# Hindi/Urdu: baaise बाइसे



## lafz_puchnevala

Hi,

Can't seem to find any useful context for this? Anybody has any ideas about this word?

Thanks!


----------



## Faylasoof

If you Google बाइसे you get many hits! However I can see your problem, I think, because this is a good example of how an _izaafat_ would be written in the Nagri script and may not be indicated in dictionaries. I haven't had the time to check this as yet but that is my guess. 

The word you are looking for is *this *:باعث _baa3ith_ and *baa3ith-e- *-- an _izaafat_ construct. 

A *باعث bāʻis̤* (part. act. of بعث, 'to send'), s.m. (f. ?),  Occasion, _*cause, reason, motive, incentive;*_ subject, author;—postposn. _*Because (of, -ke), by reason (of); on account (of), by means (of).*_


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

So, can I use this word without the izaafat, like how one uses 'sabab' or 'kaaran', the later being more frequently used in Hindi...  '*Eg. mulk mein bahumat logon ko mulaazmat nahin ke baaise aam log hakoomat par na-khush hue.'* In the country majority of the ordinary people do not have employment so they became unhappy with the government.

Does it sound fine?

Thanks!


----------



## Alfaaz

> '*Eg. mulk mein bahumat logon ko mulaazmat nahin ke baaise aam log hakoomat par na-khush hue.'*
> In the country majority of the ordinary people do not have employment so they became unhappy with the government.



Either your transliteration isn't making sense, you have a typo, or you have used Urdu or Hindi a word that I might not be aware of....

mulk mein bahimmat logoN ko mulaazmat naa milne ke baa'is, a'am log hukumat se na-khush hain.


----------



## Faylasoof

lafz_puchnevala said:


> So, can I use this word without the izaafat, like how one uses 'sabab' or 'kaaran', the later being more frequently used in Hindi...  '*Eg. mulk mein bahumat logon ko mulaazmat nahin ke baaise aam log hakoomat par na-khush hue.'* In the country majority of the ordinary people do not have employment so they became unhappy with the government.
> 
> Does it sound fine?
> 
> Thanks!


 Alfaaz SaaHib, he means *बहुमत* _bahumat_ = majority / relative majority! 

Anyway, the answer is yes you can use _baa3ith_ without the _izaafat_! Alfaaz has already given you an example.

Your sentence needs alterations! There are many ways to say this but yes you can use _baa3ith_ in the same way as _sabab _and _kaaran_. We don’t use _kaaran_ that much in Urdu (at least not _our_ Urdu) though of course it exists in our lexicons:

_mulk meN ziyaadatar 3aam logon kii mulaazimat nahiiN hai is ke baa3ith / is kii wajah se / is ke kaaran woh Hukuumat sa naa-xush ho ga’e_ / _haiN_ (<- depending on what you really meant to say in the English version!)

_mulk meN ziyaadatar 3aam logon kii mulaazimat nah hone ke baa3ith / nah hone par / nah hone kii wajah se / nah hone ke kaaran woh Hukuumat sa naa-xush ho ga’e_ / _haiN._

_beshtar _instead of _ziyaadatar_ can also be used, as well as _akthariyyat _( pronounced _aktharyat_ in common speech!), but then that would require tweaking the sentence yet again!


----------



## Alfaaz

> Alfaaz SaaHib, he means *बहुमत* _bahumat_ = majority / relative majority!



Sorry, but I'm not recognizing it...is this a Hindi word? Could you please write that in Urdu script? Thanks.


----------



## Faylasoof

Alfaaz said:


> Alfaaz SaaHib, he means *बहुमत* _bahumat_ = majority / relative majority!
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not recognizing it...is this a Hindi word? Could you please write that in Urdu script? Thanks.
Click to expand...

 We don't have it in Urdu but I guess it'll be like  something like this: بہمت  _bahumat_.


----------



## Alfaaz

> We don't have it in Urdu but I guess it'll be like something like this: بہمت _bahumat_.


OK, thanks. That's probably why I wasn't able to recognize it...


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

Alfaaz said:


> Either your transliteration isn't making sense, you have a typo, or you have used Urdu or Hindi a word that I might not be aware of....
> 
> mulk mein bahimmat logoN ko mulaazmat naa milne ke baa'is, a'am log hukumat se na-khush hain.



If I wanted it to be in past tense, it should have been 'na-khush the'?


----------



## Alfaaz

> If I wanted it to be in past tense, it should have been 'na-khush the'?


I was confused about this in your OP, as Faylasoof has explained above:


> Alfaaz SaaHib, he means *बहुमत* _bahumat_ = majority / relative majority!


 Yes, in the past tense it should be 'na-khush the'.


----------



## marrish

lafz_puchnevala said:


> So, can I use this word without the izaafat, like how one uses 'sabab' or 'kaaran', the later being more frequently used in Hindi...  '*Eg. mulk mein bahumat logon ko mulaazmat nahin ke baaise aam log hakoomat par na-khush hue.'* In the country majority of the ordinary people do not have employment so they became unhappy with the government.
> 
> Does it sound fine?
> 
> Thanks!


If your quest for knowledge is genuine, please extract it from the previous answers 

Faylasoof SaaHib had stated that you may use this word in Urdu without helping yourself to the izaafat construction, but then, it is _baa3is_, not _baa3is-e_.


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

marrish said:


> If your quest for knowledge is genuine, please extract it from the previous answers
> 
> Faylasoof SaaHib had stated that you may use this word in Urdu without helping yourself to the izaafat construction, but then, it is _baa3is_, not _baa3is-e_.



I would appreciate it if someone writes 'baa-is' in Hindi.

Thanks!


----------



## souminwé

Sorry, lafz, but baa'ise is not actually used in Hindi. All the Google hits are Urdu written in Devanagari - baa'is means nothing but "twenty two" to most people.

