# Hindi/Urdu: chahiye



## lcfatima

I have a grammatical question. Are we supposed to nasalize chahiye to chahiyeN with a plural? If so, is it when the subject is plural or the object? 

I feel I have heard some nasal voiced types say chaNhiye or chaNhiyeN. Is that some type of regional accent, or is that the plural?

If it is supposed to be nasalized according to the rules, can you kindly give me a very simple sample sentence contrasting the singular with the plural?


----------



## Faylasoof

Icf, we never nasalize this! 

_wo shaksh yeh kitaab __chaahtaa__ hai_

_wo log yeh kitaab chaahte hai.n_ - the only nasal sound is in <_hai.n_>.


----------



## lcfatima

I didn't think we were supposed to, but I have heard people nasalize it. It must be an accent.


----------



## BP.

_aapko kaye kutub chahiye.n?_

Never nasalise the first syllable though.


----------



## omlick

lcfatima said:


> I have a grammatical question. Are we supposed to nasalize chahiye to chahiyeN with a plural? If so, is it when the subject is plural or the object?
> 
> I feel I have heard some nasal voiced types say chaNhiye or chaNhiyeN. Is that some type of regional accent, or is that the plural?
> 
> If it is supposed to be nasalized according to the rules, can you kindly give me a very simple sample sentence contrasting the singular with the plural?


 
Grammar books that I read teach चाहिए   چاہئےas an invariable.


----------



## lcfatima

I have heard it used by Pakistani Urdu speakers like BP mentions, as in "mujhe do aarDer chicken tikka chahiyeN." My husband says it should be pluralized, but I do recall learning it as chahiye only as Omlick confirms. Perhaps this is a particular feature Pakistani Urdu accent?


----------



## panjabigator

Could it be a relic of Panjabi?  Panjabi declines it by gender and number, and of course, nasalizes it (only in the feminine plural): <çāhīdā/çāhīde/çāhīdī/cāhīdī'ā.n>.

I discussed this with an Urdu wala before and we too were confused.  Does Snell nasalize it?  I don't think Urdu does it, but I've seen it plenty in written Hindi.


----------



## Faylasoof

panjabigator said:


> Could it be a relic of Panjabi?  Panjabi declines it by gender and number, and of course, nasalizes it (only in the feminine plural): <çāhīdā/çāhīde/çāhīdī/cāhīdī'ā.n>.
> 
> I discussed this with an Urdu wala before and we too were confused.  Does Snell nasalize it?  I don't think Urdu does it, but I've seen it plenty in written Hindi.



This might well be possible. It seems that Punjabi nasalizes a lot more than Urdu - we just had that discussion about <parā.nThā vs. parāThaā>. For us it is always the latter.

Here I have to be with Omlick! It is    چاہئے -- non-nazalised. However, I'll admit that I have heard the nazalised form often, incorrect though it is.


----------



## shanya

Me either , i never heard "Chahiye " nazalised, it shouldn't be !! For sure its a matter of accents only..


----------



## BP.

We hear _chahiye.n_ everyday. Maybe its a colloquial fusion of _chahiye_ and _hai.n_. But to me it looks like usual conjugation just like in _hae_ and its plural _hai.n_.


----------



## bakshink

The following text has been written on online text editor which interprets transliterated text. This obviously shows that there is no nasalization for the heck of it. With plural object we will use chahinye.The words exist and are used differently. For those who can't read hindi text.    
हमें ये पुस्तकें चाहियें, Humein ye pustakein (books) chahinyein.This nasalization is to distinguish between the singular and the plural objects. 
This differentiation exists in the present and the past tense too. See the following examples.स्त्रियाँ नाच रहीं थीं, Striyaan naach rehin theen.
आदमी गा रहे थे Aadmi ga rahe thhe. While for feminine subject in the above example we use rahin thheen but for masculine we don't.
बड़ा आदमी है, बड़े लोग हैं, BaRRa aadmai hai, BaRRe log hain. The nasal differnetiation between singular and plural exists in the present tense both for masculine and feminine subjects.


----------



## Faylasoof

In Urdu it is grammatically incorrect to nasalize this plural though one hears it all too often. Just like a myriad other grammatically incorrect forms one has to suffer, e.g. <laa parwaahii!!> and <inkisaarii!!> etc. etc. We've been thru' these before so I wouldn't bother elaborating.


----------



## panjabigator

Reviving this interesting dialogue with another tidbit, this time from Usha Jain's "Introduction to Hindi Grammar": "The plural of चािहये चािहयें, but some speakers use चािहये for both singular and plural agreement." (page 130).

Could this be a difference between Hindi and Urdu then?  I had just assumed it to be a matter of preference.

Edit: I just checked with Shmidt's Essential Urdu, and she confirms Usha Jain's Hindi grammar.  Pg 137, point 643, if anyone is following along.


