# Urdu-Hindi: Past tense construction to depict future



## Qureshpor

In the thread entitled, "To agree", Alfaaz wrote the following..



Alfaaz said:


> "As soon as we agree on it, I will tell you." OR "As soon as we have agreed on it, I will tell you".
> 
> You could probably say this a number of ways:
> 
> _jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya, main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii
> jooN hi hum us par muttafiq hue, main tumhein ittilaa' de dooN gaa/gi
> jab hi hum us par raazi hue, main tumhein khabar de dooN gaa/gii _



In post 5, I replied by saying, "Alfaaz's sentences are correct, even though they appear to use a past tense".

gb, in posts 7, 9 and 17 stated..



greatbear said:


> To me at least, Alfaaz's Urdu sentences do seem wrong grammatically.





greatbear said:


> Alfaaz's sentences sound simply wrong to me.





greatbear said:


> In a sentence like "_jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya, main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii_", the first part is anchored in the past, something that has already taken place: there is no scope for imagining a future.
> 
> "_jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya, vaise hii tamashaa khaRaa ho gayaa"_ would be a right sentence for me, rather ("As soon as we agreed upon it, we had a row on our hands").



gb's "unease" over the type of construction Alfaaz has employed was a topic of conversation in another thread where another "native" Hindi speaker did not feel this construction was correct. I have to confess that I do find this quite surprising because we use such sentences on a daily basis, in both Urdu and Hindi.

A mutual friend knows that gb and I are great pals of one another. He wants a birthday card to be delivered to gb and hands it to me to be passed onto him. I say to him..

jyuuN hii mujhe gb milaa, maiN use yih kaarD de duuN gaa.

nah milaa to?

bhaa'ii, agar nah milaa to maiN yih kaarD tumheN vaapas kar duuN gaa. tum fikr nah karo!

You can see that the construction is in the past tense, yet in both the temporal and conditional sentences, the meaning is in the future. In case people think this is not Hindi, those who have access to McGregor's Hindi Grammar can verify this point. I shall quote from C.M.Naim's "Introductory Urdu" (1999)

"vuh aayaa..this short sentence will generally be translated as "He came", but that does not imply that the perfect participle always means that the act of coming occurred before the speech act. In a conditional phrase, e.g "agar vuh aayaa to" "If he comes", the same participle expresses an act that would happen after the speech act. Further, in a slightly modified form ,"lo vuh aa gayaa", "There he's come"--it will indicate that the act of the participle was almost simultaneous with the speech act. What is common to all is the expression with some certainty that *it was/is/will be* a single complete instance of coming". (My emphasis).

In another place, while discussing conditional sentences, C.M.Naim states..

“Most of the time the main clause in these sentences would express either a weak supposition or assertion about the future act—expressed within the subjunctive form of the verb , often with the addition of the adverb “shaayad” (perhaps)—or a strong supposition or assertion—expressed with the future form. If the main clause contains a future form, the verb in the conditional clause, would be in the subjunctive, future, or *perfect participle*, *depending on the degree of certainty the speaker feels concerning the possible occurrence of the act—the subjunctive expressing the least certainty. *(My emphasis)

What this implies is this: When the speaker uses the past tense construction, he/she is telling the person spoken to that in their mind the proposed action is so certain to take place that you might as well consider that it has already happened. And if it has already happened, then we use the past tense!

A "classic" illustration of this would be..

kahaaN mar ga'e ho bhaa'ii, khaanaa laa'o!

abhii *laayaa* Huzuur!

Finally, here is a sentence which all of you will find of interest(from Platts, who has used almost invariably real sentences from Urdu literature)

agar paadshah aise logoN kii jhuuTh*-sach baateN *sun_ne lagaa* aur asl Haal kii *taHqiiq par iltifaat nah kii* to tarH-tarH kii xaraabiyaaN *paidaa hu'iiN*!

