# Urdu: desideratives



## Faylasoof

This thread links to this one.



panjabigator said:


> I do think this is a Lakhnavi particularity - some speakers carry the gender with them and others don't.


 No sir! Not just Luckhnow. The older Delhi idiom of Urdu also did the same!!


In Urdu and Hindi desideratives are formed by the use of چاہنا_chaahnaa. _

_kar*n*aa chaahnaa_  = to wish / desire / want to do.
_k-haa*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to eat
_paRh*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to read / study
_jaa*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to go
_dek-h*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to see


 In the older idiom of k-haRii bolii of Delhi, the same were formed slightly differently; by combining چاہنا _chaahnaa_ with a perfect participle used as a verbal noun in the accusative and so uninflected:

_jaayaa chaahnaa_
_paRhaa chaahnaa_
_dek-haa chaahnaa_   etc.

 Sounds odd? To some, very. But that is how it was. 

 It seems that when the idiom changed to our modern forms above, both Lak-hnavii and Dehlavii Urduphones maintained an “uninflected” form of what now precedes _chaahnaa_ to regularly give constructs like _dek-hnaa chaahnaa_, like the older form  _dek-haa chaahnaa_, that were gender insensitive. This gender insensitivity is seen in the following verse of Mirza Nausha – a speaker of the Dehlavii dialect of Urdu:

 منحصر مرنے پہ ہو جس كی اُمید
 نا اُمیدی اُس كی دیكھا چاھیے

   (غالب) 

_munHaSir marne pah ho jis kii umiid*_
_naa umiidii us kii dek-haa chaahiye_

_             Ghalib-e-Dehlavii_

 [_umiid_ = _ummiid_, but in verse sometimes the former is used for keeping to the rules of prosody]

 In our present form the second line would be: _ naa umiidii us kii dek-h*n*aa chaahiye_

 umiid / ummiid is feminine but in the above we would *never *say:
_naa umiidii us kii dek-h*n*ii chaahiye_

 We _Lakhnavii_s have stuck to this convention but I think the guilty party were the _Dillii waalaa_s.


----------



## omlick

Faylasoof said:


> This thread links to this one.
> No sir! Not just Luckhnow. The older Delhi idiom of Urdu also did the same!!
> 
> 
> In Urdu and Hindi desideratives are formed by the use of چاہنا_chaahnaa. _
> 
> _kar*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to do.
> _k-haa*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to eat
> _paRh*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to read / study
> _jaa*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to go
> _dek-h*n*aa chaahnaa_ = to wish / desire / want to see
> 
> 
> In the older idiom of k-haRii bolii of Delhi, the same were formed slightly differently; by combining چاہنا _chaahnaa_ with a perfect participle used as a verbal noun in the accusative and so uninflected:
> 
> _jaayaa chaahnaa_
> _paRhaa chaahnaa_
> _dek-haa chaahnaa_ etc.
> 
> Sounds odd? To some, very. But that is how it was.


 
It still is, I have heard in BW films things like

"mai.n use dekhaa nahii.n chaahtaa "

because using the "masculine perfect participle" form (which can also be a noun, just like the infinitive can be a noun) is pefectly fine in that construct and is said to convey a more intense feeling on the part of the speaker. And that is the situation in which I heard this sentence, a father was being very emotional and did not want to see his daughter who was in a very bad mental condition at the hospital. 

So, if you say" mai.n jaayaa chaahtii huu.n, it means you really want to go. (learners shoud note that jaayaa is the "noun" not gayaa for jaanaa), and this shows that these forms are nouns, depending on context, one must take care to know the difference. 

The habitual construct with karnaa is another famous one that takes these "noun" forms that look like singular masculin perfect participles, but in that construct they are nouns, and so jaayaa too must be used in that construct.

Many learners don't have a clue about this because text books don't explain this point. I found this information in a textbook from the late 19th century, early 20th century era.


----------



## panjabigator

This is very interesting.  