----------



## minus273

Hi people,
I just started to learn Hindi/Urdu. I had read a colonial-era Grammar, and tried to read Manto's _Toba Tek Singh_ from Pritchett's site.

kih ikhlāqī qaidiyoñ kī t̤arh pāgaloñ kā tabādilah bhī honā *chāhiʾe* yaʿnī jo musalmān pāgal, hindūstān ke pāgal-khānoñ meñ haiñ uñheñ pākistān pahuñchā diyā jāʾe
(that like criminal offenders, lunatics    too ought to be exchanged: that is, those Muslim lunatics who were in Hindustan's    insane asylums should be sent to Pakistan)

I understand that "chāhi'e" is a form of "chāhnā", corresponding to the "ought" in translation. But I can't find a form like this in my conjugation table. Is this a past tense? Why isn't it "chāhe (haiṅ/the)"? Thanks!


----------



## bakshink

Chahna means to wish, desire, like/love.
Chahiye can have different meanings.
Command: Mujhe ye chahiye- I want this.
Ought to: Tumhein sharm aani chahiye- You ought to be ashamed.
Need: Mujhe bazaar se kuchh chizein chahiyein- I need some things from the market. 
Bas ik sanam chahiye ashiqi ke liye- Just need a friend to love.


----------



## minus273

So, following the verb infinitive, it means here "*it is needful that* lunatics are exchanged"?


----------



## bakshink

Here it means should also be.
"that like criminal offenders, lunatics should also be exchanged".


----------



## Faylasoof

I am aware of this variation - do not have Schmidt but will check other Urdu grammars. Anyway, we never nasalize! What did you hear when you were in Lucknow? I mean from bona fide _urdudaan_!


----------



## panjabigator

You know, I don't really recall off hand, but I'll enquire with some friends.  Maybe I can prevoke a "chahiye" out of my Xala (host mother) and see if she nasalizes or not.  Either way, I Lukhnavis have strong opinions about subpar Urdu, so it'll be interesting to hear her two cents on the subject.


----------



## Faylasoof

panjabigator said:


> ...Lukhnavis have strong opinions about subpar Urdu, ...



Oh yes! I can vouch for it! So it'll be very interesting to hear a different opinion!


----------



## Faylasoof

Welcome minus273! 

I agree with Bakshink. In this context, < *chāhiʾe* > does indeed mean <*should*>.

  Bye the way, just a small correction or two in your transliteration. The passage should be read as: < …keh  axlāqī  / akhlāqī qaidiyoñ kī t̤arh .. > 
  Had a look at the original here. 

 [ In transliteration I use < x = خ > and < kh = كھ  > and we pronounce <  كہ as _keh _>]. 

  In Urdu proper we do distinguish between <axlāq = morals, manners, character ethics> and <ixlāq = being worn out etc. >  - used mostly in the higher Urdu register. In some online dictionaries I see now people are confusing the two. Incidentally, the normal Urdu term for a criminal is <_mujrim _ مُجرِم> and not <axlāqī   / akhlāqī qaidī >, though I think I can see why Manto chose it. 

  Any further discussion of these points deserves a new thread.


----------



## minus273

Faylasoof said:


> Welcome minus273!
> I agree with Bakshink. In this context, < *chāhiʾe* > does indeed mean <*should*>.


And, pray, what relation does the form < *chāhi'e* > have with the verb *chāh-*? Where does the *-i'-* come from? Is this an impersonal participle? In this case, why isn't it chāhi'ā or like? Can you point out some grammar where forms analogous to < *chāhi'e* > are discussed?
Thanks!


----------



## Faylasoof

Good question! But as Bakshink explained above (post # 2) the verb <*chāhnā*> has many meanings and uses, one of them being in the derived form <*chāhi'e> *to mean <should / must>. As you perhaps would already know, languages do follow some logic, as revealed by grammatical rules, but not everything seems / is logical.  

Just to give an example from English: to become angry = to get angry
The first makes perfect logical sense as you are using an adjective (angry) to describe an emotional state of a person / being. But the second seems odd as the verb (to get) is used not with the noun (anger), as we expect, but with the related adjective (angry).  Usage in languages is very difficult to explain and apart from saying that the oddity of usage is a recognised property of (all) languages and that is how they evolve, I can’t say much else.  

Certainly, the use of  <*chāhi'e + infinitive> *is impersonal – equivalent to the English <one should / must OR it is necessary>. 

Schmidt’s online version of Urdu grammar explains this usage of  <*chāhi'e> * on page 137, here. Please use  _should  _as the search term in the box – left column. 

In the examples she gives, this usage should become clear. My only “quarrel” with her in these sentences are: 

-use of <  _chīnī_ چینی  instead of _shakar_ شكر =  sugar – always the preferred choice in original Urdu vocabulary, where _chī nī_   is specifically reserved for Chinese!!> 

-use of < xarīdnī  خریدنی instead of  xarīdnā  خریدنا>, again the original Urdu idiom always used the latter.

-nasalization to give <chāhi'eñ چاہئیں instead of  chāhi'e چاہئے > , again the latter was the original idiom.


So the two sentences for us Lakhnawi Urdu speakers become:

مجھے شكر خریدنا چاہئے
_mujhe shakar xarīdnā chāhi'e_

اسے انڈے خریدنا چاہئے
_use anDe xarīdnā chāhi'e_


Urdu in Pakistan has been influenced by Punjabi idiom.


----------



## bakshink

Thanks Faylasoof you give such rich explanations that I often pity at my limited knowledge.
It's not off contest though and Minus 273 is a cool guy. Without confusing him more, I will say-

Mujhe chini xareedni chahiye and
Mujhe anDe xaridne chahiyei.n and we don't differentiate between "x" and "kh" because hindi has only "kh" though a dot below "kh" is sometime used in words of non-hindi origin.


