# Hindi, Urdu: more about "the man I love"



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

  Today I was taking to a friend of mine who is a functional Hindi speaker.
I asked him the following three questions:

*Question #1.*  I am trying to say "I live with the man I love". Which one of these 2 sentences do you think says it more accurately?


1. _maiN us aadmii ke saath rɛhtii huuN, jise maiN pyaar kartii huuN
2. jis aadmii se maiN pyaar kartii huuN, us_ke saath maiN rahtii huuN

His answer: _"Both represent the same thing, but #2 is more accurate"


*Question #2.* OK, what is the difference between them?

_His answer_: #1 is "I live with that man whom I love", #2 is "the man I am in love with, I live with him". The second sentence focuses on the man, and conveys more closeness to him.


*Question #3:* Without any particular need of emphasis and without any special context, which way would tend naturally to express the idea of "I live with the man I love"

_His answer:_  with sentence #2 


My question to this forum is:  do you think his answers are representative of how a native speaker processes this idea? 
Thanks in advance for any comments.


----------



## Dib

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> *Question #3:* Without any particular need of emphasis and without any special context, which way would tend naturally to express the idea of "I live with the man I love"
> 
> _His answer:_  with sentence #2


The most neutral word order would be:

_*maiN *jis aadmii se pyaar kartii huuN, *usii *ke saath rahtii huuN._



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> 1. _maiN us aadmii ke saath rɛhtii huuN, jise maiN pyaar kartii huuN_


This one will probably occur in a conversation where people are describing the people/men each of them lives with, so that when our speaker takes her turn, everybody's own cohabitant is already established as the topic. She starts with "maiN" - both because it is the most neutral Hindi order (subject first), but also because it signals the contrast with other people's experience. Then she mentions the topic and introduces it with an anaphor (us) to connect it with the discourse and finally adds the relative clause as the comment on the topic. I imagine, this sentence may be used also as a conversation-starter to establish the cohabitant as the topic - probably introduced with a phrase like "pataa hai?". The bottom line is, it is a pragmatically marked clause-order, because of the "vo... jo..." ordering of the correlative, rather than the neutral "jo... vo..."



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> _2. jis aadmii se maiN pyaar kartii huuN, us_ke saath maiN rahtii huuN_


Here the second "maiN" is likely to be dropped, and "usii" is more likely than "us".
Apart from that, moving the subject "maiN" out of the front, also signals a marked word order. I feel, this can emphasize either "pyaar" or "main" - indicated by intonation, i.e. "I live with the man I _*love*_" or "I live with the man _*I*_ love". According to the former interpretation, the loving relationship is in fact emphasized, which is close but not identical to your friend's assessment.
I feel, this sentence with the first interpretation is likely where the conversation is going on about our speaker's beloved man, and then someone asks her - "So, who do you live with?" and she replies - "jis aadmii se maiN _*pyaar *_kartii huuN, usii ke saath rahtii huuN!". Here an initial "maiN" for contrast is not necessary, and thus it is available for dislocation (though I have to admit, an initial "maiN" with the proper intonation on pyaar would also do!), because the discourse was already about our speaker's beloved, not someone else's. So, she uses the normal topic-comment structure which coincides with the neutral "jo... vo..." clause-ordering here.


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> *Question #1.* I am trying to say "I live with the man I love". Which one of these 2 sentences do you think says it more accurately?


"1." is more accurate 



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> *Question #2.* OK, what is the difference between them?



"2." The emphasis is on "loving" rather than "living"



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> *Question #3:* Without any particular need of emphasis and without any special context, which way would tend naturally to express the idea of "I live with the man I love"


For Urdu I would say...maiN us mard ke saath rahtii huuN jis se mujhe pyaar hai.


----------



## littlepond

I agree with all that @Dib jii said, but do note that I would rather expect "jis se maiN pyaar karti huuN" rather than "jise." The latter would be fine in sentences such as "jise vahaaN jaana hai, vahaaN chalaa jaa'e" (not possible to replace "jise" here with "jis se").


