# Urdu: Gender treatment of Arabic broken plurals ...



## UrduMedium

The following appeared as a tangent in the maanand/maanind thread, but sort of got lost later ... 



mbasit said:


> ... old thread references deleted ...
> 
> Along similar lines, I have heard Javed Ahmed Ghamidi* talk about the following:
> 
> The nouns that are normally feminine, when used in their broken (irregular) plural form, they are treated as masculine. For example:
> 
> waapsii kii shart (condition)
> waapsii ke shara'it (conditions)
> 
> dunyaa kii qaum
> dunyaa ke aqwaam
> 
> I don't think the rule applies to regular plurals. So waapsi ki sharteN an dunyaa ki qaumeN will be correct.
> 
> * A notable religious scholar from Pakistan, also a poet and writer who writes and speaks excellent Urdu.



Later QP Saahib commented:



QURESHPOR said:


> I have to confess that till now I had not come across this "style". In another thread I noticed Faylasoof SaaHib had written "saste ashyaa". I thought "saste" was a typo (for sastii) but now that you mention the Arabic broken plural with "ke", perhaps "saste" falls in the same category. I don't really know.



Aur is ke ba3d ye baat maanand/maanind ke bahao meN beh ga'ii  ... therefore reviving for further discussion.


----------



## marrish

I believe I had read this kind of prescription somewhere sometime, but it is just a dull reminiscence, so I won't be able to tell where. Keeping it in mind, I am also not sure if it was exactly this kind of language advice. 

If the example of my usage can prove to be of any service, all I can say that I never ever have followed this kind of thinking and in my speech and writing the nouns have always retained their assigned gender in whichever plural form they might occur. Moreover, I can't recall an instance when I'd have come across it on paper or in speech.

Slightly different thing might be the fact that some words had been borrowed in different forms and have continued with the gender which was assigned to them originally. Please regard it as a highly theoretical mere speculation which is not based on a single example.


----------



## UrduMedium

One example I can think of, that is in common use, is _haqeeqat _and its plural _haqaa'iq_. _Haqeeqat *hotii *hai_, aur _haqaa'iq *hote *haiN_.

Looking for some written example to share ...

marrish saahib, thanks for sharing your personal usage. I was also unaware of this until I encountered the above mentioned writer.


----------



## marrish

You're welcome, UrduMedium SaaHib. I will appreciate that the source of this advice or usage can be given and the usage discussed by all colleagues. Since I saw that post, I can't sleep well!

By the way, I am very well aware that _Haqaa'iq_ is popularily treated as a masculine plural noun but our Bible says that

A 
*حقائق* _ḥaqāʼiq, *s.f. pl.* (of ḥaqīqat), Truths, realities, &c.
_
I have always thought that the masculinisation of _Haqaa'iq_ is a common mistake caused by the lack of knowledge amongst the common user of the language that it is the plural of _Haqiiqah_. I didn't know that the rule you are talking about is here at work.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> By the way, I am very well aware that _Haqaa'iq_ is popularily treated as a masculine plural noun but our Bible says that
> 
> A  *حقائق*_ḥaqāʼiq, *s.f. pl.* (of ḥaqīqat), Truths, realities, &c.
> 
> _I have always thought that the masculinisation of _Haqaa'iq_ is a common mistake caused by the lack of knowledge amongst the common user of the language that it is the plural of _Haqiiqah_. I didn't know that the rule you are talking about is here at work.



nazar *aate* nahiiN be-pardah Haqaa'iq un ko
aaNkh jin kii hu'ii maHkuumii-o-taqliid se kor

Iqbal


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> nazar *aate* nahiiN be-pardah Haqaa'iq un ko
> aaNkh jin kii hu'ii maHkuumii-o-taqliid se kor
> 
> Iqbal



The question whether the ''broken'' Arabic-style plurals in Urdu ought to supposedly be invariably masculine is not solved by this; if this poet used it like this means it is not wrong in this case. One would of course wish to emulgate the pattern of the great sages!


