# Urdu:How to conjugate verbs in the past tense



## Darraptor

I know there is a form like this posted for all the verb tenses but I'm having trouble conjugating verbs for the past tense because in this case the verb is _irregular.  _I know the format is like _Subject + ne + verb (irregular) _and an example for karnaa is :
_Main ne kiyaa - I did
Tu ne kiyaa - You did
Us/is ne kiyaa - He/she/it did
Hum ne kiyaa - We did
Tum ne kiyaa - You did
Aap ne kiyaa - You did
Unhen/inhen ne kiyaa - they did
_
However I wouldn't know how to do this for other verbs so could someone explain and provide examples like for the verbs give take ask speak etc?


----------



## Alfaaz

Darraptor said:
			
		

> I know there is a form like this posted for all the verb tenses but I'm having trouble conjugating verbs for the past tense because in this case the verb is _irregular. _I know the format is like _Subject + ne + verb (irregular) _and an example for karnaa is :
> _Main ne kiyaa - I did
> Tu ne kiyaa - You did
> Us/is ne kiyaa - He/she/it did
> Hum ne kiyaa - We did
> Tum ne kiyaa - You did
> Aap ne kiyaa - You did
> Unhen/inhen ne kiyaa - they did_
> 
> However I wouldn't know how to do this for other verbs so could someone explain and provide examples like for the verbs give take ask speak etc?


Are you able to read Urdu script? (The reason for asking is that it will be helpful for forum members to know while answering your questions.)

Here are a few additions/corrections to your list and the forms of the other verbs are listed at the end:

_maiN ne ... 
tu/tum/aap ne ...
us/is _or_ unhoN/inhoN ne ...
hum ne ...
unhoN/inhoN ne ..._

_... diyaa/liyaa/puuchhaa/kahaa (thaa)_


----------



## Dib

Like in English, there are different kinds of past tense in Urdu too:
us-ne kiyaa (thaa) = she/he did
us-ne kiyaa (hai) = she/he has done
vo kartaa thaa = he used to do
vo kar rahii thii = she was doing, etc...

I presume, you are interested only in the first two kinds here. Most verbs in this tense are quite regular. They add:
-aa in masculine singular (-yaa after aa, i)
-e in masculine plural
-ii in feminine (singular)
There is a feminine plural in -iiN which is used only if the thiiN/haiN is dropped. So, in feminine plural, we have either "puuchhii thiiN/haiN" or "puuchhiiN".

Apart from "kiyaa/ki(y)e/kii(N)" from karnaa, the other really irregular verb that comes to mind is jaanaa (to go), which becomes "gayaa/ga'e/ga'ii(N)".

Note, however, that the subject is not always followed by -ne in this tense. I made a post about when to use -ne and when to drop it, and how to know which gender and number your verb should be in in a different thread:



Dib said:


> -ne has to be added after the logical subject of (most) transitive verbs in the perfect tenses, i.e. the tenses made using the -(y)aa participle, e.g. gayaa, khaayaa, chaahaa, aayaa, dekhaa, dikhaayaa, etc. As you can guess, gayaa, aayaa among these would not require -ne, because they are intransitive, but the others would require the -ne. When -ne is added, the verb does not agree any more with the logical subject, but _may_ agree with the object, depending on whether it is marked with -ko (i.e. objective case - in that case, there is no agreement on verb, which defaults to 3rd person singular) or not (i.e. absolutive case - in that case, the verb agrees with the logical object in absolutive case). It probably all sounds like gibberish. So, let me give some examples:
> 
> 1) Intransitive verbs:
> laRkii aatii thii = The girl used to come = La chica venía.
> laRkii aayii thii = The girl came = La chica vino.
> => Verb agrees with logical subject (laRkii) in both perfect and non-perfect tenses.
> 
> 2) Transitive verbs:
> a) Object in absolutive case (i.e. without -ko):
> laRkii filmeN dekhtii thii = The girl used to watch films = La chica veía películas.
> laRkii ne filmeN dekhii thiiN = The girl watched films = La chica vio películas.
> => Verb (dekhtii thii = fem. sing.) agrees with the logical subject (laRkii = fem. sing.) in non-perfect tenses.
> Verb (dekhii thiiN = fem. plu.) agrees with the logical object *without* -ko marking (filmeN = fem. plu.) in perfect tenses.
> 
> b) Object in objective case (i.e. with -ko):
> laRkii laRkoN ko dekhtii thii = The girl used to see/watch the boys = La chica veía/miraba a los chicos.
> laRkii ne laRkoN ko dekhaa thaa = The girl saw/watched the boys = La chica vio/miró a los chicos.
> => Verb (dekhtii thii = fem. sing.) agrees with the logical subject (laRkii = fem. sing.) in non-perfect tenses.
> Verb (dekhaa thaa = masc. sing.) agrees neither with the logical subject (laRkii = fem. sing.) nor the logical object *with* -ko marking (laRkoN ko = masc. plu.) and defaults to masc. sing. in perfect tenses.
> 
> And, on top of this, there are a few exceptional verbs - some transitive ones that don't require -ne, and some intransitive ones that may require -ne, and some that may choose either way, often with a difference in nuance.