----------



## Faylasoof

Thank you Bakshink for your kind words! The cheque is in the post!

But coming back to it, I do realise that Modern Hindi and Urdu proper have differences, hence your choice versus mine above. However, I would repeat that the use of _xarīdn__ī_ instead of _xarīdnā _etc. are very much the influence of Punajabi idiom on Urdu as spoken in Pakistan. _The original idiom of both Lakhnavi and Dehlavi Urdu would be as I show above.

_It is best to know and recognise both as one would come across them both. _
_


----------



## bakshink

Like we have (come across) Fay !!
And see what havoc has Punjabi let loose on Hindi songs, if you have heard a few recent ones. It's as if Hindi is there just to make it worse. 
"Chini Kum"  the name of a movie you may have heard.It is a few years old starring Amitabh Bachchan and Tabbu. The word in Punjabi is "khandd". Shakkar we use for powder/amorphous form of GuRR.
Awaiting my Cheque.


----------



## Faylasoof

Bakshink, I hope you didn't feel that I was running down Punjabi! Just stating a fact! Actually, even if there was no partition of India, there would have been some _Punjabism_ in Urdu as the latter had already become a popular language in the Punjab, esp. in and around Lahore, and inevitably would have resulted in a Lahorii dialect as opposed to Dehlavii and Lakhnavii dialects. 

The current popularity of Urdu in Paksitani Punjab is both due to the relationship between the two lingos and also to poets like Iqbal and Faiz. This has resulted in both a positive side -acceptance of a "foreign" dialect,Urdu-KhaRii Bolii, by the most    populous province- and a not so positive side - the mixing of two distinct idioms. Hence, things like _chāhi'eñ_ چاہئیں instead of  our _chāhi'e_ چاہئے etc. 

BTW, I've actually seen the film you mentioned and as I said earlier, in Urdu _chīnī_ چینی really is reserved for anything Chinese (people included) but _qand  _قند is generally for a certain kind of sugar / sugar-candy (eg. _qalaaqand_ - famous Lakhanvi sweet), while _shakar_  (non-stressed <k>) is normal sugar, which most of my Pakistani Punjabi friends refer to as _chīnī_ چینی.


----------



## minus273

Thank you people! It's very helpful, the grammar link and the Hindi - Pakistani - Lakhnavi differences.


----------



## Lugubert

Faylasoof said:


> Schmidt’s online version of Urdu grammar explains this usage of  <*chāhi'e> * on page 137, here.


I'll just add that among the grammars of several dozens of languages that I own, Ms. Schmidt's _Urdu an Essential Grammar_ is one of the, if not _*the*_, very best.


----------



## Faylasoof

Yes Lugubert, Schmidt's book is very good - apart from my reservations above. There seems a bias towards the Pakistani version of Urdu idiom. Although she gives the alternative, original idiom too (often in brackets), one may think that this is somehow used less. Infact in many parts of Inida, the original is still in vogue so you'll here _xariidnaa hai_ instead of _xariidnii hai_ etc. etc. the former bieng the correct form.


----------



## chiller

I am Urdu speaking and if you are reading Manto you should take in mind that it belongs to purest Urdu.
Here the word "Chahiye" means "should" but there are so many other meanings relating to the phrase.
For example:
Mujhe ye Chahiye, I need this.
but
Mujhe ye karna chahiye, I should do this.

You know the differene there. Manto is one of the best Urdu writters ever and he wrote so many good novels and books. You should keep studying his books and should concern World Urdu Grammer.


----------



## xjm

Very interesting!  I wonder if the nazalization is a Punjabi innovation that got borrowed into Pakistani Urdu, or if it's an old feature of the parent language that died out (or got "standardized out") in Dilli and Lukhnavi speech.


----------



## panjabigator

While we are on the subject, can someone comment on Deccani Urdu, which has its own idiosyncrasies to it.


----------



## teaboy

I also have often heard nasalized chaahiyeN in Lahore.  I always felt like I was being sloppy if I didn't!  Dang.  Not only must I worry about my own subpar Urdu, I must wonder if anything I heard in Lahore is correct....


----------



## panjabigator

Hmmm, I'd be weary about prescriptivism there.  What flies in Lucknow doesn't necessarily work in Hyderabad, Delhi, or Lahore.  The reverse is also true, so when in Rome


----------



## Faylasoof

I cringe when I hear this nasalized! We never do but all the same it’ll be good to hear from a _bona fide_ Hyderabadi.


----------



## Lugubert

Myself and fellow students tried चाहिये sentences on our cooks in Mussoorie to tell them when we didn't want more चपाती. They thought we were referencing tea. Any ideas on how we failed - pronunciation or grammar?


----------



## teaboy

Be sure to say the word with 3 syllables: _Cha-hi-ye_.  

*Don't* make it 2 syllables -- sounds too much like _chai hai_.

The _ye_ portion should be a full _e_ sound as Swedish _hej_, while the _hai_ in the second example is like the _a_ with an umlaut over it in Swedish (sorry I don't know how to make the keyboard write it!)


