# Urdu: yih/ye; vuh/ve



## Qureshpor

This is not strictly a spelling convention of Urdu but more an evolution of the language. In Sauda's works (1713-1781) one comes across plurals of yih (یہ) as ye (یے) and vuh (وہ) as ve (وے). It seems that by Ghalib's time (1797-1869), we are only left with yih and vuh for both singular and plural.

Have you come across the plural forms in any Urdu prose of yesteryears? What could be reason for the plural forms dying out?


----------



## JaiHind

I think in Hindi, ये and वे are pretty common plural forms. You can find it all over! These ये and वे come both in conversation and literature too! I don't know about why should they be dying in Urdu.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> I think in Hindi, ये and वे are pretty common plural forms. You can find it all over! These ये and वे come both in conversation and literature too! I don't know about why should they be dying in Urdu.



JH Jii, they are dead in Urdu and they died a long time ago. I am aware of their usage in Hindi in writing at least. I am not sure if they are that common in the colloquial language.


----------



## marrish

I don't know which thread it was, but it has been suggested that the plural forms had some Braj connection.


----------



## JaiHind

Ok... I didn't know... 

Yes, these are very common in spoken Hindi also. I and my friends use it always and everyone uses these as very normal words... 

You would love to remember Shole dialogue: "ये हाथ मुझे दे दो ठाकुर!" Or the song, "ये कहाँ आ गए हम" But I don't like filmy examples. So I would try to speak:

वे कहाँ गए? 
वे लोग कहाँ गए? 
वे यह कह रहे थे कि... 

ये सब तुमने क्या किया? 
ये मत करो... 
ये लोग कहाँ की तैयारी में हैं?


----------



## Qureshpor

"Yes, these are very common in spoken Hindi also. I and my friends use it always and everyone uses these as very normal words... 

You would love to remember Shole dialogue: "ये हाथ मुझे दे दो ठाकुर!" Or the song, "ये कहाँ आ गए हम" But I don't like filmy examples" JH

The dialogue in "shu3le" was written by Saleem-Jawaid, both Urdu writers. You will find JH Jii, that in Urdu the written word for "this" is "yih" and it is pronounced as ye. For "these", it is again "yih" and once again pronounced as ye. For "that" it is "vuh" (pronounced vo) in the singular and still "vuh" in the plural for "those", and pronounced as "vo". I believe in colloquial Hindi speech ye/vo are the words for both singular and plural meaning.

Hindi yah/ye and vah/ve are the literary usages, obviously spoken as such by some.


----------



## Qureshpor

In a letter to Munshi Shiv Narain SaaHib, Mirza Ghalib writes (in connection with correcting the latter's Urdu poetry compositions):

naa-chaar is par qanaa3at kii kih jo alfaaz Taksaal baahar the vuh badal Daale. masal-an *ve* ko kih yih gaNvaaruu bolii hai. vuh, yih TheT Urdu hai.


----------



## marrish

^Many thanks for sharing it, we have the Master's advice, and this - just to the very point.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> ^Many thanks for sharing it, we have the Master's advice, and this - just to the very point.



Here is an example from Soz

*ve* suurateN na jaane kis des meN bastiyaaN haiN
ab dekhne ke jin ko aaNkheN tarastiyaaN haiN!

(Miir Soz 1720-1799)


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Here is an example from Soz
> 
> *ve* suurateN na jaane kis des meN bastiyaaN haiN
> ab dekhne ke jin ko aaNkheN tarastiyaaN haiN!
> 
> (Miir Soz 1720-1799)


In this example we can find more archaisms. Apart from the plural feminine verb, how can you explain the role of ''ke''?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> In this example we can find more archaisms. Apart from the plural feminine verb, how can you explain the role of ''ke''?



--jin ke dekhne ko..


----------



## marrish

This is also the way I understand it. How would you say this in the contemporary idiom?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> This is also the way I understand it. How would you say this in the contemporary idiom?


I hope there is no hidden catch in your question!

*vuh* suurateN na jaane kis des meN bastii haiN
ab dekhne ke jin ko aaNkheN tarastii haiN!

