# Hindi, Urdu:  causative verb with full agents



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

  If a causative, transitive verb has its full set of "agents" (i.e. the people doing things), is it still possible to have a direct object.
For example, can I use the object "milk" this way in the following sentence?

_maaN ne naukarnii se bachche ko duudh pilvaati thiiN. _(What I am trying to say is "Mum had the servant make the boy drink milk")

Also, if the above is possible, what happens when this object is personal and determined, and therefore we must use a "ko"?
Do we end up with  sentece with 2 "ko"s?

For example, if I want to say:  "The officer has the sargeant make the soldiers feed the prisoners."
My attempt:
_adhikaarii havaladaar se sipaahiyon ko baNdiyon ko khilvaataa hai._

Is the above sentence with 2 "ko's" possible? Or speakers try to express the same in a different way, find circumlocutions?

Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## Happu

I think the second sentence, with its complicated chain of command (officer-sergeant-soldiers), sounds a bit convoluted in any language. I would re-write it in this manner: 'On the order of the officer, the sergeant has his soldiers feed the prisoners.'

अधिकारी के हुक्म पर हवलदार अपने सिपाहियों के द्वारा बंदियों को खाना खिलवाता है = adhikaarii ke huqm par havaldaar (sp.!) apne sipaahiyoñ ke dvaaraa bañdiyoñ ko khaanaa khilvaataa hai.

But let the native speakers chime in ...


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _maaN ne naukarnii se bachche ko duudh pilvaati thiiN. _(What I am trying to say is "Mum had the servant make the boy drink milk")



It's fine, except for the grammar and spelling mistakes.
_maaN ne *naukraanii *se bachche/laRke ko duudh pilvaayaa._

You could also use "ke dwaaraa" instead of "se" in the above.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> My attempt:
> _adhikaarii havaladaar se sipaahiyon ko baNdiyon ko khilvaataa hai._



A good attempt, though it could be like this, rather:
_adhikaarii *havaldaar *se sipaahiyoN ke dwaaraa *bandiyoN*/kaidiyoN ko khaanaa khilvaataa hai_

Note: Spelling mistakes corrected are in bold.


----------



## Happu

A good attempt, though it could be like this, rather:
_adhikaarii *havaldaar *se sipaahiyoN ke dwaaraa *bandiyoN*/kaidiyoN ko khaanaa khilvaataa hai_

Note: Spelling mistakes corrected are in bold.

It's fine, except for the grammar and spelling mistakes.
_maaN ne *naukraanii *se bachche/laRke ko duudh pilvaayaa.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------_


His version नौकरनी (naukarnii) does exist (OUP dic p. 582), though I've never heard it used. I guess it's antiquated.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

From the answers given I gather that the "double ko" is to be avoided.

In these large chains of actions, is it always expected to use the "_se_" first, and only then the alternatives (_ke dvaaraa, ke haath, ke zariie_)?
Or I could have mixed that order and said sonething like:

_adhikaarii havaldaar *ke dvaaraa *sipaahiyoN *se *bandiyoN/kaidiyoN *ko *khaanaa khilvaataa hai ?_


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _adhikaarii havaldaar *ke dvaaraa *sipaahiyoN *se *bandiyoN/kaidiyoN *ko *khaanaa khilvaataa hai ?_



You _can_ say like this also: it will be understood. Though the previous option is better.

The double "ko" is not possible not because it is to be avoided, but simply because it is not what you are saying. Given that soldiers are not eating the food, how can it be "ko" with "sipaahii"?


----------



## littlepond

Happu said:


> His version नौकरनी (naukarnii) does exist (OUP dic p. 582), though I've never heard it used. I guess it's antiquated.



Usage is everything.


----------



## desi4life

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> In these large chains of actions, is it always expected to use the "_se_" first, and only then the alternatives (_ke dvaaraa, ke haath, ke zariie_)?



On a side note: In Hindi, “zarie/zariye” is a more common spelling than “zariie”.


----------



## aevynn

littlepond said:


> The double "ko" is not possible not because it is to be avoided, but simply because it is not what you are saying. Given that soldiers are not eating the food, how can it be "ko" with "sipaahii"?




Note that the direct object of a transitive verb and the corresponding "causative" are usually the same:

_maiN ne xat likhaa_ = I wrote a letter.
_maiN ne munshii jii se xat likhvaayaa_ = I had the scribe write a letter.

_usne saaraa kaam kiyaa_ = She did all the work.
_usne mujhse saaraa kaam karvaayaa_ = She had me do all of the work.

_khilaanaa_ is not quite transitive (it has valency 3), but the same logic applies. Its direct object is typically the food item (or whatever) -- not the person who is fed [^1]. In other words, one would typically say _maiNne bachche ko khaanaa khilaayaa_ [^2]. When one increases the valency to get to _khilvaanaa_, it's still the food item that's the direct object of the verb. 

[^1]: The English verb "feed" has two usages: the transitive usage with an indirect object (eg, "I fed food to the baby") and the ditransitive usage (eg, "I fed the baby food"). _khilaanaa_ is closer to the former usage of "feed" than the latter. 
[^2]: Saying _maiNne bachchaa khilaayaa_ would probably be understood (in a non-cannibalistic way), but is not the most common usage of _khilaanaa_. 



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> what happens when this object is personal and determined, and therefore we must use a "ko"


If I understand your question correctly, this question is not really specific to causatives. A conflict like this could theoretically arise even with a verb like _denaa_, which requires an indirect object marked with _ko_, as well as a direct object. One might attempt to mark this direct object with the "_ko_ of specificity," but I can't think of any situation where that results in a grammatical sentence. I can't think of any natural situation where you'd use a pronoun referring to a person as the direct object of _denaa_. Outside of person-referring pronominal direct objects, you always have the option of just letting context determine specificity instead of using _ko_ to mark specificity --- and if the verb is _denaa_, I think you're just required to take that option.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> is not really specific to causatives. A conflict like this could theoretically arise even with a verb like _denaa_, which requires an indirect object marked with _ko_, as well as a direct object.



