# Urdu, Hindi: Feminine plural ending for "masculine" nouns



## Qureshpor

We have recently been discussing shaxs, dost and vyakti. I think it would be fair to say that there is no disagreement  in that these words themselves are masculine but can be used to represent the female gender as well.

ek shaxs/vyakti kahiiN jaa rahaa thaa..patah chalaa kih vuh ek achchhaa shaxs/vyakti thaa

ek shaxs/vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii thii...patah chalaa kih vuh ek achchhii shaxs/vyakti thii

meraa dost kahiiN jaa rahaa thaa

merii dost kahiiN jaa rahii thii

But what happens when we have the plural in mind.

do shaxs/vyakti kahiiN jaa rahe the..patah chalaa kih vuh donoN achchhe shaxs/vyakti the

do shaxs/vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN...patah chalaa kih vuh donoN achchhii shaxs/vyakti thiiN

mere dost kahiiN jaa rahe the

merii dost kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN

Question. Are shaxs/vyakti/dost in these sentences required to change to shaxeN, vyaktiyaaN/dosteN or should they be left in their singular form because the verb gives number clarity anyway?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> But what happens when we have the plural in mind.
> 
> do shaxs/vyakti kahiiN jaa rahe the..patah chalaa kih vuh donoN achchhe shaxs/vyakti the
> 
> do shaxs/vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN...patah chalaa kih vuh donoN achchhii shaxs/vyakti thiiN
> 
> mere dost kahiiN jaa rahe the
> 
> merii dost kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN
> 
> Question. Are shaxs/vyakti/dost in these sentences required to change to shaxeN, vyaktiyaaN/dosteN or should they be left in their singular form because the verb gives number clarity anyway?


Qureshpor SaaHib, I have to admit that it is a challenging question which requires some deliberation and different opinions of other friends.
I hope you don't mind me not answering it right away but offering some auxilliary ideas instead. I'd like to leave _vyakti_ aside for the timebeing and focus on _dost_ and _shaxs_.

You have furnished us with two scenarios for consideration:

1) _shaxs/dost_ (related to a female) used with a plural feminine verb, the noun _shaxs/dost_ left unchanged.
2) -||-----------------------------------------------------------||-, the noun _shaxs/dost_ bearing the suffix of pl. f.

The last sentence, _merii dost kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN_, if dost left unaltered, is certainly correct but turns out to be confusing because it implies that _dost_ (f.) is being referred to by honorific plural and is a single person. The only way to convey the message of a few female friends so that there is no doubt regarding this meaning would be marking the plural of the said noun.

Let us leave the possible ways to do it for further thought and exchange.

do shaxs/vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN...patah chalaa kih vuh donoN achchhii shaxs/vyakti thiiN leaves no room for confusion. It is clear that there were two females.

In the case of _shaxs_ the issue of the plural formation can be neatly sorted out by using _ashxaas_:

_do ashxaas kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN. vuh donoN achchhii ashxaas thiiN. _How does it sound like?

Another tentative way of marking the plural would be using _log... but merii dost log kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN?_ I wouldn't be so sure of this sentence.


I'm just sharing some loose thoughts to help the process advance.


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> Question. Are shaxs/vyakti/dost in these sentences required to change to shaxeN, vyaktiyaaN/dosteN or should they be left in their singular form because the verb gives number clarity anyway?



I would only say "do vyakti", "10 vyakti", etc., similarly for dost - "mere paaNch dost yahaaN aa rahe haiN".  vyaktiyaaN, dosteN is not Hindi! vyakti and dost are both the singular and plural as far as my usage goes.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> [...] The last sentence, _merii dost kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN_, if dost left unaltered, is certainly correct but turns out to be confusing because it implies that _dost_ (f.) is being referred to by honorific plural and is a single person. The only way to convey the message of a few female friends so that there is no doubt regarding this meaning would be marking the plural of the said noun.
> 
> Let us leave the possible ways to do it for further thought and exchange.
> 
> do shaxs/vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN...patah chalaa kih vuh donoN achchhii shaxs/vyakti thiiN leaves no room for confusion. It is clear that there were two females.
> 
> In the case of _shaxs_ the issue of the plural formation can be neatly sorted out by using _ashxaas_:
> 
> _do ashxaas kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN. vuh donoN achchhii ashxaas thiiN. _How does it sound like?
> 
> Another tentative way of marking the plural would be using _log... but merii dost log kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN?_ I wouldn't be so sure of this sentence.
> 
> I'm just sharing some loose thoughts to help the process advance.