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> I would rather expect "jis se maiN pyaar karti huuN"


Yes, sorry,  I keep mispelling it.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I have one more question regarding this:
How could I say  (if possible just reordering the same words and without using extra explanatory devices):


"I live with that man, whom I love"



Notice that in this case she is  not trying to say "of the pool of all possible men, she (is lucky enough to) live with the one she loves". 
Rather, she is stating the fact that she lives with that man, and then adding the "incidental" information that she also loves him.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> "I live with that man, whom I love"



maiN us aadmii ke saath raihtii hooN jis se maiN pyaar kartii hooN/jis se mujhe pyaar hai

Edit: Note, @MonsieurGonzalito jii, that I am taking your sentence in post 6 without the comma. If a comma is there, that is, you are giving extra information, then @Qureshpor jii's sentence in post 8 is also what I would propose.


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I live with that man, whom I love"


This seems to me the same sentence worded alightly differently. To express what you are implying...

maiN us mard ke saath rahtii huuN, aur, mujhe us se pyaar hai.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I have another doubt regarding this mechanism. The example I gave originally has both parts of the sentence in oblique, because it was required by the different postpositions and regimes.

But I would like to understand what happens if no such postposition are present in the relative clause.

For example, for saying:  "I speak with the woman who buys bread"
I believe it would be: _maiN us aurat se baat kartaa huuN [jo roTii xariidtii hai]_

But what happens if I use the centrally-embedded format (emphasizing the bread purchase first)? Do I use _jo _or _jis_?
_[jis aurat roTii  xariidtii hai], us_se maiN baat kartaa huuN_


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> But what happens if I use the centrally-embedded format (emphasizing the bread purchase first)? Do I use _jo _or _jis_?
> _[jis aurat roTii xariidtii hai], us_se maiN baat kartaa huuN_


_jo_. 

(_3aurat_ appears in the direct case inside the relative clause, so the relativizer that modifies _3aurat_ must too.)



littlepond said:


> I would rather expect "jis se maiN pyaar karti huuN" rather than "jise."


_jise_ sounds fine to me at least; I don't think the "object" of _pyaar karnaa_ is strictly always marked with _se_ as opposed to _ko_, right...? For example, there's the classic 90s Bollywood song from Hum Hain Rahi Pyar Ke  --- _mujh_se moHabbat kaa izhaar kartaa, kaash ko'ii laRkaa mujhe pyaar kartaa_. I guess there could be dialectal variation here, but I feel like I hear _ko_ used to mark the "object" of _pyaar karnaa_ quite frequently (where I'm counting pronouns like _mujhe_, _jise_, etc, as being marked with _ko_).



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> "I live with that man, whom I love"
> 
> Notice that in this case she is not trying to say "of the pool of all possible men, she (is lucky enough to) live with the one she loves".
> Rather, she is stating the fact that she lives with that man, and then adding the "incidental" information that she also loves him.


I wonder if your purpose would have been more clearly served had you elicited translations of "I live with my husband, whom I love" --- where "my husband" already uniquely identifies one individual (unless we place ourselves in some polygamy situation), so it's very clear that the relative clause "whom I love" is "non-restrictive" (only adding incidental information that isn't helping to uniquely specify a particular individual).

To translate this into UH, I think it's fine to use a relative clause as was done in #7 --- to me, it sounds okay to say _maiN apne pati(i) ke saath rahtii huuN, jis_se mujhe bahut pyaar hai_. (Of course the conjunction of #8 is fine too.) Here's a literary example of a similar non-restrictive relative clause, from Manto's shaadaaN:

kabhii kabhii un_kii biiwii jo adheR 3umr kii 3aurat thii un_ke paas aa jaatii aur chaahtii ki(h) wo(h) us_se do ghaRii baateN kareN...​Sometimes his wife, who was a middle-aged woman, would sidle up next to him wanting him to talk to her for a while, ...​
It seems to me that relative clauses can function both restrictively and non-restrictively in HU, just like in English. By default sentences like the ones proposed in #7 would probably be understood with their restrictive reading, but it feels to me that, in just the right context and with just the right intonation, the non-restrictive reading would be _possible_ too -- and the non-restrictive reading of the relative clause is basically the only one available when the referent _us aadmii_ is replaced with something like _apne pati(i) _that already uniquely identifies an individual.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> It seems to me that relative clauses can function both restrictively and non-restrictively in HU, just like in English. By default sentences like the ones proposed in #7 would probably be understood with their restrictive reading, but it feels to me that, in just the right context and with just the right intonation, the non-restrictive reading would be _possible_ too -- and the non-restrictive reading of the relative clause is basically the only one available when the referent _us aadmii_ is replaced with something like _apne pati(i) _that already uniquely identifies an individual.


