# Urdu: badalnaa (and Arabic borrowed verbs)



## UrduMedium

It seems that we have thousands of nouns from Arabic in use in Urdu on an _as is_ basis. However, the same does not seem to be true for verbs. Most of the time the Arabic verb is Urduized by taking its masdar form (infinitive noun) and adding -karnaa to it. Examples:

isti'maal karnaa
salaam karnaa
liHaaz karnaa
tanqiid karnaa
xayaal karnaa

and so on ...

_badal_ seems to be an exception. Instead of saying badal karnaa, we say _badalnaa_. In other words the verb has been urduized. Which I think is powerful, as it makes possible the use of the verb as if it were a standard Urdu/Hindi verb. 

_karnaa _in such cases sounds more of a crutch. I wonder why we have _badalnaa _but not

isti'maalnaa
salaamnaa
liHaaznaa
tanqiidnaa
xayaalnaa


----------



## UrduMedium

Somewhat related but perhaps different verb is _xarch karnaa_. Which, by the way I have noticed people growing up in Lahore (Punjab in general) also sometime say as _xarchnaa_. I always learned to say xarch karnaa. When I heard xarchnaa for the first time, I found it to be intriguing and somewhat more efficient and creative.


----------



## Faylasoof

mbasit said:


> It seems that we have thousands of nouns from Arabic in use in Urdu on an _as is_ basis. However, the same does not seem to be true for verbs. Most of the time the Arabic verb is Urduized by taking its masdar form (infinitive noun) and adding -karnaa to it. Examples:
> 
> isti'maal karnaa
> salaam karnaa
> liHaaz karnaa
> tanqiid karnaa
> xayaal karnaa
> 
> and so on ...
> 
> _badal_ seems to be an exception. Instead of saying badal karnaa, we say _badalnaa_. In other words the verb has been urduized. Which I think is powerful, as it makes possible the use of the verb as if it were a standard Urdu/Hindi verb.
> 
> _karnaa _in such cases sounds more of a crutch. I wonder why we have _badalnaa _but not
> 
> isti'maalnaa
> salaamnaa
> liHaaznaa
> tanqiidnaa
> xayaalnaa


 Now we are in a sense going back to our earlier discussion about the preponderance of Arabic-Persian compounds in Urdu. The compound verbs (first list) with _karnaa_ are very much a legacy of Modern Persian which, unlike Middle Persian (Phalavi), prefers the compound verb system over the original simple verb system. However, for _badal_ we still say _radd o badal karnaa_ in Urdu. But you are right, _badalnaa_ is one of those Urdu verbs which despite its Arabic etymology is very much in the tradition of our Indic system when it gives _badalnaa_. 

Your second list with the simple verb list counterparts of our otherwise, standard compound Urdu verbs can lead to some interesting usage issues. For example:
_maiN ne liHaaZaa_ instead of _maiN ne liHaaZ kiyaa_, where in the first form we shall all wait thinking you haven't finished your sentence as you are trying to say maiN le _lihaaZaa_ لہاذا ....

Anyway, interesting to think about it. Not sure if this was mentioned before. I mean as the word_ badalnaa_ goes.


----------



## UrduMedium

Faylasoof said:


> Now we are in a sense going back to our earlier discussion about the preponderance of Arabic-Persian compounds in Urdu. The compound verbs (first list) with _karnaa_ are very much a legacy of Modern Persian which, unlike Middle Persian (Phalavi), prefers the compound verb system over the original simple verb system. However, for _badal_ we still say _radd o badal karnaa_ in Urdu. But you are right, _badalnaa_ is one of those Urdu verbs which despite its Arabic etymology is very much in the tradition of our Indic system when it gives _badalnaa_.
> 
> Your second list with the simple verb list counterparts of our otherwise, standard compound Urdu verbs can lead to some interesting usage issues. For example:
> _maiN ne liHaaZaa_ instead of _maiN ne liHaaZ kiyaa_, where in the first form we shall all wait thinking you haven't finished your sentence as you are trying to say maiN le _lihaaZaa_ لہاذا ....
> 
> Anyway, interesting to think about it. Not sure if this was mentioned before. I mean as the word_ badalnaa_ goes.



Thanks for the historical note on Modern Persian vs Pahlavi with regard to simple vs compound verb preference. Educational. 

At first look, something like _isti'maalnaa_ sounds unweildy and bulky. However, its at about the same thickness (gaaRha pan!) as _sambhaalnaa, _​which of course does not feel unweildy at all.