----------



## Darraptor

How come for the first too you have thaa and hai in parentheses? Are they not needed? Also I'm kinda confused on conjugating the verb because I know you need some sort of iyya ending like diyaa(for denna) but that is not that case for puuchaa so can you explain to me how you would possible conjugate the irregular verbs with lots of examples to help me see this?


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> Like in English, there are different kinds of past tense in Urdu too:
> us-ne kiyaa (thaa) = she/he did
> us-ne kiyaa (hai) = she/he has done
> vo kartaa thaa = he used to do
> vo kar rahii thii = she was doing, etc...
> 
> I presume, you are interested only in the first two kinds here. Most verbs in this tense are quite regular. They add:
> -aa in masculine singular (-yaa after aa, i)
> -e in masculine plural
> -ii in feminine (singular)
> There is a feminine plural in -iiN which is used only if the thiiN/haiN is dropped. So, in feminine plural, we have either "puuchhii thiiN/haiN" or "puuchhiiN".
> 
> Apart from "kiyaa/ki(y)e/kii(N)" from karnaa, the other really irregular verb that comes to mind is jaanaa (to go), which becomes "gayaa/ga'e/ga'ii(N)".
> 
> Note, however, that the subject is not always followed by -ne in this tense. I made a post about when to use -ne and when to drop it, and how to know which gender and number your verb should be in in a different thread:



How come for the first too you have thaa and hai in parentheses? Are they not needed? Also I'm kinda confused on conjugating the verb because I know you need some sort of iyya ending like diyaa(for denna) but that is not that case for puuchaa so can you explain to me how you would possible conjugate the irregular verbs with lots of examples to help me see this?


----------



## Dib

Darraptor said:


> How come for the first too you have thaa and hai in parentheses? Are they not needed?



Let's put it this way. Urdu has three verb forms:
1) us ne kiyaa thaa
2) us ne kiyaa hai
3) us ne kiyaa

(1) usually means "he/she did", "he/she had done". (2) usually means "he/she has done". (3) - I feel - is usually similar to (2) in meaning, but in some contexts it seems to have a meaning more like (1), e.g. ek baar us ne ek khat likhaa = Once, he wrote a letter. But, this does not mean that you can substitute (3) for the other two forms freely. I feel, there are some differences in nuance.



> Also I'm kinda confused on conjugating the verb because I know you need some sort of iyya ending like diyaa(for denna) but that is not that case for puuchaa so can you explain to me how you would possible conjugate the irregular verbs with lots of examples to help me see this?



The -yaa ending occurs after most vowels. The ending is simply -aa after consonants. There's nothing irregular about it.

puuchh- (ask) -> puuchhaa / puuchhe / puuchhii(N)
dekh- (see) -> dekhaa / dekhe / dekhii(N)
bol- (say) -> bolaa / bole / bolii(N)
sun- (hear) -> sunaa / sune / sunii(N)

khaa- (eat) -> khaayaa / khaa'e / khaa'ii(N)
aa- (come) -> aayaa / aa'e / aa'ii(N)
paa- (get) -> paayaa / paa'e / paa'ii(N)
ro- (weep) -> royaa / ro'e / ro'ii(N)

