# Hindi: Agreement in obligation sentences



## salvipeter

In "Conversational Hindi" by Krishnamurthy, there is an example
  कैलास को दस रुपये लाना पड़ेगा।
where both the infinitive and the main verb are in the masculine singular,
while the direct object is in the masculine plural.

Should not this be
  कैलास को दस रुपये लाने पड़ेंगे।
instead? I remember learning that in obligational sentences,
the verbs should agree with the direct object, if any, unless it is in the oblique case.

I have checked some grammar books, but they are very terse on this topic...


----------



## tonyspeed

You are correct.


----------



## salvipeter

Thanks


----------



## Dib

It is true that in standard colloquial Hindi, transitive verbs normally agree with their direct object in obligational sentences. However, Krishnamurthy's particular example may not necessarily be wrong. I see one possible motivation behind it:

The verb "laanaa" is actually a contraction of "le aanaa", where the main verb is intransitive (aanaa). As a result, its grammar may behave like that of intransitive verbs, e.g. normally it does not agree with the object in perfect tenses. "kailaash das rupaye laayaa" is far more common than "kailaash ne das rupaye laae", which will probably be deemed wrong by many. Similarly, the sentences in OP, if formulated with "le aanaa", would normally be "kailaash ko das rupaye le aanaa paRegaa". Using the contracted "laanaa" form, that _should _give "kailaash ko das rupaye laanaa paRegaa".

Having said this, I shall wait for actual Hindi speakers for the final verdict.


----------



## salvipeter

I see - so you basically say that in perfect tense लाना works like an intransitive verb, so maybe the same is true for obligational sentences. That seems to be a good point! But yes, let's wait for a native speaker.


----------



## tonyspeed

Dib said:


> As a result, its grammar may behave like that of intransitive verbs, e.g. normally it does not agree with the object in perfect tenses. "kailaash das rupaye laayaa" is far more common than "kailaash ne das rupaye laae", which will probably be deemed wrong by many.



The reason that it does not agree here is "_ne_" is not used. Laanaa is not treated as transitive in perfect tense. It is an exception along with _bhuulnaa_. Since _ne_ does not block agreement, the verb must agree with the subject. 

In this case, because of obligation the logical subject is followed by a post-position: _ko._ _Ko_ blocks all agreement with the logical subject. It is in fact no longer the real subject. Therefore, according to normal Hindi grammar the verb must agree with the nearest object/noun. In this case that object is plural. So the verb should have masculine plural agreement.

It is possible that this is not standard Hindi grammar. But then why would you be teaching people non-standard grammar in a book?


----------



## Dib

salvipeter said:


> I see - so you basically say that in perfect tense लाना works like an intransitive verb, so maybe the same is true for obligational sentences. That seems to be a good point! But yes, let's wait for a native speaker.



Yes, precisely.



tonyspeed said:


> The reason that it does not agree here is "_ne_" is not used. Laanaa is not treated as transitive in perfect tense.



Exactly, that was all that I was arguing - that "laanaa" is not a run-of-the-mill transitive verb. Therefore, I am not sure about its grammar (in standard Hindi) in the obligational sentences. Are you declaring Krishnamurthy's sentence wrong/non-standard based on your assumption that "laanaa" should behave like a normal transitive verb, or do you have specific knowledge that it does behave like a transitive verb in this context? I understand, Hindi is not your native language. I am sorry if I am wrong. That's why I solicited native speakers' opinion.

EDIT: Just to be clear. I myself find tonyspeed's version "kailaash ko das rupaye laane paReNge" better than Krishnamurthy's version, which sounds wrong unless I am thinking actively, like I did before. But I suspect, my language instincts as a 3rd/4th language Hindi speaker is probably worth less than someone who has written a book aimed at teaching Hindi, and I also see some evidence why they may be right. Hence my open stand.


