# Urdu, Hindi: do baseN khaa'ii meN girne se nau halaak



## marrish

Today on the BBC Urdu service I read the following heading:

دو بسیں کھائی میں گرنے سے نو ہلاک Transliteration: _do baseN*__ khaa'ii meN girne se nau halaak_**

*_baseN_: buses 
**_halaak_: killed

In the byline the article goes on to say:

دو بسوں کے کھائی میں گرنے سے کم از کم نو افراد ہلاک اور 20 سے زیادہ زخمی ہوگئے ہیں۔ 
_do basoN ke ghaa'ii meN girne se kam-az-kam* nau afraad** halaak aur 20 se ziyaadah zaxmii*** ho ga'e haiN.

*kam-az-kam: _at least
**_afraad_: persons
***_zaxmii_: wounded, injured

I would like to ask two questions to discuss:

1) I am under the impression that the heading is clumsy. Is it acceptable? Has anyone read something in this style, whether in Urdu or Hindi?
2) I know that most of the time ''wounded, injured'' is घायल _ghaayal_ in Hindi news. Which word(s) are used in the news for ''killed, dead''?


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Would your headline be in the same vein as..?

دوعورتیں بهرے بازار میں لڑنےسےاِس پاکیزہ شہر کی مٹی پلید ھوگئی۔

do 3aurateN bhare baazaar meN laRne se is paakiizah shahr kii miTTii paliid ho ga'ii!


----------



## marrish

Yes, exactly! This is exactly the same pattern! Great, I've never seen this kind of thing before reading the sentence on BBC.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Today on the BBC Urdu service I read the following heading:
> 
> دو بسیں کھائی میں گرنے سے نو ہلاک Transliteration: _do baseN*__ khaa'ii meN girne se nau halaak_**
> 
> *_baseN_: buses
> **_halaak_: killed
> 
> In the byline the article goes on to say:
> 
> دو بسوں کے کھائی میں گرنے سے کم از کم نو افراد ہلاک اور 20 سے زیادہ زخمی ہوگئے ہیں۔
> _do basoN ke ghaa'ii meN girne se kam-az-kam* nau afraad** halaak aur 20 se ziyaadah zaxmii*** ho ga'e haiN.
> 
> *kam-az-kam: _at least
> **_afraad_: persons
> ***_zaxmii_: wounded, injured
> 
> I would like to ask two questions to discuss:
> 
> 1) I am under the impression that the heading is clumsy. Is it acceptable? Has anyone read something in this style, whether in Urdu or Hindi?
> 2) I know that most of the time ''wounded, injured'' is घायल _ghaayal_ in Hindi news. Which word(s) are used in the news for ''killed, dead''?


1) Yes I've read such headlines before, e.g. _do baseN Takraane se _.....
2) jii, urduu meN bhii ghaayal isti3maal hotaa hae, magar zaxmii kuchh ziyaadah.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> 1) Yes I've read such headlines before, e.g. _do baseN Takraane se _.....
> 2) jii, urduu meN bhii ghaayal isti3maal hotaa hae, magar zaxmii kuchh ziyaadah.


Thank you!
Re. 1) do baseN Takraane se... xaraab ho ga'iiN?
Re. 2) jii zaruur, yih urduu kii baat to Thiik hae lekin sawaal hiNdii axbaaroN se muta3alliq hae kih ba-jaa'e halaak kaun-saa lafz raa'iju-l-3aam hae.


----------



## Abu Talha

This could be journalese brought over from the English press. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_plunge


----------



## Dib

I think, instead of "halaak" "maare gaye" is used in Hindi. Please, wait for confirmation from proper sources though.


----------



## Chhaatr

Yes "maare gaye" is used. 

You would also come across "mauteN" but that would be for "deaths"


----------



## littlepond

In Hindi, the headline would mostly go something like this: "do busoN kaa khaai mein girne se nau kii maut". According to me, "maare gaye" is certainly common, but in such headlines: "sarkaari kaaryalaya par hamlaa, paanch mare gaye" or "maare gaye apraadhiyoN ke shav* baraamad" (usually "maare gaye" implies an animate agent who has done the maar daalna business - unless not for the romantic sense). We also have headlines like "shiit lehar kii chapeT meiN paanch mare".