Slightly irregular:
de- (give) -> diyaa / diye / dii(N)
le- (take) -> liyaa / liye / lii(N)
ho- (be, become) -> hu'aa / hu'e / hu'ii(N)

Very irregular:
kar- (do) -> kiyaa / kiye / kii(N)
jaa- (go) -> gayaa / ga'e / ga'ii(N)


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> Let's put it this way. Urdu has three verb forms:
> 1) us ne kiyaa thaa
> 2) us ne kiyaa hai
> 3) us ne kiyaa
> 
> (1) usually means "he/she did", "he/she had done". (2) usually means "he/she has done". (3) - I feel - is usually similar to (2) in meaning, but in some contexts it seems to have a meaning more like (1), e.g. ek baar us ne ek khat likhaa = Once, he wrote a letter. But, this does not mean that you can substitute (3) for the other two forms freely. I feel, there are some differences in nuance.
> 
> 
> 
> The -yaa ending occurs after most vowels. The ending is simply -aa after consonants. There's nothing irregular about it.
> 
> puuchh- (ask) -> puuchhaa / puuchhe / puuchhii(N)
> dekh- (see) -> dekhaa / dekhe / dekhii(N)
> bol- (say) -> bolaa / bole / bolii(N)
> sun- (hear) -> sunaa / sune / sunii(N)
> 
> khaa- (eat) -> khaayaa / khaa'e / khaa'ii(N)
> aa- (come) -> aayaa / aa'e / aa'ii(N)
> paa- (get) -> paayaa / paa'e / paa'ii(N)
> ro- (weep) -> royaa / ro'e / ro'ii(N)
> 
> Slightly irregular:
> de- (give) -> diyaa / diye / dii(N)
> le- (take) -> liyaa / liye / lii(N)
> ho- (be, become) -> hu'aa / hu'e / hu'ii(N)
> 
> Very irregular:
> kar- (do) -> kiyaa / kiye / kii(N)
> jaa- (go) -> gayaa / ga'e / ga'ii(N)



for the second verb form you mentioned: "us ne kiyaa hai"


Dib said:


> Let's put it this way. Urdu has three verb forms:
> 1) us ne kiyaa thaa
> 2) us ne kiyaa hai
> 3) us ne kiyaa
> 
> (1) usually means "he/she did", "he/she had done". (2) usually means "he/she has done". (3) - I feel - is usually similar to (2) in meaning, but in some contexts it seems to have a meaning more like (1), e.g. ek baar us ne ek khat likhaa = Once, he wrote a letter. But, this does not mean that you can substitute (3) for the other two forms freely. I feel, there are some differences in nuance.
> 
> 
> 
> The -yaa ending occurs after most vowels. The ending is simply -aa after consonants. There's nothing irregular about it.
> 
> puuchh- (ask) -> puuchhaa / puuchhe / puuchhii(N)
> dekh- (see) -> dekhaa / dekhe / dekhii(N)
> bol- (say) -> bolaa / bole / bolii(N)
> sun- (hear) -> sunaa / sune / sunii(N)
> 
> khaa- (eat) -> khaayaa / khaa'e / khaa'ii(N)
> aa- (come) -> aayaa / aa'e / aa'ii(N)
> paa- (get) -> paayaa / paa'e / paa'ii(N)
> ro- (weep) -> royaa / ro'e / ro'ii(N)
> 
> Slightly irregular:
> de- (give) -> diyaa / diye / dii(N)
> le- (take) -> liyaa / liye / lii(N)
> ho- (be, become) -> hu'aa / hu'e / hu'ii(N)
> 
> Very irregular:
> kar- (do) -> kiyaa / kiye / kii(N)
> jaa- (go) -> gayaa / ga'e / ga'ii(N)



I know this is wrong but why cant i say: "Mai ne apko liye hai? I think apko should be replaced with apke but I don't get why. I guess I dont know when to use apko vs apke


----------



## Dib

Darraptor said:


> I know this is wrong but why cant i say: "Mai ne apko liye hai? I think apko should be replaced with apke but I don't get why. I guess I dont know when to use apko vs apke



What are you trying to say there? That would be useful to understand where your attempt has gone wrong. Remember, in Urdu there are two different "liye"-s:
1) As a postposition meaning "for": X ke liye = for X
2) As masculine plural of the perfect form of lenaa (to take): maiN ne juute liye haiN = I have taken shoes.

