# Punjabi: How does the use of the infinitive differ from that in Hindi?



## Kanegren

I know in Hindi the infinitive had several uses such as also being a future imperative but when I listen to Punjabi songs I hear the infinitive used in situations that sound strange to my Hindi speaking ears. 

For example, this verse from Harrdy Sandhu's Na ji na:
Tusi jida kehna ji lena
Tussi jida kehna mar laina
Tussii karo te ishara yaara
Aapan te ohda ee kar laina

What meaning is being conveyed with the use of the infinitive hear? And in the last line the infinitive is being used with first person pronouns? 

Basically my question is what uses for the infinitive does Punjabi have that Hindi doesn't? The reason I'm asking about in comparison to Hindi in particular is because that's what I'm familiar with.

Thank you very much


----------



## aevynn

Kanegren said:


> Basically my question is what uses for the infinitive does Punjabi have that Hindi doesn't?



This is a great question. I hope someone more knowledgeable than me about Punjabi grammar chimes in because I want to know more too 

I asked a Punjabi-speaking relative about the verse, who came back to me with the following translation into Hindi-Urdu:

aap jaise kahoge, jii lenge
aap jaise kahoge, mar lenge
aap karo to ishaaraa, yaaraa
ham to vaisaa hii kar lenge

This makes it seem like one possible use for the infinitive in Punjabi that isn't available in Hindi-Urdu is as a sort of future tense...? I also asked if there was any difference between _tusiiN jiddaaN kehNRaa, jii laiNRaa_ and _tusiiN jiddaaN kahoge, jii lavaange_ and did not get a clear answer, so if there is a difference in nuance it may be somewhat subtle.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I and an (admittedly accidented) encounter with that feature
Punjabi: infinitive used in a future sense?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I and an (admittedly accidented) encounter with that feature
> Punjabi: infinitive used in a future sense?



Am I missing something? I only see the usage of infinitive as imperative in the thread referred to. That usage is common in Hindi-Urdu itself, not unique to Punjabi.


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> This is a great question. I hope someone more knowledgeable than me about Punjabi grammar chimes in because I want to know more too
> 
> I asked a Punjabi-speaking relative about the verse, who came back to me with the following translation into Hindi-Urdu:
> 
> aap jaise kahoge, jii lenge
> aap jaise kahoge, mar lenge
> aap karo to ishaaraa, yaaraa
> ham to vaisaa hii kar lenge


aevynn Jii, I assume the above four liner is a direct quote from your relative. Please take a look at the thread whose link is provided below and make a response if possible.
Urdu, Hindi: origin & range of aap V-o (aap+"tum" verb form)


----------



## aevynn

littlepond said:


> Am I missing something? I only see the usage of infinitive as imperative in the thread referred to. That usage is common in Hindi-Urdu itself, not unique to Punjabi.



I think it's not necessarily an imperative in the other thread, but you're right that the usage of the Punjabi infinitive in that thread is acceptable in Hindi-Urdu too! 

Upon some further reflection, I think there is at least some of this future tense meaning in the Hindi-Urdu infinitive. I'm specifically thinking of constructions of the form _X ne Y-naa hai_ [1]. I think that this construction has very context-sensitive semantics: at least to my ear, the meaning of this sentence can vary depending on context between necessity ("X has to Y"), desire ("X wants to Y"), and future tense ("X will Y"). It also seems like the future tense meaning of this construction often comes with a vague sense of warning.

Specifically, the future tense examples I have in mind are things like the following:

* The proposed Punjabi infinitive-as-future in the other thread that @MonsieurGonzalito linked us to is the phrase _nahiiN puchchNRaa dubaaraa_, which in context probably means the first-person future "I won't ask again" rather than the imperative "Don't ask me again" [2]. This infinitive-as-future seems acceptable in Hindi-Urdu too: one might say _maiNne dubaaraa nahiiN puuchhnaa!_ to mean something like "I'm not going to ask again!" The missing present tense copula _hai_ is not too surprising here, since this is often the case when a negative marker like _nahiiN_ appears in a sentence. Also, this sentence sounds much more like a warning to me than the "normal" future tense sentence _maiN dubaaraa nahiiN puuchhuungaa_.

* It seems like one can get this future tense with a sense of warning in positive sentences too. For example, if a hooligan often loiters around your house and you're sick and tired of it, you might angrily tell him something like _agar tujhe phir yahaaN dekhaa to maiNne pulis ko bulaa lenaa hai!_ ("If I see you around here again, I'm going to call the police!"). 

