# Hindi, Urdu: baiThnaa to express disapproval



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

I am curious about what are the historical reasons to use _baiThnaa _= "to sit"  as an auxiliar indicating disapproval by the speaker. 
As in, for example:  

_fauj buuRhe logoN se laR baiThii hai _

What is the connection between "sitting" and "disapproval"? 
It has to do perhaps with "lower oneself, stooping" to do something?

I am asking just in case the reason is obvious or generally known by modern speakers.

Thanks in advance


----------



## littlepond

I do not see any element of disapproval.

"raam shyaam se laR baiThaa" means "Ram ended up fighting with Shyam," and which was probably not an intended or foreseen consequence. To expand, "raam baat to miiThii karne gayaa thaa, par vahaaN jaa ke shyaam se laR baiThaa."


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

OK. Thanks for the opportune clarification. 
So disapproval is not the strongest element in _baiThnaa _as an auxiliar, but unintended consequence, unexpectedness.

Still, my question remains. Why did "to sit" ended up meaning an unexpected turn of events?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> So disapproval is not the strongest element in _baiThnaa _as an auxiliar, but unintended consequence, unexpectedness.


What do you mean by "the strongest"? There is no element of disapproval in _baiThnaa_!



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Still, my question remains. Why did "to sit" ended up meaning an unexpected turn of events?



What is dramatic or unexpected about "to give" that there is something unexpected about "us ne kisaanoN ko unkii zamiin de dii!"?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> There is no element of disapproval in _baiThnaa_!



This means that I can use it for an unexpected but non-reprehensible development, like:

_ raam ne res jiit baiThaa_ 

and that implies no belittiling of Ram's winning at all?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> This means that I can use it for an unexpected but non-reprehensible development, like:
> 
> _ raam ne res jiit baiThaa_
> 
> and that implies no belittiling of Ram's winning at all?



No "ne": "raam res jiit baiThaa"

It only implies Ram was not expected to win. There is no belittling of Ram's win: rather, one would say, it could be a highly praiseworthy statement given that Ram was not even expected to win (for whatever reason).


----------



## Happu

The way I've learnt it is that constructions with "baiTHaa" imply doing s.th. which ends in a negative result or which is to be criticised or objected to:

_Us ne kyaa kar baiTHaa?_ = what (rubbish, nonsense) did he do? 

Or, in the OP's example _fauj buuRhe logoN se laR baiThii hai = _the army/police fights with the elderly folks (which is a shame, must be disapproved of etc.).


----------



## littlepond

Happu said:


> The way I've learnt it is that constructions with "baiTHaa" imply doing s.th. which ends in a negative result or which is to be criticised or objected to:
> 
> _Us ne kyaa kar baiTHaa?_ = what (rubbish, nonsense) did he do?
> 
> Or, in the OP's example _fauj buuRhe logoN se laR baiThii hai = _the army/police fights with the elderly folks (which is a shame, must be disapproved of etc.).



You learnt it wrong. There is nothing negative about "kar baiThe ham pyaar, tum hii se kar baiThe": I think the hero is quite elated about it.


----------



## aevynn

I agree with @littlepond jii that "unintended" or "inadvertent" describes the nuance quite well. _fauj buuRhe logoN se laR baiThii_ because the army probably didn't go out looking for a fight with the elderly, but the conditions for a scuffle arose and so it happened. _maiN pyaar kar baiThaa_ because I found myself in love, not really having set out to do so (and maybe I'm even happy it happened). And:


littlepond said:


> "raam res jiit baiThaa"
> 
> It only implies Ram was not expected to win.


Maybe it could also imply that Ram did not really intend to win, but somehow ended up winning anyway.

