# Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi: maiN hii ne میں ہی نے मैं ही ने  ਮੈਂ ਹੀ ਨੇ



## marrish

Is "maiN hii ne" usual and does it sound well?

کیونکہ میں ہی نے یہ فرمایا ہے _kyoNkih maiN hii ne yih farmaayaa hae_.

From an Urdu version of the Old Testament (Ezekiel), verse 34.

What are the known grammar rules on the subject?


----------



## Qureshpor

^ As far as I know this is grammatically sound. The "hii" particle employed to provide emphasis is supposed to come after the subject and before the postposition.

e.g vuh > us with a postposition

us + hii + se

usii se puuchho.................NOT us se hii puuchho.

Of course "hii" can be "displaced" if the need arises to shift the emphasis elsewhere.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Qureshpor said:


> ^ As far as I know this is grammatically sound. The "hii" particle employed to provide emphasis is supposed come after the subjectt and before the postposition.
> 
> e.g vuh > us with a postposition
> 
> us + hii + se
> 
> usii se puuchho.................NOT us se hii puuchho.
> 
> Of course "hii" can be "displaced" if the need arises to shift the emphasis elsewhere.



But *ne* is not a postposition; it is an ergative particle that cannot be compared to *se* and that is not usually separated from the verb.

*maiN ne to*... and never *maiN to ne..*.

*unhoN ne to*... and never *unhoN to ne*... or *unhoN hii ne*...

To me the *main hi ne* is rather unusual (as compared to _*maiN ne hii*_) and seems to mark a very strong emphasis or... a typo.


----------



## Qureshpor

Technically, "ne" is a postposition* albeit its function is different from "se" (ablative & Instrumental), "meN" (locative), "ko" (dative), "kaa/ke/kii" (genitive) and so on. The example in the OP concerns "hii" and not "to" and my explanation is linked to "hii" only. For me, Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, as I've said before, the sentence is fine.

* If you wish to say that "ne" like the postpositions forces the nominative case to become oblique, that is also fine with me.


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> But *ne* is not a postposition; it is an ergative particle that cannot be compared to *se* and that is not usually separated from the verb...[..]


Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, giving this matter a little more thought, you are correct and I am wrong with regard to "ne" NOT being a postposition! Apologies.

Regarding the rest, "maiN hii ne" does sound unusual compared with "maiN ne hii" but I think it is not wrong. On the contrary, I believe it is more accurate from a grammatical perspective with "hii" following the subject immediately as opposed to it following "ne".

Edit:

maiN + ne > maiN ne (NOT mujh ne)...Therefore this "proves" that "ne" is not a postposition

vuh + ne > vuh ne ? NO! us ne! Here it seems to have the postposition effect. What's going on?


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, giving this matter a little more thought, you are correct and I am wrong with regard to "ne" NOT being a postposition! Apologies.
> 
> Regarding the rest, "maiN hii ne" does sound unusual compared with "maiN ne hii" but I think it is not wrong. On the contrary, I believe it is more accurate from a grammatical perspective with "hii" following the subject immediately as opposed to it following "ne".
> 
> Edit:
> 
> maiN + ne > maiN ne (NOT mujh ne)...Therefore this "proves" that "ne" is not a postposition
> 
> vuh + ne > vuh ne ? NO! us ne! Here it seems to have the postposition effect. What's going on?




On top of that you also have,
vo (plural) + ne = unhoN ne

matlab, chaahe jo bhii ho, "ne" koii ma'muulii chiiz nahiiN hai. 

EDIT: Actually, this gives me a plausible historical hint at "maiN ne" ... Historically "maiN" might have been the "-ne form" of a first person singular, like Brahbhasha hauN, Gujarati huN (both from Skt "aham" and Prakrit variations thereof), in other words, the paradigm might have been hauN(?)-maiN (ne)-mujh ko just like vo - unhoN ne - un ko. This is more or less idle musing though, not based on actual evidence (beyond the historical hauN, etc. forms).


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish SaaHib, I hope other Punjabi speakers will confirm this. In Punjabi, we would n't use "ne" in this sentence.

 kyuuN kih *maiN-ii *e farmaayaa e.


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> marrish SaaHib, I hope other Punjabi speakers will confirm this. In Punjabi, we would n't use "ne" in this sentence.
> 
> kyuuN kih *maiN-ii *e farmaayaa e.



I was about to ask this. Thanks for the preemption.