Thank you for your thoughts, marrish SaaHib.

Regarding the honorific plural, you make a valid point. But, one would normally not find this as a stand alone sentence. There is bound to be context to it. Having said this, supposing the title of a story was "do dost". This could imply two male friends, two female friends and a male and a female friend. "do dosteN" (especially if they are not "do saheliyaaN") would certainly be make it clear that we have two female friends in mind.

My "problem" with "dosteN" (and shaxseN and vyaktiyaaN) is that one is assuming the base word to be feminine when by all accounts dost, shaxs and vyakti are considered masculine per se. If this is the case, we should not be adding feminine endings to them. I hope this makes sense.

I dont think we need to change shaxs to ashxaas after a plural marker such as number, i.e do shaxs need not be changed to do ashxaas. I quite like the addition of "log" to indicate plural and this of course will avoid the use of "dosteN".


----------



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> I would only say "do vyakti", "10 vyakti", etc., similarly for dost - "mere paaNch dost yahaaN aa rahe haiN". vyaktiyaaN, dosteN is not Hindi! vyakti and dost are both the singular and plural as far as my usage goes.


I could be wrong but as far as I know "dosteN" is not standard Urdu either. This seems to be a relatively new development. When I first came across "dosteN" on the net, I found it quite amusing. My logic was this. Why go for "dosteN" when we already have perfectly good "saheliyaaN"? I have never seen "shaxseN" in print. "shaxseN" and "vyaktiyaaN" have been taken from recent posts.


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> I could be wrong but as far as I know "dosteN" is not standard Urdu either. This seems to be a relatively new development. When I first came across "dosteN" on the net, I found it quite amusing. My logic was this. Why go for "dosteN" when we already have perfectly good "saheliyaaN"? I have never seen "shaxseN" in print. "shaxseN" and "vyaktiyaaN" have been taken from recent posts.



Recents posts from whom? No native speaker would use it. If someone used vyaktiyaaN, it's just incorrect Hindi (be it formal, informal, or colloquial), or a result of confusion: since vyaktiyoN is perfectly fine. 'Mainay  das vyaktiyoN ko / vyaktiyoN se ...."


----------



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> Recents posts from whom? No native speaker would use it. If someone used vyaktiyaaN, it's just incorrect Hindi (be it formal, informal, or colloquial), or a result of confusion: since vyaktiyoN is perfectly fine. 'Mainay  das vyaktiyoN ko / vyaktiyoN se ...."


I see you have amended your post. So, are you saying "vyaktiyoN" is fine but "vyaktiyaaN" is n't. This seems to imply that "laRkiyoN" is correct  but "laRkiyaaN" is wrong! Or, am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> I see you have amended your post. So, are you saying "vyaktiyoN" is fine but "vyaktiyaaN" is n't. This seems to imply that "laRkiyoN" is correct  but "laRkiyaaN" is wrong! Or, am I misunderstanding you?



Obviously, both laDkiyaaN and laDkiyoN exist - they are different things (I assume you know this - the first is nominative case, the second is used in other cases; see below). 

laDkiyaaN vahaaN jaa rahi haiN
un laDkiyoN ko bulaao.
laDkiyoN ka ghar vahaaN hai.
un laDkiyoN se pustak lo.
etc..

But there is no such thing as vyaktiyaaN. vyaktiyoN functions the same way as laDkiyoN in the last 3 sentences, and you can't replace that with laDkiyaaN or vyakti.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I follow your grammar explanation. Thank you. But I still can't understand why "vyaktiyaaN" would not be acceptable yet "vyaktiyoN" is kosher. Can you offer a logical explanation.


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ I follow your grammar explanation. Thank you. But I still can't understand why "vyaktiyaaN" would not be acceptable yet "vyaktiyoN" is kosher. Can you offer a logical explanation.



