Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Module talk:hi-verb. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Module talk:hi-verb, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Module talk:hi-verb in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Module talk:hi-verb you have here. The definition of the word Module talk:hi-verb will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofModule talk:hi-verb, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Deleting/renaming old templates
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Inflections for होना(honā) and verb-noun combinations involving this verb are incorrect.
Double verbs like हिलना-डुलना(hilnā-ḍulnā) don't inflect quite right yet.
The "invariable" declension specified using <$> doesn't work yet.
The imperatives for irregular verbs like करना(karnā) aren't right. Here, I need help. The third plural forms generated for करना on the current page (based off of the older manual templates) are quite different from those generated by Module:hi-conj; I assume the manual templates are correct. Furthermore, for पीना, देना, लेना, the manual templates generate only one set of imperative forms; there is no split between present and future. Again, the third-plural forms generated by the manual templates are different from those generated by Module:hi-conj. Finally, the manual templates generate no imperative at all for होना. Is this correct, including for verb-noun combinations like मतलब होना(matlab honā)?
@Benwing2, Atitarev: Awesome!! Thank you for starting this, this is great.
होना(honā) should fit this table created by @Itsmeyash31. It's highly irregular and has some special forms. Also, that spreadsheet covers how the imperatives should be treated for all verbs. The future imperatives were not recognized in the old templates, I had only just begun adding them.
What will invariable <$> do?
The thing with double verbs is they should serve as one unit in the compound forms. So instead of हिला हुआ-डुला हुआ it should be हिला-डुला हुआ etc. Just removing whatever follows the space in the first verb should be good.
Can we somehow collapse the alternative forms? The table is quite cluttered on my 13-inch laptop screen. For करना(karnā) etc. the less common forms of the perfective are किआ(kiā) and किये(kiye); maybe these can just be mentioned as alternatives in a note at the bottom, avoiding all the duplication.
Also, I'll be starting copying your modules for the paradigms for other languages, starting with Punjabi.
@AryamanA, Atitarev Thanks for your comments. (1) I will fix up होना. Some of the forms are currently wrong, for example. As for future imperatives, I'm not quite sure how to implement them for verbs like लेना, देना and पीना; maybe you could describe the forms. (2) Invariable <$> is currently intended to be used when you need to add manual transliteration to something invariable, e.g. the noun in an 'X करना' expression. I should probably fix the module so it isn't necessary. (3) I still need to fix double verbs; I guessed what you mentioned, that it's enough to remove everything starting with the space, just haven't gotten to fix them yet. (4) As for collapsing alternative forms, which forms are you referring to? I will fix double verbs so that they don't try to combine every form with every other, but only combine parallel forms. (5) Feel free to copy the code and modify it (or even better, refactor to the extent possible). I can help you as well. Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Atitarev, Benwing2 Hey so actually in my table I found there are some corrections to do. I labelled the subjunctive tenses wrong (all verbs except होना(honā) do not have present subjunctive which I missed to add before) and didn't include the two forms for future tense of होना(honā). On the wikipedia page Hindustani Grammar I put a new and corrected table but I did not correct the table on google docs before. I've now edited the google doc file. However, I think that the one on the hindustani grammar wikipedia page is better I think, more concise and less space taking than the one on the google docs file. Check it out once, tell me which one could be better to implement. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31, AryamanA, Atitarev Thank you. I will check out your modified version. In the meantime, I've implemented a bunch of fixes in my sandbox modules, e.g. double verbs should work now along with manual translit in the invariable section of a verb. I made a lot of fixes to होना but I still think it has some issues. I did include some changes based on the Wikipedia Hindustani grammar page, e.g. the two forms of the future for होना and properly labeling the subjunctive of non-होना verbs. I'd appreciate you taking a look at User:Benwing2/test-hi-conj and User:Benwing2/test-hi-conj2 (I had to split it into two pages due to limitations on the amount of template expansion allowed in a single page). I'm still confused esp. about the imperative, esp. of irregular verbs. For example, there appear to be imperative forms like कीजिएगा of करना, हीजिएगा of होना, लीजिएगा of लेना, etc. that aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia page or your Google docs file but are mentioned in the old templates here on Wiktionary; conversely the old templates don't mention regular forms like करिएगा for करना. I also haven't split the imperative into "imperative" and "jussive", partly because this isn't (wasn't?) mentioned on the Wikipedia page. If you think this is the right thing to do, I'll do it. Benwing2 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK, I see you removed the jussive from your table. I still need to have the full set of imperative forms listed for any given regular verb as well as for करना, होना, लेना, देना, पीना and जाना. The Hindustani grammar page disagrees with itself e.g. in mentioning करिये in one place but कीजिये in another place, and it does not list all the irregular imperative forms. In addition, I omitted the separate "infinitive" and "oblique infinitive" from my table because I assumed they were subsumed into the "infinitive" listed under "participle". Is this the case or are they different beasts? Also, can the "masc plural" participial forms be used for masculine singular oblique? (Does this even make sense?) Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also, I'm not sure about certain sandhi changes. My module currently generates participial खाया but खेआ; not sure if खेया is correct instead of or in addition to खेआ; the Hindustani grammar page only mentions insertion of -y- after -ā- and -o-. In addition, I'm not sure if the 1sg subj of सीना is सिऊँ, सियूँ or both. Currently my module generates सि- forms of सीना with and without -y- if the ending begins with ā or e, but only without -y- if the ending begins with any other vowel (and सि- + ī becomes just सी-). Benwing2 (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
उगलना(ugalnā) does not have the base translit prevail (or any irregularities), the perfective masc. sg. is uglā indeed etc. Verbs don't really have the base form prevail in the way nouns do.