Faylasoof, could you post a translation of that sher?  Here is my feeble attempt:

 منحصر مرنے پہ ہو جس كی اُمید
 نا اُمیدی اُس كی دیكھا چاھیے

That hope upon which death is dependent,
We should see that particular hopelessness.

I immediately thought of other archaism in Hindi/Urdu.  Example: kare hai.n for karte hai.n (line: <chāhte hai.n so āp kare hai.n, ham ko abas badnām kī'ā).  Wonderful how the Ghazal and (apparently) Bollywood keep these relics alive.  

Faylasoof and others, have you heard this past participle + verb in regular speech?  Can this be replicated in Panjabi?

Omlink, which film did you find this line in?


----------



## BP.

I agree with Faylasoof on the issue of the parent thread, though I've been guilty of the same mistake.

I think something similar happens in this case.

The remark on desireatives evoked a second idea: we use some verbs+chaahna to mean 'about to'+action of the verb. I'll give you some examples:

_wo aaya hii chaahataa hae_ - he's about to arrive
_chaar bajaa hii chaahata hae_ - the clock is about to strike four.


----------



## omlick

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I agree with Faylasoof on the issue of the parent thread, though I've been guilty of the same mistake.
> 
> I think something similar happens in this case.
> 
> The remark on desireatives evoked a second idea: we use some verbs+chaahna to mean 'about to'+action of the verb. I'll give you some examples:
> 
> _wo aaya hii chaahataa hae_ - he's about to arrive
> _chaar bajaa hii chaahata hae_ - the clock is about to strike four.


 
Thanks ver much for the example of this usage.  I think I have run into this before in the literature and will make a note of it.  Is it the "hii" that effects the meaning to be "about to"


----------



## Faylasoof

omlick said:


> It still is, I have heard in BW films things like
> 
> "mai.n use dekhaa nahii.n chaahtaa "


I know it still exists! In fact I’ve heard the construction under discussion in real life, both in Lucknow and Karachi, though only from older (now very old) folks. 
 We've  of course never considered it grammatically incorrect. Just archaic to our modern ears. Hardly heard now and never amongst the younger generation – at least in the circles I move in.


> ...because using the "masculine perfect participle" form (which can also be a noun, just like the infinitive can be a noun) is pefectly fine ... (learners shoud note that jaayaa is the "noun" not gayaa for jaanaa), and this shows that these forms are nouns, depending on context, one must take care to know the difference....


Yes, this is precisely the point I was making above. Many don't realise this.


> Many learners don't have a clue about this because text books don't explain this point. I found this information in a textbook from the late 19th century,





> early 20th century era.


 Unfortunately this is very true and furthermore many teachers seem unaware of this! 





panjabigator said:


> This is very interesting.
> 
> Faylasoof, could you post a translation of that sher? Here is my feeble attempt:
> That hope upon which death is dependent,
> We should see that particular hopelessness.



A good attempt PG, but I would translate the first verse by moving around your translation to:

_That hope which is dependent on death,

_   This is so because you can rephrase this <_she3r_> in the more “prosaic” following manner:

_jis kii umiid marne par munHaSir ho

_   Similarly the second verse can be rephrased somewhat like:

_us kii naa umiidii dekhne waalii hai!

_   So we now get:

_That hope which is dependent on death,_
_We should see that particular hopelessness.

_ _OR simply,

_ _  One desires to see that hopelessness

_ _SharaH_ :
 Since we are trying to translate this, I feel I should add the following points since the meaning may not be clear even in a good translation. And we are just doing it off-the cuff!
 As with many an Urdu verse, and esp. with the likes of Ghalib, I think there is more than one way to read this. If we take it as Ghalib The Cynic, then the translation would mean something like this:
 Though Galib believed in the existence of the soul, he was very cautious about all the hopes and promises that clerics assured believers they’ll have in the afterlife. If we see it this way, then it would imply that here he in his cynical manner is trying to say that what you are hoping to get after death might a hope too much and will make you despondent. When you leaved this world your hopes shall remain unfulfilled including what you hoped for in the next world. It is this unfulfilled hope that is implied by the 2nd vers: نا اُمیدی اُس كی دیكھا چاھیے

 But there may be another way to understand this if we assume it is Ghalib The Empathiser speaking.  Then it could mean that in this unfair and unforgiving world we suffer (some more than others) and live in the hope that only death will relieve us of our misery and it is that misery (pertaining to our lives here) we ought to try to see.  
 