Actually, it is not the same, I think.
Situations with "double _ko_" in a sentence with direct object and indirect object might arise because of the idiomatic ways HU marks determined-ness (lacking a definite article).

But in the case of a transitive, double-causative verb, what you end up having (at least in the Spanish or English translation, I don't know how natives grammatically perceive this), is a set of nested direct objects.

_adhikaarii *havaldaar *se sipaahiyoN ke dwaaraa *bandiyoN* ko khaanaa khilvaataa hai

El oficial hace [que el sargento haga [que los prisioneros coman [comida]]]. 
The officer makes [the sargeant have [the prisoners eat [food]]]._

Each thing inside the square brackets is a direct object of what is outside. According to the answers, probably what HU speakers are trying to do, is to avoid not just the "double ko", but the very nesting of direct objects altogether.

Thus, they transform the outer agent(s) in some sort of "circumstantial complement of means" (adverbial) indicating *how *the action is achieved (_by means of ... by hand of ..._, etc.).
That circumstantial complement is syntactically/structurally at the same level as the innermost object, it is not nested.

So it is the translation I am doing in my head what makes things unnecessarily complicated


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Actually, it is not the same, I think.


I think from the perspective of UH grammar, it is the same thing. The verb _khilvaanaa_ is syntactically simpler than English causative circumlocutions. The verb simply takes 4 arguments:

(1) a causer (direct case or ergative, depending on aspect),
(2) a "causee" (marked by the postposition _se_),
(3) an indirect object (marked by postposition _ko_), and,
(4) a direct object (direct case). 

One can optionally add postpositional complements to this (and in the OP, you're wanting to add some kind of an agentive postpositional complement, for which an appropriate postposition might be _ke haathoN_, _ke dwaaraa_, etc), but that's besides the point. The basic reason that the direct object cannot be marked by the "_ko_ of specificity" is that the verb's argument structure calls for a different argument to be marked by _ko_ --- which is also the case for other verbs like _khilaanaa_ and _denaa_.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> That circumstantial complement is syntactically/structurally at the same level as the innermost object, it is not nested.






MonsieurGonzalito said:


> The officer makes [the sargeant have [the prisoners eat [food]]].


The Spanish version might be fine, but I don't think most English speakers would find the above type of sentence acceptable/comprehensible. "The officer makes the sergeant feed the prisoners" is fine, but the recursive "The officer makes the sargeant make the prisoners eat" just doesn't parse for me.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> So it is the translation I am doing in my head what makes things unnecessarily complicated


----------



## Pokeflute

aevynn said:


> If I understand your question correctly, this question is not really specific to causatives. A conflict like this could theoretically arise even with a verb like _denaa_, which requires an indirect object marked with _ko_, as well as a direct object. One might attempt to mark this direct object with the "_ko_ of specificity," but I can't think of any situation where that results in a grammatical sentence. I can't think of any natural situation where you'd use a pronoun referring to a person as the direct object of _denaa_. Outside of person-referring pronominal direct objects, you always have the option of just letting context determine specificity instead of using _ko_ to mark specificity --- and if the verb is _denaa_, I think you're just required to take that option.



Is there a way to force such a construction?

Imagine 3 people (Ram, Shyam, and Farhaan) are playing a game that involves trading people (let's say, Fantasy Football, where you trade players between teams, or Pokemon where you trade pets). Or they are the heads of a cricket team and are trading players' contracts. And they want to trade a player named "Rakesh"

Ram wants to say "I made Shyam give (the player) Rakesh to Farhaan". A bit convoluted, but it's possible to imagine.

maiNne shyaam se raakesh ko farhaan ko dilaa diyaa (?)

Or even reducing the sentence to "Shyam gave Rakesh to Farhaan"

shyaam ne raakesh ko farhaan ko de diyaa (?)


----------



## littlepond

Pokeflute said:


> Ram wants to say "I made Shyam give (the player) Rakesh to Farhaan".


That would be "maiN ne shyaam se raakesh farhaan ko dilvaayaa"

"raakesh" being the given object and not the recipient cannot have "ko."


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I guess what @Pokeflute Is asking (and I second the question) is: what if, instead of Rakesh, is "the boy (that we know)"?


----------



## aevynn

Again: If the argument structure of the verb designates an indirect object to be marked with _ko_, it is just extremely unlikely that the direct object will be marked with the "_ko_ of specificity." If you find yourself in situation where you're using such a verb and the "_ko_ of specificity" would be obligatory on the direct object (eg, because the direct object is a specific person [^1]), find a different way to express the same thought.

Example: If I'm a slave and I'm telling someone about how my old master Raju transferred me to my new master Farhan, it might be okay to say ???_raajuu ne mujhe farhaan ko diyaa _[^2], but I rather doubt any native speaker would ever use a sentence like that: it would be strictly better and clearer to just say something like _raajuu ne mujhe farhaan ke hawaale kiyaa_.

---
[^1]: In the fantasy sports setting that @Pokeflute describes in #12: My feeling is that the reason that @littlepond jii's sentence in #13 works without the _ko_ is because the name isn't really referring to a person, but to a virtual entity in the game.

[^2]: I dislike this sentence a lot. I dislike *_raajuu ne farhaan ko maiN diyaa_ even more.


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> Example: If I'm a slave and I'm telling someone about how my old master Raju transferred me to my new master Farhan, it might be okay to say ???_raajuu ne mujhe farhaan ko diyaa _[^2], but I rather doubt any native speaker would ever use a sentence like that: it would be strictly better and clearer to just say something like _raajuu ne mujhe farhaan ke hawaale kiyaa_.



