# Hindi-Urdu:Congress-waalii ( meaning?)



## eleo-vraine

Hey everyone! 

I have to translate this collection of short stories for my thesis into French. 

I'm having difficulties understanding some of the Hindi word used in the text (it might also be a vernacular language, but I don't speak any of them, so I don't know!)

Here's the exerpt that I'm struggling with : 

"I met a woman. At the bus station at Bareilly. She was a Congress-_walli_".

There is no furthur information provided by the context to understand the word _walli_. My best guess is it means "member" but I have no clue. 

Please, help! thanks!


----------



## greatbear

"wala" (m. sing.), "wali" (f. sing.), wale (m. pl.) and "waliN" (f. pl.) are common suffixes in Hindi used to indicate association. It could mean "belonging to" or "with", etc.
Here, it of course means someone who belongs to the Congress party. Other examples include "hunterwali" (a woman with a whip), "kothewali" (a woman who runs a brothel), and "padoswali" (a woman who lives in the neighbourhood; this is a more colloquial word than "padosan"). There's a crap Hindi film titled "Gharwali Baharwali", meaning housewife and mistress, but literally "woman of the home and woman of the outside".


J’espère que mes explications étaient claires. Bon courage pour votre thèse.


----------



## eleo-vraine

Thanks a million!!


----------



## eleo-vraine

Actually, I could use your help one more time : 

At one moment, the main character Shiv is on his bicycle, having a stroll  in the city, and he's going pretty fast and some dehati citizens (sic) in the street  say to him "Ram-Ram, Shiv Bhaiyya". 
And the meaning of this sentence is a mystery to me!


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> "wala" (m. sing.), "wali" (f. sing.), wale (m. pl.) and "waliN" (f. pl.) are common suffixes in Hindi used to indicate association. It could mean "belonging to" or "with", etc.
> Here, it of course means someone who belongs to the Congress party. Other examples include "hunterwali" (a woman with a whip), "kothewali" (a woman who runs a brothel), and "padoswali" (a woman who lives in the neighbourhood; this is a more colloquial word than "padosan"). There's a crap Hindi film titled "Gharwali Baharwali", meaning housewife and mistress, but literally "woman of the home and woman of the outside".
> 
> 
> J’espère que mes explications étaient claires. Bon courage pour votre thèse.



*I wonder if the feminine plural is "vaaliyaaN"? For example, "taaNge vaaliyaaN". What do you think?

I know that this does not work for adjectives, e.g. kaalaa/kaale; kaalii/kaalii.
*


----------



## greatbear

eleo-vraine said:


> At one moment, the main character Shiv is on his bicycle, having a stroll  in the city, and he's going pretty fast and some dehati citizens (sic) in the street  say to him "Ram-Ram, Shiv Bhaiyya".
> And the meaning of this sentence is a mystery to me!



The greeting "Ram Ram" locates the story in the Hindi heartland of India of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar: it is a commonly used salutation equivalent to "Hello". Literally speaking, it takes the name of Ram, a mythological god-figure, twice.

"Bhaiyya" is a common word added to men's names, in affection, especially when the speaker perceives himself or herself to be of an age around that of the man spoken to. In your context, it is clear that the speaker is familiar with Shiv and is greeting him a good morning ("Ram Ram" is much more common in the mornings). "Bhaiyya" is also used sometimes with strangers, serving as a more pleasant way of saying "Mister".



QURESHPOR said:


> *I wonder if the feminine plural is "vaaliyaaN"? For example, "taaNge vaaliyaaN". What do you think?*



Yes, "valiyaaN" is also used, but one can also use "taaNge vaaliN" for the plural.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> The greeting "Ram Ram" locates the story in the Hindi heartland of India of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar: it is a commonly used salutation equivalent to "Hello". Literally speaking, it takes the name of Ram, a mythological god-figure, twice.
> 
> "Bhaiyya" is a common word added to men's names, in affection, especially when the speaker perceives himself or herself to be of an age around that of the man spoken to. In your context, it is clear that the speaker is familiar with Shiv and is greeting him a good morning ("Ram Ram" is much more common in the mornings). "Bhaiyya" is also used sometimes with strangers, serving as a more pleasant way of saying "Mister".
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, "valiyaaN" is also used, but one can also use "taaNge vaaliN" for the plural.



*Could you please provide an example or two from prose or poetry for "vaaliiN". It must be me but I can't seem to get my head round the use of "vaaliiN".*


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> *
> I wonder if the feminine plural is "vaaliyaaN"? For example, "taaNge vaaliyaaN". What do you think?
> 
> I know that this does not work for adjectives, e.g. kaalaa/kaale; kaalii/kaalii.
> *


 Yes and yes! Both according to the rules of Prakrit grammar!


