# Hindi-Urdu: when semantically plural nouns are used in the singular



## amiramir

I've noticed recently that there are commonly a few situations where I would have expected a plural noun, but instead the native speaker has used a singular. Is there are rule about this? I give you two examples:

1)



littlepond said:


> In fact, in your two cats example, again "naaTak" can be used (this time with a neutral or even naughtily positive value): "chalo, ham *do billii* hone kaa naaTak karte haiN"



Why did littlepondji not say: "chalo, ham do* billiyaN* hone ka naaTak karte haiN." ? (since we're talking about two cats...)

2) The other day I was in the park, and I heard someone (presumably a native speaker) say, "Dekho. VahaaN do gilhari haiN." (Look, there are two squirrels there.) Why not 'do gilhariyaN?' 

Many thanks.


----------



## Englishmypassion

I would use "billiyaan" here.


----------



## tonyspeed

Somewhat on topic, but the broken Arabic plurals fit your subject: Akhbaar (axbaar) is the Arabic plural for khabar(xabar).

A good example of what you are actually looking for are time expressions: i.e. "vo do saal kaa hai" ( as opposed to "vo do saaloN kaa hai") and from a recent thread: _abhii kuchh din pahle_ (as opposed to dinoN pahle)


----------



## Englishmypassion

Hello tony, "saal" is both singular and plural in Hindi. So "saalon" is not required actually.


----------



## tonyspeed

Englishmypassion said:


> Hello tony, "saal" is both singular and plural in Hindi. So "saalon" is not required actually.



Since it is oblique case, it would be required.

ek aadmii hai
do aadmii haiN
aadmii ko do
aadmiyoN ko do
us aadmii kaa dharm(mazhab) kyaa hai?
un aadmiyoN kaa dharm(mazhab) kyaa hai?


----------



## Alfaaz

I think there were a few threads that discussed this topic, but I can't find them. Grammar isn't my forte, so please excuse any mistakes in the following!

It seems whenever a masculine word ends with _aa_ or _ah_, the word has a different plural form: 
_laRkaa _→ _laRke_
_afsaanah _→ _afsaane_

However, the masculine singular form is used as the plural form when the masculine words end in a consonant.
_phool _→ _phool_
_daraxt _→ _daraxt_

On the other hand, feminine words always seem to change form: 
_laRkii_ →_ laRkiiyaaN_
_rut_ → _ruteN_

There might be exceptions to these observations!

Corrections of any mistakes would be appreciated as always!


----------



## littlepond

amiramir jii, you can also use "billiyaN" or "gilhairiyaaN": but that's not very colloquial for me. It's too "heavy."


----------



## marrish

Singular is perfectly used, especially in sentences like "_dekho yahaaN kitnii saarii machchhlii hai_", "_maNDii meN sabz*ii* aur pha*l* kii garmaagarm bikrii ho rahii thii_". "_chalo *ham* ab bill*ii* ban jaat*e* haiN_/ _bill*ii* ban kar khelt*e* haiN"_. 
_
do gilahr*ii* hai*N*_? - it's quite odd but I can imagine someone was saying that there are 1) do, and then he recognized that the animal was a squirrel, or was just looking for the word while speaking. Then it's jus alright, but otherwise  I don't know of situations when a feminine noun in -ii remains in this unchanged form with small cardinal numbers.


----------



## amiramir

Thanks, marrishji. Of course what you're saying sort of contradicts what littlepond ji has said re: gilhari.

This lack of plural usage is troubling me. Now I don't know when to use plurals. 

Ok, so when I'm with my little daughter and we're going through her numbers book, shall I use plurals: i.e. Do machliyaN, teen madhumakhiyaN, etc.? Or is that too "heavy?" 

But in full sentences I will say, "HumeiN madhumakhi (instead of madhumakhiyoN) se door rehna chaahiye."? 

Many thanks.


----------



## marrish

Perhaps you should always use plurals wherever they are requrired and keep the use of singulars very limited to certain situations, but it is just my rough advice. For more information about Hindi you should rely on the answers from Hindi speakers. 

I even saw sentences on the net: वन विभाग के कर्मचारियों ने अचानक छापा मार वहां 4 कछुआ, दो तोता एवं दो गिलहरी को मुक्त कराया http://bollywood.bhaskar.com/news/E...rrel-appears-to-lift-weights-4979413-PHO.html karm-chaariyoN ne achaanak chaapaa maar vahaaN 4 kachhuaa, do totaa evam do gilahrii ko mukt karaayaa or इसमें दो गिलहरी खुद से भारी वजन उठाकर वर्क आउट करती नजर आ रही है http://www.jagran.com/odisha/bhubaneshwar-9688768.html ismeN do gilahrii khud se bhaarii vajan uThaakar vark aauT kartii najar aa rahii hai.

