# Urdu: قسم لينا



## urdustan

Hello,

Can qasam lenaa be used in the same way as qasam khaanaa or does it only mean to take/obtain an oath (from someone)?

Examples:

3adālat meN Omar se qasam lenaa

Khudaa kii qasam lenaa


Are both sentences correct or does khaanaa have to be substituted in the second sentence?

شکريه


----------



## marrish

Greetings,

*qasam lenaa* means "to make someone swear/to require someone take an oath." It does not mean the same as _qasam *khaanaa*_, just the opposite, but _qasam *khilaanaa*_ may be equalled in meaning with _qasam lenaa_.

The examples should be seen to keeping this in mind.

_عدالت میں عمر سے قسم لینا ہو گا۔
3adaalat meN 3umar *se* qasam lenaa (ho gaa)_: {It will be needed) to administer an oath to Omar in the court.

_ xudaa *kii* qasam lenaa خدا کی قسم لینا _does not sound right. It should be only and exclusively _xudaa kii qasam khaanaa_, i.e. to swear by God. As you can see the syntax is also not right in the second case because as a verb, _qasam lenaa _is governed by the postposition_ *se, *_unlike_* qasam khaanaa *_which goes with_* kii, *_like_* kisii kii qasam khaanaa*_=to swear by something/someone.

So your proposition to substitute _khaanaa_ in the second sentence is absolutely right.


----------



## Faylasoof

^ I agree with you marrish SaaHib, we wouldn't say _xudaa *kii* qasam lenaa خدا کی قسم لینا_ !! BTW, _qasam_ is treated as feminine in our speech - also seen in a number of Urdu lexicons, but in my 20th Urdu dictionary printed in Delhi it is treated as masculine. So from our point of view the sentence would be: _3adaalat meN 3umar se qasam lenaa ho g*ii*_


----------



## marrish

Thank you for confirmation, sometimes it feels odd if there is only one answer without any follow-up. _qasam_ for us is also feminine, plural _qasameN_ but I tend to use the masculine [as default] verb in such constructions. I don't know whether this is correct, I think so, but it is certainly not very common. You are of course perfectly right to point it out and my way of saying it should not be emulated, especially by people who learn Urdu! I remember it was discussed somewhere and I will try to look for that thread to link it here.

Link: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2327406, the post where CM Naim is quoted, see third option.


----------



## Qureshpor

Ι might be misunderstanding you marrish SaaHib but it appears to me that Faylasoof SaaHib is not talking about the main verb (in this case "lenaa" or "lenii" for a feminine subject) but the auxiliary verb, "ho jaanaa" in the quoted sentence. Because "qasam" is feminine, we must use "ho gii" and NOT "ho gaa".


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> Ι might be misunderstanding you marrish SaaHib but it appears to me that Faylasoof SaaHib is not talking about the main verb (in this case "lenaa" or "lenii" for a feminine subject) but the auxiliary verb, "ho jaanaa" in the quoted sentence. Because "qasam" is feminine, we must use "ho gii" and NOT "ho gaa".


We are on the same wave length, all three of us. For me there is no question of putting lenaa to lenii and I know Faylasoof SaaHib drew my attention to "ho *gaa*".

Please consider the following, leaving _lenii_ or _lenaa_ aside, as there is no contention about it (emphasis mine):



Qureshpor said:


> C.M.Naim (from Barabanki) in his introduction to "Introductory Urdu, 3rd edition published in 1999 by University of Chicago" states the following when talking about differences between Hindi and Urdu. "In another indirect construction, Hindi usually has the infinitive, functioning as a complement, agreeing with the grammatical subject of the verb; *Urdu, however, commonly has two more possibilities*
> 
> Hindi: mujhe kuchh kitaabeN Khariidnii haiN
> ...........................................................
> Urdu: mujhe kuchh kitaabeN *(plural)* Khariidnii haiN *(plural)*
> : mujhe kuchh kitaabeN *(plural)* Khariidnaa haiN *(plural)*
> : mujhe kuchh kitaabeN *(plural) *Khariidnaa hai *(singular)*


Following this pattern, using plural *qasameN* so that we get full compatibility, we can get:

1) _(mujhe, jaj ko...) 3umar se qasameN lenii haiN_ --- full agreement in gender and number of all parts of the verb.
2) _3umar se qasameN lenaa haiN_ --- partial agreement in gender and number, the infinitive remaining default masculine sg.
3) _3umar se qasameN lenaa hai_ --- no agreement of the noun with the verb, the whole of the verb being default masculine sg.

Per analogy,

1) _3umar se qasam lenii ho gii._ (full agreement)
2) _3umar se qasam lenaa ho gii_. (partial agreement)
3) _3umar se qasam lenaa ho gaa_. (no agreement)

As a side note, I don't quite understand why you said the auxiliary verb was '_ho jaanaa_'?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> We are on the same wave length, all three of us. For me there is no question of putting lenaa to lenii and I know Faylasoof SaaHib drew my attention to "ho *gaa*".
> 
> Please consider the following, leaving _lenii_ or _lenaa_ aside, as there is no contention about it (emphasis mine):
> 
> Following this pattern, using plural *qasameN* so that we get full compatibility, we can get:
> 
> 1) _(mujhe, jaj ko...) 3umar se qasameN lenii haiN_ --- full agreement in gender and number of all parts of the verb.
> 2) _3umar se qasameN lenaa haiN_ --- partial agreement in gender and number, the infinitive remaining default masculine sg.
> 3) _3umar se qasameN lenaa hai_ --- no agreement of the noun with the verb, the whole of the verb being default masculine sg.
> 
> Per analogy,
> 
> 1) _3umar se qasam lenii ho gii._ (full agreement)
> 2) _3umar se qasam lenaa ho gii_. (partial agreement)
> 3) _3umar se qasam lenaa ho gaa_. (no agreement)
> 
> As a side note, I don't quite understand why you said the auxiliary verb was '_ho jaanaa_'?



We might be going off topic but "hai" or "haiN" can not be termed as "masculine" for they do not display any gender. Whereas your "ho gaa" does and it is masculine when it should be feminine "ho gii" being linked to qasam.

C.M. Naim, in his third example is disconnecting the verb from the noun "kitaabeN" and hence is using "hai" instead of "haiN!". To superimpose his sentence on what you are trying to say, we would get..

3umar se qasameN lenaa ho gii....where, based on the second option we would have..