----------



## souminwé

QURESHPOR said:


> *Could you please provide an example or two from prose or poetry for "vaaliiN". It must be me but I can't seem to get my head round the use of "vaaliiN".*



That's because _vaaliiN_ doesn't exist. If there was a verb _vaalna_, then _vaaliiN_ could be its past perfect(ive?) with a feminine object - but there is no such verb and in any case, it doesn't have anything to do with "Congress-vali" (which I would just translate as "Congress-chick", but greatbear has a much better explanation).


----------



## greatbear

vaaliiN very much exists in spoken Hindi. I do not read Hindi literature, so I cannot give an example from there.


----------



## souminwé

Really? I find that kind of strange! Does it contrast with other forms or is it just a variant?


----------



## greatbear

It is just a variant of "vaaliyaN": just a matter of taste. Some people mostly use "vaaliN" and others "vaaliyaN".


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> It is just a variant of "vaaliyaN": just a matter of taste. Some people mostly use "vaaliN" and others "vaaliyaN".



*So, you would agree that in grammatical correct Urdu/Hindi "vaaliiN" would be considered wrong?*

*I have a possible explanation for this "phenomenon". As you are aware some people would use the following construction:

merii bakriyoN ne nah jaane kyaa khaa liyaa hai. sab biimaar ho ga'iiN haiN!

Instead of the correct...ga'ii haiN.

Here is an example from the net.

پوسٹ بمبر ایک میں الفا براوہ چارلی ڈرامے میں کام کرنے والیں اداکارہ لگ رہیں ہیں 

Post number* ek meN Alpha Bravo* Charlie Daraame meN kaam karne vaaliiN adaakaarah lag rahiiN haiN

This should of course be......vaalii.......rahii haiN.

* Both words are mis-spelt
*


----------



## greatbear

No, I never said vaaliN is wrong! To take an example, I have never heard "kaamvaaliyaN" in my life: it is always "kaamvaaliN" for many maidservants.

I don't know what the grammar books say, as that is not the way I've learnt my mother tongue; I only can tell you about the Hindi I've used and heard.


----------



## Qureshpor

In a recent thread entitled "jab tak ki", the following sentence was included in the opening post.

Hindi, Urdu: jab tak ki

"vo unki baat par tab tak yaqiin nahin *karne vaaliN*, jab tak ki DambalDor khud na keh deN ki ye sac thhaa."

marrish SaaHib made an observation about "*vaaliiN*" and said, " Could you check back with the text please? I find this feature quite perplexing. "

I too have similar concerns about this usage. Can someone explain please how we end up with vaaliiN. I am assuming that here the writer is giving respect to "vo" and hence "vaalii" > "vaaliiN".


----------



## aevynn

I think what's happening here is that there are (at least) three syntactic functions that oblique infinitive followed by _waalii_ might perform.

1. Attributive: _kaam karne waalii aurat nahiiN aaii_
2. Substantive: _kaam karne waalii nahiiN aaii_
3. Verbal: _wo kaam nahiiN karne waalii_ (as in "She is not going to do the work")

In each of these cases, there are different paradigms to draw on if we want to pluralize (or honorific-ize).

1. Attributive: In this case, the natural paradigm to draw on is the adjective paradigm, in which there is no change when pluralizing for feminines. For instance, _chhoT*ii* laRkii_ -> _chhoT*ii* laRkiyaaN_. Following this paradigm, we end up with

_kaam karne waalii aurateN nahiiN aaiiN_.​
2. Substantive: In this case, perhaps the natural paradigm to draw on is the noun paradigm, in which -_ii_ turns into -_iyaN. _For instance, _laRk*ii*_ -> _laRk*iyaaN*_. So, following this paradigm, we end up with

?_kaam karne waaliyaaN nahiiN aaiiN_.​
I don't know how acceptable this sentence really is; it sounds to me like the sort of thing someone might say when they're joking around. But it's perfectly understandable, and if we view language as a generative system of rules, it's fairly clear what rules a native speaker would be using to generate the above sentence.

3. Verbal: In this case, perhaps the natural paradigm to follow is that of verbs, which nasalize in the plural. For instance,

_wo ghar kabhii nahiiN aat*ii*_ ("She never comes home") -> _wo ghar kabhii nahiiN aat*iiN*_ ("They never come home")​
Following this same pattern, perhaps we end up with

?_wo kaam nahiiN karne waaliiN_. ("They are not going to do the work.")​
Perhaps some might not like this, but again, hopefully it's at least clear that what generative rule a native speaker might be using to generate the above sentence. For what it's worth, searching for "करने वालीं" and for "کرنے والیں" on Google do return a good number of relevant hits, so this usage is not completely off the wall.


