# Urdu: Use of the -gii suffix



## UrduMedium

This adjective is used for advance or early, in Urdu. For example, "Eid kii _peshgii _mubaarakbaad qubuul kiijiye" (please accept advance greeting for Eid).

It seems to be made of "_pesh_" and "_gii_". _pesh _meaning advance/ahead/encounter etc, and I guess -_gii _suffix makes it an adjective.

My question is, Why the -_gii _suffix, not -_ii (peshii)_? The "g" seems to get inserted if there was an ending _chhotii he_ at the end of the first word. As in _barehnah _(nude) + _gii _= _barehnagii _(nudity). 

Does the above imply the first component in _peshgii _is _peshah _(trade, profession) rather than _pesh _(ahead)? _peshah _in _peshgii _seem a bit out of place. Hence my question.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> This adjective is used for advance or early, in Urdu. For example, "Eid kii _peshgii _mubaarakbaad qubuul kiijiye" (please accept advance greeting for Eid).
> 
> It seems to be made of "_pesh_" and "_gii_". _pesh _meaning advance/ahead/encounter etc, and I guess -_gii _suffix makes it an adjective.
> 
> My question is, Why the -_gii _suffix, not -_ii (peshii)_? The "g" seems to get inserted if there was an ending _chhotii he_ at the end of the first word. As in _barehnah _(nude) + _gii _= _barehnagii _(nudity).
> 
> Does the above imply the first component in _peshgii _is _peshah _(trade, profession) rather than _pesh _(ahead)? _peshah _in _peshgii _seem a bit out of place. Hence my question.



A very good question and I think you might have answered it yourself.

Certainly the "-gii" prefix would only come in if the initial adjective (e.g gandah, zindah etc) ended in an h (not H) and this would result in pesh*a*gii. There is "peshii" which means "attendance" in court etc. It seems "peshgii" is a Ghalatu_l3aam!


----------



## marrish

UM SaaHib, I think pesh-gii is a (abstract) noun which is idiomatically used in the adverbial sense. Thank you for posing this question, it has been in my mind for a very long time!


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> A very good question and I think you might have answered it yourself.
> 
> Certainly the "-gii" prefix would only come in if the initial adjective (e.g gandah, zindah etc) ended in an h (not H) and this would result in pesh*a*gii. There is "peshii" which means "attendance" in court etc. It seems "peshgii" is a Ghalatu_l3aam!


Just to clarify, you are suggesting _peshgii _as Ghalatu_l3aam for _pesh*a*gii _or _peshii_? If it is for _peshagii_, do you agree _peshah _in this context is a bit out of place?


----------



## marrish

The meaning _pesh(a)gii *meN*_ is implied, it is how I understand it.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Just to clarify, you are suggesting _peshgii _as Ghalatu_l3aam for _pesh*a*gii _or _peshii_? If it is for _peshagii_, do you agree _peshah _in this context is a bit out of place?



No, I am saying "peshgii" should not be "peshgii" but "peshii". However, a meaning is already assigned to "peshii" (attendance) and perhaps for this reason we have the Ghalatu_l3aam peshgii. If it was derived from "peshah", then the result ought to be "peshagii" just like zindagii. I hope this is clear as mud now!


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> UM SaaHib, I think pesh-gii is a (abstract) noun which is idiomatically used in the adverbial sense. Thank you for posing this question, it has been in my mind for a very long time!


So you don't think this is a combination of _pesh _and _gii, _but a single unit _peshgii_?


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> No, I am saying "peshgii" should not be "peshgii" but "peshii". However, a meaning is already assigned to "peshii" (attendance) and perhaps for this reason we have the Ghalatu_l3aam peshgii. If it was derived from "peshah", then the result ought to be "peshagii" just like zindagii. I hope this is clear as mud now!



 Thanks, QP saahab. Crystal clear!! So its a case akin to saying _naaraazgii _instead of _naaraazii_. I grew up saying the former and corrected myself in the last few years.


----------



## marrish

I might add my _Hairaangii_ from some other thread.


----------



## UrduMedium

^  Same here!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I might add my _Hairaangii_ from some other thread.



aap kii _Hairaangii_ to qaabil-i-fahm hai lekin merii *pareshaangii* kaa ko'ii chaarah nahiiN!


