# Urdu, HIndi: subjunctive at both sides of a condition



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

In songs, I find often forms that seem to be subjunctive, both inside and outside a condition, as in:

_teraa jalva(h) jo *paauN*, maiN har Gam *bhuul jaauuN*_ = "if I  attained your brilliance, I would forget every sorrow"

_tuu bhii *dekhe *agar, to *kahe*, hamanshin_ = "if you saw her, you would say it too, companion"

This usage (specifically: using subjunctive both for the main verb of the sentence and for the verb of the included condition), is also a feature of everyday speech, or it is confined to lyrical / poetic language? 
Or maybe it is something that one would write in prose (even if not lyrical), but not  use in spoken language? How common is this kind of construction in modern speech? 

    Thanks in advance.


----------



## Qureshpor

A good question and I would agree with you it is mainly if not exclusively used in poetry in modern times. In the older Urdu language, it had a much wider canvas, where depending on context, it had present and future meanings. The subjunctive has now a much more restricted usage in speech and writings (prose).

Urdu-Hindi-Punjabi:The Subjunctive Mood

Urdu-Hindi: The aorist tense

The literary examples I have provided are from Urdu literature.


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> This usage (specifically: using subjunctive both for the main verb of the sentence and for the verb of the included condition), is also a feature of everyday speech...?


If I'm understanding you correctly, double-subjunctive conditional sentences are most certainly still found in everyday speech! The construction doesn't seem even remotely "formal" or "literary" or "poetical" or "unusual" or "dated" or anything of the sort to me. Here are two examples of such a construction that I've just made up off the top my head but that seem thoroughly colloquial to me:

tum kaho to maiN aa jaa'uuN? ("I'll come over if you just say the word.")​​A: baRe thake lagte ho. thoRaa aaraam kyuuN nahiiN kar lete? ("You seem pretty tired. Why don't you rest a bit?")​B: yaar, is kaam se fursat mile tab to thoRaa aaraam karuuN! ("Man, I wish I could, but I really have to get through this work first.")​
Do these examples qualify as the double-subjunctive conditionals you're asking about, @MonsieurGonzalito jii? I wonder if maybe I'm misunderstanding something about your question, because the above examples seem so mundane to me that I'm a little shocked to read @Qureshpor jii's response:


Qureshpor said:


> I would agree with you it is mainly if not exclusively used in poetry in modern times.


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> I wonder if maybe I'm misunderstanding something about your question, because the above examples seem so mundane to me that I'm a little shocked to read @Qureshpor jii's response:


Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have said @aevynn Jii or I haven't expressed myself as precisely as I ought to have done. What I have tried to say is that what we know as the subjunctive in today's language (and I've mentioned Urdu as the examples I've given are from Urdu) is used in a much more restricted sense than it was used in the past. Using the verb "karnaa"....the form given below is termed as "aorist" in older grammer books. Within this aorist, depending on context, one had both the subjunctive mood (as in your example) expressing doubt, wish, command, condition but also the indicative mood (expressing present or future tenses) and I have provided examples of these in the two threads I have provided links to.

1st person- karuuN/kareN
2nd person - kare/karo/kareN
3rd person - kare/kareN

We wouldn't (generally) say in today's language "kam-baxtii jo* aave, *uuNT chaRhe (ko) kuttaa kaaTe!". We would say, "jab kam-baxtii aatii hai to uuNT par chaRhe hu'e ko bhii kuttaa kaaT_taa hai."

"bahut jiyuuN to jiyuuN aur tiin chaar baras", We would say, "agar bahut/ziyaadah jiyuuN to tiin chaar baras jyuuN gaa".


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> Do these examples qualify as the double-subjunctive conditionals you're asking about, @MonsieurGonzalito jii?



This one does, because it has a conditional clause (in green), and subjunctive both inside and outside of it.


aevynn said:


> tum kaho to maiN aa jaa'uuN? ("I'll come over if you just say the word.")



This doesn't, because there is no conditional clause here,  just some desiderative expression chained to some purpose clause (although the overall idea can be interpreted as a condition). 


aevynn said:


> B: yaar, is kaam se fursat mile tab to thoRaa aaraam karuuN! ("Man, I wish I could, but I really have to get through this work first.")


(both expressions happen to use the subjunctive, in what seems to be a "legitimately colloquial" fashion, but each expression does it for its own reasons, not as part of a conditional construct, IMO).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Qureshpor said:


> 1st person- karuuN/kareN
> 2nd person - kare/karo/kareN
> 3rd person - kare/kareN
> 
> We wouldn't (generally) say in today's language "kam-baxtii jo* aave, *uuNT chaRhe (ko) kuttaa kaaTe!". We would say, "jab kam-baxtii aatii hai to uuNT par chaRhe hu'e ko bhii kuttaa kaaT_taa hai."



