# Hindi/Urdu: honaa vs rehnaa, rahanaa



## tonyspeed

I have noticed that unlike English, Hindi/Urdu seems to use rehna in some contexts in the same way one would use the verb "to be" in english. For instance the sentence:
vajh chaahe jo bhii rahii ho meaning what ever the reasons might have been. Under what circumstances is rehnaa used in this way?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I have noticed that unlike English, Hindi/Urdu seems to use rehna in some contexts in the same way one would use the verb "to be" in english. For instance the sentence:
> vajh chaahe jo bhii rahii ho meaning what ever the reasons might have been. Under what circumstances is rehnaa used in this way?



Tony SaaHib, you have asked a very good question. I have given it some thought and hope that my reply will not only be accurate but also satisfatory.

I think that in the circumstance that you have provided "rahnaa" fills in for the verb " to continue to be". A few examples might be helpful to illustrate my point. Let'us begin with your example first.

vajh jo bhii hai.. = Whatever the reason is..

vajh jo bhii ho.. = Whatever the reason might be..

vajh jo bhii thii..= Whatever the reason was...

vajh jo bhii hu'ii = Whatever became/becomes the reason...

vajh jo bhii hu'ii hai..= Whatever has become the reason..

vajh jo bhii hu'ii thii..= Whatever had become the reason...


From the above examples, one can deduce that the past form of "honaa", i.e "hu'aa"/"hu'ii" does not convey "to be" but rather " to become". So, the question that comes to mind is this. How does one convey the meaning of the English "have been/had been"? This is where "rahnaa" comes in!

I am ill. = maiN biimaar huuN.

 I was ill. = maiN biimaar thaa. 

I became ill = maiN biimaar ho gayaa. 

When I became ill... = jab maiN biimaar hu'aa...

I have been ill (for many days) = maiN (ka'ii din se) biimaar rahaa huuN.* (I have remained ill for many days)

I had been ill (for many days) = maiN (ka'ii din se) biimaar rahaa thaa* (I had remained ill for many days)

*Strictly speaking "huuN" and "thaa" can convey the "been" meaning, in the appropriate context.

maiN ka'ii din se biimaar huuN = I have been ill for many days.

maiN ka'ii din se biimaar thaa = I had been ill for many days.

But the "rahaa" form conveys explicitly the concept of continuity. 

By the way, "vajh jo bhii rahii ho" sounds somewhat awkward to my ears! I would suggest that here one can have..

vajh jo bhii hai = Whatever is the reason/ Whatever has been the reason.

vajh jo bhii ho = Whatever is/might be the reason/Whatever might have been the reason.

vajh jo bhii thii = Whatever was the reason/Whatever had been the reason/Whatever might have been the reason.

By the way, if you wanted to say, "have been somewhere"...

kyaa aap (kabhii) Pakistan ga'e haiN = Have you (ever) been to Pakistan?

jii haaN, maiN Pakistan gayaa huuN = Yes, I have been to Pakistan.

More emphatically...

jii haaN, maiN Pakistan ho aayaa huuN = Yes, I have been to Pakistan (and have returned!)

Just in case you are wondering why I am not using my usual font, one of the moderators has slapped my wrists for using the large font!


----------



## greatbear

"vajah [chaahe] jo bhi rahii ho" is very good Hindi. The "rahnaa" works like the imparfait of French, in case you have notions of French. If you say "vajah jo bhi ho", it conveys a sense of reasons being still there; if you say "vajah jo bhi thii", then as if the reasons are no longer there. "Vajah jo bhi rahii ho" conveys the sense of whatever the reasons had been ("were being" [at that point of time], that is to say they might or might not be existing anymore, since that's not the point.

I hope this does make some sense.


----------



## tonyspeed

Can we somehow extent this explanation to chaabii mez pe thii vs chabii mez pe rahii ?
Or is this a different situation altogether?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> "vajah [chaahe] jo bhi rahii ho" is very good Hindi. The "rahnaa" works like the imparfait of French, in case you have notions of French. If you say "vajah jo bhi ho", it conveys a sense of reasons being still there; if you say "vajah jo bhi thii", then as if the reasons are no longer there. "Vajah jo bhi rahii ho" conveys the sense of whatever the reasons had been ("were being" [at that point of time], that is to say they might or might not be existing anymore, since that's not the point.
> 
> I hope this does make some sense.




Greatbear SaaHib. I follow your reasoning. What I have said is that "vajh* jo bhii *rahii* ho" sounds "awkward" to my ears. Can you quote any Hindi work of prose or poetry by a respected author with this kind of sentence?

* The word is "vajh", although the pronunciation almost invariably is "vajah".


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Can we somehow extend this explanation to chaabii mez pe thii vs chabii mez pe rahii ?
> Or is this a different situation altogether?



No you cannot 
For things like "soch", "vajah", "kahnaa" you can: e.g.,

"Uski soch jo bhi rahii ho, usne kaam to galat (hii) karaa"
"Jo bhi uska kahnaa rahaa ho, tum kyoN uspe vishwas karte ho?"


