# Hindi, Urdu: plural infinitives



## MonsieurGonzalito

I have been told that infinitives don't have plural forms, and presented with this link to support such affirmation: Digital South Asia Library.

That doesn't match some of the material I have been reading, for example, regarding the modal verb _paṛnā, _when there is no "kō", the object becomes the grammatical subject, and the infinitive has to agree with it.

Examples:

From http://hindilanguage.info/hindi-grammar/verbals/infinitives/

mujhē kapḍē _*xarīdnē*_ paṛēgā  ...... I have to buy clothes  
(That _*xarīdnē *_appears to be a plural, not an oblique, agreeing with the clothes)

From: "Essential Hindi", a grammar book by Christine Everaert (but originally from the  short story "ādhā phūl ādhā śav", from the Abdul Bismillah collection "Athithi devo bhav")

kyā viśvvidyālay kī unkē pāṭhkram bhī alag alag *banānē* paṛēṁgē    ........ will the university have to change their (syllabi/ courses) too?
(That *banānē *is agreeing with the syllabi)

I am interested in the forum's opinion about the subject. 
Do those _xarīdnē, *banānē, *_sound like something people would use?
Are they perceived as plurals?

Thanks in advance


----------



## aevynn

I am used to infinitives agreeing in gender/number with their direct objects in the "idioms of compulsion" that hindilanguage.info talks about (I don't have access to Everaert's book). 

That said, the two examples you've quoted sound slightly odd to me for other reasons. In the first sentence, it should probably be_ *paRenge*_ instead of _paRegaa_ (ie, the primary verb in the sentence should also agree with _kapRe_). And, in the second, it should probably be *ko* instead of _kii_...? 

Regarding Naim's book... It could be that the standards for written Urdu don't like this grammatical feature, even though it exists colloquially...? I'm not sure though. Someone else will have the clarify what Naim means.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thanks @aevynn. 
I think your answer establishes that, regardless of some oddness of the examples, and what each language register considers grammatical, it is clear enough that infinitive plurals are not impossible.


----------



## marrish

Here Farhang-i afiyah p.305 in the left column before the word "مطلع" there is following:
اس لفظ کے موقع پر مؤلّف اپنی ایک تازہ غزل کے فرمائشی چند اشعار لکھ دینے بطور یادگار مناسب جانتا ہے)` مطلع)
is lafz ke mauq3a par mu'allif (author) apnii ek taazah Gazal ke farmaa'ishii chand *ash3aar* (plural of shi3r) *likh dene* bataur-e-yaadgaar *munaasib jaantaa hae*). I'm quite certain there are examples in authoritative Urdu poetry for this kind of form/usage.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thanks, @marrish


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

From Qismat Ki Hawa Kabhi Naram Lyrics , by C. Ramachandra (which became fashionable recently again due to the pitiful 2020 movie "Ludo"):

_baRii akaR se beTaa nikle
ghar se [actor] hone
vaah rii qismat vaah rii qismat
qismat meN the likhe _*bartan dhone*

I would say that "dhone" can be nothing but a masculine plural infinitive.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I would say that "dhone" can be nothing but a masculine plural infinitive.



Yes, it is.

Note that in the OP, it should be "kapRe khariidne *paReNge*." "paRegaa" there sounds like an Anglo-Indian's way of speaking Hindi.


----------



## Dib

aevynn said:


> Regarding Naim's book... It could be that the standards for written Urdu don't like this grammatical feature, even though it exists colloquially...? I'm not sure though. Someone else will have the clarify what Naim means.



I think, Naim would not recognise these words as _infinitives_. He explicitly says that infinitives are grammatically nouns, while these here behave like (obligationary - if I may coin a new word! - passive) participles/adjectives. In Latinate terminology (where "infinitive" also comes from), these would be called _gerundives_.


----------



## aevynn

Ah, thanks @Dib!

In case others find this thread who were making the same mistake as me... I think I was trying to analyze these sentences as [[kapRe dhone] paRenge], where "kapRe dhone" is a nominal argument of the intransitive "paRenge" (with an idiomatic meaning), but I had not really thought this through. I was defaulting to this analysis just because it seemed parsimonious (since "paRnaa" is anyway an intransitive verb).

In retrospect (ie, after seeing @Dib's response), this is of course not correct: [kapRe dhone] is probably not actually a constituent. For example, I can't think of any question which would have "kapRe dhone" as a natural response.

A: kapRe dhone paRenge.
B: kyaa karnaa paRegaa?
A: kapRe dhone paRenge / *kapRe dhone.

Of course, "kapRe" is a constituent, and it seems to be the only subconstituent of the phrase "kapRe dhone paRenge."

A: kapRe dhone paRenge.
B: kyaa dhone paRenge?
A: kapRe.

Analyzing "dhone" as a gerundive and "dhone paRenge" as a passive predicate whose subject is "kapRe" seems to give constituenthood to "kapRe" and "kapRe dhone paRenge" and not to anything else, so it seems to do exactly the right thing.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I don't understand what is being said in #8 and #9

The _dhone _in  _kapRe dhone _is an infinitive.
It is represented idiomatically as an -ing gerund in English only.



aevynn said:


> I can't think of any question which would have "kapRe dhone" as a natural response.



Paraphrasing "qismat kii havaa ..."

_- aapke qismat meN kya tha?
-  kapRe dhone._


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Paraphrasing "qismat kii havaa ..."
> 
> _- aapke qismat meN kya tha?
> -  kapRe dhone._



This is not an example of the same grammatical phenomenon:

A: aapk*ii* qismat meN kyaa thaa?
B: kapRe dhon*aa*.

In other words, I think B's response in full-sentence-form would be "merii qismat meN kapRe dhon*aa* (hii) thaa." There's no inflection on the dhonaa to make it agree with kapRe here.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Here Farhang-i afiyah p.305 in the left column before the word "مطلع" there is following:
> اس لفظ کے موقع پر مؤلّف اپنی ایک تازہ غزل کے فرمائشی چند اشعار لکھ دینے بطور یادگار مناسب جانتا ہے)` مطلع)
> is lafz ke mauq3a par mu'allif (author) apnii ek taazah Gazal ke farmaa'ishii chand *ash3aar* (plural of shi3r) *likh dene* bataur-e-yaadgaar *munaasib jaantaa hae*). I'm quite certain there are examples in authoritative Urdu poetry for this kind of form/usage.


