# Urdu: Use of Persian suffix -aanah -انہ



## Qureshpor

In Urdu, the -aanah suffix is used extensively:

dost-aanah: friendship (noun)/friendly (adjective)/amicably (adverb)

dostaanah ta'alluqaat = friendly relations 
dostaanah rishtah= friendly relationship/link 
dostaanah laRkaa = friendly boy

jaariHaanah ravaiyyah = aggressive attitude
jaariHaanah Hamlah = aggressive attack
jaariHaanah laRkaa= aggressive boy

What is preventing an animate being linked to an -aanah adjective?


For "aggressive boy", we would need to drop the "-aanah" suffix and just have it as "jaariH laRkaa". But for "friendly boy" we can't say "dost laRkaa"! (Would this mean "boyfriend"?) We would have to come up with something like "milansaar laRkaa". I am really keen to learn about the issue at heart here. What factor/s disqualify an adjective from being used with a particular kind of noun?


----------



## hindiurdu

Hmmm .... very curious. I see what you're saying -

qaatilaanaah hamlaa - correct
qaatilaanaah niyat - correct
qaatilaanaah shaxs - incorrect, needs to be qaatil shaxs

jaahilaanaah baateN - correct
jaahilaanaah soch - correct
jaahilaanaah log - incorrect, jaahil log
jaahilaanaah mulk - incorrect, jaahil mulk

Could it be that these terms are considered to be descriptive of animates to start with and are being extended to inanimates with -ana(h)? So -

qatil, dost, jahil - all descriptives for animates

qatilaanaah = qaatil-waalaa/jaisaa
qaatilaanaah hamlaa = qaatil-waalaa hamlaa - correct
qaatilaanaah shaxs = qaatil-waalaa shaxs - incorrect
dostaanaah rishtaa = dost-waalaa rishta - correct
dostaanaah laRkaa = dost-waalaa laRkaa - incorrect

Just a thought.


----------



## greatbear

I agree with hindiurdu's theory, though as far as "dostaanaa" is concerned, "dostaanaa laRkaa" is correct for me. I also do hear from time to time sentences like "veh baRaa dostaanaa hai".


----------



## Alfaaz

Interesting question and replies! Could it be that adding -انہ (-aanah) converts the صفت _(sift)_ to صفت نسبتی (sift- nisbati) as mentioned above by hindiurdu: Example : 

احمق : aHmaq : fool / foolish (people)
احمقانہ : aHmaqaanah : like/of/resembling the (behavior of the) foolish (people)


----------



## Alfaaz

Is there an answer* to this thread and the questions you have asked, Qureshpor SaaHib? 

* was thinking this is going to be one of those انکشافی threads based on some rule of Urdu grammar (like in the others where you asked questions, took forum members' answers, and then revealed and mentioned references and research at the end)


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Is there an answer* to this thread and the questions you have asked, Qureshpor SaaHib?
> 
> * was thinking this is going to be one of those انکشافی threads based on some rule of Urdu grammar (like in the others where you asked questions, took forum members' answers, and then revealed and mentioned references and research at the end)



On this occasion, it was a genuine enquiry Alfaaz SaaHib without any revelations or punch lines! I was hoping I would get views of some learned members of the forum but the thread has not quite "taken off" as I had expected. I think the end conclusion is that the adjective formed by -aanaah only fits in with a non-human noun. I would like to say "dostaanah laRkaa" but can't.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> I think the end conclusion is that the adjective formed by -aanaah only fits in with a non-human noun. I would like to say "dostaanah laRkaa" but can't.



I don't think the end conclusion is quite that - unless you didn't read a post or two. You might very well have qualms about "dostaana laRkaa", but not all do have them. Here's a sentence from famous Hindi writer Harishankar Parsai: "तेयीस बरस की एक दोस्ताना लड़की, जो असाधारण नहीं थी|" (from "Hamala").


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I don't think the end conclusion is quite that - unless you didn't read a post or two. You might very well have qualms about "dostaana laRkaa", but not all do have them. Here's a sentence from famous Hindi writer Harishankar Parsai: "तेयीस बरस की एक दोस्ताना लड़की, जो असाधारण नहीं थी|" (from "Hamala").