* Googling around for more examples, I ran into lyrics from the song "Slow Motion" from the 2019 film _Bharat_. Around 2:49 of the YouTube video, there are the following lines:
​"ring" _leke baRii vaalii ik din_​_tujhe maiNne kar lenaa hai_ "win"​​It seems like this fits the same paradigm: the sense seems to be something like "I'm going to buy a big ring and win you over one day, just you watch!" 

But, I don't know. I hesitate to make generalizations about semantic subtleties like this "vague sense of warning," since this kind of thing can all be so fuzzy and subjective. Anyway, if someone disagrees with this analysis, I'd love to hear about it 

---------------

Based on the lyrics that @Kanegren quotes, it seems like the Punjabi infinitive-as-future might differ from the Hindi-Urdu in a few respects:

Punjabi doesn't seem to require a present tense copula, even in situations where dropping the copula in Hindi-Urdu sounds rather odd to me.
It seems like the Punjabi usage doesn't necessarily carry a sense of warning...? At least, I don't really see how to interpret a sense of warning in the quoted lyrics.
This is maybe not an actual difference, only a possible difference. There may be some difference in case-marking on the "subject"...? Punjabi _tusiiN_ is both direct and ergative (I think...?), so it's hard to tell which case is intended there. I also don't know what case _aapaaN_ is. In Hindi-Urdu, it seems like you can't use a pronoun in the direct case; it seems like maybe it must be marked with the ergative _ne_ to get the infinitive-as-future sense. 
But I don't really know if any of these are legitimately differences, since I'm not capable of introspecting about Punjabi to figure out exactly what's going on.

---------------
Footnotes:

[1]: I know that some people don't like this usage of _ne_ and prefer _ko_. To my ear, though, these two postpositions aren't entirely synonymous in this construction, and the examples involving the infinitive-as-future sound a bit odd to me if one replaces _ko_ with _ne_. So I suppose everything I've said should be interpreted not for the Hindi-Urdu spectrum as a whole, but only for those dialects which allow _ne_ in this context.

[2]: I say "probably" because, as was pointed out in that thread, there's enough ambiguity in these lyrics that one could theoretically also interpret the phrase _nahiiN puchchNRaa dubaaraa_ as an imperative "Don't ask again" (as in something like "If you say no now, then don't come asking me again"). But, in any case, posts #13 and #14 seem to suggest that the future tense reading is certainly available too.


----------



## Dib

I think, I disagree with aevynn's analysis of the grammar here. I believe, one of the uses of the "infinitive" in Hindi - at least, the Hindi, I speak - is plain and simple future imperative, and in this case, no copula can be used at all, e.g.
"tum kal ghar jaanaa, dekhnaa kyaa hotaa hai" = Go home tomorrow and see (i.e. find out) what happens.
This is nothing but the markedly future equivalent of the more tense-agnostic "tum ghar jaao, dekho kyaa hotaa hai."

What is different in Punjabi, at least in the opening post, is that this consruction seems to have a wider syntactic and semantic scope, i.e. it can be used also with 1st person subjects, and may have a more generally subjunctive-y meaning than a pure imperative as in Hindi. The specific example in contention is the last line: "Aapan te ohda ee kar laina" (aevynn too recognizes the difficulty with it). My knowledge of Punjabi grammar is shakey, but I believe, the other lines can probably be analysed accordingly to how aevynn explained, because "ne" is obligatorily dropped after tussiiN in Punjabi.


----------



## Qureshpor

This construction may be better understood by looking at the following question and answer, say from a bus conductor speaking with a group of his passengers.

Q: tusiiN kitthe jaaNRaa e ? = tumheN/aap ko kahaaN jaanaa hai?

Q: Where are you going? (Where do you intend to go? / Where do you want to go? / Where do you wish to go?)

A: aapaaN* Jalandhar jaaNRaa e = hameN Jalandhar jaanaa hai

A: We are going to Jalandhar/ We want to go to Jalandhar/ We wish to go to Jalandhar

This example implies that the action will take place in the near future but not necessarily immediate future.

