# Hindi, Urdu: a dead woman



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

What is the difference between:

_1.maarii huii aurat
2.marii huii aurat
3.mirt aurat_

Would I use (1.) only if it were clear that someone killed her, or not necessarily?
Thanks in advance


----------



## Pokeflute

You commented in this thread a while back, but reposting it as it's relevant. Though it mainly focused on inanimate objects (e.g. "ubaalaa huaa paani" vs "ublaa huaa paani")

One more similar phrase it might be worth adding: maarii gayii aurat


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Sure, why not.
And while we are at it, _mar gayii aurat_ too.

What I want to know is if "maaraa huaa" is some sort of special idiomatic case to specify a dead person, or if there is some general rule to extract from all this (in Spanish, all of this is "mujer muerta", so forgive my lack of subtlety  )

Rephrasing, then. What is the difference between?:

_1.maarii huii aurat
2.marii huii aurat
3.mirt aurat
4.maarii gayii aurat
5.mar gayii aurat_


----------



## desi4life

1.maarii huii aurat = the murdered woman
2.marii huii aurat = the dead woman
3.mrit aurat = the dead woman
4.maarii gayii aurat (“aurat maarii gayii” sounds more correct) = the woman was killed
5.mar gayii aurat (or “aurat mar gayii”) = the woman died


----------



## Pokeflute

desi4life said:


> 4.maarii gayii aurat (“aurat maarii gayii” sounds more correct) = the woman was killed



Interesting, you're saying that "maarii gayii aurat" sounds incorrect to you?

I asked about it because I've seen this construction before (for example the following sentence taken from google) and just assumed it was a synonym for "maarii huii aurat."

इस हमले में मारी गयी औरत का नाम सुनीता गोप है.
is hamle meN maarii gayii aurat kaa naam sunitaa gop hai.

Maybe it's only present in certain dialects then (and ungrammatical in others)?

EDIT: It seems there are very few Google results for this too. I thought I'd seen this construction in books, but I could be mistaken.


----------



## Pokeflute

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> What I want to know is if "maaraa huaa" is some sort of special idiomatic case to specify a dead person, or if there is some general rule to extract from all this (in Spanish, all of this is "mujer muerta", so forgive my lack of subtlety  )



I think the difference is more "la mujer asesinada" (ma*a*rii huii aurat) vs. "la mujer muerta" (marii huii aurat)

With "maarii gayii" being similar to the former.

I'm not sure if "mar gayii aurat" is even correct (Google only turns up 12 results total for "मर गयी औरत" and "मर गई औरत") but if it is it's likely similar to the latter.

EDIT: fixed typo (in bold)


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Pokeflute said:


> I think the difference is more "la mujer asesinada" (maarii huii aurat) vs. "la mujer muerta" (marii huii aurat)


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Pokeflute said:


> इस हमले में मारी गयी औरत का नाम सुनीता गोप है.
> is hamle meN maarii gayii aurat kaa naam sunitaa gop hai.


I am interested in this too. Wouldn't we need a _jo _here somewhere?


----------



## desi4life

Pokeflute said:


> Interesting, you're saying that "maarii gayii aurat" sounds incorrect to you?
> 
> I asked about it because I've seen this construction before (for example the following sentence taken from google) and just assumed it was a synonym for "maarii huii aurat."
> 
> इस हमले में मारी गयी औरत का नाम सुनीता गोप है.
> is hamle meN maarii gayii aurat kaa naam sunitaa gop hai.
> 
> Maybe it's only present in certain dialects then (and ungrammatical in others)?
> 
> EDIT: It seems there are very few Google results for this too. I thought I'd seen this construction in books, but I could be mistaken.



In this context “maarii gayii aurat” sounds correct and “aurat maarii gayii” doesn’t fit. I wasn’t thinking of this context before. “maarii gayii aurat” would mean “the murdered woman”. The addition of “gayii” makes it an intensive I believe.


----------



## aevynn

For intransitive verbs like marnaa, the perfective participle modifies nouns to indicate that the noun has undergone the verb. Thus marii hu'ii 3aurat = the woman who has/had died = the dead woman.

