# Hindi, Urdu: Daraa huaa, Daraayaa huaa



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

  There is something very basic about what past participles mean, when a verb has a causative counterpart, that I can't fully grasp.
As far as I know:

_Darnaa _= to fear, to be frightened
_Daraanaa _= to frighten

However, every place I look, "frightened" is translated as _Daraa huaa, _which I find odd.
The (past, passive) participle of "to fear" is "feared", as in "A feared enemy, a feared leader". Someone causing fright, not suffering it.

A "frightened boy" shouldn't be _Daraayaa laRkaa  _instead_? _
This is very confusing ..


----------



## Jashn

Like you, I'm a student of the language, so this is my understanding. Please take it with a grain of salt.

darnaa
e.g. vo dar gayaa
He was frightened/scared
The state of mind of the person who is experiencing the emotion, without indicating what caused the fear, is described

daraanaa
If you caused someone else to be frightened, you would use the causative.
e.g. mainne usko daraayaa
I frightened/scared him
The causative is used to indicate who caused the object to feel fear.

So the causative would not be used to translate the phrase, 'a frightened boy', because the phrase does not describe who caused the fear, only that the boy is scared.

That's my understanding, anyway.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Jashn said:


> e.g. vo dar gayaa
> He was frightened/scared
> The state of mind of the person who is experiencing the emotion, without indicating what caused the fear, is described


So you are saying that a more proper translation of  _Darnaa _would be "to be afraid, to be fearful", rather than the external agency suggested by "scared" or "frightened". OK.

Then, it is fair to say that the *passive* (as well as past)  nuance of the English past participle should not be assumed in the H/U past participle?
That would make sense, and support your reasoning.

So the noun modified by the adjectival participle (in this case, the _laRkaa_)  "underwent" some process (as discussed here), _*but not (necessarily) in a passive way*_?


----------



## aevynn

aevynn said:


> For *transitive* verbs like maarnaa, the perfective participle modifies the noun that would have been the *object* of the verb and indicates that the noun has undergone the action indicated by the verb... For example, karnaa is also a transitive verb, and *uskaa kiyaa huaa kaam = the work done by him* is a perfectly natural noun phrase.


The perfective participle in UH does have a "passive" sense, as described above, but only for transitive verbs.

_Darnaa_, on the other hand, is syntactically intransitive. It takes a subject, and it can take a complement marked with se, but it does not take a direct object. To say "I fear him" using _Darnaa_ in HU, you would say _maiN usse Dartaa huuN_.

In other words, while it's superficially true that _Darnaa_ means "to fear," there's an important syntactic difference in that "to fear" in English is transitive while _Darnaa_ in UH is intransitive.

As an intransitive verb, the semantics of the attributive uses of the participles of _Darnaa_ function more like the semantics of the attributive uses of the participles of marnaa, rather than those of maarnaa. If you like, a _Daraa huaa laRkaa_ is thus a boy who has "undergone the process" of becoming scared.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Daraayaa laRkaa


_Daraayaa huaa laRkaa_ is a legal noun phrase, but it means something more like "the boy who was made to be frightened." In other words, it strongly suggests that someone or something has made the boy be scared, without naming who that person/thing is. In contrast, a _Daraa huaa laRkaa_ is just a boy who's scared.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> This is very confusing ..


I suspect the reason for the confusion is that... The attributive use of the perfective participle of intransitive verbs doesn't have any clear analog in English. For example, "to die" is an intransitive verb, but you cannot use the participle "died" attributively to say "*the died man" (instead, we have a whole separate adjective "dead" to deal with this situation). In contrast, in HU, _marnaa_ is an intransitive verb and you can in fact use its perfective participle attributively to say _maraa huaa aadmii_. Similarly, _sonaa_ is an intransitive and you can say _so'ii hu'ii laRkii_ (= a girl who has "undergone the process" of falling asleep).

I'm not sure if one has attributive usages of past participles of intransitives in Spanish (and I'd be interested to know!).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thank you @aevynn.
Only now I understand the enormous relevance that the verb being transitive or intransitive has, in understanding the nature of part participles (even in English or Spanish). 