If the king *begins to listen* to the misrepresentations of such persons, and *does not attempt to inquire* into the actual facts of the case, various kinds of evils *will result. *​(my emphasis)

*Edit: juuth changed to jhuuTh


----------



## Alfaaz

Interesting thread, though I didn't understand some of the things; For example, 


> In post 5, I replied by saying, "Alfaaz's sentences are correct, _even though they appear to use a past tense_".


Would it not have been past tense if thaa was used: _jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya (thaa), main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii_...?

Without the thaa, it seemed to be the _near future _(again, not sure): _achha, tum abhi jaa'o!_ jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya _(jo ke kuchh hi aur ghanToN ki baat hai)_, main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii...?

Edit: actually, now it seems to make sense...the above wasn't a good question! The tense could change depending on whether it is thaa, hai, or hogaa...or context.


----------



## panjabigator

Very interesting that Hindi speakers are uncomfortable with these types of statements. I hear them all the time.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Interesting thread, though I didn't understand some of the things; For example,
> 
> Would it not have been past tense if thaa was used: _jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya (thaa), main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii_...?
> 
> Without the thaa, it seemed to be the _near future _(again, not sure): _achha, tum abhi jaa'o!_ jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya _(jo ke kuchh hi aur ghanToN ki baat hai)_, main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii...?
> 
> Edit: actually, now it seems to make sense...the above wasn't a good question! The tense could change depending on whether it is thaa, hai, or hogaa...or context.



When I said, ""Alfaaz's sentences are correct, even though they *appear* to use a past tense", I meant that even though the construction is a past one, the meaning is future. 

_jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya (thaa), main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii_...?

The above is rather nonsensical. At least this is how it appears to me. With auxiliary "thaa", it will naturally place the time in the past.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for replying!


> The above is rather nonsensical. At least this is how it appears to me.


Yes, I completely agree! That's why (after rereading and rethinking) I edited and said: 


> Edit: actually, now it seems to make sense...the above wasn't a good question!


----------



## nineth

I'm going to repost it here.



QURESHPOR said:


> gb, to me your sentence translates as..
> 
> Alfaaz's Urdu sentences are perfectly correct and they all equate to the English "As soon as we agree".
> 
> _jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya, main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii
> _


This is just not correct Hindi. I guess it's due to a literal  translation of "As soon as we have agreed on it, I will tell you", but  it's not used that way in Hindi. Instead,

As soon as we agree on this -> jaise hii hum is par raazii ho jayeNge 
As soon as we have agreed on this -> jaise hii hum is par raazii ho  jayeNgey / jaise hii hum is par raazii ho gaye hoNgey / jaise hii hum is  par raazi ho chukey hoNgey  (all three are fine)

If you want to use future perfect (will have agreed), an appropriate use and translation is

We will have agreed by the time you reach -> Tumhaarey pahuNchney tak  hum raazi ho chukey hoNgey / Tumhaarey pahuNchney tak hum raazi ho  gayay hoNgey


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> In the thread entitled, "To agree", Alfaaz wrote the following..
> 
> 
> 
> In post 5, I replied by saying, "Alfaaz's sentences are correct, even though they appear to use a past tense".
> 
> gb, in posts 7, 9 and 17 stated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gb's "unease" over the type of construction Alfaaz has employed was a topic of conversation in another thread where another "native" Hindi speaker did not feel this construction was correct. I have to confess that I do find this quite surprising because we use such sentences on a daily basis, in both Urdu and Hindi.
> 
> A mutual friend knows that gb and I are great pals of one another. He wants a birthday card to be delivered to gb and hands it to me to be passed onto him. I say to him..
> 
> jyuuN hii mujhe gb milaa, maiN use yih kaarD de duuN gaa.
> 
> nah milaa to?
> 
> bhaa'ii, agar nah milaa to maiN yih kaarD tumheN vaapas kar duuN gaa. tum fikr nah karo!



Yes, your first sentence of the dialogue is indeed incorrect in standard Hindi; if you've heard it, then I'd be curious to know from which regions and milieux do those people come, because any usual Hindi speaker will find the past tense usage here completely wrong.