I read the other 2 threads with interest,  @Qureshpor jii, before posting this question, and I generally understand the idea of aorist.
And I also can understand that for certain conditions (some plausible clauses, I believe they call them "Type 1" in English), it is normal to use the present tense both inside and outside the condition in modern language, but that in olden times an "aorist" would have been proper.
However, I don't think the examples I offered at the beginning are of "Type 1", "but "Type 2" (hypothetical) : "If I *had *money, then I *would *to to Las Vegas".

Are you saying that the concept of aorist is useful to parse this kind of sentences as well?


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> This doesn't, because there is no conditional clause here, just some desiderative expression chained to some purpose clause (although the overall idea can be interpreted as a condition).


In "tum kaho to maiN aa jaa'uuN?", "kaho" is in the subjunctive mood and it is actually "(agar) tum kaho", the "if clause". "to maiN aa'uuN" is the "then clause".


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> However, I don't think the examples I offered at the beginning are of "Type 1", "but "Type 2" (hypothetical) : "If I *had *money, then I *would *to to Las Vegas".
> 
> Are you saying that the concept of aorist is useful to parse this kind of sentences as well?


No.

agar mere paas paisaa hotaa to maiN Las Vegas jaataa.

See # 28 of this thread.

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


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> This doesn't, because there is no conditional clause here,  just some desiderative expression chained to some purpose clause (although the overall idea can be interpreted as a condition).
> 
> 
> aevynn said:
> 
> 
> 
> B: yaar, is kaam se fursat mile tab to thoRaa aaraam karuuN! ("Man, I wish I could, but I really have to get through this work first.")
> 
> 
> 
> (both expressions happen to use the subjunctive, in what seems to be a "legitimately colloquial" fashion, but each expression does it for its own reasons, not as part of a conditional construct, IMO).
Click to expand...

I didn't translate the sentence as a conditional in English because it felt to me that a non-conditional English sentence conveyed the nuance of the sentence a little better, but I think the original HU sentence is syntactically a conditional:

yaar, is kaam se fursat mile tab to thoRaa aaraam karuuN!​
In green we have the antecedent, and in blue we have the consequent. A more literal translation might be something like "I'll only (be able to) rest a bit when I get some respite from this work."



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> And I also can understand that for certain conditions (some plausible clauses, I believe they call them "Type 1" in English), it is normal to use the present tense both inside and outside the condition in modern language, but that in olden times an "aorist" would have been proper.
> However, I don't think the examples I offered at the beginning are of "Type 1", "but "Type 2" (hypothetical) : "If I *had *money, then I *would *to to Las Vegas".


I had not heard of this 1-2-3 typology of English conditionals before, so if there are others who haven't either, here are some relevant links: Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and this discussion on Wikipedia.

While I guess there's no a priori reason that the English typology of conditionals should have anything to do with UH's conditionals, I guess there's at least a reasonable correspondence between type 3 conditionals in English (also called "past perfect counterfactual conditionals" here) and the -taa -taa construction of UH (eg, @Qureshpor jii's sentence in #8 above), since both of these constructions make clear that the antecedent was not satisfied. I'm hesitant about proposing a correspondence between English's type 2 conditionals and HU's double-subjunctive conditionals. The sense that English's type 2 conditionals express is some kind of improbability or hypotheticality of the antecedent. In contrast, UH's double-subjunctive conditionals have more a wishy/dreamy feel about them.

A sentence like "tum kaho to maiN aa jaa'uuN?" veers towards expressing a desire to come over and asking for permission to come over. It's fairly neutral about how (un)likely the antecedent is; in fact, it would be totally reasonable to use a sentence like "tum kaho to maiN aa jaa'uuN" even if I was fully expecting my interlocutor to say "aa jaa!" All the double subjunctive is really doing is making it clear that I want to come over.

Similarly, regarding "teraa jalvA jo paauN, maiN har Gam bhuul jaa'uuN"... This is from the song "Aaya Tere Dar Par," from Veer-Zaara, and the context supplied by the rest of the lyrics make clear that I (the "diivaanA") have already arrived at your (my lover's) door, so in fact at this point it's not at all unlikely that I actually see your splendor. (What the lyrics do make seem unlikely is that my seeing you is reciprocated and that you even bother to look at me, since you are so exalted and I am so lowly -- but this is seen not in the line under discussion but rather in other lines of the song, like "kahaaN tuu aur kahaaN maiN" or "karam itnaa agar ho ki(h) mujh par ik nazar ho"). The double subjunctive of "teraa jalvA jo paauN, maiN har Gam bhuul jaa'uuN" just makes the statement sound kind of wishy and dreamy, expressing that I want to see you and forget my sorrows. In fact, in context of the rest of the lyrics, I would propose that this English translation is not really capturing the nuance of the original well:


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> "if I attained your brilliance, I would forget every sorrow"


Better would be something like "I see your splendor and forget all of my sorrows" or "By seeing your splendor, I forget all of my sorrows" or "As soon as I see your splendor, I forget all of my sorrows." Those maybe aren't perfect either, but they feel much closer to me.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Your interpretation of the Veer-Zara piece makes a lot of sense, @aevynn jii. I never saw it that way.

