# Urdu: aap mujh se paNgaa to le rahe haiN lekin yaad rakhiye



## Todd The Bod

"aap mujh se paNgaa to le rahe haiN lekin yaad rakhiye *gaa, bahut pachhtaa'eN ge aap!"


Howdy everyone.  I've got everything except the part in bold.  What is the meaning please?
*


----------



## Qureshpor

Tod The Bod SaaHib, aap jaise dostoN hii kii vajh se is forum meN raunaq hai!

The "*gaa*" in "rakhiye gaa" could be construed as imparting an extra dose of etiquette and emphasis. 

You are messing with me but please *do* remember, *you will regret it very much*!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Tod The Bod SaaHib, aap jaise dostoN hii kii vajh se is forum meN raunaq hai!


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> The "*gaa*" in "rakhiye gaa" could be construed as imparting an extra dose of etiquette and emphasis.



There are actually 7 forms of command in Hindi I have observed:
tu yaad rakh
tum yaad rakho
aap yaad rakhiye
aap yaad rakhiye(ga) - this form is the most formal in Hindi and is rarely used. I beleive it was once reserved for situations like speaking to royalty. Now-a-days in Hindi 
                                it is used in formal occasions occasionally or sarcastically. (or like QP noted above)

yaad rakheN - This is the subjunctive form. Some regard this as higher level of politeness than the 'iye' form since it is not technically a command but a possibility.
yaad rakhenge - This is techincally the future, but I have seen it used in situations where a command is required on occasion.
yaad rakhnaa - Used when the relation of another to one's self is left purposefully ambiguous OR the command is for a future date.


----------



## marrish

^ I have noticed that you've used the word Hindi in your post, underlined for emphasis. Why? I thought the thread is concerned with Urdu.


----------



## tonyspeed

marrish said:


> ^ I have noticed that you've used the word Hindi in your post, underlined for emphasis. Why? I thought the thread is concerned with Urdu.



I did not see that before. I thought it was the standard Hindi/Urdu thread. I did not want to speak on behalf of Urdu, having not explicitly started my Urdu studies yet.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I did not see that before. I thought it was the standard Hindi/Urdu thread. I did not want to speak on behalf of Urdu, having not explicitly started my Urdu studies yet.


But you would know, nevertheless, that in respect of imperatives, there would n't be any difference. So, the emphasis on Hindi was not really necessary. I hope the delay in your starting Urdu studies is minimal. I have no doubt whatsoever this would bring some pleasant surprises for you.


----------



## marrish

As TS (may I call you that tonyspeed SaaHib?) said, the =gaa form is most obscure in Hindi, it means not used too much, if ever. So I think, QP SaaHib,  there is a substantial difference between Urdu and Hindi in perceiving these forms. TS SaaHib (Mr. tonyspeed) mentioned royalty as an exception but to say that it is not used except in the royal circles is only applicable on the language he was speaking of: Hindi. In Urdu, since our language's descent has been a noble one, these forms are part of the normal language, even amongst friends. It is another grammatical form one has to learn if one is learning Urdu, not Hindi, so: kiijiyegaa.


----------



## Todd The Bod

QURESHPOR said:


> Tod The Bod SaaHib, aap jaise dostoN hii kii vajh se is forum meN raunaq hai!
> 
> The "*gaa*" in "rakhiye gaa" could be construed as imparting an extra dose of etiquette and emphasis.
> 
> You are messing with me but please *do* remember, *you will regret it very much*!



Qureshpor SaaHib, main aap ki myherbaani kaa bahut shuukar hun!  But I forget what "raunaq" means, sorry.  lol  And thank you everyone for replying.


----------



## Qureshpor

Todd The Bod said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, main aap ki myherbaani kaa bahut shuukar hun!  But I forget what "raunaq" means, sorry.  lol  And thank you everyone for replying.


You are welcome! I think you meant to write "shukr-guzaar" (grateful). I find "raunaq" a difficult word to translate. It can be "hustle and bustle" but I meant something like "life and exuberance".


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> You are welcome! I think you meant to write "shukr-guzaar" (grateful). I find "raunaq" a difficult word to translate. It can be "hustle and bustle" but I meant something like "life and exuberance".