खेना(khenā)'s masc. sg. perf. is more commonly खेया(kheyā), we should use that since we're sticking to what is most common. The rules for y-insertion are optional, and often a matter of preference. e + ā prefers it.
For सीना(sīnā), सिया(siyā) is more common so should come first for masc. sg. perf. Same for किया(kiyā) in करना(karnā), दिया(diyā) in देना(denā), पिया(piyā) for पीना(pīnā) etc.
Masc. pl. perf. of जाना(jānā) is favoured to be गए(gae) but गये(gaye) is valid too (just less common).
ग़ायब होना(ġāyab honā) I guess the duplicate spellings should be merged like in hi-ndecl.
हिलना-डुलना(hilnā-ḍulnā) looks great! Only thing AFAICT is conjunctive should be हिल-डुलकर(hil-ḍulkar), हिल-डुलके(hil-ḍulke).
@AryamanA Thanks for your review. I've fixed all the issues except the duplicate spellings, which occur when there are two different transliterations for the same Devanagari spelling. What I should probably do in that case is merge the Devanagari forms but keep the two transliterations. I'll implement that tonight probably. As for जाना(jānā), I assumed that the feminine and feminine plural are like the masculine plural, hence more common गई(gaī), less common गयी(gayī). If this is wrong please let me know and I'll fix it. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA Thanks! BTW the other remaining issues I know about are (1) the imperatives of irregular verbs, as described above; (2) whether to include the infinitive and oblique infinitive as separate entries from the "infinitive participle", and whether the accelerator forms should be different. Benwing2 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Aha, I saw that in the morning and forgot to respond.
करना(karnā) has primarily कीजिए(kījie) (and with -gā, as for all below) but करिए(karie) is an alternative form (dialectal in Delhi Punjabi L1 speakers especially).
होना(honā) has primarily होइए(hoie) but I've seen हूजिए(hūjie) rarely too. The form you mentioned is not used at all to my knowledge.
@AryamanA Thanks! One more question ... Can all the participle forms in -e (habitual, perfective, prospective/agentive, adjectival) be oblique masculine singular as well as masculine plural, like the infinitive? Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA Cool, thank you. Also, I need some additional help with लेना, देना, पीना imperatives. Currently I have 2sg pres imperative दे, 3sg pres imperative ???, 2pl pres imperative दो, 3pl pres imperative दीजिए/दीजिये, and I'm not sure the corresponding future imperative forms except presumably 3pl fut imperative is दीजिएगा/दीजियेगा. Not sure if these are correct, and I need help with the missing forms. लेना is presumably exactly like देना, but पीना is another matter. If you could spell out all the possible imperative forms for देना and पीना, I'd greatly appreciate it. Benwing2 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA OK, based on the table in w:Hindustani grammar, which lists the familiar imperative of देना as दो, and correspondingly लेना -> लो and पीना -> पियो, alongside करना -> कर, I inserted these forms into the 2sg pres imperative tables and mechanically derived the 3sg and 2pl pres and fut from these. I suspect these are extremely wrong, esp. forms like fut 2sg पियोइयो. I am guessing probably the table in w:Hindustani grammar is wrong and the forms दो, लो, पियो are 2pl pres imperative; but then I'm not sure what the 2sg forms are (दे, ले, पी maybe?), nor am I sure what the 3sg or the fut 2sg/3sg/2pl forms are. Benwing2 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK, I changed the imperative tables again for देना, लेना, पीना. The new forms at least look plausible: 2sg pres दे ले पी, 3sg pres दे ले पिये, 2pl pres दो लो पियो, 2sg fut देइयो लेइयो पिइयो, 3sg fut दे ले पिये, 2pl fut देना लेना पीना. Please review these forms, which can also be found in User:Benwing2/test-hi-conj2, and let me know which ones are wrong. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Two more things: (1) My tables currently list an "adjectival participle" किया हुआ, किये हुए, की हुई, की हुईं. w:Hindustani grammar lists two adjectival participles, where the one I have is labeled "perfective adjectival participle" and the other one is the "habitual adjectival participle" करता हुआ, करते हुए, करती हुई, करती हुईं. Should we include both? (2) You mentioned that for the verb हिलना-डुलना, the conjunctive participle is हिल-डुलकर or हिल-डुलके. Does this also apply to the prospective/agentive participle (which my tables currently have as हिलनेवाला-डुलनेवाला but maybe should be हिलने-डुलनेवाला) and to the indicative future forms (which my tables currently have as हिलूँगा-डुलूँगा etc. but maybe should be हिलूँ-डुलूँगा etc.)? I ask because Wikipedia mentions that all three suffixes (conjunctive -कर/-के, prospective/agentive -वाला, indicative future -गा/-गे/-गी) are written as separate words in Urdu. Benwing2 (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 This is actually the jussive mood but I don't think we should add a separate section for Jussive mood because Hindi doesn't have unique forms for Jussive mood. It's just the subjunctive which is doubling as the imperative. Do not include these forms as either imperative or jussive because just calling them subjunctive is enough. Languages like Spanish, Portuguese, Latin etc all did/do the same. They use the subjunctive as imperatives. Modern day romance languages like Spanish do the same for 3rd person (indirect imperatives) and 2nd person formal imperatives, just how it is in Hindi. I would say not to make a separate Jussive section and neither add them as imperatives. That is why I removed them from my table too.
