# Hindi/Urdu: shakhs/shaxs شخص masculine or feminine?



## lafz_puchnevala

Hi,

If I am talking about a lady, is it  'wah aurat acchaa/acchii shakhs hai'? I would still think that it will be masculine but not very sure about it...

Thanks!


----------



## greatbear

lafz_puchnevala said:


> Hi,
> 
> If I am talking about a lady, is it  'wah aurat acchaa/acchii shakhs hai'? I would still think that it will be masculine but not very sure about it...
> 
> Thanks!




In Hindi, at least you cannot call a woman as a "shaqs". It is a word reserved for men.


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

greatbear said:


> In Hindi, at least you cannot call a woman as a "shaqs". It is a word reserved for men.



Ok, I see... That clears up everything!


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> In Hindi, at least you cannot call a woman as a "shaqs". It is a word reserved for men.



Do you use "shaqs" for men in Hindi or is it some other word?


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> In Hindi, at least you cannot call a woman as a "shaqs". It is a word reserved for men.



So how is "shaXs" any different from "vyakti" which is used for both sexes?? Clarification s'il vous plait.


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

lafz_puchnevala said:


> Hi,
> 
> If I am talking about a lady, is it  'wah aurat acchaa/acchii shakhs hai'? I would still think that it will be masculine but not very sure about it...
> 
> Thanks!



Interesting word usages between the two languages but we might need more Hindi speakers to confirm... Meanwhile for Urdu at least, in my query above, is 'shakhs' always male regardless of the subject's gender?

Thanks!


----------



## greatbear

lafz_puchnevala said:


> A good case to study for all languages which are gender based...



Not all; "personne" (individual) is feminine in French, but is used easily for men as well, with the gender remaining feminine.


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

QURESHPOR said:


> Very awkward indeed! And I don't know how it would be grammatically correct.



How would greatbear's sentence be translated in Urdu?


----------



## greatbear

And also would lafz's opening sentence be considered normal in Urdu? "Weh auraat achha shakhs hai" is correct and probable?


----------



## Alfaaz

Interesting question and discussion going on! It seems some words are feminine/masculine, yet used for both genders, while others are not.

Examples: 
jo shakhsiyat aaj humare paas studios mein maujuud haiN: (shakhsiyat is feminine, but also used for males....)
Meere paas itni a'zeem hasti beThi hai (seems to be used for males and females, even though the grammar indicates a female...)
Woh aik achhi insaan hai! (insaan is masculine, but used for females....)
Woh aik acchi shakhs hai! (this probably wouldn't be correct, not sure....)


> "four women are going to the market"
> 
> 
> 
> How would greatbear's sentence be translated in Urdu?
Click to expand...

chaar (khawaateen/a'urteiN) (bazaar/farosh gaah) jaa rahi haiN


----------



## greatbear

Alfaaz said:


> chaar (khawaateen/a'urteiN) (bazaar/farosh gaah) jaa rahi haiN



But will you be comfortable with "chaar shakhs bazaar jaa rahe haiN" when you know you're talking about four women?
Forget whether it's grammatically correct or not: will you say that for women?


----------



## BP.

As well as I can see, _shaxS _is someone (and dare  I say, something) that has _tashaxxus _- identity. So what we're saying is things like "two identifiables are going to the market".*


Alfaaz said:


> ...Woh aik acchi shakhs hai! (this probably wouldn't be correct, not sure....)...


I find no reason for it to be not correct, except that shaxS could be supplanted by a better owrd.



QURESHPOR said:


> Do you use "shaqs" for men in Hindi or is it some other word?




* maybe except if they were identical twins dressed the same??


----------



## Alfaaz

> As well as I can see, _shaxS _is someone (and dare I say, something) that has _tashaxxus _- identity. So what we're saying is things like "two identifiables are going to the market".*


Creative way of looking at it!


> I find no reason for it to be not correct, except that shaxS could be supplanted by a better owrd.


 Interesting! So achhi can be used with shakhs...? (it was used in a TV program once and sounded odd at first, which why I thought I would ask)


----------



## UrduMedium

Alfaaz said:


> Creative way of looking at it!
> 
> Interesting! So achhi can be used with shakhs...? (it was used in a TV program once and sounded odd at first, which why I thought I would ask)



I have not looked up, but _acchii shaxs_ sound quite wrong to me. acchi _shaxsiat _would be fine. I cannot recall hearing/using _shaxs _grammatically feminine.