Yes, I would also have trouble with translating the word "raunaq". In this Persian thread you translated it as 'activity': 
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2571187&highlight=raunaq. Shouldn't we have a thread for "raunaq" with a couple of literary and non-literary examples if its usage and possible translations?


----------



## Wolverine9

marrish said:


> As TS (may I call you that tonyspeed SaaHib?) said, the =gaa form is most obscure in Hindi, it means not used too much, if ever. So I think, QP SaaHib,  there is a substantial difference between Urdu and Hindi in perceiving these forms. TS SaaHib (Mr. tonyspeed) mentioned royalty as an exception but to say that it is not used except in the royal circles is only applicable on the language he was speaking of: Hindi. In Urdu, since our language's descent has been a noble one, these forms are part of the normal language, even amongst friends. It is another grammatical form one has to learn if one is learning Urdu, not Hindi, so: kiijiyegaa.



I don't think it's that obscure.  It's used, but probably not as often as the other forms.  It's a polite or emphatic form of speech but not restricted only to royalty, though royalty were likely addressed commonly in that manner.  I think I've even heard it used in Bollywood movies.  So there probably isn't much of a difference between Hindi and Urdu in this case.  The frequency of its usage likely has more to do with the personal style of the speaker.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> yaad rakheN - This is the subjunctive form. Some regard this as higher level of politeness than the 'iye' form since it is not technically a command but a possibility.
> yaad rakhenge - This is technically the future, but I have seen it used in situations where a command is required on occasion.
> yaad rakhnaa - Used when the relation of another to one's self is left purposefully ambiguous OR the command is for a future date.


I would still consider it as a command, albeit it in the subjunctive mood, and not at a higher level of politeness. 

So, in this case your total should only come to 6 and not 7. Have you considered "yaad rakhiyo"?

What would be the understood pronoun in front of "yaad rakhnaa"?


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> I don't think it's that obscure.  It's used, but probably not as often as the other forms.  It's a polite or emphatic form of speech but not restricted only to royalty, though royalty were likely addressed commonly in that manner.  I think I've even heard it used in Bollywood movies.  So there probably isn't much of a difference between Hindi and Urdu in this case.  The frequency of its usage likely has more to do with the personal style of the speaker.


Thank you for your comment since it has contributed to greater clarity on this point; for I am not frequently exposed to anything Hindi I haven't yet come across this form in Hindi and I stand corrected on this point. If you can remember in which Bollywood film you heard it, It would be nice to have a listen because for some reasons, Bollywood movies don't seem representative for Hindi in this matter.


----------



## Wolverine9

I can't recall in which movies specifically but I'm pretty sure it's in films from the 1980s and earlier and not in the Hinglish dominated films of recent times.


----------



## marrish

Thanks, very likely indeed that the films were pre-1980s, I agree, but as I mentioned those films have little to say about Hindi, especially those older ones. This topic was discussed in the forum, if it is of interest for you.


----------



## Todd The Bod

QURESHPOR said:


> You are welcome! I think you meant to write "shukr-guzaar" (grateful). I find "raunaq" a difficult word to translate. It can be "hustle and bustle" but I meant something like "life and exuberance".


Thank you very much for the correction QP Saab and the explanation.  I plan to see an Punjabi/Urdu speaker today so hopefully I can remember to ask him to make sure I'm pronouncing these words correctly.  Thanks to *you* and to Mr Marrish also!


----------



## marrish

shukrihah janaab, and please do come here more frequently, we'll be pleased to sort things out.


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> the =gaa form is most obscure in Hindi, it means not used too much, if ever.



That you may not know much of Hindi usage, is fine, but that you also draw astonishing conclusions based on your lack of knowledge is what surprises me. The "-gaa" form is well and alive in Hindi: of course, Urdu overdoes it (as Urdu does so everything in the realm of polite, with their saahibs, etc.), but then, certain Hindi-speaking regions too are not well behind in such matters with their -jii business - and such circles use the "-gaa" form a lot. In any case, the form is used throughout, including in satire by those who otherwise don't use it.

