# Hindi: चौकीदार रामदुलारे ने शवों को पेड़ से लटका देखा था।



## marrish

चौकीदार रामदुलारे ने शवों को पेड़ से लटका देखा था। 

I would like to ask you to analyse this sentence on grounds of grammar so that I can get rid of my doubts.

_chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne *shavoN ko* peR se *laTkaa dekhaa* thaa_.

Is the usage of _laTkaa_ (sg.) correct in connection to "_shavoN ko_" (pl.)? This sentence is taken from Dainik Bhaskar.


----------



## Chhaatr

_mahoday vyaakaraNR kaa to pataa nahiiN lekin maiN ise apnii roz marraa kii bolii meN aise kahuuNgaa:

*chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne shavoN ko peR se laTke dekhaa thaa*.  ye galat ho saktaa hai par ye merii raae hai.  sahii na ho to nazar andaaz kar deN._


----------



## marrish

_bahut achchhaa, Ghalat ho yaa Thiik ho is kaa hameN adhik mat paa kar pataa chalegaa. haaN ek anya prashn bhii hai, itnaa mahattvapuurNR to nahiiN par agar is baat kaa bhii pataa chale to achchha lagegaa. yih chaukiidaar jo hai, iskaa naam kyaa hai? raamdulaaraa yaa raamdulaare?_


----------



## Chhaatr

jii, naamoN meN sambhavatah vyaakaraNr kaa utnaa bol baalaa nahiiN. 

ve nisandeh raamdulaare hii hoNge!


----------



## Dib

marrish said:


> चौकीदार रामदुलारे ने शवों को पेड़ से लटका देखा था।
> 
> I would like to ask you to analyse this sentence on grounds of grammar so that I can get rid of my doubts.
> 
> _chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne *shavoN ko* peR se *laTkaa dekhaa* thaa_.
> 
> Is the usage of _laTkaa_ (sg.) correct in connection to "_shavoN ko_" (pl.)? This sentence is taken from Dainik Bhaskar.



Indeed, as far as my understanding of Hindi-Urdu grammar goes (which has obvious big holes, as has been exposed in this forum itself), this is the expected construction (See below). I am surprised that you, as a native Urdu speaker, have this doubt. Could you, maybe, tell us how you'd formulate this sentence (making smallest possible change)? Maybe the rules of grammar are now undergoing a change! What if it was a feminine singular (say, "laash")? I'd still expect "laash ko laTkaa (huaa) dekhaa thaa". Would you agree?



Chhaatr said:


> _mahoday vyaakaraNR kaa to pataa nahiiN lekin maiN ise apnii roz marraa kii bolii meN aise kahuuNgaa:
> 
> *chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne shavoN ko peR se laTke dekhaa thaa*.  ye galat ho saktaa hai par ye merii raae hai.  sahii na ho to nazar andaaz kar deN._



From my part, same surprise as before. Wouldn't your sentence imply that the Chaukiidaar was himself hanging?

Also the same question, what if it was "laash ko" instead of "shavoN ko"? How would you formulate it?

===

My understanding of the relevant point of grammar:
The postposition "ko" blocks agreement of a noun to a predicative adjective or participle (also when used to form perfect tenses), and they default to masculine singular. Some examples (f/m = genders; s/p = numbers):
"maiN ne in laashoN (f.p.) ko dekhaa (m.s.)".
"sapnaa (f.s. name of a girl) ko banaayaa (m.s.) apnaa (m.s.)" (This is a direct quotation from some Bollywood movie in its opening scene - I forgot which though; but I still remember this line, because I watched it when I was still learning this rule of agreement blocking, and hence, it was remarkable to me).