----------



## marrish

vaaqi3ii. shukriyah. pareshaangii. That's Punjabi!!!


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> vaaqi3ii. shukriyah. pareshaangii. That's Punjabi!!!



Along the lines of _pareshaangii_, you may have also heard _fautgii_. Hard to believe, but I have.


----------



## marrish

Unfortunately very commonly. Thank you for the remark.


----------



## UrduMedium

Is the final short vowel before -_gii _is to be preserved in کمینگی also? I have always heard/said it as _kamiingii_.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> vaaqi3ii. shukriyah. pareshaangii. That's Punjabi!!!



Really? In that case there are many Persian speaking Punjabis!!

ولی این حرمان و _پریشانگی_ که در موسیقی ایرانی است مرا مرغ قفس میکند


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Along the lines of _pareshaangii_, you may have also heard _fautgii_. Hard to believe, but I have.



Now this is more likely to be Punjabi! But, even then, perhaps a corruption of "fautiidagii"!


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Now this is more likely to be Punjabi! But, even then, perhaps a corruption of "fautiidagii"!



You guessed it! _fautiidagii_ sounds like _fautgii _on steroids! Is _fautiidagii_ a legit word in Punjabi?


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

marrish said:


> UM SaaHib, I think pesh-gii is a (abstract) noun which is idiomatically used in the adverbial sense. Thank you for posing this question, it has been in my mind for a very long time!



So, in the first thread 'peshgii' used as an adjective is a special case?

I would also like to add another example. 'paraagandaah' meaning 'scattered/dispersed' VS 'paraagandagii' meaning 'dispersal/scattering'. 

Thanks!


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> You guessed it! _fautiidagii_ sounds like _fautgii _on steroids! Is _fautiidagii_ a legit word in Punjabi?



I have never heard "fautiidagii" used in Punjabi or Urdu. I was merely guessing that "fautgii/fotgii" might have some relation to "fautiidagii", the latter being a noun from fautiidan >> fautiidah. faut-iidan construction is following the same pattern as "raqs-iidan".


----------



## UrduMedium

lafz_puchnevala said:


> So, in the first thread 'peshgii' used as an adjective is a special case?
> 
> I would also like to add another example. 'paraagandaah' meaning 'scattered/dispersed' VS 'paraagandagii' meaning 'dispersal/scattering'.
> 
> Thanks!


 Thanks, LP for sharing this example. Yes same idea at work here too.


----------



## Abu Talha

UrduMedium said:


> So its a case akin to saying _naaraazgii _instead of _naaraazii_. I grew up saying the former and corrected myself in the last few years.


UM Saahib, is _naaraaZgii_ really incorrect? I've never heard _naaraaZii_... Could _naaraaZii_ be mistaken for an adjective (_naa_ + _raaZii_)?


----------



## Faylasoof

I altered the title slightly since we are now discussing the suffix _-gii_ in many words, not just _peshgii_!



Abu Talha said:


> UM Saahib, is _naaraaZgii_ really incorrect? I've never heard _naaraaZii_... Could _naaraaZii_ be mistaken for an adjective (_naa_ + _raaZii_)?


 Actually, both _naaraaDhgii_ / _naaraaZgii _and _naaraaDhii / __naaraaZii_ are used and accepted, here and here, and have the same meaning, unlike _peshii_ and _peshgii_ which have acquired different meanings over time:

P پيشي _peshī_, s.f. The being put before, coming before (as a case before a judge), the being brought forward, or into the presence of;—lead, precedence; superior rank;—an advance (=_peshgī_).

P پيشگي _peshgī_, s.f. Money given in advance, or on account; an advance (of money); earnest-money.

As we all know, it should be _pesh*a*gii_ (or _pesh*i*gii_) but that itself has a different meaning and in some circles the following usage would be meant: _karam pesh*a*gii / pesh*i*gii = 3amal-e-karam peshah_; and _xiyaant pesh*a*gii / pesh*i*gii = 3amal-e-xiyaanat peshah_.

We definitely don’t use the suffix _–gii_ completely freely! So for us, it is _Hiaraanii_ and not _Hairaangii_, etc. though, rather usually, the latter is listed here!