* corpses


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> In Hindi, the headline would mostly go something like this: "do busoN kaa khaai mein girne se nau kii maut". According to me, "maare gaye" is certainly common, but in such headlines: "sarkaari kaaryalaya par hamlaa, paanch mare gaye" or "maare gaye apraadhiyoN ke shav* baraamad" (usually "maare gaye" implies an animate agent who has done the maar daalna business - unless not for the romantic sense). We also have headlines like "shiit lehar kii chapeT meiN paanch mare".
> * corpses


This would certainly be better and grammatically accurate.

do basoN *ke* khaa'ii meN girne se nau kii maut

or

do basoN *ke* khaa'ii meN girne se nau Halaak (more from Urdu perspective)


----------



## littlepond

^ I don't know about grammar recommendations, but I _personally _feel there's a difference. When you use "ke", it tightly couples "girnaa" with the bus(es). When you use "kaa", it lays more emphasis on "girnaa" as the noun and decouples it with what actually fell. Difficult to explain.


----------



## Qureshpor

littlepond said:


> ^ I don't know about grammar recommendations, but I _personally _feel there's a difference. When you use "ke", it tightly couples "girnaa" with the bus(es). When you use "kaa", it lays more emphasis on "girnaa" as the noun and decouples it with what actually fell. Difficult to explain.


I think I follow your train of thought.

If you remove "khaa'ii meN", you will see that "kaa" does not work and it has to be "ke".


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Originally Posted by *Faylasoof*1) Yes I've read such headlines before, e.g. _do baseN Takraane se _.....
> 2) jii, urduu meN bhii ghaayal isti3maal hotaa hae, magar zaxmii kuchh ziyaadah.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> Re. 1) do baseN Takraane se... xaraab ho ga'iiN?
> Re. 2) jii zaruur, yih urduu kii baat to Thiik hae lekin sawaal hiNdii axbaaroN se muta3alliq hae kih ba-jaa'e halaak kaun-saa lafz raa'iju-l-3aam hae.
Click to expand...

 Exactly marrish SaaHib, these constructions are accepted!

_do seb sar par girne se niuuTan [Newton] SaaHib saxt naaraaDh / xafaa / bezaar 

do bhaarii bharkam aur haikal tarbuuz sar par girne se niuuTan [Newton] SaaHib ghaayal / zaxmii / majruuH/ halaak / maare gae / faut ho gae etc.

laRaa'ii larne se ka'ii afraad zaxmii ho gae 

__do baasii roTiyaaN khaane se un ke peT meN saxt dard huwaa_

etc. 

All these constructs are grammatically correct _and_ idiomatic.

In headlines, as you know,  they often drop "ho gae / ho gayaa / huwaa"  etc., for reasons of compactness / brevity but the rest of the construct is just fine. 


_.... aur janaab aap kaa hindii-goyaan se jo xiTaab thaa woh bilkul Saaf o Zaahir thaa. meraa maqSad Sirf ek urdu-go kii Taraf se waDhaaHat karnnaa thaa keh yeh lafZ ham bhii isti3maal karteN haiN aur is ke siwaa kuchh nah thaa. magar yeh Dharuur hae keh rozaanah kii urduu meN "zaxmii" ziyaadah musta3mal hae.

_


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I hope I have n't misunderstood you Faylasoof SaaHib but surely you don't mean to say that..

_do baseN girne se nau afraad halaak ho ga'e

_..is correct, do you?

Is _"do baseN" _equivalent to _"do basoN ke"?_


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> ^ I hope I have n't misunderstood you Faylasoof SaaHib but surely you don't mean to say that..
> 
> _do baseN girne se nau afraad halaak ho ga'e
> 
> _..is correct, do you?
> 
> Is _"do baseN" _equivalent to _"do basoN ke"?_


 QP SaaHib, you haven't misunderstood me! This expression is just like: _do baasii roTiyaaN khaane se ..... ,_ instead of_, do baasii rotiyoN ko / ke khaane se ...._.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof SaaHib, QP SaaHib and all,

All the examples given by Faylasoof SaaHib are perfectly fine, so far so good but my taking is that they all are different from the quoted heading.

Just to clarify because I can feel there is some confusion:

*1) do roTiyaaN khaane se* ek shaxs biimaar hu'aa.

is not the same as:

*2) do baseN/gaaRiyaaN girne se* nau halaak hu'e.

