# Urdu/Hindi - gaRiyaaN nahiiN huaa kartii thiiN



## tonyspeed

_gaRiyaaN nahiiN huaa kartii thiiN _-  cars had not come into existence


How do you explain this structure? 
_huaa_ means become or happened, but why the need for _kartii_ ?

Also _huaa_ is in masculine singular but _kartii thiiN_ is in feminine plural? 

Is _huaa karnaa_ a special form?

_is maamle meN kyaa ho rahaa hai?
_


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> _gaRiyaaN nahiiN huaa kartii thiiN _- cars had not come into existence
> 
> 
> How do you explain this structure?
> _huaa_ means become or happened, but why the need for _kartii_ ?
> 
> Also _huaa_ is in masculine singular but _kartii thiiN_ is in feminine plural?
> 
> Is _huaa karnaa_ a special form?
> 
> _is maamle meN kyaa ho rahaa hai?
> _




Please see post 15 in the below link and all will be revealed.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2208908&highlight=KIYAA+KARTAA+THAA

Your sentence is equivalent to:

(In those days) we were not used to having cars.

Or, not so grammatically correct.

(In those days) cars did n't used to exist.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Please see post 15 in the below link and all will be revealed.
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2208908&highlight=KIYAA+KARTAA+THAA
> 
> Your sentence is equivalent to:
> 
> (In those days) we were not used to having cars.
> 
> Or, not so grammatically correct.
> 
> (In those days) cars did n't used to exist.



I understand the usual perfect + karnaa form, but how does this fit in to that ? huaa is this sentence has what meaning exactly?
And what continuous or repetitive meaning to kartaa possibly add here?

If I say huaa is "happened" then do I say : Cars had not happened continuously?
Or is huaa here possessive? And we did not have cars continuously or repetitively? Seems a bit of a stretch for my mind.

Can karnaa take some other meaning in this sentence?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I understand the usual perfect + karnaa form, but how does this fit in to that ? huaa is this sentence has what meaning exactly?
> And what continuous or repetitive meaning to kartaa possibly add here?
> 
> If I say huaa is "happened" then do I say : Cars had not happened continuously?
> Or is huaa here possessive? And we did not have cars continuously or repetitively? Seems a bit of a stretch for my mind.
> 
> Can karnaa take some other meaning in this sentence?




Tony SaaHib, it is a matter of applying analogy to other similar forms.

a) bachpan meN ham ne tarH tarH ke khel *khele*.

In our childhood, we *played* all kinds of games

a) "jin ke liye ham barbaad *hu'e*, (vuh ham ko chaahe yaad nah kareN), jiivan-bhar un kii yaad meN ham gaa'e jaa'eN ge!"

For the one I *got/became* ruined.....

b) bachpan meN ham tarH tarH ke khel *khelte the.*

In our childhood we *used to play* all kinds of games.

b) jab ham apne nanihaal ke haaN *hote the*, to sab log hameN bahut pyaar karte the.

When we *used to be* with our maternal family...

c) ham bachpan meN tarH tarH ke khel *khelaa kiye.*

We *played*, *on and off*, all kinds of games in our childhood (It is not easy to bring out the subtle difference in English and I am not certain if this translation is correct)

c) Similarly for “honaa” we get “hu’aa kiyaa”/”hu’aa kiye” /”hu’aa kii”/”hu’aa kiiN”. (This is simple past)

d) ham bachpan meN tarH tarH ke khel khelaa karte the.

d) In the habitual sense, hu’aa kiyaa > hu’aa kartaa thaa, hu’aa kiye > hu’aa karte the, hu’aa kii > hu’aa kartii thii, hu’aa kiiN > hu’aa kartii thiiN.

ek zamaanah aisaa bhii thaa kih hamaare shahr meN moTar gaaRiyaaN nahiiN *hu’aa kartii thiiN.
*
There was such a time when there *were* not (as a matter of course) any motor vehicles *existing* (*in existence*) in our town.

I don’t think I have been able to do justice to my explanation but I hope all this has been of some help.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> c) ham bachpan meN tarH tarH ke khel *khelaa kiye.*
> 
> We *played*, *on and off*, all kinds of games in our childhood (It is not easy to bring out the subtle difference in English and I am not certain if this translation is correct)


Qureshpor SaaHib, although I understand what is being tried to explain, and the English one is clear to me, I have difficulty understanding the Urdu sentence. Could you please shed some more light on this?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, although I understand what is being tried to explain, and the English one is clear to me, I have difficulty understanding the Urdu sentence. Could you please shed some more light on this?




I can understand your "unease" about the sentence.

ham bachpan meN tarH tarH ke khel *khelaa kiye*.

It is no doubt true that this tense has become extremely rare in speech if not altogether extinct. Its counter part "*khelaa karte the*" is of course very much alive.

