Longest name of a Hindi film
Ninad
While on way to work this morning my friend and I were talking of
films with long names. And the name "Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata
Hai" cropped up. Any other movie with a name longer than this or does
this one top the list ?
Regards,
Ninad.
BHAGWANTSAGOO
>12/08/2003 06:50 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2aff5a5e.0308...@posting.google.com>
What about Jal Bin Manchali Nritya Bin Bijli - produced by V Shantaram
-vocals:Lata &
Mukesh
I am sure that there are longer titles though.
Bhagwant
UVR
>>ninad_...@hotmail.com (Ninad) wrote:
>
>>While on way to work this morning my friend and I were talking of
>>films with long names. And the name "Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata
>>Hai" cropped up. Any other movie with a name longer than this or does
>>this one top the list ?
>
> What about Jal Bin Manchali Nritya Bin Bijli - produced by V Shantaram
That's jal bin "machhli" (fish) ...
> I am sure that there are longer titles though.
JBMNBB has a 6-word name. 'Albert Pinto ...' has a 7-word name.
Here are some more. The scary thing is, I have watched *MOST*
of these movies (except the ones marked +) :-o --
7-word:
- Chura Liya Hai Tumne Jo Dil Ko (2000)
+ Raja Ko Rani Se Pyaar Ho Gaya (2000)
6-word:
- roop ki rani choron ka raja (1961)
- roop ki rani choron ka raja (1993)
- jis desh mein ganga bahti hai (1961)
- jis desh mein ganga *rahta* hai (2000)
- dulhan wahi jo piya man bhaye (1977)
- praan jaaye par vachan na jaaye (1973?)
+ praan jaaye par *shaan* na jaaye (2003)
- kuchh tum kaho, kuchh ham kahen (2002)
+ aapko pehle bhi kahin dekha hai (2003)
- love ke liye kuchh bhi karega (2001)
- kyon kiiiii ... main jhooth nahin bolta (2001)
+ yeh tera ghar yeh mera ghar (2001)
-UVR.
Loony Tunes
"Ninad" <ninad_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2aff5a5e.0308...@posting.google.com...
Paap ko jalaa kar raakh kar doonga - Dharmendra, Govinda, Farha
-k
Srinivas Ganti
>"UVR" <u...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:vjhvmu7...@corp.supernews.com...
> 7-word:
> - Chura Liya Hai Tumne Jo Dil Ko (2000)
> + Raja Ko Rani Se Pyaar Ho Gaya (2000)
Another recent movie with 7 letters
Ham aap ke dil men rehte hain
sg.
V
A Joy Mukherjee movie was called "Ji Chahta Hai Kheench Loon Tasveer
Aapkee'. This was later modified to Ji Chata Hai. But the original
title was what was on the posters and in the movie credits. (I think
on the records, it was hard to fit the whole thing on the label)
V
Sanjeev Ramabhadran
>
Isn't there (a recent one) one called "Aap Ko Pehle Bhi Kahin Dekha Hai"?
Sanjeev
Satish Kalra
If you break this into "aap ko..." it will also be a 7 word title.
BTW, "praan jaaye par shaan na jaaye" wasn't a bad film, with some good
shots at the modern day politics/religion.
Happy Listenings.
Satish Kalra
UVR
WORDS, not letters ;)
AFAIK, "aap ke" is spelt as "aapke" in the film credits,
therefore this title would only have 6 word.
-UVR.
UVR
>
> Isn't there (a recent one) one called "Aap Ko Pehle Bhi Kahin Dekha Hai"?
Yes, it's in my list too. It's "aapko", not "Aap Ko" (don't
ask me why), so that's only 6 words.
-UVR.
UVR
Sure. But then I'm trying to stick with the way the film
credits/movie poster spelt the name. These Bollywood-types
often use Hindi 'spellings' -- aapako, tumako, hamako, etc.
-UVR.
Vinay
I hope you don't mean that there's something wrong with that. In fact,
that's how they should be written in Hindi, AFAIK. The problem, on the
contrary, is that sometimes they break them into aap ko, tum ne, ham
se etc.
