This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hindustani grammar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone who knows the devanagari pronunciation please fill up the IPA symbols in the Verb section within the slashes, leaving one - one extra blanks before and after. I am too tired now. Cygnus_hansa 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what wikipedia policy is here, but would it not make sense to use National Library at Calcutta romanization instead of IPA? Most other grammar pages use transliteration instead of phonetic transcription?
Also, might it make sense to have Urdu grammar redirect here and call it Hindustani grammar? (We could pick vocab words for the examples both languages have in common). Or would that be too contentious? Moszczynski 02:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I am learning Urdu myself and find this page very useful. It makes sense to have the Urdu Grammar page redirect here, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone could add the Urdu script for each of the words as I can't quite follow the Romanisation.
I'm not sure where to put this, and feel free to delete or move as necessary. I came to this page to find out if adjectives follow or precede the nouns, and did not find it in this article. I think it should be there, perhaps under the adjective section?
Thanks.
Please revert back all the pronunciation to IPA. It is the wikipolicy tyo use IPA, and no calcultta or anything else is entertained. I had already mentioned this very clearly before the merger. Cygnus_hansa 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Although these were mentioned earlier (specifically, by Moszczynski), I believe these merit serious discussion and consideration.
1. Which transcription system should be used? Cygnus_hansa mentioned IPA, which seems to be Wikipedia policy as well. However, Moszczynski mentioned National Library at Calcutta romanization. The reason I support Moszczynski suggestion is because:
2. It would probably make sense to replace some of the words used as examples with words common to and mutually intelligible between Hindi and Urdu.
If there is disagreement or if there would be an interminable debate, perhaps voting on this might resolve the issue. Kitabparast 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is about Hindi-Urdu grammar, but pretty much all of its religious and kinship vocabulary used here are Hindi-specific (and peculiar to Hinduism), (like caste, guru for teacher, kavi for poet, bahu for daughter-in-law, etc). All of these words would be very rare in Urdu. I think we should use either words that are common among both language and do not pertain to any religion or words that represent both Hindi and Urdu and which represents as many religions as necessary. Thanks, Basawala 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the Urdu for "Hindi-Urdu grammar" to "Hindi-Urdu qawaa'id" instead of the previous version which was just a transliteration of the Hindi, and not an accepted word in Urdu. Basawala 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Since this is about Hindustani grammar, then I also think the article should use example words which are common to Hindi and Urdu and don't pertain to any specific religion. Agger
The article might go into more detail concerning the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs. I just corrected the affirmation that all verbs take ne in the perfective to the more basic fact that only transitive verbs do so. One example: if you say mai.n aaya hoo.n, e.g., meaning "I've come", ne is NOT used. If you, however, say tumne kyaa kiiyaa? (meaning "what did you do"), ne IS present, because the verb karnaa is transitive.
My changes make these parts of the article factually correct, but someone more knowledgeable than me should elaborate a bit on the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs which causes this rather curious grammatical construction. Agger
Continued. It seems you guys do not understand my point, or are ignoring it. IAST or National Library at Calcutta romanization schemes are simple not sufficient to include all the phonemes of Hindustani. They have no symbols for / x /, / ɤ /, / ɽ /, and / ɽʰ /, difference between / ai/ and / æ /--which are very important and common phonemes of Hindustani. And the aspirated consonants are shown in the article in the IPA scheme, and not in Calcutta scheme (and you are calling it Calcutta scheme). And the Calcutta scheme can never indicate pronunciation correctly: its a transliteration, and not pronunciation. For Sanskrit both coincide, but for Hindi, there are differences. Since none of you know linguistics here, none can understand it. As for having made the article (having spent dozens of nightouts on it), I know its free licence and stuff, but won't even I and my views get some respect out of some minimum courtesy? I compromized for the merger into Hindustani, but here its not possible. If you want IAST/Calcutta since it is simple, lift off the entire article and put it in http://simple.wikipedia.org . And let me tell you, I am no enemy but a big fan of IAST. You may know that it was only me who, after much petition, got the IAST characters with dots below Ḍ, ḍ, Ṭ, etc, from User:DaGizza into the Insert toolbox. I always use IAST in inline Hindi and Sanskrit words (even in the grammar article), but it cannot be considered suitable to indicate pronunciation. And sorry if I sound snobbish, but since I have done a PhD level course in Linguistics, I have a good feel of what is better