Another thing, Yes, you're right. I missed the the imperatives कीजिये/कीजियेगा and करिये/करियेगा. I have added them now in my table. In this case you can added them together in the imperative section in place of करें which was added before. Some verbs have multiple imperatives. कीजिये is more polite than करिये in this case. However, I have never heard the imperative हूजिये for होना. It was a surprise for me to see it included in the conjugation table.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks. I can either footnote हूजिये as rare or leave it out. Benwing2 (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 another thing which I forgot to mention before that you asked about, oblique infinitive and the infinitive participle are two completely different things. In Hindi they might look similar buy in other Indic languages like Nepali etc they are clearly differentiated. These both function differently. For example:
मुझे ये करना है। (masc sing)
मुझे ये चीज़ करनी है। (fem sing)
मुझे नाखून काटने हैं। (masc plu)
These above are the infinitive participles in use. They agree in gender and number. The oblique infinitive is indeclinable unlike the infinitive participle. Examples:
इसे करने में मज़ा आता है। (used before postpositions)
मैं खेलने जा रहा हूँ। (used to show direction, and future actions, often equivalent to the english "going to")
बोलने के लिए बहौत कुछ है मेरे पास। (used before postposition)
Now, in the above sentences, the ने ending is always fixed. It can never change. So, for e.g., all these sentences below are wrong. These all should only use the oblique infinitive (which is different from the infinitive participle).
@Itsmeyash31 Thanks. I'll add back the infinitive and oblique infinitive as separate entries in the table. Another question: can any of the "masculine plural" participles in e.g. करना(karnā) also function in the oblique singular? E.g. habitual करते, perfective किये/किए, prospective/agentive कारनेवाले. Currently the accelerators generate {{inflection of}} calls that describe these forms as both masculine plural and oblique masculine singular, but maybe that's wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Yes, all partciple have their oblique forms. All can be declined into oblique and nominative cases. But there is no need to add their oblique forms separately. So, you do not need to show oblique forms for any participle, except the oblique infinitive. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also, I would like to suggest some corrections to the conjugation table (mentioned below). I found a few mistakes. Also, I would like to suggest some modifications which would make the table more readable.
@Itsmeyash31, AryamanA If participles have oblique forms, and the oblique masculine singular is the same as plural (i.e. it ends in -e rather than -ā), I think it's important to show this. Otherwise it would be misleading to the Hindi learner. BTW can you describe under what circumstances the oblique masculine sinuglar is used? Can you give some examples? Benwing2 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, AryamanA Yes, the future imperatives for the 2nd person singular are wrong. For लेना it's लियो and for देना it's दियो. It's correct for पीना, logically this also should have been पियो but then it would have been the same as the present imperative of 2nd person plural तुम. So, it's तू पीइयो and तुम पियो. The इ is pronounced distinctly in पीइयो (pī'iyo).
Also, you don't need to add third person imperatives. Because it's just the same as the subjunctive. You can add a usage note that the subjunctive is also used a the 3rd person imperative in Hindi. In the tables we are grouping the pronouns ये/वे/आप together. आप can have both the imperative and the subjunctive used as imperative forms. for e.g. लीजिये and लें. The subjunctive imperative forms are not added in the table, however, adding them I think will clutter the table. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31, Benwing2: Um, what? पीइयो is not right at all, it's पियो. Could you record yourself saying the 2nd person singular imperative of पीना? How do you even say इई? In my dialect at least, that is an impossible sequence.
