# Urdu: Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa...naa-insaafii ho gii/ho gaa?



## Qureshpor

Recently, in another forum a debate took place whether the following sentence should be..

kisii ke ek shi3r ko Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa baaqii ash3aar ke saath *naa-insaafii ho gii*

or

kisii ke ek shi3r ko *Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa* baaqii ash3aar ke saath *naa-insaafii ho gaa*?

What are the views of friends in this forum? Which sentence would you give preference to and why?

Edit: The title should also state "kahnaa" and not "likhnaa".


----------



## marrish

QP SaaHib, I would prefer saying it this way (and I hope I understand the meaning of the sentence correctly).
It is an essential question from the grammar point of view and my presumption is that this thread will take us all to a point where this matter will be clarified once and for all. I am of course open to the further proceedings and this preference of mine which I am contributing without any 'second thought' is:

_kisii ek shi3r ko (I have removed ''ke'') HaaSil-e-Ghazal kahnaa baaqii ash3aar ke saath naa-inSaafii ho gii_.
*Let's have a go and translate this sentence:

_kahnaa_ = to say, to call something something
_kisii ek shi3r ko_ = a particular couplet/some particular couplet (oblique)
_HaaSil-e-Ghazal_ = the summary/essence of a _Ghazal_
_naa-inSaafii ho gaa/gii_ = will be injustice
_baaqii ash3aar ke saath_ = with the rest of couplets

To begin with, is my understanding of the sentence right?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> QP SaaHib, I would prefer saying it this way (and I hope I understand the meaning of the sentence correctly).
> It is an essential question from the grammar point of view and my presumption is that this thread will take us all to a point where this matter will be clarified once for all. I am of course open to the further proceedings and this preference of mine which I am contributing without any 'second thought' is:
> 
> _kisii ek shi3r ko (I have removed ''ke'') HaaSil-e-Ghazal kahnaa baaqii ash3aar ke saath naa-inSaafii ho gii_.
> *Let's have a go and translate this sentence:
> 
> _kahnaa_ = to say, to call something something
> _kisii ek shi3r ko_ = a particular couplet/some particular couplet (oblique)
> _HaaSil-e-Ghazal_ = the summary/essence of a _Ghazal_
> _naa-inSaafii ho gaa/gii_ = will be injustice
> _baaqii ash3aar ke saath_ = with the rest of couplets
> 
> To begin with, is my understanding of the sentence right?


Although the "ke" that you have removed does make a difference to the meaning of the sentence, your understanding of the sentence is quite correct. All I am asking you and other friends is whether you would go for "ho gii" or "ho gaa".


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> Recently, in another forum a debate took place whether the following sentence should be..
> 
> kisii ke ek shi3r ko Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa baaqii ash3aar ke saath *naa-insaafii ho gii*
> 
> or
> 
> kisii ke ek shi3r ko *Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa* baaqii ash3aar ke saath *naa-insaafii ho gaa*?
> 
> What are the views of friends in this forum? Which sentence would you give preference to and why?
> 
> Edit: The title should also state "kahnaa" and not "likhnaa".


 QP SaaHib, naa-inSaafii we always treat as feminine whatever the gender of the person / thing being referred to. 
I illustrate it as follows:

_yeh kaihnaa* / likhnaa us mard (masc.) ke saath *naa-inSaafii ho gii*_
_yeh kaihnaa* / likhnaa us 3aurat (fem.) ke saath *naa-inSaafii ho gii*_

_yeh Harkat (fem.) karnaa *naa-inSaafii ho gii*_
_yeh kaam (masc.) karnaa *naa-inSaafii ho gii*_

i.e. *naa-inSaafii hameshah hotii hai*_ never *hotaa hai*!_


* _kahnaa_


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Faylasoof SaaHib, I must admit that as a matter of instinct, I too would have gone for your choice. However, the gentleman in question(Raj Kumar "Qais"*) in the poetry group I alluded to, was basing his logic on the "Ghazal kahnaa" being masculine and consequently "ho gaa". Here is the relevant thread...post 14 on wards. He had posted one of his Ghazals and members have been commenting and he has been reacting to their comments.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.language.urdu.poetry/IHB2vaaQ9ls

* Raj Kumar "Qais" is a retired physicist and a well known Urdu poet, settled in the US.