and what is worse. Cygnus_hansa 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Most grammars use Transliteration. Wikipriority towards IPA only goes for when pronunciation of a specific word/phonograph is needed, list on an alphabet chart for example. All other non-European grammar articles on Wikipedia use a form of transliteration (incl. Bengali, Tamil, Persian, Arabic, etc), and it would be against this conformation to use IPA, of which I already noticed inconsistencies of on this very article (both /a/ and /ə/ for the same exact sound is one of them.) Plus, there is a general agreement to use transliteration (only one person for IPA), and you pointing out transliteration's faults would not convince us, nor would it be a veto power not to use transliteration. After all, IPA has many faults too, including the fact that its use is not widespread on linguistic-related articles on Wikipedia. The majority really hope to have transliteration on this page, so I would hope you allow us to do so. If you give permission, then we will start adding transliteration. If you don't, then we will have to still discuss this issue and how to resolve it. Mar de Sin Speak up! 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to think that IPA is like a panacea for all languages and grammars, with exact sound-to-symbol correspondence and equal representation for all languages. Although IPA is a great system, there are so many discrepancies with the way it is used to represent Hindi and Urdu. I know that there can only be one symbol for sound, but still, sometimes a single "sound" can be represent by different phonemes. It is far more efficient to use an academic transliteration which incorporates each perceived sound separately, instead of allowing different ways to represent short /u/ at the end of a word, or the difference between /t/ and /t̪/, etc. I think that there are more benefits to using transliteration than faults, and is better suited for grammar than IPA. You disagree, and keep on listing the fallibilities of transliteration and the benefits of IPA. You have already proved your point that IPA is suitable for phonetical accuracy, but this article deals with grammar. It is mere opinion to say that grammar articles need extreme phonetical accuracy than efficiency in phonetics as well as to a certain extend orthography. My view of this is opinion too, but I feel that my side is better supported. You should not let a Wikipedia article be changed according to your way based only on opinion, and the same with me. And it would better to focus on reaching a solution than trying to override my entire argument. I think we should try to find a common solution which suits all. Sorry that I don't have any ideas yet, but I hope we do reach a common agreemnt. Mar de Sin Speak up! 16:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the issue of IAST Vs IPA could not be resolved (it has been months now), I take it as a signal of reverting back to the original system in which the article was written, which is the IPA. So I have started transcribing IAST pronunciations back to IPA. Cygnus_hansa 05:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, what is this IPA lameness?... The reasons for transliteration have already been expounded. Use ISO 15919. Tuncrypt 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed premi (a lover) to sipaahi (a soldier), since premi wasn't found in the Urdu dictionary but sipaahi was found in both Hindi and Urdu (first entry for both). That change was necessary to reflect proper Hindustani/ to reflect both languages. I also changed mor (a peacock) to gul (a rose) to reflect the Persian vocabulary under that category (2. All the other masculine nouns). Mar de Sin Speak up! 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed today! Someone had changed the introduction and written that Hini-Urdu are descendents of BOTH SANSKRIT AND PERSIAN ! This is utterly wrong! I am telling you again and again, this is a linguistics article. If you don't have background into it, don't trouble it. People like me can manage with correct, verifiable information and NPOV. Hindi-Urdu is NOT a descendent of Persian. It is in the Indo-Aryan branch, and descendent of Sanskrit alone. Persian belongs to another branch: Iranian branch. English belongs to Germanic branch. Its 80 % formal vocabulary comes from Latin, which is in the Italic branch. This does not mean that English is in the Italic bbranch, or a mixture of Italic and Germanic branches. Suffices to say that Hindi-Urdu has no relation wahtsoever (save of loanwords) with Arabic, which belongs to an entire different family. I have made such changes, with external links as sources, and certainly I am not inviting consensus on this issue. Also, Hindustani does not encompass non-standard registers. The grammar discussed here is invalid for dialects such as Haryanavi, Pahari, Braj, Awadhi, etc. Cygnus_hansa 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
We apreciate your valuable contribution in article named Wikipedia:Indic transliteration scheme on english WIkipedia.
We at Marathi Language wikipedia do not have enough expertise to update IPA related info in our article, specialy we have been unable to import/update IPA templates and do not know how to use IPA symbols. Please click here-this link- to provide help to update "IPA transliteration for Indic Languages" article for Marathi wikipedia
We seek and request for help in updating above mentioned article and would like to know relevant resources and refferences in respect of Devanagari and IPA .