@AryamanA, Benwing2: Ah I wrongly wrote पीइयो in the response above, it should be पिइयो. In speech I have always heard those two being differentiated (even without the pronouns explicitly mentioned). I have never seen them written but I can assure that they are not pronounced the same. I could have show the pronunciation of both of them but I don't know how to add pronunciation here. I'll link record in some other website and provide links here later. One could also write पिइयो as पीयो, however, I do not prefer that because in पिइयो it's the पि- (the verb root) which has a rising intonation (or is stressed) and not पिइ-. The 2nd singular future imperative पिइयो has a compulsory rising intonation like /pi↑iyo/ that is absent in the 2nd person present imperative पियो /piyo/. Like how the imperatives for जीना (live) are जिइयो /ji'iyo/, जिइये /ji'iye/, जिइयेगा /ji'iyega/. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31, Benwing: I am hearing this for the first time in my life and I really doubt this. "जिइएगा" gets only one hit on Google, pointing to Wiktionary itself. I have never seen पिइयो nor जिइयो nor जिइए. After all, there is a reason the company is called Jio not Jiio. I would spell those as पियो, जियो, जिए/जिये, जिएगा/जियेगा। Two short vowels in a row is simply not possible by Hindi phonotactics, and while I understand what you are saying for stress, this is never reflected in orthography and certainly not in this manner. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)01:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Itsmeyash31 Hmm. पिइयो has about 1600 hits but many of them are Nepali. Not knowing Hindi, I could believe either पिइयो or पियो. BTW please review जाना, I have forms like 2s fut ind जाएगा and 2p pres imp जाओ, I take it these are wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Benwing2 The conjugations are correct for जाना. I don't think it was added before, and probably that no one even notices it much but the perfective participle of जाना is both गया and जाया. The perfective participle जाया should also be added and it should be mentioned in the usage note that it us used with habitual mood and the passive construction when the copula used is not होना (specifically, when the copula is जाना and in limited cases करना). Examples:
* जाया जाए? and not गया जाए।
* जाया जाता था। and not गया जाता था।
* जाया जा रहा था। and not गया जा रहा था।
* जाया करता था। and not गया करता था।
You don't need to mention about करना as a copula (as its usage with जाया is limited the habitual aspect) and can just say in the usage note that when the copula used is जाना in place of होना, then गया retains its regular participle form जाया. There are four verbs that can be used as copulas in Hindi, होना, जाना, आना and रहना (and करना (in a limited way)). Itsmeyash31 (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Benwing2 I'll try to gather some sources somehow to kind of show they are pronounced differently enough to have different orthography. This happens with all single syllabic verb roots ending in the vowel -i or -ī. I think there are no search results for this because future imperative for tū is not used in all dialects of Hindi but only in very specific delhi (and nearby) ones. Let's see, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is a difference. I have always pronounced them differently. I think the company Jio has intended to use the tūm present imperative "jio" and not the future imperative of tū. So, that point I don't think is a valid argument. I don't think any brand will use the "tū" pronoun conjugations.Itsmeyash31 (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Benwing2 Okay, I think I have a valid argument for the pint I made above about validity of पिइयो. You said that there can not be this vowel sequence, but a similar vowel sequence is used in the verb छूना. The future subjunctive and future forms of this verb are: छुऊँगा, छुऊँ etc. We do not pronounce छुऊँ as छूँ, and छुऊँगा as छूँगा. (I personally have never heard them being pronounced like छूँ/छूँगा and they sound wrong, to me at least). I pronounce the vowel sequence of पिइयो exactly how I pronounce the vowel sequence in छुऊँगा. I believe this same logic should be applied for पिइयो. @Benwing2 This reminds me that in your page User:Benwing2/test-hi-conj this conjugation of छूना is wrongly mentioned as छूँ and छूँगा (I don't know if it's wrong, but I know छुऊँगा and छुऊँ are definitely valid and it's the only way I have ever pronounced these conjugations. You'd have a very good amount of search hits for it online.) I think the reason पिइयो doesn't have much hindi online hits because most likely it's a word that is rarely written. It one of those conjugations only used while speaking and not written, in my opinion. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31: Ohh I think I understand now! You are totally right, छूऊँगा is definitely correct for me too. I pronounce it like /t͡ʃuː.ũːŋ.ɡɑː/, with two long vowels and what seem like a stress on the second on to separate them. I am okay with पिइयो then, and you're right it's only spoken. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)19:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Suggestions & Corrections for the Conjugation Table
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
(picture1 & picture3) Remove all the multiple pronunciation entries. For example: Both किया हुआ and किआ हुआ are mentioned in the table. I suggest that किआ हुआ be removed from the table (and all other alternative forms where य is skipped). I know they are both alternative ways to write them but just as we discussed for the spellings, I recommend we use a standardised orthography. The table is not really readable, especially for those who do not know hindi but are just trying to understand the table. Let the older orthography (with the -y- not omitted) be the standard on wiktionary. (Or you could do the opposite, by removing the -y- everywhere possible). That way you would also have to code less exceptions into the code. Check the image below. कीजिएगा, कीजियेगा, करिएगा, करियेगा all are mentioned there. Just कीजियेगा and करियेगा should be enough because they are used differently. picture1: remove all the equivalent entries where -y- is omitted. On Wiktionary, standardise the older orthography.
(picture2) Change the colour of the table such that each table entry is visible in their correct positions. If you'd make the borders visible and also give an alternating background colour for each row, they would look legible. I am talking about the these red marked entries in the epic uploaded. For example, look at this conjugation table for the german verb "essen" (to be)picture2: borders should be added. and the conjugation for feminine 2nd person plural "tum" is wrong.
(picture2) The feminine conjugations for the 2nd person pronoun तुम is wrong. It should not be nasalised.
(picture4) Remove the PRS tense entry for the contrafactual mood. There is no need to add PRS there. Just adding PST there would be sufficient going by the definition of the contrafactual mood.
(picture4) Remove the PRS tense entry for the subjunctive mood for all verbs except होना. होना is the only verb in Hindi to have present subjunctive forms. No other verbs have it. All other verbs have just the future subjunctive.
(picture5) imperfective adjectival participle is missing from the table. Please add that.
Add future tense too to the presumptive forms for non-aspectual (simple aspect) and progressive aspect. They can be but into future tense, habitual and perfective presumptive cannot be. I have corrected this in my table.
I have corrected my table too. So, you can check and compare these two tables.
picture3: complicated to readpicture4: remove these entries because these tenses do not exist for subjunctive and contrafactualpicture5: non-personal forms imperfective adjectival participle
I think what I'll do is put a footnote talking about the forms without y in them.