> I immediately thought of other archaism in Hindi/Urdu. Example: kare hai.n for karte hai.n (line: <chāhte hai.n so āp kare hai.n, ham ko abas badnām kī'ā). Wonderful how the Ghazal and (apparently) Bollywood keep these relics alive.
> 
> Faylasoof and others, have you heard this past participle + verb in regular speech? Can this be replicated in Panjabi?...


Yes! I have heard these too! 
 … as for Punjabi? I’m sure others can answer.


----------



## panjabigator

> _wo aaya hii chaahataa hae_ - he's about to arrive
> _chaar bajaa hii chaahata hae_ - the clock is about to strike four.



Could this thread be extended to include Hindi/Panjabi as well?

I have searched my sources but I can't find a grammatical explanation for this in Ruth Laila Shmidt.  Could someone see if Jain has an explanation?

I'm still unsure how to produce this myself and have it sound idiomatic.  Could we perhaps go through some more examples?


----------



## omlick

panjabigator said:


> Could this thread be extended to include Hindi/Panjabi as well?
> 
> I have searched my sources but I can't find a grammatical explanation for this in Ruth Laila Shmidt. Could someone see if Jain has an explanation?
> 
> I'm still unsure how to produce this myself and have it sound idiomatic. Could we perhaps go through some more examples?


 
Yes, that would be nice to have some more examples of this usage.

Also, I assume the noun before "hii"  is always spelt like the past participle masculine singular form and that "jaayaa" would apply here as well.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I agree with Faylasoof on the issue of the parent thread, though I've been guilty of the same mistake.
> 
> I think something similar happens in this case.
> 
> The remark on desireatives evoked a second idea: we use some verbs+chaahna to mean 'about to'+action of the verb. I'll give you some examples:
> 
> _wo aaya hii chaahataa hae_ - he's about to arrive
> _chaar bajaa hii chaahata hae_ - the clock is about to strike four.


 

Well indeed this use maybe considered high register now, but they still use it on TV in PK, such as : *is prograam ke iKHtataam kaa waqt huaa chaahtaa hai*, etc... I guess it is considered the most elegant way of expressing this idea.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

If you allow me interfere in the translation of the she3r you quote, let me suggest another translation : 

*he whose hope is dependent on death
his hopelessness ought to be seen*

_A_n elegant and Ghalibian way of showing : *na-ummiidi kii intehaa.*


----------



## Faylasoof

Cilquiestsuens said:


> If you allow me interfere in the translation of the she3r you quote, let me suggest another translation :
> 
> *he whose hope is dependent on death
> his hopelessness ought to be seen*
> 
> _A_n elegant and Ghalibian way of showing : *na-ummiidi kii intehaa.*



There are indeed different ways to translate, esp. our poets. 
... and yes he shows here what the extent of _naa ummiidii_ can be.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Sorry I was not clear enough... I just meant to say that translating :




> منحصر مرنے پہ ہو جس كی اُمید


 
By : 



> _That hope which is dependent on death_


 
Is *not right,* because hope is not the grammatical subject here. Therefore :



> *He whose hope is dependent on death*


 
*Now, apart from that, translating Urdu poetry is normally impossible....*

*Italians rightly say, *_traduttore tradittore_* (translating is to betray).*


----------



## Faylasoof

For a literal translation, I would agree. But as I don't always do literal translations then it is diifferent.  The idea is also very important!

l also see your point about the impossibility of translating Urdu poetry. But I'd go further and say poetry in general (in any language) can be extremely difficult if not impossible to translate. The same I've seen for Arabic and Persian poetry. And for the latter, FitzGerald had to do non-literal translations of the _rubaa3iyyaat _of Omar Khayyaam. Otherwise he would have had a hard time.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Well, I don't want to discuss this anymore because we're drifting off-topic now, but still, one last point ...