----------



## tonyspeed

Dib said:


> Exactly, that was all that I was arguing - that "laanaa" is not a run-of-the-mill transitive verb. Therefore, I am not sure about its grammar (in standard Hindi) in the obligational sentences. Are you declaring Krishnamurthy's sentence wrong/non-standard based on your assumption that "laanaa" should behave like a normal transitive verb, or do you have specific knowledge that it does behave like a transitive verb in this context? .



1) There can be no exception here because of _ko_. _ko_ is an agreement blocker. So paRnaa can not agree with kailaas under any circumstance.
2) Transitive exceptions with ne are found in normal perfect tense, not obligation. (See1)
3) Any basic level Hindi grammar book explains this. I don't need a native speaker to confirm.

The only thing a native speaker can confirm is if this is a dialectal form or not.


----------



## Dib

tonyspeed said:


> 1) There can be no exception here because of _ko_. _ko_ is an agreement blocker. So paRnaa can not agree with kailaas under any circumstance.



I agree, "paRnaa" cannot agree with kailaash because of the "ko", but it can still default to masculine singular. Let me break down my line of thinking using a feminine subject (shiilaa) for clearer illustration:

i) shiilaa ko aanaa paRegaa. (obligational with intransitive) ->
ii) shiilaa ko <das rupaye le> aanaa paRegaa. (obligational using "le aanaa") ->
*iii) shiilaa ko das rupayee laanaa paRegaa (contracting "le aanaa" to "laanaa")

I think, there is no confusion that (i) and (ii) are correct. The transormation from (ii) -> (iii) looks logically possible, though as a non-native speaker, I find it bad. That's the point, on which I was looking for either a native speaker's opinion, or a categorical knowledge about this specific verb in this specific construction.


----------



## littlepond

Dib said:


> Having said this, I shall wait for actual Hindi speakers for the final verdict.



The sentence in the book, if it is given like that, is wrong, Dib jii: "laanaa paRegaa" is not possible in this sentence. (By the way, when south Indians speak Hindi, they do use such constructions.)

कैलास को दस रुपये लाने पड़ेंगे। is the correct sentence.


----------



## salvipeter

Thank you all for your answers, I feel reassured.

The book has a lot of typos (even though it's the 4th edition), but I thought at least the sentences are reliable...
By the way, it was published in south India


----------



## littlepond

^ No wonder then.

Pleasure to help. I hope you get a better book soon.


----------



## marrish

It's either because of the place of publication or the author being a Southerner or perhaps because in Urdu both constructions do exist and are legit. Colloquial or conversational Hindi shares more with Urdu than Modern Standard Hindi.


----------



## Dib

littlepond said:


> The sentence in the book, if it is given like that, is wrong, Dib jii: "laanaa paRegaa" is not possible in this sentence...
> कैलास को दस रुपये लाने पड़ेंगे। is the correct sentence.



Thank you very much, littlepond-jii, for reassuring that we, the non-native speakers on this forum, had the right intuition, even though the "logic" was ambiguous.



marrish said:


> It's ... perhaps because in Urdu both constructions do exist and are legit.



Thank you very much for your valuable comment, marrish-jii. Just to confirm that I have understood you completely, I guess then all the following three (adding the #3 from my own understanding of the Urdu standard) are legit in Urdu, right?
i) kailaash ko das rupaye laane paReNge. (Agreed upon correct Hindi)
ii) kailaash ko das rupaye laanaa paRegaa. (Krishnamurthy's version)
iii) kailaash ko das rupaye laanaa paReNge. (My own Urdu-specific contribution)


----------



## Englishmypassion

littlepond said:


> The sentence in the book, if it is given like that, is wrong, Dib jii: "laanaa paRegaa" is not possible in this sentence. (By the way, when south Indians speak Hindi, they do use such constructions.)
> 
> को दस रुपये लाने पड़ेंगे। is the correct sentence.