I wonder if this element of disapproval that @MonsieurGonzalito and @Happu describe in #1 and #7 might be a result of the fact that unintentional actions might sometimes be viewed with disapproval. Probably there are UH textbooks out there that overgeneralized this disapproval to all instances of _baiThnaa_ used as a light verb. For example, Wikipedia cites Snell & Weightman's "Teach Yourself Hindi" and describes the function of _baiThnaa_ as a light verb as follows:


			
				https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_verb said:
			
		

> implies an action done foolishly or stubbornly





Happu said:


> Us ne kyaa kar baiTHaa?


As @littlepond jii pointed out in #6, this is grammatically incorrect. It should be an unergative _wo(h) kyaa kar baiThaa_ (because _baiThnaa_ is an intransitive verb).


----------



## Sheikh_14

Yes I am a little perplexed as to where you got the idea that any negativity was involved her Don Gonzalito. As has been suggested above kar baiThnaa suggests ending up doing something. It has nothing to do with sitting pretty or ugly for that matter. Perhaps there is a similar term in Spanish that corresponds to not sitting well with someone and therefore you have built a correlation.

Yeh maiN kyaa kar baiThaa= Oh dear what have I done!

As to why baiThnaa is used here, that in itself is a good question and besides chalking it off as a figure of speech perhaps because when you've gone ahead and done something you sit with the aftermath.

Although I have never heard it as an imperative it is possible that it can be used when commanding someone to do something. In other words in lieu of kar Daaloo/guzaaro/guzro someone could say kar-baiTho or kar bhii baiTho! to mean do it already.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Sheikh_14 said:


> I am a little perplexed as to where you got the idea that any negativity was involved her Don Gonzalito.


It is mentioned in virtually every one of the grammars in English I normally handle: Saphiro, Everaert, Schmidt, Snell, Sandahl, McGregor. The funny thing is, at some point they even start quoting each other on the subject.



Sheikh_14 said:


> Perhaps there is a similar term in Spanish that corresponds to not sitting well


Yes. "Eso no me sienta bien" exists in Spanish. Hence my original question.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> The funny thing is, at some point they even start quoting each other on the subject.



That is a big problem in the wider, academic world. Once a thing is published, even if not true, it would be quoted and requoted and start to attain the stature of a fact.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I found some sentences over the Internet where the conjugated auxiliar _baiThnaa _appears next to a participle, rather than a verbal stem. 
In those cases, does it also mean that the state described by the participle is unexpected?

Examples:
some police news 
_govaa pulis *dabaae baiThii hai* aur mahilaa par maamlaa vaapas lene ke lie dabaav Daal rahii hai_

some division of the Indian army in need of equipment
_proTekTiv viikal kii sakht zaruurat phaikTrii meN hii Deraa *Daale baiThii* *hai *CRPF baTaaliyan_

Also, the participle ending in _-e _is idiomatically required by the construction, as some sort of adverb of mode, i.e.: "unexpectedly pressuring", "unexpectedly camping"?


----------



## littlepond

^ In the above two examples, it's not an auxiliary: rather, the verb "baiThnaa" (sitting) is being used in idiomatic usage (it is the main verb of the phrases in your examples). As this is not an auxiliary, there is no element of unexpectedness here. I didn't understand your reference to participles: "dabaae," for instance, is an adverb (how is the police "sitting"? in "dabaa"ing position)


----------



## Qureshpor

The underlined words are past participle adverbial phrases. "baiThii hai" in both headlines is implying "inaction"

मंत्री पुत्र के खिलाफ शिकायत दबाए बैठी है गोवा पुलिस

Goa police after suppressing the complaint againt the minister's son, is sitting on it. 

*पाक सीमा वाले इलाके में माइंस प्रोटेक्टिव वीकल की सख्त जरूरत, फैक्टरी में ही डेरा डाले बैठी है सीआरपीएफ बटालियन*​CRPF battalion is encamped, sitting (idly) at the factory [when there is an] urgent need for mines protective vehicles in the Pakistan border area.​​​


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thank you for clarifying. The reason I asked is because one of my grammars, claims that _baiThnaa _can complement the participle of a main verb, in addition to the infinitive, to the same effect. 
My poor choice of examples aside, is this true?
That grammar (which I the only one I have claiming such a thing), also doesn't provide any example.