And also, "maiN ne Darraptor ke liye juute liye haiN = I have taken shoes for Darraptor."


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> What are you trying to say there? That would be useful to understand where your attempt has gone wrong. Remember, in Urdu there are two different "liye"-s:
> 1) As a postposition meaning "for": X ke liye = for X
> 2) As masculine plural of the perfect form of lenaa (to take): maiN ne juute liye haiN = I have taken shoes.
> 
> And also, "maiN ne Darraptor ke liye juute liye haiN = I have taken shoes for Darraptor."




I want to say I have gone to pakistan. Would I say Main ne Pakistan gaya hai? If not then would it be ta? Why?


----------



## Dib

Darraptor said:


> I want to say I have gone to pakistan. Would I say Main ne Pakistan gaya hai? If not then would it be ta? Why?



Well, it should be "maiN paakistaan gayaa huuN" (assuming you are male; otherwise "maiN paakistaan ga'ii huuN") - without "ne"; and with "huuN" (1st person singular) instead of "hai". Please, review the rules of using "ne" in the quotation in post #3 of this thread.

maiN paakistaan gayaa thaa (male) / maiN paakistaan ga'ii thii (female) = I went to Pakistan.


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> Well, it should be "maiN paakistaan gayaa huuN" (assuming you are male; otherwise "maiN paakistaan ga'ii huuN") - without "ne"; and with "huuN" (1st person singular) instead of "hai". Please, review the rules of using "ne" in the quotation in post #3 of this thread.
> 
> maiN paakistaan gayaa thaa (male) / maiN paakistaan ga'ii thii (female) = I went to Pakistan.



This is probably a real dumb question but I just want to make sure I fully understand but why are gayaa and aayaa intransitive. I know intransitive verb means that they don't have a direct object but in the sentence, "I went to Pakistan", wouldn't Pakistan be the direct object because Pakistan is being visited by me.


----------



## Dib

Darraptor said:


> This is probably a real dumb question but I just want to make sure I fully understand but why are gayaa and aayaa intransitive. I know intransitive verb means that they don't have a direct object but in the sentence, "I went to Pakistan", wouldn't Pakistan be the direct object because Pakistan is being visited by me.



On the contrary, I find this a very good question; and I'll admit upfront, I am not 100% satisfied with the answer, I am going to give you. The explanation is sound, but it may not be particularly useful to the learners.

Firstly, your hunch that in "maiN paakistaan gayaa thaa", paakistaan is a direct object is actually a pretty good one - at least, if you compare with some other languages, e.g. Sanskrit (vaMgaan gachchhaami = I go to Bengal), or in many contexts also Latin (Romam eo = I go to Rome). They differ from normal direct objects even in these languages in some ways, but let's not get into that.

In the context of Urdu/Hindi, however, they are not direct objects, as is the case also in English => "I went *to* Pakistan." See the "to"? English direct objects are never introduced by "to" or any other preposition. Similarly, in Urdu, the target of movement is actually mentioned in the *oblique case* - either bare or followed by "meN", "par", etc. A direct object, on the other hand, is either mentioned in the direct case or oblique case followed by ko.  Ref:


Dib said:


> -ko in Urdu is the "object" marker, and "object" in this sense includes both direct and indirect objects of the verb. It is obligatory for indirect objects. It is also obligatory for direct objects when it is a specific human being. It tends to be omitted when the direct object is inanimate or nonspecific, but there lies a grey zone in-between, where -ko can be either added to the object or dropped, but often with some difference in nuance.



So, paakistaan in "maiN paakistaan gayaa thaa" is actually in oblique case, though the form happens to be the same as in the direct case. In fact, the direct and oblique case forms of all(?) place names are same - at least in the modern prevalent usage. So, how do we know, it is in oblique case and not direct? This is how we know: Let's try to say "I went to your Pakistan". It would be "maiN aap *ke* paakistaan gayaa thaa" or to take a more natural expression: "maiN aap *ke* ghar gayaa thaa" (I went to your house). You see the "ke"? That's either masculine plural marker or masculine singular oblique marker. paakistaan and ghar are not plural here for sure. So, by the process of elimination, they must be masculine singular oblique. And since it is oblique without any following -ko, it cannot be a direct object.