Yes, I agree. ("Kaila*sh *ko dus rupye ka note vaapas karna padega" would obviously be fine, though because "note" is singular. In informal Hindi, we usually omit the word "rupye" and simply say "dus/pachaas ka note")

However, using the singular verb for a plural subject is very, very common among people from Bihar (and probably some other places too.) Sentences like "Bus mein sau/100 aadmi tha" and "Station pr hazaar aadmi khada tha" are said very commonly by people from Bihar. For example, one of my friends, who is a postgraduate and prepares students for the IIT entrance test, says, "Baccha thaka hua tha" when he means "The children (students) were tired". That's not Hindi proper and is wrong.


PS: "कैलास" is not the usual spelling of the name-- it's "Kaila*sh*" instead.

 I'm no grammarian.


----------



## littlepond

^ I agree with the Bihar situation commented upon by Emp jii.

Interestingly, for many in Bihar, Kailash would become Kailaas. I wonder if Krishnamurthy jii was finally influenced by Bihar or south India.


----------



## mundiya

salvipeter said:


> In "Conversational Hindi" by Krishnamurthy, there is an example
> कैलास को दस रुपये लाना पड़ेगा।
> where both the infinitive and the main verb are in the masculine singular,
> while the direct object is in the masculine plural.
> 
> Should not this be
> कैलास को दस रुपये लाने पड़ेंगे।
> instead? I remember learning that in obligational sentences,
> the verbs should agree with the direct object, if any, unless it is in the oblique case.
> 
> I have checked some grammar books, but they are very terse on this topic...



The sentence from Krishnamurthy is grammatically correct too, but as others have noted, it's not typical for conversational Hindi.


----------



## mundiya

marrish said:


> Colloquial or conversational Hindi shares more with Urdu than Modern Standard Hindi.



No, I don't feel that's true. Standard Urdu can be difficult to understand for the average Hindi speaker.


----------



## Englishmypassion

mundiya said:


> The sentence from Krishnamurthy is grammatically correct too, but as others have noted it's not typical for conversational Hindi.




When you say 'correct', do you take any ellipsis into account? Or do you consider "dus rupaye" as an amount, a common English way of dealing with amounts?
Thanks a lot.


----------



## mundiya

Englishmypassion said:


> PS: "कैलास" is not the usual spelling of the name-- it's "Kaila*sh*" instead.





littlepond said:


> Interestingly, for many in Bihar, Kailash would become Kailaas. I wonder if Krishnamurthy jii was finally influenced by Bihar or south India.



कैलास is the proper spelling in Sanskrit and Hindi, though कैलाश is more typically used in Hindi.


----------



## mundiya

Englishmypassion said:


> When you say 'correct', do you take any ellipsis into account? Or do you consider "dus rupaye" as an amount, a common English way of dealing with amounts?
> Thanks a lot.



An amount, not an ellipse.


----------



## marrish

Dib said:


> [...]Just to confirm that I have understood you completely, I guess then all the following three (adding the #3 from my own understanding of the Urdu standard) are legit in Urdu, right?
> i) kailaash ko das rupaye laane paReNge. (Agreed upon correct Hindi)
> ii) kailaash ko das rupaye laanaa paRegaa. (Krishnamurthy's version)
> iii) kailaash ko das rupaye laanaa paReNge. (My own Urdu-specific contribution)


Dib, I can confirm that all the three sentences are correct from the point of view of Urdu grammar. Their popularity I estimate is in this order: i (called Delhi school), iii, ii, (both Lucknow school) but I use ii often. Minor point: conventionally "gaa" is written with a preceding space in Urdu.


----------



## Englishmypassion

mundiya said:


> An amount, not an ellipse.




But I have never seen a singular verb used for "rupaye" (plural noun) in written Hindi, especially in books. I have always seen it used like a plural, not as an amount (singular).

Thanks.


----------



## mundiya

Englishmypassion said:


> But I have never seen a singular verb used for "rupaye" (plural noun) in written Hindi, especially in books.



It's uncommon.


----------