I have no explanation for that!  vyaktiyaaN just doesn't exist in my head; I've never used it and I can't use it - even by mistake. Note that all my comments above are from what I *feel* as a native speaker - I haven't deduced them from any rules or other logic; I typically don't try to since it often ends up being a more elaborate exercise. So I'm afraid you'll have to wait for someone else to provide you the formal rules.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> I could be wrong but as far as I know "dosteN" is not standard Urdu either. This seems to be a relatively new development. When I first came across "dosteN" on the net, I found it quite amusing. My logic was this. Why go for "dosteN" when we already have perfectly good "saheliyaaN"? I have never seen "shaxseN" in print. "shaxseN" and "vyaktiyaaN" have been taken from recent posts.


There is certainly nothing wrong with _sahelii/saheliyaaN_ but the problem is that its meaning is quite not universal, unlike that of _dost_. A sentence *_QP SaaHib kii do saheliyaaN Bhaarat ghuumne ga'iiN_* does not seem correct.


----------



## Chhaatr

marrish said:


> *_QP SaaHib kii do saheliyaaN Bhaarat ghuumne ga'iiN_* does not seem correct.



marrish saaHib ne agar is vaakya meiN QP ke baad "saaHib" nahiiN lagaayaa hotaa toh maiN yeh samajhtaa kii kisii QP naamak mahilaa ya laRkii kii saheliyoN kii baat ho rahii hai.

For a man's friend I'll always use "dost" irrespective of the friend's gender.

"QP saaHib kii do dost bhaarat ghuumne gaiiN".


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I shall respond to marrish SaaHib and your posts but in the meantime could you please offer your views on posts 6-10 please, if you are able to.


----------



## Chhaatr

^ I have no idea about grammar rules so I can only comment on the basis of what "sounds" or "feels" right to me on the basis of how I and others around me communicate. 

VyaktiyoN - OK
vyaktiyaaN - never heard and never used
laRkiyaaN and laRkiyoN - both perfectly OK


----------



## Qureshpor

Chhaatr said:


> ^ I have no idea about grammar rules so I can only comment on the basis of what "sounds" or "feels" right to me on the basis of how I and others around me communicate.
> 
> VyaktiyoN - OK
> vyaktiyaaN - never heard and never used
> laRkiyaaN and laRkiyoN - both perfectly OK


Very strange indeed! "vyaktiyoN" can not exist without the presence of "vyaktiyaaN". The only conclusion one can draw from this is that "vyakti" is being assigned a strictly masculine gender. If this is the case, how does one express a good female person going somewhere?


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> Very strange indeed! "vyaktiyoN" can not exist without the presence of "vyaktiyaaN". The only conclusion one can draw from this is that "vyakti" is being assigned a strictly masculine gender. If this is the case, how does one express a good female person going somewhere?



'mahila' - why not? That's what I'd use.


----------



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> 'mahila' - why not? That's what I'd use.


Does "mahila" mean a "female *person*"? I thought it meant a woman. What if the person was a girl? The point is we are talking about the use of "vyakti" as applied to a female person, not mahila or 3aurat.


----------



## marrish

nineth said:


> 'mahila' - why not? That's what I'd use.


mahilaa is often used and translated as 'a lady'.


----------



## Chhaatr

QP saaHib in such a scenario you would hear people say "ek achhii/nek mahilaa jaa rahi haiN".  If I have to use person only, I would say "woh Jo mahilaa jaa rahii haiN, woh ek achhii insaan haiN".


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> Does "mahila" mean a "female *person*"?



Yes, of course. Mahila or stree (or even narii but I prefer the first two). If you think it doesn't fit, give me the context and I can tell you what to use there.


----------



## nineth

marrish said:


> mahilaa is often used and translated as 'a lady'.



So what? That doesn't mean it can't be used for a 'female person'.


----------



## Chhaatr

marrish said:


> mahilaa is often used and translated as 'a lady'.



wouldn't mahilaa mean mohtarmaa in Urdu?


----------



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> Yes, of course. Mahila or stree (or even narii but I prefer the first two). If you think it doesn't fit, give me the context and I can tell you what to use there.