Now, as a learner, your first problem is that you probably don't know that targets of motion are given in oblique case, to start with. So, my explanation is really not much useful. So, what you, as a learner, need to do, is to simply learn that aanaa, jaanaa are intransitive in grammar, and their target of motion is given in the oblique case. There are other complications regarding when you can use the bare oblique case, and when to add postpositions like meN, etc. But, I will rather stop at this point, and quit testing your patience.


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> On the contrary, I find this a very good question; and I'll admit upfront, I am not 100% satisfied with the answer, I am going to give you. The explanation is sound, but it may not be particularly useful to the learners.
> 
> Firstly, your hunch that in "maiN paakistaan gayaa thaa", paakistaan is a direct object is actually a pretty good one - at least, if you compare with some other languages, e.g. Sanskrit (vaMgaan gachchhaami = I go to Bengal), or in many contexts also Latin (Romam eo = I go to Rome). They differ from normal direct objects even in these languages in some ways, but let's not get into that.
> 
> In the context of Urdu/Hindi, however, they are not direct objects, as is the case also in English => "I went *to* Pakistan." See the "to"? English direct objects are never introduced by "to" or any other preposition. Similarly, in Urdu, the target of movement is actually mentioned in the *oblique case* - either bare or followed by "meN", "par", etc. A direct object, on the other hand, is either mentioned in the direct case or oblique case followed by ko.  Ref:
> 
> 
> So, paakistaan in "maiN paakistaan gayaa thaa" is actually in oblique case, though the form happens to be the same as in the direct case. In fact, the direct and oblique case forms of all(?) place names are same - at least in the modern prevalent usage. So, how do we know, it is in oblique case? This is how we know: Let's try to say "I went to your Pakistan". It would be "maiN aap *ke* paakistaan gayaa thaa" or to take a more natural expression: "maiN aap *ke* ghar gayaa thaa" (I went to your house). You see the "ke"? That's either masculine plural marker or masculine singular oblique marker. paakistaan and ghar are not plural here for sure. So, by reductio ad absurdum, they must be masculine singular oblique. And since it is oblique without any following -ko, it cannot be a direct object.
> 
> Now, as a learner, your first problem is that you probably don't know that targets of motion are given in oblique case, to start with. So, my explanation is really not much useful. So, what you, as a learner, need to do, is to simply learn that aanaa, jaanaa are intransitive in grammar, and their target of motion is given in the oblique case. There are other complications regarding when you can use the bare oblique case, and when to add postposition like meN, etc. But, I will rather stop at this point, and quit testing your patience.



I definitely agree with you on your point that I should just learn that aanaa and jaanaa are intransitive. Ok I want to say the sentence I went to get the cat food because he was hungry. Would it be mai ne billi khaaana ko paaya hai kumke vo to(or billi) book lagi rahi hai. My initial thought was to first look at I went to get the cat food. Its past tense and I knew the would I had to use was paaya. Then I thought cat was the direct object and because its not human I didnt add the ko to it. Then I knew food was the indirect object because it was being taken by me so I added the ko to it. I just wrote food as its usual form. Then the rest was just elementary stuff(I might be wrong).


----------



## Dib

Thank you for explaining your thought process. That makes it all the easier to provide targeted feedback.

So, as you did, break it up:
1) I went to get the cat food
2) (because) he was hungry

For (1) paayaa is not the correct word. paanaa is "to get" in the sense of "to receive, find", etc. e.g. "I got/found my peace here". Even in this meaning, in my experience, it has a limited currency in daily colloquial language. In your example, "to get" really means "to bring and give". I don't know of any verb in Urdu that has that semantics. So, I'd say, you choose either one of the components - bring (laanaa) or give (denaa). Secondly, "paayaa" is also not correct because the verb which occurs in the past tense is "went" (gayaa), not "get". Thirdly, you have unfortunately swapped the direct and indirect objects. So, the -ko should go on the billii, which is the indirect object and khaanaa should remain -ko-less as it is inanimate direct object.

