# Urdu: mujhe tumheN ek ciiz dikhaanii hai.



## Abu Talha

Hello,

There was a thread some time ago that discusses how the structure _*maiN ne* yih karnaa hai_ is incorrect according to the traditional grammars, and the correct form is _*mujhe* yih karnaa hai_.

So my question is, if following this prescriptive usage, is it possible to say

_mujhe tumheN ek ciiz dikhaanii (yaa dikhaanaa) hai.
_
مجھے تمہیں ایک چیز دکھانی ہے
?

Both _mujhe_ and _tumheN_ are oblique and I can't find a similar expression, off the top of my head, similar to this. So is this correct?

Thanks.


----------



## BP.

Why would you even think it were incorrect?

Even _muj.h koo tum koo eek_... might not be incorrect, if inelegant.


----------



## Abu Talha

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Even _muj.h koo tum koo eek_... might not be incorrect, if inelegant.


I see. Thanks, Belligerent Pacifist.





> Why would you even think it were incorrect?


Well, I was used to the _main ne_ structure, so I wasn't sure if it was a simple substitution of _mujhe_ in all cases. Thanks for clearing it up!


----------



## Abu Talha

Thinking some more about it, _mujhe tumheN ..._ sounds like something I've heard, but I don't think I've ever heard two third persons used in such a structure, perhaps because you would probably not have to say something like

اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے
_aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai._

What do you think about this sentence?


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> Thinking some more about it, _mujhe tumheN ..._ sounds like something I've heard, but I don't think I've ever heard two third persons used in such a structure, perhaps because you would probably not have to say something like
> 
> اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے
> _aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai._
> 
> What do you think about this sentence?




Two points daee SaaHib. Too much thinking is bad for you!

Secondly, your sentence is technically (i.e grammatically) correct, although "kaanoN meN ras qat3an nahiiN gholtaa"! This is possibly where the wrong "ne" would look (and sound) more palatable.


----------



## BP.

daee said:


> ... you would probably not have to say something like
> اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے
> What do you think about this sentence?


That's how I'd have said it, even at 2 years of age. Maybe there's better ways to say the same thing, but there's nothing bothersome here.


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> That's how I'd have said it, even at 2 years of age. Maybe there's better ways to say the same thing, but there's nothing bothersome here.




Very impressive BP SaaHib! I had problem pronouncing the word "school" till much later than the time you were stringing grammatically correct sentences!


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks for your replies everyone. One last question, in the first sentence, you could switch the order of mujhe and tumheN and still mean the same thing:

_tumheN mujhe ek ciiz dikhaanii hai._
تمہیں مجھے ایک چیز دکھانی ہے

*I* want to show *you* something.

But the second sentence,

_aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai._
اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے

can only mean, "Aslam wants to beat Amjad," not vice versa.

What do you think?


----------



## tonyspeed

daee said:


> Thanks for your replies everyone. One last question, in the first sentence, you could switch the order of mujhe and tumheN and still mean the same thing:
> 
> _tumheN mujhe ek ciiz dikhaanii hai._
> تمہیں مجھے ایک چیز دکھانی ہے
> 
> *I* want to show *you* something.
> 
> But the second sentence,
> 
> _aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai._
> اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے
> 
> can only mean, "Aslam wants to beat Amjad," not vice versa.
> 
> What do you think?



To me it's technically grammatically correct but very unclear. Unless the context clarifies this, it is only normal to think tum and aslam are the ones that have to do the action because they are first.


----------



## marrish

daee said:


> Thanks for your replies everyone. One last question, in the first sentence, you could switch the order of mujhe and tumheN and still mean the same thing:
> 
> _tumheN mujhe ek ciiz dikhaanii hai._
> تمہیں مجھے ایک چیز دکھانی ہے
> 
> *I* want to show *you* something.
> 
> *[...]
> *
> What do you think?




Well, in my opinion, the order of words, at least in this sentence, cannot be changed freely, without producing a drastic switch of the meaning.

Such kind of sentences are correct and they are not uncommon in Urdu prose. This is the proper idiom and grammar-tissue of the language. 

Although the catchy idiom _maiN ne... hai _is ubiquitous nowadays, it doesn't mean it replaced _mujhe ... hai _type of thinking entirely.

You would not be able to put this sentence into any future tense without resorting to _mujhe..._ since the construction maiN ne ... (to express intention) per se implies a future context (as it does in Punjabi), and there is simply no way in Punjabi as well to deploy this construction into a future tense at all.