I will experiment and see what looks best. For example, maybe what I can do is add vertical borders + put masculine rows in one shade of gray, feminine rows in a different shade of gray, and combined masculine/feminine rows in e.g. white.
I think what you're saying is that since तुम is singular, it takes feminine singular rather than plural endings. Do we need to restructure the table to reflect this? The current column for तुम is labeled "2nd plural", which is not really correct. Is it enough to label the "plural" entries in the personal table as "plural or formal", or does it need more radical changes?
This might depend on your viewpoint, and on what the contrafactual mood means. In English for example, we have distinct present and past contrafactual sentences, where the semantics disagree with the formal tense:
(present contrafactual) "If I were to leave, you would miss me." (This is semantically present tense even though the verb in the first part is past tense.)
(past contrafactual) "If I had left, you would have missed me." (This is semantically past tense even though the verb in the first part is in the pluperfect.)
Same thing here, can the subjunctive be semantically used for both present and future? If so, maybe the PRS/FUT label is correct.
The first example you gave "If I were to leave, you would miss me." has a different construction in Hindi, contrafactual mood isn't used in such sentences in Hindi. For details/source you can can check this website from University of Minnesota on Hindi conditionals. The contrafactual mood always refers to past hypothetical actions. This English sentence you gave, implies either immediate-future or future action. The best Hindi translation of that sentences could be:
अगर मुझे जाना हुआ तो मुझे मिस करोगी/करोगे? (future possible action using perfective past verb forms)
अगर मैं चला गया तो मुझे मिस करोगी/करोगे? (future possible action using perfective past verb forms)
So, just like in English, the past (specifically the perfective past) is used to convey the possibility of a future possible action, but it's not the contrafactual mood. The same sentences above using the verbs in the Contrafactual mood are:
अगर मुझे जाना होता तो मुझे मिस करते/करती? (past hypothetical action using contrafactual mood)
अगर मैं चला गया होता तो मुझे मिस करते/करती? (past hypothetical action using contrafactual mood)
Now, these above are specifically in the past. Not present or future. In hindi, the contrafactual mood is doubles as both the past subjunctive mood and the past conditional mood. In the above sentences, the first part (the IF अगर clause) is the past subjunctive and the (THEN तो clause) is the past conditional.
SUBJUNCTIVE
Now, about the subjunctive, there is no present subjunctive conjugation of verbs in Hindi (expect for the verb होना). For example:
* मैं चाहता हूँ कि वो नाचे। (I want that he dance.)
* वो करे ये चीज़। ((I want) that s/he do this thing.)
* I wish मेरा नाम हो लिस्ट में। (I hope my name is on the list)
@Benwing2 I forgot to talk about it, but yes, the pronoun tum is singular. Only its conjugation is plural. To talk about plural person using "tum", "tum log" or "tum sab" must be added. I have never heard "tum" alone being used to refer to multiple people. I think a better table design should be done to accommodate for that fact. I'll think about a better table design and mention it here. We can then discuss whether to actually implement it or not. For now, just changing the feminine conjugations to singular should be fine in case we stick to this table. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31, AryamanA What about the masculine participial conjugations of tum? Do they end in -e (the plural) or -ā (the singular)? As for how to structure this, one possible way is to have the "singular" be four columns, which are (from left to right) मैं, तू, तुम, यह/वह, labelled "1st, 2nd intimate, 2nd familiar, 3rd". After that comes two plural columns, for हम and ये/वे/आप, labeled either "1st, 3rd" or "1st, 2nd formal/3rd". Benwing2 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31, AryamanA They end in -e. It would have been nice if the feminine conjugations were nasalised for tum, but unfortunately we don't have that symmetry.
I made a conjugation table for wikipedia. In that I just used the 4 unique conjugations Hindi has and hence no repeated rows. The table which we have now has two separate columns for tū and yah/vah even though their conjugations are exactly the same. I am attaching the tables here on the right. You would see in the tables, I have separated the presumptive future and the indicative future. Also, you could add a usage note that the imperatives are just for the 2nd person and for the 3rd person the subjunctive is used as the imperatives. I am attaching the . Itsmeyash31 (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
CONJUGATIONS: simple aspect conjugations of "hona" and "karna"CONJUGATIONS: aspectual conjugations of "karnā"
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@AryamanA, Atitarev Is this a legitimate form? It used to exist, defined as "will be", illustrated with the sentence "इस मशीन से फल और सब्जी नहीं होंगीं जल्दी ख़राब!" "Fruits and vegetables will not deteriorate quickly with this machine!". Is this a feminine plural form with the final nasal? Should it replace होंगी in the होना table, or be added as an alternative form? Benwing2 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: I also get a good number of hits for करेंगीं(kareṅgī̃), presumably feminine plural future with a final nasal. {{R:hi:Kachru}} does not have the nasal ending in its verb tables for these forms. I have never written this forms either and I can't detect any nasalization when I say them. I don't think we should include them directly in the table and I'm uncertain whether we should even have a note, since these are definitely non-standard. What do you think? It would be kind of messy to have so many forms I think. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)17:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Often there are many hits for forms which do not actually exist. In my experience this form doesn't exist. It's just गा, गे and गी. The nasalisation here is redundant because the first nasalisation (in the subjunctive form to which गी is attached) is already doing its job. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Presumptive Mood
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Okay so, after thinking for a while I came to a conclusion that the presumptive mood can be used for all three tenses present/past/future and not just for past/present as how I mentioned in the table I made. Now, I think the future presumptive is often used synonymously with the indicative future. I'll use some sentences to show the difference (as I think there is):
I'll use the 3rd person (होगा and होएगा) to show the difference between the two.