Here لکھ دینے = لکھ دینے کو


----------



## Jashn

Maybe this is a shot in the dark and I'm completely off-base, but I have a vague recollection about the two main schools of Hindi/Urdu differing on this?

So, I think Delhi would inflect the infinitive in situations like this whereas Lucknow would not?

It's correct Hindi/Urdu to say both of these from the opening post, I believe:

mujhē kapḍē _*xarīdnē*_ paṛēgā
mujhē kapḍē xarīdnā paṛēgā

I have certainly heard both from native speakers.

A quick google search on this pulls up a post from the forum mentioning this. I think I've heard it elsewhere, too, but I can't recall exactly where at the moment and don't have time right now to search more.


----------



## Dib

Jashn said:


> Maybe this is a shot in the dark and I'm completely off-base, but I have a vague recollection about the two main schools of Hindi/Urdu differing on this?
> 
> So, I think Delhi would inflect the infinitive in situations like this whereas Lucknow would not?



Isn't that supposed to be "mujhe kapRe xariidnaa paReNge"? Sorry, I am never sure of this usage, as it sounds too unnatural to me.

*[EDITED]*

Anyway, I think, I have heard both - "mujhe kapRe xariidne paReNge" and "mujhe kapRe xariidnaa paRegaa", though I'd normally go for the first myself. In any case, I'd parse the two sentences differently.
In the first one xariidne is in the same slot as a predicative adjective, say "mahaNge". The constituent parse tree would look like (kapRe (mujhe (xariidne paReNge))).
In the second instance, we really have an infinitive: ((kapRe xariidnaa) (mujhe paRegaa)).


----------



## Qureshpor

“Grammatically, all Urdu infinitives are also marked masculine nouns except they neither occur in the plural nor the vocative…” (Section 86 C.M.Naim) Below is something I've put together based on my Urdu readings.

1a)  mujhe  *ek kitaab xariidnaa* (chaahiye)  *hai*/thaa/ho gaa*

       mujhe  *ek khilonaa xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai*/thaa/ho gaa *

1b)  mujhe  *kuchh kitaabeN xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai*/thaa/ho gaa*

       mujhe  *kuchh khilone xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai*/thaa/ho gaa  *

             in ko na'ii zabaan banaanaa paRe gaa

             unheN achchhii tarH baat karnaa bhii nahiiN aataa (hai)

      {Ali Haider Nazm Tabatabai (Lakhnavi)-"maqaalaat-i-Tabatabai}

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

2a)  mujhe* ek kitaab* xariidnaa (chaahiye) *hai*/thii/ho gii*

      mujhe *ek kihilonaa xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai*/thaa/ho gaa    * 

2b)  mujhe *kuchh kitaabeN* xariidnaa (chaahiye) *haiN*/thiiN/hoN gii *

       mujhe *kuchh khilone* xariidnaa (chaahiye) *haiN*/the/hoN ge*

       ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

3a) mujhe *ek kitaab xariidnii* (chaahiye) *hai*/thii/ho gii*

      mujhe *ek khilonaa xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai*/thaa/ho gaa*

3b) mujhe *kuchh kitaabeN xariidnii* (chaahiye) *haiN*/thiiN/hoN gii*- Hindi 

      mujhe *kuchh kitaabeN xariidnii* (chaahiyeN) *haiN**- Urdu

      mujhe *kuchh khilone xariidne* (chaahiye)* haiN*/the/hoN ge-* Hindi

      mujhe *kuchh khilone xariidne *(chaahiyeN) *haiN**- Urdu

* hai/haiN is usually dropped after “chaahiye”. Normally we would expect the nasal to be dropped in the first verb leaving “chaahiye haiN”. It may be that “chaahiye haiN” has fused into “chaahiyeN”.

From Platts....A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language (1874- London), emphasis mine.

"The infinitive is properly a Gerund or verbal noun, and as such can form the subject or objective of a verb, or stand in any case (except the Vocative), like any other substantive. It differs however from an ordinary substantive, 1) in being *used in the singular number only; *and 2) in taking an objective complement after it, if it be derived from an active-transitive verb..."

"The infinitive or Gerund, not only of transitive, but also of intransitive verbs, is frequently used as a Gerundive, agreeing in gender and number with its object if the verb is transitive, or with its predicative noun if the verb is ھونا. This construction (in which the Gerund usually occurs in the nominitve form as subject or object, but occasionally also in the genitive) is employed in two ways: 1) the Gerund (with its object, if the verb is transitive) in combination with one of the verbs ھے, تھا or one of the tenses of the verbs ھونا to be or become, پڑنا to fall or with quasi-impersonal phrases, چاھیئے، لازم ھے، مناسب ھے etc, it is necessary, proper or right, is used as an impersonal phrase to denote that a certain action is to be done (is settled to be done, should or must be done, is fit, proper or necessary0, the subject of the action (if a definite subject is spoken of) being put in the Dative: or 2) the Gerund with the object (if the verb is transitive) or its predicative substantive (if the verb is ھونا), may form the subject, or object, of a following verb without expressing the idea of duty etc..."

I have just selected examples with the verb پڑنا

اِس غلط فہمی کا نتیجہ بھگتنا پڑے گا۔

جو کام انسان کو کرنے پڑتے ہیں۔

اُس کے طالب کو سخت تکلیف اور مشقّتیں اُٹھانی پڑتی ہیں۔


The second example is equivalent to 

کپڑے مجھے دھونے پڑیں گے


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

So, based on the information in the latest posts of this thread, I went through the songs I have analyzed, and tried to explain away most of the words I had parsed as "infinitive plurals".

I discarded every infinitive inscribed into a "double modal" verbal construction.
I discarded everything next to a postposition, as it could be (mercifully) considered an oblique singular.
I discarded anything remotely indicating a purpose or omitted "ko".
And, of course, whatever idiomatic constructions such as _uRne de!_, etc.