Am I right to suppose that in the first sentence (which is analogous to all F. SaaHib's idiomatic examples) the ''agens'' (agent) and ''patiens'' (in this case ''patient''!) are one and the same?

Is it OK to accept that in the second sentence, although ''falling of the buses'' directly resulted in ''dying of nine'', the first clause is an action where the buses are involved while the second clause describes an action (well, change of state is probably better) of nine individuals, not the one of the buses?


Faylasoof said:


> [...]All these constructs are grammatically correct _and_ idiomatic.
> 
> In headlines, as you know, they often drop "ho gae / ho gayaa / huwaa" etc., for reasons of compactness / brevity but the rest of the construct is just fine.
> 
> 
> _.... aur janaab aap kaa hindii-goyaan se jo xiTaab thaa woh bilkul Saaf o Zaahir thaa. meraa maqSad Sirf ek urdu-go kii Taraf se waDhaaHat karnnaa thaa keh yeh lafZ ham bhii isti3maal karteN haiN aur is ke siwaa kuchh nah thaa. magar yeh Dharuur hae keh rozaanah kii urduu meN "zaxmii" ziyaadah musta3mal hae._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abu Talha said:
> 
> 
> 
> This could be journalese brought over from the English press. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_plunge
Click to expand...

_Huzuur-e-vaalaa kaa be Hadd shukriyah. yih zikr karnaa kih ghaa'il urduu kaa bhii lafz hae to zaruurii thaa warnah baat adhuurii rah jaatii. 
_
Yes, compactness is a must for a title and English leans itself easily to it but perhaps the editors of this Urdu article tried too hard to do their best?

Because of this mention, I would like to make another request to all members. What can be done to present all the information in this title but make it even shorter and, for my part, better? 

Of course I am requesting the help and creative approach of both Hindi- and Urduphones and all words can be changed


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib, QP SaaHib and all,
> 
> All the examples given by Faylasoof SaaHib are perfectly fine, so far so good but my taking is that they all are different from the quoted heading.
> 
> Just to clarify because I can feel there is some confusion:
> 
> *1) do roTiyaaN khaane se* ek shaxs biimaar hu'aa.
> 
> is not the same as:
> 
> *2) do baseN/gaaRiyaaN girne se* nau halaak hu'e.
> 
> Am I right to suppose that in the first sentence (which is analogous to all F. SaaHib's idiomatic examples) the ''agens'' (agent) and ''patiens'' (in this case ''patient''!) are one and the same?
> 
> Is it OK to accept that in the second sentence, although ''falling of the buses'' directly resulted in ''dying of nine'', the first clause is an action where the buses are involved while the second clause describes an action (well, change of state is probably better) of nine individuals, not the one of the buses?
> _Huzuur-e-vaalaa kaa be Hadd shukriyah. yih zikr karnaa kih ghaa'il urduu kaa bhii lafz hae to zaruurii thaa warnah baat adhuurii rah jaatii.
> _
> Yes, compactness is a must for a title and English leans itself easily to it but perhaps the editors of this Urdu article tried too hard to do their best?
> 
> Because of this mention, I would like to make another request to all members. What can be done to present all the information in this title but make it even shorter and, for my part, better?
> 
> Of course I am requesting the help and creative approach of both Hindi- and Urduphones and all words can be changed


 marrish SaaHib I gave some other examples too! We can of course take all of them and start dissecting them but the point was not that they convey the same meaning in terms of the agent (faa3il) and the recipeint of action (mafuul)! It is the gramatical construction we are talking of and for that reason I presented the second "roTii" example as an alternative. I know what you are driving at but my point was something else. Another of my earlier example concenred my reference to the famous (may be apocraphyl) incidence of an apple falling on Newton's head. 

_janaab niuuTan SaaHib ke sar par ek bhaarii bharkam chiiz girne se agar woh halaak ho jaate to Zaahirii Taur par farq nah hotaa keh woh chiiz ek bas hotii yaa ek kalaaN or haikal tarbuuz! har Haalat meN woh allaah ko piyaare ho jaate! yeh ziyaadah behtar mithaal hai illaa yeh keh ham bas meN to daaxil ho sakte haiN magar tarbuuz meN hargiz nahiiN. yeh nuktah Sirf waDhaaHat kii xaaTir pesh hae . Dhimnan maziid amthaal pesh-e-xidmat haiN:

diiwaar girne se / chaTaan girne se / ghar girne se / jahaaz girne se / haathii girne se ka'ii afraad be-Hiss o be-jaan_ _(ho gae)_ / _luqma-e-ajal ban gae_.