So _"1. teraa jalva(h) jo paauN, maiN har Gam bhuul jaauuN" _is ruled out as a true conditional, is more of a causal concatenation of events.

But what about:
_"2. tuu bhii dekhe agar, to kahe, hamnashin"? _(of course, from Afreen)

The _agar _seems to indicate that it is a conditional clause. If improbable, it should be rephrased as @Qureshpor jii suggests in #8?

_agar tuu use dekhtaa, to bhi "aafriiN" kɛhtaa_

But according the  typology you propose above, .2 would also not be considered a "true" conditional (despite the _agar_) and would be rephraseable as:

_mujh_ko aashaa hai kii tuu use dekhe, phir tuu bhii "aafriiN" kahe!_

Or something lile that 😊?


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> So _"1. teraa jalva(h) jo paauN, maiN har Gam bhuul jaauuN" _is ruled out as a true conditional, is more of a causal concatenation of events.


I remain somewhat dissatisfied with you ruling this out as a "true conditional," much as with the "is kaam se fursat mile tab to..." example. I think syntactically they are conditionals in UH (and I think native speakers would feel them to be conditional statements) even if idiomatic and context-sensitive translations into English might not use conditional statements. I don't think it's really fair to decide that they aren't conditional statements just because English (or any other language) wouldn't use a conditional in the same context. But that's just my opinion; I guess it's ultimately up to you what you'd like to call it! 



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> But what about:
> _"2. tuu bhii dekhe agar, to kahe, hamnashin"? _(of course, from Afreen)


I stand by my earlier statement that these double-subjunctive conditionals are neutral as to the (im)probability of the antecedent. In the Veer-Zaara song, it seemed contextually clear to me that the antecedent was probable and so the counterfactual reading was incorrect, but in this song, I don't think the lyrics force the antecedent to be either probable or improbable. The verse could be read as a kind of counterfactual "If you saw her, you too would say 'aafriiN aafriiN,'" but it could also be read merely as a "causal concatenation of events," ie, as something like "You would see her and you too would say, 'aafriiN aafriiN'" or "Seeing her would/will also lead you to say, 'aafriiN aafriiN.'" If you rephrase the line to


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> agar tuu use dekhtaa, to *[tuu]* bhi "aafriiN" kɛhtaa,


you'd be forcing the counterfactual semantics.

Regarding the wishy/dreamy feel I mentioned... First of all, even in the three examples mentioned in #9, it really is an undertone; it's really nothing as explicit as a "mujh_ko aaShaa/ummiid hai ki(h)..." sentence. But I grant you that it's hard to imbue this line from Afreen Afreen with the same wishy undertone, so maybe I overgeneralized above and this wishy undertone isn't present in all examples of these double-subjunctive conditionals... I dunno!


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Let's agree to disagree on what a "conditional construction" is, or whether or not there are universally valid types of them.

The important point I gather from yours and @Qureshpor jii's answers is that the presence of subjunctive + subjunctive does not constitute, per se, a strong or typical marker of a condition in HU. (as, for example, present participle + present participle would).

In other words, the examples I provided in the OP constitute no "pattern" that could be generalized, and the subjunctives in them are more of a "coincidence" due to stylistic choice, to provide an "undertone" (mood) rather than a strong syntactic indication of anything.


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Let's agree to disagree on ... whether or not there are universally valid types of them.


I don't think either of us is denying any universality of conditionals. One of us -- namely, me!  -- merely disagrees with the (language X)-centric view, for any choice of (language X), that a statement in another language is truly a conditional if and only if an idiomatic and context-sensitive translation into (language X) uses conditional verb forms of (language X).



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> The important point I gather from yours and @Qureshpor jii's answers is that the presence of subjunctive + subjunctive does not constitute, per se, a strong or typical marker of a condition in HU. (as, for example, present participle + present participle would).
> 
> In other words, the examples I provided in the OP constitute no "pattern" that could be generalized, and the subjunctives in them are more of a "coincidence" due to stylistic choice, to provide an "undertone" (mood) rather than a strong syntactic indication of anything.