In regular Hindi, your example sentence is more likely to be:
*
Mulk meN zyaadatar aam logoN ke paas rozgaar na hone ke vaj'h/kaaran se, vo sarkaar se na-xush hu'e/haiN.

*We never say mulaazimat in Hindi. Hindi speakers understand and in some case indeed use "hukuumat", but we much prefer "sarkaar" in this context.


----------



## Alfaaz

> In regular Hindi, your example sentence is more likely to be:
> *
> Mulk meN zyaadatar aam logoN ke paas rozgaar na hone ke vaj'h/kaaran se, vo sarkaar se na-xush hu'e/haiN.
> 
> *We never say mulaazimat in Hindi. Hindi speakers understand and in some case indeed use "hukuumat", but we much prefer "sarkaar" in this context.



Interesting! What would be the Hindi words for the following list? (just asking out of curiosity and to learn new words, not to start a debate or anything else...)
Mulk: desh
ziyaadah-tar: 
'aam:
rozgaar:
na-khush:
sarkaar: rajneeti...?


----------



## souminwé

Those words _are_ Hindi.
I know, I'm being knit-picky, and I know you mean to say "what are the Sanskritic synonyms of these words?", however this "what are the Hindi equivalents of these words?" terminology is very misleading.

_Zyaadatar_: 85% of the time, we say _zyaadatar_. _Adhiktar_ is the shuddh equivalent
_aam_: _aam_ is always _aam_. You could say "_saadhaaran_", but it's more common to use it in phrases like "Common Law", "General Disclaimer" etc. But _aam_ is as integral to Hindi as _maiN aur tum_.
_rozgaar_: I don't know any word other than _rozgaar_ (except perhaps _naukri_).
_Na-xush: aprasann, asantuST, atrpt_. In this usage _asantuST_ is the closest in meaning to _na-xush._
_sarkaar: sarkaar _is always _sarkaar_. (Raajniiti means politics)

So, we can re-write the sentence as:
देश में अधिकतर साधारण लोगों के पास रोज़गार न होने के कारण से, वे सरकार से असंतुष्ट हैं


----------



## Alfaaz

> Those words _are_ Hindi.
> I know, I'm being knit-picky, and I know you mean to say "what are the Sanskritic synonyms of these words?", however this "what are the Hindi equivalents of these words?" terminology is very misleading.
> 
> Zyaadatar: 80% of the time, zyaadatar. "Adhiktar" is the shuddh equivalent
> aam: aam is always aam. You could say "saadhaaran" if you mean to use it in the sense of "Common Law". But aam is integral to Hindi as maiN aur tum.
> rozgaar: I don't know any word other than rozgaar.
> Na-xush: aprasann, asantuST, atrpt. In this usage asantuST is the closest in meaning to na-xush.
> sarkaar: sarkaar is always sarkaar. (Raajniiti means politics)



Thanks for the reply! So there are no (Sanskritic) words for common, job/employment, and government...? (not sure, but have heard some word for 'aam on TV "woh ______ si laRki hai...")

*Edit:* OK, reading your edited version helps and makes more sense (about saadhaaran)! Thanks.


----------



## souminwé

Are you sure you don't mean _maamuuli si_?

Sorry, I edited that post and hopefully it's more clear. There is "saadhaaran" for "common" be we use "aam" so often that "saadhaaran" might as well not exist except in phrases.

I've never heard anything other than "sarkaar" and I think there may be a Sanskritic equivalent for "rozgaar" but I think it's safe to say it's very very uncommon. Besides, "be-rozgaari" is such a buzz word these days that it's ousted anything else.


----------



## Alfaaz

> Are you sure you don't mean _maamuuli si_?


No, I would have understood ma'muulii....; perhaps it was some other word/meant something else and I misinterpreted it to mean 'aam...;



> Besides, "be-rozgaari" is such a buzz word these days that it's ousted anything else.


Unfortunately/Sadly, very true!


----------



## Faylasoof

souminwé said:


> Sorry, lafz, but baa'ise is not actually used in Hindi. All the Google hits are Urdu written in Devanagari - baa'is means nothing but "twenty two" to most people.
> 
> _*In regular Hindi*_, your example sentence is more likely to be:
> *
> Mulk meN zyaadatar aam logoN ke paas rozgaar na hone ke vaj'h/kaaran se, vo sarkaar se na-xush hu'e/haiN.
> 
> *We never say mulaazimat in Hindi. Hindi speakers understand and in some case indeed use "hukuumat", but we much prefer "sarkaar" in this context.


 _*With all respect, this is regular Urdu too! In fact, it is Urdu!
*__
BTW, _*rozgaar* also means _time, age, period_ etc. which is why it is better to use _*rozii *_ instead:  *rozii na hone kii wajah (vajah)* **se**/ ke kaaran ... *_* 

**It is in fact* 'wajh / vajh' *but* 'wajah / vajah' *is common for the sake of ease of pronunciation. We regularly do this for words with consonantal endings. True for Arabic and Persian too. The issue has been discussed in a number of threads and in the Arabic forum too!_


----------



## Faylasoof

Alfaaz said:


> Interesting! What would be the Hindi words for the following list? (just asking out of curiosity and to learn new words, not to start a debate or anything else...)
> Mulk: desh
> ziyaadah-tar:
> 'aam:
> rozgaar:
> na-khush:
> sarkaar: rajneeti...?


*Moderator note:
We are discussing baa3ith in this thread and although we are prone to drift into side discussions about some words in posts here and there it'll be best to start new threads for all these words, otherwise this thread would get derailed! When that starts to happen, the moderators will delete all off-topic posts! So please open new threads so that we may properly discuss what is obviously very useful vocabulary !
*


----------

