Comparative construction morphology of diminutive forms in English and Urdu

Abstract

This research paper investigates the function of diminutive morphology in English and Urdu languages with a focus on production, similarities, and differences in inflectional bound morphemes in the noun and adjective categories, and studies the usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in Urdu and English on interpersonal communication. The researchers, who are native Urdu speakers and English as a second language speakers, analyze the form and meaning of diminutive morphemes in both languages using Booij’s (2018) Construction Morphology model. Multiple sources are consulted for data collection, including corpora, dictionaries, linguistic databases, literary works, and language resources. The findings suggest that both English and Urdu retain a morphological function, but English has fewer inflectional morphemes than Urdu. Conversely, Urdu employs a large variety of suffixes, particularly for denoting the diminutive aspect, which distinguishes its semantic and pragmatic expressions from those of English. Despite both languages having inflections and using gradient production, English has lost more inflections due to undergoing more periods of change. Further, the usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in Urdu and English contribute to the richness and complexity of interpersonal communication. These provide speakers with a range of linguistic resources to express nuances of meaning, convey emotions, and shape social interactions. The paper concludes by noting that this research can help language learners and language scholars better understand the complexities of morphological structures in languages.

Keywords:

• construction morphology model
• diminutive morphology
• English and urdu languages
• inflectional bound morphemes
• interpersonal communication

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

This research paper explores the significance of diminutive morphology in English and Urdu, examining the production, similarities, and differences of inflectional bound morphemes in nouns and adjectives. It investigates the impact of diminutive forms on interpersonal communication in both languages. The researchers, native Urdu speakers and English as a second language speakers, employ Booij’s (2018) Construction Morphology model to analyze diminutive morphemes in English and Urdu. Multiple sources, including corpora, dictionaries, and literary works, are consulted for comprehensive data collection. The findings reveal that while both languages have a morphological function, English has fewer inflectional morphemes compared to Urdu. Urdu employs a wide range of suffixes, particularly for expressing the diminutive aspect, distinguishing its semantic and pragmatic expressions from English. Despite similarities in gradient production, English has experienced more periods of change, resulting in a greater loss of inflections. The study emphasizes the role of diminutive forms in enhancing interpersonal communication by providing linguistic resources for conveying nuanced meanings, expressing emotions, and shaping social interactions. The research contributes valuable insights for language learners and scholars, deepening their understanding of complex morphological structures in languages.

1. Introduction

A diminutive form, in linguistics, refers to a word formation process that creates a smaller or more affectionate version of a base word (Booij, 2018). It is commonly used to indicate small size, youthfulness, endearment, or familiarity. Diminutives can be formed by adding specific suffixes, prefixes, or modifying the base word in various ways (Lieber, 2021). Diminutives in different language families demonstrate distinct patterns of formation. In Romance languages, such as Spanish (Eddington, 2002), Italian (Eddington, 2002), and French (Efthymiou, 2017), diminutives are commonly created by adding suffixes like “-ito/-ita,” “-ino/-ina,” or “-et/-ette” to the base word, respectively. For instance, “casa” (house) transforms into “casita” (little house) in Spanish. Germanic languages, including German (Iverson & Salmons, 1992), and Dutch (Van der Hulst, 2008), employ suffixes like “-chen/-lein” and “-je/-tje” to form diminutives. As an illustration, “Hund” (dog) becomes “Hündchen” (little dog) in German. Slavic languages, like Russian (Steriopolo, 2017), Polish (Kraska-Szlenk & Wójtowicz, 2023), and Czech (Chamonikolasová & Rambousek, 2007), use various suffixes and phonetic modifications to create diminutives. Russian employs the suffixes “-ик/-чик,” so “дом” (house) becomes “домик” (little house). Baltic languages, such Lithuanian (Savickienė et al., 2009), and Latvian (Arkadiev, 2015), utilize suffixes like “-elis/-ėlė” and “-iņš/-ītis” to form diminutives. For instance, “namas” (house) turns into “namele” (little house) in Lithuanian. In Finno-Ugric languages like Finnish (Armoskaite & Koskinen, 2008), and Hungarian (Rebrus & Szigetvári, 2021), diminutives are formed using suffixes such as “-nen/-nenä” and “-ka/-ke” or “-csi/-cse,” respectively. For example, “talo” (house) becomes “talonen” (small house) in Finnish. These diverse patterns of diminutive formation across language families highlight the rich linguistic variety and cultural expressions found in different languages.