This leads me a guess about the root of what I percieve to be your misunderstanding and/or of why we might be disagreeing, so let me try this:

A variety of verb forms are used in UH sentences that I would deem to be "conditional." It would be slightly besides the point to enumerate an exhaustive list here, but let me just enumerate some just for the sake of example:

1. tum kaho_ge to maiN aa jaa'uuN_gaa
2. tum kaho to maiN aa jaa'uuN_gaa
3. tum kahte ho to maiN aa jaataa huuN
4. tum kaho to maiN aa jaa'uuN
5. tum kahte to maiN aa jaataa

The giveaway in all of these -- the thing that leads me to deem all of these to be "conditional" -- is merely the _to_ in the middle (and/or a hidden _agar_ at the beginning of these sentences whose presence this _to_ might imply). Varying the verb forms as in #1 through #5 above does change the semantics and usage patterns -- but again, I would say that they all have "conditional" semantics. All I've attempted to do above (and what I also understand @Qureshpor jii's responses to be attempting to do above) is to say something about the semantics and usage patterns of #4 in contrast with some of these other sentences.

Now it seems that you regard the double -taa verb forms of #5 as a "strong syntactic indication of a condition in HU," and I would like to hazard a guess as to why this is. Perhaps this is because the construction of #5 is used when wanting to make clear that the antecedent is viewed by the speaker to be strictly hypothetical or improbable. According to my Wikipedia-level understanding of Spanish grammar, that appears to be precisely the situation where the conditional verb form of Spanish happens to be used. If this is the root of what's going on, I'd like to present two observations:

First, it is not true that that a double -taa is only/primarily used in conditional sentences in HU. For example:

us waqt ham saath rahte to the, magar waqt kabhii saath bitaa nahiiN paate the. maiN kaam se ghar lauTtaa aur wo(h) kaam par nikal jaataa. phir wo(h) lauTtaa aur maiN so jaataa...​​At the time, we lived together, but never really spent time together. I'd get home from work and he'd leave for work. Then he'd get home and I'd go to sleep...​​Here I've we have some double -taa sentences that are not conditionals: they are merely describing past habitual actions. In other words, the thing that makes #5 a conditional statement is not the double -taa verb form. Rather, it is just the _to_ that shows up in the middle of #5 that makes #5 a conditional.

This leads me to my second observation. And I'd like to preface this by saying that I know that you understand all of the nuances of this better than me, but I hope you'll bear with me attempting to make this observation in an attempt to make my point clearer. The observation is that: not all conditional sentences in Spanish use conditional verb forms. For example, the following appears to be a valid Spanish sentence according to this website:
​Si veo que ellos me contestan en inglés, sigo hablando con ellos en inglés.​​I would say that this is a "conditional sentence" of Spanish even though neither verb "veo" nor "sigo" is in its conditional form. In much the same way, I would say that the HU sentences #1 through #5 are all "conditional" even though none of the verbs really bear conditional morphology -- in fact, I don't think UH has a verb form that can fairly be called "conditional." A conditional statement in HU can use a variety of verb form patterns (eg, the patterns witnessed in #1 through #5 above) but none of these verb form patterns (including the double -taa of #5) is really a "strong indication of a condition" the same way that the Spanish conditional verb form might be. The thing that makes a UH sentence conditional is just the presence of words like _to_, _agar_, etc.

UH is not alone in this regard, and there is a lot of cross-linguistic variety in the ways that verbal morphology interacts with conditional sentences:

* Some languages have a verb form that is characteristic of the consequent in a conditional sentence (eg, Spanish, French)
* Some languages have a verb form that is characteristic of the antecedent in a conditional sentence (eg, Turkish, Azerbaijani)
* Some languages have a verb form that is characteristic of both the antecedent and the consequent of a conditional sentence (eg, Hungarian, Finnish)
* Some languages have multiple verb forms that are characteristic of conditional sentences (eg, Hazda, and it is not clear from Wikipedia whether Hazda's multiple verb forms are used in antecedents or consequents or both), and
* Some languages have no dedicated verb form form that is characteristic of conditionals (eg, Latin (or here for more details), Ancient Greek, -- and, I would argue, HU).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

First of all, thank you for taking the time to write that exhaustive answer, @aevynn jii.

The basic problem with this communication is that we do not agree on a basic vocabulary and set of premises about what constitutes a conditional clause. For what  I surmise from your answers, you are ready to call a "conditional clause" pretty much anything that shows some temporal or causal concatenation. My definition is much more restrictive, and basically stops at the three typologies you link from Wikipedia. I also happen to think (granted, in a totally intuitive way) that these categories are universal, because they describe mental scenarios that are valid  to as as humans, independently of language.

So, if we don't agree on what conditional phrases are, it is pointless to discuss to what degree some speech elements are stronger markers than others, to denote them.