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> ^ Faylasoof SaaHib, I must admit that as a matter of instinct, I too would have gone for your choice. However, the gentleman in question(Raj Kumar "Qais"*) in the poetry group I alluded to, was basing his logic on the "Ghazal kahnaa" being masculine and consequently "ho gaa". Here is the relevant thread...post 14 on wards. He had posted one of his Ghazals and members have been commenting and he has been reacting to their comments.
> 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.language.urdu.poetry/IHB2vaaQ9ls
> 
> * Raj Kumar "Qais" is a retired physicist and a well known Urdu poet, settled in the US.


 QP SaaHib I shall have a look at "Qais"SaaHib's "logic" later. Suffice it to say, as I said above, that *naa-inSaafii hameshah hotii hai never hotaa hai !

*You of course can say: *yeh naa-inSaafii ka kaam ho gaa*, where the masculine declension of _honaa_ (i.e. _ho gaa_) refers to _kaam (masc.) _and not, in this case naa-inSaafii (fem.). But it would always be: 

_*yeh kaam naa-inSaafii ho gii*_
*yeh kaam naa-inSaafii kaa ho gaa *

_*yeh kaihnaa naa-inSaafii ho gii*_
_*yeh kaihnaa naa-inSaafi kaa kaam ho gaa*_


----------



## Qureshpor

Would Urdu speaking friends agree that the following sentence is grammatically equivalent to the one I have posed in my opening post ( the "ho gaa" version")?

ہاں، ہندو اگر یہ کوشش کریں کہ بھاکا میں جتنے فارسی اسماء مل گئے ہیں اُن کو اِس زبان سے نکال ڈالیں تو اِن کو نئی زبان بنانا پڑے گا۔

Another similar example..

اُن لوگوں کا شاعر ہونا توکجا اُنھیں اچھی طرح بات کرنا بھی نہیں آتا۔


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> Would Urdu speaking friends agree that the following sentence is grammatically equivalent to the one I have posed in my opening post ( the "ho gaa" version")?
> 
> ہاں، ہندو اگر یہ کوشش کریں کہ بھاکا میں جتنے فارسی اسماء مل گئے ہیں اُن کو اِس زبان سے نکال ڈالیں تو اِن کو نئی زبان بنانا پڑے گا۔
> 
> Another similar example..
> 
> اُن لوگوں کا شاعر ہونا توکجا اُنھیں اچھی طرح بات کرنا بھی نہیں آتا۔


Since there haven't been any takings up to now, let me say that the first sentence is not of the type like that in the OP - as far as my understanding goes but you know I'm not that big grammarian! - and for me it is equivalent to another type of sentences which has nothing to do with the topic at hand so I will leave it at this point so that the train of thought of other friends who are going to come with their opinions is not going to be influenced in a wrong way.

The second example has some similarities with the subject sentence.

A simplest example would be _yuuN karnaa be wuquuf ho gaa ---> yuuN karnaa be wuquufii ho gii_.


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> Would Urdu speaking friends agree that the following sentence is grammatically equivalent to the one I have posed in my opening post ( the "ho gaa" version")?
> 
> ہاں، ہندو اگر یہ کوشش کریں کہ بھاکا میں جتنے فارسی اسماء مل گئے ہیں اُن کو اِس زبان سے نکال ڈالیں تو اِن کو نئی زبان بنانا پڑے گا۔
> 
> Another similar example..
> 
> اُن لوگوں کا شاعر ہونا توکجا اُنھیں اچھی طرح بات کرنا بھی نہیں آتا۔


 QP SaaHib, the argument here is the same as I presented above. Both  *زبان* _*zabaan*_ and *بات* _*baat*_ are feminine, hence:

ہاں، ہندو اگر یہ کوشش کریں کہ بھاکا میں جتنے فارسی اسماء مل گئے ہیں اُن کو اِس زبان سے نکال ڈالیں تو اِن کو نئی *زبان بنانا پڑے گی*۔

and,


اُن لوگوں کا شاعر ہونا توکجا اُنھیں اچھی طرح *بات کرنا بھی نہیں آتی*۔


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> QP SaaHib, the argument here is the same as I presented above. Both *زبان* _*zabaan*_ and *بات* _*baat*_ are feminine, hence:
> 
> ہاں، ہندو اگر یہ کوشش کریں کہ بھاکا میں جتنے فارسی اسماء مل گئے ہیں اُن کو اِس زبان سے نکال ڈالیں تو اِن کو نئی *زبان بنانا پڑے گی*۔
> 
> and,
> 
> اُن لوگوں کا شاعر ہونا توکجا اُنھیں اچھی طرح *بات کرنا بھی نہیں آتی*۔


Thank you, Faylasoof SaaHib. Both these sentences (in the form I have quoted) are from the pen of a famous Lakhnavii gentleman, namely 3allaamah Sayyid Ali Haidar "Nazm" Tabatabaa'ii. I have copied them from "maqaalaat-i-Tabatabaa'ii". Once again, to me it makes sense to have them as you have written. It was my seeing "paRe gaa" and "nahiiN aataa" that caught my attention!


----------



## marrish

Now that the discussion has moved on I can only say that both sentences are perfectly fine with me and there is nothing that would need correction or even attention. They are analogous to the sentence in this thread:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2662692 (my posts), but they are not on the pattern of the sentence ''..._ko kahnaa naa-insaafii ho gii_''.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Now that the discussion has moved on I can only say that both sentences are perfectly fine with me and there is nothing that would need correction or even attention. They are analogous to the sentence in this thread:
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2662692 (my posts), but they are not on the pattern of the sentence ''..._ko kahnaa naa-insaafii ho gii_''.


I am not sure if we reached an agreement if your sentence (qasam lenaa ho gaa) mapped onto Na'im's third example.


----------



## marrish

Indeed, I think we have left the issue without making conclusions. I shall make a link there to the sentences which you have quoted from Nazm Tabatabai.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> I am not sure if we reached an agreement if your sentence (qasam lenaa ho gaa) mapped onto Na'im's third example.


What I can see we have an agreement that the sentence _kisii (ke) ek shi3r ko Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa baaqii ash3aar ke saath _*naa-insaafii ho gii is the only correct.
*


----------



## Qureshpor

I have managed to find a reference from Qavaa3id-i-Urdu (Maulavii Abdul Haq 1914)

af3aal-i-naaqis meN jab mubtidaa [subject] aur xabar [predicate] donoN ism (noun) hoN to fi3l mubtidaa ke mutaabiq honaa chaahiye agarchih ba3z asaatizah ne is ke xilaaf bhii kiyaa hai lekin vuh qaabil-i-taqliid nahiiN.

So, looking at the original sentence..

kisii ke ek shi3r ko *Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa *baaqii ash3aar ke saath *naa-insaafii *ho gii/gaa.

Here the "fi3l naaqis" is "honaa", subject is the masculine noun "Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa", the predicate is the feminine noun "naa-insaafii". Applying the rule above, the subject is masculine, therefore the auxiliary verb ought to be masculine, irrespective of the feminine noun in the predicate.

kisii ke ek shi3r ko *Haasil-i-Ghazal kahnaa *baaqii ash3aar ke saath *naa-insaafii ho gaa*.


----------



## marrish

Thank you very much for this eye-opener and your extensive search. I am perplexed as to why I consider ''ho gii'' version as correct, for my defence there are two points, Baba-e-Urdu says there are/were some masters/teachers who advocate(d) ho gaa however he himself does not recommend it and secondly, I'm not so quick to accept ''kahnaa'' as _ism_ (noun).


----------



## Qureshpor

^ "Grammatically, all Urdu infinitives are also marked masculine nouns except they neither occur in the plural nor the vocative..." (Section 86 C.M. Naim)

Ahmad kaa jaanaa = Ahmad's departure

marrish SaaHib kaa aanaa = marrish Saaib's arrival


----------