I think once one sees it under that perspective, H/U, English, and Spanish work more or less in the same way.



aevynn said:


> The attributive use of the perfective participle of intransitive verbs doesn't have any clear analog in English. For example, "to die" is an intransitive verb, but you cannot use the participle "died" attributively to say "*the died man" (instead, we have a whole separate adjective "dead" to deal with this situation).





aevynn said:


> I'm not sure if one has attributive usages of past participles of intransitives in Spanish (and I'd be interested to know!).



I believe you are confusing 2 phenomena here:

1)  one, is that English, Spanish, or H/U have their own distinct collections of "resultative adjectives" that can replace their corresponding perfect participles, (in a way that is impossible to translate from any language to any other). 
In Spanish, "muerto" is indeed a participle. In English you have full/filled, complete/completed, etc.

2) intransitive verbs's participles can be used attrributively, for example: (along with my H/U attempts, to keep this on point)

_We are going to give the vaccine only to the recently *arrived *folks.
Le daremos la vacuna sólo a la gente recién *llegada*.
ham nae *aae *logoN ko hii vaiksiin deNge

Little did they knew about the events *happened *yesterday.
Poco sabían ellos acerca de los hechos *ocurridos *ayer.
ve kal ke *guzaare *ghaTnaaoN ke baare meN bahut kam jaante thaa_


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _Little did they knew about the events *happened *yesterday._


I am not a native speaker of English, but for me, this sentence is incorrect (or at best, a sentence with a carelessly omitted "that").

The correct sentence would be "Little did they know about the events *that* happened yesterday."



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _ve kal ke *guzaare *ghaTnaaoN ke baare meN bahut kam jaante thaa_



Correct sentence: "veh kal guzrii ghaTnaaoN ke baare meN bohat kam jaantaa thaa"


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> I am not a native speaker of English, but for me, this sentence is incorrect (or at best, a sentence with a carelessly omitted "that").
> 
> The correct sentence would be "Little did they know about the events *that* happened yesterday."


I am not sure about this, but, whatever the case, the structure I mention is possible. If you prefer:
_... as to the events transpired ..._
Intransitive participles in adjectival function (and not necessarily subordinated into their own adjetcival propostion through "_that_") do exist.




littlepond said:


> "veh kal guzrii ghaTnaaoN


Not wanting to stray too much from the main subject, I am curious about what that _-ii_ in guzar_ii_ is agreeing with.
- _kal _(undertstood as feminine)?
- an implied _chiiz_?

The aim of my example was to make it agree with the events "ghaTaa" (which are masculine, I think).


----------



## aevynn

Thank you for the examples from Spanish! I'm reasonably convinced that Spanish at least works similarly to UH in this regard. 

English, on the other hand... @littlepond jii is right that "*... about the events happened yesterday" is not acceptable without the "that," and swapping out "happened" for "transpired" or "occurred" does not help. Your "recently arrived" example is a good one. But it is a bit of an exception. After digging around a bit on the internet, I ran across a discussion in another forum about attributive uses of the English past participle. Here are some relevant quotes from that forum:


> The past participle of an *intransitive* verb, when used on its own, has an *active* meaning.  But: there are only a few intransitive verbs (e.g. collapse, escape, retire, fail, freeze, depart) whose past participles can be used on their own (attributively only); that is why I earlier called them "exceptions".   With most intransitive verbs, the past participle cannot be used on its own.  For example, you cannot say any of the following:
> 
> The slept people
> The run athlete
> The lived family
> The died man
> The spoken teacher
> The written friend
> The come guest
> The won competitor
> The ended film
> The complained customer
> The shouted child
> The disagreed member
> The protested workers
> The skated woman
> etc.





> Most (not all) of those that work seem to be ones that refer to some kind of "transformation" of the person or thing they refer to.  But there is no consistency – for example, we can say "a well-travelled person" but not "a travelled person".  We can say "the recently arrived guest" but not normally "the arrived guest".


I guess the point is, I spoke too strongly earlier and there are a few intransitives whose past participles can be used attributively in English, but they're few and far between. 

