# Urdu: وہ دن کہ جس کا وعدہ ہے



## sadjad

Hello!

I am having trouble understanding the grammar of this famous poem by Faiz Ahmed Faiz:

ham dekheñge
lāzim hai ki ham bhī dekheñge
vo din ki jis kā va.ada hai
jo lauh-e-azal meñ likhkhā hai
jab zulm-o-sitam ke koh-e-girāñ
---

What is the function of the "ki" in the third line? I am aware of uses like "vo din ki ham khush the.", where it could be substituted by "jab". But even substituting it in the sentence above does not make any sense to me, because then I am not sure where the correlative of "jis kā va.ada hai" would be.

If someone could enlighten me I'd be most grateful.

Cheers!

*full URL: Read full nazm by Faiz Ahmad Faiz


----------



## Alfaaz

وہ دن *کہ *جس کا وعدہ ہے_ - woh din *keh *jis kaa wa3dah hai _

_(the particular day that of which there is a promise)_
_the day *that *is promised _(یوم القیامۃ - _Day of Resurrection_)


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I am also perplexed by the syntax of that sentence. 

Although I understand @Alfaaz's explanation, it seems to me that a subordinated clause should connect to the main sentence either with _"jis kaa"_ or with _"kih"_, but not with both.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Although I understand @Alfaaz's explanation, it seems to me that a subordinated clause should connect to the main sentence either with _"jis kaa"_ or with _"kih"_, but not with both.



"jis kaa" alone would also be fine here (and more conventional), but "ki jis kaa" is also fine. "ki" alone would not be possible here!


----------



## Qureshpor

sadjad said:


> Hello!
> 
> I am having trouble understanding the grammar of this famous poem by Faiz Ahmed Faiz:
> 
> ham dekheñge
> lāzim hai ki ham bhī dekheñge
> vo din ki jis kā va.ada hai
> jo lauh-e-azal meñ likhkhā hai
> jab zulm-o-sitam ke koh-e-girāñ
> ---
> 
> What is the function of the "ki" in the third line? I am aware of uses like "vo din ki ham khush the.", where it could be substituted by "jab". But even substituting it in the sentence above does not make any sense to me, because then I am not sure where the correlative of "jis kā va.ada hai" would be.
> 
> If someone could enlighten me I'd be most grateful.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> *full URL: Read full nazm by Faiz Ahmad Faiz


Please see the thread below.
Urdu, Hindi: Use for kih for jo (?)


----------



## sadjad

Thank you to everyone who replied to this thread.
@Alfaaz: Thank you for shedding light on the meaning. I would have understood it in the same way, but I'm afraid this does not explain the grammar.
@MonsieurGonzalito: I completely agree. I also think a subordinated clause should connect to the main sentence with either "jis ka" or "kih", but not both!
@littlepond: I agree that "jis kaa" alone would be fine here. But why is "ki jis kaa" fine here?
@Qureshpor: Thank you for linking the other thread. I also read your reply there.  There you give the example "vuh Ghulaam kih jis ne parvarish paa'ii thii" and say that "kih" appears to be superflous. I agree! So why is it there and what function does it fulfill?


----------



## littlepond

sadjad said:


> @littlepond: I agree that "jis kaa" alone would be fine here. But why is "ki jis kaa" fine here?



Just lays extra emphasis: "the day that whose promise is there".


----------



## Qureshpor

sadjad said:


> Thank you to everyone who replied to this thread.
> @Alfaaz: Thank you for shedding light on the meaning. I would have understood it in the same way, but I'm afraid this does not explain the grammar.
> @MonsieurGonzalito: I completely agree. I also think a subordinated clause should connect to the main sentence with either "jis ka" or "kih", but not both!
> @littlepond: I agree that "jis kaa" alone would be fine here. But why is "ki jis kaa" fine here?
> @Qureshpor: Thank you for linking the other thread. I also read your reply there.  There you give the example "vuh Ghulaam kih jis ne parvarish paa'ii thii" and say that "kih" appears to be superflous. I agree! So why is it there and what function does it fulfill?


You appear to be a person after my own heart! A person who pays attention to detail.

You must have come across something in your mother tongue, the usage of which is not always easy to explain to non-German speakers. Yet you know instinctively a word should be there or not.

In the same way, this "kih" which I feel is superflous in the example that I have quoted (and I am no expert or the last word on such matters) still seems to fit in the sentence comfortably and it does seem alright to us. Perhaps, I can illustrate this from an example in English.

The man that you said was ill, is not what he is claiming to be.

The man you said was ill, is not what he is claiming to be.

Here "that" can be taken out but the sentence is still fine with it.

vuh din *kih* jis kaa va3dah hai 

Without kih, to me the sentence seems too abrubt. The "kih" provides a slight break or pause before we get to more details about the day being discussed.


----------



## sadjad

@Qureshpor Thank you for your reply and excuse my persistence in asking. I had never seen a sentence using the same syntax as the sentence that I have quoted, so I am very puzzled.

Can we conclude that relative clauses can sometimes start with "kih"? For example, would you and the other Urdu and Hindi speakers say these (made up) sentences are correct?

vuh baat kih jis ka zikr main ne kiyaa hai.
vuh din kih jab ham xush the.
vuh mansuuba kih jis ke baare men main ne aap ko bataayaa hai.

(Sorry if the transliteration is not 100% accurate.)