Agree. "denaa" to be used for a person is weird. One says "havaale karnaa": if Rakesh were a person rather than card, then "raajuu ne raakesh (ko) farhaan ke havaale kiyaa" (with the "ko" being optional), rather than "raajuu ne raakesh ko farhaan ko diyaa."
(Meanwhile, if it's Raju and Farhan, maybe instead of Rakesh, we better put Chatur in the example?)


----------



## Pokeflute

> Meanwhile, if it's Raju and Farhan, maybe instead of Rakesh, we better put Chatur in the example?






> If you find yourself in situation where you're using such a verb and the "_ko_ of specificity" would be obligatory on the direct object (eg, because the direct object is a specific person [^1]), find a different way to express the same thought.



This makes sense - I ask as I've encountered "double ko" in other constructions in Hindi (e.g. mujhe tumheN bataanaa chaahiye thaa) but never in this context (so it's not that "double ko" is forbidden but rather, as you noted, it's unnatural for "ko" to be used for both the direct AND indirect objects).

Though outside of these contrived examples with "denaa" (which "ke havaale karnaa" works as a substitute), I can't think of any other such example (i.e. with direct and indirect objects both taking "ko")


----------



## aevynn

Pokeflute said:


> This makes sense - I ask as I've encountered "double ko" in other constructions in Hindi (e.g. mujhe tumheN bataanaa chaahiye thaa) but never in this context (so it's not that "double ko" is forbidden but rather, as you noted, it's unnatural for "ko" to be used for both the direct AND indirect objects).




Note that the verb _denaa_ licenses two complements (the indirect object marked with _ko,_ and the direct object), and the problem arises when both of these complements (which "live at the same level") are marked with _ko_. In contrast, the verb _chaahiye_ licenses two arguments (in this case, a "subject" marked with _ko_ and an infinite verb phrase), but there's no danger of both arguments of _chaahiye_ being marked with _ko_. In the sentence _mujhe tumheN bataanaa chaahiye thaa_, the phrase _tumheN bataanaa_ is functioning as the infinite verb phrase argument for _chaahiye_. The dative _tumheN_ is internal to that infinitive verb phrase and doesn't "live at the same level" as _mujhe_, so there's no problem.



aevynn said:


> If the argument structure of the verb designates an indirect object to be marked with _ko_, it is just extremely unlikely that the direct object will be marked with the "_ko_ of specificity."


Incidentally, @MonsieurGonzalito jii, doesn't Spanish have a similar (but not identical!) syntactic phenomenon involving certain kinds of direct objects being obligatorily marked with the preposition "a"? If I'm a slave and my old master Roberto has just transferred me to my new master Fernando, could I translate "Roberto gave me to Fernando" as "Roberto le [me?] dio a mi a Fernando" or something like that? Or does this kind of double "a" pose problems...?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> Incidentally, @MonsieurGonzalito jii, doesn't Spanish have a similar (but not identical!) syntactic phenomenon involving certain kinds of direct objects being obligatorily marked with the preposition "a"? If I'm a slave and my old master Roberto has just transferred me to my new master Fernando, could I translate "Roberto gave me to Fernando" as "Roberto le [me?] dio a mi a Fernando" or something like that? Or does this kind of double "a" pose problems...?


Yes, in Spanish those repeated "a's" would sound strained too.
For the most part, speakers would perceive that clarity trumps the rule of "persons need an 'a' in front" and would use an 'a' in the indirect part only. I get your point. 

_El amo golpea *a*l esclavo._ = "The master hits the slave."
_El amo le vende [x] el esclavo *a*l mercade_r = "The master sells the slave to the trader."

_El amo vende *a*l esclavo *a*l mercader_  would perhaps be possible, but it would sound more as if the second part of the sentence were an afterthought or something.


----------



## Happu

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> From the answers given I gather that the "double ko" is to be avoided.


"Double ko" can, in certain cases, be very confusing, as mentioned above by pokeflute.

When I say *m*_*ujhko (mujhe) tumko kuchh paise dene (baaqii) hai,* _it can mean that I (still) have to give the other person some money, or it can be the other way round.

To avoid the dilemma, one can say _*mere tum par kuchh paise dene (baaqii) hai,* _meaning_ '_You (still) have to give me some money'; or in the opposite case, _*tumhaare mujh par kuchh paise dene (baaqii) hai*_*,* meaning 'I (still) have to give you some money.'


----------



## littlepond

Happu said:


> To avoid the dilemma, one can say _*mere tum par kuchh paise dene (baaqii) hai,* _meaning_ '_You (still) have to give me some money'; or in the opposite case, _*tumhaare mujh par kuchh paise dene (baaqii) hai*_*,* meaning 'I (still) have to give you some money.'


The above two sentences in bold are grammatically wrong sentences. They can only become correct if there's no "dene."

If it's a matter of owing some money, the most natural translation is "mujh pe tumhaare kuchh paise bante haiN" (I owe you some money) or "tum pe mere kuchh paise bante haiN" (you owe me money).

Otherwise, a simple "mujhe tum ko kuchh paise dene haiN" or "tumhe mujh ko kuchh paise dene haiN" also work: one could substitute "tum ko" and "mujh ko" with "tumhe" and "mujhe" as well, as the two people know who has to give whom the money.


----------



## Happu

littlepond said:


> The above two sentences in bold are grammatically wrong sentences. They can only become correct if there's no "dene."


Yes, you are right. It was very late last night and my brain not in best working order. I apologize. Note to self: Don't post after midnight or immediately after getting up.

*mere tum par kuchh paise baaqii haiñ
tumhaare mujh par kuchh paise baaqii haiñ*

should be right.

But I think in your example above it should be "bañ*T*e"?


----------



## Pokeflute

aevynn said:


> Note that the verb _denaa_ licenses two complements (the indirect object marked with _ko,_ and the direct object), and the problem arises when both of these complements (which "live at the same level") are marked with _ko_. In contrast, the verb _chaahiye_ licenses two arguments (in this case, a "subject" marked with _ko_ and an infinite verb phrase), but there's no danger of both arguments of _chaahiye_ being marked with _ko_. In the sentence _mujhe tumheN bataanaa chaahiye thaa_, the phrase _tumheN bataanaa_ is functioning as the infinite verb phrase argument for _chaahiye_. The dative _tumheN_ is internal to that infinitive verb phrase and doesn't "live at the same level" as _mujhe_, so there's no problem.