In most cases, there is some context that would justify the -e ending as a singular oblique.
However, I am hard-pressed to explain away the following:

Koi Mil Gaya -- (an 80's Bollywood song)
_diivaanaa log *kahne *lage => people have started to say  ...
yah diivaangii hai kyaa_

Mitva (another nice Bollywood song from KANK)
_mitvaa, kahe *dhaRkaane *tujhse kyaa? => ... (I am not  even sure how to translate this)_

Ghungroo  - (another generic Bollywood song)
_kyaa *karne *hai umroN ke vaade => why must lifelong promises be made ...? 
ye jo rahte haiN rahne de aadhe_

Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna  -- (KANK, very famous Bollywood film)
_aaNsuu haiN ki haiN aNgaare?
aag hai kab aaNkhoN se *bahne *=> (since) when is fire flowing from my eyes? _


Additionally, sorry for being obtuse, and with all due respect to Misters Platts and Naim, I find their assertions quite tautological:
_"If something doesn't conform to the rule that there are no plural infinitives, let's call it something else"._

[EDITED: added "Mitwa" example]
[EDIT AGAIN: the "Mitwa" is wrong, should have been _kaheN daRkaneN_]


----------



## Dib

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Additionally, sorry for being obtuse, and with all due respect to Misters Platts and Naim, I find their assertions quite tautological:
> _"If something doesn't conform to the rule that there are no plural infinitives, let's call it something else"._



In a sense, your critic is indeed fair, because the "two" forms are essentially identical, except for the inflections. However, their approach has two advantages:
1) It conforms to the standard definitions of infinitives and gerundives, as established in the Western grammatical tradition based on the structure of Latin. Admittedly, this is not a good reason, but still practical.
2) It makes it easier to explain why *"kapRe dhone koii baRaa kaam nahiiN" is impossible.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Dib said:


> It makes it easier to explain why "kapRe dhone koii baRaa kaam nahiiN" is impossible.



And what are your  thoughts about *bartan dhone *in #6?
Moreover, does *bartan dhonaa *_even exist, or "the bowls/dishes" are  perceived as some "mass sustance" that can be only washed in plural?_


----------



## Dib

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Koi Mil Gaya -- (an 80's Bollywood song)
> _diivaanaa log *kahne *lage => people have started to say  ...
> yah diivaangii hai kyaa_
> 
> Mitva (another nice Bollywood song from KANK)
> _mitvaa, kahe *dhaRkaane *tujhse kyaa? => ... (I am not  even sure how to translate this)_



Both of these are oblique singular here.



> Ghungroo  - (another generic Bollywood song)
> _kyaa *karne *hai umroN ke vaade => why must lifelong promises be made ...?
> ye jo rahte haiN rahne de aadhe_



This is the construction under discussion - according to Naim/Platts a gerundive.



> Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna  -- (KANK, very famous Bollywood film)
> _aaNsuu haiN ki haiN aNgaare?
> aag hai kab aaNkhoN se *bahne *=> (since) when is fire flowing from my eyes? _



The song actually has "bahnaa". Anyway, "aag" is feminine and "bahnaa" is *intransitive*. So, this is not the construction under discussion, which concerns transitive verbs. I believe, "bahnaa" is the usual usage here. But wait for confirmation from others.




MonsieurGonzalito said:


> And what are your  thoughts about *bartan dhone *in #6?
> Moreover, does *bartan dhonaa *_even exist, or "the bowls/dishes" are  perceived as some "mass sustance" that can be only washed in plural?_



If #6 is grammatical, then I would tend to take it as a plural infinitive indeed, unless it is to be understood as: "(jaise) qismat meN likhe the, (beTaa) bartan dhone (nikle)", in which case it would be an oblique singular infinitive. However, I am not confident enough to judge the grammaticality of the plural infinitive interpretation. I'd like to ask other forum members to help.

"bartan dhonaa", "kapRe dhonaa", etc. are regularly used in infinitive contexts. Yes!


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Dib said:


> as established in the Western grammatical tradition based on the structure of Latin. Admittedly, this is not a good reason, but still practical.


Not to belabor on the subject, but the Classic Greek's infinitive has only case (it is always singular and neutral in gender), and the Latin infinitive has no gender, number, or (essentially) case.
So it is unclear to me, what "Western grammatical tradition" compelled them to assume that the inflection of the Hindustani infinitive stops at the gender.
I guess the aim was just to "keep the infinitive accidence as simple as possible".


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Not to belabor on the subject, but the Classic Greek's infinitive has only case (it is always singular and neutral in gender), and the Latin infinitive has no gender, number, or (essentially) case.
> So it is unclear to me, what "Western grammatical tradition" compelled them to assume that the inflection of the Hindustani infinitive stops at the gender.
> I guess the aim was just to "keep the infinitive accidence as simple as possible".



I'm basically just re-iterating what @Dib has already said in posts above, but...

Let's make a distinction between the _morphological form_ of a verb and the _function_ of that form. The morphological form in question here are the -naa(/-ne/-nii) forms. This form can unequivocally function as a verbal noun. What @Dib pointed out in post #8 was that this form can also function as a verbal adjective. Platts/Naim call the form-function pair consisting of the -naa form with its verbal noun function an "infinitive," and the form-function pair consisting of the -naa form with its verbal adjective function a "gerundive."

The reason this gets confusing, I think, is that the -naa morphological forms are often also called "infinitives" (as opposed to the Platts/Naim usage of the word "infinitive," which refers not just to a morphological form but, again, to a form-function pair). It's perhaps this double meaning of the word "infinitive" that's confusing you, @MonsieurGonzalito...? For the remainder of this post, let me avoid this latter usage of "infinitive." I'll refer to the morphological form as the "-naa form," and use "infinitive" and "gerundive" to indicate form-function pairs.

In a sentence like _mujhe kapRe dhone paRenge_, Platts/Naim deem _dhone_ a gerundive. This fits with analyzing constituents as in #9, and another nice observation @Dib made above in #14 was that the _dhone_ here can actually be replaced by other adjectives (eg, _mere liye kapRe mahange paRenge_, meaning roughly, "The clothes will be expensive for me.") Note that the gerundive (ie, the -naa form functioning as a verbal adjective) displays both gender and number agreement: it's inflected to show masculine plural agreement in mujhe bartan dhone paRenge, and we have _mujhe kitaab paRhnii paRegii _("I'll have to read the book"), etc.

In other words, Platts/Naim would probably not disagree with the sentence "the -naa form can be inflected for plural agreement," but they'd throw in the caveat that it must be a gerundive. When Platts/Naim say that there is no plural infinitive, they are talking specifically about the the -naa form functioning as a verbal noun. And this brings me to the next point...



Dib said:


> If #6 is grammatical, then I would tend to take it as a plural infinitive indeed, unless it is to be understood as: "(jaise) qismat meN likhe the, (beTaa) bartan dhone (nikle)", in which case it would be an oblique singular infinitive. However, I am not confident enough to judge the grammaticality of the plural infinitive interpretation. I'd like to ask other forum members to help.