I think our present example aligns with the second example.

~~~

Interestingly, the corresponding Gujarat postposition "ne" does not block the agreement.


----------



## marrish

As this question is about Hindi I would like to hear from Hindi speakers. I don't think I have any advantage of being an Urdu speaker and would like to know more about this kind of expressions in Hindi itself. I don't say it's wrong either, just only that I have some doubts. Thank you for your opinion


----------



## Chhaatr

Dib jii if Ramdulare saw this while hanging from a tree, I would say:

_peR se laTakte hue chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne shavoN ko dekhaa!_ 

If it were a laash, I would say:

_chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne peR se laTaktii huii laash ko dekhaa_!

On the otherhand if ramdulaare witnessed this while hanging from a tree  I would say:

_peR se laTakte hue chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne laash ko dekhaa._


----------



## sapnachaandni

marrish saahib, aap ne Thiik usii vishay ke baare meN prashn kiyaa hai jis ke anya niyam maiN DhuuNDh nikaalne kii koshish kar rahii huuN (Urdu-Hindi: adverb (number & gender)). antar keval ye hai ki aap ke is prashn kaa uttar vyaakaran kii pustakoN meN likhaa gayaa hai, par mere prashn kaa uttar vyaakaran kii pustakoN meN aaj tak to nahiiN milaa hai.

ab bataa’uuN ki yahaaN niyam kyaa hai:

pahlii baat ye hai ki is vaaky meN --- चौकीदार रामदुलारे ने शवों को पेड़ से लटका देखा था।  --- “laTkaa” ko vyaakaran meN kriyaavisheshan (= adverb) kahte haiN.

yahaaN jin kriyaavisheshanoN (adverboN) ke baare meN baat karnii hai, un ke pattern is tarah haiN:
{root + aa/e/ii [+ hu’aa/hu’e/hu’ii]}
{root + taa/te/tii [+ hu’aa/hu’e/hu’ii]}

aise kriyaavisheshanoN ke prayog ke baare meN ek niyam ye hai:

[…] यदि कर्ता (= subject) अथवा कर्म (= object) सप्रत्यय हो, तो अनिवार्यतः एकारांत* रूप ही प्रयोग किया जाता है। (कविता कुमार, हिंदी व्याकरण एक नवीन दृष्टिकोण, पृ॰ 228)

* ekaaraant : jis ke ant meN “e” (ए) ho


arthaat, yadi subject/object ke saath koii postposition ho, to ye zaruurii hai ki aise kriyaavisheshanoN kaa prayog ekaaraant ruup meN hii kiyaa jaa’e; matlab agar subject/object ke saath koii postposition ho, to ye zaruurii hai ki aise adverboN ke aaxir meN “e” aa’e.

to phir is niyam ke anusaar, chhaatr jii ke vaaky bilkul Thiik haiN.


Chhaatr said:


> _chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne shavoN ko peR se *laTke* dekhaa thaa._




vaise dhyaan deN ki chhaatr jii ke nimnalikhit vaakyoN meN---


Chhaatr said:


> _peR se *laTakte hue* chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne shavoN ko dekhaa!_
> _chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne peR se *laTaktii huii* laash ko dekhaa_!
> _peR se *laTakte hue* chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne laash ko dekhaa._


“_*laTakte hue*_” aur “_*laTaktii huii*_”  kriyaavisheshan (= adverb) nahiiN balki visheshan (= adj.) haiN.


----------



## littlepond

main Chhatr jii kii baat se purii tarah se saihmat hun, alaava ke ramdulare ke naam ke baare mein. Mere khyaal se chaukidaar ka naam "raamdulaaraa" hai, par veh decline ho kar "raamdulaare" ho gayaa hai (aur adhiktar log yahi kaih kar use pukarte honge).


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> main Chhatr jii kii baat se purii tarah se saihmat hun, alaava ke ramdulare ke naam ke baare mein. Mere khyaal se chaukidaar ka naam "raamdulaaraa" hai, par veh decline ho kar "raamdulaare" ho gayaa hai (aur adhiktar log yahi kaih kar use pukarte honge).


