# Urdu, Hindi:  islie versus chunaaNche to express consequences



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

  I was browsing the internet looking for examples of these 2 words, when used as illative conjunctions (i.e., expressing the consequence of something said earlier: _"so, then, therefore"_).

Is my impression correct, that _islie _is more prevalent in Hindi, whereas _chunaaNche _(being Persian, apparently), is mostly confined to Urdu contexts?

Or, to be more precise, when_ "is lie"_ is used in Urdu, it is interpreted in a more literal way, something like "_based on this_ ...", and not really seen as a conjunction?

Is my impression correct that, even in Urdu, _chunaaNche _ is not very common, and one prefers to express consequences in other ways (X, _to Y_, etc.)?


----------



## Alfaaz

چنانچہ، اس لیے، لہٰذا are equally common in Urdu. 

Of course, they can have different usages/meanings. Also, it could be mentioned that چنانچہ wouldn't be as common in song lyrics. (Most of your threads in the forum have been based on lyrics, so that could be a factor affecting your perception/impression...?!) On the other hand, پس could be an example which is not very common in spoken language, but does appear in written language/formal translations.


----------



## littlepond

I am not aware of any _chunaaNche _in the Hindi I have spoken and heard in my life so far.

As for "is lie" ("isii lie" for greater emphasis), it means "because, hence, therefore." It is not necessarily a conjunction.


----------



## desi4life

There is an entry for चुनाँचे in Chaturvedi, so it must be used to some extent in Hindi, but as @littlepond jii’s experience indicates, it is rare in Hindi. However, this word is common in Urdu.


----------



## Pokeflute

Because "is liye" is still composed of two parts (is + [ke] liye), my understanding is that it also is used in constructions where "atah" would not. (I know the thread is not about "atah" but this example hopefully shows that "is liye" is not just a conjunction).

One such construction is "is liye... kyoNkii"



> ye *is liye* hota hai *kyoNki *logoN ko gaNRit/maths se Dar hota _lagtaa_ hai
> This happens because people are scared of math



Whereas I don't believe you can say



> *ye *atah* hota hai *kyoNki *logoN ko gaNRit/maths se Dar hota _lagtaa_ hai




I'm not familiar with "chunaaNche" but based on this thread, I'd assume it also doesn't work for these constructions either.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

> ye *is liye* hota hai *kyoNki *logoN ko gaNRit/maths se Dar hota hai
> This happens because people are scared of math





> *ye *atah* hota hai *kyoNki *logoN ko gaNRit/maths se Dar hota hai



Wouldn't those "_is liye_" and "_atah_" be possible only if there were some previous statements laying out the causes, and the _kyoNki's_ later on those sentences just explained further?

Something like:

_bachche un viSHyoN ko nahiiN samjhte haiN jinse ve naphrat karte haiN. yah *is liye/atah*  hota hai ...

^^_
I am trying to say here:_ "Kids hate subjects they don't understand. This, *therefore*, happens ..._


----------



## Pokeflute

The "is" in "is liye" here refers to what comes afterwards. It doesn't necessarily need to refer to what came before. Take this article on the Corona Virus for example.



> *कोरोना का खतरा बच्चों को ज्यादा क्यों है?*
> डॉ. अशोक के अनुसार बच्चों को कोरोना का इंफेक्शन इसलिए ज्यादा हो रहा है, क्योंकि छोटे बच्चों को हाथ धुलने या सैनिटाइज करने के बारे में ज्यादा कुछ नहीं पता है.
> 
> *koronaa ka khatraa baccoN ko zyaadaa kyoN hai?*
> Dau. ashok ke anusaar baccoN ko koronaa ka infekshan isliye zyaadaa ho rahaa hai, kyoNki choTe baccoN ko haath dhumne yaa sainiTaaz karne ke baare meN zyaadaa kuch nahiN pataa hai
> 
> *Why are children at a higher risk of Corona?*
> As per Dr. Ashok, the risk of Corona for children is higher / getting higher for the reason that small children do not know anything about washing or sanitizing hands



In general, "yah" (and "ye", "is", "in", etc.) can refer to the 2nd part of a sentence (with little to no prior context).

(For example this tweet - apologies for the political content).



> मेरा सवाल यह है कि ये 23 लाख करोड़ रूपए कहाँ गए?
> meraa savaal yah hai ki ye teiis laakh karoR ruapaye kahaaN gaye?
> My question is this - where did the 23 billion rupees go?



Here you can do the same with "is liye" because "is liye" is still considered to be "is + (ke) liye". As opposed to a conjunction like "whereas" in English which is no longer considered to be "where + as".

(This was in response to your question: )


> Or, to be more precise, when_ "is lie"_ is used in Urdu, it is interpreted in a more literal way, something like "_based on this_ ...", and not really seen as a conjunction?