Vinay
>
> -UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
V wrote:
Are you sure ? I remember seeing the film in
1964 and, AFAIR, the title was simply "Jee
Chaahta Hai". Sometimes, popular songs from
a movie also get a mention on film posters,
but even this was not the case. If the movie
is available on the video circuit, I suppose
it should be possible to verify the correct
title.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
UVR wrote:
If we are discussing the longest names, the
better way, perhaps, would be to count the
syllables and not the words. "Mehbooba" and
"Sanam" may be just one word each (and these
of course refer to the same person) but,
syllable-wise, one is definitely longer than
the other.
Afzal
Vijay Kumar K
vinayane likhaa ki vijayako hindiikaa gyaan nahiin.n hai. mai.nne kahaa ki
hindiime.n kuchh bhii chalataa hai, aisaa nahii.n hai.
If vinayane, vijayako, hindiikaa and hindiime.n sound awkward in the above
sentance, why should tumane, mujhako, usakaa and dilame.n not be the same?
I have a rather big problem especially with the "ne" suffix that can mean
two different things - banane-sa.Nvarane me.n "ne" kaa jo matalab hai, vo
mai.nne-tumane me.n nahii.n.
If UVR is recommending breaking down the words into the proper
word-preposition distinctions, I am fully with him.
what was that again, kartaane, karamako, karaNase, sampradaname.n,
aapaadaanako....?
Vijay
UVR
>
> If UVR is recommending breaking down the words into the proper
> word-preposition distinctions, I am fully with him.
I'm not recommending anything. I was just making an observation
about which way Bollywood title/credit writers appear to lean
when they spell words like "aapako".
> what was that again, kartaane, karamako, karaNase, sampradaname.n,
> aapaadaanako....?
Since two years have passed since we last mentioned these by
name on RMIM, I s'pose the time has come to repeat them:
kartaa ne, *karm* ko, karaN se (dwaaraa), sampradaan *ke liye*,
*apaadaan* se, sambandh kaa/ke/kii, adhikaraN me.n/pe/par,
sambodhan he/are/o
-UVR.
Vinay
vijay...@my-deja.com (Vijay Kumar K) wrote in message news:<f9e9d452.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> v...@hotmail.com (Vinay) wrote in message news:<f4f0fd2d.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > UVR <u...@usa.net> wrote in message news:<vjjblf3...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Satish Kalra wrote:
<deleted>
> > > > If you break this into "aap ko..." it will also be a 7 word title.
> > >
> > > Sure. But then I'm trying to stick with the way the film
> > > credits/movie poster spelt the name. These Bollywood-types
> > > often use Hindi 'spellings' -- aapako, tumako, hamako, etc.
> >
> > I hope you don't mean that there's something wrong with that. In fact,
> > that's how they should be written in Hindi, AFAIK. The problem, on the
> > contrary, is that sometimes they break them into aap ko, tum ne, ham
> > se etc.
> >
> > Vinay
> >
> > >
> > > -UVR.
>
> vinayane likhaa ki vijayako hindiikaa gyaan nahiin.n hai. mai.nne kahaa ki
> hindiime.n kuchh bhii chalataa hai, aisaa nahii.n hai.
ye pahalaa vaakya kahane ki gustaaKhii to mai.n kaise kar sakataa
huu.N, par duusare me.n to aapane mere mu.Nh kii baat chhiin lii.
>
> If vinayane, vijayako, hindiikaa and hindiime.n sound awkward in the above
> sentance, why should tumane, mujhako, usakaa and dilame.n not be the same?
wo isaliye ki in the former case you are dealing with nouns
(sa.ngyaae.N), while in the latter, pronouns (sarvanaam). Simple
enough?
"The case-signs in Hindi should always be written as separate words,
except in case of pronouns where they should be tagged on to the
stems.
Exception:
Where pronouns have two case-signs at a time, the first should be
tagged on to the stem while the second should be written separately."