Your sentences in the Hindi I know:

jyuuN hii mujhe gb *milegaa*, maiN use yih kaarD de duuN gaa. _[reference point is present; it's impossible to use temporal past]
_
nah milaa to?

bhaa'ii, agar nah milaa to maiN yih kaarD tumheN vaapas kar duuN gaa. tum fikr nah karo! _[you're talking about a future imaginary situation here at which point you didn't already find the person, hence it's past tense from the reference point in future where you're situated now: hence the temporal past here holds good; also it's a conditional sentence based on the hypothesis "agar" and your following quote from Naim is also based on that - so it is irrelevant to the construction that I deemed invalid in Hindi)_



QURESHPOR said:


> ...
> 
> A "classic" illustration of this would be..
> 
> kahaaN mar ga'e ho bhaa'ii, khaanaa laa'o!
> 
> abhii *laayaa* Huzuur!



_Idiomatic_; not a good example



QURESHPOR said:


> Finally, here is a sentence which all of you will find of interest(from Platts, who has used almost invariably real sentences from Urdu literature)
> 
> agar paadshah aise logoN kii juuth-sach baateN *sun_ne lagaa* aur asl Haal kii *taHqiiq par iltifaat nah kii* to tarH-tarH kii xaraabiyaaN *paidaa hu'iiN*!
> 
> If the king *begins to listen* to the misrepresentations of such persons, and *does not attempt to inquire* into the actual facts of the case, various kinds of evils *will result. *​(my emphasis)



We are not discussing If... sentences really; what would be wrong is the following:

"Jaise hi paadshah ne awaam ki fariiyaadeiN sunii, bawandar aa jayegaa" - it is this construction we are talking about, and I hope you stick to that in order to avoid confusing others who can't see much difference between a hypothesis-driven sentence and a condition-driven sentence.

But even in your paadshah sentence, I do find your "paidaa hu'iiN" incorrect as far as Hindi is concerned: it should be "paidaa hoNgii"/"paida ho jaayenNgii".

I don't think it will be easy to find _any _non-Urdu-speaking Hindi native speaker (not talking of Hindi learners here, to remind you) who will think that Alfaaz's sentences in the concerned post were correct Hindi.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Yes, your first sentence of the dialogue is indeed incorrect in standard Hindi;



The Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics p. 120 had no problem with this formation.
So maybe we need to clarify the definition of "standard Hindi" here.

In fact, I'm sure I've seen this form in my grammar books as well as a way it is said. 
So maybe we are arguing over prescription vs description?

Edit: -- Now I see you are arguing not over agar, but over jaise hii.



greatbear said:


> I don't think it will be easy to find _any _non-Urdu-speaking  Hindi native speaker (not talking of Hindi learners here, to remind you)  who will think that Alfaaz's sentences in the concerned post were  correct Hindi.



I think we should leave such over-reaching statements alone for several reasons.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I think we should leave such over-reaching statements alone for several reasons.



I'd be glad to; so should the others (e.g., post 3) and rather discuss, and if they have nothing to add to a meaningful discussion, abstain.


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> Very interesting that Hindi speakers are uncomfortable with these types of statements. I hear them all the time.



Do you hear these types of sentences from "non-Urdu-speaking Hindi native speakers"? What I mean is this. Are these true, genuine, 100% born and bred Hindi speakers? I hope you don't mean Punjabi/Bengali/English/Scottish or any other background Hindi speakers.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> The Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics p. 120 had no problem with this formation.



I don't see anything on p. 120 which goes contrary to what I said; the conditional in Hindi is formed exactly like it is formed in French. The logic is simple: when you hypothesize about an "agar" and then a subsequent action which depends on a preceding act (in the future), the preceding act is in the temporal past, because you are placing yourself between the two things in future: the thing anterior is the condition to be satisfied (for which you used "agar"), and the thing posterior is the subsequent effect you are anticipating.

