# Hindi: Aapko ye chizen sudharna chahiye



## Maharaj

Hi,

I was writing a review about a restaurant on Zomato.com and was stuck here:

I want to say "Aapko ye(following) chizen sudharna chahiye" so what should be the English way:
"You should improve/improve on following areas"?


----------



## amiramir

You should improve the following points:
You should work on the following points/areas:
You should address the following points/areas:

I would have thought that in Hindi we say: aapko ye cheezeN sudhaarn*ii *chahiye. I always thought Urdu forgoes the agreement in this instance but not Hindi. I learn something new everyday!


----------



## Maharaj

thanks


----------



## mundiya

amiramir said:


> I would have thought that in Hindi we say: aapko ye cheezeN sudhaarn*ii *chahiye.



Yes, it should be "sudhaarnii". Maybe the use of "sudhaarnaa" in this sentence is found in some forms of regional Hindi besides (lakhnavii) Urdu. Another possibility is that it's a typo. Can you clarify @Maharaj jii?


----------



## Maharaj

mundiya said:


> Yes, it should be "sudharnii". Maybe the use of "sudharnaa" in this sentence is found in some forms of regional Hindi besides (lakhnavii) Urdu. Another possibility is that it's a typo. Can you clarify @Maharaj jii?


See I don't know what the grammar rules say, I would say in general conversational Hindi both are correct no one would bat an eye if you use either of them.


----------



## amiramir

Wait, why are people using sudharnii here and not sudhaarnii? I would have thought it should be sudhaarni because the use is transitive here. (i.e. we improve something, rather than something improves.)

Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Maharaj

It's Sudhaarni here.


----------



## mundiya

Yes, fixed the spelling. Others were guilty of the same: chahiye > chaahiye/chaahi'e.


----------



## Maharaj

Hello, I'm back on WordReference after a long time. 

So "improve on" is totally incorrect and non existent ?


----------



## amiramir

It absolutely exists. 

See here


----------



## Qureshpor

amiramir said:


> It absolutely exists.
> 
> See here


See posts 15 and 17 amongst others.

Hindi, Urdu: plural infinitives

I do believe, this construction is not part of literary Hindi construction (source: Professor C.M.Naim, University of Chicago)


----------



## littlepond

amiramir said:


> I would have thought that in Hindi we say: aapko ye cheezeN sudhaarn*ii *chahiye. I always thought Urdu forgoes the agreement in this instance but not Hindi. I learn something new everyday!



In Hindi, it should be and is "sudhaarnii": if someone were to say "sudhaarnaa," I would think that person to be a non-native speaker of Hindi. But, it seems, that some Hindi speakers are using it, if @Maharaj jii is using it, though I have never heard such a terrible thing.



Maharaj said:


> See I don't know what the grammar rules say, I would say in general conversational Hindi both are correct no one would bat an eye if you use either of them.



It's not about grammar rules, it's about how Hindi is spoken. No one I have met in my life till now will use "sudhaarnaa" here, and everyone I have met will bat _both_ their eyelids if this were to happen. But, it seems that in your circle this works, so apparently there are regions in the Hindi belt where this would be ok.


----------



## nineth

Maharaj said:


> See I don't know what the grammar rules say, I would say in general conversational Hindi both are correct no one would bat an eye if you use either of them.


Using "sudhaarna" with "chizen" (things) is wrong usage (both in day-to-day spoken as well as grammatically). IMO, most native Hindi speakers would immediately catch it as wrong -- personally, I just can't digest "sudhaarna" with "chizen" -- it should be "sudhaarnii".


----------



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> Using "sudhaarna" with "chizen" (things) is wrong usage (both in day-to-day spoken as well as grammatically). IMO, most native Hindi speakers would immediately catch it as wrong -- personally, I just can't digest "sudhaarna" with "chizen" -- it should be "sudhaarnii".


Welcome back @nineth Jii after a long break. It seems this is another point in case where Hindi differs from Urdu. Urdu has three variations on the theme while Hindi has only the "sudhaarnii" version (source. Professor C. M. Naim). I shall try to find the thread where all this is discussed.

In the meantime, please cast your eyes on the following analysis sent to me in March 2008 by a dear friend of mine, Roshan Kamath, which I copy/paste here. I believe I might have posted it in a thread in which you have participated in the past.

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

(o) laRkE kA `irAda haE.
(o) laRkE kI aOqAt haE.

Here, in the direct case the noun remains unchanged; but in oblique it adopts the 'E' form (laRkA -laRkE)

(I provided two oblique forms so that both the masculine possessive & feminine singular possessive will be covered to prevent any confusion arising from that.)

Contrast with..

(o) laRkI haE.
(o) laRkI kA`irAda haE.
(o) laRkI kI aOqAt haE.

Here, the feminine noun retains its form regardless of whether it is direct or oblique.

Now, for the sake of argument, assume that "bAt karnA" (or "bAtE.n karnA") is a singular masculine noun. If so, we should be able to drop it directly into the masculine declensions without flinching.

(o) bAt karnA haE.
(o) bAt karnE kA`irAda haE.
(o) bAt karnE kI aOqAt haE.

So far so good. This fits. But, let's see what happens if we assume "bAt karnI" is a singular feminine noun and drop it into the feminine declension.

(o) bAt karnI haE.
(o) bAt karnI kA`irAda haE
(o) bAt karnI kI aOqAt haE.

I'm sure you must have found the last two sentences revolting! Even if you have been using the first line on a daily basis.Based on this, it is pretty clear which form fits the grammatical model better. In terms of 'lateral compatibility' with current grammar, the "bAt karnA" as singular masculine wins hands down.

One could ofcourse say that "bAt karnI" (and indeed all infinitive verbs of this nature) should be treated as a special (new?) category of declensions. I couldn't argue against that. But, as the current grammar stands, the feminine form doesn't align to the established declentions.

roshan
.................

PS: Here is the thread and #27 summaries the three formats I have mentioned above.

Hindi, Urdu: plural infinitives


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> But, let's see what happens if we assume "bAt karnI" is a singular feminine noun



The problem is in the above statement. "baat karnii" also has to be assumed as a singular masculine noun. It is not possible to imagine an infinitive as a feminine noun, even if that infinitive is declining in feminine to agree with its object.


----------