>
> I have a rather big problem especially with the "ne" suffix that can mean
> two different things - banane-sa.Nvarane me.n "ne" kaa jo matalab hai, vo
> mai.nne-tumane me.n nahii.n.
pahalii baat to ye ki banane yaa sa.Nvarane me.n 'ne' hai hii nahii.n.
ye shabd kramshaH bananaa aur sa.Nvaranaa kriyaao.n ke 'oblique' forms
hai.n. kucchh waise hii samajh le.n jaise angrezii ke 'knot' me.n
'not' nahii.n hai par 'cannot' me.n hai.
doosarii baat ye ki mere aur anya kitane hii "native
speakers/writers", jinhe.n mai.n jaanataa huu.N, ke liye ye prayog
ba.De hi (aur doosare tariike se zyaadaa) sahaj hai.n.
aur tiisaarii ye ki agar ham apanii apanii pasan.d (yaa "problems") ke
hisaab se niyamo.n ko badalate rahe to mushkil ho jaanii hai. mujhe
khud ka_ii niyam ajiib lagate hai.n, aur a.ngrezii me.n to mujhe
biisiyo.n chiije.n pareshaan karatii hai.n. ab agar ham inhe.n
badalanaa bhii chaahe.n to RMIM jaisii jagah, itanaa kam waqt, aur
sirf kuchh logo.n kii raay yaa vyaktigat samasyaa, na to isake liye
uchit hai.n na hii paryaapt.
>
> If UVR is recommending breaking down the words into the proper
> word-preposition distinctions, I am fully with him.
As it looked to me, there is no recommendation seen in UVR's post. And
he has cleared his stance in another mail already.
Regards,
Vinay
Abhay Jain
> Vijay Kumar K wrote:
> >
> > If UVR is recommending breaking down the words into the proper
> > word-preposition distinctions, I am fully with him.
>
> I'm not recommending anything. I was just making an observation
> about which way Bollywood title/credit writers appear to lean
> when they spell words like "aapako".
>
>
>
Problem is the obsession of Bollywood film producers
to provide title/credits in a foreign script. There will always
be a difference of opinion as to how to represent a word in
a different language because there is no official
mapping exists.
Abhay Jain
Ashok
>
>Vijay Kumar K wrote:
>>
>kartaa ne,
"ne" being the "kart^R vibhakti pratyay" is a fraud that Hindi grammar
books and teachers have perpetrated from time immemorial. It is
technically incorrect and pedagogically a horrid way of introducing it.
It is a terrible construct, but we have to live with it. Why not do
a proper job by introducing it when teaching past tense construction?
*karm* ko, karaN se (dwaaraa), sampradaan *ke liye*,
Isn't this also "ko" (indirect object)?
>*apaadaan* se, sambandh kaa/ke/kii, adhikaraN me.n/pe/par,
>sambodhan he/are/o
>
>-UVR.
>
Ashok
Vijay Kumar K
> ye shabd kramshaH bananaa aur sa.Nvaranaa kriyaao.n ke 'oblique' forms
> hai.n. kucchh waise hii samajh le.n jaise angrezii ke 'knot' me.n
> 'not' nahii.n hai par 'cannot' me.n hai.
>
> doosarii baat ye ki mere aur anya kitane hii "native
> speakers/writers", jinhe.n mai.n jaanataa huu.N, ke liye ye prayog
> ba.De hi (aur doosare tariike se zyaadaa) sahaj hai.n.
>
> aur tiisaarii ye ki agar ham apanii apanii pasan.d (yaa "problems") ke
> hisaab se niyamo.n ko badalate rahe to mushkil ho jaanii hai. mujhe
> khud ka_ii niyam ajiib lagate hai.n, aur a.ngrezii me.n to mujhe
> biisiyo.n chiije.n pareshaan karatii hai.n. ab agar ham inhe.n
> badalanaa bhii chaahe.n to RMIM jaisii jagah, itanaa kam waqt, aur
> sirf kuchh logo.n kii raay yaa vyaktigat samasyaa, na to isake liye
> uchit hai.n na hii paryaapt.
>
highlighted by the song "kis ke roke rukaa hai saveraa"
write it as "kis ke ro ke rukaa hai saveraa" and it could be interpreted as
right as well.