This explanation makes a lot of sense. And also answers another question I'd been wondering (which is why does word order matter here when Hindi word order is usually quite flexible). The answer given is because word order in Hindi is flexible among "arguments" (for lack of a better word), but here [tumheN bataanaa] is itself is the argument and cannot be split up.


----------



## littlepond

Happu said:


> But I think in your example above it should be "bañ*T*e"?



"bante" is correct. There is no such word in Hindi as "bañ*T*e."


----------



## Happu

littlepond said:


> "bante" is correct. There is no such word in Hindi as "bañ*T*e."


So it is not derived from बंटना = to be divided (OUP page 691), correct?


----------



## littlepond

Happu said:


> So it is not derived from बंटना = to be divided (OUP page 691), correct?



Of course not; बंटना makes no sense here. The verb used here is बनना.


----------



## Happu

littlepond said:


> Of course not; बंटना makes no sense here. The verb used here is बनना.


Yes, got it. I thought so myself just after sending off my post.


----------



## aevynn

Pokeflute said:


> And also answers another question I'd been wondering (which is why does word order matter here when Hindi word order is usually quite flexible). The answer given is because word order in Hindi is flexible among "arguments" (for lack of a better word), but here [tumheN bataanaa] is itself is the argument and cannot be split up.


Hmm... I think _mujhe tumheN bataanaa chaahiye thaa _is definitely the natural word order. While I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where I'd naturally be tempted to scramble this particular sentence, I think it's not ungrammatical to do so, both here as well as in other situations with this same type of infinitive verb phrase argument [^1]. For example, consider the similar sentence _mujhe(/maiNne) tumheN bataanaa thaa_ (roughly, "I wanted to tell you"). I might very well scramble this and say something like: _are, tumheN ye kisne bataayaa? tumheN to mujhe(/maiNne) bataanaa thaa! _(with a spoken emphasis on the _mujhe(/maiNne_), meaning roughly, "Who told you that?! I wanted to be the one who told you!"). Also, @Happu jii and @littlepond jii mentioned other examples of this type of scrambling above:


Happu said:


> When I say *m*_*ujhko (mujhe) tumko kuchh paise dene (baaqii) hai,* _it can mean that I (still) have to give the other person some money, or it can be the other way round.





littlepond said:


> Otherwise, a simple "mujhe tum ko kuchh paise dene haiN" or "tumhe mujh ko kuchh paise dene haiN" also work: one could substitute "tum ko" and "mujh ko" with "tumhe" and "mujhe" as well, as the two people know who has to give whom the money.


Anyway, UH scrambling rules are probably quite difficult to formulate. It certainly is the case that arguments (and adjuncts) of a verb are allowed to be scrambled quite freely. It's also true that not every possible scramble is permissible. The true set of permissible scrambles lies somewhere strictly in between {scrambles that just move around arguments and adjuncts of the verb} and {all possible scrambles}. I personally have no idea how to describe that set formally and precisely, but syntacticians working on HU have written numerous papers and books about this (that I admittedly have not read ) [^2].

--------
[^1]: I think "argument" is not just "for lack of a better word;" I think it's the correct piece of syntactic jargon 
[^2]: Keine's "Interpretting long scrambling in Hindi-Urdu," Kidwai's "XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar," Dayal's "Binding facts in Hindi and the scrambling phenomenon," Gurtu's "Anaphoric relations in Hindi and English," Mahajan's "The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory," ...


----------



## Pokeflute

Fair enough haha - I'll leave the conjecturing on word order to the academics


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> khaanaa khilvaataa





Happu said:


> apne sipaahiyoñ ke dvaaraa bañdiyoñ ko khaanaa khilvaataa hai.



I forgot to ask: _khaanaa khilvaanaa_ is not redundant in HU?

Or one uses _khaanaa _to disambiguate _khilvaanaa _from other possible meanings (have others "endure", etc.)?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I forgot to ask: _khaanaa khilvaanaa_ is not redundant in HU?



It is not. One says "maiN khaanaa khaa rahaa hooN," not just "maiN khaa rahaa hooN." The latter would beget the question, but what? _havaa_?

"khaanaa" the verb has to have an object!


----------



## amiramir

littlepond said:


> "khaanaa" the verb has to have an object!



Is this always true? 

If you've gone to someone's house as a guest and they offer you some snacks, food etc., it doesn't sound so odd (to me, for what it's worth) if you reply: No, thank you, maiN khaake aayaa huN. No? Or is that just interference from English?


----------



## littlepond

amiramir said:


> Is this always true?


No, not always: sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant, in contexts like OP's. When one needn't specify what one has eaten, one can use "khaanaa" alone, as in your below example, which is a good one. I have given another example below, when an object is not needed.



amiramir said:


> If you've gone to someone's house as a guest and they offer you some snacks, food etc., it doesn't sound so odd (to me, for what it's worth) if you reply: No, thank you, maiN khaake aayaa huN. No? Or is that just interference from English?



Another example:

Let's say A has dropped by B's home (they had planned to meet outside B's home), but B has not come outside, as planned. A honks his motorcycle's horn. B's wife comes out and could say either of the two:

voh khaanaa khaa rahe haiN
voh khaa rahe haiN

Both are normal. In one, she specifies what her husband is eating (lunch or dinner). In the other, she simply says her husband is engaged in the activity of eating. (It is implied by B's wife in both the cases that that is why B has not yet appeared.)


----------



## Dinraat

littlepond said:


> If it's a matter of owing some money, the most natural translation is "mujh pe tumhaare kuchh paise bante haiN" (I owe you some money) or "tum pe mere kuchh paise bante haiN" (you owe me money).