आज से दो साल बाद वो कमा रहा होगा। (presumptive future)
आज से दो साल बाद वो कमा रहा होएगा। (indicative future)
Now, often even natives do not think much between which one to use, but I think one could agree that the first sentence above has a "presumption" or "assumption" attached to it. The second sentence however, is like stating a "fact", that "will" be the case in the future. The difference is somewhat similar to "definite" and "indefinite" future. The 2nd one has more "surety" and the first one is more like "hoping" or just describing the most probable thing to happen.
I thought of this after I saw written something like this somewhere on some fb meme: "tumhaari/uski rank 80k ho ya 30k ya phir 5k, 4 saal ke baad same IT company mein work kar rahe hoge/hoga.". Now, this clearly is a sentence that involve presumption of future and that it doesn't "indicatively" describe the future like. It's definitely not the future that will surely happen.
Tell me what you think about it, or if do you see the difference between the two or not, I edited the tables on wikipedia and the google docs to account for this. I earlier was using the terms "future-1" and "future-2" but I think it's just that people speak more in a presumptive manner and that is why often confuse presumptive future and indicative future. People just use presumptive future more than indicative future, which I think is actually logical.
Itsmeyash31 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31: I didn't get a ping either, or I would have responded! In my own dialect, I think I have merged the two forms; I have never used hoegā. For me, both of those uses would simply apply hogā. e.g. छह साल में मैं सौ रुपए कमा रहा हूँगा। (which is not presumptive, but just the future indicative). But I note that on Google both forms get a lot of hits, so I think we should follow your system. Probably, my own usage is just a colloquial pronunciation. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)14:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31 I see why none of us received your pings: You have to sign the message that has the ping template in it by writing ~~~~ at the end of your message, or the ping won't be received. In other words, when you press "publish changes", the text has to have both the {{ping}} template and the signature in it in order for us to receive the ping. Benwing2 (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago30 comments4 people in discussion
@Atitarev, AryamanA, Itsmeyash31 I am in the process of implementing the suggestions made above. So far I have changed some of the colors, added borders and converted most of the y/no-y variants to footnotes. Please review the results by looking at User:Benwing2/test-hi-conj and User:Benwing2/test-hi-conj2. Note that these tables don't go full-width so you'll have to use your imagination a bit to see what they would look like at full width. Also, I'm not entirely happy with the colors I've chosen. The idea is that there's one shade of green for masculine, a different shade of green for feminine, and a sort of lavender for rows that are combined masc/fem. I'm not a UI designer so there are probably better colors. Maybe we should just scrap the different colors for different rows; this was a suggestion of Itsmeyash31 but I'm not sure it will work. The colors are almost all now in CSS, so it's easy to experiment with different ones: go to Module:User:Benwing2/hi-verb/style.css, edit the file, change the appropriate color using RGB notation, and preview User:Benwing2/test-hi-conj or User:Benwing2/test-hi-conj2 using "Preview page with this template" at the bottom. Benwing2 (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, AryamanA, Benwing2 This already looks so much great! good work. Thanks for you efforts! Yes, you can experiment with colours to see which ones suit best this table. I'd also say if the font size could be reduced a bit it would look really concise and nice. It takes a lot of on-screen space as of now, in my opinion. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31 I actually mention this issue above, in a question directed at User:AryamanA; it was never answered. In that question, I suggested that both -गा and -वाला should appear only once at the end in verbs like हिलना-डुलना because the endings are written as separate words in Urdu, as with the conjunctive. Is that correct? Benwing2 (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Yes, hearing it from Urdu's perspective it's clear to me now that गा should appear only once at the end. I am 100% sure now that it's wrong. The same applies to वाला. Another way to confirm this is that वाला can also take the emphatic particles भी and ही before them, these particles can't be repeated that way, so वाला also cannot be repeated. Feel free to correct them by removing the first गा and वाला. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think not having the current variety of colours, and instead only one set of shades, will make the table more readable. The blue(ish) colour scheme is good as it is I think, but we can retain the cell fill colours being different from the borders since that helps distinguish the cells. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)03:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Itsmeyash31, Atitarev OK. I have dealt with almost all the FIXME issues, and I feel ready to push this new module to production. We still have some outstanding issues; some of them are cases where there's disagreement, while some are questions I have that should be answerable fairly easily. Here they are:
Should we change the label of non-होना subjunctives to FUT only not PRES/FUT?
Should we remove subjunctive forms of imperatives and convert them to a footnote?
Do verbs like खाना have alternative perfective participles खाये, खायी, खायीं?
Should 2pl pres imperative in -o be -yo after -i, e.g. सियो, पियो, जियो? If so, is -o alone (e.g. सिओ पिओ जिओ) an alternative form?
What is the progressive of हिलना-डुलना? Currently I have हिलते-हिलते-दुलते-दुलते.
Are forms like पिइयो (पीना) and जिइयो (जीना) correct, and should forms like पियो and जियो be used instead or as alternatives?