par chaachaa, maamaa, raajaa, chopRaa, malhotraa, sapnaa decline nahiiN hote to "raajdulaaraa" kyoN decline hotaa hai?

mujhe "alaava ke" kii samjh nahiiN aa'ii. in shabdoN kaa kyaa matlab hai?


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> par chaachaa, maamaa, raajaa, chopRaa, malhotraa, sapnaa decline nahiiN hote to "raajdulaaraa" kyoN decline hotaa hai?



"chaachaa" kai baar hotaa hai! kalkatta aur agraa bhi hota hai, par barodaa nahin hota, naa hi hotaa ajantaa. Ab khush?


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> "chaachaa" kai baar hotaa hai! kalkatta aur agraa bhi hota hai, par barodaa nahin hota, naa hi hotaa ajantaa. Ab khush?


dukhii to maiN pahle bhii nahiiN thaa lekin ab kuchh zyaadaa hii prasanna ho gayaa huuN aap kii dyaalata se! aap ke haaN "chaachaa" decline hotaa hogaa, lekin jahaaN tak mujhe jaan paRtaa hai, Thiik Hindi bolne vaale ise decline nahiiN karte. chaliye "chaache maame" ko chhoRte haiN...kyaa malhotra aur chopRa jaise naam decline hote haiN? yadi nahiiN to raajdulaara kyoN decline ho rahaa hai, bhaa'ii?

aur haaN, aap ne ek baat kaa uttar nahiiN diyaa. yadi ho sake to "alaava ke" kaa arth hameN bhii samjhaa diijiye. baRii mehrbaani hogii.


----------



## littlepond

^ aap ke "maame" se yaad aayaa ki voh bhi decline hotaa hai: aur donon chache-maame Thiik hindi bolne vaalon ke yaahaan. Afsos ki aapko kabhi pikchar-vagairah dekhne kaa mauka nahin miltaa, varnaa ye aarop na lagaate. Khair, jaane dijiye.

Baaki, samajhdaar ke liye ishaar kaafi hotaa hai: jo naa samjhe, voh sirf anaaRii hii nahin hai, par laRi pe laRi bigaaRtaa rahegaa.


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> ^ aap ke "maame" se yaad aayaa ki voh bhi decline hotaa hai: aur donon chache-maame Thiik hindi bolne vaalon ke yaahaan. Afsos ki aapko kabhi pikchar-vagairah dekhne kaa mauka nahin miltaa, varnaa ye aarop na lagaate. Khair, jaane dijiye.
> 
> Baaki, samajhdaar ke liye ishaar kaafi hotaa hai: jo naa samjhe, voh sirf anaaRii hii nahin hai, par laRi pe laRi bigaaRtaa rahegaa.


bhaa'ii, is meN "aarop" kii to ko'ii baat nahiiN. maiN ne kahaa thaa ki jahaaN tak mujhe jaan paRtaa hai...chaliye, chhoRiye.

 yadi aap "alaava ke" kaa arth nahiiN bataa paa'e to ko'ii baat nahiiN. ho saktaa hai ko'ii aur mehrbaan yah kaam kar de.  aur jo kuchh aap ne likhaa hai us kaa bhii dhanyavaad.


----------



## Qureshpor

sapnachaandni said:


> marrish saahib, aap ne Thiik usii vishay ke baare meN prashn kiyaa hai jis ke anya niyam maiN DhuuNDh nikaalne kii koshish kar rahii huuN (Urdu-Hindi: adverb (number & gender)). antar keval ye hai ki aap ke is prashn kaa uttar vyaakaran kii pustakoN meN likhaa gayaa hai, par mere prashn kaa uttar vyaakaran kii pustakoN meN aaj tak to nahiiN milaa hai.
> 
> ab bataa’uuN ki yahaaN niyam kyaa hai:
> 
> pahlii baat ye hai ki is vaaky meN --- चौकीदार रामदुलारे ने शवों को पेड़ से लटका देखा था।  --- “laTkaa” ko vyaakaran meN kriyaavisheshan (= adverb) kahte haiN.
> 
> yahaaN jin kriyaavisheshanoN (adverboN) ke baare meN baat karnii hai, un ke pattern is tarah haiN:
> {root + aa/e/ii [+ hu’aa/hu’e/hu’ii]}
> {root + taa/te/tii [+ hu’aa/hu’e/hu’ii]}
> 
> aise kriyaavisheshanoN ke prayog ke baare meN ek niyam ye hai:
> 
> […] यदि कर्ता (= subject) अथवा कर्म (= object) सप्रत्यय हो, तो अनिवार्यतः एकारांत* रूप ही प्रयोग किया जाता है। (कविता कुमार, हिंदी व्याकरण एक नवीन दृष्टिकोण, पृ॰ 228)
> 
> * ekaaraant : jis ke ant meN “e” (ए) ho
> 
> 
> arthaat, yadi subject/object ke saath koii postposition ho, to ye zaruurii hai ki aise kriyaavisheshanoN kaa prayog ekaaraant ruup meN hii kiyaa jaa’e; matlab agar subject/object ke saath koii postposition ho, to ye zaruurii hai ki aise adverboN ke aaxir meN “e” aa’e.