Would you say that HU is more relaxed regarding the obligatoriness of commas for non-restrictive clauses?
In Spanish it is a hard rule: "an apposition is that thing that goes between commas", period.
On the contrary, HU grammars are rather casual about the whole commas subject, it is kind of treated as a given.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

The above is the text in Rekhta, and below is what seems to be a fascimile of the book in Google Books. 
So, I would assume that in HU they are not that meticulous regarding the comma, if the appositive value is obvious. And that this is the reason why grammars don't pass judgment on the subject.


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> View attachment 77881
> 
> The above is the text in Rekhta, and below is what seems to be a fascimile of the book in Google Books.
> So, I would assume that in HU they are not that meticulous regarding the comma, if the appositive value is obvious. And that this is the reason why grammars don't pass judgment on the subject.
> 
> View attachment 77882


Manto wrote his works in Urdu and was and has always been an Urdu writer. Perhaps, you would be kind enough to show this in the Urdu script and then continue with whatever you are suggesting. This does not accurately reflect what he wrote.


----------



## amiramir

Regardless of script, I think the point still stands. Comma placement is not something in either script that attracts much scrutiny.


----------



## Qureshpor

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> Would you say that HU is more relaxed regarding the obligatoriness of commas for non-restrictive clauses?
> In Spanish it is a hard rule: "an apposition is that thing that goes between commas", period.
> On the contrary, HU grammars are rather casual about the whole commas subject, it is kind of treated as a given.


I can't comment on Hindi but punctuation is not something about which Urdu writers seem to worry too much about. We don't know for sure if what we find on the written page was inserted by the author or the printer. So, in شاداں for example, we will never know if سعادت حسن منٹو put the commas in or someone else.

سعادت حسن منٹو - افسانہ

ریٹائر ہونے کے بعد انھوں نے اپنا بستر وہیں اپنے کمرے میں لگوا لیا تھا۔ دن کی طرح ان کی رات بھی یہیں گزرتی تھی۔۔۔ دنیا کے جھگڑے ٹنٹوں سے بالکل الگ۔ کبھی کبھی ان کی بیوی جو ادھیڑ عمر کی عورت تھی ان کے پاس آجاتی اور چاہتی کہ وہ اس سے دو گھڑی باتیں کریں مگر وہ جلد ہی اسے کسی بہانے سے ٹال دیتے۔ یہ بہانہ عام طور پر فریدہ اور سعیدہ کے جہیز کے متعلق ہوتا، ’’جاؤ، یہ عمر چونچلے بگھارنے کی نہیں۔۔۔ گھر میں دو جوان بیٹیاں ہیں، ان کے دان دہیج کی فکر کرو۔۔۔ سونا دن بدن مہنگا ہورہاہے۔ دس بیس تولے خرید کر کیوں نہیں رکھ لیتیں۔۔۔ وقت آئے گا تو پھر چیخو گی کہ ہائے اللہ، خالی زیوروں پر اتنا روپیہ اٹھ رہا ہے۔‘‘

This is what Professor Pritchett has had to say about punctuation for Ghalib's poetry (I know we are not necessarily talking about poetry but this is still relevant)

"Arshi also, alas, punctuates the ghazals, which in my opinion is a sad lapse of judgment. In my own versions I have eliminated his punctuation. Nowadays it seems that all editors feel free to impose their own choice of English-style punctuation on the texts of classical ghazals, as if they were English poems-- except, of course, that imposing extra punctuation on an English poem would be an inexcusable editoral intrusion. Don't let me get started on all this, it's too depressing. (It shows how sadly our modern editors have misunderstood Ghalib's techniques for 'meaning-creation'.) But do remember: in the case of Ghalib's ghazals, ALL PUNCTUATION MARKS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ONLY BY LATER EDITORS"


----------