----------



## Abu Talha

That's an interesting question. The verb _qubuulnaa_ was discussed here. Personally, I like simple verbs and I wish we used more of them. But I don't know about forming new ones. Conjugations, for example, might pose a problem. 

I haven't studied this so I expect there will be some flaws in my thinking here, but I think that in Indic words, Urdu avoids having a short vowel between two other vowels. So if all the vowels were preserved, the simple past tense of _nikalnaa _would be _nik*a*laa_. But the vowel in bold is collapsed and we get _niklaa_.

In Arabic and Persian words, where vowels (and the lack of vowels) are usually officially preserved, badalnaa becomes _badlaa_ not bad*a*laa in the simple past tense, and is no longer accurately the original Arabic word, _badal_. This and a handful of other such verbs have become Standard Urdu, but I don't know if we would be able to do this for all compound verbs.

Another issue is forming the causative/transitive. Urdu usually has two forms for all simple verbs (I think), e.g., _nikalnaa_ and _nikaalnaa_. _badalnaa _I think could be used both intransitively and transitively. Would this have to be the case for all such simple verbs formed from borrowed words? That is, would _isti3maalaa_ mean both, the person who used something, and the thing which was used?


----------



## UrduMedium

daee said:


> That's an interesting question. The verb _qubuulnaa_ was discussed here. Personally, I like simple verbs and I wish we used more of them. But I don't know about forming new ones. Conjugations, for example, might pose a problem.



Thanks for the link, daee saahib. I grew up speaking _qubuul karna_, so _qubuulnaa _sounds a bit awkward. Although, just like _xarchnaa_, I like its simplicity. Interestingly, I can recall hearing the causative version _qubulwaanaa_. Notice it is not _qub*uu*lwaana_. This seems to be a rule similar to the one you mentioned below. In such cases long vowel is shortened, it seems.



> I haven't studied this so I expect there will be some flaws in my thinking here, but I think that in Indic words, Urdu avoids having a short vowel between two other vowels. So if all the vowels were preserved, the simple past tense of _nikalnaa _would be _nik*a*laa_. But the vowel in bold is collapsed and we get _niklaa_.



This is a very insightful observation. It seems accurate per my unscientific quick test just now. 



> Another issue is forming the causative/transitive. Urdu usually has two forms for all simple verbs (I think), e.g., _nikalnaa_ and _nikaalnaa_. _badalnaa _I think could be used both intransitively and transitively. Would this have to be the case for all such simple verbs formed from borrowed words? That is, would _isti3maalaa_ mean both, the person who used something, and the thing which was used?



In the transitive form, I believe, _badalnaa _will be _badlaanaa_. For example, "maaN ne bachhe ke kapRe _badlaaye_". With regard to _isti'maalnaa _verb forms, I would suggest to keep things simple and just use _sambhaalnaa _as a pattern. So we will have istimaalaa, istimaalta, istimaalegaa, istemaal/istemaalo (command), and so on. The whole idea of _Indifying _the verb (in my view) is to use existing similar indic verb forms as templates, rather than having to figure these out.


----------



## Abu Talha

mbasit said:


> Thanks for the link, daee saahib. I grew up speaking _qubuul karna_, so _qubuulnaa _sounds a bit awkward. Although, just like _xarchnaa_, I like its simplicity. Interestingly, I can recall hearing the causative version _qubulwaanaa_. Notice it is not _qub*uu*lwaana_. This seems to be a rule similar to the one you mentioned below. In such cases long vowel is shortened, it seems.


Thanks for replying with your helpful observations.





> In the transitive form, I believe, _badalnaa _will be _badlaanaa_. For example, "maaN ne bachhe ke kapRe _badlaaye_".


I don't know if it is correct, but I usually say _badle_ here, not _badlaaye_. However, I do use _badalwaa'e _but this would mean to have someone else change something.


----------



## marrish

mbasit said:


> Somewhat related but perhaps different verb is _xarch karnaa_. Which, by the way I have noticed people growing up in Lahore (Punjab in general) also sometime say as _xarchnaa_. I always learned to say xarch karnaa. When I heard xarchnaa for the first time, I found it to be intriguing and somewhat more efficient and creative.


xarchnaa is very common for Urdu, I've been always considering, I say _xarch rahe ho_ and not _xarch kar rahe ho_ but in case of _xarch kar diyaa_ the difference cannot be discerned.