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> I think what's happening here is that there are (at least) three syntactic functions that oblique infinitive followed by _waalii_ might perform.
> 
> 1. Attributive: _kaam karne waalii aurat nahiiN aaii_
> 2. Substantive: _kaam karne waalii nahiiN aaii_
> 3. Verbal: _wo kaam nahiiN karne waalii_ (as in "She is not going to do the work")
> 
> In each of these cases, there are different paradigms to draw on if we want to pluralize (or honorific-ize).
> 
> 1. Attributive: In this case, the natural paradigm to draw on is the adjective paradigm, in which there is no change when pluralizing for feminines. For instance, _chhoT*ii* laRkii_ -> _chhoT*ii* laRkiyaaN_. Following this paradigm, we end up with
> 
> _kaam karne waalii aurateN nahiiN aaiiN_.​
> 2. Substantive: In this case, perhaps the natural paradigm to draw on is the noun paradigm, in which -_ii_ turns into -_iyaN. _For instance, _laRk*ii*_ -> _laRk*iyaaN*_. So, following this paradigm, we end up with
> 
> ?_kaam karne waaliyaaN nahiiN aaiiN_.​
> I don't know how acceptable this sentence really is; it sounds to me like the sort of thing someone might say when they're joking around. But it's perfectly understandable, and if we view language as a generative system of rules, it's fairly clear what rules a native speaker would be using to generate the above sentence.
> 
> 3. Verbal: In this case, perhaps the natural paradigm to follow is that of verbs, which nasalize in the plural. For instance,
> 
> _wo ghar kabhii nahiiN aat*ii*_ ("She never comes home") -> _wo ghar kabhii nahiiN aat*iiN*_ ("They never come home")​
> Following this same pattern, perhaps we end up with
> 
> ?_wo kaam nahiiN karne waaliiN_. ("They are not going to do the work.")​
> Perhaps some might not like this, but again, hopefully it's at least clear that what generative rule a native speaker might be using to generate the above sentence. For what it's worth, searching for "करने वालीं" and for "کرنے والیں" on Google do return a good number of relevant hits, so this usage is not completely off the wall.


Thank you aevynn SaaHib, for your lucid explanation. Interestingly, I had made some notes very much on the same lines, which I sent to a friend of mine for his comments. His response is in general agreement with what I wrote to him and your write up. This is what I had written.

.............................................................................................................

xat likhne *vaalaa* laRkaa yahaaN *aayaa* = xat likhne *vaalaa* yahaaN* aayaa*
xat likhne *vaale* laRke yahaaN *aa'e* = xat likhne *vaale* yahaaN *aa'e*

xat likhne *vaalii *laRkii yahaaN *aa'ii* = xat likhne *vaalii* yahaaN *aa'ii*
xat likhne *vaalii* laRkiyaaN yahaaN *aa'iiN* = xat likhne *vaalii *yahaaN *aa'iiN*


vuh 3aurat un kii baat par yaqiin nahiiN karne vaalii hai = yaqiin nahiiN karne vaalii 3aurat = yaqiin nahiiN karne vaalii
vuh 3aurateN un kii baat par yaqiin nahiiN karne vaalii haiN = yaqiin nahiiN karne vaalii 3aurateN = yaqiin nahiiN karne vaalii (?)

Question arises. If the subject is not explicit, how does one differentiate a singular subject from a plural subject?

...............................................................................................................

Now getting back to your analysis.

1. Agreed

2. I think "kaam karne vaalii nahiiN aa'iiN" would be the Urdu counterpart. Having said this "kaam karne vaaliyaaN nahiiN aa'iiN" might be acceptable, I think. I will have to do some more work on this.

3. The thing to ask is whether "vuh kaam nahiiN *kartiiN* is equivalent in format to "vuh kaam nahiiN *karne vaaliiN*? if it is acceptable, than the following constructions should also be acceptable.

maiN nahiiN rahne kaa /ham nahiiN rahne ke
maiN nahiiN rahne kii/ ham nahiiN rahne *kiiN *(?)

marne jogaa* /marne joge
marne jogii/ marne *jogiiN* (?)

Are these acceptable? I admit these forms are rather archaic/obsolete, even in Urdu.

*  luGhaatu_nnisaa3-1917 (Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii) has "marne-jogaa". "musalmaan 3aurateN Haalat-i-xafagii meN marne jogaa boltii haiN".

(You have mentioned native speakers generating such forms. Are speakers of the same language who are not native speakers incapable of generating such forms? One of the greatest grammarian of Arabic language was Sibawayh and his mother tongue was Persian. Iqbal's mother tongue was Punjabi, yet he is considered to be one of the greatest Urdu poets, along with Mir and Ghalib.)