I think I'm reaching the point where I've thought about this issue too much in a short span of time because I'm now having doubts about all of my grammaticality judgments about this issue... But let me proceed anyway, realizing that I'm probably well at risk of others telling me that my judgments are incorrect 

The plural infinitive interpretation of #6 sounds fine to me. It also seems to me that _qismat meN kapRe dhone likhe the_ is basically synonymous with _qismat meN kapRe dhonaa likhaa thaa_. Neither of these sounds awkward to me (in contrast, I find it slightly jarring whenever I run into the usages of style 1 and 2 from @Qureshpor jii's very thorough post #15, even though they certainly occur frequently!). This suggests that the phenomenon of infinitives (ie, -naa forms functioning as verbal nouns) inflecting to show gender/number agreement is in relatively free alternation with masculine singular infinitives.

I also feel like I may have been too unequivocal in post #11. Probably _merii qismat meN kapRe dhone hii the_ would also be okay...? That being said, I still feel like just a bare "kapRe dhone" would be a slightly weird response to A's question, so I'm not sure what to make of that as far as constituent analysis goes... Perhaps there are other, more reliable, constituency tests.

@marrish saahib gave us a nice historical example in post #4 (roughly, _mu'allif chand ash3aar likh dene munaasib jaantaa hai_), and I'm slightly uncertain about the explanation of this as an oblique in post #12. It seems to me that this is also a plural infinitive, and that it would be in free alternation with _mu'allif chand ash3aar likh denaa munaasib jaantaa hai_. I'd be interested to hear someone expand on the oblique explanation in #12, if possible: what reasons are there to regard it as an oblique...?


----------



## Dib

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Not to belabor on the subject, but the Classic Greek's infinitive has only case (it is always singular and neutral in gender), and the Latin infinitive has no gender, number, or (essentially) case.
> So it is unclear to me, what "Western grammatical tradition" compelled them to assume that the inflection of the Hindustani infinitive stops at the gender.
> I guess the aim was just to "keep the infinitive accidence as simple as possible".



In case of Latin, the cases are supplied by the gerund. The infinitive/gerund vs. gerundive difference is that of noun-like syntax vs. adjective-like syntax. Note that in Latin also gerunds and gerundives are identical in forms (but infinitives aren't).



aevynn said:


> @marrish saahib gave us a nice historical example in post #4 (roughly, _mu'allif chand ash3aar likh dene munaasib jaantaa hai_), and I'm slightly uncertain about the explanation of this as an oblique in post #12. It seems to me that this is also a plural infinitive, and that it would be in free alternation with _mu'allif chand ash3aar likh denaa munaasib jaantaa hai_. I'd be interested to hear someone expand on the oblique explanation in #12, if possible: what reasons are there to regard it as an oblique...?



Let's replace ash3aar by a feminine noun, e.g. chiTThiyaaN. Now, if "likh dene" is still grammatical then it can be the oblique masc. sing. infinitive. If "likh denii(N)" is grammatical, then it can be an infinitive agreeing with the object. Or, is it a gerundive? Who knows! Anyway, both analyses are also possible at the same time, if both testcases pass. Bottomline, I think, the whole mess is caused by trying to fit the H/U "-naa" form to the a-priori grammatical distinction of infinitive/gerund vs. gerundive, which is hard to clearly distinguish for this language, given the existence of such borderline cases.


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> ....The plural infinitive interpretation of #6 sounds fine to me. It also seems to me that _qismat meN kapRe dhone likhe the_ is basically synonymous with _qismat meN kapRe dhonaa likhaa thaa_. Neither of these sounds awkward to me (in contrast, I find it slightly jarring whenever I run into the usages of style 1 and 2 from @Qureshpor jii's very thorough post #15, even though they certainly occur frequently!). This suggests that the phenomenon of infinitives (ie, -naa forms functioning as verbal nouns) inflecting to show gender/number agreement is in relatively free alternation with masculine singular infinitives.



But here is the acid test (I must give credit to a dear friend Roshan Kamat who sent me this information in March 2008 via e-mail). I shall just copy paste.

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

(o) laRkE kA `irAda haE.
(o) laRkE kI aOqAt haE.

Here, in the direct case the noun remains unchanged; but in oblique it adopts the 'E' form (laRkA -laRkE)

(I provided two oblique forms so that both the masculine possessive & feminine singular possessive will be covered to prevent any confusion arising from that.)

Contrast with..

(o) laRkI haE.
(o) laRkI kA`irAda haE.
(o) laRkI kI aOqAt haE.

Here, the feminine noun retains its form regardless of whether it is direct or oblique.

Now, for the sake of argument, assume that "bAt karnA" (or "bAtE.n karnA") is a singular masculine noun. If so, we should be able to drop it directly into the masculine declensions without flinching.

(o) bAt karnA haE.
(o) bAt karnE kA`irAda haE.
(o) bAt karnE kI aOqAt haE.

So far so good. This fits. But, let's see what happens if we assume "bAt karnI" is a singular feminine noun and drop it into the feminine declension.

(o) bAt karnI haE.
(o) bAt karnI kA`irAda haE
(o) bAt karnI kI aOqAt haE.

I'm sure you must have found the last two sentences revolting! Even if you have been using the first line on a daily basis.Based on this, it is pretty clear which form fits the grammatical model better. In terms of 'lateral compatibility' with current grammar, the "bAt karnA" as singular masculine wins hands down.

One could ofcourse say that "bAt karnI" (and indeed all infinitive verbs of this nature) should be treated as a special (new?) category of declensions. I couldn't argue against that. But, as the current grammar stands, the feminine form doesn't align to the established declentions.

roshan


----------



## Dib

I guess, to the extent that @aevynn's observation that "This suggests that the phenomenon of infinitives (ie, -naa forms functioning as verbal nouns) inflecting to show gender/number agreement is in relatively free alternation with masculine singular infinitives." holds, it is limited to the direct case context. Even in the direct case, there are further constraints.


----------



## aevynn

Dib said:


> Let's replace ash3aar by a feminine noun, e.g. chiTThiyaaN. Now, if "likh dene" is still grammatical then it can be the oblique masc. sing. infinitive. If "likh denii(N)" is grammatical, then it can be an infinitive agreeing with the object.



Thanks. To me at least, _likh denii_ sounds preferable to _likh dene_ here, but I'd be curious what others think! Here's a similar sentence from some records of the UP legislative council that turned up when I searched Google Books: 

(A) unhoNne kuchh baateN kahnii munaasib samjhii [jo is bil se bahut jyaadaa taalluk nahiiN rakhtii haiN]. 

