# Urdu: Getting along



## teaboy

How does one say, _one person does not get along with someone else_?  I'm trying to remember an expression like 

اس کے ساتھ بنتا نہیں۔

What is it?  What other ways are there to say this?


----------



## Faylasoof

teaboy said:


> How does one say, _one person does not get along with someone else_?  I'm trying to remember an expression like
> 
> اس کے ساتھ بنتا نہیں۔
> 
> What is it?  What other ways are there to say this?


The most common way is as you put it  - only a small correction:
 
 اس کے ساتھ بنتی نہیں
_uske saath bannt*ii* nahii.n hai_

كسی كی كسی سے نہ بننا
_kisii kii kisii se nah bannaa_

Someone not getting along with someone (else).


میری اس سے نہیں  بنتی  ہے
_merii usse nahii.n banntii hai_

I don't get along with him / her.

But we can also say:

_meraa usse mel nahii.n hai_

Literally: I'm not friends with him / her = I don't get along with him / her.


----------



## Birdcall

I've never heard banntii. What's its origin? I've heard mel though.


----------



## teaboy

Birdcall said:


> I've never heard banntii. What's its origin? I've heard mel though.



It is the verb _banna_ (to make).  

Now, me, I've never heard the word _mel_!  I thought that was just something the _Daakwaalaa_ brought


----------



## Birdcall

Oh, I see. As for mel, I would guess it's related to the verb milnaa ("I don't mix well with him")


----------



## Faylasoof

Birdcall said:


> Oh, I see. As for mel, I would guess it's related to the verb milnaa ("I don't mix well with him")


 Yes! 
_mel _is from _milnaa_ the same way میل جول _mel jol _is from ملنا جلنا، _milnaa julnaa _= meeting and mixing = ghulnaa milnaa = آمیخْتَگی _aamexgii_ = being sociable



teaboy said:


> It is the verb _banna_ (to make).
> 
> Now, me, I've never heard the word _mel_! I thought that was just something the _Daakwaalaa_ brought


 
_Exactly! It is from banna = to be made – it is passive! _
To make_ = banaanaa._

_Hmm … what you are calling a Daakwaalaa is actually called a Daakiyaa (naamah bar in shustah and baliigh Urdu) and brings what we call Daak = post / mail - in English(!) – but that as you know is diffeent from the mel we are discussing here. _


----------



## LordAeneas

I think for the following composition there is an implied بات (baat):



> میری اس سے نہیں  بنتی  ہے
> _merii usse nahii.n banntii hai_


And that could be the reason it's not بنتا (banta).

Following expression could also be used to express this general idea:

کسی کا کسی سے مزاج نہ ملنا

kisi ka kisi say mizaj na milna, e.g.:

ہم دونوں بھائیوں کے مزاج آپس میں نہیں ملتے ہیں

ham dono(n) bhaiyoon kay mizaaj apus main nahi(n) miltay hai(n)

(Both of us brothers don't get along well) 

While mizaaj ka na milna for a single person is an idiomatic expression to suggest that he/she is rather arrogant, e.g.:

سیٹھ صاحب تو معقول آدمی تھے مگر ان کے چپراسی کے تو مزاج ہی نہ ملتے تھے

saiTH sahib tou maqool admi thay magar un kay chapraasi kay tou mizaaj hi na miltay thay.

(The business magnate was a reasonable guy but his peon (janitor/office-boy) was quite arrogant.


----------



## BP.

^Good suggestion.

I'd suggest the word _muwaafiqat_-موافقت, the usage being _muwaafiqat honaa_- ہونا موافقت.


----------



## teaboy

Thanks for the alternatives!


----------



## Faylasoof

LordAeneas said:


> I think for the following composition there is an implied بات (baat):
> [Quote =]
> میری اس   سے نہیں بنتی ہے
> _merii usse nahii.n banntii hai_
> 
> And that could be the reason it's not بنتا (banta).