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

tussiiN jiddaaN kehNRaa, jii laiNRaa = tusiiN jiddaaN kahNRaa e, aapaaN odaaN jii laiNRaa e
tussiiN jiddaaN kehNRaa, mar laiNRaa = tusiiN jidaaN kehNRaa e, aapaaN odaaN mar laiNRaa e
tusiiN karo te ishaaraa yaaraa
aapaaN te odaaN ii kar laiNRaa = aapaaN te odaaN ii kar laiNRaa e
............................................................................................................................................

tumheN jaise kahnaa hai, hameN vaise jii lenaa hai  = tum jaise kaho ge, ham vaise jii leN ge
tumheN jaise kahnaa hai,  hameN vaise mar lenaa hai = tum jaise kaho ge, ham vaise mar leN ge**
tum karo to ishaaraa yaaraa (tum ishaaraa karo to sahii yaaraa)
hameN to vaise hii kar lenaa hai = ham to vaise hii kar leN ge

* In my Punjabi, we use "asiiN"
** mar lenaa / mar leN ge sounds odd in Urdu and Hindi, I would say.


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> This example implies that the action will take place in the near future but not necessarily immediate future.



Not necessarily near future. "(tumheN baRe ho kar) kyaa ban-naa hai beTe" has a faraway future.

I would say it implies an "intended future" of the subject, regardless of if it's immediate, near or far.



Qureshpor said:


> ** mar lenaa / mar leN ge sounds odd in Urdu and Hindi, I would say.



"mar leNge" doesn't sound odd to me in Hindi, though of course "mar jaayeNge" is the more common option. As for "mar lenaa", that does sound unusual, as "mar jaanaa" is the usual option in Hindi. To recast then "tumheN jaise kaihnaa hai, hameN vaise mar jaanaa hai".


----------



## littlepond

Dib said:


> I think, I disagree with aevynn's analysis of the grammar here. I believe, one of the uses of the "infinitive" in Hindi - at least, the Hindi, I speak - is plain and simple future imperative, and in this case, no copula can be used at all, e.g.
> "tum kal ghar jaanaa, dekhnaa kyaa hotaa hai" = Go home tomorrow and see (i.e. find out) what happens.
> This is nothing but the markedly future equivalent of the more tense-agnostic "tum ghar jaao, dekho kyaa hotaa hai."


----------



## aevynn

@Dib jii: I entirely agree about the future imperative usage of the infinitive in Hindi-Urdu. If I've understood your analysis (EDIT: of the Punjabi) correctly, I am very intrigued by it! To figure out what's going on grammatically, I'd like to gather some more data  To this end...

@Qureshpor jii: Thanks for the input! I'd like to ask a couple of follow-up questions about your explanation 

Question 1: Is it always okay, even in normal speech, to drop the _e_ in the construction you've described, or is this just a weird phenomenon specific to Harrdy Sandhu's lyrics? For example, might I hear a bus driver ask me

_tusiiN kitthe jaaNRaa?_​
without an _e_ at the end? Would it be acceptable for me to respond

_aapaaN jalandhar jaaNRaa._​
without an _e_ at the end?

Question 2: Would it be acceptable to say

_tuanuuN kitthe jaaNRaa e?_​
instead of _tusiiN kitthe jaaNRaa e_?

Question 3: Let's say I want to say "They intend(/wish/...) to go to Jalandhar" in Punjabi. Would any of the following be acceptable sentences in Punjabi, and if so, which ones? (It's okay if more than one is acceptable!)

a. _o jalandhar jaaNRaa_.​b. _o jalandhar jaaNRaa e_.​c. _onaaN ne jalandhar jaaNRaa_ _e_.​d. _onaaN nuuN jalandhar jaaNRaa e_.​


----------



## Samee Ul Haq

aevynn said:


> This is a great question. I hope someone more knowledgeable than me about Punjabi grammar chimes in because I want to know more too
> 
> I asked a Punjabi-speaking relative about the verse, who came back to me with the following translation into Hindi-Urdu:
> 
> aap jaise kahoge, jii lenge
> aap jaise kahoge, mar lenge
> aap karo to ishaaraa, yaaraa
> ham to vaisaa hii kar lenge
> 
> This makes it seem like one possible use for the infinitive in Punjabi that isn't available in Hindi-Urdu is as a sort of future tense...? I also asked if there was any difference between _tusiiN jiddaaN kehNRaa, jii laiNRaa_ and _tusiiN jiddaaN kahoge, jii lavaange_ and did not get a clear answer, so if there is a difference in nuance it may be somewhat subtle.