> 
> to phir is niyam ke anusaar, chhaatr jii ke vaaky bilkul Thiik haiN.
> 
> 
> 
> vaise dhyaan deN ki chhaatr jii ke nimnalikhit vaakyoN meN---
> 
> “_*laTakte hue*_” aur “_*laTaktii huii*_”  kriyaavisheshan (= adverb) nahiiN balki visheshan (= adj.) haiN.



इतने लम्बे चौड़े भाषण के बाद  क्या हम यह परिणाम निकालें कि वाक्य कुछ ऐसा होना चाहिये?

चौकीदार रामदुलारे ने शवों को पेड़ से लटके देखा था।


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor said:


> इतने लम्बे चौड़े भाषण के बाद  क्या हम यह परिणाम निकालें कि वाक्य कुछ ऐसा होना चाहिये?
> 
> चौकीदार रामदुलारे ने शवों को पेड़ से *लटके* देखा था।


जी हाँ। 

पहले भी कह चुकी थी—


sapnachaandni said:


> [...]to phir is niyam ke anusaar, chhaatr jii ke vaaky bilkul Thiik haiN.
> 
> 
> Chhaatr said:
> 
> 
> 
> _chaukiidaar raamdulaare ne shavoN ko peR se *laTke* dekhaa thaa._
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
Click to expand...


----------



## Qureshpor

Dib said:


> Indeed, as far as my understanding of Hindi-Urdu  grammar goes (which has obvious big holes, as has been exposed in this  forum itself), this is the expected construction (See below). I am  surprised that you, as a native Urdu speaker, have this doubt. Could  you, maybe, tell us how you'd formulate this sentence (making smallest  possible change)? Maybe the rules of grammar are now undergoing a  change! What if it was a feminine singular (say, "laash")? I'd still  expect "laash ko laTkaa (huaa) dekhaa thaa". Would you  agree?[..]


Dib Jii, I don't believe there are "holes" in your understanding of the grammar. The reality is that both forms are in vogue and not since the recent past. sapnaachaandni jii has shown that according to at least one grammarian the -e form should be used. This topic has come up in previous threads before but there is certainly plenty of scope for further discussion, perhaps in one of the previous threads.


----------



## Dib

Thanks, Chhaatr-jii, for your answer. However, as SC-jii has pointed out,  you changed the construction in your post #7 by using "attributive  adjectives". So, they are of course totally nice sentences, but what I  was more looking for is in this line:
Police-guy: shavoN ko kis ne dekhaa?
Witness: jii, raamdulaare ne dekhaa.
P: acchaa? vo kis haalat meN thaa us samay? ya'nii, us ne shavoN ko kis haalat meN dekhaa?
W: jii, us ne shavoN ko ... dekhaa.

xair, koii baat nahiiN. ye utnaa koii muhim savaal nahiiN thaa.

====


sapnachaandni said:


> pahlii baat ye hai ki is vaaky meN --- चौकीदार रामदुलारे ने शवों को पेड़ से लटका देखा था।  --- “laTkaa” ko vyaakaran meN kriyaavisheshan (= adverb) kahte haiN.
> 
> yahaaN jin kriyaavisheshanoN (adverboN) ke baare meN baat karnii hai, un ke pattern is tarah haiN:
> {root + aa/e/ii [+ hu’aa/hu’e/hu’ii]}
> {root + taa/te/tii [+ hu’aa/hu’e/hu’ii]}
> 
> aise kriyaavisheshanoN ke prayog ke baare meN ek niyam ye hai:



I beg to differ. This is not an adverb. It says nothing about the  manner in which "seeing" was performed. It talks about the state of the  "shav"-s, and hence adjective. However, it is not a normal "attributive  adjective" but an adjective complement to the verb, something like in the English sentence "I painted the car _blue_". Hence, the quoted grammar rule does not apply.