_aur ixtiSaar kii guzaarish yuuN pur ho saktii hae_:

_(do) baseN khaa'ii meN, nau halaak!_  <--- Shorter no doubt but is it better or not depends on how one feels about headlines and brevity.


----------



## marrish

Firstly I'd like to thank you for the abridged version, it's perhaps the shortest possible (at least in Urdu); perhaps it can be even more concise in Hindi???

When we have enough versions we can proceed onto discussing their aesthetics and perhaps come to a consensus as to how this title actually ought to have been.

All of your examples are great and those about Newton and _tarbuuz_ are amusing! I agree we need not analyse each and every possible example. Am I right that the grammatical construction which you illustrated is in essence:

oblique infinitive (_karn*e*, hon*e*, girn*e*_ etc.) + postposition *se* (/_ke baa3is/ke natiije meN_/etc.) 
+ Subject (_faa3il_/agent or recipient of action/_maf3uul_) + result of action

If this is what is being meant by you then I of course I agree with it. It is one of aspects this sentence/heading provides us with for discussion.

You say that you know what I'm driving at and I'm glad you do, so I'd like to ask you, helping myself to your last example. What this sentence is supposed to look like when there is no singular _diiwaar_ but plural?

_diiwaar girne se ka'ii afraad be-Hiss o be-jaan (ho gae) / luqma-e-ajal ban gae.

mihmaan-nawaazii ke Hawaale se bus aur tarbuuz kii gunjaa'ish par raushanii Daalne waalii wazaaHat bhii bi-l-kul bajaa hae, Faylasoof SaaHib _


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Firstly I'd like to thank you for the abridged version, it's perhaps the shortest possible (at least in Urdu); perhaps it can be even more concise in Hindi???
> 
> When we have enough versions we can proceed onto discussing their aesthetics and perhaps come to a consensus as to how this title actually ought to have been.
> 
> All of your examples are great and those about Newton and _tarbuuz_ are amusing! I agree we need not analyse each and every possible example. Am I right that the grammatical construction which you illustrated is in essence:
> 
> oblique infinitive (_karn*e*, hon*e*, girn*e*_ etc.) + postposition *se* (/_ke baa3is/ke natiije meN_/etc.)
> + Subject (_faa3il_/agent or recipient of action/_maf3uul_) + result of action
> 
> If this is what is being meant by you then I of course I agree with it. It is one of aspects this sentence/heading provides us with for discussion.
> 
> You say that you know what I'm driving at and I'm glad you do, so I'd like to ask you, helping myself to your last example. What this sentence is supposed to look like when there is no singular _diiwaar_ but plural?
> 
> _diiwaar girne se ka'ii afraad be-Hiss o be-jaan (ho gae) / luqma-e-ajal ban gae.
> 
> mihmaan-nawaazii ke Hawaale se bus aur tarbuuz kii gunjaa'ish par raushanii Daalne waalii wazaaHat bhii bi-l-kul bajaa hae, Faylasoof SaaHib _


_marrish SaaHIb,  aap be-3ainihi usii Tar(a)h in jumloN kii SaHiiH naHwii tarkiib samjhe haiN jaisaa __yeh naachiiz samjhaa __aur __Haalat-e-jam(a)3 meN in sab kii yeh shakl ho gii:_

_diiwaar*eN*  girne se / chaTaan*eN*  girne se / ghar girne se / jahaaz girne se / haathii  girne se ka'ii afraad be-Hiss o be-jaan_ _(ho gae)_ / _luqma-e-ajal  ban gae_.

Same as _bas*eN* girne se_ ....

Alternatively, of course these, just for the sake of completeness:

_diiwaar*oN* *ke *girne se / chaTaan*oN* *ke *girne se / ghar*oN* *ke *girne se / jahaaz*oN* *ke *girne se / haathii*yoN* *ke *girne se ka'ii afraad be-Hiss o be-jaan_ _(ho gae)_ / _luqma-e-ajal  ban gae_.


----------