3umar se qasameN lenaa hoN gii

As far as my understanding goes, we can not deduce...

3umar se qasam lenaa ho gaa... from Naim's third example.


----------



## marrish

Normally, when we take the second example from Naim and change the tense from present to future, we will end up with:

_mujhe kitaabeN xariidn*aa hoN gii*_. In this case you are right in transposing it to _3umar se qasameN len*aa* *hoN gii*_. Here the auxiliary verb is linked in agreement with _kitaabeN_ and _qasameN, _while the infinitive remains in its default form, uninflected.

With regard to the third example from Naim, you are also right to note that the verb is disconnected from _kitaabeN (pl.)_ so we get _hai (sg.)_ instead of _haiN (pl)_. I can follow the argument that the gender is not semantically obvious from the auxiliary _hai_ or _haiN_ in Urdu but still what is certain is that there is no more agreement in number between the plural noun and conjugated verb form!

Returning to C.M. Naim's third example, _mujhe kitaabeN (f.pl) xariidnaa hai (default m. sg.)_--->_mujhe kuchh (m.sg.)xariidnaa hai (default m.sg)_--->_mujhe kitaab (f.sg.) xariidnaa hai (default m.sg.)_--->_mujhe qalam (m.sg.) xariidnaa hai (def. m.sg.)_.

From this line of reasoning it is evident that the construction 'dative+inf.(default)+auxilliary verb' remains unchanged default m.sg., no matter what the object(s) (_do kitaabeN_, _ek qalam_, _das lifaafe_ or _ek dawaat_) might be.

Further on, if we change the tense of the auxiliary verb, we will get: _qalam xariidnaa ho gaa_ and _tiin qalam xariidnaa ho gaa_._ kitaab xariidnaa ho gaa_ and _kitaabeN xariidnaa ho gaa_. If we follow the possibility that is given to us by the amorphous nature of _haiN_ or _hai_, that is the noun being disconnected from the auxiliary verb only with regard to number but not to gender, we would have to say *_mujhe kitaabeN (f.pl) lenaa ho gii (f.sg.)_*! And this would be a really interesting case. 

I hope I have been somewhat clearer this time.

Addition: I've been able to find one example on the net: programming _siikhne ke liye ibtidaa meN aap ko qasam lenaa ho gaa kih_ ... پروگرامنگ سیکھنے کے لیے ابتدا میں آپ کو قسم لینا ہوگا کہ . My commentary: 1) please note the wrong usage of qasam lenaa which is the topic of this thread! It is the influence of English idiom ''to take an oath''!!! 2) together with 1) it does not appear to be a reliable example to follow 3) the verb is masculine but it still does not prove my reasoning as F. SaaHib has mentioned the gender shift in one dictionary!


----------



## Wolverine9

marrish said:


> Addition: I've been able to find one example on the net: programming _siikhne ke liye ibtidaa meN aap ko qasam lenaa ho gaa kih_ ... پروگرامنگ سیکھنے کے لیے ابتدا میں آپ کو قسم لینا ہوگا کہ . My commentary: 1) please note the wrong usage of qasam lenaa which is the topic of this thread! It is the influence of English idiom ''to take an oath''!!!



There's also _ḥalf lenā _(mentioned in Platts), which could have led to _qasam lenā _in this context.  Do you think both are examples of English influence?  Maybe someone can verify the oldest usage of _ḥalf lenā _in Urdu.  Which dictionary are the dates listed in?


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> There's also _ḥalf lenā _(mentioned in Platts), which could have led to _qasam lenā _in this context.  Do you think both are examples of English influence?  Maybe someone can verify the oldest usage of _ḥalf lenā _in Urdu.  Which dictionary are the dates listed in?


Indeed, _Half lenaa_ has similar meaning to _qasam khaanaa_ but their usage is different. I will have to investigate the possibility of English influence on _Half lenaa_ but it seems unlikely that _Half lenaa_ has influenced people to confuse _qasam khaanaa_ with _qasam lenaa_. After all, the standard and most current verb is _Half uThaanaa, _not_ Half lenaa. _I promise to return to this tomorrow, it's very late now.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

By the way, since no one mentioned it, there is also qasam dena which is synonymous with qasam uThaanaa / khaanaa.


----------



## Faylasoof

Although the topic of the thread is indeed _qasam lenaa _we can discuss other ways _qasam_ is used in compound verbs in order to clarify / inform how the word gets used. I think it is OK. 

Bu to keep things simple (and try not to go off-topic):

In most Urdu lexicons _qasam_ is treated as feminine though I did find an exception so far (my post above). 

1) If we go with the feminine gender (the majority) then it has to be: 
_3umar se qasam lenaa ho g*ii*_
Just like: _mujhe kitaab xariidnaa* / lenaa*_ _ho g*ii*_.
(But also this : _ mujhe kitaab xariidnii / lenii ho g*ii*_)

2) If there are people treating it as a masculine noun, then:
_3umar se qasam lenaa ho g*aa*_   <--- sounds odd to me as I fall in the first group!
Just like: _mujhe juutaa xariidnaa / lenaa ho g*aa*_ -- (juutaa [shoe] being masculine).

But _juutii _[slipper] we treat as feminine, so the sentence becomes:
_mujhe juutii xariidnaa* / lenaa* ho g*ii  *_
(But also this : _ mujhe juutii xariidnii / lenii ho g*ii*_)

* In our speech and found commonly elsewhere too.  _I don't want to go into the discussion of xariidnaa vs. xariidnii and lenaa vs. lenii because we have already done this in at least one other thread quite comprehensively.
_
But the point is that if we treat _qasam _as feminine (most Urduphones I've come across seem to do so and most Urdu lexicons also indicate the same) then the sentence under discussion (_3adaalat meN 3umar se qasam lenaa ho gaa_) has to end in _ho g*ii*_, just as for the _kitaab_ example in (1) above, i.e. _3adaalat meN 3umar se qasam lenaa ho g*ii.*_

Just for the sake of completeness, here is how _qasam _is used in compound verbs:
قسم دينا _qasam denaa_ = قسم لينا qasam lenaa  = to administer an oath; put somebody under oath.
قسم دلانا _qasam dilaana_ = to make someone swear an oath.
قسم كهانا _qasam khaanaa_ = to swear; to take an oath.
(... and there is also of course قسم توڑنا = _qasam toRnaa_ =  to commit perjury, perjure oneself ; to violate an oath).