You're revising the meaning of the word "nuance". It's already understood that nuance is a subtle difference; you're stating the obvious.


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> @Dib jii: I entirely agree about the future imperative usage of the infinitive in Hindi-Urdu. If I've understood your analysis (EDIT: of the Punjabi) correctly, I am very intrigued by it! To figure out what's going on grammatically, I'd like to gather some more data  To this end...
> 
> @Qureshpor jii: Thanks for the input! I'd like to ask a couple of follow-up questions about your explanation
> 
> Question 1: Is it always okay, even in normal speech, to drop the _e_ in the construction you've described, or is this just a weird phenomenon specific to Harrdy Sandhu's lyrics? For example, might I hear a bus driver ask me
> 
> _tusiiN kitthe jaaNRaa?_​
> without an _e_ at the end? Would it be acceptable for me to respond
> 
> _aapaaN jalandhar jaaNRaa._​
> without an _e_ at the end?
> 
> Question 2: Would it be acceptable to say
> 
> _tuanuuN kitthe jaaNRaa e?_​
> instead of _tusiiN kitthe jaaNRaa e_?
> 
> Question 3: Let's say I want to say "They intend(/wish/...) to go to Jalandhar" in Punjabi. Would any of the following be acceptable sentences in Punjabi, and if so, which ones? (It's okay if more than one is acceptable!)
> 
> a. _o jalandhar jaaNRaa_.​b. _o jalandhar jaaNRaa e_.​c. _onaaN ne jalandhar jaaNRaa_ _e_.​d. _onaaN nuuN jalandhar jaaNRaa e_.​


aevynn SaaHib, please see #22 of the use of the infinitive with imperative meaning.

Hindi, Urdu: Infinitive used as imperative

If you would like to read the full poem, please PM me.

A1. aevynn SaaHib, the song in question is not an example of good Punjabi popular poetry. Once again, if you would like to hear samples of what I consider to be quality Punjabi poetry, do let me know by PM. To answer your question, no, it is not ok yo drop the auxiliary verb "to be" in normal speech. The poet here was restricted to have final -aa in the lines, so he decided to drop the -e.

A2. No, it is not correct to say "_tuanuuN kitthe jaaNRaa e?". _No, the correct form is "tusiiN" or "tusaaN" in this sentence.

A3. Only "c" is correct both with and without "ne"


----------



## Dib

aevynn said:


> @Dib jii: I entirely agree about the future imperative usage of the infinitive in Hindi-Urdu. If I've understood your analysis (EDIT: of the Punjabi) correctly, I am very intrigued by it! To figure out what's going on grammatically, I'd like to gather some more data  To this end...



No, my bad. I didn't realise that "aapaaN" was also a "ne"-dropping form. So, in light of what Qureshpor Sahib has posted, my grammatical objection/analysis is invalid.


----------



## aevynn

Thank you, @Qureshpor jii, for answering my questions! 

------------------------

I just found a bit about Punjabi infinitives in a 1896 grammar: link (section 168). This grammar cites following examples that are worth mulling over:

manukkh daa janam pher nahiiN labbhNRaa​aukhtaaN naal kucch phaaidaa nahiiN hoNRaa​ajj miiNh paiNRaa​​We can translate these into Hindi-Urdu using infinitives:

insaan kaa janam phir nahiiN milnaa (hai)​davaaiyon se kucch faaydaa nahiiN honaa (hai)​aaj baarish honii hai​​And, seeing these, we can come up with more examples along the same lines using different verbs:

is mukadme kaa faislaa aaj aanaa hai​is maidaan meN baRii-baRii imaarateN bannii haiN​ye kaam kal tak puuraa kiyaa jaanaa hai​...​
Notice that in all of these, the subjects (_janam, ..., imaarateN, kaam)_ are in the direct case with no postpositions. This contrasts with sentences like _hameN/hamne jalandhar jaanaa hai_, where the subject _hameN/hamne_ is dative/ergative (and, in fact, one cannot say _*ham jalandhar jaanaa hai_ with the subject in the direct case). I love Occam's Razor as much as anyone, but, at least at first pass, it seems to me like this forces an analysis in which these two infinitive + copula constructions are actually two different syntactic phenomena.