Should we have distinct colors for masc/fem/combined rows or should they be a single color?
The first point shouldn't be a point of debate. I can link to studies where it has been mentioned specifically as the future subjunctive. For example: ASPECT, TENSE, AND MOOD IN THE HINDI VERB (This is behind a paywall, but if you have a university email you should be able to access it for free.) Only the verb "hona" has the present subjunctive. Info about all the moods and aspects of hindi can be found in this paper.
I'd suggest either removing the subjunctives from the imperatives, but if you could somehow add the subjunctive imperative for the 3rd person plural, 2nd person formal (without the table looking cluttered) then then that's also fine. Either both for all, or none for all. If you're not able to add it then just mention about them in the notes.
I think we should stick to not skipping the -y-. These participles can also be written with the -y-. When writing hindi in latin script you'd see a lot of people writing खाये, खायी as "khaaye" and "khaayi". I rarely see "khaae" and "khaai" (but usually that is how it's pronounced. So, people just prefer the non-phonetic way to write it in latin script, maybe just to differentiate the word by just seeing. for e.g khaai = valley, khaayi = ate (fem.))
these imperatives also have the -y- in them. In these cases I personally always pronounce the -y-. So, I pronounce like "siyo", "jiyo", "piyo" etc. Put the ones without the -y- as the alternative forms.
progressive of हिलना-डुलना is just हिलते-डुलते. It's the repetition of words that is important here. Here the verb is already repeated (or there are two in a sequence). So, these both are correct sentences: वो करते-करते बोला and वो हिलते-डुलते बोला। (and not वो हिलते-हिलते-दुलते-दुलते बोला।).
To me personally पियो and जियो sound completely wrong for तू. I could even accept पीयो and जीयो but the way I pronounce them is exactly पिइयो and जिइयो (the regular way of just adding -iyo at the end, to the root). I have mentioned some more arguments for existence of that vowel sequence that @AryamanA disagrees about. I gave some examples of how the vowel sequence -uū-/-uu- also exists (which is verifiable thru google searches). So, we should discuss more about this one.
For the colours, I'll check how they do in other heavily gendered languages (specially in verbs), like some Slavic ones. I'll tell you if I like some colour scheme that some other language has used.
@Benwing2 Check this colour scheme out for Bulgarian Conjugations. I don't like the table body much here, I think it's better with colour. But I like how they did the table borders (the first columns with labels). Darker shades of colours would be a better choice. It does strain the eyes with the current colour scheme that we have, and smaller font size would be nicer. So, if you could refer to Bulgarian colour scheme and apply something similar to the body of the hindi conjugations table. I think it'll look nice. But, let's see what others say. Btw, I think, structurally, Bulgarian has a similar conjugation table as Hindi. The base forms and then the four types of compound conjugations depending on the aspect/mood. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
2. We don't really need the subjunctives in the imperatives IMO, that imperative use of the subjunctive is a matter of pragmatics not a grammatical category in its own right.
3. Agree that we can standardize on -y- since those forms are more prevalent these days; also note, all the -y- forms are acceptable but not all the non -y- alternatives are (like सिआ is obsolete these days).
4. I agree, but I want to note that glides are inserted between vowels as a matter of phonetics, so there's no pronunciation difference between the spellings and Itsmeyah's justification there is unnecessary.
6. I agree now with this, it's just a little weird for me since I haven't seen these forms in print. The future imperative is confined to Delhi Hindi and seen as colloquial, hence why it doesn't show up in print. I am familiar with forms like करियो, दिखाइयो, etc. but पिइयो just sounds like पियो to me, and they seem the same in my dialect.
7. I don't really like the greens (it is a little jarring on the eyes), I think the old light grey is fine and we can keep table cells. Also, the Bulgarian table is nice.
@AryamanA, Itsmeyash31, Atitarev I have addressed #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #8 above. Some new issues related the the above:
2. If we are to remove the subjunctives from the imperatives, which forms should be removed? Currently the 3s pres imp, 3s fut imp and 2p pres imp look like subjunctives, but the 2p fut imp does not; it instead looks like an infinitive.
3. I assume that forms like खाये, खेये apply only to the perfective participles and forms derived from them, but not to the subjunctives, which I've left as खाए, खेए. Let me know if the subjunctives should be खाये, खेये, with or without a footnote listing खाए, खेए.
4a. For forms in -iyō, I didn't include a footnote giving alternatives in -iō because it seems the y is always pronounced; let me know if this footnote should be included.
4b. Aryaman mentions that some y-less forms are disallowed, such as सिआ; which forms are these? Let me know the complete set and I'll fix the footnotes accordingly.
7. This is still a point of disagreement. I think the problem with the green background colors for form cells is partly that "green links" use a lightish green color that is hard to read against a green background. This same problem exists to some extent with the current light gray background. It seems that the various link colors (dark blue, red, light green, yellowish-orange) only really collectively work well against a white or almost-white background. Perhaps there is/are some color or colors that would work as a background with all these different link colors; otherwise, the best solution IMO is to use a white background and change the border to some other color, e.g. gray. Better would be to change the color of green links to a darker green so that it's easier to use different-colored backgrounds, but I'm not sure whether that's feasible. Benwing2 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Remove only the 3rd person imperatives (both present and future). Rest all are fine. Do not remove any 2nd person imperatives. Yes, infinitive doubles as the 2nd person familiar future imperative. But this is different from the subjunctive doubling as the imperative. We cannot remove any 2nd person imperative.