----------



## UrduMedium

Abu Talha said:


> UM Saahib, is _naaraaZgii_ really incorrect? I've never heard _naaraaZii_... Could _naaraaZii_ be mistaken for an adjective (_naa_ + _raaZii_)?



Going by the rule that -_gii _is added if the word ends on a _chhotii he_, I assumed _hairangii _and _naraazgii _to be less than accurate, despite the fact that I grew up using both. Good to know from Faylasoof saahab's post above that they are also acceptable.


----------



## Abu Talha

Many thanks Faylasoof, UrduMedium Sbs.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> UM Saahib, is _naaraaZgii_ really incorrect? I've never heard _naaraaZii_... Could _naaraaZii_ be mistaken for an adjective (_naa_ + _raaZii_)?



I would say there is a difference in meaning between "naa-raazgii" and "naa-raazii", the latter commonly replaced by "naa-raaz". You will no doubt know that "raaz" is actually "raaz-in" in terms of Arabic grammar and becomes "raazii" only when it is definite. Urdu appears to have taken the definite form "raazii" as well as the indefinite form "raaz" as in "naa-raaz" without the tanviin.


----------



## marrish

There is another instance of -gii coming in out of the blue in ادائیگی. _adaa'iigii_. But the word is pronounced with an 'e'. For me, adaa'ii suffices.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> There is another instance of -gii coming in out of the blue in ادائیگی. _adaa'iigii_. But the word is pronounced with an 'e'. For me, adaa'ii suffices.



It appears that the suffix "-gii" has given birth to several psudo "-gii-daar" words. If you think, adaa'ii suffices, it will get worn down to "daa'ii"!!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> It appears that the suffix "-gii" has given birth to several psudo "-gii-daar" words. If you think, adaa'ii suffices, it will get worn down to "daa'ii"!!


I know what you mean, janaab! I can join you in naming this phenomenon as pseudo-gii-daar words, too!


----------



## Qureshpor

I searched the forum before posting this post!

In ihsaan's recent post about Shahr Bano, the following sentence was quoted. As you can see, technically, 3umdah should not have the Persian -gii suffix. If the author had decided not to use -gii, what other suffix could s/he have employed?

 میں ہی لکڑی کی عمدگی اور اس پر بنے ہوئے ڈیزائن کی نفاست کو جانچ لیتا ، وہ ایک اینٹک پیس تھا اور کم از کم شہر بانو کی نظر سے چوک نہیں سکتا تھا ۔


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> I searched the forum before posting this post!
> 
> In ihsaan's recent post about Shahr Bano, the following sentence was quoted. As you can see, technically, 3umdah should not have the Persian -gii suffix. If the author had decided not to use -gii, what other suffix could s/he have employed?
> 
> میں ہی لکڑی کی عمدگی اور اس پر بنے ہوئے ڈیزائن کی نفاست کو جانچ لیتا ، وہ ایک اینٹک پیس تھا اور کم از کم شہر بانو کی نظر سے چوک نہیں سکتا تھا ۔


He could have used "-pan" but there would be no reason for it at all because the word _3umdagii_ is attested in both Steingass and Platts. Somehow 3umdagii looks better than _3umdah-pan_. There could be also _3umdaaiyyat_.


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> I searched the forum before posting this post!
> 
> In ihsaan's recent post about Shahr Bano, the following sentence was quoted. As you can see, technically, 3umdah should not have the Persian -gii suffix. If the author had decided not to use -gii, what other suffix could s/he have employed?
> 
> میں ہی لکڑی کی عمدگی اور اس پر بنے ہوئے ڈیزائن کی نفاست کو جانچ لیتا ، وہ ایک اینٹک پیس تھا اور کم از کم شہر بانو کی نظر سے چوک نہیں سکتا تھا ۔


 QP SaaHib, I see no issue with *3umdagii* عمدگی as such. This a _bona fide_ Persian usage:

Steingass:
_a_ *عمدگی *_*ʻumdagī*,_ Greatness, dignity, excellence, worth; sumptuousness.

Came into Urdu usage in 1831 (دیوان ناسخ), according to *this*. ....and if it was good enough for the poet_* Nasikh (naasix ناسخ )*_then it should be good enough for us, I think.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> He could have used "-pan" but there would be no reason for it at all because the word _3umdagii_ is attested in both Steingass and Platts. Somehow 3umdagii looks better than _3umdah-pan_. There could be also _3umdaaiyyat_.