Some comments about this: 

Maybe it should be a nasal _samjhiiN_, but I'll ignore this...
(A) feels to me to be in alternation with _unhoNne kuchh baateN kahnaa munaasib samjhaa_, but this is still under the same direct case restriction that @Qureshpor/Roshan Kamat and @Dib mention in posts #23-24.
I don't like *_unhoNne kuchh baateN kahne munaasib samjhiiN_, but I invite others to share their opinions about this (my grammaticality judgments here are decidedly fatigued...).



Dib said:


> Or, is it a gerundive? Who knows! Anyway, both analyses are also possible at the same time, if both testcases pass. Bottomline, I think, the whole mess is caused by trying to fit the H/U "-naa" form to the a-priori grammatical distinction of infinitive/gerund vs. gerundive, which is hard to clearly distinguish for this language, given the existence of such borderline cases.



In general, I agree that there's good reason to be skeptical of imposing the grammatical structures of one language onto another. But here, it seems like the infinitive vs gerundive (interpreted as "noun-like" vs "adjective-like") distinction is actually making falsifiable predictions, isn't it...? For example, it's making constituency predictions (if it's an infinitive, then the direct object and infinitive form a constituent; if it's a gerundive, then the gerundive and the rest of the predicate form a constituent), so there may be a battery of constituency tests that might help disambiguate (though I have to admit that I don't know a good list of constituency tests for Hindi-Urdu that I can apply... I usually just try to translate some of the standard constituency tests that are used for English...). 

Also, as you pointed out, if it's a gerundive, then one might expect it to be substitutable with other adjectives. And actually, by this test, maybe @marrish saahib's sentence from #4 and sentence (A) above actually use gerundives...? For example, in (A), perhaps one could substitute _kahnii_ with the adjective _ankahii_, as in:

(B) unhoNne kuchh baateN ankahii (hii) munaasib samjhiiN. 

Does this sentence sound acceptable to others...?


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> Thanks. To me at least, _likh denii_ sounds preferable to _likh dene_ here, but I'd be curious what others think! Here's a similar sentence from some records of the UP legislative council that turned up when I searched Google Books:
> 
> (A) unhoNne kuchh baateN kahnii munaasib samjhii [jo is bil se bahut jyaadaa taalluk nahiiN rakhtii haiN].
> 
> Some comments about this:
> 
> Maybe it should be a nasal _samjhiiN_, but I'll ignore this...
> (A) feels to me to be in alternation with _unhoNne kuchh baateN kahnaa munaasib samjhaa_, but this is still under the same direct case restriction that @Qureshpor/Roshan Kamat and @Dib mention in posts #23-24.
> I don't like *_unhoNne kuchh baateN kahne munaasib samjhiiN_, but I invite others to share their opinions about this (my grammaticality judgments here are decidedly fatigued...).
> In general, I agree that there's good reason to be skeptical of imposing the grammatical structures of one language onto another. But here, it seems like the infinitive vs gerundive (interpreted as "noun-like" vs "adjective-like") distinction is actually making falsifiable predictions, isn't it...? For example, it's making constituency predictions (if it's an infinitive, then the direct object and infinitive form a constituent; if it's a gerundive, then the gerundive and the rest of the predicate form a constituent), so there may be a battery of constituency tests that might help disambiguate (though I have to admit that I don't know a good list of constituency tests for Hindi-Urdu that I can apply... I usually just try to translate some of the standard constituency tests that are used for English...).
> 
> Also, as you pointed out, if it's a gerundive, then one might expect it to be substitutable with other adjectives. And actually, by this test, maybe @marrish saahib's sentence from #4 and sentence (A) above actually use gerundives...? For example, in (A), perhaps one could substitute _kahnii_ with the adjective _ankahii_, as in:
> 
> (B) unhoNne kuchh baateN ankahii (hii) munaasib samjhiiN.
> 
> Does this sentence sound acceptable to others...?



اس لفظ کے موقع پر مؤلّف اپنی ایک تازہ غزل کے فرمائشی چند اشعار لکھ دینے بطور یادگار مناسب جانتا ہے

is lafz ke mauqa3 par muallif apnii ek taazah Ghazal ke farmaa'ishii chand ash3aar likh dene ba-taur-i-yaadgaar munaasib jaantaa hai.

I have checked this reference provided by marrish SaaHib, for which we are grateful to him. The reference is actually on page 303. I have to say that with my meagre knowledge of Urdu, this sentence does not sound fasiiH to my ears and does not flow well. I could be mistaken. I will also confess that on further pondering,  لکھ دینے does appear to be in the plural form as opposed to the oblique one for which I offer marrish SaaHib an apology.

Let's write the above sentence in the following manner, with a masculine noun aNDaa and a feminine noun roTii.

a) is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm aNDaa khaa lenaa munaasib samjhtaa huuN.

b) is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm aNDaa khaa lene ko munaasib samajhtaa huuN. (Oblique form with singular noun: ek aNDe ke khaa lene ko)

c) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm aNDe khaa lenaa munaasib samjhtaa huuN.

d) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm aNDe khaa lene ko munaasib samajhtaa huuN. (Oblique form with plura noun: do aNDoN ke khaa lene ko)

e) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm aNDe khaa lene munaasib samjhtaa huuN. (Plural form as opposed to the oblique form)


a) is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm roTii khaa lenaa/khaa lenii munaasib samjhtaa huuN.

b) is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm roTii khaa lene ko munaasib samajhtaa huuN. (Oblique form with singualr: ek roTii ke khaa lene ko)

c) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm roTiyaaN khaa lenaa/lenii munaasib samjhtaa huuN.

d) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm roTiyaaN khaa lene ko munaasib samajhtaa huuN. (Oblique form with plural: do roTiyoN ke khaa lene ko)

e) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm roTiyaaN khaa lene munaasib samjhtaa huuN.  (Plural form as opposed to the oblique form)

For me d) and e) just do not sound right!


----------



## Qureshpor

The table I presented in my post 15 can be summarised as follows which may be more helpful in understanding the subject matter at hand.

Urdu forms 1) and 2) which according to Naim are *not* part of literary Hindi can be summarised as follows.