If someone said that to me (without the English translation, of course) I'd be confused as to who actually has to return money.


littlepond said:


> Otherwise, a simple "mujhe tum ko kuchh paise dene haiN" or "tumhe mujh ko kuchh paise dene haiN" also work


This is much more like it, although in everyday conversation, we, on the other side of the border, would normally say "mein ne tumhare kuchh paise dene hain" or "tum ne mere paise dene hain".


----------



## littlepond

Dinraat said:


> If someone said that to me (without the English translation, of course) I'd be confused as to who actually has to return money.


That's surprising, for there wouldn't be any confusion for a Hindi-Urdu speaker in India. So, in Pakistani Urdu, these expressions aren't used?


Dinraat said:


> This is much more like it, although in everyday conversation, we, on the other side of the border, would normally say "mein ne tumhare kuchh paise dene hain" or "tum ne mere paise dene hain".


Of course, one could say that (though in Hindi, it would be "mujhe" or "tumhe" instead of (the Punjabi-influenced?) "maiN ne" or "tum ne"). But that would be said in a different situation.


----------



## Dinraat

littlepond said:


> That's surprising, for there wouldn't be any confusion for a Hindi-Urdu speaker in India. So, in Pakistani Urdu, these expressions aren't used?


Nope. Apart from Karachiites/Hyderabadis, I fancy most others getting confused by that statement. I could be wrong though.


littlepond said:


> Of course, one could say that (though in Hindi, it would be "mujhe" or "tumhe" instead of (the Punjabi-influenced?) "maiN ne" or "tum ne"). But that would be said in a different situation.


Yeah I've heard that before. Although we've grown up speaking like that (mein ne), people from Karachi say mujhe instead of mein ne too.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> _khilaanaa_ is not quite transitive (it has valency 3), but the same logic applies. Its direct object is typically the food item (or whatever) -- not the person who is fed [^1]. In other words, one would typically say _maiNne bachche ko khaanaa khilaayaa_ [^2].


I don't understand this. 
It is accepting _khaanaa _as a direct object.
Why do you say that it is not "quite" transitive?

I thought that, when speaking about a verb and its family of causative forms, everything except the base verb (if intransitive) was, forcibly, transitive ...


----------



## aevynn

^ All I meant is that "transitive" sometimes refers to verbs with valency 2 (especially in discussions of HU "valency triples" such as _ubalnaa, ubaalnaa, ubalvaanaa_), but _khilaanaa_ already has valency 3 (the feeder, the person who's being fed, and the food item they're being fed). If you're happy calling a verb of any valency n > 1 "transitive," then so am I


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> _maiN ne xat likhaa_ = I wrote a letter.
> _maiN ne __munshii jii __se_ _xat likhvaayaa_ = I had the scribe write a letter.





aevynn said:


> (1) a causer (direct case or ergative, depending on aspect),
> (2) a "causee" (marked by the postposition _se_),
> (3) an indirect object (marked by postposition _ko_), and,
> (4) a direct object (direct case).


I am sorry if this question sounds stupid, but:
In English at least, there seems to be little syntactical difference between "to have a scribe write a letter" and "to have a child drink water"

Then why one says?:

_maataa bachche *ko *paanii pilaatii hai _ 

and not something like

_maataa bachche *se *paanii pilaatii hai   _

Is it a matter of semantic focus (child vs. water)?
Is it because the information about who wrote the letter sounds a tad more incidental/instrumental?

In other words, how is the line drawn between "indirect object" and "mediator agent" in a 3-valent causative verb?


----------



## amiramir

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> In English at least, there seems to be little syntactical difference between "to have a scribe write a letter" and "to have a child drink water"





> _maataa bachche *ko *paanii pilaatii hai_
> 
> and not something like
> 
> _maataa bachche *se *paanii pilaatii hai_



But your English sentence and your Hindi sentence are not equivalent.

To have a child drink water = bachche se paanii pilvaanaa. For example, pitaa ne naukar se bachche ko paanii pilvaayaa.

Then you'd be comparing apples to apples.

In my experience, pitaa ne bachche ko paanii pilaayaa is equivalent to, in normal parlance, the father gave the child water to drink. There are other verbs like this-- those you would think have a causative meaning given the causative verb, but in normal speech don't. pakaRaanaa comes to mine. MaiN ne us ko kitaab pakaRaaii -- is essentially 'I gave him the book to hold.'

I would posit, without having given it too much thought, that this would be because pilaanaa and pakaRaanaa generally aren't used with a 'se' phrase that shows who is being made to perform the action. 

That said, please wait for the actual natives / proper linguists on this forum to say whether the above is correct. Sometimes my heritage ear betrays me.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

amiramir said:


> To have a child drink water = bachche se paanii pilvaanaa. For example, pitaa ne naukar se bachche ko paanii pilvaayaa.


You are using both "bachche se" and "bachche ko" here, to express basically the same idea.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I am sorry if this question sounds stupid, but:
> In English at least, there seems to be little syntactical difference between "to have a scribe write a letter" and "to have a child drink water"



I think you're getting fooled by the looseness built in the English language. The two are completely different situations, as pointed out also by @amiramir jii. I am getting a letter written for me by the scribe; I am not getting the water drunk by the child for me! If there were a situation that the child drinks water and consequently the water enters inside me, you could indeed have said "maiN ne bachche se paanii pilvaayaa."



amiramir said:


> pakaRaanaa


pakRaanaa (there is no such verb as "pakaRaanaa")



amiramir said:


> MaiN ne us ko kitaab pakaRaaii -- is essentially 'I gave him the book to hold.'


Such a translation only because the English doesn't have a verb for "pakRaanaa."

Meanwhile, the causative form is "pakaRvaanaa." (Thus, the 3 forms are as follows: pakaRnaa - pakRaanaa - pakaRvaanaa.)