"Agar maiN wahaaN gayaa, to achha nahiN hogaa"
The reference point is "after" (in time) "jaanaa" (to go).


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Do you hear these types of sentences from "non-Urdu-speaking Hindi native speakers"? What I mean is this. Are these true, genuine, 100% born and bred Hindi speakers? I hope you don't mean Punjabi/Bengali/English/Scottish or any other background Hindi speakers.



In spite of your efforts to scare-quote me, my comment is valid simply because it is only the Urdu speakers here who have so far found such a construction normal. Maybe it's normal in Urdu, I don't know: but to a Hindi speaker, it's simply something wrong and does not make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> I'd be glad to; so should the others (e.g., post 3) and rather discuss, and if they have nothing to add to a meaningful discussion, abstain.



I think there is a big difference between saying, "I hear this all the time" and saying "it would be hard to find ANY Hindi native speaker." One is based on experience and is verifiable. The second assumes that you know all or most Hindi speakers from Punjab to West Bengal and Kashmir to MP.

But back to the discussion....


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I think there is a big difference between saying, "I hear this all the time" and saying "it would be hard to find ANY Hindi native speaker." One is based on experience and is verifiable. The second assumes that you know all or most Hindi speakers from Punjab to West Bengal and Kashmir to MP.
> 
> But back to the discussion....



I think you chose to omit the first sentence of the cited post, which is where the issue was. If I don't know all Hindi speakers from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, then why only 2 Hindi speakers like me and nineth are being taken as _all _Hindi speakers? (instead of "some" or "a couple of" Hindi speakers, rather just "Hindi speakers", with no article, which means putting all in one basket)


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> I think you chose to omit the first sentence of the cited post, which is where the issue was. If I don't know all Hindi speakers from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, then why only 2 Hindi speakers like me and nineth are being taken as _all _Hindi speakers? (instead of "some" or "a couple of" Hindi speakers, rather just "Hindi speakers", with no article, which means putting all in one basket)



As a non-native speaker of English, you misunderstood his statement I believe. He was saying that *some* Hindi speakers would have a problem. This should have been clear from the context and the speaker.


----------



## marrish

Just a brief declaration that these sentences are perfectly understandable for me and don't come over as faulty. I'm not a grammar expert, and surely not when it comes to verbal constructions, so I am not so sure how I could interpret this. Possibly I envisualise ''_ho gaa_'', like _jaise hii ham ne ittifaaq kar liyaa ho gaa maiN bataa duuN gaa. _I believe that on this level, expecially when verb usage is at play, the divergence between Urdu and Hindi is minuscule or non-existent. I am wondering why is there a difference of opinions between Hindi and Urdu experts on this point.


----------



## BP.

The example sentences in post 1 raise no alarm for my ears.

But it does a little bit when I replace the first clause by:


nineth said:


> ...As soon as we agree on this -> jaise hii hum is par raazii ho jayeNge ...


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Possibly I envisualise ''_ho gaa_'', like _jaise hii ham ne ittifaaq kar liyaa ho gaa maiN bataa duuN gaa. _I believe that on this level, expecially when verb usage is at play, the divergence between Urdu and Hindi is minuscule or non-existent. I am wondering why is there a difference of opinions between Hindi and Urdu experts on this point.



Well, a sentence like _jaise hii ham ne ittifaaq kar liyaa ho gaa maiN bataa duuN gaa _would be perfectly fine!

I am also surprised by this seeming divergence, as I had believed that the grammar of the two languages is essentially the same.


----------



## marrish

But I have to add hastily that I don't speak like this ''_ho gaa_''!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> But I have to add hastily that I don't speak like this ''_ho gaa_''!



marrish SaaHib, I don't find your sentence quite agreeable. Likewise with a couple of nineth's sentences which he has conveniently given himself a tick. But, we are not here to argue over these sentences. Hopefully, with a bit of time tomorrow morning I shall attempt to fill in the gaps.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor SaaHib, I let myself to some intellectual speculation in order to try to understand the gulf between the two usages.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, I let myself to some intellectual speculation in order to try to understand the gulf between the two usages.