As a matter of fact I did read all the posts and I am grateful for everyone's contributions. I don't have any "qualms" about using "dostaanah" with animate nouns but my enquiry is focused on Urdu (as per the title of the thread) and if this word is used by Hindi speakers and writers in the sense you have cited above, this does not clarify the position as far as Urdu is concerned. There may also be such usage in Urdu but I am not aware of it. (By the way, what does "Hamala" mean?)


----------



## greatbear

The exception about "dostaanaa" applies in Urdu equally well; you may not be aware of it, that's fine, so don't have a blanket rule. ("Hamala" is the booksellers' transliteration for "hamlaa": attack.)


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> The exception about "dostaanaa" applies in Urdu equally well; you may not be aware of it, that's fine, so don't have a blanket rule. ("Hamala" is the booksellers' transliteration for "hamlaa": attack.)



You may not be aware but the word in Urdu is "dostaanah". Secondly, I don't have a blanket rule and frankly I don't know why you think I have such a rule. Thanks for clarifying that the word for "attack", anyway.

Perhaps you would care to furnish one or two examples of the use of "dostaanah" in Urdu as an adjective, used with animate nouns.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> You may not be aware but the word in Urdu is "dostaanah".



So, if you were to write this Urdu word in Nagari script, would you write it as "दोस्तानाह" or "दोस्ताना" or "दोस्तानः"?


----------



## fdb

The suffixe –āna (Western Persian –āne) has this function in Persian too. One says:

pesar-e ʻāqel “an intelligent boy” (animate)

but:

jawāb-e ʻāqelāne “an intelligent answer” (inanimate)

So this is not something special to Urdu; it is a carry-over from Persian.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> The suffixe –āna (Western Persian –āne) has this function in Persian too. One says:
> 
> pesar-e ʻāqel “an intelligent boy” (animate)
> 
> but:
> 
> jawāb-e ʻāqelāne “an intelligent answer” (inanimate)
> 
> So this is not something special to Urdu; it is a carry-over from Persian.



Thank you fdb for above. I am of course fully aware of the origins of the suffix and this I have made clear in the post title. the real question is why the -aanah/aane suffix is allowed to be attached with inanimate nouns but not with animate ones. It seems that whenever a word (e.g dost, qaatil etc) is perceived as animate/human, it must have the -aanah suffix to form adjectives describing inanimate nouns.

In Urdu (and I am pretty sure, it is the same case in Persian), this suffix is used to form nouns, adjectives and adverbs.

dost (noun) >> dostaanah (friendship-noun)

dostaanah maraasim >> friendly (adjective) contacts

dostaane meN >> in a friendly manner (Sorry, I can't think of a better "adverb" example at the moment)


----------



## fdb

Yes, the point seems to be that there are certain adjectives that can refer only to animate beings. If you want to apply them to an inanimate referent you need to use the derived form in –āna.

In Persian, at least, dōstāna (WP: dūstāne) is an adjective (“friendly”), not a noun.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> dostaane meN >> in a friendly manner (Sorry, I can't think of a better "adverb" example at the moment)



Don't think it's an adverb here (or ever): it's again the noun "dostaana(h)", declined. Just the opposite of "ranjish meiN".


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> Don't think it's an adverb here (or ever): it's again the noun "dostaana(h)", declined. Just the opposite of "ranjish meiN".



You are absolutely right that in "dostaane meN", even though the sense is adverbial, the word "dostaanah" is NOT being used to impart an adverbial sense. In fact, the word is being declined (oblique) to add meN to give the adverbial sense, as you have rightly indicated. I could not think of an adverbial sentence incorporating "dostaanah" and should have left it at that.

This is how Platts defines "dostaanah". You can see that the adverbial sense is included.

P دوستانه _dostāna [dost, q.v.+Zend suff. ānā, or ana = S. अन], adj. & adv. Friendly, kind; amicably, affectionately:—dostāne-meṅ, adv. In a friendly way, in friendship, as a friend.