"mere haath-pair chal nahiiN rahe the tab, to maiN ne naukar ke haathoN use sandook dilvaayaa/pakaRvaayaa."
"us ne afsar ko ghuus lete (hue) range haath pakaRvaa diyaa."


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I got it.
One has to pay attention to whom, conceptually, is the final recepient of the action.
In _maiN munshii se_ _xat likhvaataa_ _huuN, _the fruit of the action is reverting back to me, I am the object (could I have used a _mujhko _here?). The _munshii  _is a mere conduit.

Instead, in _maataa bachche ko paanii pilaatii hai, _the recepient is the child, the action is exhausted in him (and the water).


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> In _maiN munshii se_ _xat likhvaataa_ _huuN, _the fruit of the action is reverting back to me, I am the object (could I have used a _mujhko _here?).



No; "mujh ko" is not possible.


----------



## aevynn

amiramir said:


> MaiN ne us ko kitaab pakaRaaii -- is essentially 'I gave him the book to hold.'





littlepond said:


> Such a translation only because the English doesn't have a verb for "pakRaanaa."


Ditransitive "to hand" gets pretty close to doing the job imho (as in, "I handed him the book").

---

One thing to maybe note is that, loosely speaking, English causatives happen at the "syntactic level" (where words combine together into sentences) whereas UH causatives happen at a lexical level (where morphemes combine together into words). I think there's more room for "quirks" to creep into languages at the lexical level than at the syntactic level. I don't know if there's a way to really formalize and quantify my previous sentence, but it's probably a reasonable heuristic nonetheless.

In particular, HU "valency triples" exhibit lots of irregularities. The "valency increasing operations" sometimes don't actually increase valency. Sometimes semantics change in idiosyncratic ways between one element of the valency triple and another. Sometimes the changes in postpositions / argument structure don't follow the standard paradigms. Probably there are also other types of irregularities that I'm missing.

For example, consider the _triple denaa-dilaanaa-dilvaanaa_. Here _denaa_ is already 3-valent --- but _dilaanaa_ is also 3-valent. There is no increase in valency and _dilaanaa_ does not mean "to have someone give X to Y" as one might naively expect from a general knowledge of UH causatives. Rather, it just means "to get X for Y" (ie, _Y ko X dilaanaa_, with _Y ko_ acting as an indirect object). And _dilvaanaa_ is often 4-valent ("to have X get Y for Z").

In another thread, we discussed the triple _likhnaa-likhaanaa-likhvaanaa_ and saw that _likhaanaa_ and _likhvaanaa_ are basically synonymous (but some might prefer one form over the other generally, or maybe in certain collocations). In contrast, as we saw above, the -_aanaa_ and -_vaanaa_ forms aren't synonymous in the triple _denaa-dilaanaa-dilvaanaa_. They're also not synonymous in _pakaRnaa-pakRaanaa-pakaRvaanaa _(_pakRaanaa_ "to hand X to Y" and _pakaRvaanaa_ = "to have X hand Y to Z").

Also, the "new" arguments don't get added in with the same postpositions. With _likhnaa-likhaanaa-likhvaanaa_, when one goes from _likhnaa_ to _likhaanaa/likhvaanaa_, the "new" argument is marked with a _se_ (the writer/scribe). With _pakaRnaa-pakRaanaa-pakaRvaanaa_, when one goes from _pakaRnaa_ to _pakRaanaa_, the "new" argument is an indirect object marked with a _ko_ (the person to whom whatever is being handed). It's at the next step, when passing to _pakaRvaanaa_, that the "new" argument is marked with _se_. The triples _khaanaa-khilaanaa-khilvaanaa_ and _piinaa-pilaanaa-pilvaanaa_ seem to behave mostly like _pakaRnaa-pakRaanaa-pakaRvaanaa (_in terms of valencies and postpositions required by the argument structures).

Anyway, I'm sure there are lots of other "irregularities" of these sorts. It may be possible to come up with a system in which all of these "irregularities" become regularities, but it's probably not easy or short --- and probably also unnecessary from a practical standpoint. If you're reading/listening, context plus the usual heuristic understanding of valency triples will probably be enough to make sense of whatever you've encountered. If you're wanting to use a particular causative correctly yourself and you haven't heard it used that way before, just look up or request a few example sentences and usage will probably become clear.


----------



## Pokeflute

littlepond said:


> I think you're getting fooled by the looseness built in the English language. The two are completely different situations, as pointed out also by @amiramir jii. I am getting a letter written for me by the scribe; I am not getting the water drunk by the child for me! If there were a situation that the child drinks water and consequently the water enters inside me, you could indeed have said "maiN ne bachche se paanii pilvaayaa."



Sorry I'm afraid I don't fully grasp how these are different scenarios. (Maybe this is me being an English speaker, and not realizing there was a distinction).

How are "to have a scribe write a letter" and "to have a child drink water" different? Is it just that the first benefits me and the second doesn't? 

If I understand correctly, then, would the following two scenarios be translated as so:

- I have a letter I want to send, but I can't write. So I have the scribe write the letter.

maiN ne lekhak se chiTTii likhvaaii

- I have no personal attachment to this letter. I have the scribe write the letter (feel free to invent some scenario where someone would have the scribe write a letter not for them - perhaps they are a janitor and need the scribe to finish work so they can clean the office and go home).

maiN ne lekhak ko chiTTii likhvaaii

________

This reminds me of a similar sentence I'd learnt:

pappa ne bacchoN [ko/se] homework karaayaa

I was taught that "ko" here implies the father helped the kids with the homework, and "se" implies the father made the kids do the homework.

I wonder if this is the same phenomenon.


----------



## amiramir

Pokeflute said:


> How are "to have a scribe write a letter" and "to have a child drink water" different?