------------------------

To attempt a comparative analysis, then... Based on everything we've seen so far, both Hindi-Urdu and Punjabi use an infinitive with a future tense[1] sense in (at least) the following constructions:

(I) A bare infinitive with a (possibly tacit) second person "subject" in the direct case. This is a future imperative.
(II) An infinitive plus copula, with a subject in the ergative case. This expresses a future event, especially one that is intended/desired/required/etc. (Perhaps we can also say that the subject in this case is typically animate? [2])
(III) An infinitive plus copula, with a subject in the direct case. This expresses a future event, especially one that is predicted. (Perhaps we can also say that the subject in this case is typically inanimate and the verb is typically intransitive? [3])

Possible differences between Hindi-Urdu and Punjabi:

* In construction (II), Hindi-Urdu also allows the dative case on the subject (with slightly different, but closely related, semantics). Based on @Qureshpor jii's responses to my questions 2 and 3 (and also comment (5) in the 1896 grammar I cited above), we see that Punjabi doesn't like dative subjects, but maybe Hindi-Urdu is encroaching somewhat upon this restriction. On the other hand, we also see that Punjabi seems to allow dropping ergativity marking (maybe only with certain kinds of subjects...?), and this is something that Hindi-Urdu would not allow.

* Omitability of copula. @Qureshor jii reports that the copula isn't omitted in Punjabi speech. Perhaps, though, there's some difference between Hindi-Urdu and Punjabi in how acceptable the sentence remains after omitting the copula...?

Harrdy Sandhu's lyrics (even if they're low quality Punjabi poetry!) drop the copula in a situation where doing this sounds quite odd in Hindi-Urdu (to me at least, and actually, the dropped copulas in the lyrics feel like they were the biggest contributor to the opacity of the lyrics from my Hindi-Urdu perspective). That being said, I know that poetry often takes liberties with grammar, which leads me to...
The sentence _ajj miiNh paiNRaa_ from the grammar cited above. This is a construction (III) example which omits a copula in a situation where Hindi-Urdu probably wouldn't (I at least find *_aaj baarish honii_ without a copula to be unacceptable).
Regarding construction (II), there's a somewhat mysterious comment in the 1896 grammar which says that this construction is used in Punjabi "both with and without the substantive verb [ie, copula]." But this comment is unsubstantiated in the grammar, since the only example given in which the copula is missing is one in which _nahiiN_ also appears: _je us ne nahiiN jaaNRaa taa maiN aape jaavaaNgaa_ (which can painlessly be translated into _agar us ne nahiiN jaanaa to maiN khud jaauuNgaa_). So, I don't know if the copula is really omitable if _nahiiN_ isn't around.
* There may also be a _slight_ semantic difference in that Punjabi's construction (II) has slightly broader semantic scope (eg, maybe the condition that the future event be intended/desired/required/etc is slightly more lax in Punjabi). This is perhaps why the infinitives in the line _tusiiN jiddaaN kehNRaa, jii laiNRaa_ feel most naturally translated into Hindi-Urdu using simple future conjugations rather than infinitives, even though a translation using construction (II) is certainly understandable.

I hope this seems like a fair summary of what we have so far! 

------------------------
Footnotes:

[1]: I wonder if it might not be better to say prospective aspect rather than future tense...? In the context of construction (II), you can certainly say things like _mujhe jalandhar jaanaa thaa_, and it would be weird to say that that the verb phrase has both future and past tenses, but it's not weird to say that this verb phrase has both past tense and prospective aspect. Similarly, with construction (III), you can say things like _kal baarish honii thii (lekin huii nahiiN), _and again it seems weird to say this has both future and past tense, but not weird to say it has past tense but prospective aspect. I don't know whether it makes more sense to think of construction (I) as a future imperative or a prospective imperative (or even what the difference between the two would be).

[2]: Upon further reflection, this is a bit of a tautology, since only animate subjects are capable of intending/desiring/etc!

[3]: Upon further reflection, this is wrong  For example, one can say _uskii shaadii meN bahut saare log bulaae jaane haiN_, which has the animate subject _log_. But, on the other hand, construction (III) is impossible with an intransitive like _nahaanaa_ (something like *_maiN nahaanaa hai_ is unacceptable). But _nahaanaa_ is one of Hindi-Urdu's few unergative verbs, so maybe the verb must be unaccusative (where I'm treating passives of transitive verbs as unaccusative, since their single argument bears a patient-like theta-role, just like intransitive unaccusatives)...?