Note that maaraa jaanaa = to be hit/killed is the passive of maarnaa = to hit/kill, so it is effectively an intransitive verb (ie, it is a 1-valent predicate). Syntactically it functions like marnaa, and exactly the same logic we had for marii hu'ii 3aurat = the woman who has/had died leads us to maarii ga'ii 3aurat = the woman who has/had been hit/killed.


Pokeflute said:


> इस हमले में मारी गयी औरत का नाम सुनीता गोप है.
> is hamle meN maarii gayii aurat kaa naam sunitaa gop hai.





MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I am interested in this too. Wouldn't we need a _jo _here somewhere?


No. You could rephrase it to something using jo like jo 3aurat hamle meN maarii ga'ii, uskaa naam suniitaa gop hai, but the above sentence is perfectly legitimate and this rephrasing is not mandatory. Note that you also don't always need explicit relativizers in English (or in Spanish): you can say "The woman who was killed in the attack..." but also "The woman killed in the attack..."

Now the caveat: Urdu-Hindi doesn't seem to allow complex verbs (ie, verb stem + auxiliary light verb) modifying nouns directly. For example, mar jaanaa is also a 1-valent predicate, but *mar ga'ii 3aurat is not a legal noun phrase. [The only way to make sense of it is to parse it as the sentence "The woman died" with very irregular and unusual word order, as @desi4life cleverly did above, but I presume that's not what the OP was asking about?]

---

For transitive verbs like maarnaa, the perfective participle modifies the noun that would have been the object of the verb and indicates that the noun has undergone the action indicated by the verb. Thus maarii huii 3aurat = the woman who has been hit/killed, but I would add a caveat that this phrase doesn't sound great in isolation. Searching Google only yields highly idiomatic usages, such as this one by Premchand (in Devanagari):

khudaa aapke iraadoN meN barkat de. yahii is aafat kii maarii hu'ii aurat kii duaa hai.​May God grant success to you in your plans. This is the prayer of this misfortune-stricken woman.​
In any case, the logic connecting syntax to semantics here extends to other transitive verbs. For example, karnaa is also a transitive verb, and uskaa kiyaa huaa kaam = the work done by him is a perfectly natural noun phrase.

Note again that you can't have complex verbs here. For example, kar denaa (= to do completely) is a 2-valent predicate, but ?uskaa kar diyaa huaa kaam sounds very awkward to me.

---

That's how Hindi-Urdu "natively" forms participial modifiers. Of course, it also often loans participles from Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, and English, but the loanwords function simply as adjectives and don't have much by way of interest as far as the syntax of participles goes. mrit is the loan from Sanskrit. mrit 3aurat means exactly the same thing as marii hu'ii 3aurat, but mrit is a decidedly Sanskritic word and is not so colloquial. There's also murdaa/murdah, which is a loan from Persian, and murdaa/murdah 3aurat can also mean exactly the same thing as marii hu'ii 3aurat, but the situation as far as colloquialness is concerned isn't symmetric: murdaa/murdah is significantly more likely to be heard in conversation than mrit.


----------



## Pokeflute

Thanks - this makes a lot of sense!

What specifically would be the difference between (let's pick a less morbid example):

toRaa gayaa khilonaa
toRaa huaa khilonaa

 From your explanation above, it seems like both indicate the noun (toy) as undergone the verb (to break).

Or if animacy matters:

sulaayaa gayaa baccaa

sulayaa huaa baccaa

Based on your comment about "maarii huii aurat" sounding off, it seems like there may be a difference. Is it semantic, or purely grammatical (as in intransitive participles are allowed in certain contexts that transitive ones are not)?


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> Searching Google only yields highly idiomatic usages, such as this one by Premchand (in Devanagari):
> 
> khudaa aapke iraadoN meN barkat de. yahii is aafat kii maarii hu'ii aurat kii duaa hai.​May God grant success to you in your plans. This is the prayer of this misfortune-stricken woman.​



In this highly used figurative usage, note that putting an explicit "huii" is optional. The woman could simply have said "is aafat kii maarii aurat kii duaa hai."
("maaraa" can also mean "stricken" in the figurative sense.)