----------



## aevynn

Pokeflute said:


> ye is liye hota hai kyoNki logoN ko gaNRit/maths se Dar hota hai


Dar lagtaa hai would be slightly more idiomatic. 



Alfaaz said:


> چنانچہ، اس لیے، لہٰذا are equally common in Urdu.


Probably not _equally_ common...?! Just searching Rekhta yields: 
چنانچہ = 2790 results
لہذا + لہٰذا = 1150 + 2630 = 3780 results
اس لیے = 15700 results


----------



## Alfaaz

aevynn said:
			
		

> Probably not _equally_ common...?!


Agree. (I was trying to highlight that _chunaaNcheh _isn't as obsolete as might have seemed to MonsieurGonzalito. The three options can all be heard used in everyday language, in comparison to something like _pas, etc._)

I would appreciate and agree with Pokeflute's point mentioned about _is liye/is wajh se/is waasite/is kaaran._


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> Dar lagtaa hai would be slightly more idiomatic.



Not just "slightly" but the default option (rather than "Dar hotaa hai").


----------



## Happu

littlepond said:


> I am not aware of any _chunaaNche _in the Hindi I have spoken and heard in my life so far.
> 
> As for "is lie" ("isii lie" for greater emphasis), it means "because, hence, therefore." It is not necessarily a conjunction.


Having travelled in and out of India for over four decades, I have never heard चुनाँचे in conversation. By contrast, the Sanskrit-derived अतएव has popped up on a couple of occasions (in formal speech).


----------



## littlepond

Happu said:


> By contrast, the Sanskrit-derived अतएव has popped up on a couple of occasions (in formal speech).


Do you mean _ataiha _(अतैः) rather, meaning "thus"? I have never heard अतएव all my life.


----------



## Happu

littlepond said:


> Do you mean _ataiha _(अतैः) rather, meaning "thus"? I have never heard अतएव all my life.


No, अतएव.

= 1) इस कारण से 2) इसी से

I don't have my OUP dictionary at hand and thus can't quote from it, but if you happen to have Sanskrit Writer on OSX (Apple), type the word in Devanagari and click on it, you'll get an entry, which should be the same as in the OUP dic. You get the above two meanings.


----------



## Happu

If you use an Apple computer, I recommend installing Sanskrit Writer Lite (free). It's an easy way to type Devanagari. Writing Hindi you'll miss out on the *ड़, *as it doesn't exist in Sanskrit, also the Urdu sounds with nukta, but you can think of workarounds.

And when you click on a word, you connect to McGregor's Hindi-English dictionary (maybe it's a slightly slimmed down version, but I've seen entries verbatim like in McG's.)


----------



## Happu

littlepond-ji,

I've found a short entry for अतएव in V.R. Jagannathan's 'Prayog aur Prayog', which I'll quote:

*अतएव* अत: + एव से बना है। स्वर से पहले विसर्ग का लोप हो जाता है। इसे मिला कर एक शब्द के रूप में लिखना चाहिए.


----------



## littlepond

Happu said:


> littlepond-ji,
> 
> I've found a short entry for अतएव in V.R. Jagannathan's 'Prayog aur Prayog', which I'll quote:
> 
> *अतएव* अत: + एव से बना है। स्वर से पहले विसर्ग का लोप हो जाता है। इसे मिला कर एक शब्द के रूप में लिखना चाहिए.



Thanks, I had not encountered this word before in Hindi. I am wondering what circles would use such a word in speech, if any.


----------



## Happu

littlepond said:


> Thanks, I had not encountered this word before in Hindi. I am wondering what circles would use such a word in speech, if any.


Netas and gurus/pundits. But in speech it is extremely rare, in written form not so rare.


----------



## Dinraat

Alfaaz said:


> چنانچہ، اس لیے، لہٰذا are equally common in Urdu.


In the older generations maybe, but nowadays you'd hardly hear chunanche in everyday speech (unless someone's showing off their Urdu skills which again is not that common a practice among the youth). Lihaza is slightly more common but in my experience it is fairly uncommon in colloquial speech too.

(1) Me kal masroof hun lihaza aap ko akele jana pare ga

(2) Me kal busy hun toh aap ko akele hi jana pare ga

I can only imagine someone from Karachi or Lucknow saying (1) even in informal speech. From where I am, it's number (2) every time.


----------



## Happu

Happu said:


> Netas and gurus/pundits. But in speech it is extremely rare, in written form not so rare.


Adding to my own post:

Since the above last post, I have come across *अतएव *in three books I've been reading: two from the period 1910-20, one from the 1960s, and once in a YouTube comment. So it's certainly a word to remember.


----------



## littlepond

Dinraat said:


> Lihaza is slightly more common but in my experience it is fairly uncommon in colloquial speech too.



"lihaazaa" is a good addition to the discussion. It is still very much in use in day-to-day speech in western Uttar Pradesh.


----------

