# Hindi/Urdu: agar mai.n jaldii uTh gayaa/jaauu.n



## panjabigator

I was talking to my mother about the unlikelihood of waking up early and I said <agar mai.n jaldii uTh gayaa, to...>.  My question is about the usage of <gayaa> here.  What different implications would this sentence hold if I were to use the subjunctive modd <uTh jaauu.n>?  I can't seem to think of anything big, except that <gayaa> may express a greater probability and <jaauu.n> just address the chance indiscriminately.  

Could <jaauu.n> here also express the chance of one not waking up?  Should it be avoided here?  Let me know if this query needs futher explanation.


----------



## Illuminatus

I guess what follows the conditional will help determine the form of the verb.

The thing is, as a native, I find it tough to _explain_ the usage.

Let me try a few examples:

I have often heard a construction of the sort:
<jis din XYZ ho gaya, us din ABC ho jaayega>
eg.
<jis din tum samay par uTh gaye, us din qayaamat aa jayegi>

(I hope the use of _qayaamat_ is correct here)

To me, the use of the subjunctive conveys a _What if... _instead of an _If... _situation.

Of course, the subjunctive also conveys a lower probability.

There is a Hindi song with the lyrics: <*agar mai.n kahoo.n*, mujhe tumse mohabbat hai, meri bas yahee chahat hai, *to kya kahogi*>

The bold parts form the Complex Sentence (mishrit vakya, in Hindi Grammar)

When you are talking to yourself, use the subjunctive.

<mai.n yeh karoo.n ki woh karoo.n> 
<yahaa.n jaoo.n ki wahaa.n jaoo.n>

When you say, <agar main utha gayaa>, you are talking about what will happen in the event that you get up. You are stating a plain fact, and not commenting on the possibility of the same.

Compare: <If I get up...> v/s <If I were to get up...>

That's all I can think of at the moment. I will add more later.


----------



## panjabigator

> When you say, <agar main utha gayaa>, you are talking about what will happen in the event that you get up. You are stating a plain fact, and not commenting on the possibility of the same.



Very clear now.  Thank you.


----------



## lcfatima

I hear a lot of sentences that I feel should contain subjunctive construction by prescription but don't in normal speech and this confuses me. I am glad you asked this. 

Thanks for the explanation, this clears things up for me a lot.


----------



## lcfatima

Agar aap dukaan se koi cheez kharidte, aapko udhar bhi sab paise dene hongay maal milne se pehle.

Agar aap dukaan se koi cheez kharide.n, aap udhar bhi pehle paise denge, aur phir voh cheez milegi.


As a non-native speaker I often end up making odd monstrous constructions like the two examples above.

I am trying to convey some loose translation of this idea:

If you were to buy something from a store, you would have to first pay for the thing before you get it there, too.

Which sentence is better? Which verbs should be subjunctive, and why? Not sure if I am using maal correctly, either. I said such a sentence in real life recently, can you help me say it better?


----------



## panjabigator

I have an idiosyncratic understanding of Hindi-Urdu, so take my response with a _chamaj namak kaa. _

My understanding is that in a sentence like this, the present subjunctive mood and future indicative tense would be preferable and politer than just the present tense.  Though both your sentences seem grammatically sound, I think the first seems a bit awkward when compared with the second, but I don't have a reason why.  The present tense in the first does suggest a habitual action - every time a purchase is made, this is the immutable order of operation - but I think that Hindi/Urdu would opt towards the second just for the sake of politeness.

I'm going to hazard several attempts myself.  I await the firing squad/brigade.

<agar aap dukaan se kuchh xariide.n to pahilaa paise de.n aur chiiz phir udhar mile gii>

<agar aapko dukaan se kuchh xariidnaa hai to pahilaa paise de.n aur chiiz phir udhar mil jaye gii>

I had to fight my Panjabi urges to replace <ko> with <ne> and <xariidnaa> with <xariidnii>!

I have another general question about clause order here.  In my last sentence, would it be better to have the underlined parts in that particular order.  I know Urdu tends to keep the verb at the end of the sentence, but how would it sound otherwise?


----------



## Illuminatus

Both of them sound slightly awkward, but the English one doesn't convey the idea either. What do you wish to convey? Even stores ask you to pay in advance?

Let's take them one by one:
<Agar aap dukaan se koi cheez kharidte, aapko udhar bhi sab paise *dene hongay* maal milne se pehle.> has a wrong sequence of tenses, I guess. The part in bold is the culprit.