The context is given in my opening post. You seem to be missing the point. No doubt one can use a number of words for a woman, a lady, a girl etc. But the thread is about the female ending (eN/aaN) added to feminine nouns.

do vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii haiN

or

do vyaktiyaaN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN?

do dost kahiiN jaa rahii haiN

or

do dosteN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN?

And if "dosteN" is correct...then

do shaxs kahiiN jaa rahii haiN

or 

do shaxseN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN?

This is basically what this thread is about.


----------



## greatbear

vyaktiyoN - perfectly fine; used as well
vyaktiyaaN - simply wrong; never heard


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> [...]
> This is basically what this thread is about.



Then I believe I've already answered you question. May be one last time; pls see below.

do vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii haiN  (doesn't parse well - vyakti has a masculine touch as explained by many natives earlier)
do vyaktiyaaN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN   (hurts my head; there is no such thing vyaktiyaaN)
do dost kahiiN jaa rahii haiN (ok - perfectly fine spoken Hindi)
do dosteN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN?   (it hurts my head even more)

Now, the right ones:
do mahilaaeN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN 
(meri) do dost/saheliyaaN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN  (ok - people don't use saheliyaaN that much in standard spoken, or else that would be better for formal)

Take it easy and let's not hurt our head here!


----------



## marrish

– ... कि नागार्जुन के बाद वे दूसरे ऐसी व्यक्ति हैं, जिनकी व्याप्ति ... Naagarjun ke baad ve duusre aisii vyakti haiN
Interesting - mix of f. and m.


----------



## Chhaatr

Marrish saaHib in spoken Hindi I haven't come across Vyaktii being used like this. Also, I feel it should be "duusrii".


----------



## Qureshpor

nineth said:


> Then I believe I've already answered you question. May be one last time; pls see below.
> 
> do vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii haiN  (doesn't parse well - vyakti has a masculine touch as explained by many natives earlier)
> do vyaktiyaaN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN   (hurts my head; there is no such thing vyaktiyaaN)
> do dost kahiiN jaa rahii haiN (ok - perfectly fine spoken Hindi)
> do dosteN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN?   (it hurts my head even more)
> 
> Now, the right ones:
> do mahilaaeN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN
> (meri) do dost/saheliyaaN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN  (ok - people don't use saheliyaaN that much in standard spoken, or else that would be better for formal)
> 
> Take it easy and let's not hurt our head here!


Thank you. Three does not equate to "many" and if you go over to the "vyakti" thread, you will see that one of the three is saying that "vyakti" is used in both genders. Your examples indicate that that vyakti is used only in the masculine gender (example 1)

Examples of use of "vyaktiyaaN".

यह प्रणाली विदेश की धन अंतरण प्रख्यात कंपनियाँ (विदेशी नियंत्रक कार्यालय) तथा प्राधिकृत व्यक्तियाँ (भारतीय एजेंट), जो चालू विनिमय दरों पर लाभार्थियों को निधि वितरित करती हैं, के बीच की एक ताल-मेल व्यवस्था संबंधी विचार करती है । यह प्रणाली कोई बाह्य प्रेषण अनुमत नहीं करती है ।

http://www.rbi.org.in/hindi/Scripts/apdir.aspx?id=2404 (Reserve Bank of India)--central bank

वी.आईबी.एस्.ई.टी.आई. को संकाय सहायता अनुभवी व्यक्तियाँ

http://vijayabank.com/Hindi/Media-Centre/News/8

दूध दोहन विधियो तथा दुग्ध स्रवण संबंधी व्यक्तियाँ

http://www.printsasia.com/book/%E0%A...A5%8D%E0%A4%B0


----------



## nineth

Chhaatr said:


> Marrish saaHib in spoken Hindi I haven't come across Vyaktii being used like this. Also, I feel it should be "duusrii".


duusre is also fine here since the first one was masculine. pehle vyakti, duusre vyakti - sort of sacrificing local semantics to maintain some uniformity at the global level. Also, even for feminine (standalone), duusre aisii vyakti sounds fine to my ears, but duusri is the right one as you say.