----------



## Qureshpor

This is the usual way of adding "hii" to pronouns.


ham hii ne > hamiiN ne

tum hii ne > tumiiN ne

is/us hii ne > isii/usii ne

in/un hii ne > inhiiN/unhiiN ne (inhiiN logoN ne le lenaa dopaTTah meraa >> inhiiN ne le lenaa dopaTTah meraa


This leaves maiN and tuu

Why not then..

maiN hii ne

tuu hii ne?


----------



## panjabigator

Qureshpor said:


> marrish SaaHib, I hope other Punjabi speakers will confirm this. In Punjabi, we would n't use "ne" in this sentence.
> 
> kyuuN kih *maiN-ii *e farmaayaa e.



I agree with this. In fact, a lot of Punjabi dialects drop the "ne" all together. os kitā, oh dasseya. But that's off topic.


----------



## marrish

It's again from some kind of a Christian site in East Punjabi :ਮੈਂ ਹੀ ਨੇ ਤੁਹਾਨੂ ਘੁੱਪ ਹਨੇਰੇ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਬਾਹਰ ਕੱਢਿਆ. _(maiN hii ne tuhaanuuN k_ùpp hanère vichoN báá_hr káD_hiyaa)_  Apart from this I couldn't find anything similar.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> It's again from some kind of a Christian site in East Punjabi :ਮੈਂ ਹੀ ਨੇ ਤੁਹਾਨੂ ਘੁੱਪ ਹਨੇਰੇ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਬਾਹਰ ਕੱਢਿਆ. _(maiN hii ne tuhaanuuN k_ùpp hanère vichoN báá_hr káD_hiyaa)_Apart from this I couldn't find anything similar.


It does not sound like a genuine Punjabi sentence to me. But as they say, to err is human!


----------



## panjabigator

Qureshpor said:


> It does not sound like a genuine Punjabi sentence to me. But as they say, to err is human!



What doesn't sound genuine to you?


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> What doesn't sound genuine to you?


Please refer to your reply in # post 10.


----------



## amiramir

Agreed re the lack of 'ne' in the Punjabi sentence. Though, contrary to post #10, in my family's Punjabi, the 'ne' is used in the third person (both sing. and plural), but not in any other person


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Is "maiN hii ne" usual and does it sound well?
> 
> کیونکہ میں ہی نے یہ فرمایا ہے _kyoNkih maiN hii ne yih farmaayaa hae_.
> 
> From an Urdu version of the Old Testament (Ezekiel), verse 34.
> 
> What are the known grammar rules on the subject?


I think this should clarify your unease about this sentence. Here Shamsur Rahman Faruqi is talking about Maulana Hasrat Mohani's criticism about many faults that crop up in poetry (Urdu).

"Maulana kaa irshaad bi_lkul ba-jaa hai kih "hii" ko usii lafz ke faur-an ba3d isti3maal karnaa chaahiye jis par zor denaa maqsuud ho."

So, based on this..._kyoNkih *maiN hii ne* yih farmaayaa hae.... _is correct.

Continuing with Faruqi...

"lekin maujuudah muHaavarah aahistah aahistah lafz "hii" kii jagah badalne par maa'il ho rahaa hai. chunaaNchih yih misaaleN mulaaHizah hoN.

maiN ne hii aap ko xat likhaa thaa

yih kitaab Lakhnau meN hii mil jaa'e gii

dhuup kii hii tapish kyaa kam thii

paa'o bhar hii ghii bahut ho gaa

in tamaam jumloN meN "hii" apnii rivaayatii jagah par nahiiN hai., lekin Ghalatii maHsuus nahiiN hotii. vajh yih hai kih jis lafz par zor denaa maqsuud ho, agar is ke ba'd ko'ii 3alaamat-i-faa3ilii, Harf-i-jaar, ism-i-miqdaar vaGhairah aa jaa'e to "hii" ko us ke ba3d rakhte haiN. ya3nii....

maiN hii ne aap ko xat likhaa thaa ...ki jagah

maiN ne hii aap ko xat likhaa thaa ... bolte haiN. yahii muHaavirah 3aam hai aur mere xayaal meN is kaa tatabbu3 karnaa chaahiye."


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Is "maiN hii ne" usual and does it sound well?
> 
> کیونکہ میں ہی نے یہ فرمایا ہے _kyoNkih maiN hii ne yih farmaayaa hae_.
> 
> From an Urdu version of the Old Testament (Ezekiel), verse 34.
> 
> What are the known grammar rules on the subject?


jise chaahe tuu vuh mahiiN kyoN hu'ii
Ilaahii maiN aisii HasiiN kyoN hu'ii

Qaasim aur Zuhra 1910 page 27

mahiiN = maiN + hii


----------