Pokeflute said:


> What specifically would be the difference between (let's pick a less morbid example):
> 
> toRaa gayaa khilonaa
> toRaa huaa khilonaa



I would say "TooTaa huaa khilaunaa" for the 2nd one: "toRaa huaa khilonaa" is weird.* "toRaa hua pattaa" ("plucked leaf") is fine.

So what's the difference between "toRaa gayaa pattaa" and "toRaa huaa pattaa," if any?

Not much, except that "toRaa gayaa pattaa" seems to imply a bit more active agency (that this was done, rather than this just being a state of things), and with a verb like "toRaa" it puts a bit more blame (on unspecified actors here).



Pokeflute said:


> Or if animacy matters:
> 
> sulaayaa gayaa baccaa
> 
> sulayaa huaa baccaa



There is no word as "sulayaa"--I guess you meant "sulaayaa huaa bachchaa"?

Both are equivalent, and note that both the sentences are quite dark examples. They would imply a child who has been drugged to sleep, made unconscious or even put to death. I cannot imagine a normal context in which "sulaayaa" would be used with "bachchaa" or any human being, in fact.**

For a normally sleeping child, one doesn't need external agency: one would simply say "soyaa huaa bachchaa" (or, sometimes, depending on what one has in mind, "sotaa huaa bachchaa").

*If you mean a toy that has been tampered with, you _could _use "toRaa huaa khilaunaa," but in that case "toRaa _gayaa_ khilaunaa" would be a much better choice of words.
**Even though "bachche ko sulaanaa" or "bachche ko sulaa denaa" is fine (of course, both these phrases could also have a dark, figurative meaning).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> In this highly used figurative usage, note that putting an explicit "huii" is optional.


Isn't this _*always *_true, at least for participles used adjectivally?


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Isn't this _*always *_true, at least for participles used adjectivally?



I would say it's _mostly _true, not always. For example, it's hard to omit "huaa" with "soyaa" for human beings:

"tum jab vahaaN pauhoNchoge, sone ke sandook meN ek soii huii parii milegii, bas tumheN use binaa jagaae uThaa laanaa hai."

It would be understandable but weird to have "soii parii" here. Now if it were a lion instead of a fairy, it would be fine: "vahaaN tumheN ek soyaa (huaa) sher milegaa."

This could be because "soyaa" can mean drowsy as well instead of asleep. Even for the lion, it could mean either a drowsy lion or a lion who's asleep. But for lion, it's still ok.


----------



## Pokeflute

littlepond said:


> Both are equivalent, and note that both the sentences are quite dark examples. They would imply a child who has been drugged to sleep, made unconscious or even put to death. I cannot imagine a normal context in which "sulaayaa" would be used with "bachchaa" or any human being, in fact.**
> 
> For a normally sleeping child, one doesn't need external agency: one would simply say "soyaa huaa bachchaa" (or, sometimes, depending on what one has in mind, "sotaa huaa bachchaa").



Yikes will keep in mind! I suppose using this construction with humans is a bit morbid (since they have internal agency).

(Even in English the phrase "the child who was put to sleep" also is very dark, but I didn't realize it was the case in Hindi too).



> I would say "TooTaa huaa khilaunaa" for the 2nd one: "toRaa huaa khilonaa" is weird.* "toRaa hua pattaa" ("plucked leaf") is fine.



Interesting...


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

My mother, overwhelmed by myself and two more unruly siblings, forced us to lie in bed and sleep siesta next to her at least for an hour (it seldom worked for me, I have to admit).
In kindergartens they make children have nap time and it is required.

There are several situations where you put children (or anyone) to sleep, or make them sleep, and it is not sinister or euphemistic.
I would imagine there has to be a neutral way to describe this activity in H/U.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> There are several situations where you put children (or anyone) to sleep, or make them sleep, and it is not sinister or euphemistic.
> I would imagine there has to be a neutral way to describe this activity in H/U.



Read the double-asterisked part of post 12: the "neutral" way is there.