----------



## aevynn

At least in my experience, this "double relativizer" construction is not _common_ by any means. I at least would not expect it to be used in spoken language, and I would even be a bit surprised to see it in prose (but perhaps someone will manage to surprise me with prose references! ). In any case, it sounds just fine in poetic contexts, and here are just a few of many, many examples one can find by searching Rekhta and Kavitakosh.
​wo ek shakhs *ki jo* saath-saath phirtaa thaa​nazar jo badlii to phir nazar nahiiN aayaa​- Khalid Hasan Qadiri​​maiN wo aaNsuu *ki jo* maalaa meN piroyaa jaae​tu wo motii *ki jise* dekh ke royaa jaae​- Saleem Shahid​​ham wo aawaaraa *ki jo* dasht na ghar ke liye haiN​jaane phir kaunsii duniyaa-o-digar ke liye haiN​- Aslam Mahmood​​wahii manushya hai *ki jo* manushya ke liye mare​- Maithilisharan Gupta​​kam log haiN jo saccii ibaadat meN lage haiN​aise to bahut haiN *ki jo* aadat meN lage haiN​- Ana Qasmi​


Qureshpor said:


> Here too, one could get away with taking out "*kih*" although "kih" could be translated as "*that*" in English.
> 
> The day *that* for which there is a promise





littlepond said:


> Just lays extra emphasis: "the day that whose promise is there".



I wonder if there might not be some interference with Hindi-Urdu acceptability judgments here...? I don't know what our other Anglophone forum friends think, but these translations sound a bit odd to me, and another person I asked (whose mother tongue is American English) said that they sound "sort of King-James-ish at best, but even awkward for that." Even in old-timey King-James-Bible-esque English, I've only really seen "that + relativizer" used when "that" is a _substantive_ ("That which is asked for, shall be done") rather than as a relativizer.


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> At least in my experience, this "double relativizer" construction is not _common_ by any means. I at least would not expect it to be used in spoken language, and I would even be a bit surprised to see it in prose (but perhaps someone will manage to surprise me with prose references! ). In any case, it sounds just fine in poetic contexts ...



Agree, as far as Hindi is concerned at least.

Great examples from poetry!



aevynn said:


> I wonder if there might not be some interference with Hindi-Urdu acceptability judgments here...? I don't know what our other Anglophone forum friends think, but these translations sound a bit odd to me, and another person I asked (whose mother tongue is American English) said that they sound "sort of King-James-ish at best, but even awkward for that." Even in old-timey King-James-Bible-esque English, I've only really seen "that + relativizer" used when "that" is a _substantive_ ("That which is asked for, shall be done") rather than as a relativizer.



Of course, that was not normal English. That was merely an attempt to convey that a "that" is possible there; that English speakers would find putting that "that" there as awkward is simply a matter of convention.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

In Spanish this phenomenon also exists (i.e., starting a subordinate phrase with a purely subordinating nexus, then switch gears and use a relative pronoun inside the sentence).
But it is mostly confined to careless, spoken register. In writing you can find it, but it would be considered an error.

What I find curious is that, in Hindustani, apparently this is standard, and not "frowned upon".


----------



## Alfaaz

sadjad said:
			
		

> ... I had never seen a sentence using the same syntax as the sentence that I have quoted, so I am very puzzled.
> 
> Can we conclude that relative clauses can sometimes start with "kih"? For example, would you and the other Urdu and Hindi speakers say these (made up) sentences are correct? ...





			
				aevynn said:
			
		

> At least in my experience, this "double relativizer" construction is not _common_ by any means. I at least would not expect it to be used in spoken language, and I would even be a bit surprised to see it in prose (but perhaps someone will manage to surprise me with prose references!). ...


 This usage of _keh_ is quite common in Urdu poetry, prose, and even speech. 

Another example from Faiz Ahmad Faiz: 

یہ آئے سب میرے ملنے والے
*کہ جن سے* دن رات واسطہ ہے​
Examples (construction used throughout) from a piece of Islamic poetry by Mahir-ul-Qadiri:

ﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﮐﮧ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺑﮯ ﮐﺴﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﯿﺮﯼ ﮐﯽ ﷺ
ﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﮐﮧ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺑﺎﺩﺷﺎﮨﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻓﻘﯿﺮﯼ ﮐﯽ ﷺ
ﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺳﮑﮭﻼﺋﮯ ﷺ
ﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﮐﮧ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺯﺧﻢ ﮐﮭﺎ ﮐﺮ ﭘﮭﻮﻝ ﺑﺮﺳﺎﺋﮯ ﷺ​
A few examples from prose: 

جمال *کہ جس کا* چہرہ پچھتاوے کے درد سے تن گیا تھا کہنے لگا
محمد حمید شاد از بند آنکھوں سے پرے

بے شک وقت بڑا ہے، ایک ایسے سمندر کی طرح ہے *کہ جس کا* دوسرا کنارہ دکھائی ہی نہیں دیتا۔
مبین مرزا

میں نے کہا آپ یہ فرمائیں ماسٹر صاحب کہ وہاں کوئی ایسے آثار تھے *کہ جن کا* تعلق بابا رتن ہندی کے ساتھ ہو
اشفاق احمد

...  اور اس وقت یہ وائرس* وطنِ عزیز میں اس بُری طرح سے پھیل رہا ہے *کہ جس کی* کوئی حد نہیں۔ 
امجد اسلام امجد
* referring to SARS-CoV-2

تعلیم ایسا زیور ہے *کہ جس کا* کوئی نعم البدل نہیں​


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> What I find curious is that, in Hindustani, apparently this is standard, and not "frowned upon".



Rather the literary register, so to speak. It is not that standard in people's everyday speech and writing, though of course it can be found there, too. Certainly, not frowned upon: it smoothens the sentence, makes it flow more gracefully, and at times can lay an extra ounce of emphasis on what follows.


----------



## sadjad

Thank you everyone for your replies. I did not know that this construction is so common. I guess I should dive more into Urdu poetry... 
Cheers!


----------