I  myself tried to find something out in one Hindi grammar book, I had  access to (Yamuna Kachru), and she does discuss complements to verbs in  section 7.2, but she is very brief, and does not explicitly discuss the  issue of agreement in adjectival object complements (i.e. adjective  complement, that logically qualifies the object of the verb - as in the  present case). However, one of her examples is relevant:
(16) "maiN ne shikhaa ko khelte dekhaa thaa"
where  she glosses "khelte" as imperfect singular oblique. This agrees to  Chaatr-jii's version. Of course, it sheds no light on the grammaticality  of the Dainik Bhaskar version. From my side, "khelte" does sound  correct, as also does "kheltaa (huaa)" (without change of meaning); but  "kheltii huii" sounds kind of border-line, but not outright wrong.

====

Thanks   Qureshpor-jii. After reflecting a bit, I do realize that I have come  across both forms, and even discussed it a long time ago somewhere  (probably Orkut - (sad sigh!)), but I thought that only the one with  default masculine singular agreement is considered standard, and was  also  more common in my experience. Hence, it had an element of surprise for  me, when I found out that the preferences of some speakers were actually  different! After some more research, I am now convinced that both  masculine singular nominative (a la Dainik bhaskar) and masculine singular oblique (a la  Chhaatr-jii, littlepond-jii, Kachru) agreements are acceptable, or maybe  even full gender/number agreement with the object.

On this point, *I'd  like to invite everybody's judgement* on the acceptability of the  following forms - please rate them as: "I use it; I don't normally use  it but sounds fine; unacceptable":
1. us ne laash ko peR se laTkaa (huaa) dekhaa thaa.
2. us ne laash ko peR se laTke (hue) dekhaa thaa.
3. us ne laash ko peR se laTkii (huii) dekhaa thaa.
And,  plz. if I may, I'd like to invite Urdu speakers for their opinions too.  (marrish-jii, plz. don't disapprove of it. Urdu opinion is relevant.)

===

Now coming to marrish-jii's comment on the other thread post #7:


marrish said:


> Dib, you say yourself that "_apnaa banaanaa_" is a verb phrase, thus a compound verb and it's correct. It's not the case as in the other thread.



While  I agree that "apnaa banaanaa" is more frequent than "laTkaa dekhnaa", I  do not really see the grammatical difference. Here is my analysis on  the sentences:
"sapnaa ko apnaa banaayaa"
=>
banaayaa - head verb
sapnaa ko - direct object with -ko
apnaa - adjectival complement to "banaayaa", logically qualifying the direct object.

"shavoN ko laTkaa dekhaa"
=>
dekhaa - head verb
shavoN ko - direct object with -ko
laTkaa  - adjectival complement to "dekhaa", logically qualifying the direct  object

However, as  mentioned above, I am now convinced that the default masculine singular  nominative agreement is not the only option here - as I had believed  before the inception of this thread. So, I thank you for initiating this  thread, and thereby letting me find this out.


----------



## Qureshpor

Dib Jii,

Without going into using grammatical terms excessively and boring people to tears, please allow me to offer my tuppence worth.

*maiN ne us ko tairte dekhaa*.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that:
*
I saw him/her (while s/he was) swimming.*

However being the "hair-splitting" kind of person, a doubt creeps in my mind and I begin to perceive this line as:

*I saw him/her while I was swimming!*

Now people and grammar writers will tell you that context would make the meaning clear. Be that as it may, I, like Platts want precision. In his Urdu grammar published in 1874, he discusses this very construction. He then suggests that:

*maiN ne use tairtaa dekhaa.* ...can only mean one thing.

I saw him/her swimming.

You will agree that independent of the gender and number of the object, *tairtaa* will remain unchanged. 

Now, moving on to the past partciple construction.

*maiN ne use baiThe hu'e dekhaa.*

Same logic once again

I saw him/her (while s/he) was sitting/seated

or

I saw him/her while I was sitting.

So, the same get out formation comes into play

*maiN ne use baiThaa hu'aa dekhaa.* ...irrespective of gender and number, baiThaa (hu'aa) does not change.

Now coming to one of your examples.

3. us ne laash ko peR se laTkii (huii) dekhaa thaa.

In my humble opinion, this is completely wrong and unaceptable.


----------



## marrish

maiN ne use so'e hu'e dekhaa - there is no room for doubt, "vah" is "soye hu'e". I agree "us ne laash ko peR se laTkii dekhaa" is wrong.


----------



## littlepond

1. us ne laash ko peR se laTkaa (huaa) dekhaa thaa. -- I don't normally use it but sounds fine
2. us ne laash ko peR se laTke (hue) dekhaa thaa. -- I use it
3. us ne laash ko peR se laTkii (huii) dekhaa thaa. -- unacceptabl-ish, that is, I still won't raise an eyebrow


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> maiN ne use so'e hu'e dekhaa - there is no room for doubt, "vah" is "soye hu'e". I agree "us ne laash ko peR se laTkii dekhaa" is wrong.


Yes, there is a doubt marrish SaaHib. Leaving aside that one can not see anyone when one is sleeping/asleep (dreams aside), your sentence implies two possibilities.

I saw him/her when he/she was asleep or

I saw him/her when I was asleep.

What do you think?

If you say...

maiN ne use soyaa hu'aa dekhaa

...it can mean only one thing. I saw him/her when he/she was asleep.


----------



## aevynn

I'm reminded of a document by Rajesh Bhatt that I ran into a little while ago which discussed control inside an adjunct clause: link [section 3.2.2]. That section looks  specifically at _conjunctive_ adjuncts, whereas here we're discussing _participial_ adjuncts. The conclusion the document draws is that it's typically the _agent_ of the matrix clause that controls the subject of the conjunctive adjunct.

It does seem like control into participial adjuncts works differently than conjunctive adjuncts, which is kind of interesting. I think I would default to interpreting

maiNne use baiThe hue dekhaa​
as "I saw her while she was sitting" [ie, it is the _patient_ of the matrix clause controlling into the adjunct], similar to the example that @marrish saa'b describes in post #20, but I can definitely see that there's room for ambiguity with this sentence as @Qureshpor saa'b describes in posts #19 and #22. I also agree with you, @Qureshpor saa'b, that the sentence

maiNne use baiThaa huaa dekhaa​
removes the ambiguity: it is now unambiguously she who is sitting, not I. Interestingly, it feels to me that if I instead said

maiNne use baiThe-baiThe dekhaa,​
the ambiguity is perhaps removed the other way: now it is unambiguously me who is sitting, not her, right...?


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> Interestingly, it feels to me that if I instead said
> 
> maiNne use baiThe-baiThe dekhaa,​
> the ambiguity is perhaps removed the other way: now it is unambiguously me who is sitting, not her, right...?



Yes, it now does remove all ambiguity (at least for me) in the other way: it's unambiguously me who is sitting now, not her.

"maiN ne use baiThte-baiThte dekhaa" would reintroduce the ambiguity (though benefit of doubt would remain on me who is sitting, not her).


----------