Now the "kiyaa kiyaa" form is still being employed in modern Urdu poetry. Here is a memorable couplet from Ibn-i-Insha

kal chaudhaviiN kii raat thii, shab-bhar rahaa charchaa tiraa
kuchh ne kahaa yih chaaNd hai kuchh ne kahaa chihraa tiraa

ham bhii vahiiN maujuud the ham se bhii sab *puuchhaa kiye
*ham haNs diye ham chup rahe manzuur thaa pardah tiraa


----------



## tonyspeed

Kabhi us ka chehra Gulaab hua karta tha ----------------------------                           Sometimes his face used to be a rose.
Aur un dino to gane ki recording bhi to raat ko hua karti thi ---  ?
Zindgi kitne khubsurat hua karti thi --------------------------------------                                    how beautiful life used to be
Uski baatein bahut hi pyari hua karti thi --------------------------------his words used to be so lovely
Jiski aankheN kabhi mera ghar hua karti thi_ -------------------------                       _whose eyes on occasion used to be my abode
Har jagah pe ek ladki hua karti thi ---------------------------------------                                     everywhere there used to be a girl


Based on this, I would translate "hua kartaa thaa" as "used to be".

To explain it I would say huaa here does not mean  become or possess but "to be". In my mind this seems to be a special case where hona's perfect tense is used as huaa (which in other contexts usually means to happen or transpire).

There is a problem with the definition of perfect + karnaa as: "This verbal compound would express an act done more than once, not in  the sense of "continuously without a break" but rather an act done  repeatedly or frequently, i.e at intervals of noticeable length. Some  Urdu speakers blurr this distinction and the use the two  interchangeably, particularly in simple contexts, but normally the above  distinction is maintained."

I beleive this assumes you are talking about a transitive verb or a verb you can do once in a relatively short period of time.

Verbs like honaa and rahanaa seem to fall outside of this catergory of verbs, because you can't "be" repetatively and you can't "reside" repetatively.  These cases have to be treated as special.
So in these cases perfect + used to form of karnaa seem to be some kind of emphatic form of the regular "hotaa thaa" and "rahataa thaa". Maybe indeed they are the same for this class of verbs.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Kabhi us ka chehra Gulaab (g) hua karta tha ----------------------------                           Sometimes (once) his face used to be a rose.
> Aur un dino(N) to gane ki recording bhi to raat ko hua karti thi ---  ?
> Zindgi kitn(ii) khubsurat hua karti thi --------------------------------------                                    how beautiful life used to be
> Uski baatein bahut hi pyari hua karti thi(iN) --------------------------------his words used to be so lovely
> Jiski aankheN kabhi mera ghar hua karti thi(iN)_ -------------------------                       _whose eyes on occasion used to be my abode
> Har jagah pe ek ladki hua karti thi ---------------------------------------                                     everywhere there used to be a girl
> 
> 
> Based on this, I would translate "hua kartaa thaa" as "used to be".
> 
> To explain it I would say huaa here does not mean  become or possess but "to be". In my mind this seems to be a special case where hona's perfect tense is used as huaa (which in other contexts usually means to happen or transpire).
> 
> There is a problem with the definition of perfect + karnaa as: "This verbal compound would express an act done more than once, not in  the sense of "continuously without a break" but rather an act done  repeatedly or frequently, i.e at intervals of noticeable length. Some  Urdu speakers blurr this distinction and the use the two  interchangeably, particularly in simple contexts, but normally the above  distinction is maintained."
> 
> I beleive this assumes you are talking about a transitive verb or a verb you can do once in a relatively short period of time.
> 
> Verbs like honaa and rahanaa seem to fall outside of this catergory of verbs, because you can't "be" repetatively and you can't "reside" repetatively.  These cases have to be treated as special.
> So in these cases perfect + used to form of karnaa seem to be some kind of emphatic form of the regular "hotaa thaa" and "rahataa thaa". Maybe indeed they are the same for this class of verbs.



I have taken the liberty to correct one or two words in your quote (in blue).

A couple of points.

1) I did state in my reply that the meaning of "honaa" in "gaaRiyaaN nahiiN hu'aa kartii thiiN" is linked to "being" and not "becoming".

2) C.M.Naim's explanation may not be accurate to the nearest nanometre and there are always exceptions to the rule and overlaps in meaning but please do enlighten us on the difference between..

kartaa thaa & kiyaa kartaa thaa (used to do for both?)

hotaa thaa & hu'aa kartaa thaa (used to be for both?)

I assure you they are NOT identical in meaning even if I am at a loss to be precise in my explanation.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> kartaa thaa & kiyaa kartaa thaa (used to do for both?)
> 
> hotaa thaa & hu'aa kartaa thaa (used to be for both?)
> 
> I assure you they are NOT identical in meaning even if I am at a loss to be precise in my explanation.