Think like wherever there could be a -y- there is a -y-. Do not skip it anywhere. Yes, the subjunctive for the 3rd person singular is the same as the past participle for the 2nd person formal.
It feels odd pronouncing the 2nd person intimate future imperative suffix -iyo without the -y. I don't think people skip pronouncing them in this case. It's always pronounced -iyo. Actually, I think a lot of times people pronounce the -y- even though they do not write it explicitly. For example: The word "India" in Hindi is pronounced like इंडिया (inḍiyā) and not "inḍiā". Often it is impossible for many native to pronounce words without the -y-, specially when it comes after an -i- and either -e-, -a-, -ā-, -au- or -o follows it (basically all vowels except -i- or -ī-). So using the same logic in -iyo, the -y- cannot ever be skipped. I doubt there are any verb where you'd find this combination of -iyi or -iyī- explicitly written (but in certain eastern dialects of Hindi I think this sound is still preserved, but obviously not written. Though I wouldn't make any claims now. It could just be the eastern accent playing with my ears.). So, these combinations -iyī- and -iyi- are basically equivalent to -ī- in pronunciation in many dialects. That is why the feminine perfective past of kiyā is kī. It's basically short for kiyī (the regular orthography, which is out of usage). Same logic for piyā and pī (short for piyī).
@AryamanA's point of the times when -y- cannot be skipped follows from the logic I gave in the 3rd point above.
I was trying to change the colours, I was experimenting with some and found a good combination but i don't know what happened even though I am changing the colour values, there's no effect on the preview output. I'll try again later.Itsmeyash31 (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Itsmeyash31, AryamanA More questions:
I'll remove the 3rd person imperatives, but leave the formal ones like करियेगा, sound good?
So you're saying the 2nd/3rd singular subjunctive should be खाये and खेये, not खाए and खेए (with these latter in a footnote)? Same for the future forms खायेगा and खेयेगा?
The -iyo applies not only to the future intimate imperative but the present familiar imperative of verbs like सीना and जीना. I assume the same issues apply everywhere. Also when you say the y is pronounced after i before most vowels, does that also include u and ū? Currently I have सिऊँगा as the 1s future of सीना, should it be सियूँगा?
yes. remove all 3rd person imperatives and leave the 2nd person imperatives as they are.
yes. खाये and खायी. with the others in footnote.
yes. It applies to them as well. सियूँगा, पियूँगा Latin transcription of these words almost always carry the -y- and are "piyoonga" and "siyoonga." (and are almost never written as "pioonga" and "sioonga"). Although there are people who write सिऊँगा but it's very likely that they themselves pronounce it with the -y-. Natives add -y- there without even realising they did. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I think all should be fine. But also I don't think it's practical to put all such forms in the foot note. I think just mentioning the rule that governs this orthography rule should be enough. Like the following table shows all the places where the -y- can be optionally omitted (it is cumpulsory only for the vowel -i- but only in these three conditions mentioned below: (i've assumed ai=è and au=ò). We can just mention that in these conditions the -y- can be omitted. Sometimes skipping is optional, sometimes it isn't. for example: -uye -> -ue. is not optional, iyi -> í is not optional.
@Benwing2 ah sorry my bad. I just made it as quickly as possible I forgot to explain. This table lists all combinations of sounds in which -y- comes in between. You can read them this way: a/āyi = ayi/āyi which can also be written as: ai/āi. The 2nd columns show the alternative way to write them. Only for these combinations can you have alternate spellings.
I was wondering only if it can be said in the foot note that these combinations have an alternate spellings where the -y- is omitted. I feel it's better than writing all the alternate spellings. So, do tell your opinion about this idea. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31 I am a bit confused by this table. You have for example ū/uyū but the first person singular masculine future indicative of छूना is घुऊँगा not #छूयऊँगा. So I'm still not sure how to interpret this table. As for footnotes, I think it's better to spell out explicitly all the possibilities because (a) it won't be obvious to a Hindi learner where the y is required, optional or forbidden; (b) it won't necessarily be obvious how to convert a y variant to a non-y variant, since it requires a totally different letter (independent vs. diacritic). I have already implemented this in most cases, and I think it works reasonably well. Benwing2 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31 Apologies, I hope you don't feel I am ignoring your suggestions. I do think your table is useful, I just need to know what it's saying. It will definitely help to know which combinations of vowels have a mandatory y between them, which ones have an optional y, and for which ones the y doesn't occur. Benwing2 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I tried but somehow I am not able to change the colours in the conjugation table. I change the HTML colour codes but nothing happens after I click preview. It stays blue. So, if you are able to, could you look at this colour scheme that Gujarati has and try to implement this in Hindi too? I feel this looks much better. Gujarati Conjugation TableItsmeyash31 (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Itsmeyash31 Can you tell me exactly what you did? You need to edit Module:hi-verb/style.css and then at the bottom, where it says "preview page with this template", enter करना and click "Show preview". I just tried this by changing the background color of .hi-mf-cell to #00ff00 and it duly changes the colors of the m/f column near the left to bright green. Benwing2 (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