----



littlepond said:


> veh kal guzrii ghaTnaaoN ke baare meN bohat kam jaantaa thaa





MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Not wanting to stray too much from the main subject, I am curious about what that _-ii_ in guzar_ii_ is agreeing with.


ghaTnaa is feminine.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I just realized that what was discussed here might have an important corollary:


Since:

1. _darnaa _is intransitive, and it really means "to be afraid"

and

2. only transitive verbs' participles have a suggestion of passivity

then:

a phrase like:

_  kutte se daraa huaa laRkaa_


would not be valid, correct? Because there is no passivity in _darnaa_, hence no "agent complement" can be used.
In the HU mindset, it should be:

_  kutte se daraayaa huaa laRkaa_

 i.e. "a boy caused to be afraid by the dog".

(And moreover, in general, only transitive verbs' participles can have an agent.)
Is my reasoning correct?


----------



## aevynn

Close, but your reasoning is not quite correct and the conclusion is inaccurate 

Note that there's a difference between a syntactic subject and a semantic agent [*]. It's syntax that's relevant here. You would be right if you had reasoned that there's no room in an attributive participial clause of an intransitive verb for the _subject_ of that intransitive, since that subject is the noun being modified (in other words, the head noun of the noun phrase controls into the subject position of the participial clause). But the optional complement that Darnaa takes is not the subject; it is a postpositional complement (marked by the postposition "se"), and those are fine to carry into attributive participial clauses.

For the sake of comparison... You pointed out for us that "arrive" is one of the rare English intransitives whose past participle does admit attributive usages (at least if it's prefixed by a "recently" or something like that). Note that "arrive" can take an optional complement that is a prepositional phrase (eg, marked by the preposition "in," as in the sentence "They recently arrived in Ellis Island"). And you can in fact carry that prepositional phrase into an attributive participial clause, as in "He took a photograph of immigrants recently arrived in Ellis Island."

And I don't speak Spanish, but based on your example involving occurrir earlier... I would guess that occurrir can also take prepositional complements which can be carried in attributive participial clauses, and that it would be valid to say something like "acerca de los hechos occurridos en la ciudad ayer" to mean "about the events that occurred in the city yesterday." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this!

Long story short: "kutte de se Daraa huaa laRkaa" is legitimate noun phrase and just means "a boy who is afraid of the dog."

---
Footnote:

[*]: Consider the sentence "wo kuttoN se Dartaa hai" = He's afraid of dogs. Here "wo" is certainly the _subject_. It's not clear to me what to call the _agent_ of this sentence, but probably the answer is "nothing is the agent." In syntactic frameworks (like LFG) in which semantic roles like "agent" play an important role, it's perfectly okay if the main argument of some intransitives is not an agent. If I were doing such an analysis of Darnaa and assigning semantic roles to its arguments in the sentence "wo kuttoN se Dartaa hai," I would probably say that "wo" is the _experiencer_ and "kuttoN se" is the _stimulus_.


----------



## Pokeflute

aevynn said:


> And I don't speak Spanish, but based on your example involving occurrir earlier... I would guess that occurrir can also take prepositional complements which can be carried in attributive participial clauses, and that it would be valid to say something like "acerca de los hechos occurridos en la ciudad ayer" to mean "about the events that occurred in the city yesterday." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this!


Not a native Spanish speaker, but this sounds perfectly fine to me. We can also find something similar on Google:

"Historiadores revisaron _*los hechos ocurridos* *en la Batalla de Carabobo*_ y no todo es tal y como lo aprendimos"

_(invalid) _"Historians revisited *the occurred-in-the-Battle-of-Carabobo events* and not everything is exactly like how we learned"

_(I'm guessing this is valid) _"itihaaskaaroN ne *Battle of Carabobo meN huii (bittii?) ghaTnaa'eN *dobaaraa khojiiN aur sab vaise hi nahin hua jaise hamne siikhaa tha"

(see littlepond's corrections) "itihaaskaaroN *Battle of Carabobo meN biitii ghatnaa'eN* dobaaraa khojiiN aur sab vaise hi nahiN huaa thaa jaise hamne siikhaa thaa"



> "kutte de Daraa huaa laRkaa"



"kutte se", right


----------



## littlepond

Pokeflute said:


> _(I'm guessing this is valid) _"itihaaskaaroN ne *Battle of Carabobo meN huii (bittii?) ghaTnaa'eN *dobaaraa khojiiN aur sab vaise hi nahin hua jaise hamne siikhaa tha"



Yes, valid, but "biitii" (there is no "bittii"); also, it would be "nahiiN huaa thaa" here.