Yes, GB-Sahib, when he was still around, could not even place his finger on it except to state that it was not as bland of a statement.
So I, a non-native speaker, have little chance at defining this difference.

Two web examples (my first set were pulled from the web as well):
Pehle Waqt Bhi Hota Tha,Pehle Pyar Bhi Hota Tha---------------at one time there was (used to be) time, at one time there was (used to be) love
Shooting kum aur masti zyaada _hota tha -----------------------------there was (used to be) less shooting and more enjoyment_

Based on GB's short description, maybe "was" is a better description for "hotaa thaa" when used in this way.
In my mind, "used to" fits more in line with his description of "The former gives you a sense of immediacy and adventure, that you are now going to recount something what happened one day".

"There were castles here" vs "There used to be castles here ...". The second does invoke more of a sense of expectation. What happened to the castles?
So my guess is "hotaa thaa" should be translated as "was/were" and "huaa karthaa/thii/the thaa/thii/the" should be "used to be" BUT only in this specific case.


----------



## Qureshpor

There are and will be native speakers who will understand the fine nuances of their language even if they might not be able to articulate these in a precise mathematical manner. Other so called native speakers would not know about these intricacies even if they had a thousand rebirths. It all depends on the individual's upbringing, level of education and a profound interest in matters of language, whether native or not.

Getting back to the issue at hand.

Here is a seemingly extremely simple couplet from a Ghalib Ghazal.

ibn-i-Maryam hu'aa kare ko'ii
mere dukh kii davaa kare ko'ii

To my mind, "hu'aa kare" is a kind of subjunctive (of "kiyaa kiyaa" type) tense. To be more precise, the "mood" in question is the "Jussive mood". Now try translating this couplet. I have a strong inclination that most people would not find it easy to translate the tense and the meaning into English with precision.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Pehle Waqt Bhi Hota Tha,Pehle Pyar Bhi Hota Tha.
> 
> At one time there was (used to be) time, at one time there was (used to be) love
> 
> Shooting kum aur masti zyaada _hota tha
> 
> There was (used to be) less shooting and more enjoyment_
> 
> So my guess is "hotaa thaa" should be translated as "was/were" and "huaa karthaa/thii/the thaa/thii/the" should be "used to be" BUT only in this specific case.



If "pahle vaqt bhii *hotaa thaa, *pahle pyaar bhii* hotaa thaa*" = At one time there *was *time and there *was* love.

& "Shooting kam aur mastii ziyaadah *hotii thii* = There *was* less shooting and more enjoyment

Then how do the following two sentences differ from the above ones?

pahle vaqt bhii *thaa, *pahle pyaar bhii*  thaa*.

Shooting kam aur mastii ziyaadah* thii*.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> If "pahle vaqt bhii *hotaa thaa, *pahle pyaar bhii* hotaa thaa*" = At one time there *was *time and there *was* love.
> 
> & "Shooting kam aur mastii ziyaadah *hotii thii* = There *was* less shooting and more enjoyment
> 
> Then how do the following two sentences differ from the above ones?
> 
> pahle vaqt bhii *thaa, *pahle pyaar bhii*  thaa*.
> 
> Shooting kam aur mastii ziyaadah* thii*.



The habitual past in Hindi does not perfectly correspond to "used to" in English.

For instance, Usha R. Jain says 

"Often the past habitual tense is not used in English in situations where it would normally be used in Hindi.
For example, "Last year he used to study at this university" is gramatically correct for a Hindi speaker
although in English one would say, "Last year he studied at this university."

The line between English and Hindi here does not seem to be fully defined.

Even the present habitual tense combines several ideas into one.

Usha R. Jain says:
"This tense indicates frequent, regular, or habitual actions in the present, or general statments in the present (where the verb is not just 'to be')"

"The simple present forms of the verb _hona_ to be are used to make specific statements, while the present habitual forms are employed for _general, usual_, or habitual statements"

It is this hona form we are concerned about right now. So an example she gives is 
"lakhnao ke aam miiTHe hote hain" which she translates as "Mangoes from Lucknow *are *(usually) sweet"

If that is the case, the past tense of this would be "Mangoes from Lucknow *were* (usually) sweet" not "Mangoes from Luck now used to be sweet". "Used to be" adds a certain other factor to this sentence which I have no yet sorted out in my mind.

But in essence, I don't think we can translate the past tense of present habitual hona as "used to be" in every case.


----------



## Qureshpor

Tony SaaHib, aadaab.

(Sorry, I started writing this before your reply).

Just to put a lid on this discussion.