I assure you marrish SaaHib, the "gulf" between usages in the two languages does not even amount to the distance between the proton of a Hydrogen atom and its sole electron!!!


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> I assure you marrish SaaHib, the "gulf" between usages in the two languages does not even amount to the distance between the proton of a Hydrogen atom and its sole electron!!!



It's better you come up with some concrete evidence and some Hindi speakers' opinions about this, before making tall statements. It's laughable really how time and again on this forum Hindi speakers are told by others what they speak.


----------



## nineth

But greatbear is indeed right - what he said is perfectly fine spoken Hindi (kar liyaa ho gaa changes it to future perfect).


----------



## tonyspeed

I have actually been able to find a usage of this "non-Hindi" form in the wild: "और जैसे ही होश आया, चकित होओगे, हंसोगे-अपने पर हंसोगे।" aur jaise hii hosh aayaa, chakit hooge, haNsoge - apne par haNsoge.

I'm assuming this was said by Chandra Mohan Jain/ Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) who was born in what is now Madya Pradesh. (From the book _आपुई गई हिराय_)

request for comment.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I have actually been able to find a usage of this "non-Hindi" form in the wild: "और जैसे ही होश आया, चकित होओगे, हंसोगे-अपने पर हंसोगे।" aur jaise hii hosh aayaa, chakit hooge, haNsoge - apne par haNsoge.
> 
> I'm *assuming *this was said by Chandra Mohan Jain/ Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) who was born in what is now Madya Pradesh. (From the book _आपुई गई हिराय_)
> 
> request for comment.



From the same article: "और जैसे ही वह शुद्ध होगी वैसे ही तुम्हारे हाथ में कीमिया लग जाएगा, राज लग जाएगा, कुंजी मिल जाएगी।" Why this now?

Do you even know who has edited the magazine and who is responsible for it? Like that you could pick up anything from the vast world of Web, and count it as proof. Try looking into famous Hindi magazines, something like India Today in Hindi or Dharmyug, Sarita, etc., or at least where we know who's accountable. Here you can only do the assuming!


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> From the same article: "और जैसे ही वह शुद्ध होगी वैसे ही तुम्हारे हाथ में कीमिया लग जाएगा, राज लग जाएगा, कुंजी मिल जाएगी।" Why this now?
> 
> Do you even know who has edited the magazine and who is responsible for it? Like that you could pick up anything from the vast world of Web, and count it as proof. Try looking into famous Hindi magazines, something like India Today in Hindi or Dharamshala, Sarita, etc., or at least where we know who's accountable. Here you can only do the assuming!



Finding one has broken your claim that it would be hard to find ANY. web par shak. non-natives par shak. learners par shak. urdu-daan par shak. editors par shak. aur kaun? Continue.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Finding one has broken your claim that it would be hard to find ANY. web par shak. non-natives par shak. learners par shak. urdu-daan par shak. editors par shak. aur kaun? Continue.



LOL; if your objective is to discredit me rather than learn Hindi as it is, then you could've mentioned it earlier! For your cited article, meanwhile there are not even any editors visible (or who wrote it, who put it on the web). Great source you found!


----------



## nineth

tonyspeed said:


> I have actually been able to find a usage of this "non-Hindi" form in the wild: "और जैसे ही होश आया, चकित होओगे, हंसोगे-अपने पर हंसोगे।" aur jaise hii hosh aayaa, chakit hooge, haNsoge - apne par haNsoge.
> 
> I'm assuming this was said by Chandra Mohan Jain/ Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) who was born in what is now Madya Pradesh. (From the book _आपुई गई हिराय_)



It's up to you whether you want to learn from native Hindi speakers' posts or by searching here and there.  Just because you have been able to find something from a book on the web means nothing - it doesn't matter which book or who wrote it. What I said was plain wrong in Hindi is still plain wrong; my advice: accept it or stay in darkness thinking you know the right Hindi usage while you don't.