----------



## Faylasoof

Wolverine9 said:


> There's also _ḥalf lenā _(mentioned in Platts), which could have led to _qasam lenā _in this context.  Do you think both are examples of English influence?  Maybe someone can verify the oldest usage of _ḥalf lenā _in Urdu.  Which dictionary are the dates listed in?


 Yes, we have _Half lenaa_ listed in Platts but whether this and _qasam lenaa_ are due to English influence would require digging deeper not just in Urdu usage but also in Arabic since in MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) I have seen أخذ الحلف axz-ul-Half = (lit.) oath-taking. Not sure about Classical Arabic though. 

In Urdu these are much more common usages of Half: خلف اٹھانا _Half uThaanaa_ = to swear / to take an oath; حلف دینا _Half dena_ =  to administer an oath.

حَلْف _Half_ = oath = قسم _qasam_ = سَو گَنْد _suagand_ (discussed *here*). حَلْف _Half_ came into written Urdu usage in 1880, قسم _qasam_ in 1707 and سوگند _suagand_ in 1564. *This*, quite reliable, online dictionary gives the dates but all Urdu usage and chronology ultimately rely on the _22 volume "urduu luGhat"_ (reported _*here*_) that was finally published in and around July 2010 citing the earliest references possible.


----------



## Faylasoof

Cilquiestsuens said:


> By the way, since no one mentioned it, there is also qasam dena which is synonymous with qasam uThaanaa / khaanaa.


 Are people using _qasam uThaanaa_?  _qasam khaanaa_ and_ Half uThaanaa_ is how we use them and how I see these being used by most.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Are people using _qasam uThaanaa_?  _qasam khaanaa_ and_ Half uThaanaa_ is how we use them and how I see these being used by most.


I would suggest that "qasam uThaanaa" is a direct translation from the Punjabi "qasam chukNRaa". In Punjabi, one of the contestants in a dispute might say to the other (i.e. in a school play ground!) "chukk qasam" which would translate to "uThaa qasam!"


----------



## marrish

marrish said:


> Indeed, _Half lenaa_ has similar meaning to _qasam khaanaa_ but their usage is different. I will have to investigate the possibility of English influence on _Half lenaa_ but it seems unlikely that _Half lenaa_ has influenced people to confuse _qasam khaanaa_ with _qasam lenaa_. After all, the standard and most current verb is _Half uThaanaa, _not_ Half lenaa. _I promise to return to this tomorrow, it's very late now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faylasoof said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we have _Half lenaa_ listed in Platts but whether this and _qasam lenaa_ are due to English influence would require digging deeper not just in Urdu usage but also in Arabic since in MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) I have seen أخذ الحلف axz-ul-Half = (lit.) oath-taking. Not sure about Classical Arabic though.
> 
> In Urdu these are much more common usages of Half: خلف اٹھانا _Half uThaanaa_ = to swear / to take an oath; حلف دینا _Half dena_ = to administer an oath.
> 
> حَلْف _Half_ = oath = قسم _qasam_ = سَو گَنْد _suagand_ (discussed *here*). حَلْف _Half_ came into written Urdu usage in 1880, قسم _qasam_ in 1707 and سوگند _suagand_ in 1564. *This*, quite reliable, online dictionary gives the dates but all Urdu usage and chronology ultimately rely on the _22 volume "urduu luGhat"_ (reported _*here*_) that was finally published in and around July 2010 citing the earliest references possible.
Click to expand...

Faylasoof SaaHib, you are right saying that the ultimate authority on Urdu usage is currently the voluminous Urdu Lughat, the fruit of labour of love of many decades. Unfortunately I don't have access to it. A certain dictionary which predates that of Platts recorded _Half uThaanaa_ as we know it very well together with _Half lenaa_. For the oath administration the following are recorded: _Half denaa, Half uThwaanaa_. With regard to ''duly putting someone under oath" there is _Hasb-e-zaabitah Half diyaa gayaa_. 

With _saugand _we get the same set of verbs which we have already discussed above (welll, apart from uThaanaa!). There is also _saugand se kahnaa_. 

As we can see there is different set of verbs for _qasam_ and different for _Half_. This is circumstantial evidence that they are not influenced by English phrases, whereas *_qasam lenaa_* for "to take an oath" appears to be, in particular because it is not found in lexicons with this meaning and as we know the influence of English has been growing.


----------



## Wolverine9

marrish said:


> A certain dictionary which predates that of Platts [...]



Do you remember which dictionary?


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> Do you remember which dictionary?


Yes I do know as I retyped the contents from it. It is one of Fallon's dictionaries which is not available online. The reference I gave was merely intended to discuss the issue of possible influences, which I believe has been convincingly presented in the above post.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib, you are right saying that the ultimate authority on Urdu usage is currently the voluminous Urdu Lughat, the fruit of labour of love of many decades. Unfortunately I don't have access to it. A certain dictionary which predates that of Platts recorded _Half uThaanaa_ as we know it very well together with _Half lenaa_. For the oath administration the following are recorded: _Half denaa, Half uThwaanaa_. With regard to ''duly putting someone under oath" there is _Hasb-e-zaabitah Half diyaa gayaa_.
> 
> With _saugand _we get the same set of verbs which we have already discussed above (welll, apart from uThaanaa!). There is also _saugand se kahnaa_.
> 
> As we can see there is different set of verbs for _qasam_ and different for _Half_. This is circumstantial evidence that they are not influenced by English phrases, whereas *_qasam lenaa_* for "to take an oath" appears to be, in particular because it is not found in lexicons with this meaning and as we know the influence of English has been growing.


 Yes, I know about this! (Please see below).
Now, I would not dispute the growing English influence but this may not be so easy to determine since, as I mention above, the Arabic أخذ الحلف _axz-ul-Half _is there (even _axaza-l-Half_ might exist, i.e. use of the verb!) and we need to look into this.

For _saugand _we have:

سوگند* دینا* _suagand *dena*_ = to administer an oath (= Persian سوگند *دادن* _saugand *daadan*_)
سوگند *كھانا* _suagand *khaanaa*_ = to swear / take an oath. ( = Persian سوگند یاد كردن \ *خوردن* _suagand yaad kardan_ /* xurdan*)   
These Persian usages are where  we got our _*qasam khaanaa*_ etc. from

There is also *سوگند شكسنی suagand shikanii * used in elevated Urdu for perjury.