Two possibilities: <Agar aap dukaan se koi cheez kharidte, aapko udhar bhi sab paise *dene padtey *maal milne se pehle.>
<Agar aap dukaan se koi cheez kharidte *hain*, aapko udhar bhi sab paise *dene padengey *maal milne se pehle.>

The first one is an a posteriori analysis. _Had you done this, you would have had to do that. But, it's all over now._
The second is sort of Universal truth and is what I would use.

<Agar aap dukaan se koi cheez kharide.n, aap udhar bhi pehle paise *denge*, aur phir voh cheez milegi.>

Even in this, the sequence of tenses doesn't seem to be right. The outcome of a subjunctive (khareedei.n) is a sure statement (denge).
This sounds better, though it is prescriptive (tells the listener what he should do at the store, rather than what happens at the store)
<Agar aap dukaan se koi cheez kharide.n, aap udhar bhi pehle paise *dei.n*, aur phir voh cheez milegi.>

Essentially, I will not use an if-then situation at all.

<Kisi dukaan se cheez khareedne par bhi aapko pehle paise dene padenge, aur phir aapko cheez milegi>
is what sounds most natural to me.


----------



## lcfatima

Panjabigator: Hmmm, I understand your explanation.

Am I wrong to say pehle instead of pahla?

I don't find kharidni wrong either in your sentence 2. Why is that Punjabi? It seems like optional gender travelling to me.


----------



## panjabigator

Illuminatus, I like your suggestion the best.  

As for my choice of <pahilaa> to <pahle>, I don't know why I did that.  Can someone tell me if this is wrong?

Well, Panjabi ALWAYS distributes gender whereas certain dialects of Urdu do not.  Lucknow does not and since your family is Lakhnavi, I wrote it that way.  Still, in my family I'd be corrected if I didn't say <xariidnii>.


----------



## Illuminatus

I think _pehlaa _is definitely wrong here. It should be _pehle
_First means Pahla when it is used as an adjective. 
When used as an adverb: <First, we will do this...>, it is <pehle>


----------



## lcfatima

I was telling a man that he had to give me full payment for my for-sale car before I would transfer the registration. He thought it would be okay to make the car legally his first and then pay me. That is the context. I said some similar sentence as in: If you were to buy something in the store, you would have to pay for it before you got it. (universal truth?) I was trying me best just to be polite but firm, but as usual ended up sounding very Pathani, I guess.

Illuminatus your preferred sentence would never have even occurred to me.


----------



## lcfatima

Panjabigator: I always hear gender travelling. My husband's Urdu has been influenced by being born and raised in Punjab, maybe. But I feel I hear gender travelling as the norm from most everyone. I didn't know that Lucknavis don't do that. My husband and his siblings say "Maine" also.


----------



## panjabigator

Icf, I'm unaware of Pathani inflected Urdu.  What are its qualities?  Do their sentences sound awkward to Urdu speakers?


----------



## Illuminatus

_


			
				Icfatima said:
			
		


			I was telling a man that he had to give me full payment for my for-sale car before I would transfer the registration. He thought it would be okay to make the car legally his first and then pay me. That is the context. I said some similar sentence as in: If you were to buy something in the store, you would have to pay for it before you got it. (universal truth?) I was trying me best just to be polite but firm, but as usual ended up sounding very Pathani, I guess.,
		
Click to expand...


_In that case, I would say,
<Dekhiye, aap agar aaj kisi departmental store mein bhi jaayenge to aapko paise dene ke baad hi cheez milegi>


----------



## BP.

Before the firing squad could get to those two sentences with totally random grammar, lets correct the idea they represent: you can't pay up front for something and still get it on deferred payment (_udhaar_)!

I hope you did mean _udhaar_ and not _udhar_, the latter making no sense here btw. Otherwise you have ranting rights!

_ maal_ is I suppose for bulk goods. _cheez_ or _shaey_ looks better for a person's shopping.

I'm sorry I couldn't even get your translation, so here's what I understood of it: '*In this shop, you would have to pay before the article you bought is handed to you*.', which could translate to *hamaaray yahaa.n adaaegi-e-qeemat muntaqli-e-teHweel say peshtar hua karti hai*.

If you could rephrase the translation for us, we might be able to restructure your sentences better and see which tense goes where. Thanks.

EDIT: I wrote this post before posts 7 onwards appeared.


----------



## Illuminatus

BP ke jawaab itni khaalis Urdu mein hote hain ki mere sar ke oopar se jaate hai.n!