The last sentence you wrote can be also right in English, 'we should stay away from a bee', or is it not possible?


----------



## tonyspeed

marrish said:


> The last sentence you wrote can be also right in English, 'we should stay away from a bee', or is it not possible?



That is grammatically strange in English. Always "we should avoid bees".

To me this seems like whenever we are talking about an object as a class or kind we can use singular. If we are talking about a specific group of animals, we should use plural to be clear.

Could this be similar to the use of insaan for mankind in general and human in specific.


----------



## tonyspeed

I have discovered that many, many years ago, Samuel Kellog in "A Grammar of the Hindi Language" refers to the gilahri situation on page 278.

"This generic singular must not be confounded with those cases in which the plural termination is simply dropped, leaving the noun, although plural , in form like the singular. Thus in the following "us ne un ke hath paaNv kii hathkaRii beRii kaaT diiN" ...the plural verb indicates haathkaRii and beRii are really plurals, for kaathkaRiyaaN, beRiyaaN

Rem This ommission of the plural termination occurs chiefly in the nominitive form of fem. nouns, and is becoming more and more common. The plural inflection is also regularly omitted from both masc. and fem. nouns after a numeral; as. aTHaarah paTraanii, eighteen queens; do ghaRii muurcCHit rahaa, 'four hours he remained in a swoon.' But sometimes with special reference to the plural, the plural inflection is used; as, apnii do beTiyaaN byaah diiN, 'he gave his two daughters in marriage'."

It also mentions the generic plural:

"The singular may be used for the plural in a generic sense, to denote a class; as 'tajtii haiN pati ko akuliinii naarii', lit. base born women desert the husband.'; SHur nar muni ko ati aanand huaa, 'to god, man and sage, there was great joy.'


So a grammar book from 1876 still has use after all.


----------



## littlepond

I second the advice of marrish jii, amiramir jii: as a learner, it is better that you stick with the plural constructions when you are meaning plurals. Using singular words for plurals is a very "ingrained" thing (for want of my grammatical skills); in other words, there are a lot of cases when you can use singular as plural, then exceptions to them, and so on. It's not something regular really: it is an ingrained way of speaking, which for me is all about heavy vs. light. To measure the _weight_ of a phrase, you will need to be very familiar, very steeped in the language in which that phrase is written.


----------



## amiramir

Thank you all for your advice. Tonyspeedji's quote from the 1876 grammar book was quite a find, thank you. And understood, re: your advice littlepond ji.


----------



## littlepond

And just to take a sentence quoted by tonyspeed jii, for "apnii do beTiyaaN byaah diiN", "apnii do beTii byaah diiN" would also be fine (and in fact much more likely). Saying "do beTiyaaN byaahnaa" is like making it weighty: either just being precise, or the more probable case of putting an emphasis on his having succeeded in marrying off two daughters! (if I may be permitted to extrapolate using the Indian context of treating daughters as something of a burden). "do beTii byaahnaa" however does not carry any such explicit connotation nor preciseness: it is an elegant way of not being nitpicky nor taking a position.


----------



## marrish

Perhaps that are the possibilities but their likeliness is not so great. If you say "apnii do beTiyaaN biyaah diiN" it is also not necessary that someone will think that it is an emphasis. You will not say "ghar meN do beTaa hu'aa" but "ghar meN do beTe hu'e", likewise "ghar meN do beTiyaaN hu'iiN". So I stand by my advice to avoid it. Yes, this phenomenon does exist and is used under some circumstances but the unexperienced /or indiscriminate or standard/ usage of the sg. form can do more harm than the fear that a phrase might sound to weighty. It can suggest your language is not good, or maybe dialectical, or that you don't know the feminine plurals.


----------



## mundiya

marrish said:


> Perhaps that are the possibilities but their likeliness is not so great. If you say "apnii do beTiyaaN biyaah diiN" it is also not necessary that someone will think that it is an emphasis. You will not say "ghar meN do beTaa hu'aa" but "ghar meN do beTe hu'e", likewise "ghar meN do beTiyaaN hu'iiN". So I stand by my advice to avoid it. Yes, this phenomenon does exist and is used under some circumstances but the unexperienced /or indiscriminate or standard/ usage of the sg. form can do more harm than the fear that a phrase might sound to weighty. It can suggest your language is not good, or maybe dialectical, or that you don't know the feminine plurals.



I agree. It's better to use the plural form.


----------



## littlepond

Of course, marrish jii, as I said in post no. 13, I am not advising someone to use this form indiscriminately: but assuming that this thread might also be viewed by those other than the OP and thus who may appreciate very well the nuances in play (and maybe the OP him/herself after a time), I offered an explanation. As for "beTe", see tonyspeed jii's excellent find in post no. 12: the phenomenon seems to afflict predominantly (or only?) feminine nouns, so that possibility does not offer itself.