"kyaa liijiyegaa?" is a common question, by the way, just for your knowledge.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> That you may not know much of Hindi usage, is fine, but that you also draw astonishing conclusions based on your lack of knowledge is what surprises me. The "-gaa" form is well and alive in Hindi: of course, Urdu overdoes it (as Urdu does so everything in the realm of polite, with their saahibs, etc.), but then, certain Hindi-speaking regions too are not well behind in such matters with their -jii business - and such circles use the "-gaa" form a lot. In any case, the form is used throughout, including in satire by those who otherwise don't use it.
> 
> "kyaa liijiyegaa?" is a common question, by the way, just for your knowledge.


It is this very decorum and etiquette attached to my language and the _tahziib_ associated with it that places certain constraints on me to not respond to your comments in such a way that would lead to my falling from such heights to the depths that you are at! So, to avoid this, I shall not say anything further.


----------



## tonyspeed

marrish said:


> As TS (may I call you that tonyspeed SaaHib?) said, the =gaa form is most obscure in Hindi, it means not used too much, if ever. So I think, QP SaaHib,  there is a substantial difference between Urdu and Hindi in perceiving these forms. TS SaaHib (Mr. tonyspeed) mentioned royalty as an exception but to say that it is not used except in the royal circles is only applicable on the language he was speaking of: Hindi. In Urdu, since our language's descent has been a noble one, these forms are part of the normal language, even amongst friends. It is another grammatical form one has to learn if one is learning Urdu, not Hindi, so: kiijiyegaa.



You misunderstood my comments. I said it is rarely used, not never used. I have heard it used several times (I myself have used it on occasion), but it is usually used only for certain situations as QP-saahib originally expressed. People do not usually say "kiijiegaa" as a normal part of everyday speech. I said it *was once* usually reserved for royalty (*past* not present), but the same is true for "aap". "aap" meant something akin "your highness" at one point in time long ago.



			
				marrish said:
			
		

> since our language's descent has been a noble one


 I find such comments to be demeaning and uninformed indeed. Athough there does seem to be a little sense of snobbishness and classism  rolled up in the origins of Urdu -  as I have observed from some Urdu speakers.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I find such comments to be demeaning and uninformed indeed. Athough there does seem to be a little sense of snobbishness and classism rolled up in the origins of Urdu - as I have observed from some Urdu speakers.


I would agree that we don't need any kind of snobbishness but the fact remains. Urdu did come about as a result of the ruling class's intermingling with the local populace, whilst in being in situ in one general location or through a process of movement of armies in other locations, over a period of time. Little wonder that before the language became simply known as Urdu, it was called by the grand title of "zabaan-i-Urdu-i-mu3alaa". Urdu here refers to the Delhi "Shaahii Darbaar" and its environs, namely Shahjahanabad or Old Delhi. So, "Language of the Exalted Court". I suspect, this is what marrish SaaHib was hinting at.


----------



## UrduMedium

tonyspeed said:


> I find such comments to be demeaning and uninformed indeed. Athough there does seem to be a little sense of snobbishness and classism  rolled up in the origins of Urdu -  as I have observed from some Urdu speakers.


Agreed. Fighting words. Totally unnecessary and also inaccurate (nobleness is not limited by blood or tribe).


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> I would agree that we don't need any kind of snobbishness but the fact remains. Urdu did come about as a result of the ruling class's intermingling with the local populace, whilst in being in situ in one general location or through a process of movement of armies in other locations, over a period of time. Little wonder that before the language became simply known as Urdu, it was called by the grand title of "zabaan-i-Urdu-i-mu3alaa". Urdu here refers to the Delhi "Shaahii Darbaar" and its environs, namely Shahjahanabad or Old Delhi. So, "Language of the Exalted Court". I suspect, this is what marrish SaaHib was hinting at.



Just a reminder that the name Urdu finds itself first used as the name of *Urdu Bazar*, a major market within the walls of Delhi. Urdu is the language of the market before it is coopted by the royalty in place of Persian.

Urdu's origin is therefore the market, not the royalty. But is there anything demeaning in having one's origins in the market?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Just a reminder that the name Urdu finds itself first used as the name of *Urdu Bazar*, a major market within the walls of Delhi. Urdu is the language of the market before it is coopted by the royalty in place of Persian. Urdu's origin is therefore the market, not the royalty. But is there anything demeaning in having one's origins in the market?