Moreover, instead of _isti3maal karnaa_ you can try *baratnaa*, for _xayaal karnaa_ - *bichaarnaa*, for _lihaaz karnaa - *maannaa*_,_ salaam karnaa - *asiisnaa, *_ _tanqiid karnaa - *DaanTnaa*_. I know my answers are becoming gradually more humoristic!


----------



## Qureshpor

I am surprised at the feeling that verbs like isti3maal karnaa perhaps ought to be isti3maalnaa! Are we forgetting, for example..

baat karnaa, piichhaa karnaa, dekh-bhaal karnaa, bartaa'o karnaa
mol lenaa, saaNs lenaa
dhokhaa denaa
bal khaanaa/dhokaa khaanaa
jii lagnaa
chhalaaNg lagaanaa
baadal/meNh barasnaa
khaal utaarnaa/chamRii udheRnaa
khaRaa honaa etc etc

And these are just a few examples of verbs formed from nouns. What of adjectives, adverbs and the like?


----------



## marrish

I share your emotion, Qureshpor SaaHib. It just doesn't keep with the spirit of the language, I think.
BTW, I would reconsider considering _khaRaa_ to be a noun.


----------



## Qureshpor

I put a cat amongst the pigeons to check if you were still awake or not!


----------



## marrish

Hilarious! For a moment I thought I was falling asleep but you made me laugh hardly!


----------



## UrduMedium

UrduMedium said:


> It seems that we have thousands of nouns from Arabic in use in Urdu on an _as is_ basis. However, the same does not seem to be true for verbs. Most of the time the Arabic verb is Urduized by taking its masdar form (infinitive noun) and adding -karnaa to it. Examples:
> 
> isti'maal karnaa
> salaam karnaa
> liHaaz karnaa
> tanqiid karnaa
> xayaal karnaa
> 
> and so on ...
> 
> _badal_ seems to be an exception. Instead of saying badal karnaa, we say _badalnaa_. In other words the verb has been urduized. Which I think is powerful, as it makes possible the use of the verb as if it were a standard Urdu/Hindi verb.
> 
> _karnaa _in such cases sounds more of a crutch. I wonder why we have _badalnaa _but not
> 
> isti'maalnaa
> salaamnaa
> liHaaznaa
> tanqiidnaa
> xayaalnaa



Thought this may be of interest to this thread readers/contributors ...

Shan-ul-Haq Haqqi in his essay "Urdu alfaaz meN chhuut chhaat" (only paper copy, don't have online link) mentions that Mulla Wajhi's Sabras (17th century?) lists many masdars such as 

andeshnaa
talaashnaa
nigaarnaa
faamnaa (from Arabic fahm)

also references

bosnaa
aazaarnaa

About the above he laments that the later scholars of the language abandoned such constructions that offered great flexibility to the language.

and then lists other lesser used ones that survived (but not widely used)

raandhnaa
saxtaanaa
tangyaanaa
naqshaanaa
naqshwaanaa
xamyaanaa
angeznaa
barqaanaa
filmaanaa
qalmaanaa


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I am all for innovations and inventiveness in a language but I don't feel a lot of the above verbs would add very much value to the language. There are literally dozens of verbs (perhaps hundreds) that are listed in Platts but for all intent and purposes they are dead. Rejuvinating (jilaanaa?) some of them, based on necessity, might not be such a bad idea.


----------



## marrish

UM SaaHib, the list you presented is interesting as such and it was worth sharing, but most of the verbs are not derived from Arabic masdars, in fact, they have no relation to Arabic, except for _naqsh..., barq..., qalam... _and_ fahm..._ (as you say). I'm wondering what _xamyaanaa_ or _raandhnaa_ could have standed for.

Out of them, I'm only familiar with _talaashnaa_ and _filmaanaa_.


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> UM SaaHib, the list you presented is interesting as such and it was worth sharing, but most of the verbs are not derived from Arabic masdars, in fact, they have no relation to Arabic, except for _naqsh..., barq..., qalam... _and_ fahm..._ (as you say). I'm wondering what _xamyaanaa_ or _raandhnaa_ could have standed for.
> 
> Out of them, I'm only familiar with _talaashnaa_ and _filmaanaa_.



I can find _raandhnaa _in Ferozul-Lughaat where it has couple of meanings: 1) _pakaanaa, rendhnaa _2) _charxaa chalaanaa_. Can't find _xamyaanaa_. I suspect it may mean to bend.


----------