I haven't heard _saugand *se* khaanaa_. We would never use it either.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> Yes, I know about this! (Please see below).
> Now, I would not dispute the growing English influence but this may not be so easy to determine since, as I mention above, the Arabic أخذ الحلف _axz-ul-Half _is there (even _axaza-l-Half_ might exist, i.e. use of the verb!) and we need to look into this.
> 
> For _saugand _we have:
> 
> سوگند* دینا* _suagand *dena*_ = to administer an oath (= Persian سوگند *دادن* _saugand *daadan*_)
> سوگند *كھانا* _suagand *khaanaa*_ = to swear / take an oath. ( = Persian سوگند یاد كردن \ *خوردن* _suagand yaad kardan_ /* xurdan*)
> These Persian usages are where  we got our _*qasam khaanaa*_ etc. from
> 
> There is also *سوگند شكنی suagand shikanii * used in elevated Urdu for perjury.
> 
> I haven't heard _saugand *se* khaanaa_. We would never use it either.


Yes, it is obvious that the use of particular verbs reflects those used in Persian. Faylasoof SaaHib, I have been unable to figure out with which verb حلف is/was used in Persian.
I didn't say saugand se khaanaa سوگند سے کھانا! I said saugand se kahnaa سوگند سے کہنا!


----------



## Faylasoof

*Fallon *does have the usages we are talking about (and more)  but he gives the 'common' pronunciation (*Halaf*, except when used as _maf3uul muTlaq_, *Halfan*) instead of the 'educated' *Half* ! Over time the former spread enough to be included in reputable Urdu lexicons!

A حلف_* hal'af*_; H. dharam, n. m. حلف he swore. Swearing by what is sacred; an oath._* half'an*_, _*ba-halaf*_, adj. On one's oath._* halfan tasdīq huī*_. Attested or deposed on oath; sworn._* halaf*_ _*uṭhānā*_, v. a. To make oath; to swear. _*halaf-darogī,*_ n. f. Perjury; false-swearing._* halaf denā yā uṭhvānā*_, v. a. To administer an oath. _*halaf se izhār denā*_, v. a. To depose on oath. halaf lenā, yā uṭhānā. Making oath; swearing. _*halaf-nāma*_, n. m. A declaration upon oath; a written solemn declaration by a person exempt by the Regulations from being sworn in the ordinary manner; an affidavit._* hasb-i-zābitah halaf dīyā gayā*_. Sworn in due form. 

 (Fallon's Hindustani dictionary (1879) does indeed predate Platts' (1884) by five years.)


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Yes, it is obvious that the use of particular verbs reflects those used in Persian. Faylasoof SaaHib, I have been unable to figure out with which verb حلف is/was used in Persian.
> I didn't say saugand se khaanaa سوگند سے کھانا! I said saugand se kahnaa سوگند سے کہنا!


 Sorry, my mistake! But even this I don't remember hearing. Instead we say _*qasam de ke kahnaa*_. 

I think in Persian  there is as preference for *saugand / suugand * rather than using _*Half*_ ( *لغت نامه دهخدا*
حلف . [ ح َ ] (ع مص ) سوگند خوردن . (منتهی الارب ) (اقرب الموارد) (دهار) (از ترجمان عادل ). حِلف . حَلِف . محلوف . محلوفة. محلوفاء همه مصادرند. (اقرب الموارد) (منتهی الارب ). حلف بفتح و سکون لام یا کسر آن به معنی سوگندی است که بدان پیمان بندند. سپس هر گونه سوگندرا یمین و حلف نامیدند. چنانچه در مضمرات ذکر کرده و با این وصف حلف و یمین دو لفظ مرادف یکدیگر باشند.چنانچه در جامعالرموز هم بهمین نحو بیان کرده . در جامعالرموز در فصل سوگند گفته است : سوگند موقت ، سوگندیست که وقت و تعیین آن در آن تصریح شده باشد. و سوگند جاودانی ، آن است که همیشگی آن در آن تصریح شده . و سوگند مطلق نامعلوم ، آن است که وقت و همیشگی و یا غیر آن در آن قید نشده باشد. (کشاف اصطلاحات الفنون ).

BTW, I found that Hayyim has _*Halaf*_ too as an alternative:
*حلف (halaf: helf*) Noun A An oath. Syn. قسم || A sworn agreement; a covenant. [(ahlaf) احلاف = Plural].

But also Half:
*حلف (half)* Noun A Swearing. A oath.


----------



## marrish

Perhaps the most interesting reference as to the usage of verbs with Half (Halaf) will be the entry from my favourite Farhang-e-Aasafiyyah (later than Platts but doesn't matter):

*حَلَف اُٹھانا*: قسم کھانا۔ قرآن اُٹھانا۔ مذہبی کتاب کی قسم کھانا۔ گنگا جلی اُٹھانا 
Halaf uThaanaa: qasam khaanaa - qur'aan uThaanaa - mazhabii kitaab kii qasam khaanaa - gaNgaa-jalii uThaanaa.

Besides, one of the meanings of _Half_ (in this lexicon there is the more current version _Halaf_) is the Koran. As is mentioned in one of my above posts, the usage of _Halaf_ and _qasam_ is not identical whence we can see that the verbs which accompany them are different.

EDIT: I was busy typing my post and I had not noticed yours! Yes, I went through Dehkhoda and others but I haven't found a verb which would accompany _Half/Halaf_.


----------



## Wolverine9

I don't know if Pashto usage has any basis or implications for Urdu, but it's worth mentioning that Pashto has _qasam xwarral_ and _qasam aaxistal_ as synonyms meaning "to swear an oath," with _xwarral = khaanaa _and _aaxistal = lenaa.  _At the very least, it shows languages in proximity to Urdu use the equivalent of _qasam lenaa_, though I'm not sure how common _qasam aaxistal _is compared to _qasam xwarral_.  Considering these entries are from the year 1867, I doubt Pashto would've been influenced by English at this early date.



Faylasoof said:


> سوگند *كھانا* _suagand *khaanaa*_ = to swear / take an oath. ( = Persian سوگند یاد كردن \ *خوردن* _suagand yaad kardan_ /* xurdan*)



Wouldn't _saugand yaad kardan_ mean "to remember an oath"?



marrish said:


> I have been unable to figure out with which verb حلف is/was used in Persian.