That said, you are right about some languages (pobably, most of them) not having a dedicated "mood" or set of verbal tenses or a unique structure to unequivocally denote conditional structures. And you are also correct in that, in Spanish, not always the tense/mood that we call "conditional" participates in conditional sentences.
(I think you be bringing up those points because you might think me "conditioned" (no pun intended) to think that "every time there is a _hotaa  ... hotaa ..._  then there is an "Type 2" condition.  Well, no. My grasp of HU is crude, but not that crude 😊  ).

BTW, this is a remarkable statement:


aevynn said:


> The giveaway in all of these -- the thing that leads me to deem all of these to be "conditional" -- is merely the _to_ in the middle (and/or a hidden _agar_ at the beginning of these sentences whose presence this _to_ might imply). Varying the verb forms as in #1 through #5 above does change the semantics and usage patterns -- but again, I would say that they all have "conditional" semantics.


(this probably deserves a new thread, but let me explain why I find it remarkable)

A couple of years ago, in this forum, in a thread that unfortunately I can't locate, @Qureshpor jii made a very intuitive analysis of the _to _particle, and he came to the conclusion that _to is  _never really an illative conjunction, but always merely an emphatic particle. And that it is the listener who "fills in the blanks" and elaborates that emphasis, if necessary as a correlative sentence.
(This might not have been his exact wording, but that was the idea)
Not being a competent HU speaker myself, I nevertheless believe that his analysis has the "ring of truth", and I hold it more valuable that whatever to the contrary I might find in dictionaries or grammars.

So, what I find remarkable is that, after dismissing verbal tenses as markers of conditions, you go for something (such as the "to"), which might not even be a valid marker for _correlatives_, let alone _conditionals_!

Again, this might be a matter of vocabulary, and my willingness to shoehorn everything into the categories I already know.


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> The basic problem with this communication is that we do not agree on a basic vocabulary and set of premises about what constitutes a conditional clause.


Okeedokee!



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> A couple of years ago, in this forum, in a thread that unfortunately I can't locate, @Qureshpor jii made a very intuitive analysis of the _to _particle, and he came to the conclusion that _to is _never really an illative conjunction, but always merely an emphatic particle. And that it is the listener who "fills in the blanks" and elaborates that emphasis, if necessary as a correlative sentence.
> (This might not have been his exact wording, but that was the idea)
> Not being a competent HU speaker myself, I nevertheless believe that his analysis has the "ring of truth", and I hold it more valuable that whatever to the contrary I might find in dictionaries or grammars.
> 
> So, what I find remarkable is that, after dismissing verbal tenses as markers of conditions, you go for something (such as the "to"), which might not even be a valid marker for _correlatives_, let alone _conditionals_!


Well, I'm interested in seeing this analysis if you find it. I don't remember seeing it, and based just on what you've written here, I am quite skeptical. It seems to me right now that the emphatic _to_ and the conjunctive _to_ are probably best analyzed as two separate (albeit homophonous) words. They even have opposite headedness: the emphatic _to_ comes after the thing it emphasizes (eg, saying _maiN to nahiiN jaa'uuN_gaa_ emphasizes the _maiN_, ie, it's saying that "I, at least, will not go," even if others might decide to go), while the conjunctive _to_ comes before the clause it heads...!

If you're trying to shoehorn things into things you already know, let me point out the following. In English "if-then" sentences, the "then" that heads the consequent can often be removed without much of a change in meaning. In HU _agar_-_to_ sentences, either the _agar_ heading the antecedent or the _to_ heading the consequent (but not both) can be removed without much of a change in meaning. It's not really that much of a stretch from the English situation, I'd think, and in sentences #1-#5 in post #13 above, all I did was opt to remove the _agar_ (which, incidentally, happens to be extremely common). The net result is that just _to_ is left behind as a marker of "conditionality."


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I also happen to think (granted, in a totally intuitive way) that these categories are universal, because they describe mental scenarios that are valid to as as humans, independently of language.


I found myself thinking a little about this. I at least agree with you that the situations described by the 1-2-3 typology are "universal" in a sense, but it feels to me that the granularity of this typology of situations is kind of ill-suited to HU syntax [^1]. Here's what I mean by this:

Let me first summarize my understanding of the 1-2-3 typology based on what I've read. There's some domain of conditional situations which have an antecedent and a consequent, and the 1-2-3 typology carves this domain up into three pieces. Type 1 situations are those where the antecedent is felt to be plausible (or, using words I used earlier, those where one wants to be "neutral as to the (im)probability of the antecedent"). Type 2 and type 3 situations are those where the antecedent is felt to be less-than-plausible (eg, strictly hypothetical, improbable, counterfactual, etc). Types 2 and 3 differ temporally: type 3 is when the antecedent is strictly in a past time frame, while type 2 is otherwise.