----------



## aevynn

aevynn said:


> _Daraayaa huaa laRkaa_ is a legal noun phrase, but it means something more like "the boy who was made to be frightened." In other words, it strongly suggests that someone or something has made the boy be scared without naming who that person/thing is. In contrast, a _Daraa huaa laRkaa_ is just a boy who's scared.





littlepond said:


> They would imply a child who has been drugged to sleep, made unconscious or even put to death.





MonsieurGonzalito said:


> There are several situations where you put children (or anyone) to sleep, or make them sleep, and it is not sinister or euphemistic.
> I would imagine there has to be a neutral way to describe this activity in H/U.


In English, I think you can really only use the past participle attributively for transitive verbs. In HU, you can use participles attributively for both transitives and intransitives, and almost all verbs come in transitive-intransitive pairs. If we focus our attention on a fixed transitive-intransitive pair, the semantics of "(transitive perfective participle) + noun" and "(intransitive perfective participle) + noun" are coarsely the same. But there's often a difference in connotation: the transitive often connotes that the noun was made to undergo the process. 

It sort of makes sense. If you were thinking very very hard about the grammar of what someone was saying to you (which no one actually does nor should ever do in practice...), you might very well think to yourself: "Why would they have chosen to use a _transitive_ perfective participle when they could have just used the corresponding intransitive? Presumably because they wanted to tell me that someone or something _made_ this happen!"

And in fact, for transitive verbs that don't have a corresponding intransitive, like likhnaa, it seems like this "made to undergo" connotation isn't really there in the "(transitive perfective participle) + noun" construction. For example, a haath se likhaa huaa xat is just a plain-and-simple "handwritten letter" (not a letter that was "made" to be handwritten, or something). 

Anyway, this is probably just a very rough heuristic to keep in mind. I'm certain that if you really go looking, you'll find many examples of transitive verbs that do have an intransitive counterpart and which are sometimes used in the "(transitive perfective participle) + noun" construction without the "made to undergo" connotation.



littlepond said:


> I cannot imagine a normal context in which "sulaayaa" would be used with "bachchaa" or any human being, in fact.


While I agree with the underlying sentiment in broad strokes (cf. above), let's say a father has finally managed to put his fussy baby to bed, and then suddenly someone shows up at the door. Would the following would be okay...?

darvaaze kii ghanTii bajii. lorii sunaa-sunaa kar sulaayaa huaa bachchaa jaag paRaa aur phir se rone lagaa.​


Pokeflute said:


> Based on your comment about "maarii huii aurat" sounding off, it seems like there may be a difference. Is it semantic, or purely grammatical (as in intransitive participles are allowed in certain contexts that transitive ones are not)?


I think it's somsething semantic? But I'm having trouble putting my finger on what it is... In fact, it's probably something peculiar about the semantics of maarnaa only in its transitive usage meaning to hit/kill. Syntactically, there is another ditransitive sense of maarnaa which shows up in sentences like: 

maiNne usko thappaR maaraa.​
Here, maiNne is the subject, usko is the indirect object, and thappaR is the direct object. While an idiomatic translation of this in English might be something like "I slapped him," a translation that more faithfully preserves the UH syntax would be something like "I laid a slap on him." And this sense of maarnaa doesn't seem to have the same issue; it readily admits attributive usages of the perfective participle. For example:

usko meraa maaraa huaa thappaR aaj tak yaad hai.​He still remembers the slap I laid on him.​


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> While I agree with the underlying sentiment in broad strokes (cf. above), let's say a father has finally managed to put his fussy baby to bed, and then suddenly someone shows up at the door. Would the following would be okay...?
> 
> darvaaze kii ghanTii bajii. lorii sunaa-sunaa kar sulaayaa huaa bachchaa jaag paRaa aur phir se rone lagaa.​



This is a good example; however, it's still only possible, not probable. A much more natural way of conveying what the father wanted to convey would be:

"jaise-taise to maine abhii-abhii sulaayaa thaa use, aur ab (kambakht) ghanTii baj paRii!"


----------



## Pokeflute

Sorry to bump an old thread

If you were to use a passive participle attributively, how would you indicate the agent?