I have seen _Half kardan_ in Persian.  Using _karnaa _as a verb with "oath" in Urdu would sound odd to me, though.


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> Wouldn't _saugand yaad kardan_ mean "to remember an oath"?
> I have seen _Half kardan_ in Persian.  Using _karnaa _as a verb with "oath" in Urdu would sound odd to me, though.


Could you give some reference? You are right, _karnaa_ is no good.
saugand yaad kardan would mean ''to swear'', verbatim ''to mention an oath''. It is idiomatic for older language.


----------



## Wolverine9

I've seen it in some Persian dictionaries, for example p. 130 here.  However, I haven't seen the combination _Half kardan_ when I google for articles in Persian.


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> I've seen it in some Persian dictionaries, for example p. 130 here.  However, I haven't seen the combination _Half kardan_ when I google for articles in Persian.


Yes, I have seen it under ''swear''. This dictionary, I would not spend too much time to assess it, presents major mistakes as to the pronunciation/romanization.

Now that I remember, in Urdu for a ceremony we use the term *Half-bardaarii حلف برداری* which would originate from _Half bar-daashtan_.

Two possibilities: _bardaarii_ is used for the original _uThaanaa_ or _uThaanaa_ is used for original _bardaashtan_!


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Yes, I have seen it under ''swear''. This dictionary, I would not spend too much time to assess it, presents major mistakes as to the pronunciation/romanization.
> 
> Now that I remember, in Urdu for a ceremony we use the term *Half-bardaarii حلف برداری* which would originate from _Half bar-daashtan_.
> 
> Two possibilities: _bardaarii_ is used for the original _uThaanaa_ or _uThaanaa_ is used for original _bardaashtan_!


 As I mentioned above, the way we use the various terms being discussed here can all be traced back to Persian usage, hence it is more likely that _Half uTHaanaa_ is from _Half bardaashtan_. Much like the suspected route:_ suagand / suugand xurdan_ --> _qasam khaanaa_. 

It would be worth checking older literature for this.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> As I mentioned above, the way we use the various terms being discussed here can all be traced back to Persian usage, hence it is more likely that _Half uTHaanaa_ is from _Half bardaashtan_. Much like the suspected route:_ suagand / suugand xurdan_ --> _qasam khaanaa_.
> 
> It would be worth checking older literature for this.


I had a discussion yesterday with a Persian speaking friend who said that _Half_ was not widely used and I quote: "Anyway, حلف برداری (or any "raising" for oath) is not used in Persian as far as I know."


----------



## Wolverine9

Steingass lists the expression _saugand bar-aawardan_.  One of the meanings of _bar-aawardan_ is "to raise up."  Steingass is an Indo-Persian dictionary, though, so I'm not sure if that is/was a genuine Persian expression or represents Indic influence. 

EDIT: Hayyim also lists _sowgand bar-aavardan_


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> I had a discussion yesterday with a Persian speaking friend who said that _Half_ was not widely used and I quote: "Anyway, حلف برداری (or any "raising" for oath) is not used in Persian as far as I know."


 Confirms what I said earlier.  I didn't imply this when I said "_Half uTHaanaa_ is from _Half bardaashtan_". (below)



Faylasoof said:


> Sorry, my mistake! But even this I don't remember hearing. Instead we say _*qasam de ke kahnaa*_.
> 
> I think in Persian  there is as preference for *saugand / suugand * rather than using _*Half*_ ( *لغت نامه دهخدا*
> حلف . [ ح َ ] (ع مص ) سوگند خوردن . (منتهی الارب ) (اقرب الموارد) (دهار)  (از ترجمان عادل ). حِلف . حَلِف . محلوف . محلوفة. محلوفاء همه مصادرند.  (اقرب الموارد) (منتهی الارب ). حلف بفتح و سکون لام یا کسر آن به معنی  سوگندی است که بدان پیمان بندند. سپس هر گونه سوگندرا یمین و حلف نامیدند.  چنانچه در مضمرات ذکر کرده و با این وصف حلف و یمین دو لفظ مرادف یکدیگر  باشند.چنانچه در جامعالرموز هم بهمین نحو بیان کرده . در جامعالرموز در فصل  سوگند گفته است : سوگند موقت ، سوگندیست که وقت و تعیین آن در آن تصریح  شده باشد. و سوگند جاودانی ، آن است که همیشگی آن در آن تصریح شده . و  سوگند مطلق نامعلوم ، آن است که وقت و همیشگی و یا غیر آن در آن قید نشده  باشد. (کشاف اصطلاحات الفنون ).
> 
> BTW, I found that Hayyim has _*Halaf*_ too as an alternative:
> *حلف (halaf: helf*) Noun A An oath. Syn. قسم || A sworn agreement; a covenant. [(ahlaf) احلاف = Plural].
> 
> But also Half:
> *حلف (half)* Noun A Swearing. A oath.





Faylasoof said:


> As I mentioned above, the way we use the various terms being discussed here can all be traced back to Persian usage, hence it is more likely that _Half uTHaanaa_ is from _Half bardaashtan_. Much like the suspected route:_ suagand / suugand xurdan_ --> _qasam khaanaa_.
> 
> It would be worth checking older literature for this.


 We need to look at this usage (_Half bardaashtan_) in Indo-Pak Persian which means digging some of our very own and very old literature!


----------



## Faylasoof

Wolverine9 said:


> Steingass lists the expression _saugand bar-aawardan_.  One of the meanings of _bar-aawardan_ is "to raise up."  Steingass is an Indo-Persian dictionary, though, so I'm not sure if that is/was a genuine Persian expression or represents Indic influence.
> 
> EDIT: Hayyim also lists _sowgand bar-aavardan_


 I too noticed this and Hayyim can't be accused of an Indo-Pak Persian bias! Even Steingass shouldn't be ignored because he tried to cater to the widest possible readership, both subcontinental and Iranian.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> I too noticed this and Hayyim can't be accused of an Indo-Pak Persian bias! Even Steingass shouldn't be ignored because he tried to cater to the widest possible readership, both subcontinental and Iranian.


Some people see Indo-Persian in somewhat negative light, almost as if the people of India have created a kind of Persian that is faulty and not as good as the "original" article. However they forget that Persian was brought to India by people who were mother-tongue speakers of the language.