----------



## lcfatima

In addition to the nasalization issue, native speakers do have some variations on how they say this.

chaa-hii-ye is one

che-ii-ye (not H sound) is very common...perhaps a Punjabiphone thing


----------



## panjabigator

> che-ii-ye (not H sound) is very common...perhaps a Punjabiphone thing



I'm so happy you posted this!  I had thought this an idiosyncrasy of my mother's speech for so long...


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

panjabigator said:


> I'm so happy you posted this! I had thought this an idiosyncrasy of my mother's speech for so long...


 
?????

Never heard that .... In Punjabi it is *chahida / chahidii / chahidee* ....

So this change in (gender) and number could originate from Punjabi once more ?????


----------



## appleofeye

Cilquiestsuens said:


> ?????
> 
> Never heard that .... In Punjabi it is *chahida / chahidii / chahidee* ....
> 
> So this change in (gender) and number could originate from Punjabi once more ?????



yes you are right, in punjabi no such word exist... in punjabi actually word is ¨chahnay ¨ 
like examople, asi tuano bara chahnay han,


----------



## Faylasoof

lcfatima said:


> In addition to the nasalization issue, native speakers do have some variations on how they say this.
> 
> chaa-hii-ye is one
> 
> che-ii-ye (not H sound) is very common...perhaps a Punjabiphone thing



Once more this reminds me mostly of  my Gujarati friends at school and not Punjabis! 

We can't let our Punjabi brothers take all the credit every time!!


----------



## panjabigator

appleofeye said:


> yes you are right, in punjabi no such word exist... in punjabi actually word is ¨chahnay ¨
> like examople, asi tuano bara chahnay han,



She's referring to a Panjabiphone pronunciation in Hindi and Urdu.

I'll have to investigate the Delhi dialect a bit more to pinpoint this "cheeye" thing.  My mom hails from Delhi (my Nani is from old Delhi), so I'll pay attention to Delhiwale some more next trip.


----------



## lcfatima

> She's referring to a Panjabiphone pronunciation in Hindi and Urdu.


 
That's right.

I'll add that not articulating the 'h' sound between 2 vowels is a mark of a Punjabi accent in Urdu, like sheher as sher (slightly elongated vowel sound in middle) and so on.

I think Gujaratis with heavy accents in Hindi/Urdu say "chiii-ye".


----------



## Birdcall

In Mumbai, I hear chaahie as two syllables much more often than 3. (Sounds like chai-ye). This is probably pretty common in fast speech.

Faylasoof, what's wrong with the word "laaparvaahii?" It's pretty common in Hindi, "Vo laaparvaahii se kaam kartaa hai." Maybe it's like "boriyat," a commonly-used newly-invented word based off a real word.


----------



## panjabigator

Birdcall said:


> In Mumbai, I hear chaahie as two syllables much more often than 3. (Sounds like chai-ye). This is probably pretty common in fast speech.
> 
> Faylasoof, what's wrong with the word "laaparvaahii?" It's pretty common in Hindi, "Vo laaparvaahii se kaam kartaa hai." Maybe it's like "boriyat," a commonly-used newly-invented word based off a real word.



I think he takes umbrage with the mixing of an Arabic prefix with a Persian word.


----------



## BP.

Birdcall said:


> ...
> Faylasoof, what's wrong with the word "laaparvaahii?" It's pretty common in Hindi, "Vo laaparvaahii se kaam kartaa hai." ...


Overlooking the issue of Perso-Arabic métissés, I'd just like to point out the orthographical error in the word: the _h_ in _laaparwaa*h*ii_ is extraneous and should be done away with. If we spell the word in Urdu-Persian script, a Hamza occurs in its place, pronounced either as a glottal stop or a y.


----------



## Birdcall

In Devanagari, parvaah has a ha at the end, so adding ii to it and pronouncing it as laaparvaahii seems logical. I've never heard the glottal stop pronounced in Hindi; we like to slur vowels together. So is it wrong (according to the Perso-Arabic script) to pronounce the ha's in words like shaahi and tabaahi and gavaahi?

So if laa-parvaahii is wrong b/c it's an Arabic prefix with a Farsi word, are laa-pataa (Arabic + Hindi) and samajh-daar (Hindi + Farsi) and be-chain (Farsi + Hindi) wrong? This seems like a very normal part of language.


----------



## BP.

Birdcall said:


> So is it wrong (according to the Perso-Arabic script) to pronounce the ha's in words like shaahi and tabaahi and gavaahi?


Not at all. These words all contain an h, compare _{gunaah_, _shaah_, _tabaah} _vs _parwaa_.



> In Devanagari, parvaah has a ha at the end, so adding ii to it and pronouncing it as laaparvaahii seems logical....


That explains it. Still, we have in English words like _mullah _and _nullah _with an added h that didn't exist in the original language, a _u_ in _Punjab _(causing it to be pronounced _poonjaab_) and so too in _nullah_, but this doesn't render the spelling in the lending language wrong.
So we can continue appending an h to _parwaa _in Hindi but not in Urdu or Farsi.



> So if laa-parvaahii is wrong b/c it's an Arabic prefix with a Farsi word, are laa-pataa (Arabic + Hindi) and samajh-daar (Hindi + Farsi) and be-chain (Farsi + Hindi) wrong? This seems like a very normal part of language.