The suffix "-aanah" in Urdu, as I have indicated in the previous post gives nominal, adjectival and adverbial meaning. Here is a couplet from a renowned poem entitled "jogii" by Khushii Muhammad Naazir (Xushii MuHammad Naazir).

https://groups.google.com/group/alt...owse_frm/thread/65e59dad5f0e67d3?tvc=1&q=jogi (Post 45)

sab KHalq-i-KHudaa se begaanah vuh mast-qalandar diivaanah 
baiThaa thaa jogii mastaanah aaNkhoN meN mastii chhaaii thii 

Aloof from all the people, that intoxicated free-thinking lover
The "Jogii", sat like a drunkard with frenzy looming in his eyes_


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> This is how Platts defines "dostaanah". You can see that the adverbial sense is included.
> 
> P دوستانه _dostāna [dost, q.v.+Zend suff. ānā, or ana = S. अन], adj. & adv. Friendly, kind; amicably, affectionately:—dostāne-meṅ, adv. In a friendly way, in friendship, as a friend._


I don't think Platts is right, at least as far as modern language goes; "dostaane meiN" is certainly adverbial, but I can't think of a situation where "dostaanaa" can be used adverbially.


QURESHPOR said:


> _Here is a couplet from a renowned poem entitled "jogii" by Khushii Muhammad Naazir (Xushii MuHammad Naazir).
> 
> https://groups.google.com/group/alt...owse_frm/thread/65e59dad5f0e67d3?tvc=1&q=jogi (Post 45)
> 
> sab KHalq-i-KHudaa se begaanah vuh mast-qalandar diivaanah
> baiThaa thaa jogii mastaanah aaNkhoN meN mastii chhaaii thii
> 
> Aloof from all the people, that intoxicated free-thinking lover
> The "Jogii", sat like a drunkard with frenzy looming in his eyes_



I would say "mastaanah" is adjective here. Let's reframe the phrase in question: can you say "veh jogii mastaanah baiThaa hai"? It sounds very odd to me. Imagine another sentence: "kyaa hua hai aaj maahaul dostaanah" - will you say "dostaanah" is adv. here for "hua hai" or adjective for "maahaul"?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I don't think Platts is right, at least as far as modern language goes; "dostaane meiN" is certainly adverbial, but I can't think of a situation where "dostaanaa" can be used adverbially.
> 
> 
> I would say "mastaanah" is adjective here. Let's reframe the phrase in question: can you say "veh jogii mastaanah baiThaa hai"? It sounds very odd to me. Imagine another sentence: "kyaa hua hai aaj maahaul dostaanah" - will you say "dostaanah" is adv. here for "hua hai" or adjective for "maahaul"?



I can assure you, Platts IS right in as far as the "-aanah" suffix is used as a noun, adjective and an adverb. There are plenty of usages in Urdu speech and literature.

Regarding the quoted couplet, let us agree to disagree. Perhaps other Urdu speakers may wish to comment on the use of "mastaanah" in the couplet. The question one needs to ask is this. Which word is "mastaanah" qualifying? Is it the "Jogii". If it is the Jogii, then "mast" would have sufficed. "mastaanah" implies the manner in which the Jogii was sitting.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> I can assure you, Platts IS right in as far as the "-aanah" suffix is used as a noun, adjective and an adverb. There are plenty of usages in Urdu speech and literature.



I would love some examples for the adverb. Let's decide then if Platts is right or not.



QURESHPOR said:


> Regarding the quoted couplet, let us agree to disagree. Perhaps other Urdu speakers may wish to comment on the use of "mastaanah" in the couplet. The question one needs to ask is this. Which word is "mastaanah" qualifying? Is it the "Jogii". If it is the Jogii, then "mast" would have sufficed. "mastaanah" implies the manner in which the Jogii was sitting.



So, the reframed "jogii aaj mastaanah baiThaa hai" is also fine, right, in your opinion? Just to confirm. Also, in the couplet you quoted, would you accept "neendoN meiN thaa jogii mastaanah" or not?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I would love some examples for the adverb. Let's decide then if Platts is right or not.
> 
> So, the reframed "jogii aaj mastaanah baiThaa hai" is also fine, right, in your opinion? Just to confirm. Also, in the couplet you quoted, would you accept "neendoN meiN thaa jogii mastaanah" or not?