----------



## Faylasoof

daee said:


> Thanks for your replies everyone. One last question, in the first sentence, you could switch the order of mujhe and tumheN and still mean the same thing:
> 
> _tumheN mujhe ek ciiz dikhaanii hai._
> تمہیں مجھے ایک چیز دکھانی ہے
> 
> *I* want to show *you* something.
> 
> But the second sentence,
> 
> _aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai._
> اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے
> 
> can only mean, "Aslam wants to beat Amjad," not vice versa.
> 
> What do you think?


 daee SaaHib, both your sentences are fine! Of course for the first I'd make the change of _dikhaanii _to _dikhaana_a because that is the way we say it!! For the second I see no grammatical problem either, except the way we would understand it would be :

_aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai._
اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے
_Aslam has to / must beat Amjad  
_
Although even this can be rephrased as: _aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa ho gaa_

Sometimes we add a word either because it is really needed or just to get rid of the monotony of ..ko...ko..  coming too close or for added effect or all of these:

_aslam ko ab amjad ko maarnaa ho gaa_, where _ab_ = now.
_aslam ko to amjad ko maarnaa ho gaa_, where _to_ is added for effect.

Similar to your first sentence are these: 

_mujhe tumko maarnaa hai / ho gaa
mujhko tumheN maarnaa hai / ho gaa_
_mujhe tumheN maarnaa hai / ho gaa_
etc.

If we wished to say "Aslam _wants to beat_ Amjad" then we'd say: _aslam amjad ko maarnaa chaahtaa hai_


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks again for your replies.


Faylasoof said:


> If we wished to say "Aslam _wants to beat_ Amjad" then we'd say: _aslam amjad ko maarnaa chaahtaa hai_


Yes, definitely. "wants to" was a lazy translation on my part. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Faylasoof

daee said:


> Thanks again for your replies.
> Yes, definitely. "wants to" was a lazy translation on my part. Thanks for the correction.


 You are welcome!


----------



## Alfaaz

(Please excuse spelling mistakes! Google Transliteration sometimes doesn't get the right words)
Even though I know that using "ne" is wrong in this context and there has been a great debate on this in the past in one of the threads (in which Qureshpor also presented articles supporting the use of "ne" in certain situations as evolution of language), I still desire to lean toward it, because when hearing myself or someone else utter a "proper Urdu" sentence like: 

اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے _aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai __

it sounds monotonous, as Faylasoof mentioned above 
it sounds like there is a necessity involved
when I say such a sentence, people often reply with something like: آپ نجومی ہیں کیا؟ or یہ کیا حدیث میں لکھا ہے؟  

_
This association of "mujhe" and "ko" with necessity could be due to the kinds of dialogues we hear on TV: 

ذلیل گھٹیا آدمی، مجھے جانے دو! نہیں! میں اک لہذا اور یہاں نہیں ٹھہر سکتا/سکتی! مجھے جانا ہے 
مجھکو رات میں اسے انتقام لینے کے لئے تقریب میں شرکت کرنا ہوگی! 
امی جان، خدارا آگے ایک لفظ نہ کہے گا! مجھے ملک و قوم کی حفاظت کے لئے جانا ہے 

So even a simple sentence like: "Mujhe library jana hai" sounds like the person "absolutely has to go" kind of like a child saying something like "mujhe restroom mein jana hai!"

On the other hand, "mein ne" seems to sound less harsh and show intention or plan of going as in, "mein ne library jana hai." (even though it is wrong and many will consider it "sacrilegious" and "horrendous")

Of course one could say "mein library jane ka iradah rakhta hoon", but that sounds kind of artificial in some settings.....

Edit: library = کتب گھر/ خانہ


----------



## Abu Talha

Alfaaz said:


> ذلیل گھٹیا آدمی ...


 Lol! I haven't heard these dialogues in a while.





> So even a simple sentence like: "Mujhe library jana hai" sounds like the person "absolutely has to go" kind of like a child saying something like "mujhe restroom mein jana hai!"
> 
> On the other hand, "mein ne" seems to sound less harsh and show intention or plan of going as in, "mein ne library jana hai." (even though it is wrong and many will consider it "sacrilegious" and "horrendous")


 I agree with your distinction and one that Qureshpor Sahib also made in one of his posts. Do people who have always been speaking, "mujhe library jaanaa hai" exclusively also feel this sense of necessity?

I don't have any opinions on whether this new "ne" is justified in the evolution of the language. I only meant to find out how the traditional syntax worked, if one wanted to stick to it.


----------



## BP.

Alfaaz said:


> ...
> اسلم کو امجد کو مارنا ہے _aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai __
> 
> it sounds monotonous, as Faylasoof mentioned above
> it sounds like there is a necessity involved
> when I say such a sentence, people often reply with something like: آپ نجومی ہیں کیا؟ or یہ کیا حدیث میں لکھا ہے؟
> 
> _...
> So even a simple sentence like: "Mujhe library jana hai" sounds like the person "absolutely has to go" kind of like a child saying something like "mujhe restroom mein jana hai!"
> 
> On the other hand, "mein ne" seems to sound less harsh and show intention or plan of going as in, "mein ne library jana hai." (even though it is wrong and many will consider it "sacrilegious" and "horrendous")
> ...