----------



## aevynn

@MonsierGonzalito: I don't think your examples are "poor choices" 

The sentences you provided are semantically roughly equivalent to:
​pulis shikaayat dabaa_kar baiThii hai.​baTaaliyan Deraa Daal_kar baiThii hai.​
In other words, using the "_kar" absolutive in place of the adverbial perfective participle contributes essentially the same meaning that littlepond jii described above as "(how is the police 'sitting'? in 'dabaa'ing position)" and Qureshpor jii described above as "inaction."

Moreover, it sounds to me like the following would also be acceptable (though likely less common) ways of conveying the same semantics: 

pulis shikaayat dabaa baiThii hai.​baTaaliyan Deraa Daal baiThii hai.​​I suppose there are at least two ways of analyzing this. One possibility is to say that "baiThnaa" here is again a light verb, but it is perhaps providing a nuance of "inaction" rather than "inadvertent-ness" (perhaps this is what your grammar is getting at?). Another possibility is to say that the verb stems above are absolutives, just like the "_kar" forms in the first rephrases I proposed (as you probably know, it is possible to use just a bare stem in place of the "_kar" or "_ke" form as an absolutive, though this is rather uncommon in speech). I don't know how to tease these two possibilities apart (or even if it's possible to).


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> The sentences you provided are semantically roughly equivalent to:
> pulis shikaayat dabaa_kar baiThii hai.baTaaliyan Deraa Daal_kar baiThii hai.
> In other words, using the "_kar" absolutive in place of the adverbial perfective participle contributes essentially the same meaning that littlepond jii described above as "(how is the police 'sitting'? in 'dabaa'ing position)" *and Qureshpor jii described above as "inaction."*


aeyynn Jii, the "inaction" part was for "baiThii hai".

Yes, "dabaa kar" in the right context could mean "dabaa'e hu'e" but I do believe the adverbial has its distinct sense. See next comment.



aevynn said:


> Moreover, it sounds to me like the following would also be acceptable (though likely less common) ways of conveying the same semantics:
> 
> pulis shikaayat dabaa baiThii hai.baTaaliyan Deraa Daal baiThii hai.


No, I would tend to disagree with you here. " shikaayat dabaa /Dera Daal baiThii hai" would imply an action at a point in time (same as for "dabaar kar/ Deraa Daal kar") whereas the past particple adverbial phrase describes a process that took place over a time period.

I think "baiThnaa" is to be understood as a straight verb meaning "to sit" and no more, as in..

murGhii par phailaa'e baiThii thii jab chiil chuuzoN par achaanak aan jhapTii.


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> the "inaction" part was for "baiThii hai"...
> "shikaayat dabaa /Dera Daal baiThii hai" would imply an action at a point in time (same as for "dabaar kar/ Deraa Daal kar") whereas the past particple adverbial phrase describes a process that took place over a time period.





aevynn said:


> The sentences you provided are semantically *roughly* equivalent to...


If someone does something and then just "sits on their hands" (kuchh kar_ke baiThaa hai), that seemed to me to be *roughly* the same as someone "sitting on their hands" while being in a state of having done something (kuchh ki'e baiThaa hai).



Qureshpor said:


> murGhii par phailaa'e baiThii thii jab chiil chuuzoN par achaanak aan jhapTii.


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> No, I would tend to disagree with you here. " shikaayat dabaa /Dera Daal baiThii hai" would imply an action at a point in time (same as for "dabaar kar/ Deraa Daal kar") whereas the past particple adverbial phrase describes a process that took place over a time period.
> 
> I think "baiThnaa" is to be understood as a straight verb meaning "to sit" and no more, as in..
> 
> murGhii par phailaa'e baiThii thii jab chiil chuuzoN par achaanak aan jhapTii.


----------