This was the example I was searching for in my original post, and kambaKt
ghuTano.n par laakh zor dene ke baavajuud, it escaped me at the moment of
need. I am not sure how to apply the "pronoun" vs "proper noun" rule here.
Vijay
UVR
Ashok wrote:
>>
>>kartaa ne,
>
> "ne" being the "kart^R vibhakti pratyay" is a fraud that Hindi grammar
> books and teachers have perpetrated from time immemorial. It is
> technically incorrect and pedagogically a horrid way of introducing it.
Your indignation against those books and teachers *may* be
well-founded, but I do think you're going just a wee bit
overboard by calling 'ne' a "fraud", etc.
I don't think there's anything wrong with calling 'ne' the
kartaa-kaarak pratyaya. At least not if one interprets the
'rule' correctly. I was taught that 'kartaa ne, karm ko...'
is a "reverse" mnemonic. That is, "when you see 'ne', the
sa.nJNaa preceding it is the kartaa kaarak; if you see 'me.n'
it is adhikaraN," and so on. NOT "if it a kartaa kaarak,
you *must* use 'ne'" or anything.
> It is a terrible construct, but we have to live with it. Why not do
> a proper job by introducing it when teaching past tense construction?
I'm not sure why this would necessarily be less 'confusing'
OR more technically correct. You see, 'ne' isn't even seen
consistently in ALL kartaa-kaarak-past-tense constructs. To
wit, raam lankaa gaye (no 'ne'), raam *ne* raavaN ko maaraa.
(BTW, nobody in my class needed to be taught that 'ne' only
shows up in the past tense. It was obvious to us: we'd been
speaking Hindi for so many years before we heard that some-
thing called 'kaarak' or 'vibhakti' even exists.)
And why single out 'ne'? 'ko', 'ke liye' and 'me.n' aren't
too different, are they? See: "ham kal unke ghar gaye the,
aaj aapke ghar rahane aaye hai.n, aur kal kisi teesre ke ghar
rahe.nge" uses all three kaaraka-s, in three different tenses,
but not one of them is explicitly stated.
Perhaps that's the thing to note here: vibhakti pratyaya-s
can be implicit.
> *karm* ko, karaN se (dwaaraa), sampradaan *ke liye*,
>
> Isn't this also "ko" (indirect object)?
Sure. Let's quote an RMIM-relevant example from a popular
film song:
phir mujhe nargisI aa.Nkho.n kaa sahaaraa de de
>>*apaadaan* se, sambandh kaa/ke/kii, adhikaraN me.n/pe/par,
>>sambodhan he/are/o
>
> Ashok
-UVR.
Vinay
There is no need to. And in fact you can't. Because in the latter ('ro
ke'), 'ke' is not the case-sign 'ke'. It is actually the colloquial
variant of 'kar'. Which is saying that it is another way of writing
'ro kar'.
In the song, however it is a form of the verb 'rokanaa' and you cannot
sepearate it from in between. It will always be 'roke rukaa hai'.
There's no reason to get confused even if you insist on using 'ro ke'
(or, ro kar). It simply doesn't make any sense in "kisake ro ke rukaa
hai saveraa".
Vinay
>
> Vijay
Ashok
>
>Ashok wrote:
>>>
>>>kartaa ne,
>>
>> "ne" being the "kart^R vibhakti pratyay" is a fraud that Hindi grammar
>> books and teachers have perpetrated from time immemorial. It is
>> technically incorrect and pedagogically a horrid way of introducing it.
>
>Your indignation against those books and teachers *may* be
>well-founded, but I do think you're going just a wee bit
>overboard by calling 'ne' a "fraud", etc.
>
>I don't think there's anything wrong with calling 'ne' the
>kartaa-kaarak pratyaya. At least not if one interprets the
>'rule' correctly. I was taught that 'kartaa ne, karm ko...'
>is a "reverse" mnemonic. That is, "when you see 'ne', the
>sa.nJNaa preceding it is the kartaa kaarak; if you see 'me.n'
>it is adhikaraN," and so on. NOT "if it a kartaa kaarak,
>you *must* use 'ne'" or anything.
