# Urdu-Hindi: (tum) imperative forms for (honaa/dhonaa...etc)



## Stranger_

Friends, how are the imperative forms for the pronoun (tum) with verbs ending in -o sound pronounced? e.g. honaa/dhonaa...etc? ho-o and dho-o are not sweet-sounding and rather hard to pronounce, i.e. jawbreakers, since two same vowels are coming at the end; so, I am assuming that something is put between them to ease the pronunciation. Am I right?

Please give some other verbs ending with -onaa as well and mention exceptions, if any.

Regards,


----------



## tarkshya

No. Nothing is put between the two 'o's of words such as dho-o or ho-o. They are pronounced just as you guessed, by pronouncing both o's in quick succession. It is not exactly a jawbreaker, but yes, it does makes it a bit awkward to pronounce.

Other verbs ending with -onaa will be ronaa (to cry), bhigonaa (to wet something). Example usage will be..

Flight chhoot gayi, ab ro-o baith ke (You missed the flight, now sit and cry uselessly). Someone scolding someone for missing a flight.
KapRe ko paani mein bhigo-o (Wet the clothe in water).




Stranger_ said:


> Friends, how are the imperative forms for the pronoun (tum) with verbs ending in -o sound pronounced? e.g. honaa/dhonaa...etc? ho-o and dho-o are not sweet-sounding and rather hard to pronounce, i.e. jawbreakers, since two same vowels are coming at the end; so, I am assuming that something is put between them to ease the pronunciation. Am I right?
> 
> Please give some other verbs ending with -onaa as well and mention exceptions, if any.
> 
> Regards,


----------



## Stranger_

Ahan, I see. By the way, I did not mean to offend when I said they are not "sweet-sounding". I think I just failed to choose the right word. What I really wanted to say was "natural-sounding" because in Persian there exist a lot of instances where a letter is inserted between two vowels to ease and smooth the pronunciation. I cannot think of any other example than "beyaa بیا - imperative form of aamadan آمدن" right now but I am sure I have seen a plethora of examples mentioned in this very forum.

There is an example in Hindi-Urdu as well which was perhaps the main reason that made me assume the existence of a letter between the two vowels in "ho-o/ro-o...etc" , which is the manner of forming past tense for verbs ending in "*-aa*" like "kh*aa*naa-j*aa*naa-*aa*naa and many more". You see in these instances a consonant "*ye ی*" is put between the two "aa's", i.e. (khaa+*y*+aa/aa+*y*+aa).

I am sure you will understand and accept my implicit apology.


----------



## littlepond

Why the double 'o' anyway? There is no "ro-o"; it's "ro".


----------



## marrish

Stranger_ said:


> Friends, how are the imperative forms for the pronoun (tum) with verbs ending in -o sound pronounced? e.g. honaa/dhonaa...etc? ho-o and dho-o are not sweet-sounding and rather hard to pronounce, i.e. jawbreakers, since two same vowels are coming at the end; so, I am assuming that something is put between them to ease the pronunciation. Am I right?
> 
> Please give some other verbs ending with -onaa as well and mention exceptions, if any.
> 
> Regards,


[Urdu] In the older language but I think it is still to be heard somewhere, و 'v' could be inserted between these two 'o's. _ro*v*o, so*v*o, dho*v*o, _but also_ jaa*v*o, laa*v*o etc.

_ There are other forms as well, _jaa*iy*o_, _so*iy*o_, _dho*iy*o_ but they have a slightly different meaning and refer to the future and their usage is limited. They are usually part of a prohibition for the future. _yahaaN nah aaiyo!_ 'you mustn't come here in the future!'.

_honaa_ is irregular in this case and doesn't take the 'extra' o normally but still it can be heard (when one goes for the other set of conjugation - _maiN ho'uuN_ instead of _maiN huuN - '_let me be_'_). _*ایسے نہ ہو*_ _aise nah ho_! Don't be like this! For negation, _*mat مت*_ can be also used and fits perfectly.

For the rest, there is a _hamzah_ separating those 'o's and the standard is - *سوؤ، روؤ، دھوؤ*۔. *so'o, ro'o, dho'o*.

As it is the case with requests and commands in the tum form, they express a certain familiarity so the usage dictates using what is called 'intensive verbs' - *dho do, ro lo, so jaa'o*, these forms should make your life easier .

I am sure there are other features of Urdu pronunciation that are far more difficult to reproduce by a student.

Edit: for _honaa_, the old form future imperative is '_huu*j*o_'.

Some verses from a Ghazal by Mir Taqi Mir (1722-1810):

_تم دل کو دیتے ہو تو بے دل سمجھ کے *ہوجو*
tum dil ko dete ho to be~dil samajh ke *huujo*

حسرت سے دیکھ *رہیو* اے نامہ بر منہ اس کا
Hasrat se dekh *rahiyo* ai naamah~bar muNh us kaa


یوں میر تو غم اپنا برسوں کہا کریں گے
yuuN Miir to Gham apnaa barsoN kahaa kareN ge
اب رات کم ہے *سوؤ* بس ہو چکی کہانی
ab raat kam hae *so'o* bas ho chukii kahaanii_


----------



## tarkshya

There certainly is a double 'o' in the imperative form of "Tum".

Consider these three sentences

1. Tu bewajah mat ro.
2. Tum bewajah mat ro-o.
3. Aap bewajah mat roiye.

If you speak sentence 2 with ro or roiye instead of ro-o, it will sound odd to your ears. Try it.



littlepond said:


> Why the double 'o' anyway? There is no "ro-o"; it's "ro".


