_ disagrees with me on the last one).


----------



## Alfaaz

These two would be correct (in my opinion):


> nikaltii, niklii hoti



"nikalti thi" would be wrong-_used to leave/depart_; 
"nahiN niklii thi"-_hadn't departed_ is also wrong (kind of confusing, as it is used like greatbear suggested).


----------



## nineth

_agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN niklii thii_ 
sounds as bad to me as 
_If I had reached even 5 minutes earlier, (then) the train hadn't departed._


----------



## Alfaaz

> _agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN niklii thii_
> sounds as bad to me as
> _If I had reached even 5 minutes earlier, (then) the train hadn't departed._



Interesting! So how does this sound: 

If I had arrived even/at least 5 minutes earlier, then the train didn't used to leave/depart...
_agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN nikaltii thi

_


> and nikaltii thii are fine for this sentence as per me



Doesn't it sound just as wrong.....?


----------



## nineth

Alfaaz said:


> Interesting! So how does this sound:
> 
> If I had arrived even/at least 5 minutes earlier, then the train didn't used to leave/depart...
> _agar paanch minute bhi pehle pahuNcha hotaa, to train nahiN nikaltii thi
> 
> _Doesn't it sound just as wrong.....?



As I said in my earlier posts, for me, nikaltii thi can be "used to leave" or "would have left" depending on context.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> May I request forum members to air their views on this thread please. Do you believe that "kartaa thaa" is the same as "kiyaa kartaa thaa"?


 There is supposed to be a difference between the two, but as you mention below ...


QURESHPOR said:


> In this case, let us agree to  disagree Greatbear SaaHib. I don't claim to be a grammarian but the  grammarian that I have quoted (C.M.Naim) says, "_*Urdu speakers blur the  distinction and use the two interchangeably,*_ particularly in simple  contexts, but normally the above distinction is maintained". I suppose  Hindi speakers are only human too. They probably also "blur" this  distinction!


 ...it has become blurred and now they are treated virtually identically. I  think most people don't pay attention to these subtleties of our  grammar!


QURESHPOR said:


> "karaa kartaa thaa" might be "colloquial" but the topic in hand is "kiyaa kartaa thaa".


  .... and we never say _karaa kartaa thaa _in our speech. For us it is always _kiyaa kartaa thaa_.


----------



## Faylasoof

This is how we would say it:

_agar paanch minaT bhii pehle pahuNcha hotaa / pahuNch jaataa, to Tren nahiiN / nah nikal jaatii / chhuuT jaatii _

_Tren nahiiN / nah nikal jaatii / chhuuT jaatii  = The trian would not have left / departed_.


----------



## greatbear

Faylasoof said:


> This is how we would say it:
> 
> _agar paanch minaT bhii pehle pahuNcha hotaa / pahuNch jaataa, to Tren nahiiN / nah nikal jaatii / chhuuT jaatii _
> 
> _Tren nahiiN / nah nikal jaatii / chhuuT jaatii  = The trian would not have left / departed_.



This one is also used a lot.


----------



## gagun

in my opinion "kiya kartaa thaa" ="kartaa thaa" and I never use kiyaa kartaa thaa for "I used to do" I use only kartaa thaa but first one exist in urdu/hindi speech a lot.second one is "I would have gone there is "*maiN vahaN jataa thaa*" due to influence of *dakhani Urdu.*


----------