----------



## Qureshpor

And who would be a greater "sage" than "Hakiim-ul-ummat", "shaa3ir-i-mashriq" himself? If I am not mistaken, whenever Iqbal was criticised for using an idiom or construction deemed to be incorrect, he would quote from the works of past masters to give credence to his usage. I shall try to search from the works of "great sages".


----------



## UrduMedium

Thought of one more example. *mabaHis *is the plural of _*baHs *_(debate). _baHs _(although we say beHs) being feminine gender and _mabaHis _masculine. Found one example of a book title from Iqbal Academy, Lahore. It is called, "Iqbaal: channd *nae *mabaHis". See http://www.urducl.com/Urdu-Books/969-416-203-008/p0001.php.

I agree that these examples do not prove the rule articulated in post #1 above, but they do show that there's no rule either, to automatically carry the feminine gender of a noun to its Arabic broken plural form (in Urdu). 

Hoping QP saahib's research will deliver the smoking gun on this, if one exists . I would also love to hear from Faylasoof saahib on this. Especially, given a quote about his usage '_saste_ ashyaa' (see post #1).


----------



## Qureshpor

mbasit said:


> Thought of one more example. *mabaHis *is the plural of _*baHs *_(debate). .



Actually "mabaaHis" is the plural of "mabHas", which happens to be masculine in the singular.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Actually "mabaaHis" is the plural of "mabHas", which happens to be masculine in the singular.



Really? Could it be plural of both? I thought this was on the pattern of _shaix _and _mashaa'ix_.


----------



## Qureshpor

"3arabii alfaaz kii jam3 jab 3arabii qavaa'id kii ruu se aatii hai to us kii tazkiir-o-taaniis meN sirf yih yaad rakhnaa chaahiye kih jo Haalat vaahid kii hai vahii jam3 kii ho gii; masal-an shai, majlis, masjid mu'annas haiN to un kii jam3 asyaa', majaalis aur masaajid bhii mu'annas ho gii. chand alfaaz albattah mustasnaa haiN. masal-an agarchih ma3rifat, Haqiiqat, quvvat, shafqat mu'annas haiN magar in kii jam3 ma3aarif, Haqaa'iq, quvaa aur ashfaaq muzakkar musta3mal haiN. *ba3z muta'axxiriin-i-ahl-i-lakhnau kaa yih qaul hai kih har lafz kii 3arabii jam3 muzakkar hii aatii hai. yih qaa3idah to bahut achchhaa hai magar is kaa kyaa 3ilaaj kih ahl-i-zabaaN aisaa nahiiN bolte. ahl-i-dihlii ba-juz ba3z mustasnayaat ke hameshah mu'annas kii jam3 mu'annas aur muzakkar kii jam3 muzakkar hii isti3aal karte haiN...". Maulavii Abdul Haq

Baba-i-Urdu goes onto say that those who state that every Arabic broken plural should be masculine are in error.*


----------



## Abu Talha

This thread may also be relevant: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2364880


QURESHPOR said:


> masal-an shai, majlis, masjid mu'annas haiN to un kii jam3 asyaa', majaalis aur masaajid bhii jam3 ho gii.


Excellent research Qureshpor sb. Is _jam3 _in the end a typo? Did you mean _mu'annas hoN gii_?


----------



## Abu Talha

mbasit said:


> Really? Could it be plural of both? I thought this was on the pattern of _shaix _and _mashaa'ix_.


After checking, it seems the plural of _baHs_ is _abHaas_, and the plural of _mabHas_ is _mabaaHis_. _mashaayix _as the plural of _shaix _seems to be an exceptional case, and it may originally be a plural-of-plural via _mashyixah_. I don't know too much about this though, as I just looked it up, so I might be wrong.


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> After checking, it seems the plural of _baHs_ is _abHaas_.