----------



## Chhaatr

^ It's my mistake I didn't pay attention to "naagarjun". Duusre is ok.


----------



## Wolverine9

Chhaatr said:


> For a man's friend I'll always use "dost" irrespective of the friend's gender.



Can _mitr _be used for a female?


----------



## Chhaatr

^ jii, bilkul.


----------



## nineth

Wolverine9 said:


> Can _mitr _be used for a female?



Sure, just as you would use dost - but it's a touch more formal and not very common in everyday spoken Hindi.


----------



## nineth

QURESHPOR said:


> Examples of use of "vyaktiyaaN".
> 
> यह प्रणाली विदेश की धन अंतरण प्रख्यात कंपनियाँ (विदेशी नियंत्रक कार्यालय) तथा प्राधिकृत व्यक्तियाँ (भारतीय एजेंट), जो चालू विनिमय दरों पर लाभार्थियों को निधि वितरित करती हैं, के बीच की एक ताल-मेल व्यवस्था संबंधी विचार करती है । यह प्रणाली कोई बाह्य प्रेषण अनुमत नहीं करती है ।
> 
> http://www.rbi.org.in/hindi/Scripts/apdir.aspx?id=2404 (Reserve Bank of India)--central bank
> 
> वी.आईबी.एस्.ई.टी.आई. को संकाय सहायता अनुभवी व्यक्तियाँ
> 
> http://vijayabank.com/Hindi/Media-Centre/News/8
> 
> दूध दोहन विधियो तथा दुग्ध स्रवण संबंधी व्यक्तियाँ
> 
> http://www.printsasia.com/book/%E0%A...A5%8D%E0%A4%B0



These examples are bad. One should ignore them if one wants to speak good Hindi. Replace vyaktiyaaN with vyakti everywhere and it will be perfectly fine.


----------



## Chhaatr

ek vyakti
do vyakti
anek vyakti

The only "vyaktiyaaN" I can think of is "abhivyaktiyaaN" (expressions, manifestations etc)


----------



## greatbear

Chhaatr said:


> The only "vyaktiyaaN" I can think of is "abhivyaktiyaaN" (expressions, manifestations etc)



Of course, Chhatr, since that "vyaktii" is feminine; see post 11 here.


----------



## marrish

nineth said:


> These examples are bad. One should ignore them if one wants to speak good Hindi. Replace vyaktiyaaN with vyakti everywhere and it will be perfectly fine.


Are the examples bad because they don't support the common usage or are they wrong because of their usage of plural _vyakti_?
I thought these sources can be considered as reliable. Disclaimer: as can be seen from the ''vyakti'' thread i don't have any qualms with the state of things but this discussion has another topic which is worth speculating. Therefore any possible remarks from any party to the discussion or even from those who are not taking part in it that the overwhelming usage is different will be redundant and missing the point of the subject at hand.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Of course, Chhatr, since that "vyaktii" is feminine; see post 11 here.


It is perhaps a good point, and ad rem too. Is vyaktii with 'ii' a typo or is it intended? In Hindi I have always read short i, unlike in Punjabi where it is long.



Chhaatr said:


> wouldn't mahilaa mean mohtarmaa in Urdu?


I'm sorry I missed this one. _mahilaa_ doesn't literally mean _muHtaramah_ (spelling!) still its usage can be quite similar. I believe the exact equivalent to Hindi _mahilaa_ would be _xaatuun_ but I leave it to the evaluation by other friends.
I would recommend opening a new thread for discussing the nuances.



QURESHPOR said:


> The context is given in my opening post. You seem to be missing the point. No doubt one can use a number of words for a woman, a lady, a girl etc. But the thread is about the female ending (eN/aaN) added to feminine nouns.
> 
> do vyakti kahiiN jaa rahii haiN
> 
> or
> 
> do vyaktiyaaN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN?
> 
> do dost kahiiN jaa rahii haiN
> 
> or
> 
> do dosteN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN?
> 
> And if "dosteN" is correct...then
> 
> do shaxs kahiiN jaa rahii haiN
> 
> or
> 
> do shaxseN kahiiN jaa rahii haiN?
> 
> This is basically what this thread is about.