Q. Is there a difference between "kartaa thaa" and "kiyaa kartaa thaa"?

A. Yes

Q. Can one back this "claim"?

R. Yes. I have been in touch with Professor Rupert Snell and I am hugely indebted to him for his input regarding the "kiyaa kartaa thaa" form. By the way, he is NOT a "native" speaker of Urdu or Hindi! But he IS a scholar. He says and I quote.

"....the construction lays emphasis on repeatedness, habit, something done routinely..."

Q. How does one translate the difference in the two forms into English?

R. Professor Snell has stated that this is not straightforword.."...the construction lays emphasis on repeatedness, habit, something done routinely, and I think the best way of capturing that may be by adding an adverb in English."

Q. Does "hu'aa karnaa" follow the same logic as "kiyaa karnaa"?

R. "...._hua karna_ does indeed have that same implication, albeit one adapted to its particular context:  what it adds to the blander version "nahin hoti thin" is a sense of duration over or through time — an equivalent, embedded in the verb itself, of an adverbial expression such as "us zamane men".

So, in conclusion, the "kiyaa kartaa thaa" form when used correctly has the elements of repetitiveness or routine in a recognisable period of time. I do not believe "kartaa thaa" form involves an action/event taking place during a period of time but is in fact a description of a series of acts taken together resulting in a habit.

Let us get back to the original example.

1) jab maiN us shahr meN pahuNchaa to us vaqt vahaaN moTar-gaaRiyaaN nahiiN thiiN.

When I got to that town, there *were* no motor vehicles there.

2) janaab maiN us vaqt ki baat kar rahaa huuN jab vahaaN moTar-gaaRiyaaN nahiiN thiiN = nahiiN hotii thiiN

My dear sir, I am talking about that time when there *were* no motor vehicles there = ...when there did not *use to be *motor vehicles there.

3) ek zamaanah aisaa bhii thaa kih hamaare shahr meN moTar gaaRiyaaN nahiiN hu'aa kartii thiiN.

There was such a time when, routinely, there were no motor vehicles to be found/present/in existence.


----------



## Qureshpor

> The habitual past in Hindi does not perfectly correspond to "used to" in English.
> 
> For instance, Usha R. Jain says
> 
> "Often the past habitual tense is not used in English in situations where it would normally be used in Hindi.
> For example, "Last year he used to study at this university" is gramatically correct for a Hindi speaker
> although in English one would say, "Last year he studied at this university."
> 
> The line between English and Hindi here does not seem to be fully defined.



In Urdu, "pichhle saal vuh university meN paRhtaa thaa" does not sound quite right.



> Even the present habitual tense combines several ideas into one.
> 
> Usha R. Jain says:
> "This tense indicates frequent, regular, or habitual actions in the present, or general statments in the present (where the verb is not just 'to be')"
> 
> "The simple present forms of the verb _hona_ to be are used to make specific statements, while the present habitual forms are employed for _general, usual_, or habitual statements"
> 
> It is this hona form we are concerned about right now. So an example she gives is
> "lakhnao ke aam miiTHe hote hain" which she translates as "Mangoes from Lucknow *are *(usually) sweet"
> 
> If that is the case, the past tense of this would be "Mangoes from Lucknow *were* (usually) sweet" not "Mangoes from Luck now used to be sweet". "Used to be" adds a certain other factor to this sentence which I have no yet sorted out in my mind.



I can't see anything wrong with "mangoes from Lucknow used to be sweet" (God knows, they must have sprayed some chemical on the trees!) 



> But in essence, I don't think we can translate the past tense of present habitual hona as "used to be" in every case.



I agree.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> R. "...._hua karna_ does indeed have that same implication, albeit one adapted to its particular context:  what it adds to the blander version "nahin hoti thin" is a sense of duration over or through time — an equivalent, embedded in the verb itself, of an adverbial expression such as "us zamane men".



Bahut shukria. I'm not sure this is really explained in any of the standard grammar books.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, although I understand what is being tried to explain, and the English one is clear to me, I have difficulty understanding the Urdu sentence. Could you please shed some more light on this?



xayaal-i-zulf-i-du-taa meN, Naseer, *piiTaa kar
gayaa hai saaNp nikal, ab lakeer piiTaa kar

*Shah Naseer

us bazm meN mujhe nahiiN bantii Hayaa kiye
baiThaa rahaa, agarchih ishaare hu'aa kiye

kis roz tuhmateN nah taraashaa kiye 3aduu
kis din hamaare sar pih nah aare chalaa kiye

Ghalib tumhiiN kaho kih mile gaa javaab kyaa
maanaa kih tum kahaa kiye aur vuh sunaa kiye

Ghalib


----------



## tonyspeed

I have come across another example of this form:

"mahaapurush kamzor nahiiN huaa karte"  (Great men are not weak).

Given the above explanation, this implies that when we look at various examples of great men over a long period of time, we don't see that they show signs of weakness.


----------