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> manukkh daa janam pher nahiiN labbhNRaa​aukhtaaN naal kucch phaaidaa nahiiN hoNRaa​​



An excellent post, @aevynn jii, and much to ponder over, but some of the sentences you had in your post, such as the ones quoted above, do not seem to me to be able to be fitted neatly into the category of "future". They seem more like a general truth or _nasiihat_ or _fait accompli_ kind of statements. The likelihood of all these happening is in the way of more certainty in the mind of the speaker. There is a difference in nuance to my ears between "ab davaaiyoN kaa koii faaydaa nahiiN honaa (hai)" and "ab davaaiyoN kaa koii faaydaa nahiiN hogaa". And similarly between "ab davaaiyoN kaa faaydaa honaa hai" ("hai" cannot be dropped now in Hindi-Urdu) and "ab davaaiyoN kaa faaydaa hogaa".


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> Thank you, @Qureshpor jii, for answering my questions!
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> I just found a bit about Punjabi infinitives in a 1896 grammar: link (section 168). This grammar cites following examples that are worth mulling over:
> 
> manukkh daa janam pher nahiiN labbhNRaa​aukhtaaN naal kucch phaaidaa nahiiN hoNRaa​ajj miiNh paiNRaa​


​aevynn SaaHib. I would go along the first two Punjabi sentences as the auxilliary verb is understood within "nahiiN". As a Punjabi, I don't think I would ever say the third!​


----------



## aevynn

littlepond said:


> An excellent post, @aevynn jii, and much to ponder over, but some of the sentences you had in your post, such as the ones quoted above, do not seem to me to be able to be fitted neatly into the category of "future". They seem more like a general truth or _nasiihat_ or _fait accompli_ kind of statements. The likelihood of all these happening is in the way of more certainty in the mind of the speaker. There is a difference in nuance to my ears between "ab davaaiyoN kaa koii faaydaa nahiiN honaa (hai)" and "ab davaaiyoN kaa koii faaydaa nahiiN hogaa". And similarly between "ab davaaiyoN kaa faaydaa honaa hai" ("hai" cannot be dropped now in Hindi-Urdu) and "ab davaaiyoN kaa faaydaa hogaa".



Thanks for this observation! I agree that there is a difference in nuance between the two. I wonder if this doesn't lend further credence to the possibility I proposed in footnote [1] of my last post, that this construction is not really a future tense construction as much as it is a prospective aspect construction in the present tense. Perhaps _ab davaaiyoN kaa koii faaydaa nahiiN honaa_ is expressing a truth about right now, and the truth about right now happens to be that medicines will not have any effect (both now and going forward). And perhaps, since it's a statement about right now, it feels more certain than the_ hogaa_ variant, which is more of a statement about the future and and is therefore a bit more wishy-washy.



Qureshpor said:


> aevynn SaaHib. I would go along the first two Punjabi sentences as the auxilliary verb is understood within "nahiiN". As a Punjabi, I don't think I would ever say the third!​



Thanks! I suppose this means there are several possibilities:

The author of the grammar seems to be a Britisher named E. P. Newton, so perhaps he did not grow up speaking Punjabi. Perhaps he just made up the sentence, not realizing that native Punjabi speakers would find it unnatural.
Perhaps Newton did consult a native speaker or a native text (or _perhaps_ he himself grew up speaking Punjabi) before providing the example _ajj miiNh paiNRaa_, but...
Perhaps Punjabi grammar has changed since 1896 and now is less likely to omit the copula. (I suppose this may even be due to influence from Hindi-Urdu grammar...?)
Maybe there are differences between different dialects of Punjabi when it comes to omitability of the copula, and the dialect of the native speaker who Newton consulted differs from @Qureshpor jii's dialect in this regard.
Maybe some combination of the above (only some dialects of Punjabi have shifted since 1896).

I suppose all of these hypotheses are testable given sufficient data, but probably procuring the relevant data would require poring through historical archives and/or doing some linguistic fieldwork, so is a bit beyond the scope of my linguistics hobby  In any case, it's somewhat satisfying (to me) that @Qureshpor jii feels that Punjabi is not so different from Hindi-Urdu on this point about omitting the copula!


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

This obscure linguistic paper calls the second category "_deferred imperatives_" (a term that seems more precise to me), and also proposes that there is no essential difference between HU and Punjabi in that regard. 
But it gets over my head very quickly after that ...


----------