COME ON ! Be a gentleman ! Just surrender this once.  

How can you maintain that translating " منحصر مرنے پہ ہو جس كی اُمید " by "*That hope which is dependent on death*" translates the idea while a 'literal - I should say correct - translation doesn't ?????? It is exactly the other way round.

Please let's not have a fight on this, let's uphold some kind of intellectual honesty and when a mistake was made, let's just accept it acknowledge it and let it go.

I love discussing poetry and I feel we should do more often on this forum, and your input is much needed and muqaddam in that matter.

*ma3 i7tiraam*


----------



## Faylasoof

Janaab-e-waalaa, I never said yours was wrong (nor is mine for that matter) but I too have no intention to carry on with this here. _We can do this by PM if you like.

_Here is another example of the desiderative: 

گفتگو شعر كی ہو لطف آمیز، وہ منظر دیكھا چاہئے
_
guft o goo she3r ki ho luTf aamez, woh manZar dek-haa chaa _ _
chaahiye!_


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> This thread links to this one.
> 
> No sir! Not just Luckhnow. The older Delhi idiom of Urdu also did the same!!
> 
> We _Lakhnavii_s have stuck to this convention but I think the guilty party were the _Dillii waalaa_s.
> 
> [_umiid_ = _ummiid_, but in verse sometimes the former is used for keeping to the rules of prosody]




I am not quite sure Faylasoof SaaHib!

jaanaa yih zulf kaf meN lenii
hai saaNp ke muNh meN uNglii denii

Dayaa Shankar Naseem Lakhnavi

Khvaab meN aane kaa kyuN ab kare va'dah
ya'nii kab judaa'ii meN muj ko niiNd aanii hai

Nasikh (Faizabadi/Lakhnavi)

Iftikhar Arif, a well known Pakistani poet and a man of letters was born in Lucknow in 1943 and migrated to Pakistan in 1965. He has since visited his ancestoral home several times. On Youtube there are five videos entitled "Jashn-e-Iftikhar Arif". 

In III

0:46:40  jab ham baRe ho ga'e aur ham ne kuchh chiizeN is tarH kii kahnii shuruu3 kiiN..

1:06:12 Pakistan meN nisbat-an yih kaam aasaan thaa is liye kih us meN baateN hii karnii hotii thiiN..

{I was utterly surprised to hear janaab-i-Iftikhar Arif Sahib say the following: 1:04:32 aap dunyaa ko Khuub-suurat dekhnaa chaahte ho...aap dunyaa ko tabdiil karnaa chaah rahe ho... I can not imagine a Punjabi poet, say Faiz saying something like this!} 

In V

0:05:37  maiN ne KhabreN paRhnii shuruu3 kiiN.

By the way in V, 0:08:00 he talks about his pronunciation of "umiid/ummiid" as "umaid". This is how illiterate/rustic Punjabis would pronounce it (actually, they would miss out the "u" and just pronounce it as "maid"). I suppose, like Khurshaid, umed must have been "umaid" at one stage.


----------



## panjabigator

QP Sahib, I was curious if you can expound upon the above construction ("dekhaa chahiye" and "dekhaa chahtaa") in Punjabi. Is there anything parallel that exists? Archaisms perhaps?


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> QP Sahib, I was curious if you can expound upon the above construction ("dekhaa chahiye" and "dekhaa chahtaa") in Punjabi. Is there anything parallel that exists? Archaisms perhaps?



I am not aware of parallel Punjabi formations. However, there is one tense in Punjabi which, as far as I know, does not exist in Urdu/Hindi. I shall start a seperate thread on that.


----------