They are not different if you think of them both in the context of getting s.o. to do something with both an agent and at least 1 object:
- munshi se chhiTThi likhvaanaa
- naukar se bachche ko paanii pilvaanaa

Whereas what is different is: to have a scribe write a letter (as above), and to give the child a drink of water (no separate agent necessary, just bachche ko paanii pilaanaa)


----------



## littlepond

Pokeflute said:


> Sorry I'm afraid I don't fully grasp how these are different scenarios.



In one, I am getting someone to do a job (it doesn't matter for whose benefit the letter is). In the other scenario, I am giving water to someone (so that that someone can drink it). How are they the same? If you were making the child drink so that you could get the water (maybe you don't have a throat, so you can't drink it, in this fictional scenario), then of course you could "bachche se paanii pilvaanaa."



Pokeflute said:


> - I have a letter I want to send, but I can't write. So I have the scribe write the letter.
> 
> maiN ne lekhak se chiTTii likhvaaii
> 
> - I have no personal attachment to this letter. I have the scribe write the letter (feel free to invent some scenario where someone would have the scribe write a letter not for them - perhaps they are a janitor and need the scribe to finish work so they can clean the office and go home).


In both situations, maiN ne munshii (or khat likhnevaale) se ...



Pokeflute said:


> maiN ne lekhak ko chiTTii likhvaaii



"ko" is not possible. And it's "chiTT*h*ii."



Pokeflute said:


> I was taught that "ko" here implies the father helped the kids with the homework, and "se" implies the father made the kids do the homework.



You were taught correctly. This is more of an idiomatic instance.


----------



## Alfaaz

Pokeflute said:
			
		

> maiN ne lekhak se chiTTii likhvaaii
> maiN ne lekhak ko chiTTii likhvaaii


_I had the scribe write a letter. / I had a letter written "se" the scribe.
I had a letter written (addressed) to the scribe. _or_ I dictated a letter "ko" the scribe.

maiN ne kaatib se pataa likhvaayaa - I had the scribe write an address. 
maiN ne kaatib ko pataa likhvaayaa - This could indicate that you told/read out an address for the scribe so that he could write/jot it down._


----------



## Pokeflute

amiramir said:


> They are not different if you think of them both in the context of getting s.o. to do something with both an agent and at least 1 object:
> - munshi se chhiTThi likhvaanaa
> - naukar se bachche ko paanii pilvaanaa
> 
> Whereas what is different is: to have a scribe write a letter (as above), and to give the child a drink of water (no separate agent necessary, just bachche ko paanii pilaanaa)



Ah ok I see now. As Littlepond pointed out, "to have drink" can mean multiple things (and maps to multiple Hindi-Urdu verbs), which was confusing me.

 There is a difference here in the number of arguments.



Verb (Hindi)Verb (English)Subject (unmarked)Direct Object (unmarked*)Indirect Object (ko)Agent (se)piinaTo DrinkThe drinkerThe liquidpilaanaaTo Feed WaterThe feederThe liquidThe drinkerpilvaanaaTo Have Water FedThe arrangerThe liquidThe drinkerThe feeder


(I realize this is restating a lot of what aevynn said above, but it's just now clicking in my head)

Thanks all
__________________
* This raises the question of "what if we want to mark the liquid as well (e.g. maine bacce ko usi energy drink ko (?) pilaayaa), but the answer is probably the same as our "denaa" conversation above


----------



## aevynn

Thanks everyone. I guess we've just seen yet another type of irregularity: for some verbs, the new argument of the "causative" can take multiple postpositions depending on the precise semantics, as demonstrated by @Pokeflute's example with _karaanaa_ and @Alfaaz's example with _likhvaanaa_. I don't think one has this possibility for multiple postpositions for all "causatives." For example, with _pilaanaa _and_ pilvaanaa, _the only argument that is ever marked with _ko_ is the person who actually drinks the water, I think (?).

Here's yet another type of irregularity. The valency on some verbs just cannot be increased in this way, even if there would be nothing semantically anomalous about the increased valency form. For example, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the thought "I had X take a book from the library." But _lenaa_ in UH doesn't have a causative. ???_le-vaanaa_ might be understood, but it would at best be very fringe and slightly humorous (ie, it would probably be regarded as playing with grammar in an extremely unusual way). And if one tries to model it based on _denaa-dilaanaa-dilvaanaa_, the *_lilaanaa_-*_lilvaanaa_ that you wound end up with would almost certainly not be understood. The most likely way to get around these non-existent verbs is to circumlocute and say something like_ maiN ne X ko laa'ibrerii se kitaab lene ko kahaa, _or _mere kahne par X ne laa'ibrerii se kitaab lii_, or whatever_. _Similar considerations apply with _honaa_. You can't translate something like "God caused light to exist" with *_hovaanaa_ or *_hulaanaa_ (the latter on the model of _ronaa-rulaanaa_ and _sonaa-sulaanaa_) [*]. These verbs just don't exist. One has to just use a different verb (eg, _raushnii paidaa kii_) to express this thought.

Anyway, my point again is that valency changes in HU verbs are maybe best modeled as lexical. A fully formed lexicon would maybe have to include full and independent entries for each verb in a valency set separately; writing in a full entry for just one of the verbs in a set and then trying to "automatically" and correctly generate the lexical entries of the others of the set would be quite difficult to do in a completely general way.

---
[*]: In some ways, _honaa_ can be regarded as an irregular "intransitive version" of _karnaa_ (eg, _maiN ne kaam puuraa kiyaa_ -> _kaam puuraa huaa_). But _karnaa_ alone doesn't really work in this context either.


----------



## Alfaaz

aevynn said:
			
		

> But _lenaa_ in UH doesn't have a causative.


There is لوانا - _livaanaa_.