"I don't like toys made by that company"

us kampanii se banaaye gaye khilaune mujhe pasand nahin (hote?)
us kampanii ke banaaye gaye khilaune mujhe pasand nahin (hote?)

Or do both work?


----------



## littlepond

Pokeflute said:


> "I don't like toys made by that company"
> 
> us kampanii se banaaye gaye khilaune mujhe pasand nahin (hote?)
> us kampanii ke banaaye gaye khilaune mujhe pasand nahin (hote?)
> 
> Or do both work?



"se" is not possible. And (haiN), not (hote). That is, "us kampnii ke (dwaaraa) banaaye gaye khilaune mujhe pasand nahiiN (haiN)."

If you were talking that you don't like toys that have been made by a subcontractor, then "se" works (but then the verb has to change, too):

"us kampnii _se _ban*v*aaye gaye khilaune mujhe pasand nahiiN (haiN)."


----------



## Alfaaz

Pokeflute said:
			
		

> "I don't like toys made by that company"



مجھے اُس کمپنی کے بنائے ہوئے (ساختہ) کھلاونے نہیں پسند​
_mujhe us company ke banaa'e hu'e (saaxtah) khilaune nahiiN pasand._


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

So, what is the underlying logic for choosing _*kaa *_over _*se*_, when complementing a participle with an agent?


----------



## Pokeflute

Interesting... many questions from your response @littlepond ji, but I'll limit myself to the relevant ones for this thread (  )

Is it always "ke (dvaara)", or would it inflect. "us kampanii ke (dvaara) banaayii gayii cofii mujhe pasand nahin".

Does "ke haath" work as well? Or is "ke dvaaraa" the only postposition that works?


----------



## Alfaaz

_ke banaa'e hu'e - made by_
_se banaa'e hu'e - made from/with_

Urdu:_ ke zarii3e banaa'e hu'e - made by way of/through the instrumentality or the intervention of; etc._

The aforementioned doesn't seem suitable for translating the specific context/example sentence Pokeflute has provided. 
Hindi usage of _ke dwaaraa_ might be different or Hindi speakers might find it appropriate...?!


----------



## Happu

Being the snob that I am, a dead woman for me might be दिवंगत नारी = _divaNgat naarii _(deceased/heaven-departed woman), at least in formal writing.

Otherwise मृत औरत (_mRt aurat_) will just do fine.

If she happened to have been a saint/saadhvii in her life, she would have become ब्रह्मलीन = immersed in Brahma.


----------



## littlepond

Pokeflute said:


> Is it always "ke (dvaara)", or would it inflect. "us kampanii ke (dvaara) banaayii gayii cofii mujhe pasand nahin".



If you are using "dwaaraa," it will remain "ke" in the above. Otherwise, "us raisTorainT kii banaayii gayii kaufii ..."

(I changed it to a restaurant, because company-made coffee is weird. If you meant a company that produces coffee, then it better be directly "us kampnii kii kaufii...")



Pokeflute said:


> Does "ke haath" work as well?


Yes, "ke haath" is also fine, but not in every context.



Alfaaz said:


> Urdu:_ ke zarii3e banaa'e hu'e - made by way of/through the instrumentality or the intervention of; etc._
> 
> The aforementioned doesn't seem suitable for translating the specific context/example sentence Pokeflute has provided.
> Hindi usage of _ke dwaaraa_ might be different or Hindi speakers might find it appropriate...?!


Agree regarding usage of "ke zariie": it would be the same in Hindi. But "ke zariie" is different from "ke dwaaraa" (which has a wider scope).


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Friends,
> 
> What is the difference between:
> 
> _1.maarii huii aurat
> 2.marii huii aurat
> 3.mirt aurat_
> 
> Would I use (1.) only if it were clear that someone killed her, or not necessarily?
> Thanks in advance


From Urdu prospective:-

1. maarii ga'ii hu'ii 3aurat = The woman who has been killed = The murdered woman

2. marii hu'ii 3aurat = The woman who has died = The dead woman

3. murdah 3aurat = The woman who has died = The dead woman

This thread may be of use...

Urdu / Hindi : hua hua hai (especially posts 13-14)


----------