Repetition is the key to success! In order to lead the thread onto the right track, I have a question in mind which can be essential to the discussion. Are there nouns in Urdu or in Hindi the gender of which is feminine but they don't take any plural marker when used in plural, especially those that don't end in a long -ii in the singular? Just to clarify: as we have chhat or bahan which are feminine nouns and they don't have the grammatical marker of the feminine gender (well there are masculine nouns ending in -ii, the prime example being bhaa'ii) but in plural they take the suffix -eN. As far as I am concerned it is impossible to say 'aap kii tiin bahan kahaaN haiN?" It has to be ''aap kii tiin bahaneN kahaaN haiN''. Is there any instance of a noun which functions as a feminine one that is not distinguished by the plural marker when used in plural, especially for the animated nouns because we are discussing ''a person'' in this thread?


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Is vyaktii with 'ii' a typo or is it intended?



A typo.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> There is certainly nothing wrong with _sahelii/saheliyaaN_ but the problem is that its meaning is quite not universal, unlike that of _dost_. A sentence *_QP SaaHib kii do saheliyaaN Bhaarat ghuumne ga'iiN_* does not seem correct.



Male Speaker for male friends: mere dost kahiiN jaa rahe the.

Male speaker for female friends: merii dost kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN*

Female speaker for male friends: mere dost kahiiN jaa rahe the

Female speaker for female friends: merii saheliyaaN kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN

                                            or: merii dost kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN

* marrish SaaHib. The problem with taking this as a plural of respect for a singular is not unique to female friends. This also applies to male friends "mere dost kahiiN jaa rahe the". So, why change dost to dosteN in the first instance when the "dost" in the second example can not be declined? For this reason I believe "dosteN" and by extension "shaxseN" is unnecessary and incorrect because one assumes that "dost" is intrinsically feminine when it is n't. Faiz's famous line...

mujh se pahlii sii muHabbat mirii maHbuub nah maaNg...shows that the speaker is a male and his "maHbuub" (beloved) is a female. Of course he could have used "mere" but by using "mirii" he is being precise.

Now coming to "vyakti". It has become quite clear from Hindi speakers' responses that they consider "vyakti" as a masculine noun. This is the very reason it can not change to "vyaktiyaaN" in the plural. Also, when used for females, unlike the Urdu "shaxs" and "aadaamii", it can not be used in situations illustrated below.

vuh ek bahut achchhii shaxs/aadaamii hai

vuh ek bahut achchhii vyakti hai 

One can possibly compare this with "dhobii" and "xazaanchii"

vuh ek bahut achchhaa dhobii hai 

vuh ek bahut achchhii dhobii hai

vuh ek bahut achchhaa xazaanchii hai

vuh ek bahut achchhii xazaanchii hai

I hope I have summarized this topic correctly.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> It is perhaps a good point, and ad rem too. Is vyaktii with 'ii' a typo or is it intended? In Hindi I have always read short i, unlike in Punjabi where it is long.
> 
> I'm sorry I missed this one. _mahilaa_ doesn't literally mean _muHtaramah_ (spelling!) still its usage can be quite similar. I believe the exact equivalent to Hindi _mahilaa_ would be _xaatuun_ but I leave it to the evaluation by other friends.
> I would recommend opening a new thread for discussing the nuances.
> 
> 
> Repetition is the key to success! In order to lead the thread onto the right track, I have a question in mind which can be essential to the discussion. Are there nouns in Urdu or in Hindi the gender of which is feminine but they don't take any plural marker when used in plural, especially those that don't end in a long -ii in the singular? Just to clarify: as we have chhat or bahan which are feminine nouns and they don't have the grammatical marker of the feminine gender (well there are masculine nouns ending in -ii, the prime example being bhaa'ii) but in plural they take the suffix -eN. As far as I am concerned it is impossible to say 'aap kii tiin bahan kahaaN haiN?" It has to be ''aap kii tiin bahaneN kahaaN haiN''. Is there any instance of a noun which functions as a feminine one that is not distinguished by the plural marker when used in plural, especially for the animated nouns because we are discussing ''a person'' in this thread?


marrish SaaHib, I can not think of any feminine nouns which do not take the plural "-eN" or "-aaN" suffix. 3aurateN, jourueN, davaa'eN, havaa'N. sthithi (position) in the plural would be "sthitiyaaN", I believe.