I am not sure who is more ridiculous--the teacher or the taught!
The above implies that you first decide on the vibhakti pratyayas
and then come to the substantives. Is that how you compose your
sentences? No wonder!
Your mnemonic rule "might" work when you are given a sentense
already composed by someone and asked to parse it. I say "might"
because, in Hindi, there is no one-one mapping between
prepositional contexts and the case forms and without a
one-one mapping, you can't have a reverse mapping. For example,
what precedes "ko"--the direct object or the indirect object?
>> It is a terrible construct, but we have to live with it. Why not do
>> a proper job by introducing it when teaching past tense construction?
>
>I'm not sure why this would necessarily be less 'confusing'
>OR more technically correct. You see, 'ne' isn't even seen
>consistently in ALL kartaa-kaarak-past-tense constructs. To
>wit, raam lankaa gaye (no 'ne'), raam *ne* raavaN ko maaraa.
"To wit" means "namely". What you need above is, "e.g.".
And the point you are making is so weak, I am reminded of
a pompous middle-aged seth-ji whose family I happened to be
sitting next to while watching a cricket match. I overheard
the seth-ji tell his wife proudly, beaming with self-importance,
"ek over me.n chhe balls hote hai.n, samajhii?".
>(BTW, nobody in my class needed to be taught that 'ne' only
>shows up in the past tense. It was obvious to us: we'd been
>speaking Hindi for so many years before we heard that some-
>thing called 'kaarak' or 'vibhakti' even exists.)
"we"? "us"? Only popes, kings, and people with worms in their
stomach should use first-person plural.
>And why single out 'ne'? 'ko', 'ke liye' and 'me.n' aren't
>too different, are they?
You mean whoever did the teaching to you (and you and you)
told you (and you and you) that the usage of "ko", "ke liye"
and "me.n" depend on the tense and whether the verb is
transitive, and bearing in mind the exceptions?
See: "ham kal unke ghar gaye the,
>aaj aapke ghar rahane aaye hai.n, aur kal kisi teesre ke ghar
>rahe.nge" uses all three kaaraka-s, in three different tenses,
>but not one of them is explicitly stated.
>
>Perhaps that's the thing to note here: vibhakti pratyaya-s
>can be implicit.
How about letting us have a "eureka" dance from you (all of you)
on your (and your and your) earth-shattering discovery?
>-UVR.
Ashok
UVR
> In article <vjss3k4...@corp.supernews.com>, u...@usa.net says...
>
>>I was taught that 'kartaa ne, karm ko...'
>>is a "reverse" mnemonic. That is, "when you see 'ne', the
>>sa.nJNaa preceding it is the kartaa kaarak; if you see 'me.n'
>>it is adhikaraN," and so on. NOT "if it a kartaa kaarak,
>>you *must* use 'ne'" or anything.
>
> I am not sure who is more ridiculous--the teacher or the taught!
> The above implies that you first decide on the vibhakti pratyayas
> and then come to the substantives. Is that how you compose your
> sentences? No wonder!
No wonder WHAT? No wonder I know better Hindi than you?
And how does the above imply what you say it does? Strange
though it may seem (to you), I have NEVER needed to sit down
and calculate vibhakti-pratyayas before making a sentence in
Hindi. May be you do, in which case, "no wonder!"
> Your mnemonic rule "might" work when you are given a sentense
> already composed by someone and asked to parse it.
Yes, I have only ever used this "rule" when given a sentence
to parse (or asked to quote it). Never otherwise. Are you
suggesting that it is necessary to use anywhere else? If so,
where?
> I say "might"
> because, in Hindi, there is no one-one mapping between
> prepositional contexts and the case forms and without a
> one-one mapping, you can't have a reverse mapping.
Hogwash! Wherever you have an n-to-m mapping, you have an
m-to-n reverse mapping, and ...
> For example,
> what precedes "ko"--the direct object or the indirect object?