 
Possibly! One feels that there might be something missing here! However, this also implies that we can use بنتا_ bantaa_  if the missing word were masculine, e.g.  مُعامَلَہ mu3aamalah 

_meraa uskaa _مُعامَلَہ_ (mu3aamalah) nahii.n _بنتا_ (bantaa) hai_

But as stated above, the most common way is to use_ bantii_ and say <_merii usse nahii.n banntii hai_   >.


BelligerentPacifist said:


> ^Good suggestion.
> 
> I'd suggest the word _muwaafiqat_-موافقت, the usage being _muwaafiqat honaa_- ہونا موافقت.


  Yes, مُوافِقَت_ muwaafiqa_t as well as  مناسبت _munaasibat_ work here too. 
… and instead of مزاج_ mizaaj_ we can also use the following, with of course the appropriate changes in the sentence to take into account their gender and use of the correct verb etc.

طَبْع_T__ab3_ =  خمیر_xamiir_ = طَبِیعَت_Tabii3at_ = خُو_xuu _= خَصْلَت _xaSlat_ = جِبِلَّت_jibillat_ = سِرِشت_sirisht_ = nature, disposition, essence, temperament.

Many different ways to express this idea.


----------



## LordAeneas

Faylasoof, I think you have an interesting point...

Why isn't there an implied مُعامَلَہ (muamla) in this sentence, which if introduced implicitly in the sentence, will make it grammatically awkward.

I am afraid, it is not directly related to the topic of the thread but it could help to explain some of the peculiarities of Urdu/Hindi language. 

I am more concerned about the grammatical existence of this implied-object concept instead of the case when a person intentionally chooses to imply an object. In which case the other person must be able to decode the implied object. I think it isn't possible without there being a common ground and I think there should be grammatical explanation for that. 

What I see is that this implicit-object concept is a lot at play in Urdu, for which I will give examples further down in the thread. 


I am given to understand that this elision of a specific object is more of a grammatical thing than on somebody's personal choice and it could explain why some abstract phrase in Urdu has a build-in gender which could prove to be so confusing for people learning Urdu as a second language.


  Then why not مُعامَلَہ (muamla)? What I think is مُعامَلَہ (muamla) is too much a heavy-duty word to be elided (implied) and besides it is a loan word which had accorded it far lesser time to be perfectly blended with the language and it is equally likely that the existence of the implied بات (baat) would have also helped to put off its usage in this context. 



 I think the word must be so subtle and earthly to be able to easily blend/melt in the composition to be there without being there.

Let's dissect some of the following sentences to get a feeling of this concept:

!اگر آپ کوشش کریں گے تو [یہ] ہو جائے گا

(agar aap kooshish karai(n) gay tou [yeh] ho jayey ga!)

We are inclined to ask the question: کیا؟ (kiya?)

The answer and in this case the implied-object is کام (kaam).

!لو بھئ مل گئ

(loo bhai mil gai!)

We again ask: کیا چیز؟ (kiya cheez?).

And it turn out (by the very question) that the implied object was چیز (cheez).

!وہ میری سن ہی نہیں رہا تھا

(woh meri sun hi nahi(n) raha tha!)

We are again interested: کیا نہیں سن رہا تھا؟ (kiya nahi(n) sun raha tha?) 

The answer: بات (baat)

!تھوڑا اس کا بھی کر لیا کرو

(thoRa is ka bhi kar liya karo)

کیا؟ (kiya?)

!خیال (KHayal!)


Other than this there is another interesting thing. I have noticed that  during rambling instead of using ah..., um..., err... etc. older people  tend to perform elision/omission of words at will e.g.:

یہ کر دیا... وہ ہو گیا... اس نے اس سے وہ کہ دیا ہو گا

(yeh kar diya... woh ho gaya... is nay us say woh keh diya ho ga)

And during that rambling, though ungrammatical but you may hear such an utterance:

میرا اس کا نہیں بنتا

(mera us ka nahi(n) banta)

But, following is rather more likely:

!میرا اس کا نہیں ہوتا

(mera us ka nahi(n) hota)

With  مُعامَلَہ (muamla) or ساتھ (saath) implied.


----------



## Faylasoof

LordAeneas said:


> Faylasoof, I think you have an interesting point...
> 
> Why isn't there an implied مُعامَلَہ (muamla) in this sentence, which if introduced implicitly in the sentence, will make it grammatically awkward.