So would it seem, but some people e.g. Basheer Badr or our own falsafii saahab tend to not agree, at least for the purpose of coining new words.


----------



## Faylasoof

Birdcall said:


> In Mumbai, I hear chaahie as two syllables much more often than 3. (Sounds like chai-ye). This is probably pretty common in fast speech.


The disyllabic _chai-ye_ (or even _che-ii-ye, _rather than the trisyllabic _chaahiye_) I've heard often enough from parts of UP in the east to various places in Pakistan in the west. As I mention above _cheiiye_ was very common amongst my Gujarati friends in Karachi. Some non-Guajaratis started to copy them so over time so it became even more popular with my friends.  
 
Anyway, _we_ never nasalize _chaahiye_!


----------



## Koozagar

I would tend to agree with BP. Nasalized 'ChahiyeN' is almost invariably used when the object is plural. 

Aur kitni muhabateiN chahyeiN tujh ko Faraz
MaoN nai tere naam pai bachoN ka naam rakh diya
(Ahmed Faraz)

chaNhiye on the other hand, or any nasalization other than ChahiyeN sounds like rendered from Punjabi ( ki ChahNde O?)


----------



## panjabigator

Koozagar said:


> I would tend to agree with BP. Nasalized 'ChahiyeN' is almost invariably used when the object is plural.
> 
> Aur kitni muhabateiN chahyeiN tujh ko Faraz
> MaoN nai tere naam pai bachoN ka naam rakh diya
> (Ahmed Faraz)
> 
> chaNhiye on the other hand, or any nasalization other than ChahiyeN sounds like rendered from Punjabi ( ki ChahNde O?)



Welcome to the forum!  

Great to have poetic examples - thanks for that.  

I have never seen "chaNhiye" in Urdu or Punjabi, not to suggest it doesn't exist, however.  Just thought I'd add that.

PG


----------



## Koozagar

I won't say that it exists. but if it does, it does sound like rendered from Punjabi.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Koozagar said:


> I won't say that it exists. but if it does, it does sound like rendered from Punjabi.


 

*ki chahnde* *o* is the translation in Punjabi of *kyaa chaahte ho*.

*ki chaahidaa* translates _*kyaa chaahiye*_... I don't see any nazalisation in Punjabi, at least in the standard form of the language.


----------



## bakshink

o ku.Diyaa.n kii chaa.ndiyaa.n ne- What do those girls want? 
o ku.Dii kii chaa.ndii ae- Singular


----------



## panjabigator

Koozagar said:


> I would tend to agree with BP. Nasalized 'ChahiyeN' is almost invariably used when the object is plural.
> 
> Aur kitni muhabateiN chahyeiN tujh ko Faraz
> MaoN nai tere naam pai bachoN ka naam rakh diya
> (Ahmed Faraz)



Hi there,

Just reposting this quote because it seems like it went unnoticed.  Faylasoof, any comments on the nasalization within this sher?

I spoke with a Punjabi friend who grew up in Lahore (perfect trilingual in Urdu/Punjabi/English) who said that he would distinguish between <chāhiye> and <chājiye.n>.  So perhaps its a regional particularity.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

panjabigator said:


> Hi there,
> 
> Just reposting this quote because it seems like it went unnoticed. Faylasoof, any comments on the nasalization within this sher?
> 
> I spoke with a Punjabi friend who grew up in Lahore (perfect trilingual in Urdu/Punjabi/English) who said that he would distinguish between <chāhiye> and <chājiye.n>. So perhaps its a regional particularity.


 
Well, Faraz, if I'm not wrong is from Kohat (NWFP), so he is really far from being a native speaker of Urdu... Despite being one of the most recognized modern poets...


----------



## panjabigator

Cilquiestsuens said:


> Well, Faraz, if I'm not wrong is from Kohat (NWFP), so he is really far from being a native speaker of Urdu... Despite being one of the most recognized modern poets...



Thanks for reminding me of this; was he a Hindko or Pashto speaker?  Anyway, the poem is a great example of a regional difference from an established poet.  I'll look into this.

edit: Aren't they calling NWFP "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" now?


----------



## Faylasoof

panjabigator said:


> Hi there,
> 
> Just reposting this quote because it seems like it went unnoticed.   Faylasoof, any comments on the nasalization within this sher?
> 
> I spoke with a Punjabi friend who grew up in Lahore (perfect trilingual  in Urdu/Punjabi/English) who said that he would distinguish between  <chāhiye> and <chājiye.n>.  So perhaps its a regional  particularity.



PG, I can only repeat what I've said in my earlier posts. We never do this. I've read Faraz (not much but enough) to know that he is prone to these kinds of variants. 

The world of Hindi-Urdu speakers may be divided into nasalizers and non-nasalizers. Faraz was a nasalizer! 




Cilquiestsuens said:


> Well, Faraz, if I'm not wrong is from Kohat (NWFP), so he is really far from being a native speaker of Urdu... Despite being one of the most recognized modern poets...



True, he wasn't a native Urdu speaker! Faraz was from Kohat, Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, and studied Persian and Urdu. Anyway, this nasalization is something even well known wirters and poets like him indulge in.  
 