... why do you need a one-to-one mapping to determine this
anyway? Can't you use other information about the sentence
(such as, for instance, what it means)? Are you expected
to send common sense on an extended leave of absence when
you analyze sentences? And, if a one-to-one mapping is so
indispensible, how come millions of people before you have
done very well, thank you, without them?
>>>It is a terrible construct, but we have to live with it. Why not do
>>>a proper job by introducing it when teaching past tense construction?
>>
>>I'm not sure why this would necessarily be less 'confusing'
>>OR more technically correct. You see, 'ne' isn't even seen
>>consistently in ALL kartaa-kaarak-past-tense constructs. To
>>wit, raam lankaa gaye (no 'ne'), raam *ne* raavaN ko maaraa.
>
> "To wit" means "namely". What you need above is, "e.g.".
Right. Thank you.
> And the point you are making is so weak,
WHY is it weak? And, would you be so kind as to explain how
*you* would introduce 'ne' properly when teaching past tense
construction, _without_ labelling it as the kartaa vibhakti
pratyaya, without confusing your students? You obviously have
a solution and aren't just throwing around empty rants.
[deletia]
>>(BTW, nobody in my class needed to be taught that 'ne' only
>>shows up in the past tense. It was obvious to us: we'd been
>>speaking Hindi for so many years before we heard that some-
>>thing called 'kaarak' or 'vibhakti' even exists.)
>
> "we"? "us"? Only popes, kings, and people with worms in their
> stomach should use first-person plural.
I did not use the plural to refer to myself. I was talking
about "everyone in my class". Looks like while arguing with
me about Hindi grammar, you have forgotten your basic English
grammar! Tut, tut, Ashok.
>>And why single out 'ne'? 'ko', 'ke liye' and 'me.n' aren't
>>too different, are they?
>
> You mean whoever did the teaching to you (and you and you)
> told you (and you and you) that the usage of "ko", "ke liye"
> and "me.n" depend on the tense and whether the verb is
> transitive, and bearing in mind the exceptions?
No, I never said nor meant that. But then, what can one
expect from you but wanton misinterpretation?
>>Perhaps that's the thing to note here: vibhakti pratyaya-s
>>can be implicit.
>
> How about letting us have a "eureka" dance from you (all of you)
> on your (and your and your) earth-shattering discovery?
Oh, so you already knew this and yet you're crying yourself
hoarse that Hindi grammar vibhakti-pratyayas don't work as
"logically" as, say, their Sanskrit counterparts?
And what's with the "us" above? You're neither a king nor
the pope, so ... hmm.
-UVR.
Pavan Jha
The title was "Mere Dost Ki Biwi Truck Driver Ke Saath Bhaag Gayee"..
Unfortunately (or fortunately!) Financer film shuru hone se pahle hi
bhaag gaye...
back on RMIM after a long long break :)
Pavan Jha
UVR <u...@usa.net> wrote in message news:<vjhvmu7...@corp.supernews.com>...
Ashok
>> I say "might"
>> because, in Hindi, there is no one-one mapping between
>> prepositional contexts and the case forms and without a
>> one-one mapping, you can't have a reverse mapping.
>
>Hogwash! Wherever you have an n-to-m mapping, you have an
>m-to-n reverse mapping, and ...
If you are mathematically illiterate, drop the topic. On the other
hand, if you have some basic math literacy, look up in any elementary
math text, the definition of a function and the conditions for the
existence of an inverse function.
>> "To wit" means "namely". What you need above is, "e.g.".
>
>Right. Thank you.
You're welcome.
>>>And why single out 'ne'? 'ko', 'ke liye' and 'me.n' aren't
>>>too different, are they?
>>
>> You mean whoever did the teaching to you (and you and you)
>> told you (and you and you) that the usage of "ko", "ke liye"
>> and "me.n" depend on the tense and whether the verb is
>> transitive, and bearing in mind the exceptions?
>
>No, I never said nor meant that. But then, what can one
>expect from you but wanton misinterpretation?
Then, what the hell did you mean in the context of this
discussion by saying that 'ko" etc. aren't too different?
>-UVR.