Now, breaking further up:
1.A) I went = maiN gayaa
1.B) to *give* the cat food = billii ko khaanaa denaa
Putting them together:
I went to give the cat food = maiN billii ko khaanaa den*e* gayaa. (You see, even denaa turns to oblique dene when it is the target of "gayaa")

2) he was hungry:
use bhuuk lagii thii
us ko bhuuk lagii thii
-> In these sentences, bhuuk(h) (hunger, feminine gender) is the grammatical subject. The person or animal who has the hunger appear as indirect object of the sentence. It is a similar construction to "use X kii zaruurat thii" (He/she needed X).

There is also the word "bhuuk(h)aa", which may mean "hungry", but I feel it more often means "famished, starving". If you want to use that, you can say:
vo bhuukhii thii -> Remember, even though you used "he" in your English sentence, billii in your Urdu sentence is feminine, and hence the feminine concord here.

So, putting (1) and (2) together, the natural way of saying it is (among all the other suggested possibilities):
"maiN billii ko khaanaa dene gayaa, kyoNki/chuuNki use bhuuk lagii thii."


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> Thank you for explaining your thought process. That makes it all the easier to provide targeted feedback.
> 
> So, as you did, break it up:
> 1) I went to get the cat food
> 2) (because) he was hungry
> 
> For (1) paayaa is not the correct word. paanaa is "to get" in the sense of "to receive, find", etc. e.g. "I got/found my peace here". Even in this meaning, in my experience, it has a limited currency in daily colloquial language. In your example, "to get" really means "to bring and give". I don't know of any verb in Urdu that has that semantics. So, I'd say, you choose either one of the components - bring (laanaa) or give (denaa). Secondly, "paayaa" is also not correct because the verb which occurs in the past tense is "went" (gayaa), not "get". Thirdly, you have unfortunately swapped the direct and indirect objects. So, the -ko should go on the billii, which is the indirect object and khaanaa should remain -ko-less as it is inanimate direct object.
> 
> Now, breaking further up:
> 1.A) I went = maiN gayaa
> 1.B) to *give* the cat food = billii ko khaanaa denaa
> Putting them together:
> I went to give the cat food = maiN billii ko khaanaa den*e* gayaa. (You see, even denaa turns to oblique dene when it is the target of "gayaa")
> 
> 2) he was hungry:
> use bhuuk lagii thii
> us ko bhuuk lagii thii
> -> In these sentences, bhuuk(h) (hunger, feminine gender) is the grammatical subject. The person or animal who has the hunger appear as indirect object of the sentence. It is a similar construction to "use X kii zaruurat thii" (He/she needed X).
> 
> There is also the word "bhuuk(h)aa", which may mean "hungry", but I feel it more often means "famished, starving". If you want to use that, you can say:
> vo bhuukhii thii -> Remember, even though you used "he" in your English sentence, billii in your Urdu sentence is feminine, and hence the feminine concord here.
> 
> So, putting (1) and (2) together, the natural way of saying it is:
> "maiN billii ko khaanaa dene gayaa, kyoNki/chuuNki use bhuuk lagii thii."



Am I allowed to change the word ordering of billi ko and khaanaa in this sentence and still make it mean the same thing? So I want to say maiN khaanaa billii ko dene gayaa, kyoNki/chuuNki use bhuuk lagii thii ? If I can't does this mean that whenever you make an urdu sentence the indirect object is always before the direct object?


----------



## Dib

You can change the order. In your suggested sentence, "billii ko" is however emphasized by its unusual position, and it essentially says: "I went to give food to the_ cat_ (rather than someone else), ..."