One of the earliest Sufi prose writings is kashfu_lmaHjuub written by Ali Hajveri aka daataa ganj baxsh. He was born in Ghazna around 990 and died in Lahore. The earliest poetry is by Mas'ud Sa'd Salman who was born in Lahore in 1046. His parents had come from Hamadan. Amir Khusrau (1253-1325), Mirza Abdul Qadir Bedil (1642-1720) born in Kabul  and Mirza Assadullah Khan Ghalib (1779-1869), all towering figures in Persian poetry were of Persian speaking Turkic ancestry. 

During the Safavid Rule, a large number of Persian poets and other literati migrated to Mughal India. It is interesting to note that the most comprehensive Persian dictionary compiler (Dehkhoda-1931) quotes from the earliest Indo-Persian dictionaries, for example..

Farhang-i-Jahangiri (1608) whose author had moved from Shiraz

Burhan-i-Qati' (1651). It's author was a Tabrezi.

So, apart from minor differences, Indo-Persian is essentially the same as the Persian of the Classical Persian writers, both poets and prose writers.


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> Some people see Indo-Persian in somewhat negative light, almost as if the people of India have created a kind of Persian that is faulty and not as good as the "original" article. However they forget that Persian was brought to India by people who were mother-tongue speakers of the language.
> ......
> 
> So, apart from minor differences, Indo-Persian is essentially the same as the Persian of the Classical Persian writers, both poets and prose writers.


 I do not wish to go off-topic here but would just add that I very much agree with you QP SaaHib since the subcontinent has produced some of the finest Persian literature - one only has to read the Persian poetry of _Ghaalib-e-dehlavii_, _iqbaal laahaurii _or_ abul faiDh faiDhii _(*فیضی* ) and others, not forgetting the numerous South Asian Persian prose writers, including Mir (_miir taqii miir_ whose _Zikr-e-miir_ is in Persian) to see this. However, we did eventually evolve a Persian idiom typical to the Indo-Pak region. Can't put a date on it but I have a large collection of these which is indeed good Persian, but idioms unknown in Iran, Afghanistan & Tajikistan. Perhaps I should search for _Half bardaashtan_ in this and other collections.


----------



## urdustan

Faylasoof said:


> Just for the sake of completeness, here is how _qasam _is used in compound verbs:
> قسم دينا _qasam denaa_ = قسم لينا qasam lenaa  = to administer an oath; put somebody under oath.
> قسم دلانا _qasam dilaana_ = to make someone swear an oath.
> قسم كهانا _qasam khaanaa_ = to swear; to take an oath.
> (... and there is also of course قسم توڑنا = _qasam toRnaa_ =  to commit perjury, perjure oneself ; to violate an oath).



SaaHib, what's the difference between qasam denaa & qasam dilaanaa?  The definitions sound the same.  I've mostly heard qasam khilaanaa.


----------



## Wolverine9

The use of uṭhānā in swearing could have resulted from the actual act of lifting a sacred object.  See below.

H اٿهانا उठाना _uṭhānā_ [caus. S. उद्+स्था], v.t. To lift,  take up, raise, raise up, elevate, hoist; *to take up (anything held sacred) for the purpose of swearing by it, to swear by;*[...]


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> The use of uṭhānā in swearing could have resulted from the actual act of lifting a sacred object.  See below.
> 
> H اٿهانا उठाना _uṭhānā_ [caus. S. उद्+स्था], v.t. To lift,  take up, raise, raise up, elevate, hoist; *to take up (anything held sacred) for the purpose of swearing by it, to swear by;*[...]



Yes, it is the most plausible reasoning and I have already posted this before which is even more convincing (English translation added):


marrish said:


> Perhaps the most interesting reference as to the usage of verbs with Half (Halaf) will be the entry from my favourite Farhang-e-Aasafiyyah (later than Platts but doesn't matter):
> 
> *حَلَف اُٹھانا*: قسم کھانا۔ قرآن اُٹھانا۔ مذہبی کتاب کی قسم کھانا۔ گنگا جلی اُٹھانا
> Halaf uThaanaa: qasam khaanaa - *qur'aan uThaanaa - mazhabii kitaab kii qasam khaanaa - gaNgaa-jalii uThaanaa.
> **
> (to take up the Koran, to swear by a religious book, to take up a container with water from the Ganges)*
> Besides, one of the meanings of _Half_ (in this lexicon there is the more current version _Halaf_) is the Koran.


----------



## gagun

saugnad dilana/dena/khilana these three seem to be a single meaning as qasam lena.
did anybody hear about qasam rakhna?


----------



## Faylasoof

gagun said:


> saugnad dilana/dena/khilana these three seem to be a single meaning as qasam lena.
> did anybody hear about qasam rakhna?


 We don't use 'qasam rakhnaa' and I haven't heard it being used in the circles I move in.


----------



## urdustan

Faylasoof said:


> We don't use 'qasam rakhnaa' and I haven't heard it being used in the circles I move in.



Do you know what the difference is between qasam dena & qasam dilaanaa?


----------



## marrish

Regarding _qasam lenaa *ho gaa*_ or _*ho gii*_:


marrish said:


> Normally, when we take the second example from Naim and change the tense from present to future, we will end up with:
> 
> _mujhe kitaabeN xariidn*aa hoN gii*_. In this case you are right in transposing it to _3umar se qasameN len*aa* *hoN gii*_. Here the auxiliary verb is linked in agreement with _kitaabeN_ and _qasameN, _while the infinitive remains in its default form, uninflected.
> 
> With regard to the third example from Naim, you are also right to note that the verb is disconnected from _kitaabeN (pl.)_ so we get _hai (sg.)_ instead of _haiN (pl)_. I can follow the argument that the gender is not semantically obvious from the auxiliary _hai_ or _haiN_ in Urdu but still what is certain is that there is no more agreement in number between the plural noun and conjugated verb form!
> 
> Returning to C.M. Naim's third example, _mujhe kitaabeN (f.pl) xariidnaa hai (default m. sg.)_--->_mujhe kuchh (m.sg.)xariidnaa hai (default m.sg)_--->_mujhe kitaab (f.sg.) xariidnaa hai (default m.sg.)_--->_mujhe qalam (m.sg.) xariidnaa hai (def. m.sg.)_.
> 
> From this line of reasoning it is evident that the construction 'dative+inf.(default)+auxilliary verb' remains unchanged default m.sg., no matter what the object(s) (_do kitaabeN_, _ek qalam_, _das lifaafe_ or _ek dawaat_) might be.
> 
> Further on, if we change the tense of the auxiliary verb, we will get: _qalam xariidnaa ho gaa_ and _tiin qalam xariidnaa ho gaa_._ kitaab xariidnaa ho gaa_ and _kitaabeN xariidnaa ho gaa_. If we follow the possibility that is given to us by the amorphous nature of _haiN_ or _hai_, that is the noun being disconnected from the auxiliary verb only with regard to number but not to gender, we would have to say *_mujhe kitaabeN (f.pl) lenaa ho gii (f.sg.)_*! And this would be a really interesting case.
> 
> I hope I have been somewhat clearer this time.