Ashok
UVR
> In article <vk8gdli...@corp.supernews.com>, u...@usa.net says...
>
>>>I say "might"
>>>because, in Hindi, there is no one-one mapping between
>>>prepositional contexts and the case forms and without a
>>>one-one mapping, you can't have a reverse mapping.
>>
>>m-to-n reverse mapping, and ...
>
> If you are mathematically illiterate, drop the topic. On the other
> hand, if you have some basic math literacy, look up in any elementary
> math text, the definition of a function and the conditions for the
> existence of an inverse function.
No, you're right about inverse functions. However, consider
this: the k'th-root function is not an inverse of the k'th-
power function, but given a set P of p numbers and another set
Q of their q k'th roots, do we have two (P->Q, Q->P) mappings?
Given a number in P and sufficient disambiguating info about
the root you're looking for (e.g., positive or negative, or
real or imaginary, etc.), isn't it possible to arrive at the
right answer?
>>>>And why single out 'ne'? 'ko', 'ke liye' and 'me.n' aren't
>>>>too different, are they?
>>>
>>>You mean whoever did the teaching to you (and you and you)
>>>told you (and you and you) that the usage of "ko", "ke liye"
>>>and "me.n" depend on the tense and whether the verb is
>>>transitive, and bearing in mind the exceptions?
>>
>>No, I never said nor meant that. But then, what can one
>>expect from you but wanton misinterpretation?
>
> Then, what the hell did you mean in the context of this
> discussion by saying that 'ko" etc. aren't too different?
Never mind what "the hell" I meant, for now. You didn't
answer the real question -- "how would you introduce 'ne'
without ..." etc? Let's wrap that up first.
-UVR.
Vijay Kumar K
> Hi,
>
> While on way to work this morning my friend and I were talking of
> films with long names. And the name "Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata
> Hai" cropped up. Any other movie with a name longer than this or does
> this one top the list ?
>
>
> Ninad.
Heard that Ramgopal Verma's new film is called
"main bhi madhuri dixit banana chahati hoon"
Vijay
Ket...@att.net
says...
"banana"? Either you slipped up on a peel somewhere or I will have to take a
closer look at La Dixit. She might have been pear or apple shaped at times, but
never banana shaped, to the best of my knowledge. :)
Ketan
>Vijay
Loony Tunes
<Ket...@att.net> wrote in message news:bid8p...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> "banana"? Either you slipped up on a peel somewhere or I will have to take
a
> closer look at La Dixit. She might have been pear or apple shaped at
times, but
> never banana shaped, to the best of my knowledge. :)
Either she wants to make Madhuri Dixit or have a "banana" called Madhuri
Dixit
-k
>
>
> Ketan
>
> >Vijay
>
adityac...@gmail.com
Dekh Tere Sansar Ki Haalat Kya Ho Gayi Bhagwaan
abha...@gmail.com
" Mere Dost Ki Biwi Truck Driver Ke Saath Bhaag Gayi "
Abhay Agarwal
Sumant Vashi
> Hi,
>
> While on way to work this morning my friend and I were talking of
> films with long names. And the name "Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata
> Hai" cropped up. Any other movie with a name longer than this or does
> this one top the list ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ninad.
akshita...@gmail.com
Night of the day of the dawn of the bridge of the return of the revenge of the terror of the attack of the evil flesh eating hellbound zombified living dead part 2 in shocking 3d
But it's a Hollywood movie
roofin...@gmail.com
> Hi,
>
> While on way to work this morning my friend and I were talking of
> films with long names. And the name "Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata
> Hai" cropped up. Any other movie with a name longer than this or does
> this one top the list ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ninad.
roofin...@gmail.com
> Hi,
>
> While on way to work this morning my friend and I were talking of
> films with long names. And the name "Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata
> Hai" cropped up. Any other movie with a name longer than this or does
> this one top the list ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ninad.
shaikh.h...@gmail.com
I m playing damb charades.
I want some difficult name.
ankur...@gmail.com
Lesser known fact but it's the longest movie title in Bollywood ever
Thanx
