Infinitive Verb Meaning In Hindi

Thank you, @Qureshpor jii, for answering my questions!

------------------------

I just institute a fleck nigh Punjabi infinitives in a 1896 grammer: link (section 168). This grammar cites following examples that are worth mulling over:

manukkh daa janam pher nahiiN labbhNRaa

aukhtaaN naal kucch phaaidaa nahiiN hoNRaa

ajj miiNh paiNRaa

Nosotros can translate these into Hindi-Urdu using infinitives:

insaan kaa janam phir nahiiN milnaa (hai)

davaaiyon se kucch faaydaa nahiiN honaa (hai)

aaj baarish honii hai

And, seeing these, nosotros can come upwards with more examples along the same lines using different verbs:

is mukadme kaa faislaa aaj aanaa hai

is maidaan meN baRii-baRii imaarateN bannii haiN

ye kaam kal tak puuraa kiyaa jaanaa hai

...

Discover that in all of these, the subjects (janam, ..., imaarateN, kaam) are in the direct example with no postpositions. This contrasts with sentences similar hameN/hamne jalandhar jaanaa hai, where the subject hameN/hamne is dative/ergative (and, in fact, 1 cannot say *ham jalandhar jaanaa hai with the field of study in the straight case). I honey Occam'southward Razor as much every bit anyone, just, at least at first pass, information technology seems to me similar this forces an analysis in which these two infinitive + copula constructions are really two different syntactic phenomena.

------------------------

To attempt a comparative analysis, then... Based on everything we've seen and so far, both Hindi-Urdu and Punjabi use an infinitive with a hereafter tense[1] sense in (at to the lowest degree) the following constructions:

(I) A bare infinitive with a (possibly tacit) second person "subject" in the direct case. This is a time to come imperative.
(II) An infinitive plus copula, with a subject in the ergative case. This expresses a future result, especially one that is intended/desired/required/etc. (Perhaps nosotros can too say that the subject in this example is typically animate? [two])
(3) An infinitive plus copula, with a subject in the straight case. This expresses a time to come event, especially one that is predicted. (Mayhap we tin can likewise say that the bailiwick in this case is typically inanimate and the verb is typically intransitive? [3])

Possible differences between Hindi-Urdu and Punjabi:

* In construction (Ii), Hindi-Urdu as well allows the dative instance on the subject (with slightly different, simply closely related, semantics). Based on @Qureshpor jii's responses to my questions 2 and 3 (and also comment (5) in the 1896 grammar I cited in a higher place), nosotros run into that Punjabi doesn't like dative subjects, but mayhap Hindi-Urdu is encroaching somewhat upon this restriction. On the other mitt, we also see that Punjabi seems to allow dropping ergativity marking (maybe only with certain kinds of subjects...?), and this is something that Hindi-Urdu would not allow.

* Omitability of copula. @Qureshor jii reports that the copula isn't omitted in Punjabi speech. Maybe, though, there'southward some difference between Hindi-Urdu and Punjabi in how adequate the sentence remains later omitting the copula...?

Harrdy Sandhu's lyrics (fifty-fifty if they're depression quality Punjabi poetry!) drop the copula in a situation where doing this sounds quite odd in Hindi-Urdu (to me at to the lowest degree, and actually, the dropped copulas in the lyrics experience like they were the biggest correspondent to the opacity of the lyrics from my Hindi-Urdu perspective). That being said, I know that poesy often takes liberties with grammar, which leads me to...
The sentence ajj miiNh paiNRaa from the grammar cited above. This is a construction (3) example which omits a copula in a situation where Hindi-Urdu probably wouldn't (I at least find *aaj baarish honii without a copula to be unacceptable).
Regarding construction (II), there's a somewhat mysterious comment in the 1896 grammar which says that this construction is used in Punjabi "both with and without the noun verb [ie, copula]." But this comment is unsubstantiated in the grammar, since the only example given in which the copula is missing is 1 in which nahiiN as well appears: je us ne nahiiN jaaNRaa taa main aape jaavaaNgaa (which tin painlessly be translated into agar us ne nahiiN jaanaa to chief khud jaauuNgaa). So, I don't know if the copula is really omitable if nahiiN isn't around.

* At that place may also exist a slight semantic difference in that Panjabi's structure (II) has slightly broader semantic scope (eg, maybe the condition that the future event be intended/desired/required/etc is slightly more than lax in Punjabi). This is maybe why the infinitives in the line tusiiN jiddaaN kehNRaa, jii laiNRaa feel virtually naturally translated into Hindi-Urdu using simple future conjugations rather than infinitives, even though a translation using construction (II) is certainly understandable.

I hope this seems similar a fair summary of what we have so far!

------------------------
Footnotes:

[ane]: I wonder if it might non exist better to say prospective attribute rather than time to come tense...? In the context of structure (Ii), you can certainly say things like mujhe jalandhar jaanaa thaa, and it would be weird to say that that the verb phrase has both future and past tenses, but it'southward not weird to say that this verb phrase has both past tense and prospective aspect. Similarly, with construction (III), you can say things like kal baarish honii thii (lekin huii nahiiN), and over again information technology seems weird to say this has both future and past tense, but not weird to say it has past tense but prospective aspect. I don't know whether it makes more sense to think of construction (I) every bit a future imperative or a prospective imperative (or fifty-fifty what the deviation between the two would exist).

[2]: Upon further reflection, this is a bit of a tautology, since just animate subjects are capable of intending/desiring/etc!

[iii]: Upon farther reflection, this is wrong For case, one can say uskii shaadii meN bahut saare log bulaae jaane haiN, which has the animate subject field log. But, on the other mitt, construction (III) is impossible with an intransitive similar nahaanaa (something like *maiN nahaanaa hai is unacceptable). Just nahaanaa is one of Hindi-Urdu's few unergative verbs, then maybe the verb must be unaccusative (where I'm treating passives of transitive verbs equally unaccusative, since their unmarried statement bears a patient-like theta-role, only like intransitive unaccusatives)...?