# Urdu: Use of Dono/N with dualised terms, redundant and incorrect or perfectly acceptable



## Sheikh_14

Dear Foreros,

In news media it is very common to hear dualised terms like fareeqain I.e. Two parties and waalidain I.e. both parents be used with the Urdu term for both in dono/N. Is this usage acceptable or a comical faux pax? For instance does donoN fareeqain truly mean what the speaker is trying to express in both parties or is he/she instead mistakenly speaking for four parties. The same goes for waalidain, would waalidain suffice for both my/your parents and in which case are you speaking for 4 parents if you say dono/N waalidain? Personally I feel dono/N does make sense here, however the other day an Urdu 'expert' on TV was stating otherwise. Thence I would like to hear your thoughts and even better if with examples.

My personal opinion is that donoN waalidain is equivalent to saying both parents and not both two sets of parents.

Similarly donoN fareeqain = Both of the two parties and not 2 sets of two parties.

Regards,
Sheikh


----------



## Qureshpor

donoN fariiqain is utterly wrong as fariiqain on its own means "both parties". "donoN vaalidain" likewise is wrong.

vaalidain obviously means "parents" (mother and father) and if I wanted to say Qureshpor and Sheikh SaaHib's parents, I would simply say "Qureshpor aur Sheikh SaaHib ke vaalidain".

By the way, I know languages are not always logical but if tiin > tiinoN, chaar > chaaroN, then why can't do > donoN? Why do some people like to write it as "dono"?


----------



## Dinraat

Sheikh_14 said:


> My personal opinion is that donoN waalidain is equivalent to saying both parents and not both two sets of parents.


DonoN waalidain just sounds plain wrong. Waalidain (alone) will suffice.


Sheikh_14 said:


> Similarly donoN fareeqain = Both of the two parties and not 2 sets of two parties.


DonoN fareeqain doesn't sound as wrong, maybe because I've heard it used that way before.

Edit: I think it's because there can be multiple fareeqain. For example 3 main political parties. 'TeenoN fareeqain ke beech jang jaari'


----------



## Qureshpor

Dinraat said:


> DonoN waalidain just sounds plain wrong. Waalidain (alone) will suffice.
> 
> DonoN fareeqain doesn't sound as wrong, maybe because I've heard it used that away before.


If the criteria for something being right is having heard it used, then everything we hear must be right!


----------



## Dinraat

Qureshpor said:


> If the criteria for something being right is having heard it used, then everything we hear must be right!


Not necessarily, but I honestly have no idea what 'sanad' you have to call it wrong though. In case of waalidain, it doesn't make sense to say donoN waalidain since it's understood but fareeqain can be more than two if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Qureshpor

Dinraat said:


> Not necessarily, but I honestly have no idea what 'sanad' you have to call it wrong though. In case of waalidain, it doesn't make sense to say donoN waalidain since it's understood but fareeqain can be more than two if I'm not mistaken.


I don't believe, a "sanad" is required here. When "fariiqain" means "do fariiq", then how can it mean "more than two"? How can we have "donoN fariiqain" and "tiinoN fariqaain"? These terms will translate as "Both two parties" and "All three two parties"!


----------



## Qureshpor

Dinraat said:


> DonoN waalidain just sounds plain wrong. Waalidain (alone) will suffice.
> 
> DonoN fareeqain doesn't sound as wrong, maybe because I've heard it used that way before.
> 
> Edit: I think it's because there can be multiple fareeqain. For example 3 main political parties. 'TeenoN fareeqain ke beech jang jaari'


Correct Urdu sentence would be "tiinoN fariiqoN ke biich jaNg jaarii hai". ek fariiq, do fariiq = fariiqain, tiin fariiq.


----------



## Dinraat

Qureshpor said:


> *When "fariiqain" means "do fariiq*", then how can it mean "more than two"? How can we have "do fariiqain" and "tiin fariqaain"? These terms will translate as "two two parties" and "three two parties"!


Now I know what's confusing you. My understanding is that fareeqain means multiple fariiq, not necessarily "do fariiq". Here are some references for you:

1) (Source: BBC) انہوں نے کہا کہ *تینوں* *فریقین* کی جانب سے کوشش کی جا رہی ہے کہ ایسے اقدامات کئے جائیں کہ ایسے واقعات مستقبل میں نہ ہوں۔

2) (Source: Samaa) بحران کے *تینوں* *فریقین* کو تجاویز بھجوادی ہیں، فریقین نے مثبت جواب دیا تو مسائل حل ہوسکتے ہیں۔



Qureshpor said:


> If the criteria for something being right is having heard it used, then everything we hear must be right!