----------



## Alfaaz

> do shaxs jaa rahe the or *do shaxseN jaa rahii thiiN*?


Sorry, but is this supposed to be rhetorical question to illustrate a point-that shakhs is masculine so only the first one would be correct....or is this saying that the one in red is also correct...; This is probably the first time hearing shakhseN! Is shakhseN correct, or am I misunderstanding...?


----------



## greatbear

UrduMedium said:


> I have not looked up, but _acchii shaxs_ sound quite wrong to me. acchi _shaxsiat _would be fine. I cannot recall hearing/using _shaxs _grammatically feminine.



Neither do I, but opinions of speakers matter little on this forum - it's the grammar books that rule. So what about "achha shaxs" for a woman - would you use it?


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz, you are correct as to the first part.

_do shaxs jaa rahe_ the can be two women, a man and a woman, two men, a man and a jinn, a woman and a jinn, two jinns.


----------



## UrduMedium

greatbear said:


> Neither do I, but opinions of speakers matter little on this forum - it's the grammar books that rule. So what about "achha shaxs" for a woman - would you use it?


Good question. Normally not, but in poetic language, I suspect it is possible referring to one's lover (of undefined gender), but female implication.


----------



## marrish

yes it would, if you have not to specify the sex.


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

marrish said:


> yes it would, if you have not to specify the sex.


So to confirm and conclude, saying 'tum acche shakhs ho' to a lady is perfectly fine.


----------



## JaiHind

I have always heard "shakhs" used for masculine only, though I am not sure if it can be used for feminine also. 

For the separate discussion part of this thread, again, "vyakti" is most of the times used only for masculine gender. For the feminine, the equivalent is "mahilaa".


----------



## Faylasoof

Since the title of the thread is _shakhs_ = _shaxs_ in my transliteration, I shall restrict myself to mainly discussing how we use this word and leave the usage of _vyakti _to others.

If you refer to a _group_ where the gender of the individuals is either unknown or they are a mixture of males and females, and if this fact need not be specified, then as a _group_ they are collectively treated as if they are all male:

_chaar shaxs / afraad / log baazaar jaa rahe haiN_
_Four persons / individuals / people are going to the market _
(These four can be all male or mix of males and females) 

This, I think, is also what marrish SaaHib stated earlier (post #35)

Both _shaxs_ and _insaan_ are grammatically masculine but depending on the gender for which they are being used, the _accompanying adjective changes accordingly_! This is standard Urdu grammar! 

So, this is how we say it according to our standard grammar: 

_For singular_
_woh ek achh*ii* shaxs / insaan hai_ - informal / impolite address to a woman
_woh ek achh*aa* shaxs / insaan hai_ - informal / impolite address to a man

_woh ek achh*ii* shaxs / insaan hai*N*_ – formal / polite address to a single woman
_woh ek achh*e* shaxs / insaan hai*N*_ – formal / polite address to a single man 

_For plural_
_woh 3aurateN achh*ii* shaxs / insaan hai*N*_ – for women
_woh mard achh*e* shaxs / insaan hai*N*_ – for men 

_General_
_woh log achh*e* shaxs / insaan hai*N*_

We use _shaxs _(and _insaan_) for both men and women and both for singular and plural, as shown above in Urdu – and in Colloquial Hindi, I hasten to add – as far as this usage of _shaxs_ and _insaan_ go!


----------



## marrish

Many thanks, Faylasoof SaaHib, for this clear-cut analysis and good examples!


----------



## UrduMedium

Thanks for the detailed response, Faylasoof saahib. However, I still cannot get my head around seeing _shaxs _used grammatically feminine (_acchii shaxs, ... shaxs thii_). If it is not too much trouble, can you quote an example or two of this usage from prose or poetry?

Also, you seem to have completely ignored the plural form _ashxaas_. In a sentence like "_chaar shaxs / afraad / log baazaar jaa rahe haiN". _I wonder why? You do use _afraad_, but not _ashxaas_? It seems to me that _ashxaas _would be more apropos in this case. I agree that _log _remains unchanged, but _shaxs _should be treated similar to _fard, _in my view. Again, a quote/example would be most appreciated.


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

So, it should be 'chaar shakhs bazaar jaa rahii haiN', if it is known that those are women. But then shakhs should be changed to 'shakhseiN'  if it becomes feminine now right?