----------



## Chhaatr

While watching an Urdu drama today I came across _*dosteN*_. I haven't heard this in Hindi so far.


----------



## Qureshpor

Chhaatr said:


> While watching an Urdu drama today I came across _*dosteN*_. I haven't heard this in Hindi so far.


A clear sign that Urdu is not static as has been suggested in this forum, once or twice. (But  personally don't like this!)


----------



## panjabigator

Yeesh! I consider myself a descriptivist, but even I find that pluralization jarring. Curious, can you provide some demographic info about the characters who used such words?


----------



## Faylasoof

Chhaatr said:


> While watching an Urdu drama today I came across _*dosteN*_. I haven't heard this in Hindi so far.


 Chhaatr SaaHib, to answer your question, it depends in what context this plural was mentioned. I mean we say:

_meraa (ek) dost_ (masc. sing.)
_mere (das) dost_ (masc. plural) [not _*dosteN*_! See below !] 

But, 

_merii (ek) dost_ (fem. sing.)
_merii (das) *dosteN*_ (*fem. plural*)

These forms we are completely correct and used all the time.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Chhaatr SaaHib, to answer your question, it depends in what context this plural was mentioned. I mean we say:
> 
> _meraa (ek) dost_ (masc. sing.)
> _mere (das) dost_ (masc. plural) [not _*dosteN*_! See below !]
> 
> But,
> 
> _merii (ek) dost_ (fem. sing.)
> _merii (das) *dosteN*_ (*fem. plural*)
> 
> These forms we are completely correct and used all the time.


As a matter of interest Faylasoof SaaHib, is the occurrence of "dosteN" from times of old or a recent development? Have you come across this word in the speech or writings of any well known personality of Urdu background?


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> Originally Posted by *Faylasoof*
> Chhaatr SaaHib, to answer your question, it depends in what context this plural was mentioned. I mean we say:
> 
> _meraa (ek) dost_ (masc. sing.)
> _mere (das) dost_ (masc. plural) [not _*dosteN*_! See below !]
> 
> But,
> 
> _merii (ek) dost_ (fem. sing.)
> _merii (das) *dosteN*_ (*fem. plural*)
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of interest Faylasoof SaaHib, is the occurrence of "dosteN" from times of old or a recent development? Have you come across this word in the speech or writings of any well known personality of Urdu background?
Click to expand...


QP SaaHib, the short answer to your query is yes! Not only us but our friend, Mr. Iftikhar Arif, uses it and I've also heard it from those he regards as his _buzurg _when it comes to Urdu prose, poetry and lexicography, regardless of the fact that some of these persons happen to be much less well-known given that they were _goshah-nashiin_! I can PM you about whom I'm referring to if you really wish to know but these people are not merely one but two generations older than _3aarif SaaHib_.

BTW, there is a thread where _sahelii_ (fem.) vs  _dost_ (masc. and fem.) was discussed, *here*, and I just noticed your objection to *dosteN* but please let me assure you that this plural form for female friends is fully accepted by _urduu-daanaan_, not just some _urduu-goyaan_. 

.... and needless to say this pluralization relies on established Prakrit rules for female nouns (even if the feminine gender is only implied in the context, as is the case here) that don't end in -ii (letter _ye _in Urdu) or -ah in non-Indic feminine noun borrowings. 

So I absolutely agree with your earlier remark that Urdu is not static!


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Faylasoof SaaHib, I am most grateful to you for clearing a misunderstanding in my mind. I was under the impression that this "dosteN" was a recent development. No, I don't need any names since you have provided ample isnaad already. A matter of great surprise is that if Urdu has had dosteN for such a long time, why is this not reflected amongst Hindi speakers? Chhaatr SaaHib, from Lucknow, has n't come across it.