Also buHuus


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> Also buHuus


True. بحوث may actually be more common I think.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> "3arabii alfaaz kii jam3 jab 3arabii qavaa'id kii ruu se aatii hai to us kii tazkiir-o-taaniis meN sirf yih yaad rakhnaa chaahiye kih jo Haalat vaahid kii hai vahii jam3 kii ho gii; masal-an shai, majlis, masjid mu'annas haiN to un kii jam3 asyaa', majaalis aur masaajid bhii mu'annas ho gii. chand alfaaz albattah mustasnaa haiN. masal-an agarchih ma3rifat, Haqiiqat, quvvat, shafqat mu'annas haiN magar in kii jam3 ma3aarif, Haqaa'iq, quvaa aur ashfaaq muzakkar musta3mal haiN. *ba3z muta'axxiriin-i-ahl-i-lakhnau kaa yih qaul hai kih har lafz kii 3arabii jam3 muzakkar hii aatii hai. yih qaa3idah to bahut achchhaa hai magar is kaa kyaa 3ilaaj kih ahl-i-zabaaN aisaa nahiiN bolte. ahl-i-dihlii ba-juz ba3z mustasnayaat ke hameshah mu'annas kii jam3 mu'annas aur muzakkar kii jam3 muzakkar hii isti3aal karte haiN...". Maulavii Abdul Haq
> 
> Baba-i-Urdu goes onto say that those who state that every Arabic broken plural should be masculine are in error.*



Indeed excellent research, QP saahib. Thank you! So it seems a Lucknow/Delhi (East and West UP) variation. It also explains Mr. Ghamidi's take on this. He is a student of the renowned scholar Amin Ahsan Islahi, originally of Azamgarh (much closer to Lucknow, than Delhi!). 

Also thanks for resolving the baHs/mabaHis mystery.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> "3arabii alfaaz kii jam3 jab 3arabii qavaa'id kii ruu se aatii hai to us kii tazkiir-o-taaniis meN sirf yih yaad rakhnaa chaahiye kih jo Haalat vaahid kii hai vahii jam3 kii ho gii; masal-an shai, majlis, masjid mu'annas haiN to un kii jam3 ashyaa', majaalis aur masaajid bhii mu'annas ho gii. chand alfaaz albattah mustasnaa haiN. masal-an agarchih ma3rifat, Haqiiqat, quvvat, shafqat mu'annas haiN magar in kii jam3 ma3aarif, Haqaa'iq, quvaa aur ashfaaq muzakkar musta3mal haiN. *ba3z muta'axxiriin-i-ahl-i-lakhna'u kaa yih qaul hai kih har lafz kii 3arabii jam3 muzakkar hii aatii hai. yih qaa3idah to bahut achchhaa hai magar is kaa kyaa 3ilaaj kih ahl-i-zabaaN aisaa nahiiN bolte. ahl-i-dihlii ba-juz ba3z mustasnayaat ke hameshah mu'annas kii jam3 mu'annas aur muzakkar kii jam3 muzakkar hii isti3aal karte haiN...". Maulavii Abdul Haq
> 
> Baba-i-Urdu goes onto say that those who state that every Arabic broken plural should be masculine are in error.*



Please accept these words of thankfulness for clarifying this issue! The following words are hilarious (!): _yih qaa3idah to bahut achchhaa hai magar is kaa kyaa 3ilaaj kih ahl-i-zabaaN aisaa nahiiN bolte_.

It must have required a lot of effort to transliterate the whole paragraph, so I may help a bit pointing out minor spelling mistakes.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> And who would be a greater "sage" than "Hakiim-ul-ummat", "shaa3ir-i-mashriq" himself? If I am not mistaken, whenever Iqbal was criticised for using an idiom or construction deemed to be incorrect, he would quote from the works of past masters to give credence to his usage. I shall try to search from the works of "great sages".


He was the one whom I refered to as ''great sage''. I don't think there is any need to search for greater ones .


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Please accept these words of thankfulness for clarifying this issue! The following words are hilarious (!): _yih qaa3idah to bahut achchhaa hai magar is kaa kyaa 3ilaaj kih ahl-i-zabaaN aisaa nahiiN bolte_.
> 
> It must have required a lot of effort to transliterate the whole paragraph, so I may help a bit pointing out minor spelling mistakes.



Yes, very "nafiis" indeed! I can see at least one typo (isti3maal) where I've missed the "m". Please do point out the others and I shall correct them.


----------



## marrish

I didn't notice the lack of ''m''! The other typos are marked in red in the quotation of your original answer.


----------