Yes, the first sentence is fine. Your second sentence is n't, in my view. "niiNd meN thaa jogii mast" is what I would say.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Yes, the first sentence is fine. Your second sentence is n't, in my view. "niiNd meN thaa jogii mast" is what I would say.



So you mean to say that "mastaanah" can't be adjective, right?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> So you mean to say that "mastaanah" can't be adjective, right?



Of course, it can be. This must be third time that I am saying "-aanah" suffix in Urdu carries a triple meaning of a noun, an adjective and an adverb.

mastaanah aaNkheN (intoxicated eyes).


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Of course, it can be. This must be third time that I am saying "-aanah" suffix in Urdu carries a triple meaning of a noun, an adjective and an adverb.
> 
> mastaanah aaNkheN (intoxicated eyes).



Well, so why did you have "mast" only and not "mastaanah" in the previous sentence?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> The exception about "dostaanaa" applies in Urdu equally well; you may not be aware of it, that's fine, so don't have a blanket rule. ("Hamala" is the booksellers' transliteration for "hamlaa": attack.)



Kindly provide Urdu examples where "dostaanah" is used with animate nouns, i.e. for persons.


----------



## Chhaatr

_Urduugo dostoN se guzaarish hai keh is laRii pe tawajjoh, nahiiN to sar sarii nigaah hii DaaleN. _

Which words take "aanah" ending?

Right now the ones which are coming to my mind are:

_maayuusaanah
Ghaa'ibaanah_

Will add to the list when I'm able to think of others. 

By the way is there any grammar rule in this regard? 

As always, many thanks!


----------



## sapnachaandni

us laRii meN jis kaa zikr janaab Qureshpor saahib ne kiyaa hai, achchhii vazaahateN (व्याख्याएँ) aa’ii haiN.
maiN bas faarsii grammar ke kuchh niyam bataane vaalii huuN jo urduu meN bhii laaguu ho ga’e haiN:

“-aanah” ko “sifat” (= विशेषण = adj.) aur “ism” (= संज्ञा = noun) ke aaxir meN lagaa dete haiN taa ki “sifat”(= adj.)/ “ism”(= noun)/ “qaid”(= क्रियाविशेषण = adv.) banaa sakeN.


“-aanah” ko “sifat” (adj.) ke aaxir meN is liye lagaa dete haiN ki aisii “sifat” (= adj.) banaa sakeN jo Ghair-jaandaar (अप्राणिवाचक) kii sifat ban sake. aisii sifat ko urduu meN sifat-e nisbatii kahte haiN.  ye sifateN (=adj.) jo “adj.+ aanah” se bana’ii ga’ii haiN, in kaa istemaal adverb ke taur par bhii kiyaa jaataa hai. misaal:

jaahil [جاہل] (adj.) + aanah [انہ] ---> jaahilaanah [جاہلانہ] (adj./ adv.)
jaise:
jaahilaanah baateN mat kar! (jaahilaanah ---> adj.)
vo jaahilaanah pesh aataa thaa. (jaahilaanah ---> adv.) ---> {ye Thiik faarsii kaa andaaz-e bayaan hai. is kaa rivaaj kis had tak urduu meN ho gayaa hai, kyaa is kaa rivaaj urduu meN kam hai yaa faarsii kii had tak hai, ye maiN nahiiN jaantii.}


“-aanah” ko ism (= noun) ke aaxir meN is liye lagaa dete haiN ki ism (=noun) se  sifat(=adj.) yaa koii duusraa ism(=noun) banaa sakeN. ye sifateN (=adj.) jo “noun+ aanah” se bana’ii ga’ii haiN, in ko bhii sifat-e nisbatii kahte haiN aur in kaa istemaal adverb ke taur par bhii kiyaa jaataa hai.

mard [مرد] (noun) + aanah [انہ] ---> mardaanah [مردانہ] (adj. / adv.)
dast [دست] (noun) + aanah [انہ] ---> dastaanah [دستانہ] (noun)
jurm [جرم] (noun) + aanah [انہ] ---> jurmaanah [جرمانہ] (noun)



ek aur baat ye hai ki kuchh sifatoN ke aaxir meN “aanah” lagaane se vo lafz jo bante haiN, un kaa istemaal sifat (adj.) ke taur par nahiiN, qaid (adv.) ke taur par hii kiyaa jaataa hai, jaise:

muta2assif [متاسف] (adj.) + aanah [انہ] ---> muta2assifaanah [متاسفانہ] (adv.)