----------



## Faylasoof

UrduMedium said:


> Thanks for the detailed response, Faylasoof saahib. However, I still cannot get my head around seeing _shaxs _used grammatically feminine (_acchii shaxs, ... shaxs thii_). If it is not too much trouble, can you quote an example or two of this usage from prose or poetry?
> 
> Also, you seem to have completely ignored the plural form _ashxaas_. In a sentence like "_chaar shaxs / afraad / log baazaar jaa rahe haiN". _I wonder why? You do use _afraad_, but not _ashxaas_? It seems to me that _ashxaas _would be more apropos in this case. I agree that _log _remains unchanged, but _shaxs _should be treated similar to _fard, _in my view. Again, a quote/example would be most appreciated.


 UM Sb, I don’t have references from Urdu literature ready to hand and trawling through them might take a while so I shall say this much.

I think the point to remember is that though _shaxs_ is grammatically a male noun and gets used for males a lot, it also has gender-independent meanings of : a person, a being, an individual. This meaning can be used for either males or females in general remarks and esp. in legal terminology where _shaxs_ means  _person_ (man or woman) though sentences using it are seen using male-specific grammar:

_jo shaxs yeh 3amal kare gaa, woh mujrim qaraar kar diyaa jaa’e gaa!
Any person committing this act, he / she (that person) would be declared a criminal!_

As you know, this declaration in Urdu is not restricted to men only but applies to females too. This is similar to the use of the word _aadamii_. Many use it in a male-specific manner and assume that is so and can’t be used for women! But _aadamii_ also has the gender-independent meanings of: _a human being ; an individual_. 

In dialects, _aadamii _= husband, man-servant etc. However, _aadamii_ is from _aadam_ (Adam) and really means all his progeny which includes women! Which is why in our speech even for females we can use _aadamii_ just like _shaxs_:

_woh to ek 3ajiib shaxs / aadamii niklii / nikliiN !_
_She turned out to be a strange person!_

This is just another way of saying: _woh to ek 3ajiib 3aurat niklii / nikliiN !_ = _She turned out to be a strange woman!_

In fact, we consider the use here of _shaxs  / aadamii_ instead of _3aurat_ a more polite way of saying this. Using _3aurat _in this context would actually imply rudeness!

As to your objection of me not using the plural _ashxaas_ in the original sentence, you are in a sense right! But quite often we use _shaxs_ in a sentence with a plural meaning!

_wahaaN tiin shaxs maujuud the _
_There were three individuals there_

This is quite idiomatic to our ears! A conventional usage I imagine! Incidentally, and for reasons that I can not recall clearly at the moment, the usage of _afraad_ is more common at least for us than _ashxaas_, generally!


----------



## UrduMedium

Faylasoof said:


> UM Sb, I don’t have references from Urdu literature ready to hand and trawling through them might take a while so I shall say this much.
> 
> *I think the point to remember is that though shaxs is grammatically a male noun and gets used for males a lot, it also has gender-independent meanings of : a person, a being, an individual. This meaning can be used for either males or females in general remarks and esp. in legal terminology where shaxs means  person (man or woman) though sentences using it are seen using male-specific grammar:
> 
> jo shaxs yeh 3amal kare gaa, woh mujrim qaraar kar diyaa jaa’e gaa!
> Any person committing this act, he / she (that person) would be declared a criminal!
> 
> As you know, this declaration in Urdu is not restricted to men only but applies to females too. This is similar to the use of the word aadamii. Many use it in a male-specific manner and assume that is so and can’t be used for women! But aadamii also has the gender-independent meanings of: a human being ; an individual. *
> 
> In dialects, _aadamii _= husband, man-servant etc. However, _aadamii_ is from _aadam_ (Adam) and really means all his progeny which includes women! Which is why in our speech even for females we can use _aadamii_ just like _shaxs_:



Thanks, Faylasoof saahib, for the elaboration. I am very familiar with the first and third para above, and your first example. Also, I can appreciate the differences across various flavors of the language. Thanks, again.


----------



## Faylasoof

UrduMedium said:


> Thanks, Faylasoof saahib, for the elaboration. I am very familiar with the first and third para above, and your first example. Also, I can appreciate the differences across various flavors of the language. Thanks, again.


 Welcome, UM SaaHib!


----------



## Faylasoof

*Moderator note: *

*All posts for "vyakti" have been moved to* *this* *thread. **Please post all discussions about vyakti there from now on.*

*Inevitably both threads have some posts that mention both vyakti and shakhs but posts mainly discussing one or the other topic are now in the appropriate threads.