"
_aslam ko amjad ko maarnaa hai _

_it sounds monotonous, as Faylasoof mentioned above _ *Would that make you replace one of the to by by in **"You have to turn left to get there" just because it shows up twice?*
it sounds like there is a necessity involved
when I say such a sentence, people often reply with something like: آپ نجومی ہیں کیا؟ or یہ کیا حدیث میں لکھا ہے؟  
 
*"mai.n nee fulaanaa kaam karnaa haee" would have the same sense of obligation because nee did nothing to change the idea.*
"
Same response to daee:


daee said:


> ... Do people who have always been speaking, "mujhe  library jaanaa hai" exclusively also feel this sense of necessity?
> ...


No. But you've both just convinced me that if I really don't intend to follow through with something I could use _nee_.


----------



## tonyspeed

Alfaaz said:


> _
> 
> it sounds like there is a necessity involved
> _ This association of "mujhe" and "ko" with necessity could be due to the kinds of dialogues we hear on TV:
> 
> ذلیل گھٹیا آدمی، مجھے جانے دو! نہیں! میں اک لہذا اور یہاں نہیں ٹھہر سکتا/سکتی! مجھے جانا ہے
> So even a simple sentence like: "Mujhe library jana hai" sounds like the person "absolutely has to go" kind of like a child saying something like "mujhe restroom mein jana hai!"
> 
> On the other hand, "mein ne" seems to sound less harsh
> 
> "Mujhe library jana hai" sounds like the person "absolutely has to go"



Technically this form  (logical subject ko infinitive verb hona) is used to mean "have to" but it is used in other ways in Hindi/Urdu that do not imply
necessity. It depends on the context.

_(Main ne_ _infinitive hona_) is not standard Hindi and probably will never be since it is a regional form only. So I see no problem using it where it is part of the colloquial language. However, using it with people not used to it will make your speech seem unusual, even uneducated.


The third point that "'Mujhe library jana hai' sounds like the person 'absolutely has to go'" is incorrect. That is why we have "mujhe jaane kii zaroorat hai (necessity!)" and "mujhe jaana padta hai (being forced)".

If we compare English, "I have to go" is different from "I need to go" as well.


----------



## greatbear

"Mujhe library jaana hai" could convey both, compulsion or just a desire, it depends on the understanding between the two speakers and the context. It is also often used in a series of actions, where rather than compulsion, it only conveys an action packed in the day's agenda.
However, I do fail to understand what's the other sense you want to convey, Alfaaz, since "iraada rakhna" is something else entirely ("to intend to"). Could you post the sense you want in an English colloquial form, so that I can understand what are you talking about?


----------



## Alfaaz

First of all, I'd say that I almost always try to use the proper forms (that's why used the word "desire" in the previous post!)


> *Would that make you replace one of the to by by in "You have to turn left to get there" just because it shows up twice?*


No not at all...


> *"mai.n nee fulaanaa kaam karnaa haee" would have the same sense of obligation because nee did nothing to change the idea.*


This depends on one's personal interpretation and how surroundings create connotations for certain words/phrases...as I gave the examples of the dialogues that might cause "mujhe" or "mujhko" to be associated with necessity or force....


> No. But you've both just convinced me that if I really don't intend to follow through with something I could use _nee_.


Had no intention of convincing anyone for/about anything...! If this is so, may I be forgiven for leading someone astray from the سرط المستقیم of proper, correct, and grammatical Urdu!


> That is why we have "mujhe jaane kii zaroorat hai (necessity!)" and "mujhe jaana padta hai (being forced)".


Completely agree! 


> If we compare English, "I have to go" is different from "I need to go" as well.


Probably it also has to do with the tone, stresses, pauses that a person uses when speaking and situation...as greatbear seems to point out below: 


> "Mujhe library jaana hai" could convey both, compulsion or just a desire, it depends on the understanding between the two speakers and the context.


----------



## Alfaaz

> However, I do fail to understand what's the other sense you want to convey, Alfaaz, since "iraada rakhna" is something else entirely ("to intend to"). Could you post the sense you want in an English colloquial form, so that I can understand what are you talking about?



Don't know, probably a confused soul right now...

میں نے یہ مکمل کیا تھا -mein ne yeh mukamal kiya tha
I had completed this
میں نے یہ مکمل کیا ہے -mein ne yeh mukamal kiya hai 
I have completed this
میں یہ مکمل کر رہا / رہی ہوں - mein yeh mukamal kar raha/rahi hoon
I am completing this 
مجھے یہ مکمل کرنا ہے mujhe yeh mukamal karna hai 
I have to complete this 
میں یہ مکمل کروں گا / گی -mein yeh mukamal karon gaa/gi 
I will complete this 
میں یہ مکمل کر رہا / رہی ہوں گا / گی - mein yeh mukamal kar raha/rahi hoon ga/gi
I will be completing this
میں یہ مکمل کر لوں گا - mein yeh mukamal kar loon ga 
I will complete this (sometime in the future...)
مجھے یہ مکمل کرنا ہوگا- mujhe yeh mukamal karnaa hoga
I will have to complete this

Nevermind, (I guess what I said above isn't seeming to apply to this example) maybe there are multiple ways to phrase an idea...the more one thinks about these things, the more confused one becomes


----------