(mujhe nahiiN lagtaa ki urduu meN "muta2assifaanah" kaa istemaal sifat ke taur par kiyaa jaa'e. agar merii baat Ghalat hai to bataa diijiye.)


----------



## Qureshpor

^
آپ کو تو بالی وڈ کی فلموں سے بڑی رغبت ہے۔ سنا ہے کہ ایک بار مشہور اداکار جانی واکر نے جب یہ سنا

اب آپ ہندی میں سماچار سنئے

تو بے ساختہ کہنے لگے

اب آپ سماچار میں ہندی سنئے

اگر وہ آپ کی تحریر پڑھتے تو شاید فرماتے

بہت بہت شکریہ۔ آنہ سیکھتے سیکھتے وشیشنڑ اور کریاوشیشنڑ کی ویاکھیائوں کا نذرانہ مل گیا۔


----------



## marrish

sapnachaandni said:


> us laRii meN jis kaa zikr janaab Qureshpor saahib ne kiyaa hai, achchhii vazaahateN (व्याख्याएँ) aa’ii haiN.[۔۔۔]
> muta2assif [متاسف] (adj.) + aanah [انہ] ---> muta2assifaanah [متاسفانہ] (adv.)
> 
> (mujhe nahiiN lagtaa ki urduu meN "muta2assifaanah" kaa istemaal sifat ke taur par kiyaa jaa'e. agar merii baat Ghalat hai to bataa diijiye.)


شکریہ آپ کی وضاحت بالکل ٹھیک ہے۔ مذکورہ بالا بحث میں زیادہ معلومات رکھی ہوئی ہے، 
متاسفانہ 
adverb
کے طور پر استعمال ہوتا ہے

آنہ کا رواج اردو میں اُسی طرح ہے جس طرح فارسی میں ہے، نہ کم نہ زیادہ۔


----------



## mundiya

Doesn't "raajpuutaanah" (Rajputana - an old name for Rajasthan) have the same "aanah" ending as the words that have been mentioned?  Haryana I believe is different because it has a retroflex N.


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> Doesn't "raajpuutaanah" (Rajputana - an old name for Rajasthan) have the same "aanah" ending as the words that have been mentioned?  Haryana I believe is different because it has a retroflex N.


A good question. On first instinct, I would have said, "No". But then Platts has other ideas.

_rāj-pūt-āna_, adj. Like, or belonging to, the Rājpūts;—prop. n. A name for the province of Ajmīr, the country of the Rājpūts:—


----------



## Sheikh_14

sapnachaandni said:


> “-aanah” ko “sifat” (adj.) ke aaxir meN is liye lagaa dete haiN ki aisii “sifat” (= adj.) banaa sakeN jo Ghair-jaandaar (अप्राणिवाचक) kii sifat ban sake. aisii sifat ko urduu meN sifat-e nisbatii kahte haiN.  ye sifateN (=adj.) jo “adj.+ aanah” se bana’ii ga’ii haiN, in kaa istemaal adverb ke taur par bhii kiyaa jaataa hai. misaal:
> 
> jaahil [جاہل] (adj.) + aanah [انہ] ---> jaahilaanah [جاہلانہ] (adj./ adv.)
> jaise:
> jaahilaanah baateN mat kar! (jaahilaanah ---> adj.)
> vo jaahilaanah pesh aataa thaa. (jaahilaanah ---> adv.) ---> {ye Thiik faarsii kaa andaaz-e bayaan hai. is kaa rivaaj kis had tak urduu meN ho gayaa hai, kyaa is kaa rivaaj urduu meN kam hai yaa faarsii kii had tak hai, ye maiN nahiiN jaantii.}



Jahaan tak rivaaj kii baat hai toh Jaahilaanah ishe tarah istimaal hota hai. But as you are more knowledgeable than the majority of forum members in terms of Farsi, my question is does Farsi allow the usage of aanah with animate objects? This would enable further elaboration on the matter rather than a back and forth never-ending rally that we have come to see here.