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> ^ Faylasoof SaaHib, I am most grateful to you for clearing a misunderstanding in my mind. I was under the impression that this "dosteN" was a recent development. No, I don't need any names since you have provided ample isnaad already. A matter of great surprise is that if Urdu has had dosteN for such a long time, why is this not reflected amongst Hindi speakers? Chhaatr SaaHib, from Lucknow, has n't come across it.


 QP SaaHib, it is hard to say when exactly _*dosteN*_ was accepted by _urduudaanaan_ but as far as present day _lakhnawii_ street language goes, I can say that it is mostly not the Urdu I know. In fact, much of what I hear now I'd call "media Hindi-Urdu-English" mix! The older speech can be heard in some areas still, otherwise in families who are maintaining it and using it in daily speech and written communications across the country and internationally.

.... and we should also remember that Awadhi is also used there!


----------



## Chhaatr

PG SaaHib the lady character was from a well do to business family from Karachi and was referring to her female friends.  _merii to ko'ii dosteN bhii nahiiN haiN.

_Faylasoof SaaHib, it is indeed a surprising discovery for me that this word is correct and commonly used in Urdu.  I'll be on the look out for this usage in Hindi.


----------



## marrish

^ Yes, it is so, I suggested it before too  and I'm now glad for F. SaaHib's confirming it:


marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib,[,,,}You have furnished us with two scenarios for consideration:
> 
> 1) _shaxs/dost_ (related to a female) used with a plural feminine verb, the noun _shaxs/dost_ left unchanged.
> 2) -||-----------------------------------------------------------||-, the noun _shaxs/dost_ bearing the suffix of pl. f.
> 
> The last sentence, _merii dost kahiiN jaa rahii thiiN_, if dost left unaltered, *is certainly correct* but turns out to be confusing because it implies that _dost_ (f.) is being referred to by honorific plural and is a single person. *The only way to convey the message of a few female friends so that there is no doubt regarding this meaning would be marking the plural of the said noun.*


----------



## Chhaatr

^ Well noted your point Marrish SaaHib.  Have you used _dosteN_ and heard people using it?


----------



## marrish

Yes, Chhaatr SaaHIb, I've heard and used it.


----------



## marrish

The following couplet was found in Farhang-e-Asafiyyah, which I'm sharing by way of _isnaad_, where another word  for 'a friend' is not only used with unquestionably feminine verbal forms but also with the feminine marker -eN in the Nominative plural,

کئی ہَمدمیں تھِیں جو کُچھ کُچھ پڑھِیں ________ دُعائیں وُہ پڑھ پڑھ کے آگے بڑھِیں (میر حسن)

_ka'ii *hamdameN* thiiN jo kuchh kuchh paRhiiN __ du3aa'eN wuh paRh paRh ke aage baRhiiN_​(Miir Hasan, 1717 Dehli - 1786 Lakhnau).


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> The following couplet was found in Farhang-e-Asafiyyah, which I'm sharing by way of _isnaad_, where another word  for 'a friend' is not only used with unquestionably feminine verbal forms but also with the feminine marker -eN in the Nominative plural,
> 
> کئی ہَمدمیں تھِیں جو کُچھ کُچھ پڑھِیں ________ دُعائیں وُہ پڑھ پڑھ کے آگے بڑھِیں (میر حسن)
> 
> _ka'ii *hamdameN* thiiN jo kuchh kuchh paRhiiN __ du3aa'eN wuh paR paRh ke aage baRhiiN_​(Miir Hasan, 1717 Dehli - 1786 Lakhnau).


Thank you marrish SaaHib for this gem. I have re-read the whole thread and I still can't get over "dosteN". Now, it should make it easier!


----------



## marrish

You're most welcome! I think it's the first time we have got any recorded usage, and that quite ancient, too.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> You're most welcome! I think it's the first time we have got any recorded usage, and that quite ancient, too.


How do you explain پڑھیں in the first misra3?


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> How do you explain پڑھیں in the first misra3?


Mmmh I knew it I was asking for problems by copying it! In any case, it's not _paRheN_. A short answer is: because it's old, but that's escaping the question.
Doesn't it fall into the category of those verbs which can either take "ne" or go without it, of the sort of samajhnaa lenaa etc.?


----------