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The parts in the conjugation table regarding the past range from slightly to dead wrong. Maybe I'll change it up, maybe not; I have to point this out at least. Tuncrypt 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm slowly working on a new table, which I'll leave and edit here day-to-day for the time being (so it'll mostly look like a mess). Tuncrypt 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that bolnā should be used as the example verb instead of karnā. This is because it is regular in its perfective, and because it can be used both as intransitive and transitive. I guess I'll eventually put in the devanagari but someone else has got to put in the urdu. sorry lol Tuncrypt 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
lol it has been a while but it shall go up eventually. Tuncrypt 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost done, lol Tuncrypt 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Having learned more about linguistics in general, I'm probably going rewrite this... rewrite, in a different (better) way. This will happen in the summer. Tuncrypt 13:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Gender | First Person | Second Person | Third person | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Singular | Plural | Singular | Plural / Honourable | Singular | Plural / Honourable | ||
मैं / maiⁿ | हम / hum | तू / tū | तुम / tum | आप / āp | यह, वह / yah, vah | ये, वे / ye, ve | |
Simple Present | |||||||
♂ | boltā hūⁿ | bolte haiⁿ | boltā hai | bolte ho | bolte haiⁿ | boltā hai | bolte haiⁿ |
♀ | boltī hūⁿ | boltī haiⁿ | boltī hai | boltī ho | boltī haiⁿ | boltī hai | boltī haiⁿ |
Continuous Present | |||||||
♂ | bol rahā hūⁿ | bol rahe haiⁿ | bol rahā hai | bol rahe ho | bol rahe haiⁿ | bol rahā hai | bol rahe haiⁿ |
♀ | bol rahī hūⁿ | bol rahī haiⁿ | bol rahī hai | bol rahī ho | bol rahī haiⁿ | bol rahī hai | bol rahī haiⁿ |
Simple Imperfect | |||||||
♂ | boltā thā | bolte the | boltā thā | bolte the | bolte the | boltā thā | bolte the |
♀ | boltī thī | boltī thīⁿ | boltī thī | boltī thīⁿ | boltī thīⁿ | boltī thī | boltī thīⁿ |
Continuous Imperfect | |||||||
♂ | bol rahā thā | bol rahe the | bol rahā thā | bol rahe the | bol rahe the | bol rahā thā | bol rahe the |
♀ | bol rahī thī | bol rahī thīⁿ | bol rahī thī | bol rahī thīⁿ | bol rahī thīⁿ | bol rahī thī | bol rahī thīⁿ |
INTRANSITIVE PAST | |||||||
Simple Past | |||||||
♂ | bolā | bole | bolā | bole | bolā | bole | |
♀ | bolī | bolīⁿ | bolī | bolīⁿ | bolī | bolīⁿ | |
Perfect Present | |||||||
♂ | bolā hūⁿ | bole haiⁿ | bolā hai | bole ho | bole haiⁿ | bolā hai | bole haiⁿ |
♀ | bolī hūⁿ | bolī haiⁿ | bolī hai | bolī ho | bolī haiⁿ | bolī hai | bolī haiⁿ |
Perfect Past | |||||||
♂ | bolā thā | bole the | bolā thā | bole the | bolā thā | bole the | |
♀ | bolī thī | bolī thīⁿ | bolī thī | bolī thīⁿ | bolī thī | bolī thīⁿ | |
TRANSITIVE PAST | |||||||
First, the subject takes the ergative case, adding the marker of ne, along with other slight modifications from the nominative: | |||||||
मैने / maine | हमने / humne | तूने / tūne | तुमने / tumne | आपने / āpne | इसने, उसने / isne, usne | इन्होंने, उन्होंने / inhoṃne, unhoṃne | |
Secondly, now the verb agrees with the object rather than the subject. The same conjugation pattern applies; considering its gender and number and thus what the object would be as a (3rd person) subject, use the intransitive past section of the table to retrieve the proper conjugation. Lastly, the conjugation reverts to masculine singular (-ā) regardless of gender and number if the object is marked with ko. | |||||||
Simple Future (Pure) | |||||||
♂ | bolūⁿgā | boleⁿge | bolegā | bologe | boleⁿge | bolegā | boleⁿge |
♀ | bolūⁿgī | boleⁿgī | bolegī | bologī | boleⁿgī | bolegī | boleⁿgī |
Subjunctive | |||||||
bolūⁿ | boleⁿ | bole | bolo | boleⁿ | bole | boleⁿ | |
Simple Future (Simple) | |||||||
♂ | boltā hūⁿgā | bolte hoⁿge | boltā hogā | bolte hoge | bolte hoⁿge | boltā hogā | bolte hoⁿge |
♀ | boltī hūⁿgī | boltī hoⁿgī | boltī hogī | boltī hoⁿgī | boltī hogī | boltī hoⁿgī | |
Continuous Future | |||||||
♂ | bol rahā hūⁿgā | bol rahe hoⁿge | bol rahā hogā | bol rahe hoge | bol rahe hoⁿge | bol rahā hogā | bol rahe hoⁿge |
♀ | bol rahī hūⁿgī | bol rahī hoⁿgī | bol rahī hogī | bol rahī hoⁿgī | bol rahī hogī | bol rahī hoⁿgī | |
Perfect Future | |||||||
♂ | bolā hūⁿgā | bole hoⁿge | bolā hogā | bole hoge | bole hoⁿge | bolā hogā | bole hoⁿge |
♀ | bolī hūⁿgī | bolī hoⁿgī | bolī hogī | bolī hoⁿgī | bolī hogī | bolī hoⁿgī | |
Imperative | |||||||
bol | bolo, bolnā | bolie, boliegā |
This one here, or in the article? Tuncrypt 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll do these myself if/when I have time, but I'd like to see what others think of these ideas:
Comments appreciateed Grover cleveland 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this whole section:
is kinda off-topic and should be moved, maybe, to, like, Hindustani? Yeah, I do. — Wiki Wikardo 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate the effort of whoever put this huge table together! However, I think that the current table has some fatal problems. I have a few changes I'd like to make, but I'd like to get some consensus here first.