----------



## lcfatima

Pathans are generally known for bad Urdu in Pakistan. Of course not all Pathans speak Urdu poorly, but a Pathan who doesn't speak Urdu well makes a lot of mistakes. Their gender usage is very poor, their stress and intonations sound completely different than either native Urduphones or Punjabi Urduphones. They pronounce vowels in a unique way, too. Like they would say kesi hei instead of kaise hai.n. and also miss nasalizations. It is hard to describe, I guess.


 Saying that someone has Pathani Urdu or a Pathani lahja means that their Urdu is simple and broken and sounds bad.


----------



## lcfatima

I meant _udhar_. I had no clue what _udhaar_ meant or that such a word existed before you post.


----------



## Illuminatus

udhaar (long aa) means loan. I don't know what udhar means


----------



## lcfatima

I meant as in iddher/uddher.


----------



## Illuminatus

Oh OK. Then you can add <Udhaar> to your vocabulary now!


----------



## lcfatima

Very true.


----------



## BP.

I'd have to slightly disagree with Icf on the terrible Urdu pronunciation of Pukhto-phones. Many (educated ones) speak as well as any native Urdhu-phone. I've lived among them the last 3 years and trust me I have the habit of nitpicking when it comes to Urdu! But you're right inasmuch as their gender assignment to nouns is concerned. That comes from the fact that almost everything has the opposite gender in Pukhto wrt Urdu.

_udhaar_ means loan as well as deferred payment.

_udhar_ (there) sits pretty awkward in your sentence, I couldn't guess its purpose.



> "*...he had to give me full payment for my for-sale car before I would transfer the registration.*"


In your context the sentence I proposed should work the best.
Just remove the _hamaaray yahaa.n_ - you don't own a shop, and _hua karti hai_ - you don't need continuous tense for a one-time deal.

I'd break down the phrases for you:

_adaaegi-e-qeemat_ - payment of the price. You could say _raqm_ - money instead of _qeemat_, but the latter's a better fit.
_muntaqliyay teHweel_ - transfer of ownership
_paishtar_ - before (that). You could also say _paishgi_ - up front.
So en tout: _*mai.n chaahoon gi keh muntaqliyay teHweel say qabl hi adaaegi-e-qeematho jaaey*_ OR *mai.n chaahoon gi keh aap paishgi adaaegi kar diijiyay*.


----------



## BP.

Illuminatus said:


> BP ke jawaab itni khaalis Urdu mein hote hain ki mere sar ke oopar se jaate hai.n!



_aray miaa.n khaamakha hi t'areef kar rahay hai.n hamaray jawaabaat ki, abhi to app nay kuch daikha hi nahii.n_!

Jokes aside, that's good actually. They could spawn new questions and keep discussions alive that help me/us learn.


----------



## lcfatima

> I'd have to slightly disagree with Icf on the terrible Urdu pronunciation of Pukhto-phones. Many (educated ones) speak as well as any native Urdhu-phone. I've lived among them the last 3 years and trust me I have the habit of nitpicking when it comes to Urdu! But you're right inasmuch as their gender assignment to nouns is concerned. That comes from the fact that almost everything has the opposite gender in Pukhto wrt Urdu.


 
Please note that I mentioned that not all Pathans speak Urdu poorly. Obviously educated Pathans, and especially ones who have been raised in an Urdu speaking environment outside of the Sarhad speak Urdu very well. I wanted to make that clear. But there is most definately a thick accent with the attributes I describe among Pathans who cannot speak Urdu well. Even Pathans with excellent Urdu sometimes have those long vowels. If one were to generalize in order to describe to someone who is unfamiliar with various Pakistani ethnic groups about a Pathani lahja in Urdu, I don't think my description would be wrong.


----------



## lcfatima

Thanks for the break down of your sentence suggestion as well, BP.


----------



## panjabigator

lcfatima said:


> Thanks for the break down of your sentence suggestion as well, BP.



Yes, thank you! Always learning new things.


----------



## Qureshpor

My post is especially for the benefit of Fatima SaaHibah and PG  SaaHib. I have read all the posts and all participants have  done a wonderful job. I liked Illuminatus SaaHib's final version, once  Fatima SaaHibah had provided the full context.

<Dekhiye, aap agar aaj kisi departmental store mein bhi jaayenge to aapko paise dene ke baad hi cheez milegi> 				

I might just bring the "bhii" forward  and place it after "kisii". But this is neither here nor there. BP  SaaHib, as ever, provided PhD material when "metriculation" stuff could have  done the trick! 

Supposing I had asked PG SaaHib for some money last year and he had not given it to me. In fact he says..

If I had the money, I would have given it to you.

agar mere paas raqm hotii to maiN tumheN de detaa.