(... and PG you are correct about the new name, _Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa__)_


----------



## Koozagar

*"True, he wasn't a native Urdu speaker! Faraz was from Kohat, Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, and studied Persian and Urdu. Anyway, this nasalization is something even well known wirters and poets like him indulge in."

*If the foremost poet of his time nasalizes, would it be called "indulgence"? Does he not have the authority to institute a convention?


----------



## Faylasoof

> *
> *If the foremost poet of his time nasalizes, would it be called "indulgence"? Does he not have the authority to institute a convention?


  Instituting or breaking a convention has to pass the test of time. Faraz did not initiate the nasalization of _chaahiye_. As I said above, some people nasalize this word others don’t and just because a well-known poet or writer adopts a certain pronunciation it doesn’t follow that we all have to follow. 

 Iqbal, who many consider the greatest of the modern Urdu poet (and also one of the great modern Persian poets), had a hard time with qaaf ق . He would inevitably resort to kaaf ك instead. It doesn’t mean we all should do the same.


----------



## AlJaahil

For what it's worth, Michael Shapiro in _Primer of Modern Standard Hindi_ says, in section 17.1, "If the noun indicating that which is desired or required is grammatically plural, then the form चाहिएं is used in place of चाहिए."
However, he then adds a footnote, "For many Hindi speakers, however, चाहिए is treated as unchangeable, regardless of whether the preceding noun is singular or plural."

ToMAYto vs. toMAHto?


----------



## panjabigator

Great point!  Thanks for sharing this.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib.
> 
> Schmidt’s online version of Urdu grammar explains this usage of <*chāhi'e> *on page 137, here. Please use _should _as the search term in the box – left column.
> 
> In the examples she gives, this usage should become clear. My only “quarrel” with her in these sentences are:
> 
> -use of < _chīnī_ چینی instead of _shakar_ شكر = sugar – always the preferred choice in original Urdu vocabulary, where _chī nī_ is specifically reserved for Chinese!!>
> 
> chiinii is listed on page 153 (Vol2) of Farhang-i-Asifiyyah to mean, "khaaND" and "shakkar-i-safed". It is also listed in Nuru_lluGhaat, Volume 2 page 445 with the meaning, "safed shakkar".
> 
> -use of < xarīdnī خریدنی instead of xarīdnā خریدنا>, again the original Urdu idiom always used the latter.
> 
> May I please enquire where Bahadur Shah Zafar has acquired the former usage in his well known Ghazal..
> 
> baat karnii mujhe mushkil kabhii aisii to nahiiN thii?
> 
> -nasalization to give <chāhi'eñ چاہئیں instead of chāhi'e چاہئے > , again the latter was the original idiom.
> 
> Another poet from Panipat and better known than the Mughal king, in his Muqaddamah-i-shi'r-o-shaa'irii uses the word "chaahiyeN" more than once. A modern day poet from ChaaNdpur, janaab-i-Sarwar.A.Raz Sahib writes in Urdu Anjuman..."aap ko Urdu shaa,i'ree kee :basic: baateN seekhnaa chaahiYeN".
> 
> http://bazm.urduanjuman.com/index.php?topic=573.0
> 
> So the two sentences for us Lakhnawi Urdu speakers become:
> 
> مجھے شكر خریدنا چاہئے
> _mujhe shakar xarīdnā chāhi'e_
> 
> اسے انڈے خریدنا چاہئے
> _use anDe xarīdnā chāhi'e_
> 
> The above no doubt holds true for the language once spoken in Lucknow but Urdu is /was spoken in other areas besides Lucknow too!
> 
> Urdu in Pakistan has been influenced by Punjabi idiom.
> 
> Urdu everywhere has been influenced by the languages it has come in contact with. And, needless to say, Urdu has affected other languages too. But please do correct me if I am wrong in saying that neither the king's birthplace nor Panipat, nor ChaaNdpur are in the Punjab! I am pretty certain that I could find more examples of both these usages within the works of Urdu master poets who lived hundreds of miles away from the Punjab. By the way, are there any other languages, besides Punjabi, which have in your opinion influenced Urdu language in a negative way?


----------



## tonyspeed

bakshink said:


> because hindi has only "kh" though a dot below "kh" is sometime used in words of non-hindi origin.



I think you mean Persian/Arabic origin here or at the very least non-Sanskrit origin. Hindi since the beginning of Hindi writing has always had Perso-Arabic influences. Hence,
to say Perso-Arabic words are of non-Hindi origin is very "propagandic". Using that logic the D in laDka is also "non-hindi" because it has a dot underneath. That is not
the case of course, but it *is* the case that the D in laDka is a *non-Sanskrit* sound. It is a pure Hindi sound which was not found in Sanskrit. Since Devanagari, which was originally
used to write Sanskrit only, was force-fitted to be used to write Hindi, we have dots. However, KHariidna existed far before the arrival of Devanagari Hindi script and is in every 
sense Hindi. 

But I digress.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> We hear _chahiye.n_ everyday. Maybe its a colloquial fusion of _chahiye_ and _hai.n_. But to me it looks like usual conjugation just like in _hae_ and its plural _hai.n_.



No, it is not colloquial at all. Indeed, if it is good enough for Maulana Altaf Hussain Hali, it is good enough for the rest of us!