In 1) the masculine infinitive (for example *xariidnaa*) agrees with the following verb in number (singular) and gender (masculine). The noun preceding the infinitive, be it feminine or masculine, singular or plural plays no part in the agreement.


mujhe ek khilonaa* xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai/thaa/ho gaa*
mujhe kuchh khilone* xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai/thaa/ho gaa*

mujhe ek kitaab* xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai/thaa/ho gaa*
mujhe kuchh kitaabeN* xariidnaa* (chaahiye) *hai/thaa/ho gaa*


In 2) the noun before the masculine infinitive agrees with the verb in number (singular and plural) and gender (masculine and feminine). The infinitive itself remains masculine singular, as in 1).


mujhe *ek kihilonaa *xariidnaa (chaahiye) *hai/thaa/ho gaa*
mujhe *kuchh khilone* xariidnaa (chaahiye) *haiN/the/hoN ge*

mujhe* ek kitaab* xariidnaa (chaahiye) *hai/thii/ho gii*
mujhe *kuchh kitaabeN* xariidnaa (chaahiye) *haiN/thiiN/hoN gii*


In 3) a form shared by both Urdu and Hindi, *xariidnaa *agrees with the masculine noun before it in number, changing to *xariidne *when the noun is plural. For a feminine noun before *xariidnaa*, it (*xariidnaa*) changes to *xariidnii*, whether the noun is singular or plural. I shall change "chaahiye" to the verb "paRnaa" to help understand better.


mujhe *ek kitaab xariidnii* (paRtii) *hai/thii/ho gii*
mujhe *kuchh kitaabeN xariidnii* (paRtii) *haiN/thiiN/hoN gii *-Urdu
mujhe *kuchh kitaabeN xariidnii* (paRtiiN) *haiN/thiiN/hoN gii *-Hindi

mujhe *ek khilonaa xariidnaa* (paRtaa) *hai/thaa/ho gaa*
mujhe *kuchh khilone xariidne* (paRte)* haiN/the/hoN ge*


In this third case, it seems we should not call *xariidnaa *an infinitive but something else.

The OP example "mujhe kapRe xariidne paReN ge" fits in slot 3) above. So, an infinitive is always singular and masculine as Naim surmised.


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> Let's write the above sentence in the following manner, with a masculine noun aNDaa and a feminine noun roTii.
> 
> a) is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm aNDaa khaa lenaa munaasib samjhtaa huuN.
> 
> b) is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm aNDaa khaa lene ko munaasib samajhtaa huuN. (Oblique form with singular noun: ek aNDe ke khaa lene ko)
> 
> c) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm aNDe khaa lenaa munaasib samjhtaa huuN.
> 
> d) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm aNDe khaa lene ko munaasib samajhtaa huuN. (Oblique form with plura noun: do aNDoN ke khaa lene ko)
> 
> e) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm aNDe khaa lene munaasib samjhtaa huuN. (Plural form as opposed to the oblique form)
> 
> 
> a) is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm roTii khaa lenaa/khaa lenii munaasib samjhtaa huuN.
> 
> b) is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm roTii khaa lene ko munaasib samajhtaa huuN. (Oblique form with singualr: ek roTii ke khaa lene ko)
> 
> c) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm roTiyaaN khaa lenaa/lenii munaasib samjhtaa huuN.
> 
> d) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm roTiyaaN khaa lene ko munaasib samajhtaa huuN. (Oblique form with plural: do roTiyoN ke khaa lene ko)
> 
> e) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm roTiyaaN khaa lene munaasib samjhtaa huuN.  (Plural form as opposed to the oblique form)
> 
> For me d) and e) just do not sound right!



Thanks for this, this is great data  I'm particularly intrigued by your judgments of

(2a') is mauqa3 par maiN ek garm roTii khaa lenii munaasib samajhtaa huuN
(2c') is mauqa3 par maiN do garm roTiyaaN khaa lenii munaasib samajhtaa huuN

as acceptable, but

(1e) is mauqa3 par maiN do garm aNDe khaa lene munaasib samajhtaa huuN. 

as unacceptable. I'm hard-pressed right now to explain parsimoniously what syntactic mechanisms might be at work in the dialects of speakers who agree about these judgments of (2a')+(2c') vs (1e).

Probably not all speakers would share in this unacceptability judgment for (1e). Besides @marrish saahib's example (which also appears to be of the same type as (1e)), here are some more examples from the internet. The first is from some records of the Punjab Legislative Assembly (1965), and the second from an undated article on punjnud.com about the writer Kewal Dheer.

maiN ek baat se to bahut khush huuN ki vaziir saahab ne is klaaz ko pesh karte vakt kuchh lafz kahne munaasib samjhe...​​"jaisii karnii vaisii bharnii" aur "jaisaa boeN ge vaisaa kaaTeN ge" jaise muHaavare yahaaN kahne munaasib ma3luum hote haiN.​


----------



## Dib

aevynn said:


> But here, it seems like the infinitive vs gerundive (interpreted as "noun-like" vs "adjective-like") distinction is actually making falsifiable predictions, isn't it...?



I agree that the infinitive/gerund vs gerundive interpretation can be tested using constituency. But the point is, I am not sure, it is still really possible to define the boundary very strictly. How do we analyse sentences like (2) in #27? What are even the constituents in it? [Diachronically also, I am wondering, how this construction came into existence.]


----------



## aevynn

Dib said:


> I agree that the infinitive/gerund vs gerundive interpretation can be tested using constituency. But the point is, I am not sure, it is still really possible to define the boundary very strictly. How do we analyse sentences like (2) in #27? What are even the constituents in it?



Yes, fair enough  Constituency is definitely not a crystal clear concept in sentences like these. But it's also maybe not completely nebulous...

Let me avoid temporarily avoid (2) in post #27 since I have trouble making acceptability judgments there. With (3), if we just start going down Wikipedia's list for constituency tests in English to check if _khilaune khariidne_ is a constituent in _mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge(/the/...)_... It seems to pass the following tests:

* Coordination: mujhe gahne bechne paRenge + mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge -> mujhe gahne bechne aur khilaune khariidne paRenge.
* General substitution: mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge -> mujhe gahne bechne paRenge.

But it seems to fail the following tests: 

* Pro-form substitution: mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge -> *mujhe ye(?) paRenge.
* (Pseudo?)clefting: mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge -> *khilaune khariidne hai(N?) jo mujhe paRenge (??).
* Ellipsis: mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge + aapko khilaune khariidne paRenge -> *mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge aur aapko paRenge.
* Answer fragments: see post #9.