So far, things are fine. I totally agree with you that all of those seem to be situations that human beings would universally want to talk about, independent of the language they find themselves speaking in. I have no qualms with the assertion that the typology of situations is "universal" in this sense.

Now if I try to impose this typology of situations onto UH "conditional sentences" (by which I mean the more general class of sentences that I have been calling "conditional sentences," but bear with me...), what seems to happen is the following. The -taa -taa pattern is used in type 2 and type 3 situations [^2]. On the other hand, several verb morphology patterns are used in type 1 situations:



Pattern [^3]Antecedent MorphologyConsequent MorphologyAIndicativeIndicativeBSubjunctiveIndicativeCSubjunctiveSubjunctive


Sentences #1-#4 in post #13 all fall under one of these three patterns (#1 and #3 follow pattern A, #2 follows pattern B, and #4 follows pattern C). This is what I mean by "the granularity of this typology of situations is kind of ill-suited to HU syntax." Several syntactic patterns seem to be used in type 1 situations, and a natural question we find ourselves led to is, "How do these type 1 patterns differ from each other?"

If one is really attached to the 1-2-3 typology and only allows themselves to distinguish between conditionals using this 1-2-3 typology, I guess one would be forced to decide that patterns A, B, and C must be entirely synonymous and interchangeable because they are all used for type 1 situations -- but native speakers will quickly be able to tell you that this is not true (even if they find it difficult to actually put their finger on the differences), so this isn't tenable. And I think you already recognize this is untenable; this is not the approach you're taking.

The approach you seem to be taking is rethinking the 1-2-3 typology somewhat: you seem to be narrowing the domain of conditional situations on which the 1-2-3 typology is applied, so that, for example, the situations in which HU's pattern C is used are excluded from this domain. It's not entirely clear to me what formal definition could be used to exclude those situations, but it sounds like you have something in mind, and if you do, I agree that there is no formal problem here: you're more than welcome to define "conditional situations" however you like. You should probably be aware that a definition that excludes the situations in which UH speakers use pattern C will run contrary to their intuitions (or at least, it runs contrary to my intuitions) about what constitutes a "conditional situation," so your terminology is a little prone to miscommunication, but I fundamentally agree with the statement that you can define technical vocabulary however you like as long as you're clear about your definitions.

The thing that I think is worth noticing, though, is that, your approach of narrowing the domain of conditional situations already involves a kind of rethinking of 1-2-3 typology. My preferred approach would be to just rethink the 1-2-3 typology in a different way when discussing UH syntax, so that we continue to include all situations in which HU speakers would use sentences that they perceive to be "conditional," but the way that we carve up this domain better aligns with the way that UH syntax carves up the set of "conditional sentences." It would certainly be possible to do this in a way that's still "universal" in the sense that the typology would still describe situations that all human beings will want to talk about, independent of the language they find themselves speaking. I feel like this goal is within grasp, even if we do not have it nailed down totally precisely yet in this threads' discussions. Anyway, that's just like what I'd like to see; I guess there's no reason you have to share this goal if you're satisfied with your narrowing-the-domain approach.

And the "holy grail" for me, I guess, would be a typology of conditional situations where:

* the domain of "conditional situations" includes all situations which, for any human language X, can be described by a sentence in language X which a native speaker of X perceives to be a "conditional sentence" [^4], and
* the typology carves this domain up in a way that aligns well with the syntax of all human languages.

I do not think the 1-2-3 typology is this holy grail (at which point I would like repeat my reference to footnote [^1] below). I don't know if linguists already understand something like this, nor do I feel even remotely capable of coming up with it myself. And again, if you're happy with your narrowing-the-domain approach, there's no reason that you have to think that this is a "holy grail."

---
Footnotes:

[^1]: The granularity of the 1-2-3 typology is not a stellar fit for English syntax either. If you look again at the Wikipedia page I linked to earlier, you'll notice that English language instructors who use the 1-2-3 typology are then forced to talk about "zero conditionals" and "mixed conditionals" in addition to the 1-2-3, to deal with the misfit between the 1-2-3 system and English syntax.

[^2]: Alternatively, if you prefer, the -taa -taa pattern is type 2 (eg, #5 in post #13), while the -aa hotaa -taa pattern is type 3 (eg, _tum_ne kahaa hotaa to maiN aa jaataa_ or _tum_ne kahaa hotaa to maiN aa gayaa hotaa_). I'd prefer to think of this -aa hotaa -taa pattern as a special case of the -taa -taa pattern (one in which the temporal ambiguity of the -taa -taa pattern has been resolved), but this is besides the point.

[^3]: I'm having trouble imagining the indicative-subjunctive pattern sounding natural, so I've omitted it for now. If someone thinks of an example, we can add a pattern D to the list. This doesn't affect what the main thread of what I'm saying above.