Please add your comments! Grover cleveland 07:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You've made this page much higher quality that it was previously. I look forward to making some relatively minor contributions, but you have done all the hard work that needed to be done. Thanks. Grover cleveland ( talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a section in which the uses of the cases is displayed systematically. For example, the direct case can be used in several ways:
Would something like this, with referenced examples, be appropriate for this article? Grover cleveland ( talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with 'infinitive' and 'gerund', but what is 'obligatory' in the verb table ? Could a footnote be put in ? - Francis Tyers · 00:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
All in all, the verb section needs to explain how the various forms shown in the table are used in practice, with examples and translations. Some parts (perfective, habutual) may seem obvious from the terms themselves, but, for example, the confusing presence of a thing labelled "perfective present" suggests that things aren't that simple; in other cases (non-finite conjunctive, agentive/ prospective, contingent future, deferred and deferential imperative, subjunctive, presumptive, unspecified finite aspectual), the terms themselves simply aren't clear enough to do without explanation and examples. -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 23:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The proximal singular demonstrative pronoun is यह /ja/, not "ye" and the non-proximal plural pronoun is वे /ve/, not "vo/vah". Einstein92 ( talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, it states here that the Persian ezafe construction is not used in Hindi, but I've heard it being used in a Hindi song. No, I'm not trying to insert OR into the article but as this statement is uncited I'm a little dubious about it and was hoping someone with specialised knowledge could clear this up. I assume this is one of those topics which attracts sectarian extremists but I'm sure there are plenty of level-headed folk out there who know something about this. 203.214.40.99 ( talk) 06:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since Urdu has been forced with Hindi into one article may as well call it Hindustani grammar, otherwise create to separate articles for Hindi and Urdu grammar. This article implies they are the same language, however there is no such language as "hindi-Urdu" so make it Hindustani then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the following point under the section Differences between Hindi and Urdu:
- In sentences in which a conjunctive participle is used to refer to the first act in a series of two, if the first act is in some sense a 'cause' for the second act, Hindi prefers the conjunctive suffix -kar be dropped and only the root of the first verb used. In Urdu, on the other hand, the use of conjunctive suffix word is always required.
Language Transliterated sentence Translated meaning (in English) Hindi unko dekh ham ro paṛe On seeing him we burst into tears. Urdu un ko dekh kar ham ro paṛe On seeing him we burst into tears. The following sentence, however, will be same in both Hindi and Urdu: Hindustani un se jā kar mili'e Please go and meet him.
Can someone please support the claim that *unko dekh kar ham ro paṛe is a valid sentence in Hindi (i.e. without the kar)? --
Biocrite (
talk)
23:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/digbooks/images/PK1983.N2_1999_V1/PK1983.N2_1999_V1.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 03:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hindustani only uses masculine and feminine as genders. I'm gonna go ahead and change it to that with a source, unless someone can prove otherwise. Aryamanarora talk, contribs 18:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone up there ↑ said that the use of cases is self-evident. That's nonsense. Could you please add something about this? There are two particularly important questions, to which I as a non-Hindustani speaker don't know the answer: 1.) How are the Direct and Oblique cases used? Direct-Oblique systems also exist in Kurdish, Pashto, and Middle Persian, but each of these languages uses the cases differently. 2.) The vocative seems to be distinct only in the plural, but there must be a vocative in the singular, too. I suppose it's the same as either the Direct or the Oblique, but which of them? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.21.143 ( talk) 17:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The answer would be Yes or No 115.186.83.74 ( talk) 08:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't the Urdu Script also used in this article as I see no reason not to use it. Danishjaveed ( talk) 17:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Itsmeyash31: I don't think these are declinable universally (they aren't in my dialect for example). Do you think a note would be good? (BTW I'm going to be adding more syntax stuff when I have time.) AryamanA ( talk, contribs) 04:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Both of the current Further Reading links provide Urdu-centric grammar books. The first one does teach (Old) Devanagari, but the Urdu script and sundry Persianate words are used in the main part.
Can someone find an actual grammar reference that uses Devanagari on the most part?
Just a humble request from an Indian wanting to learn Hindi, and not "Hindustani".
BrightSunMan ( talk) 15:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I fail to understand why the non-standard phrasings under "Postpositions from English prepositions" are included in an article on standard Hindustani grammar. None of the examples given (such as "ke infront", "ke behind") are part of standard speech in either Hindi or Urdu. They may be used in certain contexts by people who are used to code-switching between English and Hindustani (and, being one of those people, I still think these are awkward and ungrammatical).