This is how I would do it..UM SaaHib may add the extra Ns

*vuh* suurateN na jaaneN kis des meN bastiiN haiN
ab dekhneN ke jin ko aaNkheN tarastiiN haiN! ()


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> I hope there is no hidden catch in your question!
> 
> *vuh* suurateN na jaane kis des meN bastii haiN
> ab dekhne ke jin ko aaNkheN tarastii haiN!
> 
> This is how I would do it..UM SaaHib may add the extra Ns
> 
> *vuh* suurateN na jaaneN kis des meN bastiiN haiN
> ab dekhneN ke jin ko aaNkheN tarastiiN haiN! ()



I'd rather think of going for ''ab dekhne _ko_ jin ko (jinheN) aaNkheN tarastii haiN!
The question is not of the dangerous kind since I'm not sure myself!

About the last rendition: this is the golden way!!! The justice is done to the old and to the new style!


----------



## tonyspeed

JaiHind said:


> Yes, these are very common in spoken Hindi also.



Ye is common. Ve is not common in colloquial Hindi, only in formal Hindi.

If you use ve with the with the wrong people, it will have a very negative, snobbish connotation.

In some parts of India, ye is pronounced je instead.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Ye is common. Ve is not common in colloquial Hindi, only in formal Hindi.
> 
> If you use ve with the with the wrong people, it will have a very negative, snobbish connotation.In some parts of India, ye is pronounced je instead.


You may know that the Urdu "yah" یہ  is invariably pronounced something close to "ye" and وہ "vah" resembling "vo". My guess is that the "ye" that you are describing is the same "ye" that in Urdu is used for singular and plural. You don't get "ve" as a common occurrence because the "ye" is really यह and not ये. 

Exs. 

ye terii saadagii, ye teraa baaNkpan (singular) (film: Shabnam)
ye reshmii zulfeN, ye sharbatii aaNkheN (plural) (film: do raaste)


----------



## tonyspeed

Qureshpor said:


> JH Jii, they are dead in Urdu and they died a long time ago. I am aware of their usage in Hindi in writing at least. I am not sure if they are that common in the colloquial language.



I too have been looking for the answer as to if these ever really existed in khaRiibolii, or were these just carryovers from Braj bhaashaa spoken at some ancient date.

I would agree that yah (yehe),vah(vehe), and ve are not colloquial Hindi speech at all, but book Hindi speech. Mother tongue Hindi speakers only pronounce these as such when reading out loud (I have received confirmation of this from a native New-Dehlian), but never when speaking informally. I have even been told by a Mumbai resident to never use "ve", as it comes across as pretentious. (As it seems I have already mentioned above)

Several sources I have found agree that mother tongue Hindi speakers always say "ye" and "vo". It is the ones who learn Hindi out of a book that tend to speak it as written since
Hindi teachers tend to insist that Hindi is 100% phonetic, even though that is not the case.


----------



## Dib

marrish said:


> I don't know which thread it was, but it has been suggested that the plural forms had some Braj connection.



Rupert Snell does give the यह ~ ये and वह ~ वे pattern for Brajbhasha. I wonder if that is still alive in modern colloquial Braj.


----------



## littlepond

In Hindi, both spoken as well as written, all four - "yeh", "veh"/"voh", "ye" and "ve" - are well alive. I don't know from where did people get an idea that they are not!


----------



## panjabigator

littlepond said:


> In Hindi, both spoken as well as written, all four - "yeh", "veh"/"voh", "ye" and "ve" - are well alive. I don't know from where did people get an idea that they are not!



Are you saying that you consciously distinguish between the four in everyday speech? Saying that they are alive, in my opinion, is an entirely different thing.


----------



## littlepond

^ Not consciously, but instinctively - which is what is normal speech is about - for 3 out of 4 of them. The fourth one is "veh", which I don't use except when conscious. I personally use "vo" for both singular and plural: however there are many Hindi speakers, especially of the "yah" and "rahnaa" variety (yes, tonyspeed jii, Hindi is 100% phonetic for many of its speakers), who do distinguish between "vah"/"veh" and "ve" instinctively. Delhi Hindi is not the only Hindi: it seems that some people think Delhi Hindi = Hindi.


----------



## tarkshya

I have noticed many times that some people in this forum transcribe यह (یہ ) as yih, and वह ( وہ ) as vuh. AFAIK, there is no /i/ sound in یہ , nor there is any /u/ sound in وہ . To my ears, یہ is simply "yah", and وہ is vah. They both are spoken with a short /a/ vowel. So, what is the reason behind these strange transcriptions?