[^4]: I recognize defining "conditional situations" in terms of "conditional sentences" is either circular or begging-the-question. All I can say for now is, 🤷‍♂️


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> If one is really attached to the 1-2-3 typology and only allows themselves to distinguish between conditionals using this 1-2-3 typology, I guess one would be forced to decide that patterns A, B, and C must be entirely synonymous and interchangeable because they are all used for type 1 situations -- but native speakers will quickly be able to tell you that this is not true (even if they find it difficult to actually put their finger on the differences), so this isn't tenable. And I think you already recognize this is untenable; this is not the approach you're taking.


Gathering bits and pieces of what has been answered here, I interpret that the "[subjunctive] + [subjunctive]" pattern is still Type 1 plus "whim" or "poetry".  In other words: yes, native speakers cant point out nuances within the Type 1, but, are they logical or merely stylistic/attitudinal?

Could you perhaps point out, for any of the examples given in this thread, how using [subjunctive] + [subjunctive] would change the perceived _likeness _of an event (in relation to the same sentence said in [present] + [present])? If so, I will have no option but agreeing with you that HU is special and requires a more fine-grained approach.
But, in principle and for my untrained eyes, it seems not to be the case: even by your own answers here, the [subjunctive] + [subjunctive] seems to be indicating merely a different _attitude _of the speaker in relation to the events he is referring to, but not a change in their likeness_, _their probability of fruition, their logical interconnection.

For example, does:
_teraa jalva(h) jo paauN, maiN har Gam bhuul jaauuN 
really _imply any different likeness or logical connection between the "attaining" and the "forgetting" than
_teraa jalva(h) jo paataa huuN, maiN har Gam bhuul jaataa huuN?_ 
or the subjunctive there is merely "decoration"?

[EDITed to  add example]


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

(BTW, I can't find @Qureshpor jii's post. Maybe it was this, but I am not sure, because it only refers to "to" in a truly emphatic context. Also I wasn't around in 2013).

[EDITed to correct link]


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> (BTW, I can't find @Qureshpor jii's post. Maybe it was this, but I am not sure, because it only refers to "to" in a truly emphatic context. Also I wasn't around in 2013).


Broken link. Edit to fix?



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Could you perhaps point out, for any of the examples given in this thread, how using [subjunctive] + [subjunctive] would change...


I find it a little hard to analyze syntax in poetry (there's often too much else going on, with the rhyme or meter or musicality of it all, for me to pinpoint what minimal changes in syntax will accomplish), so let me look at the following minimal pair instead:

tum kaho to maiN aa jaa'uuN
tum kahte ho to maiN aa jaataa huuN

As I said earlier, I'd use the first to express a kind of eagerness to come over: "I really want to come over, and I'm just waiting for you to say the word and I'll be there." I'd use the second, in contrast, to express a kind of reluctance: "I don't really want to come over, but if you say I should, then I guess I must, so I will."

Having said what I feel to be the difference in this concrete example, let me now try to address the rest of what you're saying:



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> ... are [the nuances] *logical* or merely stylistic/attitudinal?
> ... the [subjunctive] + [subjunctive] seems to be indicating merely a different attitude of the speaker in relation to the events he is referring to, not a change in ... their *logical interconnection*.


To me, it feels that the *logical* structure of any conditional sentence is the same: any conditional sentence expresses the logical structure that one event leads to or causes or implies another.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I interpret that the "[subjunctive] + [subjunctive]" pattern is still Type 1 plus "*whim*" or "*poetry*". In other words: yes, native speakers cant point out nuances within the Type 1, but, are they logical or merely *stylistic*/*attitudinal*?
> ... the [subjunctive] + [subjunctive] seems to be indicating merely a different *attitude* of the speaker in relation to the events he is referring to?
> ... or the subjunctive there is merely "*decoration*"?


The difference in the example I've given above feels stark to me: it's not at all "whim," "poetry," "stylistic," or "decoration." You might decide to call this difference "attitudinal," but I'd argue that the distinction between Type 1 and Type 2/3 is also "attitudinal" --- that distinction is about how plausible the speaker feels the antecedent to be, which could be entirely unrelated to any objective real-world probability of the antecedent. For example, let's say that I've made a plan to have a picnic with my spouse on our anniversary. The night before the picnic, I look at a weather forecast for tomorrow and see that there's 10% chance of rain. Even after seeing this, I could still say either of the following English sentences to my spouse:

What would we do instead, if it were to rain tomorrow?
What'll we do instead if it rains tomorrow?

I'd use the former (type 2) to express my attitude that "a 10% chance is fairly unlikely, but maybe we should make an alternative plan just in case." I'd use the latter (type 1) to express my attitude that "a 10% chance is a genuine possibility and we should make sure we have an alternative plan that deals with that situation." It's the same objective reality (10% chance of rain), but the two sentences express a difference in my attitude towards that objective reality.