I propose to delete this section entirely from the article. Havoc219 ( talk) 03:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hindustani grammar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone who knows the devanagari pronunciation please fill up the IPA symbols in the Verb section within the slashes, leaving one - one extra blanks before and after. I am too tired now. Cygnus_hansa 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what wikipedia policy is here, but would it not make sense to use National Library at Calcutta romanization instead of IPA? Most other grammar pages use transliteration instead of phonetic transcription?
Also, might it make sense to have Urdu grammar redirect here and call it Hindustani grammar? (We could pick vocab words for the examples both languages have in common). Or would that be too contentious? Moszczynski 02:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I am learning Urdu myself and find this page very useful. It makes sense to have the Urdu Grammar page redirect here, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone could add the Urdu script for each of the words as I can't quite follow the Romanisation.
I'm not sure where to put this, and feel free to delete or move as necessary. I came to this page to find out if adjectives follow or precede the nouns, and did not find it in this article. I think it should be there, perhaps under the adjective section?
Thanks.
Please revert back all the pronunciation to IPA. It is the wikipolicy tyo use IPA, and no calcultta or anything else is entertained. I had already mentioned this very clearly before the merger. Cygnus_hansa 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Although these were mentioned earlier (specifically, by Moszczynski), I believe these merit serious discussion and consideration.
1. Which transcription system should be used? Cygnus_hansa mentioned IPA, which seems to be Wikipedia policy as well. However, Moszczynski mentioned National Library at Calcutta romanization. The reason I support Moszczynski suggestion is because:
2. It would probably make sense to replace some of the words used as examples with words common to and mutually intelligible between Hindi and Urdu.
If there is disagreement or if there would be an interminable debate, perhaps voting on this might resolve the issue. Kitabparast 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is about Hindi-Urdu grammar, but pretty much all of its religious and kinship vocabulary used here are Hindi-specific (and peculiar to Hinduism), (like caste, guru for teacher, kavi for poet, bahu for daughter-in-law, etc). All of these words would be very rare in Urdu. I think we should use either words that are common among both language and do not pertain to any religion or words that represent both Hindi and Urdu and which represents as many religions as necessary. Thanks, Basawala 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the Urdu for "Hindi-Urdu grammar" to "Hindi-Urdu qawaa'id" instead of the previous version which was just a transliteration of the Hindi, and not an accepted word in Urdu. Basawala 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Since this is about Hindustani grammar, then I also think the article should use example words which are common to Hindi and Urdu and don't pertain to any specific religion. Agger
The article might go into more detail concerning the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs. I just corrected the affirmation that all verbs take ne in the perfective to the more basic fact that only transitive verbs do so. One example: if you say mai.n aaya hoo.n, e.g., meaning "I've come", ne is NOT used. If you, however, say tumne kyaa kiiyaa? (meaning "what did you do"), ne IS present, because the verb karnaa is transitive.
My changes make these parts of the article factually correct, but someone more knowledgeable than me should elaborate a bit on the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs which causes this rather curious grammatical construction. Agger
Continued. It seems you guys do not understand my point, or are ignoring it. IAST or National Library at Calcutta romanization schemes are simple not sufficient to include all the phonemes of Hindustani. They have no symbols for / x /, / ɤ /, / ɽ /, and / ɽʰ /, difference between / ai/ and / æ /--which are very important and common phonemes of Hindustani. And the aspirated consonants are shown in the article in the IPA scheme, and not in Calcutta scheme (and you are calling it Calcutta scheme). And the Calcutta scheme can never indicate pronunciation correctly: its a transliteration, and not pronunciation. For Sanskrit both coincide, but for Hindi, there are differences. Since none of you know linguistics here, none can understand it. As for having made the article (having spent dozens of nightouts on it), I know its free licence and stuff, but won't even I and my views get some respect out of some minimum courtesy? I compromized for the merger into Hindustani, but here its not possible. If you want IAST/Calcutta since it is simple, lift off the entire article and put it in http://simple.wikipedia.org . And let me tell you, I am no enemy but a big fan of IAST. You may know that it was only me who, after much petition, got the IAST characters with dots below Ḍ, ḍ, Ṭ, etc, from User:DaGizza into the Insert toolbox. I always use IAST in inline Hindi and Sanskrit words (even in the grammar article), but it cannot be considered suitable to indicate pronunciation. And sorry if I sound snobbish, but since I have done a PhD level course in Linguistics, I