Preferable construction would be "Carabobo ke yuddh _kii _ghaTnaaeN." (Note this late edit, @Pokeflute jii.)


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

So, if I understand this correctl, then, the "_kutte se_" in

_kutte se Daraa huaa laRkaa_

is not an agent complement, but what we call in Spanish a "régimen", a pre/post positional construction linked by a specific pre/post position that is "required, commanded, directed" by the verb, as in "I trust in you / confío en tí" (whatever we choose to call "you" semantically here).

And this roughly the same as when we say in English "scared of the dogs" or in Spanish "temeroso de los perros".

"of the dogs" and "de los perros" are not agent complements proper, but such prepositional constructions that happen to denote some agency, or cause.

HU, unfortunately, confusingly, seems to use the same postposition (_se_) for this.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Pokeflute said:


> FWIW this sounds off to me (as a native English speaker). I've heard/read this before (so it's definitely grammatical to others), but I personally would say "_We are going to give the vaccine only to the folks *who just arrived / who have recently arrived*". _
> 
> I think this is good evidence that the English verbs that can be used attributively are the exception, not the norm (and for whatever reason, my idiolect doesn't let "arrived" be used like this).


Even in Spanish these kind of intransitive participle-only constructions sound sometimes a little "terse", not ungrammatical, understood, but mostly confined to idiomatic or set expresions.
Not to stray too much from the subject, but out of curiosity I started a thread in the English Spanish forum, asking about one of said set expressions.

It would seem that, as @aevynn pointed out earlier, once one starts "softening" the intransitive participle with other complements, the intransitive participle starts sounding, if not ideal, at least more palatable to anglophone ears (I wouldn't know).


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I started a thread in the English Spanish forum, asking about one of said set expressions.


FWIW, I think you can use "royaa huaa" attributively in UH:

uskaa royaa huaa chehraa dekh kar mujhe taras aa gayaa.
I had pity on him after seeing that he'd been crying.

Note though that the nuance of "royaa huaa chehraa" would be that the crying, even if completed, is at least recent enough that its vestiges are still visible (or at least somehow still relevant). In particular, you probably wouldn't use something like this if you wanted to say that someone cried and then cleaned themselves up completely to present a strong face to the world, which is what you explain the implication of "venir llorado de casa" to be.


----------



## Pokeflute

Could you say something like

"ghar meN rokar (ghar meN ronaa khatam karke) laRkii aa rahii hai"

Where "ghar meN rokar" is used attributively (or would this be read as equivalent to "laRkii (subject) ghar meN rokar (action 1) aa rahii hai (action 2)")

(IIRC this form is also considered a participle, just conjunctive instead of perfective/imperfective)

________

If so, I wonder if the distinction holds w/ other verbs:

saRii pahantii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gaii - the woman (in the middle of) putting on a sari got mad
saRii pahanii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gayii - the woman wearing (lit. who put on) a sari got mad
saaRii pahankar aurat naraaz ho gayii - the woman fully finished wearing her sari, and then got mad


----------



## aevynn

Pokeflute said:


> "ghar meN rokar (ghar meN ronaa khatam karke) laRkii aa rahii hai"


This sentence is fine, and there are some straightforward variants you could use instead (eg, using "apnaa ronaa-dhonaa puuraa karke"). But I wonder if there might be a more colorful and/or idiomatic way of conveying this idea that someone cries themselves dry, tidies themselves up, puts on a strong face, and goes out into the world. I'm struggling to come up with anything. [@littlepond jii? @Qureshpor jii? ]

Grammatically:


Pokeflute said:


> IIRC this form is also considered a participle, just conjunctive instead of perfective/imperfective


I have also seen the -kar/-ke form called a "conjunctive participle," but...


Pokeflute said:


> Where "ghar meN rokar" is used attributively


This "conjunctive participle" can't be used attributively as a direct modifier on a noun, so that's an important difference when comparing with the other two participles (another important syntactic difference involves control, as briefly noted here). In other words, the syntactic parse of your proposed sentence is indeed this:


Pokeflute said:


> "laRkii (subject) ghar meN rokar (action 1) aa rahii hai (action 2)"


And...