I don't personally see a great reason that for elevating a difference in one's attitude about the plausibility of the antecedent above a difference in one's attitude about anything else. But if you do feel that the difference in one's attitude towards the plausibility of the antecedent matters more than anything else, I think your question has already been answered: The double-subjunctive conditionals are type 1 conditionals (they do not express that the antecedent is felt to be unlikely or implausible or anything like that). That does not mean, however, that they are interchangeable with the double-indicative conditionals.


----------



## aevynn

By the way, the following is probably not quite correct:


aevynn said:


> several verb morphology patterns are used in type 1 situations:
> 
> 
> 
> Pattern [^3]Antecedent MorphologyConsequent MorphologyAIndicativeIndicativeBSubjunctiveIndicativeCSubjunctiveSubjunctive


There probably are double-indicative conditionals that veer towards being used more in "type 2" situations, like maybe the following:

kal baarish ho ga'ii to kyaa kareN_ge?

So if one really wants to make a chart of possible verb morphologies that are used in "type 1" situations, one probably needs to be more precise than just saying "indicative," since the tense pattern might matter too.

---
Also, regarding this:


aevynn said:


> In HU _agar_-_to_ sentences, either the _agar_ heading the antecedent or the _to_ heading the consequent (but not both) can be removed without much of a change in meaning.


Since we've been talking so much about the "type 1" vs "type 2/3" distinction, it's probably worth remarking here that explicitly including the _agar_ could be a way of emphasizing that you're wanting to treating the antecedent as strictly hypothetical. This could take what might a priori start off as a "type 1" usage and turn it into a "type 2" usage, without any change in the verb morphology. For example:

A: kal baarish ho_gii to kyaa kareN_ge?
B: 10% hii to likhaa hai! chintaa mat kar, baarish nahiiN ho_gii.
A: lekin _agar_ baarish ho_gii, to...?

You could also change the verb morphology above ("lekin _agar_ baarish ho ga'ii, to...?"), but that's not strictly necessary. A similar thing can happen in English too, where simply emphasizing the word "if" can turn what started out as a "type 1" sentence into something that feels much closer to being a "type 2" sentence (since the speaker makes clear that they are treating the antecedent as strictly a hypothetical), and again, this can happen without any change in verb morphology. For example:  

A: What'll we do if it rains tomorrow?
B: It only says 10%! Don't worry, it won't actually rain.
A: But _if_ it rains, then what...?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> kal baarish ho ga'ii to kyaa kareN_ge?
> 
> So if one really wants to make a chart of possible verb morphologies that are used in "type 1" situations, one probably needs to be more precise than just saying "indicative," since the tense pattern might matter too.


Aren't they asking here what to do _after _the hypothetical fact of a rain? 
As if: "If, by the time we plan to go on a trip tomorrow, it _rained _(not anymore) and the roads are muddy"?

If my translation is correct, then the past is necessary just to state the seqence of events correctly, but it is still a Type 1. (versus kal baarish ho_gii , which is TYpe 2).


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Aren't they asking here what to do _after _the hypothetical fact of a rain?
> As if: "If, by the time we plan to go on a trip tomorrow, it _rained _(not anymore) and the roads are muddy"?
> 
> If my translation is correct, then the past is necessary just to state the seqence of events correctly, but it is still a Type 1.


I don't think so? It feels to me that, to get a sentence with a type 1 sense in the situation you've described (ie, where I am genuinely concerned about the possibility that it will have rained before we leave and so everything might be muddy), I'd probably use a subjunctive+indicative sentence instead, with the subjunctive bearing an appropriate aspectual marking. For example:

kal nikalne se pahle baarish ho chukii ho to kyaa kareN_ge?
kal nikalne se pahle baarish hu'ii ho to kyaa kareN_ge?


----------



## littlepond

Just to chime in with not very interesting remarks in a very interesting discussion.

For me, "kal baarish ho ga_ii, to kyaa kareNge" sounds much more idiomatic (normal) than "kal baarish hogii, to kyaa kareNge."

It is not that the latter construction cannot be idiomatic: it can, in other contexts.

For example, let's say a gang is afraid a witness may blurt out something tomorrow, and they are discussing that hypothesis among themselves:

"kal voh bolegii, tab kyaa kareNge?" (with "bolegii," it feels more urgent and imminent for the gang to plan the consequence than if it were "bol dii" or "bol paRii" or "bol ga_ii" or simply "bolii").

(Note that when it's a construction like "hogii," "bolegii," etc., I feel "tab" more suitable than "to," though that may just be my personal feeling.)


----------