 I don’t think it would be grammatically awkward. Perhaps unusual but that has more to do with frequency of use. 



> Then why not





> مُعامَلَہ (muamla)? What I think is مُعامَلَہ (muamla) is too much a heavy-duty word to be elided (implied) and besides it is a loan word which had accorded it far lesser time to be perfectly blended with the language and it is equally likely that the existence of the implied بات (baat) would have also helped to put off its usage in this context.


 Not sure what you mean.Many loan words have blended in! رشتہ _rishtah_; تعلق  _ta3alluq _etc. are load words too (and masculine like _mu3aamalah_ مُعامَلَہ), but have _blended in_! I'm not quite sure if it really is due to a word being borrowed or not that it is / isn't elided.


----------



## naghma-o sher

Hi,
mujhe Urdu-valon ki madad chahiye! Can you tell me how to say: "to get along well with someone". Would it be کسی کی کسی سے بنتی ہونا 
or do you use a different construction when the sense is positive, I mean, if you DO get along well with someone?


----------



## Qureshpor

naghma-o sher said:


> Hi,
> mujhe Urdu-valon ki madad chahiye! Can you tell me how to say: "to get along well with someone". Would it be کسی کی کسی سے بنتی ہونا
> or do you use a different construction when the sense is positive, I mean, if you DO get along well with someone?



mere Naghma-o-sher se achchhe ta'alluqaat haiN.

ham donoN kii (aapas meN) Khuub bantii hai.

merii us se achchhii bantii hai.

I can see you are a person with an interest in shi3r-o-naGhmah.

Qais jaNgal meN akela hai mujhe jaane do
Khuub guzre gii jo mil baiTheN ge diivaane do!!

[(Miandad Khan Sayyah (1829-1907)]

Qais* is lonely in the desert, let me go to him.
The two of us, mad as we are, will get on fine!

* Qais, the legendary Arab lover also known as Majnuun/N (mad/lunatic/crazy)


----------



## naghma-o sher

Wah Wah! Thank you very much! If every answer I get will be accompained by a piece of poetry I will ask many more things soon.


----------



## Qureshpor

naghma-o sher said:


> Wah Wah! Thank you very much! If every answer I get will be accompained by a piece of poetry I will ask many more things soon.



You are welcome Melody & Verse (Lion?) SaaHib/ah! Certainly if a couplet is relevant to make a point and one is readily available, I shall do my best to quote one.

phir huaa kuchh yuuN kih yih dunyaa mashiinii ho ga'ii
 aur shi'r-o-naGhmah kii raftaar dheemii ho ga'ii!!!

Abid 'Irfan


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> ...
> ham donoN kii (aapas meN) Khuub bantii hai.
> ...


Also گاڑھی چھنتی ہے.


----------



## naghma-o sher

Hehe, 

Abid 'Irfan ne durust farmaya.

Thank you.


----------



## Qureshpor

Would a construction like "merii (us se) nahiiN bantii" be considered the same as.."mujhe (xxx) nahiiN bantii" as in the below Ghalib couplet?

us bazm meN mujhe nahiiN banti Hayaa kiye
baiThaa rahaa, agarchih ishaare hu'aa kiye


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Possibly! One feels that there might be something missing here! However, this also implies that we can use بنتا_ bantaa_ if the missing word were masculine, e.g. مُعامَلَہ mu3aamalah
> 
> _meraa uskaa _مُعامَلَہ_ (mu3aamalah) nahii.n _بنتا_ (bantaa) hai_
> 
> But as stated above, the most common way is to use_ bantii_ and say <_merii usse nahii.n banntii hai_ >.



"baat  ban_naa"'s basic meaning is for a plan/task/idea to come to fruition but can also mean "for conversation/speech to develop". When one says "merii us se nahiiN bantii", I think the implication is that when I talk to him/her, our communication does n't flourish but comes to an abrupt end. And if this happens, not getting along with that person is the obvious result.

if it is n't "baat", could it be "yaarii", "dostii", or "nehaa".


----------