----------



## cherine

Dear all,

You need to learn how to keep mutual respect even when disagreeing. There's absolutely nothing wrong in having different views and opinions, but it's totally unacceptable in this forum to go into personal attacks.

Also, please remember that language has different levels and forms. As long as you state which level and form you're talking about (for example: colloquial vs. standard) and back your opinion with acceptable sources, it should be fine for everyone to take that opinion as it is and -if need be- discuss it calmly.

Regards,
Cherine
Moderator


----------



## Faylasoof

panjabigator said:


> Very interesting that Hindi speakers are uncomfortable with these types of statements. I hear them all the time.


  I agree with you PG SaaHib! Alfaaz SaaHib's sentences quoted above in post#1 are perfectly correct - and idiomatic! I hear sentences like these all the time and not just from Urduphones! They conform to our rules of grammar! We always use them!

I'm amazed at the way this thread exploded because some people think these are wrong!


----------



## greatbear

Bumping up this controversial thread for the benefit of two of the newer participants here, UrduMedium and hindiurdu. I'd like to know their views on the topic.


----------



## souminwé

_
Jaise hii hamne is baat par kar liyaa hogaa..._ also sounds like the only correct version to me. Another vote against the OP's suggestions from this Hindi speaker. 
It sounds like a colloquialism without the _hogaa_ bit. I suspect that such a construction may be from Punjabi influence, as it seems most Urdu speakers on this forum speak it also.


----------



## UrduMedium

From an Urdu perspective, the original post sentences seem acceptable to me. That's not to say that it is the only way to convey this meaning. I can think of a couple of ways:

1. ham jaise hii wahaaN _pahonche_, tumheN phone kar deNge.
2. ham wahaaN_ pahonchte_ hii tumheN phone kar deNge.

I would most likely say it as #2. But see nothing wrong in #1 either.

Look at the following example: You are sitting with a colleague in your shared room and stand up and said to him/her:

maiN 15 minute meN _aayaa_

This is a perfectly unambiguous usage and the other person will know exactly what you mean is:

I'm _leaving _now and _should be_ back in 15 minutes.

So not only the past tense (aayaa) was used to depict something in the near future, but also to _omit _the first part of the thought.


----------



## greatbear

UrduMedium said:


> From an Urdu perspective, the original post sentences seem acceptable to me. That's not to say that it is the only way to convey this meaning. I can think of a couple of ways:
> 
> 1. ham jaise hii wahaaN _pahonche_, tumheN phone kar deNge.
> 2. ham wahaaN_ pahonchte_ hii tumheN phone kar deNge.
> 
> I would most likely say it as #2. But see nothing wrong in #1 either.
> 
> Look at the following example: You are sitting with a colleague in your shared room and stand up and said to him/her:
> 
> maiN 15 minute meN _aayaa_
> 
> This is a perfectly unambiguous usage and the other person will know exactly what you mean is:
> 
> I'm _leaving _now and _should be_ back in 15 minutes.
> 
> So not only the past tense (aayaa) was used to depict something in the near future, but also to _omit _the first part of the thought.



There is no doubt about the colloquial usage "maiN pandrah minute meiN aayaa"; QP had a similar example in OP ("huzoor abhi laayaa"), which has no issues.

However, are the following examples from OP fine with you, UM:

_jaise hi hum ne us par ittifaaq kar liya, main tumhein bata dooN gaa/gii
jooN hi hum us par muttafiq hue, main tumhein ittilaa' de dooN gaa/gi
jab hi hum us par raazi hue, main tumhein khabar de dooN gaa/gii 


_Judging from (all) three Hindi speakers' opinions on this issue so far, they are not so far in Hindi, but it seems that they are fine in Urdu (your _pahoNche_ example also seems to confirm that this kind of grammar is fine in Urdu). Inviting more opinions from Hindi and Urdu speakers over what seems to be a certain divide between the grammars of the two languages.

Thanks souminwé for your inputs!