## aevynn

Another fun observation here is that word order also influences control into adjuncts. If we compare the following:
​maiNne use baiThte hue dekhaa​maiNne baiThte hue use dekhaa​
I would probably default to interpreting the former as "I saw her as she sat down" and the latter as "I saw her as I sat down" (with the same caveats that there may be some room for ambiguity, especially with the former).


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> Another fun observation here is that word order also influences control into adjuncts. If we compare the following:
> ​maiNne use baiThte hue dekhaa​maiNne baiThte hue use dekhaa​
> I would probably default to interpreting the former as "I saw her as she sat down" and the latter as "I saw her as I sat down" (with the same caveats that there may be some room for ambiguity, especially with the former).


aveynn SaaHib, present or past participle in the oblique case is the recommended style to emulate, at least in Urdu. So, the grammar pundits would be quite happy with the "baiThe baiThe" construction.

Your above observation is mentioned in Maulavi Abdul Haq's grammar book published in 1914. I still have my doubts about its ambiguity and for this reason I prefer to go along with Platts recommendation where the participle is not declined when we have situations such as we have been discussing, i.e  "maiN ne use tairtaa (hu'aa)/laTkaa (hu'aa) dekhaa" as opposed to "maiN ne use tairte (hu'e)/laTke (hu'e) dekhaa.

Please see these threads that I feel are relevant to our discussions.

Urdu: Participle constructions

Urdu-Hindi: paRe paRe vs paRii paRii


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> Yes, there is a doubt marrish SaaHib. Leaving aside that one can not see anyone when one is sleeping/asleep (dreams aside), your sentence implies two possibilities.
> 
> I saw him/her when he/she was asleep or
> 
> I saw him/her when I was asleep.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> If you say...
> 
> maiN ne use soyaa hu'aa dekhaa
> 
> ...it can mean only one thing. I saw him/her when he/she was asleep.


The meaning of that sentence is clear for the very reason which you set aside, I thought it was the only one free of doubt in this discussion  Yes, you can use _soyaa_, too - and it is true the ambiguity disappears in this way - but this doesn't mean that other manners to say the same are to be deemed wrong; moreover, if I say, _raat [ko] kyaa hu'aaa kih maiN soyaa hu'aa use dekhne lagaa...=xaab meN,_ it is "I", not "s/he" who is asleep.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> The meaning of that sentence is clear for the very reason which you set aside, I thought it was the only one free of doubt in this discussion  Yes, you can use _soyaa_, too - and it is true the ambiguity disappears in this way - but this doesn't mean that other manners to say the same are to be deemed wrong; moreover, if I say, _raat [ko] kyaa hu'aaa kih maiN soyaa hu'aa use dekhne lagaa...=xaab meN,_ it is "I", not "s/he" who is asleep.


No marrish SaaHib, other modes, expressing the same are not wrong. You may remember our discussions in the  Urdu-Hindi: paRe paRe vs paRii paRii thread. According to Platts only the inflected forms in -e were correct but Maulavi Abdul Haq deemed the others correct too but not as "fasiiH". The -aa form in the present and past (tairtaa/latkaa) removes the ambiguity of who is doing what. Maulavi Abdul Haq just provides change of order of words to remove the ambiguity which I believe still continues to exist whereas Platts' suggestion has no ambiguity.


----------