have a good feel of what is better and what is worse. Cygnus_hansa 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Most grammars use Transliteration. Wikipriority towards IPA only goes for when pronunciation of a specific word/phonograph is needed, list on an alphabet chart for example. All other non-European grammar articles on Wikipedia use a form of transliteration (incl. Bengali, Tamil, Persian, Arabic, etc), and it would be against this conformation to use IPA, of which I already noticed inconsistencies of on this very article (both /a/ and /ə/ for the same exact sound is one of them.) Plus, there is a general agreement to use transliteration (only one person for IPA), and you pointing out transliteration's faults would not convince us, nor would it be a veto power not to use transliteration. After all, IPA has many faults too, including the fact that its use is not widespread on linguistic-related articles on Wikipedia. The majority really hope to have transliteration on this page, so I would hope you allow us to do so. If you give permission, then we will start adding transliteration. If you don't, then we will have to still discuss this issue and how to resolve it. Mar de Sin Speak up! 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to think that IPA is like a panacea for all languages and grammars, with exact sound-to-symbol correspondence and equal representation for all languages. Although IPA is a great system, there are so many discrepancies with the way it is used to represent Hindi and Urdu. I know that there can only be one symbol for sound, but still, sometimes a single "sound" can be represent by different phonemes. It is far more efficient to use an academic transliteration which incorporates each perceived sound separately, instead of allowing different ways to represent short /u/ at the end of a word, or the difference between /t/ and /t̪/, etc. I think that there are more benefits to using transliteration than faults, and is better suited for grammar than IPA. You disagree, and keep on listing the fallibilities of transliteration and the benefits of IPA. You have already proved your point that IPA is suitable for phonetical accuracy, but this article deals with grammar. It is mere opinion to say that grammar articles need extreme phonetical accuracy than efficiency in phonetics as well as to a certain extend orthography. My view of this is opinion too, but I feel that my side is better supported. You should not let a Wikipedia article be changed according to your way based only on opinion, and the same with me. And it would better to focus on reaching a solution than trying to override my entire argument. I think we should try to find a common solution which suits all. Sorry that I don't have any ideas yet, but I hope we do reach a common agreemnt. Mar de Sin Speak up! 16:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the issue of IAST Vs IPA could not be resolved (it has been months now), I take it as a signal of reverting back to the original system in which the article was written, which is the IPA. So I have started transcribing IAST pronunciations back to IPA. Cygnus_hansa 05:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, what is this IPA lameness?... The reasons for transliteration have already been expounded. Use ISO 15919. Tuncrypt 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed premi (a lover) to sipaahi (a soldier), since premi wasn't found in the Urdu dictionary but sipaahi was found in both Hindi and Urdu (first entry for both). That change was necessary to reflect proper Hindustani/ to reflect both languages. I also changed mor (a peacock) to gul (a rose) to reflect the Persian vocabulary under that category (2. All the other masculine nouns). Mar de Sin Speak up! 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed today! Someone had changed the introduction and written that Hini-Urdu are descendents of BOTH SANSKRIT AND PERSIAN ! This is utterly wrong! I am telling you again and again, this is a linguistics article. If you don't have background into it, don't trouble it. People like me can manage with correct, verifiable information and NPOV. Hindi-Urdu is NOT a descendent of Persian. It is in the Indo-Aryan branch, and descendent of Sanskrit alone. Persian belongs to another branch: Iranian branch. English belongs to Germanic branch. Its 80 % formal vocabulary comes from Latin, which is in the Italic branch. This does not mean that English is in the Italic bbranch, or a mixture of Italic and Germanic branches. Suffices to say that Hindi-Urdu has no relation wahtsoever (save of loanwords) with Arabic, which belongs to an entire different family. I have made such changes, with external links as sources, and certainly I am not inviting consensus on this issue. Also, Hindustani does not encompass non-standard registers. The grammar discussed here is invalid for dialects such as Haryanavi, Pahari, Braj, Awadhi, etc. Cygnus_hansa 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
We apreciate your valuable contribution in article named Wikipedia:Indic transliteration scheme on english WIkipedia.
We at Marathi Language wikipedia do not have enough expertise to update IPA related info in our article, specialy we have been unable to import/update IPA templates and do not know how to use IPA symbols. Please click here-this link- to provide help to update "IPA transliteration for Indic Languages" article for Marathi wikipedia
We seek and request for help in updating above mentioned article and would like to know relevant resources and refferences in respect of Devanagari and IPA .