----------



## UrduMedium

^ Yes the OP examples seem fine to me, grammar-wise.


----------



## UrduMedium

_huzuur abhii laayaa_, and _maiN abhi aayaa _may be phrased in the past tense to add a sense of definiteness to the statement, as nothing is as concrete as the past. 

I understand that such usage/justification is also common in (at least classical) Arabic.


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> _
> Jaise hii hamne is baat par kar liyaa hogaa..._ also sounds like the only correct version to me. Another vote against the OP's suggestions from this Hindi speaker.
> It sounds like a colloquialism without the _hogaa_ bit. I suspect that such a construction may be from Punjabi influence, as it seems most Urdu speakers on this forum speak it also.



With due respect, souminwé Jii, your sentence above with "ho gaa" (and putting in the missing "ittifaaq") does not look right to me. Without "ho gaa" there is nothing colloquial about these sentences whatsoever! They are as literary as they come. Secondly, in this forum a number of people seem to think that everything is affected by Punjabi and you have become another addition to the list. Does n't any other language have this capacity to affect Urdu or Hindi? 

No, I don't think most speakers on this forum who speak Urdu speak Punjabi as well. But even if this were true, C.M.Naim whom I have quoted is not a Punjabi unless Barabanki is in the Punjab! S. McGregor in his Hindi Grammar quotes these types of sentences and he is not a Punjabi! Platt's example I quoted is not from a Punjabi author. Faylasoof SaaHib, BP SaaHib, marrish SaaHib, Alfaaz and UrduMedium SaaHib, to the best of  my knowledge are not Punjabis. Come to think of it, I am the only Punjabi who is also an Urdu speaker, leaving aside Panjabigator from whose name it is virtually impossible to work out his linguistic background!

So, it is best to get one's facts right before making such comments.


----------



## greatbear

Well, so far the constructions do seem odd to all Hindi speakers, so it seems more a Hindi-Urdu divide issue to me rather than any Punjabi-influenced thing.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> From an Urdu perspective, the original post sentences *seem* acceptable to me.



This "seem" may be a device to be diplomatic but it casts doubt on whether you believe those sentences are correct or not. They either are or they are not. It matters not whether the idea expressed in those can be expressed in other ways. Possibly a number of tense constructions can be expressed in different ways.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> There is no doubt about the *colloquial* usage "maiN pandrah minute meiN aayaa"; QP had a similar example in OP ("huzoor abhi laayaa"), which has no issues.



gb, I am a bit perplexed when you say this kind of sentence is "colloquial". Do you mean it does not exist in formal Hindi speech and writings?



UrduMedium said:


> I understand that such usage/justification is also common in (at least classical) Arabic.



Let us not confuse the issue UM SaaHib lest suspicions be cast that this usage has entered Urdu via Arabic!!!



greatbear said:


> Judging from (all) *three* Hindi speakers' opinions on this issue so far, they are not so far in Hindi, but it seems that they are fine in Urdu (your _pahoNche_ example also seems to confirm that this kind of grammar is fine in Urdu). Inviting more opinions from Hindi and Urdu speakers over what seems to be a certain divide between the grammars of the two languages.
> 
> Thanks souminwé for your inputs!





> I don't think it will be easy to find _any non-Urdu-speaking Hindi native speaker _



It is a pity that I don't have easy access and ability to search for these kinds of sentences within the body of Hindi literature. It is even more a pity that (again as far as I know), none of the native-Hindi speakers have much to do with Hindi literature. Otherwise, someone amongst them could have stated that either they have never come across such sentences in the Hindi works they have read or that these do indeed exist in the writings.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Let us not confuse the issue UM SaaHib lest suspicions be cast that this usage has entered Urdu via Arabic!!!


 True. Point well taken.


----------



## souminwé

xxx
As I said, I feel the variant that Urduphones find acceptable seems to be a colloquialism. It could be that seeing it in writing is creating this sense of "awkward Hindi".


----------



## panjabigator

Thread under moderation. Closed for the time being.


----------