If you've heard something on a news channel or read it on their official website, then I don't see a reason not to believe them!


----------



## Qureshpor

Dinraat said:


> Now I know what's confusing you. My understanding is that fareeqain means multiple fariiq, not necessarily "do fariiq". Here are some references for you:
> 
> 1) (Source: BBC) انہوں نے کہا کہ *تینوں* *فریقین* کی جانب سے کوشش کی جا رہی ہے کہ ایسے اقدامات کئے جائیں کہ ایسے واقعات مستقبل میں نہ ہوں۔
> 
> 2) (Source: Samaa) بحران کے *تینوں* *فریقین* کو تجاویز بھجوادی ہیں، فریقین نے مثبت جواب دیا تو مسائل حل ہوسکتے ہیں۔
> 
> 
> If you've heard something on a news channel or read it on their official website, then I don't see a reason not to believe them!


Whether it is BBC or Samaa or any other source for that matter, this usage is simply wrong! "fariiqain" only means 2 parties and not a party more!


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor SaaHib, as matters stand you are of course right about _fariiqain_: it may be a case of wrong usage, but one can read it equally well as _fariiqiin_, not _fariiqain_, which neatly solves the issue of correctness, independently of whether that is what the authors intended or not.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, as matters stand you are of course right about _fariiqain_: it may be a case of wrong usage, but one can read it equally well as _fariiqiin_, not _fariiqain_, which neatly solves the issue of correctness, independently of whether that is what the authors intended or not.


But, marrish SaaHib, we know it is NOT fariiqiin because one often hears, in the spoken language, "donoN fariiqain" and similar expressions!


----------



## marrish

We hear "_donoN fariiqain_" (dual) and that is correct, because majority of litigations are between but two parties. _fariiqain_ (dual) wouldn't be correct with _tiinoN; _whereas _tiinoN fariiqiin_ sounds alright.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> We hear "_donoN fariiqain_" (dual) and that is correct, because majority of litigations are between but two parties. _fariiqain_ (dual) wouldn't be correct with _tiinoN; _whereas _tiinoN fariiqiin_ sounds alright.


We'll agree to disagree regarding donoN fariiqain, marrish SaaHib.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> We'll agree to disagree regarding donoN fariiqain, marrish SaaHib.


Well I don't think we disagree, I believe I didn't express myself well enough.

_fariiq*ain*_ = 'both parties' = correct

_*don*oN fariiq*ain*_ = 'both 2 parties' = wrong because of tautology, but at least there is number agreement, which is what I meant by saying "We hear "_donoN fariiqain_" (dual) and that is correct," as opposed to

*tiin*_oN_ _fariiq*ain**_ = 'all three the two parties' = utterly wrong, disagreement in number.

_*tiin*oN_ _fariiq*iin*_ = 'all three parties' = could be correct

_*tiin*oN fariiq_ = 'all the three parties' = correct, as well as

*don*_oN fariiq_ = correct.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> By the way, I know languages are not always logical but if tiin > tiinoN, chaar > chaaroN, then why can't do > donoN? Why do some people like to write it as "dono"?


----------



## Alfaaz

فریق 

تثنیہ: فریقَین

جمع: فُرَقاء


----------



## aevynn

I'm not sure I understand the objection to _donoN waalidain / fariiqain_. Even if it is a tautology, the _donoN_ seems to me to just serve to emphasize the "bothness" of the noun phrase. For example, would the following exchange really be objectionable...?

A: kyaa aap ke vaalid bhii aa'eN ge?
B: mere donoN vaalidain mere saath aa'eN ge.

To me, this usage seems perfectly analogous to using _donoN_ to emphasize the "bothness" of other "obviously dual" noun phrases. For example, _maiN aur meraa shauhar_ is an "obviously dual" noun phrase, and I don't think there would be any objections to _maiN aur meraa shauhar donoN aa'eN ge_.


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> فریق
> 
> تثنیہ: فریقَین
> 
> جمع: فُرَقاء


Would you be able to perform the same trick with _waalidain_? From another thread a while ago:


marrish said:


> _[والِدَین] waalidain_ [वालिदैन] - (NOT **_waalidaiN_ वालिदैं ) is strictly speaking a dual formation, not a word in plural, although it is obviously used for multiple sets of parents as well.


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> Would you be able to perform the same trick with _waalidain_?