----------



## BP.

> May I please enquire where Bahadur Shah Zafar has acquired the former usage in his well known Ghazal..
> 
> baat karnii mujhe mushkil kabhii aisii to nahiiN thii?



A spin-off question - does this sentence sound awkward to you:
مجھے آپ سے بات کرنا ہے۔

This phrasal form that appears very natural to me sounds ghariib to much of my audience, just want to see if an 3aalim (cue for you to blush like a lass!) has a different slant on the matter.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Good question! But as Bakshink explained above (post # 2) the verb <*chāhnā*> has many meanings and uses, one of them being in the derived form <*chāhi'e> *to mean <should / must>. As you perhaps would already know, languages do follow some logic, as revealed by grammatical rules, but not everything seems / is logical.
> 
> Well, the logical explanation is that "chaahiye" is  actually the "precative", just like "aa'iye", "jaa'iye", "kariye"  (kiijiye) etc. A muKhammas from Sauda might be helpful.
> 
> is jiine se bihtar hai ab maut pih dil dhariye
> jal bujhiye kahiiN jaa kar yaa Duub mariye
> kis taur kaTiiN raateN kis tarH se din bhariye
> kuchh ban nahiiN aatii hai Hairaan huuN kyaa kariye
> kyaa kaam kiyaa dil ne diivaane ko kyaa kahiye
> 
> Just to give an example from English: to become angry = to get angry
> The first makes perfect logical sense as you are using an adjective (angry) to describe an emotional state of a person / being. But the second seems odd as the verb (to get) is used not with the noun (anger), as we expect, but with the related adjective (angry).  Usage in languages is very difficult to explain and apart from saying that the oddity of usage is a recognised property of (all) languages and that is how they evolve, I can’t say much else.
> 
> Certainly, the use of  <*chāhi'e + infinitive> *is impersonal – equivalent to the English <one should / must OR it is necessary>.
> 
> Schmidt’s online version of Urdu grammar explains this usage of  <*chāhi'e> * on page 137, here. Please use  _should  _as the search term in the box – left column.
> 
> In the examples she gives, this usage should become clear. My only “quarrel” with her in these sentences are:
> 
> -use of <  _chīnī_ چینی  instead of _shakar_ شكر =  sugar – always the preferred choice in original Urdu vocabulary, where _chī nī_   is specifically reserved for Chinese!!>
> 
> -use of < xarīdnī  خریدنی instead of  xarīdnā  خریدنا>, again the original Urdu idiom always used the latter.
> 
> -nasalization to give <chāhi'eñ چاہئیں instead of  chāhi'e چاہئے > , again the latter was the original idiom.
> 
> 
> So the two sentences for us Lakhnawi Urdu speakers become:
> 
> مجھے شكر خریدنا چاہئے
> _mujhe shakar xarīdnā chāhi'e_
> 
> اسے انڈے خریدنا چاہئے
> _use anDe xarīdnā chāhi'e_
> 
> 
> Urdu in Pakistan has been influenced by Punjabi idiom.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Thank you Bakshink for your kind words! The cheque is in the post!
> 
> But coming back to it, I do realise that Modern Hindi and Urdu proper have differences, hence your choice versus mine above.
> 
> However, I would repeat that the use of _xarīdn__ī_ instead of _xarīdnā _etc. are very much the influence of Punajabi idiom on Urdu as spoken in Pakistan. _The original idiom of both Lakhnavi and Dehlavi Urdu would be as I show above.
> 
> _And I would reiterate that Punjabi idiom has had nothing to do with this Urdu usage. My understaning was that the Delhi Urdu  idiom favoured "Khariidnii" vs Lucknow which favoured "Khariidnaa". This  is confirmed by "Baba-i-Urdu" Maulavi Abdul Haq in his  "Qavaa'id-i-Urdu". I have already provided a Bahadur Shah Zafar example in another thread..namely "baat karnii mujhe mushkil kabhii aisii to nah thii...". Another Dehli poet was Sauda.
> 
> har aan yaas baRhnii har dam ummiid ghaTnii
> din Hashr kaa hai ab to furqat kii raat kaTnii
> 
> Here are a couple of examples where Lakhnavii poets appear to be going against the grain.
> 
> jaanaa yih zulf kaf meN lenii
> hai saaNp ke muNh meN uNglii denii
> 
> (Daya Shankar Naseem Lakhnavii)
> 
> Khvaab neN vuh aane kaa kyuN ab kare va'dah
> ya'nii kab judaa'ii meN muj ko niiNd aanii hai
> 
> NaasiKh (Faizabadi)
> _
> _It is best to know and recognise both as one would come across them both. _
> _


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Instituting or breaking a convention has to pass the test of time. Faraz did not initiate the nasalization of _chaahiye_. As I said above, some people nasalize this word others don’t and just because a well-known poet or writer adopts a certain pronunciation it doesn’t follow that we all have to follow.
> 
> Iqbal, who many consider the greatest of the modern Urdu poet (and also one of the great modern Persian poets), had a hard time with qaaf ق . He would inevitably resort to kaaf ك instead. It doesn’t mean we all should do the same.