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> (You have mentioned native speakers generating such forms. Are speakers of the same language who are not native speakers incapable of generating such forms? One of the greatest grammarian of Arabic language was Sibawayh and his mother tongue was Persian. Iqbal's mother tongue was Punjabi, yet he is considered to be one of the greatest Urdu poets, along with Mir and Ghalib.)



Yes, I apologize for my use of non-inclusive terminology! I did not mean to be non-inclusive, and certainly people like Iqbal would fall under the category of people I was trying to refer to. I do often try to say "fluent speakers" rather than "native speakers" for precisely this reason, but I sometimes forget to do this. I will do a better job of trying to remember 



Qureshpor said:


> 2. I think "kaam karne vaalii nahiiN aa'iiN" would be the Urdu counterpart. Having said this "kaam karne vaaliyaaN nahiiN aa'iiN" might be acceptable, I think. I will have to do some more work on this.



Yes, _kaam karne vaalii nahiiN aaiiN_ seems a lot less joke-y. The only point I wanted to make with _vaaliyaaN_ here is that the phrase _kaam karne vaalii_ behaves a lot like a noun in the sentence _kaam karne vaalii nahiiN aaii_ [because, for instance, you get a grammatically correct sentence by replacing the phrase _kaam karne vaalii_ with _laRkii_], so one can at least understand the logic behind why someone might draw on the declension pattern for nouns in this situation to create the form _vaaliyaaN _when pluralizing.



Qureshpor said:


> 3. The thing to ask is whether "vuh kaam nahiiN *kartiiN* is equivalent in format to "vuh kaam nahiiN *karne vaaliiN*? if it is acceptable, than the following constructions should also be acceptable.
> 
> maiN nahiiN rahne kaa /ham nahiiN rahne ke
> maiN nahiiN rahne kii/ ham nahiiN rahne *kiiN *(?)
> 
> marne jogaa* /marne joge
> marne jogii/ marne *jogiiN* (?)
> 
> Are these acceptable? I admit these forms are rather archaic/obsolete, even in Urdu.
> 
> *  luGhaatu_nnisaa3-1917 (Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavii) has "marne-jogaa". "musalmaan 3aurateN Haalat-i-xafagii meN marne jogaa boltii haiN".



In the standard grammar, it is the participles that take the -_iiN_ ending for feminine plurals [and only when there isn't a copula to take the nasalization instead]. The standard grammar recognizes just two participles: the imperfective [-_taa_] and perfective [-_(y)aa_].

I think you're right that it's questionable if -_ne waalaa_ form is really a participle like the standard two participles. It behaves a bit like the standard participles in some ways, but not in other ways. Here are two reasons that I'm able to come up with for why someone might think that it *is* a participle:

(A1) Like HU's two standard participles, this form purely conveys aspect (a prospective aspect), and tense is conveyed through a copula:
​wo ghar aataa hai/thaa/..​wo ghar aayaa hai/thaa/..​wo ghar aane waalaa hai/thaa/..​
(A2) It obeys the same rule as HU's two standard participles about dropping the present-tense copula when the clause is negated:

wo ghar nahiiN aataa (hai)​wo ghar nahiiN aayaa (hai)​wo ghar nahiiN aane waalaa (hai)​
Notice that adjectives used predicatively do *not* obey the same copula-dropping rule: one probably would not say *_laRkaa baRaa nahiiN_ without a copula [it would rather be _laRkaa baRaa nahiiN hai_].

I think (A2) is a much more convincing similarity than (A1), but anyway... There are also good reasons to *not* regard the -_ne waalaa_ form as a participle. Here are two reasons I'm able to come up with:

(B1) The two standard participles can both be followed by _huaa_ when used attributively, but -_ne waalaa_ cannot.

aataa huaa aadmii​aayaa huaa aadmii​aane waalaa (*huaa) aadmii​​(B2) The two standard participles can be used obliquely as adjuncts, but -_ne waalaa_ cannot.

maiNne use baiThte hue dekhaa​maiNne use baiThe hue dekhaa​*maiNne use baiThne waale dekhaa​
Anyway, I think my point is just that the -_ne waalaa_ construction with the meaning "going to do" behaves a bit like the two standard participles in some ways [which makes ?_waaliiN_ coherent], and not in other ways [in which case ?_waaliiN_ doesn't make sense].

I'm not sure if there are ways that _rahne kaa_ or _marne jogaa_ behave more like participles than adjectives, but the spoken language that I've been exposed to doesn't use these constructions nearly frequently enough for me to be able to say. If there are fluent HU speakers who use these constructions frequently, and if, in the speech patterns of these people, these constructions behave more like participles than adjectives in some ways, then I suppose it's theoretically plausible that some of these people might say things like _?rahne kiiN_ or ?_marne jogiiN_. But I don't know.


----------