If I just ignore the remaining tests mentioned by Wikipedia [cf. Footnote 1], we have 4 tests suggesting non-constituenthood and 2 suggesting constituenthood, so perhaps we lean towards non-constituenthood. Then we might note that Wikipedia mentions that coordination and general substitution have high "false positive" rates even in English, so perhaps not too much is to be made of the fact that those two tests suggest constituenthood. So then we lean towards non-constituenthood even more.

Overall, it seems to me like constituency provides _decent _(even if not unequivocal) evidence against the infinitive analysis of (3) from post #27 [cf. Footnote 2].

So then, going back to (2) from post #27, I suppose a question would be... How many (if any) of the tests that suggest non-constituenthood of _khilaune khariidne_ flip for speakers who would use _khilaune khariidnaa_ à la (2)? If none flip, perhaps (2) should still be called a gerundive (with the -naa form acting like an invariable adjective). If some of these tests do flip, then perhaps (2) is better analyzed as an infinitive (with an unusual agreement pattern).



Dib said:


> [Diachronically also, I am wondering, how this construction came into existence.]



I would love to know this too! 

----
[Footnote 1]: The reason I'm ignoring the remaining tests is because they seem harder/impossible to adapt to HU or inapplicable to the sentence in question:

I don't know how to adapt _do-so_ substitution and _one_ substitution to HU (the latter probably wouldn't apply in this setting anyway). _Wh_-fronting probably doesn't adapt to HU at all. Passivization doesn't seem applicable for the sentences in question, and neither does omission. I'm having trouble figuring out what the correct analog of right node raising should be, and if it's even relevant for our sentence.

I don't know how to think about topicalization and intrusion and given HU's scrambling. But HU's scrambling is not completely arbitrary, so I imagine it should be theoretically possible to formulate topicalization and intrusion tests by analyzing HU's scrambling rule closely... That being said, I sort of suspect that even if one thought very hard about HU's scrambling and managed to formulate such tests, they would not really help with this sentence...?

[Footnote 2]: In the sentence _mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge, _I noted that ellipsis suggests that _khilaune khariidne_ is not a constituent and construed this as evidence against the infinitive analysis. On the other hand, ellipsis also suggests that _khariidne paRenge_ is a constituent:

mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge + aapko gahne khariidne paRenge -> mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge aur aapko gahne.

This could be construed as evidence in favor of the gerundive analysis.


----------



## Dib

Well, as the first one to point out the infinitive/gerund vs. gerundive opposition on this thread, I totally get what you mean, and intuitively, I think, it makes sense to a large extent. However, as I said, I think, the boundary is difficult to ascertain because of the #27 (2). Sure, we can force-fit it into the gerundive category by proposing an ad hoc exception (indeclinable adjective with a native -aa ending) - like you proposed. Theoretically, it works, but I am not sure it is falsifiable, because it is tailor-made for this exact situation.

As for the constituancy of #27 (3), there is no trouble, I think, and intuitively I agree with your conclusions, though the tests themselves are not water-tight. Let's take the examples:


aevynn said:


> * Pro-form substitution: mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge -> *mujhe ye(?) paRenge.
> * (Pseudo?)clefting: mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge -> *khilaune khariidne hai(N?) jo mujhe paRenge (??).



I believe, these tests fail also for #27 (1), where intuitively we do have a constituent (headed by an infinitive), don't they? Therefore, I don't think, they have the necessary power to adjudicate this case.



> * Ellipsis: mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge + aapko khilaune khariidne paRenge -> *mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge aur aapko paRenge.



Actually, for me this sentence works as long as you add a "bhii" after aapko.



> * Answer fragments: see post #9.



If this is accepted by native speakers (it certainly makes sense to me), this is probably the clearest demonstration of the difference in constituency between #27 (1) and (3). However, given that #6 exists, I am not sure, the results of even this test would be universal.

------

As for the diachrony of #27 (2), I wonder if there is some influence of Awadhi, given that this is marked as Lakhnau usage. Anybody knows what the Awadhi counterparts look like?


----------



## aevynn

Thanks for your response! I see now that the constituency waters are murkier than I thought.



Dib said:


> I believe, these tests fail also for #27 (1), where intuitively we do have a constituent (headed by an infinitive), don't they? Therefore, I don't think, they have the necessary power to adjudicate this case.



I would presume they would fail, but I can't really judge this. Even the unmodified #27(1) form of these obligationary -naa constructions are a bit "exotic" for me (as in, I've certainly run into them in both speech and writing, but I actively notice them every time I run into them, and I would never say these forms myself). But it sounds like you've had more experience with these forms, so I trust your judgments!

---

I also agree with you about the power of (pseudo-)clefting for HU constituency, at least in the form that I attempted to formulate it in #30. The "output" of this clefting operation seems to often be kind of awkward, even when what's being clefted is clearly a constituent, like "uskii naii kitaab" in the following:

(A) maiN uskii naii kitaab paRh rahaa huuN -> (???)uskii naii kitaab hai jo maiN paRh rahaa huuN

In other words, the clefting test as formulated in #30 seems to have a high "false negative" rate. 

Maybe there's a better way to cleft. Or maybe not. I guess, in English, clefting is something that one would do to shift the topic-focus structure of a sentence out of neutral. In UH, scrambling is the typical way of accomplishing this goal, so maybe clefted sentences will always sound a bit off.

---

I feel fewer qualms about pro-form substitution, but it does lead to some interesting observations. 

It seems like when we have something that's clearly an infintive constituent, it is substitutable with a pro-form like ye. 

(B) kapRe dhonaa aasaan hai -> ye aasaan hai. 
(C) merii qismat meN kapRe dhonaa likhaa thaa -> merii qismat meN ye likhaa thaa.
(D) mujhe kapRe dhonaa aataa hai -> mujhe ye aataa hai. 

Now the thing I find interesting is that... To me, sentences (C-D) also allow variants where the -naa form with its object. But, once the -naa form agrees, pro-form substitution seems to get blocked!

(E) merii qismat meN kapRe dhone likhe the -> *merii qismat meN ye likhe the. 
(F) mujhe kapRe dhone aate haiN -> *mujhe ye aate haiN. 

The sentences on the right are okay abstractly (eg, someone might say "mujhe ye aate haiN" when they want to say that some set of clothes do in fact fit them), but they don't feel right to me if ye refers to the "kapRe dhone." 