 I do agree with you as it is a well-attested usage in both the languages. I haven't seen _3umdaaiyyat _used so far but then we agree that _3umdagii_ is good enough anyway.


----------



## Qureshpor

میں نے نزدیک جا کر سلام کیا۔ *مہربانگی* سے بیٹھنے کا حکم کیا۔ پھر کھانے کا چرچا ہؤا۔ 

(باغ و بہار)


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

You can hear here in PK both  روانی  ravaanii and روانگی ravaangii being interchangeably used.  I am sure we can multiply words and examples. It seems that this ambiguity between the -ii and the -gii suffixes only exists for words not ending with an - h. Words having a final -h will mostly take the -gii prefix (or other ones but at the exclusion of -ii).   روئیدہ     < روئیدگی بالیدہ       < بالیدگی etc...  versus  رواں   <   روانی /  روانگی etc...  This according to my observations a rule that suffers very few exceptions (I can't think of any right now)


----------



## marrish

_ravaanii روانی_ and _ravaanagii روانگی_ are two different words in my perception.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

marrish said:


> _ravaanii روانی_ and _ravaanagii روانگی_ are two different words in my perception.


  Well, yes and no!  In (modern?) usage these words have taken different meanings, however, morphologically speaking they are the exact same words with identical constitutive parts ('ravaan' stem + ending nominalizing an adjective : -ii or -gii). Technically they should have the same meaning.  However, it seems usage has set them apart in Modern Standard Urdu. ravaanii meaning: flow, fluency; etc. and ravaangii: departure, sending, dispatching; etc.  I must say that I have heard many times ravaangii being used instead of ravaanii (not the other way round though): Masha'allah aap kaa beTaa baRii ravaan(a)gii se English bolta hai... While I would expect (and you I am sure) : ravaanii here...  I have a long time being thinking it is a ghala6 ul 3aam. However, Qureshpor Sahab's above quote of Baagh o Bahaar made me think that it might just be an archaism after all???  It is by the way an interesting case; is there any other word in which a noun formed with an -ii and a -gii suffixes on the same stem end up having different meanings????


----------



## Qureshpor

My reason for quoting the "baaGh-o-bahaar! was, Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, to show that the "gii" suffix seems to have been used with words which don't even end in -h. However, ravaanagii is formed from "ravaanah" and "ravaanii" from "ravaan".


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Yes you are right, however, I think that for people who use rawaan(a)gii in the sense of rawaanii obviously derive it from ravaan. So your example of mehrbaan(a)gii is not completely isolated.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

And I am sure there are many examples of the prefix *-gii* being used for other words than those ending in -*ah*. You don't have to go too far. I just bumped into an example: 

*برخاستگی*  barkhaast(a)gii   from *برخاست*  barkhaast.


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> And I am sure there are many examples of the prefix *-gii* being used for other words than those ending in -*ah*. You don't have to go too far. I just bumped into an example:
> 
> *برخاستگی*  barkhaast(a)gii   from *برخاست*  barkhaast.



But barxaastagii is from the past participle, barxaastah. Compare this with "shaayistah" > "shaayistagii".


----------



## marrish

^ Correct, both ravaanagii and barxaastagii are regular nouns where the suffix -gii replaces "h" in words with "-ah" ending.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

I think we were discussing URDU here.

There is no such word as *برخاستہ *in most Urdu dictionaries I have checked, just *برخاست*.
Identically for other words such as* سپرد* and *سپردگی*, I have failed to find any word such as *سپردہ.

*Are you therefore here talking about a rule in the PERSIAN language? 

If it is the case, then the whole point is ruined, it would mean that there are no rules of derivation to be deduced for Urdu. All is based on servile borrowing from Persian?


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I think we were discussing URDU here.
> 
> There is no such word as *برخاستہ *in most Urdu dictionaries I have checked, just *برخاست*.
> Identically for other words such as* سپرد* and *سپردگی*, I have failed to find any word such as *سپردہ.
> 
> *Are you therefore here talking about a rule in the PERSIAN language?
> 
> If it is the case, then the whole point is ruined, it would mean that there are no rules of derivation to be deduced for Urdu. All is based on servile borrowing from Persian?