Pokeflute said:


> saRii pahantii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gaii - the woman (in the middle of) putting on a sari got mad
> saRii pahanii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gayii - the woman wearing (lit. who put on) a sari got mad
> saaRii pahankar aurat naraaz ho gayii - the woman fully finished wearing her sari, and then got mad


You've translated the sentences correctly, but the third sentence has a different syntactic structure. The (im)perfective participial clauses are being used attributively on the noun in the first two, but the conjunctive is being adverbially in the third sentence.


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> FWIW, I think you can use "royaa huaa" attributively in UH:
> 
> uskaa royaa huaa chehraa dekh kar mujhe taras aa gayaa.
> I had pity on him after seeing that he'd been crying.



Yes! The more common variant is though "royaa-royaa chehraa" and "ruaasaa chehraa" (the latter's meaning may slightly differ in some contexts).

There is also "piTaa huaa chehraa." And of course, again, "piTaa-piTaa chehraa." There is also "piTelaa chehraa" (just like "ruaasaa") but some might consider it non-standard.

(Both "ronaa" and "piTnaa" are intransitives, with the difference that "ronaa" only has a causative related verb ("rulvaanaa"), but no transitive relation, whereas "piTnaa" as both "piiTnaa" and "piTvaanaa.")



Pokeflute said:


> Could you say something like
> 
> "ghar meN rokar (ghar meN ronaa khatam karke) laRkii aa rahii hai"



You _can_ say that but it's a weird sentence, as if "ronaa" were a task that the girl has managed to do or achieve. You would rather say something like "laRkii ghar se bohat ro-dho kar/ke aa rahii hai." (The same "ronaa-dhonaa" was suggested by @aevynn jii.)



Pokeflute said:


> If so, I wonder if the distinction holds w/ other verbs:
> 
> saRii pahantii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gaii - the woman (in the middle of) putting on a sari got mad


If that is the meaning (woman in the middle of wearing a sari), I would say "saaRii paihante hue aurat naaraaz ho gayii."
Better would be "paihante-paihante" or the more literal "paihante same" instead of "paihante hue."



Pokeflute said:


> saRii pahanii (huii) aurat naaraaz ho gayii - the woman wearing (lit. who put on) a sari got mad


Yes, with that very restrictive definition of "the" in English. That is, if there were a group of women, and only one was wearing a sari, and she got angry, you could say this.



Pokeflute said:


> saaRii pahankar aurat naraaz ho gayii - the woman fully finished wearing her sari, and then got mad


This weird sentence _can _mean what you say (literally, that is what it means), but it would mean something else, rather, depending on context. (For example, it may be implied that the sari had a defect.)


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> But I wonder if there might be a more colorful and/or idiomatic way of conveying this idea that someone cries themselves dry, tidies themselves up, puts on a strong face, and goes out into the world.



I don't think _all of this_ fits into any standard idiomatic expression in Hindi.

The first part is there, of course: "ro-ro ke aaNsoo sookh jaana."


----------



## Pokeflute

Thanks both of you! 

This makes a lot of sense. Will have to spend some time digesting all of this.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> with the difference that "ronaa" only has a causative related verb ("rulvaanaa"), but no transitive relation


so, the trio_ ronaa - rulaanaa - rulvaanaa_ doesn't really exist?
Doesn't _rulaanaa _mean "to make someone cry"  and _rulvaanaa _"to make someone make someon else cry"?

What I find in the Urdu Lughat is that _rulaanaa _= _rulvaanaa_, and in other dictionaries (Hindi Shabdsagar, Bahri, Caturvedi, Plattts), _rulvaanaa _doesn't even appear.

Would it be because speakers consider obvious the level of indirection added by the infix _-lvaa-_, and adding a new dictionary entry is deemed unnecessary?


----------



## littlepond

Yes, for all practical purposes, _rulaanaa _= _rulvaanaa_, unless you have such a weird, rare event that you hire a person to make someone cry (but, again, you could use both even there).


----------