Faylasoof SaaHib. Could you please provide any reference(s) regarding Iqbal having had a "hard time" with his qaaf pronunciation. I am asking you this for the following reasons.

He had a renowned teacher namely Shamsu_l'ulamaa Sayyid Mir Hasan who no doubt would have taught him the correct Arabic pronunciation of qaaf. Secondly, Iqbal was a Professor of Arabic in Lahore for a while. Someone who had the title of Professor of Arabic ought to have been able to pronounce the whole of the Arabic alphabet in the true classical manner, surely!


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> A spin-off question - does this sentence sound awkward to you:
> مجھے آپ سے بات کرنا ہے۔
> 
> Indeed it does! If you had said, "mujhe aap se ek savaal puuchhnaa hai", then this would have been alright.
> 
> This phrasal form that appears very natural to me sounds ghariib to much of my audience, just want to see if an 3aalim (cue for you to blush like a lass!) has a different slant on the matter.
> 
> 3aalim? It seems you are a comedian as well as possessing other fine attributes! My slant is that since "baat" is feminine, one naturally expects the verb to "agree" with it. But, once again, the dative (ko, as in mujhe/mujh ko) should negate the need for the verb to be changed to a feminine form but my mind still expects "karnaa" to be changed to "karnii".


----------



## BP.

Removing the mujh koo, these should irk your samaa3at even more:
ٹھہرئے، آپ سے بات کرنا ہے۔
حضرت آپ سے بات کرنا تھی۔

I'm not a grammar-master like you guys, but I can tell when a sentence is healthy and when it ain't. These ones are alright. In fact this is what my ears were attuned to before being exposed to the wider Karachi speech.

French grammar works in a similar way. When two verbs follow each other, the second does not surrender to number or gender. It appears in Urdu it's the first verb that is invariant.

Anyway, we can always conclude that the matter isn't متٌفقہ علیہ, and that'll be that.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Removing the mujh koo, these should irk your samaa3at even more:
> ٹھہرئے، آپ سے بات کرنا ہے۔
> حضرت آپ سے بات کرنا تھی۔
> 
> I'm not a grammar-master like you guys, but I can tell when a sentence is healthy and when it ain't. These ones are alright. In fact this is what my ears were attuned to before being exposed to the wider Karachi speech.
> 
> French grammar works in a similar way. When two verbs follow each other, the second does not surrender to number or gender. It appears in Urdu it's the first verb that is invariant.
> 
> Anyway, we can always conclude that the matter isn't متٌفقہ علیہ, and that'll be that.



There is NO disagreement whatsoever on the correctness of the above sentences and your previous sentence. However you had asked earlier if your sentence sounded "awkward" to me and I provided you with a truthful answer. I hope the fasting is n't getting to you, by the way!


----------



## greatbear

Don't know about what's correct grammatically, but I do nasalize it: "kitni kitaabeiN chahiyeN?"


----------



## BP.

You weren't all that clear the first time. But thanks, now I know what you meant.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib. Could you please provide any reference(s) regarding Iqbal having had a "hard time" with his qaaf pronunciation. I am asking you this for the following reasons.
> 
> He had a renowned teacher namely Shamsu_l'ulamaa Sayyid Mir Hasan who no doubt would have taught him the correct Arabic pronunciation of qaaf. Secondly, Iqbal was a Professor of Arabic in Lahore for a while. Someone who had the title of Professor of Arabic ought to have been able to pronounce the whole of the Arabic alphabet in the true classical manner, surely!



Qureshpore SāHib,  I  would love to answer you with the “evidence” you ask for but may I  remind you that the topic of this thread is _chāhiye / chāhi__ʾ__e_ and not the pronunciation of _qaaf_! I mentioned _3allamah_ Iqbal’s mispronunciation of _qaaf_ (as _kaaf_) merely by way of a supporting example!

_.... and to be honest, I don't how he pronounced chāhiye / chāhiʾe, i.e. with or without nasalization!_



(_BTW, and I put this only very briefly as I really wish us not going  off-topic!  3allamah Iqbal was, I recall, appointed to a readership of Arabic at  Oriental College but that didn’t improve his pronunciation of qaaf !   The 3allamah __SāHib was a family friend! Perhaps we can continue this discussion by PM, if you need more info.)_.


----------



## rahulbemba

lcfatima said:


> I have a grammatical question. Are we supposed to nasalize chahiye to chahiyeN with a plural? If so, is it when the subject is plural or the object?
> 
> I feel I have heard some nasal voiced types say chaNhiye or chaNhiyeN. Is that some type of regional accent, or is that the plural?
> 
> If it is supposed to be nasalized according to the rules, can you kindly give me a very simple sample sentence contrasting the singular with the plural?



In Hindi, we don't add any nasal voice. It can be because of regional influence / accents. For singular and plural, "chahiye" remains same.


----------



## Qureshpor

> Another poet from Panipat and better known than the Mughal king, in his Muqaddamah-i-shi'r-o-shaa'irii uses the word "chaahiyeN" more than once. A modern day poet from ChaaNdpur, janaab-i-Sarwar.A.Raz Sahib writes in Urdu Anjuman..."aap ko Urdu shaa,i'ree kee :basic: baateN seekhnaa chaahiYeN".


Correction to the birthplace. Apologies. It should be Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh.


----------