In another thread these sentences were quoted from Allama Nazm Tabatabai of Lakhnau (if you follow the link, there will be more information available).



Qureshpor said:


> ہاں، ہندو اگر یہ کوشش کریں کہ بھاکا میں جتنے فارسی اسماء مل گئے ہیں اُن کو اِس زبان سے نکال ڈالیں تو اِن کو نئی زبان بنانا پڑے گا۔
> 
> Another similar example..
> 
> اُن لوگوں کا شاعر ہونا توکجا اُنھیں اچھی طرح بات کرنا بھی نہیں آتا۔


Transliteration: haaN, hinduu agar yih koshish kareN kih bhaakaa meN jitne faarsii asmaa2 mil ga'e haiN un ko is zabaan se nikaal DaaleN to *in ko na'ii zabaan banaanaa paRe gaa*.

un logoN kaa shaa3ir honaa to kujaa unheN achchhii tarH *baat karnaa bhii nahiiN aataa*.

_zabaan banaanaa paRe gaa_ is exactly the same way of saying things like _qasam lenaa ho gaa_.
Both _zabaan_ and _qasam_ are singular feminine nouns. Both _bananaa_ and _lenaa_ are infinitives in their singular masculine form. _qasam lenaa_ _*ho gaa*_ is almost the same as _qasam lenaa *paRe gaa *_and both _zabaan banaanaa paRe *gaa*_ and _qasam lenaa ho *gaa*_ display the default masculine singular verb.


----------



## urdustan

Shukriyah for the examples, marrish SaaHib!  qasam lenaa ho gaa is interesting.


----------



## urdustan

Does anyone know the answer to my question below?



urdustan said:


> Do you know what the difference is between qasam dena & qasam dilaanaa?


----------



## marrish

urdustan said:


> Does anyone know the answer to my question below?


 This is what the dictionary has to say about it: 
_
qasam *dilānā* *(-**ko)*, To administer an oath (to), to make (one) swear:—qasam *denā* *(-**ko)*, To administer an oath (to); *to adjure; to conjure (by, -se); to place or put under an oath of prohibition, to place or put under a ban:
*_
*qasam denaa* has already been described in the previous posts; *qasam dilaanaa* basically means the same but it is less frequently used and it is a sort of, I would say, putting an obligation on someone, causing one to be obliged to do or not to do something.


----------



## urdustan

marrish said:


> This is what the dictionary has to say about it:
> _
> qasam *dilānā* *(-**ko)*, To administer an oath (to), to make (one) swear:—qasam *denā* *(-**ko)*, To administer an oath (to); *to adjure; to conjure (by, -se); to place or put under an oath of prohibition, to place or put under a ban:
> *_
> *qasam denaa* has already been described in the previous posts; *qasam dilaanaa* basically means the same but it is less frequently used and it is a sort of, I would say, putting an obligation on someone, causing one to be obliged to do or not to do something.



Thank you marrish SaaHib!  Would you say *qasam khilaanaa* is also the same thing?  I think that's what I most commonly hear.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> We are on the same wave length, all three of us. For me there is no question of putting lenaa to lenii and I know Faylasoof SaaHib drew my attention to "ho *gaa*".
> 
> Please consider the following, leaving _lenii_ or _lenaa_ aside, as there is no contention about it (emphasis mine):
> 
> Following this pattern, using plural *qasameN* so that we get full compatibility, we can get:
> 
> 1) _(mujhe, jaj ko...) 3umar se qasameN lenii haiN_ --- full agreement in gender and number of all parts of the verb.
> 2) _3umar se qasameN lenaa haiN_ --- partial agreement in gender and number, the infinitive remaining default masculine sg.
> 3) _3umar se qasameN lenaa hai_ --- no agreement of the noun with the verb, the whole of the verb being default masculine sg.
> 
> Per analogy,
> 
> 1) _3umar se qasam lenii ho gii._ (full agreement)
> 2) _3umar se qasam lenaa ho gii_. (partial agreement)
> 3) _3umar se qasam lenaa ho gaa_. (no agreement)
> 
> As a side note, I don't quite understand why you said the auxiliary verb was '_ho jaanaa_'?


marrish SaaHib, I will have to accept a delayed reaction! I agree with you wholeheartedly that the sentence...

3adaalat meN *jaj ko* 3umar se *qasam lenaa* *ho gaa *maps exactly with C.M. Naim's third example. Let me repeat those examples, adding past and future element to them.

1) mujhe kuchh kitaabeN xariidnii haiN/thiiN/hoN gii (This form is what is the norm in Dehlavii Urdu and Hindi)

2) mujhe kuchh kitaabeN xariidnaa haiN/thiiN/hoN gii (This form is the one our Faylasoof SaaHib adheres to....and I must confess that if I was n't using form 1) based on my Punjabi instincts, I would be most comfortable with form 2)

3) mujhe kuchh kitaabeN xariidnaa hai/thaa/ho gaa.

To make things easy, let us change the plural noun to the singular.

1) mujhe ek kitaab xariidnii hai/thii/ho gii

2) mujhe ek kitaab xariidnaa hai/thii/ho gii

3) *mujhe* ek* kitaab xariidnaa* hai/*thaa*/*ho gaa*

This is equivalent to

3adaalat meN *jaj ko* 3umar se *qasam lenaa* *ho gaa
*
It is this very pattern that Allamah Ali Haider Nazm Tabatabai (hailing from Lucknow) is employing when he says in "maqaalaat-i-Tabatabai"...