----------



## Dib

I also struggle on this point of grammar. However, I tend to use singular instead of plural quite consistently in one situation. Native speakers, please, check if the examples make sense to you:

It is when a noun behaves like a measure word, following a specific numeral. So, I'd say:
1) vo tiin din/raat/hafte ke liye yahaaN aayaa hai.
Here, "3 days, nights, weeks" really measure a duration of time. On the other hand, I'd say:
2) hafte ke kisii bhii tiin dinoN ke(kaa?) naam bataao.
Here we are not measuring anything.

However, it is not problem-free. In the direct case, I am never sure whether:
3) "tiin haftaa/mahiinaa kaafii lambaa samay hai"
is acceptable. Is it?


----------



## littlepond

Dib said:


> It is when a noun behaves like a measure word, following a specific numeral. So, I'd say:
> 1) vo tiin din/raat/hafte ke liye yahaaN aayaa hai.



Not really. "tiin dinoN", etc., is also used.



Dib said:


> On the other hand, I'd say:
> 2) hafte ke kisii bhii tiin dinoN ke(kaa?) naam bataao.



"hafte ke kisii/kinhii bhii tiin din ke naam bataao" would also be fine.



Dib said:


> In the direct case, I am never sure whether:
> 3) "tiin haftaa/mahiinaa kaafii lambaa samay hai"
> is acceptable. Is it?



Both "tiin haftaa" and "tiin hafte" would be fine.

Note that I am talking about how language exists; I do not know if any prescriptions exist.


----------



## amiramir

The other day I was watching Hindi TV (set in an urban educated milieu) and one character was ostensibly (as per the context) saying that mistakes happen:

Galti to ho hi jaati hai. 

I would have expected it to be in the plural-- ghalatiyaN  to ho hi jaati haiN. But no, it was in the singular. Anyway, just one more surprising (at least to me) example for anyone who looks at the thread in future. Thanks to all who chimed in with explanations.


----------



## littlepond

^ Are you sure that "mistakes" and not "mistake" was meant? You also used "hai" and not "haiN". This sentence, in plural, usually has "g(h)altiyaaN".


----------



## tokytahmidsami

amiramir said:


> I've noticed recently that there are commonly a few situations where I would have expected a plural noun, but instead the native speaker has used a singular. Is there are rule about this? I give you two examples:
> 
> 1)
> 
> 
> 
> Why did littlepondji not say: "chalo, ham do* billiyaN* hone ka naaTak karte haiN." ? (since we're talking about two cats...)
> 
> 2) The other day I was in the park, and I heard someone (presumably a native speaker) say, "Dekho. VahaaN do gilhari haiN." (Look, there are two squirrels there.) Why not 'do gilhariyaN?'
> 
> Many thanks.


I'm confused about when to say "salon


tonyspeed said:


> Somewhat on topic, but the broken Arabic plurals fit your subject: Akhbaar (axbaar) is the Arabic plural for khabar(xabar).
> 
> A good example of what you are actually looking for are time expressions: i.e. "vo do saal kaa hai" ( as opposed to "vo do saaloN kaa hai") and from a recent thread: _abhii kuchh din pahle_ (as opposed to dinoN pahle)


I'm confused about when to say "do saaloN" and when to say "do saaleiN". How to understand it?


----------



## Qureshpor

tokytahmidsami said:


> I'm confused about when to say "salon
> 
> I'm confused about when to say "do saaloN" and when to say "do saaleiN". How to understand it?


From an Urdu perspective...and please not "saal" is masculine, therefore "saaleN" is wrong any way.

With saal, baras, din,  roz, the use of the plural is considered unidiomatic. (Sourcerofessor Shamsur Rahman Faruqi_

maiN yahaaN chaar baras se aataa jaataa huuN.

maiN ne unheN ka'ii din ke ba3d dekhaa.

biis baras ba3d ham mile.

vahaaN to char din meN hii safaayaa ho gayaa.

aaj yahaaN ka'ii roz se paanii nahiiN barsaa.

NB: in dinoN mujh par baRii mushkil hai.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Qureshpor said:


> With saal, baras, din, roz, the use of the plural is considered unidiomatic. (Sourcerofessor Shamsur Rahman Faruqi_


_pal _too?

From the song "Do pal" 

_do pal rukaa xvaaboN kaa kaarvaaN
aur phir chal diye tum kahaaN ham kahaaN
*do pal kii* thii yah diloN kii daastaan
aur phir chal diye tum kahaaN ham kahaaN_


----------