----------



## tonyspeed

littlepond said:


> Delhi Hindi is not the only Hindi: it seems that some people think Delhi Hindi = Hindi.



I know people from many far-flung corners of Northern India. None of them say vah, yah, and ve in every speech, only when reading or in very formal situations. Therefore if I did meet such a person, I would probably assume they learnt Hindi from a book or were purposely trying to be bookish. (Yes, there are bookish people in every country I suppose)


----------



## tarkshya

tonyspeed said:


> I know people from many far-flung corners of Northern India. None of them say vah, yah, and ve in every speech, only when reading or in very formal situations. Therefore if I did meet such a person, I would probably assume they learnt Hindi from a book.



So, is yih/vuh pronunciation specific to any particular region? Which region?
 Is there any regional pronunciation of   वह ( وہ ), *either in Hindi or Urdu*, which sounds as "vuh". By "vuh" I am assuming that users are implying a short /u/ vowel sound, like in "put".


----------



## marrish

tarkshya said:


> I have noticed many times that some people in this forum transcribe यह (یہ ) as yih, and वह ( وہ ) as vuh. AFAIK, there is no /i/ sound in یہ , nor there is any /u/ sound in وہ . To my ears, یہ is simply "yah", and وہ is vah. They both are spoken with a short /a/ vowel. So, what is the reason behind these strange transcriptions?



I always transcribe यह as yah



tarkshya said:


> So, is yih/vuh pronunciation specific to any particular region? Which region?
> Is there any regional pronunciation of  वह ( وہ ), *either in Hindi or Urdu*, which sounds as "vuh". By "vuh" I am assuming that users are implying a short /u/ vowel sound, like in "put".



Yes, all Urdu speakers (I know it is a blanket statement) say it "wuh/vuh" with the effect of the final -h changing the quality of the short -u- to a short -o-. It is possible though that some communities of Urdu speakers in India are influenced or want to adjust to the mainstream and say vah however it is just a speculation. The truth of the matter is that transliteration doesn't necessarily point out to pronunciation as that can vary between geographical spread groups of people. In Urdu, وُہ، یِہ so the transcription follows faithfully suit: vuh (I type wuh) and yih. Simple as it is.


----------



## tarkshya

marrish said:


> Yes, all Urdu speakers (I know it is a blanket statement) say it "wuh/vuh" with the effect of the final -h changing the quality of the short -u- to a short -o-. It is possible though that some communities of Urdu speakers in India are influenced or want to adjust to the mainstream and say vah however it is just a speculation. The truth of the matter is that transliteration doesn't necessarily point out to pronunciation as that can vary between geographical spread groups of people. In Urdu, وُہ، یِہ so the transcription follows faithfully suit: vuh (I type wuh) and yih. Simple as it is.



Ok. I think the picture is becoming clear now. So, is this وہ  same as "woh" in song like "woh hain zaraa xafaa xafaa"? And is یہ same as "yeh" in song "yeh meraa deewanapan hai" ?


----------



## marrish

tarkshya said:


> Ok. I think the picture is becoming clear now. So, is this وہ  same as "woh" in song like "woh hain zaraa xafaa xafaa"? And is یہ same as "yeh" in song "yeh meraa deewanapan hai" ?


Sure! It is this! You got it right and I am glad other obstruents were not able to blur your understanding. [Side note. I know some who say /vuh/ and /yih/ but I think it is wrong] All along this thread I think QP said what the pronunciation is but he failed to say if it was short or long, he didn't address this issue. It is still addressed in the transliteration chart sticky which I proposed. Believe me, when I joined this forum I had no idea how to transliterate/transcribe.

The Urdu "Harakaat" which means moving a consonant to get a vowel along, are not out of the blue. They still represent what the gross population of the Urdu speakers and here film makers do.


----------



## tarkshya

marrish said:


> [Side note. I know some who say /vuh/ and /yih/ but I think it is wrong]



There you go! Now the mystery is clear. There are no such words as "yih" and "wuh". It is simply good old "yeh" and "woh". For a moment I actually thought that yih/wuh are separate words, or some distinctly different pronunciations.