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The parts in the conjugation table regarding the past range from slightly to dead wrong. Maybe I'll change it up, maybe not; I have to point this out at least. Tuncrypt 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm slowly working on a new table, which I'll leave and edit here day-to-day for the time being (so it'll mostly look like a mess). Tuncrypt 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that bolnā should be used as the example verb instead of karnā. This is because it is regular in its perfective, and because it can be used both as intransitive and transitive. I guess I'll eventually put in the devanagari but someone else has got to put in the urdu. sorry lol Tuncrypt 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
lol it has been a while but it shall go up eventually. Tuncrypt 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost done, lol Tuncrypt 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Having learned more about linguistics in general, I'm probably going rewrite this... rewrite, in a different (better) way. This will happen in the summer. Tuncrypt 13:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Gender | First Person | Second Person | Third person | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Singular | Plural | Singular | Plural / Honourable | Singular | Plural / Honourable | ||
मैं / maiⁿ | हम / hum | तू / tū | तुम / tum | आप / āp | यह, वह / yah, vah | ये, वे / ye, ve | |
Simple Present | |||||||
♂ | boltā hūⁿ | bolte haiⁿ | boltā hai | bolte ho | bolte haiⁿ | boltā hai | bolte haiⁿ |
♀ | boltī hūⁿ | boltī haiⁿ | boltī hai | boltī ho | boltī haiⁿ | boltī hai | boltī haiⁿ |
Continuous Present | |||||||
♂ | bol rahā hūⁿ | bol rahe haiⁿ | bol rahā hai | bol rahe ho | bol rahe haiⁿ | bol rahā hai | bol rahe haiⁿ |
♀ | bol rahī hūⁿ | bol rahī haiⁿ | bol rahī hai | bol rahī ho | bol rahī haiⁿ | bol rahī hai | bol rahī haiⁿ |
Simple Imperfect | |||||||
♂ | boltā thā | bolte the | boltā thā | bolte the | bolte the | boltā thā | bolte the |
♀ | boltī thī | boltī thīⁿ | boltī thī | boltī thīⁿ | boltī thīⁿ | boltī thī | boltī thīⁿ |
Continuous Imperfect | |||||||
♂ | bol rahā thā | bol rahe the | bol rahā thā | bol rahe the | bol rahe the | bol rahā thā | bol rahe the |
♀ | bol rahī thī | bol rahī thīⁿ | bol rahī thī | bol rahī thīⁿ | bol rahī thīⁿ | bol rahī thī | bol rahī thīⁿ |
INTRANSITIVE PAST | |||||||
Simple Past | |||||||
♂ | bolā | bole | bolā | bole | bolā | bole | |
♀ | bolī | bolīⁿ | bolī | bolīⁿ | bolī | bolīⁿ | |
Perfect Present | |||||||
♂ | bolā hūⁿ | bole haiⁿ | bolā hai | bole ho | bole haiⁿ | bolā hai | bole haiⁿ |
♀ | bolī hūⁿ | bolī haiⁿ | bolī hai | bolī ho | bolī haiⁿ | bolī hai | bolī haiⁿ |
Perfect Past | |||||||
♂ | bolā thā | bole the | bolā thā | bole the | bolā thā | bole the | |
♀ | bolī thī | bolī thīⁿ | bolī thī | bolī thīⁿ | bolī thī | bolī thīⁿ | |
TRANSITIVE PAST | |||||||
First, the subject takes the ergative case, adding the marker of ne, along with other slight modifications from the nominative: | |||||||
मैने / maine | हमने / humne | तूने / tūne | तुमने / tumne | आपने / āpne | इसने, उसने / isne, usne | इन्होंने, उन्होंने / inhoṃne, unhoṃne | |
Secondly, now the verb agrees with the object rather than the subject. The same conjugation pattern applies; considering its gender and number and thus what the object would be as a (3rd person) subject, use the intransitive past section of the table to retrieve the proper conjugation. Lastly, the conjugation reverts to masculine singular (-ā) regardless of gender and number if the object is marked with ko. | |||||||
Simple Future (Pure) | |||||||
♂ | bolūⁿgā | boleⁿge | bolegā | bologe | boleⁿge | bolegā | boleⁿge |
♀ | bolūⁿgī | boleⁿgī | bolegī | bologī | boleⁿgī | bolegī | boleⁿgī |
Subjunctive | |||||||
bolūⁿ | boleⁿ | bole | bolo | boleⁿ | bole | boleⁿ | |
Simple Future (Simple) | |||||||
♂ | boltā hūⁿgā | bolte hoⁿge | boltā hogā | bolte hoge | bolte hoⁿge | boltā hogā | bolte hoⁿge |
♀ | boltī hūⁿgī | boltī hoⁿgī | boltī hogī | boltī hoⁿgī | boltī hogī | boltī hoⁿgī | |
Continuous Future | |||||||
♂ | bol rahā hūⁿgā | bol rahe hoⁿge | bol rahā hogā | bol rahe hoge | bol rahe hoⁿge | bol rahā hogā | bol rahe hoⁿge |
♀ | bol rahī hūⁿgī | bol rahī hoⁿgī | bol rahī hogī | bol rahī hoⁿgī | bol rahī hogī | bol rahī hoⁿgī | |
Perfect Future | |||||||
♂ | bolā hūⁿgā | bole hoⁿge | bolā hogā | bole hoge | bole hoⁿge | bolā hogā | bole hoⁿge |
♀ | bolī hūⁿgī | bolī hoⁿgī | bolī hogī | bolī hoⁿgī | bolī hogī | bolī hoⁿgī | |
Imperative | |||||||
bol | bolo, bolnā | bolie, boliegā |
This one here, or in the article? Tuncrypt 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll do these myself if/when I have time, but I'd like to see what others think of these ideas:
Comments appreciateed Grover cleveland 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this whole section:
is kinda off-topic and should be moved, maybe, to, like, Hindustani? Yeah, I do. — Wiki Wikardo 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate the effort of whoever put this huge table together! However, I think that the current table has some fatal problems. I have a few changes I'd like to make, but I'd like to get some consensus here first.