(This is an impossible situation. The time has gone and the condition can not be fulfilled.)

I approached him again today and he said...Honestly, I don't have the money.

If I had the money, I would give it to you.

 agar mere paas raqm hotii to maiN tumheN de detaa.

(Now the situation is still  unlikely in the present/future but, it is not impossible for him to give me  the money for he could win the lottery!)

I then asked if his rich brother in Switzerland could help. 

If your brother should come this summer, do you think you could ask him?
agar tumhaaraa bhaa'ii in garmiyoN meN aa'e,....

(Subjunctive is used because the action may possibly take place).

BG  then gives me the good news a month later that there is a very strong possibility (in fact high probability)  that his brother would come to visit him. I say to him..

If he comes, please do ask him.

agar vuh aayaa to ....

The  past sentence is used to give future meaning. The logic is that speaker  feels certain about the event that he deems it to have already taken  place! Hence, the use of past tense. I hope this has been of some help. This is of course not an exhaustive explanation of Urdu conditional sentences.


----------



## rahulbemba

panjabigator said:


> I was talking to my mother about the unlikelihood of waking up early and I said <agar mai.n jaldii uTh gayaa, to...>.  My question is about the usage of <gayaa> here.  What different implications would this sentence hold if I were to use the subjunctive modd <uTh jaauu.n>?  I can't seem to think of anything big, except that <gayaa> may express a greater probability and <jaauu.n> just address the chance indiscriminately.
> 
> Could <jaauu.n> here also express the chance of one not waking up?  Should it be avoided here?  Let me know if this query needs futher explanation.



In my opinion, both are same and one can use either without loss of meaning or application.


----------



## Qureshpor

rahulbemba said:


> In my opinion, both are same and one can use either without loss of meaning or application.




 There is a clear difference between "agar maiN jaldii uTh gayaa to..." and "agar maiN jaldii uTh jaa'uuN to.." as I have attempted to explain in post no. 28. Any half decent Urdu or Hindi grammar book (e.g. Stuart McGregor's) will make this point abundantly clear.


----------



## Todd The Bod

This has been one of the most interesting threads I've read here recently!  (Though believe it or not, I'm still confused about the two versions of the original sentence, lol!  Forget me though, I'm a lost cause.  lol).  Punjabisms and Patthanisms were even introduced; both cultures of which I've been fascinated for quite a while.  Then a super-duper high register example was presented!  Wow!  Thank everyone for this thread.


----------



## rahulbemba

QURESHPOR said:


> There is a clear difference between "agar maiN jaldii uTh gayaa to..." and "agar maiN jaldii uTh jaa'uuN to.." as I have attempted to explain in post no. 28. Any half decent Urdu or Hindi grammar book (e.g. Stuart McGregor's) will make this point abundantly clear.



I don't read "half decent" grammar books 

I stand by what I thought about the issue. Let me clarify that I have no exposure to Urdu and I said that about Hindi only. "Agar mai jaldi uth gaya/jaun" is Hindi. It is evident from my profile note also which appears in the right hand side - I know only Hindi and not Urdu. I think in Hindi, we can use either word without any practical loss of meaning.


----------



## Qureshpor

rahulbemba said:


> I don't read "half decent" grammar books
> 
> I stand by what I thought about the issue. Let me clarify that I have no exposure to Urdu and I said that about Hindi only. "Agar mai jaldi uth gaya/jaun" is Hindi. It is evident from my profile note also which appears in the right hand side - I know only Hindi and not Urdu. I think in Hindi, we can use either word without any practical loss of meaning.




A couple of points. McGregor is a Hindi grammarian and he has also written a Hind-English dictionary, both published by OUP. It might be worth your while to take a look in it. Secondly, I too have a passing acquaintance with both Hindi and Urdu and I can safely say that the sentence in question is Urdu and Hindi. But, If I was being really pedantic, I would say that the Hindi sentence should contain "yadi" and "turant" for "agar" and "jaldii


----------



## rahulbemba

QURESHPOR said:


> A couple of points. McGregor is a Hindi grammarian and he has also written a Hind-English dictionary, both published by OUP. It might be worth your while to take a look in it. Secondly, I too have a passing acquaintance with both Hindi and Urdu and I can safely say that the sentence in question is Urdu and Hindi. But, If I was being really pedantic, I would say that the Hindi sentence should contain "yadi" and "turant" for "agar" and "jaldii



Yeah, not being pedantic is a good idea. Even I was not pedantic and this is why I said there is no loss of meaning if we use either word. Rest, let us leave on people's individual judgements.


----------