----------



## nizamuddin

وے دن گئے کہ آنکھیں دریا سی بہتیاں تھیں
سوکھا پڑا ہے اب تو مدت سے یہ دوآبا​(Mir taqi mir)


----------



## marrish

tarkshya said:


> There you go! Now the mystery is clear. There are no such words as "yih" and "wuh". It is simply good old "yeh" and "woh". For a moment I actually thought that yih/wuh are separate words, or some distinctly different pronunciations.


Actually there are words "*yih*" and "*wuh*". 

H يہہ यह yah, (dialec.) *यिह yih or yěh* [Ap. Prk. *ए*हु or *ए*ह; S. *ई*दृशः], pron. (prox. demons.) This; this person;—he; she; it;—adv. In this, herein; here;—to the extent or degree (that), to this degree:—yah āyā, Here he is come, here he comes:—yah dekho, See here, here it is (cf. wah, and wah dekho, &c.):—yěh shart̤ hai, This is the condition; on condition (that), provided:—yah-na-wah, conj. Neither this nor that; neither:—yah-hī (emphat.) This very one, the very same:—yah yā wah, This or that; either.

H وه वह wah, (dialec.) *वुह wǒ h* [Ap. Prk. अवे*हु*, loc. sing. of Prk. एव; S. एवादृशः], pron. That, the; that person; that thing;—he, she, it;—(pl.) those; they (i.q. we);—(by wǒh, 'he,' a wife refers to her husband, it being considered disrespectful to take his name):—wah, or wah dekho, See there; there he (or it) is, le voilà;—wah ātā hai, There he (or it) comes:—wǒh-jo, That which, what; he who, who.


----------



## desi4life

It's noteworthy that Platts considers them dialectical forms.


----------



## Qureshpor

desi4life said:


> It's noteworthy that Platts considers them dialectical forms.


Indeed. And Urdu has its basis on a dialect spoken in and around Delhi environs.


----------



## marrish

desi4life said:


> It's noteworthy that Platts considers them dialectical forms.


I understand Platts comment as reference to Hindi, not to Urdu. In his grammar book "A grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu language" he says on p. 116 that "the Proximate Demonstrative (اِشارۂ قریب) is یِہہ _yěh_ and then on p. 118_ وُہ wŏh.

_The Dictionary is also for "Classical Hindi" and you can see from these definitions that in the basic examples he went along with the Hindi convention but while giving an Urdu example *yěh shart̤ hai, This is the condition; on condition (that), provided* he used the other form.


----------



## desi4life

I found a few other spellings in Platts, sometimes used in Hindi but not in Urdu.

H ييہہ येह _yeh_, pron. (dialec., Braj)

H ووه वोह _woh_, pron. (dialec. or colloq.)

H وو वो _wo_ (dialec. & colloq.)


----------



## marrish

Yes, these are not used in Standard Urdu. It is always _yih_ and _wuh_ (_vuh_).


----------



## Qureshpor

desi4life said:


> i found a few other spellings in platts, sometimes used in hindi but not in urdu.
> H ييہہ येह _yeh_, pron. (dialec., braj)
> h ووه वोह _woh_, pron. (dialec. Or colloq.)
> h وو वो _wo_ (dialec. & colloq.)



کہتے تو ہو تم کہ بتِ غالیہ مو آئے
یک مرتبہ گھبرا کے کہو *وو* آئے

اُس انجمنِ ناز کی کیا بات ہے غالب
ہم بھی گئے واں اور تری تقدیر کو رو آہے


----------



## tonyspeed

The following are excepts from  _Urdu Grammar_ by M.K.E Beg

The follow abbreviations are necessary:

OU - Old Urdu (13th - 17th centuries AD, North and Deccan)
MU - Middle Urdu (18th century)
eMU - early Middle Urdu (1st 1/2 of 18th century)
lMU - late Middle Urdu  (2nd 1/2 of 18th century)
AN - AshurNama
MR - Masrasi-e-Rekhta
DF - Divan-e-Faiz
KK - Karbal Katha
BK - Bikat Kahani
DQM - Do Qadim Masnawiyan
QMD - Qissa-e-Mehrafroz-o-dilbar
KS - Kalam-e-Sauda
DD - Diwan-e-Dard
KM - Kulliyat-e-Mir
Sk - Sanskrit
Pr - Prakrit
Ap - Apabhramsa