Please add your comments! Grover cleveland 07:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You've made this page much higher quality that it was previously. I look forward to making some relatively minor contributions, but you have done all the hard work that needed to be done. Thanks. Grover cleveland ( talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a section in which the uses of the cases is displayed systematically. For example, the direct case can be used in several ways:
Would something like this, with referenced examples, be appropriate for this article? Grover cleveland ( talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with 'infinitive' and 'gerund', but what is 'obligatory' in the verb table ? Could a footnote be put in ? - Francis Tyers · 00:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
All in all, the verb section needs to explain how the various forms shown in the table are used in practice, with examples and translations. Some parts (perfective, habutual) may seem obvious from the terms themselves, but, for example, the confusing presence of a thing labelled "perfective present" suggests that things aren't that simple; in other cases (non-finite conjunctive, agentive/ prospective, contingent future, deferred and deferential imperative, subjunctive, presumptive, unspecified finite aspectual), the terms themselves simply aren't clear enough to do without explanation and examples. -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 23:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The proximal singular demonstrative pronoun is यह /ja/, not "ye" and the non-proximal plural pronoun is वे /ve/, not "vo/vah". Einstein92 ( talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, it states here that the Persian ezafe construction is not used in Hindi, but I've heard it being used in a Hindi song. No, I'm not trying to insert OR into the article but as this statement is uncited I'm a little dubious about it and was hoping someone with specialised knowledge could clear this up. I assume this is one of those topics which attracts sectarian extremists but I'm sure there are plenty of level-headed folk out there who know something about this. 203.214.40.99 ( talk) 06:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since Urdu has been forced with Hindi into one article may as well call it Hindustani grammar, otherwise create to separate articles for Hindi and Urdu grammar. This article implies they are the same language, however there is no such language as "hindi-Urdu" so make it Hindustani then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the following point under the section Differences between Hindi and Urdu:
- In sentences in which a conjunctive participle is used to refer to the first act in a series of two, if the first act is in some sense a 'cause' for the second act, Hindi prefers the conjunctive suffix -kar be dropped and only the root of the first verb used. In Urdu, on the other hand, the use of conjunctive suffix word is always required.
Language Transliterated sentence Translated meaning (in English) Hindi unko dekh ham ro paṛe On seeing him we burst into tears. Urdu un ko dekh kar ham ro paṛe On seeing him we burst into tears. The following sentence, however, will be same in both Hindi and Urdu: Hindustani un se jā kar mili'e Please go and meet him.
Can someone please support the claim that *unko dekh kar ham ro paṛe is a valid sentence in Hindi (i.e. without the kar)? --
Biocrite (
talk)
23:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/digbooks/images/PK1983.N2_1999_V1/PK1983.N2_1999_V1.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 03:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hindustani only uses masculine and feminine as genders. I'm gonna go ahead and change it to that with a source, unless someone can prove otherwise. Aryamanarora talk, contribs 18:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone up there ↑ said that the use of cases is self-evident. That's nonsense. Could you please add something about this? There are two particularly important questions, to which I as a non-Hindustani speaker don't know the answer: 1.) How are the Direct and Oblique cases used? Direct-Oblique systems also exist in Kurdish, Pashto, and Middle Persian, but each of these languages uses the cases differently. 2.) The vocative seems to be distinct only in the plural, but there must be a vocative in the singular, too. I suppose it's the same as either the Direct or the Oblique, but which of them? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.21.143 ( talk) 17:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The answer would be Yes or No 115.186.83.74 ( talk) 08:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't the Urdu Script also used in this article as I see no reason not to use it. Danishjaveed ( talk) 17:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Itsmeyash31: I don't think these are declinable universally (they aren't in my dialect for example). Do you think a note would be good? (BTW I'm going to be adding more syntax stuff when I have time.) AryamanA ( talk, contribs) 04:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Both of the current Further Reading links provide Urdu-centric grammar books. The first one does teach (Old) Devanagari, but the Urdu script and sundry Persianate words are used in the main part.
Can someone find an actual grammar reference that uses Devanagari on the most part?
Just a humble request from an Indian wanting to learn Hindi, and not "Hindustani".
BrightSunMan ( talk) 15:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I fail to understand why the non-standard phrasings under "Postpositions from English prepositions" are included in an article on standard Hindustani grammar. None of the examples given (such as "ke infront", "ke behind") are part of standard speech in either Hindi or Urdu. They may be used in certain contexts by people who are used to code-switching between English and Hindustani (and, being one of those people, I still think these are awkward and ungrammatical).
I propose to delete this section entirely from the article. Havoc219 ( talk) 03:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)