[  ]..the ancestor of Urdu and Hindi was called by the following names: Hindi, Hindvi (13th-19thcentury); Dehlavi (13th-14th c.); Gujri (15th c.); Dakhani (15th-18th c.); Indostan (17th c.); Moors (18th c.); Rekhta (18th-19th c.); Hindustani (18th-20th c.). The term Urdu to refer to this language was first used, at least in existing written records, in 1780 by poet Ghulam Hamadani Mushafi (1750-1824). Before Mushafi, the term Zuban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla (the language of the Exalted City) was used for the Persianised language of the Mughal capitals Agra and Delhi. “ [The Murder of Linguistic Theory - II- Rahman]


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> You misunderstood my comments. I said it is rarely used, not never used. I have heard it used several times (I myself have used it on occasion), but it is usually used only for certain situations as QP-saahib originally expressed. People do not usually say "kiijiegaa" as a normal part of everyday speech. I said it *was once* usually reserved for royalty (*past* not present), but the same is true for "aap". "aap" meant something akin "your highness" at one point in time long ago.


Yes, in this case it is obvious I misunderstood them, however they were only an incentive to share  my own comments. All the views expressed in my post were mine, I said it was hardly ever used. However, in response to greatbear's piece of information about Hindi I have already acknowledged in a later post that I accepted this information, so it doesn't seem to me there is any misunderstanding left, as far as the discussion on the whole is concerned.


----------



## Qureshpor

Going back to post 13, is the form "yaad rakhiyo" (kiijiyo/liijiyo etc) used in High, Medium or Low Hindi at all?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> ...by poet Ghulam Hamadani Mushafi (1750-1824). Before Mushafi, the term Zuban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla (the language of the Exalted City) was used for the Persianised language of the Mughal capitals Agra and Delhi. “ [The Murder of Linguistic Theory - II- Rahman]


I realize it is a quotation so any changes are not desirable but perhaps it can be deemed valuable for those English users who do not have a good command of Urdu to note that the poets name is Mus_Hafii مصحفی, the cluster 'sh' being just a coincidence due to the English language but not meant to be pronounced as such.


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> There are actually 7 forms of command in Hindi I have observed:
> [,,,]
> aap yaad rakhiye(ga) - this form is the most formal in Hindi and is rarely used. I beleive it was once reserved for situations like speaking to royalty. Now-a-days in Hindi it is used in formal occasions occasionally or sarcastically. (or like QP noted above)
> [,,,]





marrish said:


> As TS (may I call you that tonyspeed SaaHib?) said, *the =gaa form is most obscure in Hindi, it means not used too much, if ever. S*o I think, QP SaaHib, there is a substantial difference between Urdu and Hindi in perceiving these forms. TS SaaHib *(Mr. tonyspeed) mentioned royalty as an exception but to say that it is not used except in the royal circles is only applicable on the language he was speaking of: Hindi. In Urdu, since our language's descent has been a noble one, these forms are part of the normal language, even amongst friends.* It is another grammatical form one has to learn if one is learning Urdu, not Hindi, so: kiijiyegaa.





tonyspeed said:


> *I find such comments to be demeaning and uninformed indeed. Athough there does seem to be a little sense of snobbishness and classism rolled up in the origins of Urdu* - as I have observed from some Urdu speakers.





UrduMedium said:


> *Agreed. Fighting words. Totally unnecessary and also inaccurate (nobleness is not limited by blood or tribe).*


To begin with, I'm very glad that my words are taken heed of. It is a nice feeling that you commented on them. As you can see, the point of the noble descent of Urdu, and yes, QP SaaHib having a basic knowledge of the history has interpreted my words as I would present them. I am not keen on involving the noble roots of my family or of the language it is concerned with and there is no other instance in this forum of  me having had done so but in this respect, I have just continued TS's mentioning of royalty in the context of using the gaa suffix. It is a mere historical story that the ones speaking  Urdu used be the ones of the royalty, thus the form =gaa is contributed to those circles. I don't understand why my comment has formed a point of remorse. It is simply a fact, not only limited to the royalty but also to those poets who have been supported by the various Urdu speaking courts. Whether this fact can be used as a ''fighting word'' or a ''teaching word'' may remain a question we can discuss, but the facts remain facts, only their application can be negotiable.


----------



## greatbear

^ The point is that what you are touting to be "facts" are themselves questionable. Facts are in history books, not in some scholar's quotation which can be easily disputed.


----------