"1. The pronouns voh...are found in all the texts of OU and MU. Besides voh there are other direct singular forms such as vo vu and u. There are found in the texts of OU and eMU. vo and vuu are predominanatly found in AN (pp.51, 63, 88). MR and DF (pp. 206, 209, 216, 238). vo occasionally occurs in KK (pp.127-28). vo and vuu are totally absent in BK, DQM and QMD. uu occurs only once in DF (p.239). u in its shortened form also occurs in AN but it is always followeds by the agentive ne, e.g. une

2. The plural form ve occurs in OU in texts like AN (p.143) and DQM (p.152). In eMU it is frequently found in QMD (pp.6,16,38,58,90). But KK which is another text of the same period totally lacks it. ve is sporadic in lMU and occasionally found in KS (p.119), DD(p.123) and KM(p.151). voh is used as a singular and plural both but  ve is exclusively used as a plural. " 

" Origin
1. voh: According to Kamta Prasad Guru voh developed from Pr. so, which developed from Sk. sah. But U.N. Tiwari has given its development as follows: S. asau > Pr. aso > aho, oh vah. S.K. Chatterji has linked voh with the hypothetical form of SK. ava and Pr. o

2. ve: According to U.N. Tiwari it seems to have developed by combining the case ending of strumental plural i.e. Sl. ebhih > Ap. ahi > ai > -e to the direct singular form voh. Bhola Nath Tiwari has mentioned the possibility of the development of ve on the pattern of ye ..."

p. 160




Sg.Pl.OU:voh, vo, vuvoh, veeMU:voh, vo, vu, uvoh, ve, volMU:vohvoh, ve


p.159


"1. yeh ...occur in all the texts of OU and MU. In eMU, especially in QMD (pp. 4,14,15,17) the plural form ye is also found. The direct singular yuu frequently occurs in DQM (p.159). It is not found in other texts of OU such as BK and AN." p. 158

"4. The demonstratives which are used as plural are also used as singular. But ye is always plural, where as yeh is used as both singular and plural." p.158


"Origin: 
1. yeh: It has developed from the Sanskrit esah on the following lines: Sk. esah > Pr. eso Ap. eho, eh > Ur. yeh ...

4, ye: it developed from Sk. etc. > Pr. ee,eye > Ap. ei  or eh > ye" p.158





Sg.Pl.OU:yeh, yuuyeheMU:yeh, yuuyeh, yelMU:yehyeh



p. 157


----------



## tonyspeed

Ve and ye rapidly declined as Urdu spread as a literary language in Northern India where it had been largely ignored until 1700. I presume that ve and ye were already
dead in the language of the common people by that time, and early writers were following the patterns of Deccani writings.

Kirbal Katha which completely lacks ve was written by Fazli about which Encyclopedia of Indian Literature states "This devotion (to Hussain) persuaded him to translate in the language of the people...it was not possible for the masses, specially the women folk, to follow the contents of the Persian book. Therefore, Fazli decided to render it in Urdu". 

Since Fazli translated it for the common people and women-folk, I assume ve had ceased to exist in the language of the common people by that time. (~1732)


----------



## HZKhan

tonyspeed said:


> Kirbal Katha which completely lacks ve was written by Fazli...



It's _Karbal _Katha.


----------



## tonyspeed

Other point to note is that _ye_ never seemed to have been popular even in Old Urdu. It is used by some authors, not by others in the early 1700s.


----------



## tonyspeed

It says regarding _ve_: "In eMU it is frequently found in _QMD_"

On _QMD_, Christina Oesterheld states:

"The name of its author is given as NavAb Isvi Khan Bahadur, who is also supposed to be the author of the Braj Bhasha Ras Chandrika, The language of the  Qissa points to the writer’s thorough knowledge of and proficiency in literary Braj Bhasha. *It is closer to Braj and Bundeli than any other contemporary or later Urdu narrative.* " - Christina Oesterheld Qissa-e Mehrafroz-o-Dilbar

_Ve_ may have been a hangover from the period when old Braj reigned supreme.


----------



## marrish

Well well, tonyspeed SaaHib, thank you for this extensive research and well-referenced quotation.


----------