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Greatbear SaaHib. I follow your reasoning. What I have said is that "vajh* jo bhii *rahii* ho" sounds "awkward" to my ears. Can you quote any Hindi work of prose or poetry by a respected author with this kind of sentence?



I do not read Hindi/Urdu prose/poetry, so I cannot answer you there; if they haven't such sentences, a pity for them, that's all I can say. Hindi is my tongue, and I hear it all the time, I speak it all the time, I've been born in it. I don't need the support of citations to understand its nuances.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I do not read Hindi/Urdu prose/poetry, so I cannot answer you there; if they haven't such sentences, a pity for them, that's all I can say. Hindi is my tongue, and I hear it all the time, I speak it all the time, I've been born in it. I don't need the support of citations to understand its nuances.



Good for you, but being "born in it" is no guarantee for speaking grammatically correct language. I often hear my English colleagues, "born in English" making all kinds of language blunders on a daily basis. If being born in a language was the only relevant criterion, then there would be no need for grammar books and the likes of Panini!


----------



## greatbear

That is precisely where you're missing my point! Languages is intended for communication with all its nuances between its speakers, and not for grammarians! As long as people "born in" a language are understanding each other's finer shades of meaning, I don't need a grammarian as a qazi. Languages would never evolve if we were to heed grammarians!


----------



## rahulbemba

tonyspeed said:


> I have noticed that unlike English, Hindi/Urdu seems to use rehna in some contexts in the same way one would use the verb "to be" in english. For instance the sentence:
> vajh chaahe jo bhii rahii ho meaning what ever the reasons might have been. Under what circumstances is rehnaa used in this way?



You are right. 'Rahna' means 'to be', in the sense of a "continuous tense" (present/past/future continuous tense). 

Examples, "Mai wahan ja raha hun" (I am going there) ('rahaa' is the continuous tense of 'rahna' which is the verb). Or, "Karan chahe koi bhi ho" (Whatever be the reason".


----------



## greatbear

Also, for those students who don't understand the imparfait of French, I always say that try to substitute "rahna"; if it works, then the tense in French should be mostly imparfait. "Rahna" is the sense of continuity in "being"


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Greatbear SaaHib. I follow your reasoning. What I have said is that "vajh* jo bhii *rahii* ho" sounds "awkward" to my ears. Can you quote any Hindi work of prose or poetry by a respected author with this kind of sentence?



I will have to vouch for GB on this one. I pulled that quote straight out of something I was reading. Maybe it wasn't a renowned author, but the author was most definitely someone familiar with Hindi. 
There are problems too with following renowned or respected authors as well. If I speak English like Shakespeare surely people will think maiN to diiwanaa ban gayaa..

Actually there is a problem in general following written language. It is often much more complex than or completely different from the spoken language, Hindi being a prime
example because the written form usually is often heavily Sanskritized. In Tamil the written form even has different verb conjugations!! Yikes!! 

Also, the problem with all standards is that they are kind of like arbitrators that are there to assist a wide variety of people to understand each other. Standards often break down in everyday language
because you usually talk to people who deviate in exactly the same way from the imposed (if not accepted) standard. You fully understand each other. The standard comes into play (or should come into play) when
a non-local comes into the picture.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I will have to vouch for GB on this one. I pulled that quote straight out of something I was reading. Maybe it wasn't a renowned author but the author was most definitely someone familiar with Hindi.
> There are problems too with following renowned or respected authors as well. If I speak English like Shakespeare surely people will think maiN to diwana ban gyaa..



Point taken, Tony. I was n't expecting someone from centuries back, neither was there any suggestion that it would n't be found. Whenever I have quoted Urdu verses to illustrate a grammatical illustration, the poets have been those whom no one would have any doubts about. "vajh jo bhii rahii ho" could easily fit both Urdu and Hindi. To my ears (and I might be wrong), it did n't quite sound right and still does n't, hence my uneasiness about it. If Hindi speakers in the forum who follow quality literature within the language say that so and so is well known and respected author, that would be fine with me and something new to bear in mind for the future. Can you find the name of the author?


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Can you find the name of the author?



No, it was a translated work and the name of the translator was not given. However, there is an article online by Pramod Joshi that appeared in Jansandesh Times entitled: _सरकार, पार्टी और मीडिया में सन्नाटा क्यों है_?. In it he says "इसके कारण जो भी रहे हों,".


----------



## tonyspeed

Also heard another interesting idiom along these lines : "vah kahaaN rah gayaa"?, which in English would be translated "Where is he?" or "Where did he go?".


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Also heard another interesting idiom along these lines : "vah kahaaN rah gayaa"?, which in English would be translated "Where is he?" or "Where did he go?".



Means "where is he left". Imagine you are waiting for a friend at the railway station, he was expected half an hour back and he's still not there, and the train's about to leave. You will then say to another friend of yours something along the lines of "abe yaar, ab kahaaN rah gayaa yeh?".


----------