> *۲. لینے دینا ، کرانا (کام وغیرہ) .*
> 
> میرے گھر کی تلاشی لوائی اور چوری کا کپڑا برآمد کرا کے مقدمہ قائم کر دیا .
> (۱۹۰۵ ، غدر دہلی کے افسانے ، ۱ : ۱۲۴) .
> 
> اس سے ... سڑکیں کٹوائیں ہرکارے کا کام لِوایا .
> (۱۹۱۳ ، سی پارۂ دل ، ۹۲) .
> 
> اشتقاق - [ لینا (رک) کا متعدی المتعدی ] ​


----------



## marrish

(cross-posted)


aevynn said:


> Here's yet another type of irregularity. The valency on some verbs just cannot be increased in this way, even if there would be nothing semantically anomalous about the increased valency form. For example, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the thought "I had X take a book from the library." But _lenaa_ in UH doesn't have a causative. ???_le-vaanaa_ might be understood, but it would at best be very fringe and slightly humorous (ie, it would probably be regarded as playing with grammar in an extremely unusual way). ... ... These verbs just don't exist.


لِوانا liwaanaa
لِوا جانا liwaa jaanaa
لِوائے لانا liwaa'e laanaa
لِوا لے جانا liwaa le jaanaa
لِوا لینا liwaa lenaa

lewaanaa is 'rustic', according to Platts 


> H ليوانا लेवाना _lewānā_, v.t. (rustic) = _liwānā_, q.v.





> caused light to exist" with *_hovaanaa_ or *_hulaanaa_


Perhaps *hojiyaanaa ....


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> ???_le-vaanaa_ might be understood, but it would at best be very fringe and slightly humorous



"livaanaa" (or "livvaanaa") as well as "lilvaanaa," they all exist. In Western UP speech, the "-i-" sometimes changes to "-a-" (i.e., "lav(v)aanaa" or "lalvaanaa").


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> You can't translate something like "God caused light to exist"



I think that is because of the kind of verbs that English uses. Hindi's mentalscape is different. "exist" in many cases would be "karnaa" (as you pointed out), "banaanaa," "denaa," etc., depending on context.


----------



## aevynn

Thanks for the (triple!) correction!  I certainly would have understood _livaanaa_ just fine in @Alfaaz jii's example sentences, so I don't know why the word didn't occur to me... Interesting also that even _lilvaanaa_ exists, @littlepond jii!



marrish said:


> Perhaps *hojiyaanaa ....


LOL  kitaab-e-paidaa'ish 1:3: "raushnii ho jaa'e!" kah kar xudaa ne raushnii hojiyaa'ii. I love it!

---
EDIT: I guess even if _lenaa_ isn't an example of something that doesn't have a "causative," I think there are other examples. Besides _honaa_, I can't think of a "causative" for _aanaa_ or _jaanaa_ either. Can any of you...?


----------



## Dinraat

aevynn said:


> "raushnii ho jaa'e!" kah kar xudaa ne raushnii _*hojiyaa'ii.*_


I guess hojiyaa'ii means kar di/ kar dena?


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> Besides _honaa_, I can't think of a "causative" for _aanaa_ or _jaanaa_ either. Can any of you...?



I can't either. Given that "bulvaanaa" and "bhijvaanaa" mostly do those roles, I have never felt a need to have causatives directly derived from "aanaa" and "jaanaa."


----------



## aevynn

Dinraat said:


> I guess hojiyaa'ii means kar di/ kar dena?


Sure lol. I think _*hojiyaanaa_ was just a joke-word by @marrish jii. Not meant to be taken seriously.



littlepond said:


> I can't either. Given that "bulvaanaa" and "bhijvaanaa" mostly do those roles, I have never felt a need to have causatives directly derived from "aanaa" and "jaanaa."


Agree. [Or perhaps just _bulaanaa_ and _bhejnaa_, respectively, if the intention is to express "to make someone come" or "to make someone go."] Just to clarify, I'm not at all saying that HU is deficient in being able to express these or any other thoughts. I believe firmly that pretty much any human thought that can be expressed in one human language can also be expressed in any other human language (or at least a close enough approximation that it makes no nevermind). It might not be as simple as translating "word-for-word" or "grammatical-phenomenon-for-grammatical-phenomenon," but that doesn't mean that the thought can't be carried over with a little more creativity. All I'm suggesting is that these valency-changing operations on UH verbs not be regarded as a completely systematic part of HU syntax (whereas changing "to do something" to "to make someone do something," for example, is a pretty systematic part of English syntax). There is definitely some systematic-ness to these UH valency-changing operations, but there are also a variety of lexical idiosyncracies that are difficult to generalize away.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> I can't think of a "causative" for _aanaa_ or _jaanaa_ either.





littlepond said:


> I can't either. Given that "bulvaanaa" and "bhijvaanaa" mostly do those roles, I have never felt a need to have causatives directly derived from "aanaa" and "jaanaa."


Couldn't _bhejnaa _be considered the causative of _jaanaa_, both in therms of morphological derivation (_bhe-janaa)_ and in terms of meaning: (to send == to cause to go)?


----------



## aevynn

Synchronically, I don't think any UH speaker would divvy up morphemes in _bhejnaa_ like "bhe-janaa." Diachronically, I don't think divvying _bhejnaa_ up as "bhe-janaa" reflects the etymological derivation:


			
				Wiktionary on jaanaa said:
			
		

> Inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit 𑀚𑀸𑀤𑀺 (jādi), from Sanskrit याति (yā́ti, “go; come”)...





			
				Wiktionary on bhejnaa said:
			
		

> Perhaps from Sauraseni Prakrit 𑀯𑀺𑀲𑀚𑁆𑀚𑀤𑀺 (visajjadi), from Sanskrit विसर्जयति (visarjayati, “to send, utter”). Turner disagrees, and reconstructs Ashokan Prakrit *𑀪𑁂𑀚𑁆𑀚𑀢𑀺 (*bhejjati), possibly from a Sanskrit अभि-अज्यते (abhi-ajyate, “to be led to”). The first etymology is slightly problematic, but the changes from s to h in Prakrit is not uncommon and so it is plausible. Tedesco gives the development visajj > *vihajj > undergoing metathesis *vhiajj > *vhejj.


----------