*in ko* na'ii *zabaan banaanaa* *paRe gaa* and

*unheN* achchhii tarH *baat karnaa* bhii nahiiN *aataa

*It is obvious from this pattern that it matters not whether we have *xat likhnaa*, *kabaab* *khaanaa* or *chiTThii likhnaa* and *roTii khaanaa*, the main verb is taken as a masculine noun and it finds concord with the secondary verb in the masculine format.


----------



## Qureshpor

urdustan said:


> Hello,
> 
> Can qasam lenaa be used in the same way as qasam khaanaa or does it only mean to take/obtain an oath (from someone)?
> 
> Examples:
> 
> 3adālat meN Omar se qasam lenaa
> 
> Khudaa kii qasam lenaa
> 
> 
> Are both sentences correct or does khaanaa have to be substituted in the second sentence?
> 
> شکريه


ایک بھوکا شخص قاضی کے پہاں گیا۔ ۔کہنے لگا میں بھوکا ہوں، مجھے کچھ دو تو میں کھاؤں۔ قاضی نے کہا یہ قاضی کا گھر ہے۔ قسم کھا اور چلا جا


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> ایک بھوکا شخص قاضی کے پہاں گیا۔ ۔کہنے لگا میں بھوکا ہوں، مجھے کچھ دو تو میں کھاؤں۔ قاضی نے کہا یہ قاضی کا گھر ہے۔ قسم کھا اور چلا جا



Quresh jii, can you transliterate what you wrote please?

On Urdu news mostly "Halaf" is used and not "qasam". 

Ex: "Vaziir-e-3azam ne Xudaa kaa Halaf uThaayaa thaa".


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> Quresh jii, can you transliterate what you wrote please?
> 
> On Urdu news mostly "Halaf" is used and not "qasam".
> 
> Ex: "Vaziir-e-3azam ne Xudaa kaa Halaf uThaayaa thaa".


Of course! The pleasure will be all mine. 

ایک بھوکا شخص قاضی کے پہاں گیا۔ ۔کہنے لگا میں بھوکا ہوں، مجھے کچھ دو تو میں کھاؤں۔ قاضی نے کہا یہ قاضی کا گھر ہے۔ قسم کھا اور چلا جا

ek bhuukaa shaxs qaazii ke yahaaN gayaa. kahne lagaa maiN bhuukaa huuN, mujhe kuchh do to maiN khaa'uuN. qaazii ne kahaa yih qaazii kaa ghar hai. *qasam khaa* aur chalaa jaa!

mundiyaa jii, Halaf is not used because one has "Halaf uThaanaa" whereas it works with "qasam khaanaa" because he is after something to eat. I hope this makes sense.


----------



## marrish

mundiya said:


> Ex: "Vaziir-e-3azam ne Xudaa kaa Halaf uThaayaa thaa".


unheN laakh laakh Half uThaane deN vuh to magar apnii qasamoN par aur vuh jis bhii kii kyoN na hoN utarne kaa soch hii nahiiN rahe hote!


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> Of course! The pleasure will be all mine.
> 
> ایک بھوکا شخص قاضی کے پہاں گیا۔ ۔کہنے لگا میں بھوکا ہوں، مجھے کچھ دو تو میں کھاؤں۔ قاضی نے کہا یہ قاضی کا گھر ہے۔ قسم کھا اور چلا جا
> 
> ek bhuukaa shaxs qaazii ke yahaaN gayaa. kahne lagaa maiN bhuukaa huuN, mujhe kuchh do to maiN khaa'uuN. qaazii ne kahaa yih qaazii kaa ghar hai. *qasam khaa* aur chalaa jaa!
> 
> mundiyaa jii, Halaf is not used because one has "Halaf uThaanaa" whereas it works with "qasam khaanaa" because he is after something to eat. I hope this makes sense.



shukriyah Quresh jii.  It does make sense.  I have heard these types of clever puns before.  Very nice.


----------



## mundiya

marrish said:


> unheN laakh laakh Half uThaane deN vuh to magar apnii qasamoN par aur vuh jis bhii kii kyoN na hoN utarne kaa soch hii nahiiN rahe hote!



aap ne bilkul sach bolaa marrish jii.


----------



## urdustan

I heard *qasam lenaa* (rabb kii qasam le) in a Bollywood movie that I watched today.


----------



## mundiya

mundiya said:


> aap ne bilkul sach bolaa kahaa marrish jii.



LOL, I think I was half asleep!



urdustan said:


> I heard *qasam lenaa* (rabb kii qasam le) in a Bollywood movie that I watched today.



This usage of "qasam lenaa" is correct in Hindi but less common than "qasam khaanaa".  However, in Urdu it is incorrect as others have explained.


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> [...]This usage of "qasam lenaa" is correct in Hindi but less common than "qasam khaanaa".  However, in Urdu it is incorrect as others have explained.


Just to throw a spanner in the works, here is a shi3r attributed to Bahadur Shah Zafar.

dil-o-jaaN, diin-o-iimaaN, jo lenaa hai sanam lelo
kareN ge 3uzr dene meN nah ham, chaaho qasam le lo


----------



## urdustan

Qureshpor said:


> Just to throw a spanner in the works, here is a shi3r attributed to Bahadur Shah Zafar.
> 
> dil-o-jaaN, diin-o-iimaaN, jo lenaa hai sanam lelo
> kareN ge 3uzr dene meN nah ham, chaaho qasam le lo



I interpret this to be an example of *(mujh se) qasam le lo* and different from *(rabb kii) qasam le lo*.


----------



## Qureshpor

urdustan said:


> I interpret this to be an example of *(mujh se) qasam le lo* and different from *(rabb kii) qasam le lo*.


One normally swears by invoking God. I swear by x, x being xudaa, Allah, rabb, Raam, bhagvaan. I know one can say...tumhaarii qasam and the like.


----------



## urdustan

Qureshpor said:


> One normally swears by invoking God. I swear  by x, x being xudaa, Allah, rabb, Raam, bhagvaan. I know one can  say...tumhaarii qasam and the like.



From the context of the shi3r, doesn't it seem he offers to be <put on oath> in order to prove his sincerity to his beloved?  That was the reason I interpreted *chaaho qasam le lo* as *chaaho (mujh se) qasam  le lo *or <if you wish, put me on oath>.

Courtesy of Platts
—_qasam khānā_ (-_kī_), To take an oath, to swear (by); to make a solemn declaration, to asseverate
—_qasam lenā_ (-_se_), To put on oath, to require one to take an oath, to have (one) sworn


----------