----------



## littlepond

I have always considered it as an additional stress, rather than some grammatical feature, since one can advise someone as both "ab ro mat beTaa" and "ab ro-o mat beTaa", and to me both are in imperative. The person who will otherwise say "jaiyyo" will not say "jaa'o" anyway.


----------



## Dib

littlepond said:


> I have always considered it as an additional stress, rather than some grammatical feature, since one can advise someone as both "ab ro mat beTaa" and "ab ro-o mat beTaa", and to me both are in imperative.



Yes, both are imperatives of course. But the claim here is that ro is the tuu form, like "ab tuu ro mat beTaa"; and ro-o is the tum form, like "ab tum ro-o mat beTaa". Would you find "*tuu ro-o" and "*tum ro" grammatical? You should also consider whether the "ro" form can be used to multiple persons together.


----------



## littlepond

I would find, and I have heard and spoken, both "tum ro" and "tum ro-o" as nothing awkward to my ears. And, as for multiple persons, yes, "ab tum sab ro baith kar!" is perfectly fine with me (as is "ab tum sab ro-o baith kar!") - the nuance of what the speaker wants to convey changes for me with the additional stress.


----------



## Dib

And for the sake of completeness, what is your opinion about "tuu ro-o"?


----------



## littlepond

^ It is perfectly fine for me and it is commonly heard whenever required; again, both "tuu ro" and "tuu ro-o" exist, and the nuance changes with the additional stress.


----------



## Dib

Okay, so, it is quite clear from this discussion that for some speakers "ro ~ ro-o" are distinct grammatical forms - tuu and tum forms of imperative respectively, while some others merge them.


----------



## tarkshya

Yes, let's leave it at agree-to-disagree stage.  To me, the extra 'o' at the end of 'ro-o' is more than just additional stress. It is a full syllable in its own right.

Further evidence...

Translate "you don't cry" in google translate from English to Hindi. This is what google gives - तुम रोओ मत. (Tuma rō'ō mata )
In Urdu, google gives a different grammatical form, so I cannot provide proof thru google, but somebody in this thread has given this example-

_اب رات کم ہے *سوؤ* بس ہو چکی کہانی
ab raat kam hae *so'o* bas ho chukii kahaanii

_The extra    ؤ  in سوؤ is a full syllable in speech.


----------



## littlepond

^ No one has said that "so'o" does not exist, so can this be evidence? (By the way, the syntax of the above sentence is strange!) In addition, even if you bring all the grammar books and literature of the world, I prefer to refer to the primary source: people who actually speak the language. It is they who define a language.

By the way, since when was Google Translate an authority?

If you leave it at an agree-to-disagree stage, then further "evidence" doesn't help in that.


----------



## tarkshya

OK, scratch the agree-to-disagree part. Let's discuss it further. 

I would like to get the opinion of others in this forum. The issue is - and correct me if I am formulating it wrongly - I believe "ro" and "ro-o" are two different words, each being the imperative grammatical forms of "tu" and "tum" respectively. They *cannot* be used interchangeably. 

How many agree with me and how many don't?



littlepond said:


> ^ No one has said that "so'o" does not exist, so can this be evidence? (By the way, the syntax of the above sentence is strange!) In addition, even if you bring all the grammar books and literature of the world, I prefer to refer to the primary source: people who actually speak the language. It is they who define a language.
> 
> By the way, since when was Google Translate an authority?
> 
> If you leave it at an agree-to-disagree stage, then further "evidence" doesn't help in that.


On a side note, since you mentioned that you prefer to go by the spoken language, what geographical area are you referring to? I am going by the standard usage in North West India, say around Delhi.


----------



## mundiya

littlepond said:


> In addition, even if you bring all the grammar books and literature of the world, I prefer to refer to the primary source: people who actually speak the language. It is they who define a language.



Speakers make mistakes.  That's why books and literature are references, and help determine correct, standard usage.  For all speech variations to be considered correct, a language would need to be non-standardized.  If that is what you favour, then it is a different matter altogether.


----------



## Qureshpor

tarkshya said:


> OK, scratch the agree-to-disagree part. Let's discuss it further.
> 
> I would like to get the opinion of others in this forum. The issue is - and correct me if I am formulating it wrongly - I believe "ro" and "ro-o" are two different words, each being the imperative grammatical forms of "tu" and "tum" respectively. They *cannot* be used interchangeably. How many agree with me and how many don't?


What you have said and have been saying is 100% correct. For imperative it is indeed "tuu ro" and "tum ro'o". So, I am in agreement with you.


----------



## littlepond

tarkshya said:


> what geographical area are you referring to? I am going by the standard usage in North West India, say around Delhi.



Uttar Pradesh, both east and west.



mundiya said:


> For all speech variations to be considered correct, a language would need to be non-standardized. If that is what you favour, then it is a different matter altogether.



I do favour that  In any case, when so many speakers have a certain way, can it be called a mistake?


----------



## mundiya

tarkshya said:


> OK, scratch the agree-to-disagree part. Let's discuss it further.
> 
> I would like to get the opinion of others in this forum. The issue is - and correct me if I am formulating it wrongly - I believe "ro" and "ro-o" are two different words, each being the imperative grammatical forms of "tu" and "tum" respectively. They *cannot* be used interchangeably.
> 
> How many agree with me and how many don't?



I agree with you, but I'll add the caveat that they cannot be used interchangeably in standard language. It may be different for those who don't follow the prescriptions.



littlepond said:


> I do favour that  In any case, when so many speakers have a certain way, can it be called a mistake?



Yes, it can. Mistakes are determined by standards of quality and not necessarily quantity.


----------