This seems to suggest that maybe the -naa forms in (E-F) are less constituent-y than the -naa forms in (B-D). I'm surprised by this, since my intuition was that the latter are actually infinitives (cf. #21). Murky waters...!

Actually, maybe this pro-form substitution is actually testing something quite similar to the "answer fragments" test. Afte all, "kyaa" is also a pro-form! I kind of suspect that the results of the pro-form substitution test, when applied to -naa clauses, might always agree with the result of the answer fragments test.

But you may be right that these judgments may not be universal. And in any case, this doesn't change the fact that maybe this doesn't give the right answer for the obligationary constructions from #27(1). 



Dib said:


> Actually, for me this sentence works as long as you add a "bhii" after aapko.



The bhii should definitely have been there. It's interesting that this sentence (copied as (H) below) works for you! It still sounds a bit odd to me. What about (I-J)...? 

(H) mujhe khilaune khariidne paRenge aur aapko bhii paRenge.
(I) mujhe khilaune khariidne haiN aur aapko bhii haiN.
(J) mujhe khilaune khariidne chaahiye(N) aur aapko bhii chaahiye(N).

I expect there'd be no disagreement that all of these are acceptable without their final words (paRenge, haiN, chaahiye(N)). 

---

To me, ellipsis again seems to work okay when we clearly have an infinitive constituent. 

(K) kapRe dhonaa aasaan hai + kapRe dhonaa mazedaar hai -> kapRe dhonaa aasaan hai, aur mazedaar bhii hai. 
(L) merii qismat meN kapRe dhonaa likhaa thaa + aapkii qismat meN kapRe dhonaa likhaa thaa -> merii qismat meN kapRe dhonaa likhaa thaa, aur aapkii qismat meN bhii likhaa thaa. 
(M) mujhe kapRe dhonaa aataa hai + aapko kapRe dhonaa aataa hai -> mujhe kapRe dhonaa aataa hai, aur aapko bhii aataa hai. 

Again, (L-M) allow variants where the -naa form can agree. But now, the resulting clauses *do* seem to act like constituents under the ellipsis test. 

(N) merii qismat meN kapRe dhone likhe the + aapkii qismat meN kapRe dhone likhe the -> merii qismat meN kapRe dhone likhe the, aur aapkii qismat meN bhii likhe the. 
(O) mujhe kapRe dhone aate haiN + aapko kapRe dhone aate haiN -> mujhe kapRe dhone aate haiN, aur aapko bhii aate haiN. 

This makes it rather unclear to me whether "kapRe dhone" in "mujhe kapRe dhone aate haiN" is a constituent, since it fails the pro-form substitution test but passes the ellipsis test. Murky waters again...!

--- 

Anyway, in summary, you're right that constituency here is fuzzier than I made it out to be. Even for one person's idiolect (eg, mine), constituency tests sometimes don't give consistent results. And the tests sometimes output rather "corner-case"-ish test sentences, so different individuals' acceptability judgments will probably also vary.


----------



## aevynn

Dib said:


> Sure, we can force-fit it into the gerundive category by proposing an ad hoc exception (indeclinable adjective with a native -aa ending) - like you proposed. Theoretically, it works, but I am not sure it is falsifiable, because it is tailor-made for this exact situation.



I agree that treating the -naa forms of #27(2) as indeclinable adjectives with -aa endings feels a little artificial. But it suddenly occurred to me that there is another very common construction in which a verbal adjective with the native -aa ending is in fact used indeclinably: namely, the habitual construction of a sentence like

hamaare paRos meN ek buuRhii aurat akelii rahaa kartii thii.​
Anyway, I don't feel all that strongly about this analogy since this habitual construction doesn't feel super comparable to things like #27(2). But it is at least an indeclinable use of a verbal adjective, so I figured I'd throw this observation out there.


----------



## Dib

That's actually a very nice observation. However, we can argue that this "rahaa" is actually not the usual participle, but a different entity with the same shape (feels like the same -naa arguments repeating again 🙃) - at least, we have "jaayaa kartii thii", rather than the expected "*gayaa kartii thii". So, there's that.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

So, based on this (in my eyes, a little complicated)  gerundive idea,  when hearing

_apnii qismat meN the likhe _*bartan dhone*

a native speaker pictures primarily a pile of dishes "to be washed" (perhaps by him), or himself washing (incidentally, dishes)?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> So, based on this (in my eyes, a little complicated)  gerundive idea,  when hearing
> 
> _apnii qismat meN the likhe _*bartan dhone*
> 
> a native speaker pictures primarily a pile of dishes "to be washed" (perhaps by him), or himself washing (incidentally, dishes)?



Your question does not make much sense to me, as it is apparent that the speaker is rueing his forthcoming schedule of washing utensils. How can you separate the two?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> Your question does not make much sense to me, as it is apparent that the speaker is rueing his forthcoming schedule of washing utensils. How can you separate the two?


The very fact that this is indistinguishable or irrelevant to you, sort of answers my question.

But let me ask it in another way: Do you think the plural "_likhe_" is because of a plural "_bartan"_, or because of the plural "_dhone_"?
Which word do you think is the nucleus of the phrase "_bartan dhone_", and which one is the modifier?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> The very fact that this is indistinguishable or irrelevant to you, sort of answers my question.
> 
> But let me ask it in another way: Do you think the plural "_likhe_" is because of a plural "_bartan"_, or because of the plural "_dhone_"?


I again don't understand your question, because the plural _bartan _is not only determining "likhe" but also "the" and "dhone." That is, "bartan" is determining everything.

However, in such a sentence, even if you were to use a singular "bartan," it would generally mean plural (utensils). That is,
apnii kismat meN (hii) thaa likhaa bartan dhonaa

The rest of the words get determined by singular "bartan" (hence, "thaa," "likhaa" and "dhonaa"), but keep in mind that the person is again talking of washing utensils, not one utensil (except in some specific context).



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Which word do you think is the nucleus of the phrase "_bartan dhone_", and which one is the modifier?


 I don't see anything modifying "bartan dhonaa." You could rephrase as "bartan dhone apnii kismat meN likhe the," if that helps.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> That is, "bartan" is determining everything.


OK, then you are agreeing with what seems to be the general "gerundive" consensus on this thread:

It is "dishes to be washed", and not "washing dishes" what is in my future.

And, as a possible generalization, every time one finds what appears to be a plural infinitive, an effort has to be made to interpret it as this kind of "future mandate"/gerundive construct.

Thanks!


----------