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> Thank you for explaining your thought process. That makes it all the easier to provide targeted feedback.
> 
> So, as you did, break it up:
> 1) I went to get the cat food
> 2) (because) he was hungry
> 
> For (1) paayaa is not the correct word. paanaa is "to get" in the sense of "to receive, find", etc. e.g. "I got/found my peace here". Even in this meaning, in my experience, it has a limited currency in daily colloquial language. In your example, "to get" really means "to bring and give". I don't know of any verb in Urdu that has that semantics. So, I'd say, you choose either one of the components - bring (laanaa) or give (denaa). Secondly, "paayaa" is also not correct because the verb which occurs in the past tense is "went" (gayaa), not "get". Thirdly, you have unfortunately swapped the direct and indirect objects. So, the -ko should go on the billii, which is the indirect object and khaanaa should remain -ko-less as it is inanimate direct object.
> 
> Now, breaking further up:
> 1.A) I went = maiN gayaa
> 1.B) to *give* the cat food = billii ko khaanaa denaa
> Putting them together:
> I went to give the cat food = maiN billii ko khaanaa den*e* gayaa. (You see, even denaa turns to oblique dene when it is the target of "gayaa")
> 
> 2) he was hungry:
> use bhuuk lagii thii
> us ko bhuuk lagii thii
> -> In these sentences, bhuuk(h) (hunger, feminine gender) is the grammatical subject. The person or animal who has the hunger appear as indirect object of the sentence. It is a similar construction to "use X kii zaruurat thii" (He/she needed X).
> 
> There is also the word "bhuuk(h)aa", which may mean "hungry", but I feel it more often means "famished, starving". If you want to use that, you can say:
> vo bhuukhii thii -> Remember, even though you used "he" in your English sentence, billii in your Urdu sentence is feminine, and hence the feminine concord here.
> 
> So, putting (1) and (2) together, the natural way of saying it is (among all the other suggested possibilities):
> "maiN billii ko khaanaa dene gayaa, kyoNki/chuuNki use bhuuk lagii thii."



I remember in an earlier post you were saying if we're dealing with an indirect object then it needs to have ko but if its direct object then we only apply the ko if its human. So what if I wanted to make the sentence, I went to give the cat Bob(I know it sounds weird and not typically something we would say in english) but my point I'm trying to make is how to form a sentence where we have a direct object thats human and indirect object. From the sentence I asked, I was thinking Main billi ko bob ko dene gaya but it sounds wrong to me


----------



## Dib

Darraptor said:


> I remember in an earlier post you were saying if we're dealing with an indirect object then it needs to have ko but if its direct object then we *only* apply the ko if its *human*.



Actually, you _have to_ use the ko if it is a *definite/specific* human, e.g. a person referred to by name, or roughly speaking, a context where you'd use a "the" in English. With *indefinite inanimate*, the "ko" is mostly omitted. But anything in between (e.g. nonhuman animate, indefinite human, definite inanimate, etc.) is a grey-zone. Basically, adding "ko" implies a higher degree of "animacy" or "definiteness". It's difficult for me to formulate the exact rules of using or dropping it, as I never learned them actively. Similar rules operate in my mother tongue as well (Bengali). I realize, the wording of my previous post was probably not the clearest, but I wanted to convey this same message:


Dib said:


> [-ko] is also obligatory for direct objects when it is a specific human being. It tends to be omitted when the direct object is inanimate or nonspecific, but there lies a grey zone in-between, where -ko can be either added to the object or dropped, but often with some difference in nuance.





> So what if I wanted to make the sentence, I went to give the cat Bob(I know it sounds weird and not typically something we would say in english) but my point I'm trying to make is how to form a sentence where we have a direct object thats human and indirect object. From the sentence I asked, I was thinking Main billi ko bob ko dene gaya but it sounds wrong to me



You could reformulate the sentence as "I went to give Bob to the cat", and then it sounds far better, I guess. I think, your Urdu sentence is okay; but, I also think that the more neutral word order would be "maiN 'Bob' ko billii ko dene gayaa." To be frank, I am operating here at the edge of my competences as a non-native speaker on judging the word order. I hope a native or more-accomplished speaker will help us out.

In any case, such sentences, generally speaking, may be ambiguous in Urdu. That's true.

For "I went to give Mr. Cat to Bob" (where Mr. Cat/billii is the name of the cat, or a dog for that matter - thus definite and anthropomorphic, attracting the direct object -ko), I'd say in neutral manner: "maiN billii ko 'Bob' ko dene gayaa". So, here and in the previous example, in my instinct, the neutral word order requires direct object before indirect, but in "billii ko khaanaa dene gayaa", it's the opposite. Sorry, I don't have an explanation for this.