Yes, indeed we are talking about Urdu. At the same time one can not ignore the basis on which the suffix "-gii" is added to words albeit there are instances when it is added to non "-ah" ending words, e.g "peshgii".

If "barxaastah" does not exist in Urdu, this can not lead one to conclude that "barxaastagii" is derived from "barxaast" and not "barxaastah". Sometimes, a particular form may be common in its parent language but not so common or non-existent in a language that borrows from its stock. However in this case, barxaastah does exist.

baxaastah-dil, barxaasta-tabii3at, barxaastah-xaatir

is liye barxaastah-dil bazm-i-dunyaa se hu'e
jis ke parvaane the ham vuh raunaq-i-maHfil nah thaa

Sharf


----------



## marrish

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I think we were discussing URDU here.
> 
> There is no such word as *برخاستہ *in most Urdu dictionaries I have checked, just *برخاست*.
> Identically for other words such as* سپرد* and *سپردگی*, I have failed to find any word such as *سپردہ.
> 
> *Are you therefore here talking about a rule in the PERSIAN language?
> 
> If it is the case, then the whole point is ruined, it would mean that there are no rules of derivation to be deduced for Urdu. All is based on servile borrowing from Persian?


Although what I want to say is going to be overlapping with most what has been said by my predecessor but it is inevitable when one is too late with one's reply .

We are indeed discussing nothing but Urdu and although the scarce references which have been made about those last mentioned words being ''past participles'' are of course related to Persian, still it does not result in changing the target language of the discussion to Persian. The words originate from this language and behave according to the grammar rules which are common both to Persian and Urdu. A point to be noted is that these words were borrowed long time ago and the borrowing from Persian does not take place any more. Instead, the word-forming in Urdu is based on the already existent stock of vocabulary (in this case Persian-origin). I am under the impression that in this very thread we are discussing the phenomenon which has been taking place on the ground of Urdu alone and, so to say, goes against the rules of Persian.

As QP SaaHib said, _barxaastah_ is an Urdu word, whence _barxaastagii_. You have mentioned supurdagii/sipurdagii as an example of the suffix -gii being attached to _supurd_, as an example of Urdu's unorthodox approach from the point of view of Persian, but this word does not fit the bill as _supurdah_ is an Urdu word as well, cf. Platts:

_P __سپرده _sipurda, supurda_ (perf. part. of sipurdan; see sipurd), part. adj. Entrusted, consigned, committed, resigned, &c.
_
We can see that Platts is meticulous with regard to the grammatical function of this word in Persian (p.p.; mentioned for the sake of etymology) and in Urdu: participial *adjective*. This is the correct approach as this word, like others, _barxaastah_, _ravaanah_ etc. are adjectives in Urdu while in Persian they can serve both as p.p. and adjective. Summarizing, I can understand your doubt as the mention of p.p. relates to Persian and in Urdu it would be correct to say that it is a participial adjective.


----------



## marrish

I think I have run against yet another candidate for this category in an article on BBC Urdu:

یہ *ضبطگیاں* آٹے میں نمک کے برابر ہیں _yih *zabtgiyaaN* _(confiscations)_ aaTe meN namak ke baraabar haiN_


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I think I have run against yet another candidate for this category in an article on BBC Urdu:
> 
> یہ *ضبطگیاں* آٹے میں نمک کے برابر ہیں _yih *zabtgiyaaN* _(confiscations)_ aaTe meN namak ke baraabar haiN_


Good find, marrish SaaHib. I think one plural of "zabt" is "zubuut" but this does not have the same effect as "zabt(a)giyaaN". Besides, zubuut could give the impression that some kind of "bhuut" entered the "aaTaa"!


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> Good find, marrish SaaHib. I think one plural of "zabt" is "zubuut" but this does not have the same effect as "zabt(a)giyaaN". Besides, zubuut could give the impression that some kind of "bhuut" entered the "aaTaa"!


I like the whole of your approach! _yih bhii muft-xwor aur_ _namak-Haraam bhuut_! _zubuut_ (ever used?) would be a simple 'confiscations' but _zabtgiyaaN_ 'acts of confiscation' - this is how I feel.


----------