**Please reserve this thread for discussions about “shakhs / shaxs” only. *


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Thanks for the detailed response, Faylasoof saahib. However, I still cannot get my head around seeing _shaxs _used grammatically feminine (_acchii shaxs, ... shaxs thii_). If it is not too much trouble, can you quote an example or two of this usage from prose or poetry?[...]


I have not as yet come across anything in literature for achchhii shaxs but in the very first episode of the Pakistani serial "shahzorii", written hy Haseena Moin (Hasiinah Mu3iin), the main character played by Neelofar Abbasi (Niilofar 3abbaasii) says..

dekho, mere muNh mat lagnaa! maiN bahut *burii aadamii* huuN! samjhe?

Those interested in listening to some quality Urdu, will find this series of interest. Chhaatr SaaHib, some good material for you indeed!


----------



## tonyspeed

I cannot speak for literature, but it seems feminine shakh(x)s is quite acceptable in Hindi.

वह मेरी मदद करने वाली पहली शख्स थी  (pahalii shakhs thii)
नौकरानी माया एक मात्र ऐसी शख्स थी (aisii shakhs thii)
ओरेगन के इतिहास में क्यूबरेस्की सबसे कम उम्र में हत्या करने वाली शख्स बन गई हैं। (shakhs ban gayii haiM)

प्रीति कहती हैं, 'नहीं,  मैं न तो पीआर के लिए इन पार्टियों में जाती हूं और न ही ग्लैमर बिखरने के  लिए। वास्तव में मैं पार्टियों से दूर रहने वाली शख्स हूं। (duur rahne waalii shakhs hooM)


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I cannot speak for literature, but it seems feminine shakh(x)s is quite acceptable in Hindi.
> 
> वह मेरी मदद करने वाली पहली शख्स थी
> नौकरानी माया एक मात्र ऐसी शख्स थी
> ओरेगन के इतिहास में क्यूबरेस्की सबसे कम उम्र में हत्या करने वाली शख्स बन गई हैं।
> 
> प्रीति कहती हैं, 'नहीं,  मैं न तो पीआर के लिए इन पार्टियों में जाती हूं और न ही ग्लैमर बिखरने के  लिए। वास्तव में मैं पार्टियों से दूर रहने वाली शख्स हूं।


Thank you, TS. Could you please provide Roman transliteration for these four sentences. It seems to disprove the contents of # post 2, unless what you have provided are not samples of Hindi.

If you are able to provide the sources, that would be helpful too. In light of # post 16, I hope the quotes are not from grammar books.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you, TS. Could you police provide Roman transliteration for these four sentences. It seems to disprove the contents of # post 2, unless what you have provided are not samples of Hindi.
> 
> If you are able to provide the sources, that would be helpful too. In light of # post 16, I hope the quotes are not from grammar books.




Those are URLs. Clicking them will lead you to the source. I went back and transliterated the important portions.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Thanks for the detailed response, Faylasoof saahib. However, I still cannot get my head around seeing _shaxs _used grammatically feminine (_acchii shaxs, ... shaxs thii_). If it is not too much trouble, can you quote an example or two of this usage from prose or poetry?[...]





QURESHPOR said:


> I have not as yet come across anything in literature for achchhii shaxs but..[...]





tonyspeed said:


> I cannot speak for literature, but it seems feminine shakh(x)s is quite acceptable in Hindi. [...]





tonyspeed said:


> Those are URLs. Clicking them will lead you to the source. I went back and transliterated the important portions.


Thank you TS for the transliteration. These may not be literary examples but this language of journalism nevertheless is far better than some of the written Hindi we have been unfortunate enough to be subjected to on this forum. There will no doubt be examples of this usage within quality literature but just because we have n't been able to locate these usages, does not mean they do not exist.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you TS for the transliteration. These may not be literary examples but this language of journalism nevertheless is far better than some of the written Hindi we have been unfortunate enough to be subjected to on this forum. There will no doubt be examples of this usage within quality literature but just because we have n't been able to locate these usages, does not mean they do not exist.


 I agree with this stance but in the meanwhile I have been able to locate one example from Hindi literature, a book with a nice title ''Dilli duur hai'' by Shivprasad Sinh:

 मेरी मझली बहन ही _ऐसी शख्स_ है जो कहा करे है कि बाशा कोई राहभूले फरिश्ते हैं । _*merii majhlii bahan hii aisii shakhs hai* jo kahaa kare hai ki baashaa koii raahbhuule farishte haiN._


----------