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> Actually, you _have to_ use the ko if it is a *definite/specific* human, e.g. a person referred to by name, or roughly speaking, a context where you'd use a "the" in English. With *indefinite inanimate*, the "ko" is mostly omitted. But anything in between (e.g. nonhuman animate, indefinite human, definite inanimate, etc.) is a grey-zone. Basically, adding "ko" implies a higher degree of "animacy" or "definiteness". It's difficult for me to formulate the exact rules of using or dropping it, as I never learned them actively. Similar rules operate in my mother tongue as well (Bengali). I realize, the wording of my previous post was probably not the clearest, but I wanted to convey this same message:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could reformulate the sentence as "I went to give Bob to the cat", and then it sounds far better, I guess. I think, your Urdu sentence is okay; but, I also think that the more neutral word order would be "maiN 'Bob' ko billii ko dene gayaa." To be frank, I am operating here at the edge of my competences as a non-native speaker on judging the word order. I hope a native or more-accomplished speaker will help us out.
> 
> In any case, such sentences, generally speaking, may be ambiguous in Urdu. That's true.
> 
> For "I went to give Mr. Cat to Bob" (where Mr. Cat/billii is the name of the cat, or a dog for that matter - thus definite and anthropomorphic, attracting the direct object -ko), I'd say in neutral manner: "maiN billii ko 'Bob' ko dene gayaa". So, here and in the previous example, in my instinct, the neutral word order requires direct object before indirect, but in "billii ko khaanaa dene gayaa", it's the opposite. Sorry, I don't have an explanation for this.



Im sorry I shouldn't of used cat as an example but what if there were only humans in that sentence? So like what if I had said I went to give Bob to Rob


----------



## Dib

"Bob ko Rob ko denaa", I think, is the neutral way of saying "to give Bob to Rob". But, I think, it can also mean "to give Rob to Bob", but with an emphasis on Rob. In any case, as I said, I am operating at my limits here. I'd prefer some native speaker take it up.


----------



## littlepond

Darraptor said:


> ... but what if there were only humans in that sentence? So like what if I had said I went to give Bob to Rob



maiN Rob ko Bob dene gayaa.
I - to Rob - Bob - to give - went


----------



## Darraptor

Dib said:


> Let's put it this way. Urdu has three verb forms:
> 1) us ne kiyaa thaa
> 2) us ne kiyaa hai
> 3) us ne kiyaa
> 
> (1) usually means "he/she did", "he/she had done". (2) usually means "he/she has done". (3) - I feel - is usually similar to (2) in meaning, but in some contexts it seems to have a meaning more like (1), e.g. ek baar us ne ek khat likhaa = Once, he wrote a letter. But, this does not mean that you can substitute (3) for the other two forms freely. I feel, there are some differences in nuance.
> 
> 
> 
> The -yaa ending occurs after most vowels. The ending is simply -aa after consonants. There's nothing irregular about it.
> 
> puuchh- (ask) -> puuchhaa / puuchhe / puuchhii(N)
> dekh- (see) -> dekhaa / dekhe / dekhii(N)
> bol- (say) -> bolaa / bole / bolii(N)
> sun- (hear) -> sunaa / sune / sunii(N)
> 
> khaa- (eat) -> khaayaa / khaa'e / khaa'ii(N)
> aa- (come) -> aayaa / aa'e / aa'ii(N)
> paa- (get) -> paayaa / paa'e / paa'ii(N)
> ro- (weep) -> royaa / ro'e / ro'ii(N)
> 
> Slightly irregular:
> de- (give) -> diyaa / diye / dii(N)
> le- (take) -> liyaa / liye / lii(N)
> ho- (be, become) -> hu'aa / hu'e / hu'ii(N)
> 
> Very irregular:
> kar- (do) -> kiyaa / kiye / kii(N)
> jaa- (go) -> gayaa / ga'e / ga'ii(N)



How would you say If I wanted to talk to you, I would of? I was thinking Ager mai apse bath chaata ta, phir mai ne kiya. I was thinking that Mai apse batt chaata ta Is past tense for I wanted to talk to you. I didn't know what the word for would is in urdu so I used the phrase main ne kiya because its the closest phrase I could think of since it mean I have done or atleast I think so?


----------