If it might be of interest, readers can consult the detailed chart present in post #13 of Dual - والدان / والدَيْن in the Arabic forum. Many of those forms are obviously not used in Urdu, so a brief summary is presented below:

واحد (مذکّر|مؤنّث): والد | والدہ

تثنیہ (مذکّر|مؤنّث): والدَین | والدتَین

جمع (مذکّر|مؤنّث): والدون/والدِین | والدات


Of the forms listed above, والد، والدہ، والدَین are commonly used in spoken Urdu. والدِین and والدات can be sometimes heard in Islamic context (_sermons, lectures, etc._). Even in that context, however, آباء and امہات appear to be more common.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Qureshpor said:


> By the way, I know languages are not always logical but if tiin > tiinoN, chaar > chaaroN, then why can't do > donoN? Why do some people like to write it as "dono"?


Because precisely as you have stated languages aren't logical and both are accepted forms H دونو दोनो *dono* class = = H دونون दोनों *donoṅ* [obl. pl. of do; and = Prk. दोण्हं or दोण्हहुं (gen. plur.)]. Personally, I prefer donoN. I couldn't find tiino, chaaro either and had noticed this variance. Two birds with one stone I guess.

I had not anticipated setting off a firestorm with my rather innocent query.

So I've properly read through the case being made by all parties 🥳  and I'm appreciative of the time and emotion this debate has sparked. From what I understand QP SaaHib is objecting to donoN waalidain because it is akin to saying both two parents (this could make sense if you were referring to two sets of in-laws say) rather than both of my/his/her parents. Similarly donoN fareeqain equates to both two parties I.e. 4 parties and not two parties. Just as in English you wouldn't say both two parties as both parties would suffice. Thank you for clarifying that. This has been a fascinating discussion.

Now that we've come to the conclusion that donoN here is redundant and actually confusing using the dualisations please attempt to translate the following:

"*Both his parents were college graduates"
"The two warring parties"*

Settling the above would help settle the debate as I feel example usages are key to doing so. Also we can all accept that our ears have become accustomed to hearing donoN fareeqain since that is what blares out on most news media outlets. However, it can be chalked off as a ghalat ul a'aam.

Another sentence for the pluralisation of mothers:

"*Please invite your mothers' "(when speaking to many children*)- I can understand the fun word play this can involve but by and large waalidaat/waalidahoN should be fine? The odd child may bring along three of his step mothers.


Lastly, is everyone happy with pluralisations of waalidah as waalidaat and waalid as waalideen/aan?


----------



## aevynn

Sheikh_14 said:


> Now that we've come to the conclusion that donoN here is redundant and actually confusing... We can all accept that our ears have become accustomed to hearing donoN fareeqain since that is what blares out on most news media outlets. However, it can be chalked off as a ghalat ul a'aam.


I remain unconvinced of this "conclusion."



Sheikh_14 said:


> Just as in English you wouldn't say both two parties...


In (my) English, it's perfectly okay to say:
​The two parties​Both parties​Both of the parties​Both of the two parties​
All of these refer to just two parties (not four). The last option might be "redundant" but it's completely grammatical. It also feels clear to me that there's a difference in meaning/usage between the "the two parties" and the others (EDIT: and there are subtler differences among options encapsulated by "both ((of) the (two)) parties").

I would venture that people who say _donoN fariiqain_ understand _fariiqain_ to mean roughly "the two parties" and _donoN fariiqain_ to mean roughly "both (of the two) parties." [Similarly, I would venture that people who say _donoN waalidain_ understand _waalidain_ to mean roughly "one's (two) parents" and _donoN vaalidain_ to mean roughly "both of one's (two) parents."] Declaring _donoN fariiqain_ to be ungrammatical by fiat feels to me like a completely unnecessary restriction on the expressive power of the language: it's telling those people that they should collapse this rather tangible semantic distinction and use _fariiqain_ to express both meanings.



Sheikh_14 said:


> donoN waalidain... is akin to saying both two parents (this could make sense if you were referring to two sets of in-laws say)


*A dual noun isn't the same thing as a singular noun that refers to a set of two entities.* The English word "couple," or the UH word _joRaa_, are examples of singular nouns that refer to a set of two entities. My understanding is that _waalidain_ is supposed to be different; it's supposed to be a dual noun. It feels to me to be contrary to the workings of the language to decide that _donoN waalidain_ should mean "both sets of parents" (eg, "both one's parents and one's in-laws").

EDIT (for comparison's sake): A plural noun is also not the same as a singular noun that refers to a set of multiple entities. There's no ambiguity when one uses a #oN with a plural noun. Phrases like _chaaroN billiyaaN_ or _paaNchoN log_ mean "all four cats" and "all five people." They do not mean "all four sets of cats" and "all five sets of people." This is what I mean when I say that it's contrary to the workings of the language to decide that _donoN waalidain_ might mean "both sets of parents."


----------