As far as Urdu is concerned whilst members are most certainly right that aanah is majoritarily used with inanimate objects' the word jaariHaanah is used with animate objects as well.

For instance country x nai aik Jaarihaana Amir ka Raaj jhelaa.. - Country X suffered under the hands of an aggressive dictator.
Rozenthali Fauj ko Iqwaam e Mutahida nai Jaarihaana Qaraar Kar diya gaya. - The Rozenthalian (fabricated to avoid politicization) Army has been declared as an aggressor by the United Nations.

Those are my 2 Aney Umiid Kar tha hoon kay baakii arkaan e mehfil bhi shirkat karey gay.


----------



## marrish

Just to correct your sentence slightly, I don't mean to answer in lieu of the one you asked:

(and I'll keep the forms with -aanah whether they are correct or not)

*"gulaab-waadii" fauj ko aqwaam-e-muttaHidah ne jaariHaanah qaraar diyaa hae.*


----------



## sapnachaandni

Sheikh_14 said:


> [...] my question is does Farsi allow the usage of aanah with animate objects? [...]


agar vo lafz jo “-aanah” suffix se banaayaa gayaa hai, sifat (adj.) ho, to ye sifat faarsii meN sirf kisii Ghair-jaandaar kii sifat ban saktii hai.

faarsii meN agar us sifat ko, jo “-aanah” suffix se banaayaa gayaa hai, kisii jaandaar kii sifat banaanaa chaaheN to us ke aaxir se “انہ” ko haTaa denaa chaahiye taa ki ye kisii jaandaar kii sifat ban sake (kyoN ki faarsii meN “انہ” lagaane se ham ye dikhaate haiN ki ye sifat kisii Ghair-jaandaar kii sifat hai, agar “X+aane(h)” = “X+aanah” sifat ho to).


ek aur baat:
maiN ne “جارحانہ” lafz faarsii meN nahiiN sunaa hai. 
aaj kii faarsii meN (Iran meN) “جارح” kaa matlab hai: zaxmii karne vaalaa, vo jo kisii ko zaxmii kare.
agar “جارحانہ” kaa isti’maal faarsii meN kiyaa jaa’e aur farz kareN ki us kaa matlab bhii vahii ho jo aap kii misaaloN meN miltaa hai, tab bhii faarsii meN “جارحانہ” kisii jaandaar kii sifat nahiiN banegaa aur ye ruup faarsii meN durust hoNge:
farmaandeh-e jaareh (فرماندهِ جارح) / jaareh farmaandeh (جارح فرمانده)*
hokmraan-e jaareh (حکمرانِ جارح) / jaareh hokmraan (جارح حکمران)
amiir-e jaareh (امیرِ جارح) / jaareh amiir (جارح امیر)
.
.
.


* aaj kii faarsii meN is ruup (matlab: {sifat+X}) kaa rivaaj kam hai. bol-chaal meN to ye ruup ({sifat+X}) bahut kam miltaa hai.


aur agar jumlah is tarah ho: <_"gulaab-waadii" fauj ko aqwaam-e-muttaHidah ne *jaariHaanah* qaraar diyaa hae_.> , tab bhii faarsii meN vo lafz jo “_jaariHaanah_” kii jagah par aataa hai, us ke aaxir meN “انہ” suffix nahiiN aa’egaa:
_<saazmaan-e melal-e mottahed artesh-e “…” raa *motajaavez* e'laam karde(h) ast/ daaneste(h) ast/ shenaaxte(h) ast.>
_matlab is jumle meN "motajaavezaane(h)" (متجاوزانہ) nahiiN aataa.


----------