These examples represent just a fraction of the diversity of diminutive forms across languages. The specific suffixes, prefixes, or phonetic modifications used to form diminutives can vary significantly between languages and even within dialects of the same language. This research examines the diminutive morphological function between English and Urdu languages from a construction morphological perspective. In English, the diminutive morphological function is commonly indicated by adding suffixes such as “−y” or “−ie” to a noun, for instance “doggy” or “puppy” to indicate a small or young dog. Other suffixes such as “−let” can also be used, for example “piglet” to indicate a young pig (Schneider & Strubel-Burgdorf, 2012). Adjectives and nouns can also be given a diminutive form, such as “biggy” or “smiley,” connoting that the animal or object is small or young. Suffixes like “−ling” and “−ette” are also frequently used (Chamonikolasová & Rambousek, 2007). This function is often utilized in literature and poetry to evoke a sense of beauty and innocence. Besides indicating size, the diminutive morphological function can also convey an attitude of affection or familiarity. One example of its usage is referring to a grandmother as “Granny” to indicate a close relationship (Schneider & Strubel-Burgdorf, 2012). The diminutive morphological function can modify certain words to create a diminutive meaning. For instance, “cat” can become “kitty” or “kitten,” and “child” can become “childie” or “childy” (Schneider, 2012). Therefore, the diminutive morphological function is a powerful tool for creating different effects in English, such as indicating smallness, creating affectionate nicknames, or adding emphasis. It is essential to understand its effects and use it appropriately to achieve the intended result (Hamid & Faiq, 2009).

Regarding Urdu, it is widely acknowledged as an Indo-Iranian language that developed from the Indo-Aryan family of languages. As Mangrio (2016) notes, Urdu has a diverse vocabulary derived from various languages such as Arabic and Persian through borrowing. Additionally, Urdu has been influenced by Sanskrit, Assamese, Gujarati, Hindi, Marathi, Punjabi, Sindhi, Singhalese, and Romany. Thus, Urdu is an active recipient of and generous donor to the world languages. One unique feature of the Urdu language is its use of diminutives.

Like other languages, affixation is a commonly observed phenomenon in the Urdu language, with its nouns being particularly inflected for gender, number, and person through affixation. Gender in Urdu is categorized into four distinct classes, including marked and unmarked masculine, and marked and unmarked feminine nouns (Bögel et al., 2008). For instance, masculine nouns often end with the sounds/ā/,/ayā/, or rarely,/āṁ/, while feminine marked nouns use the endings/ī/or/͈ m/iyā/. However, it is important to note that not all inflectional classes are necessarily particularized by their endings (affixation), as exemplified by the unmarked feminine noun for shyness,/hayā/, which ends in/ā/, a marked ending for masculine nouns (Butt & Sadler, 2003). Migration often leads to the emergence of new dialects, which in turn have an impact on the local languages. In Urdu, affixation is commonly employed to inflect gender, number, and person, exemplifying the productivity of the language. The term “productivity” is used in various fields to refer to the rankness, fruitfulness, and fertility of a given system. In linguistics, this term is widely used to refer to the different distributional properties of words and morphemes.

Hence, this research paper aims to explore and compare the construction morphology of diminutive forms in English and Urdu. English and Urdu represent two distinct language families, with English belonging to the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family and Urdu being a member of the Indo-Aryan family. By examining these languages, a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences in how diminutives are formed and utilized across linguistic and cultural contexts.

The current study formulated the following research questions:

1. What are the similarities and differences in the use of diminutive forms in Urdu and English?

2. What are the usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in Urdu and English on interpersonal communication?

2. Literature review

Diminutive language expresses smallness, as well as any of the attitudes that come attached to smallness. Diminutives can be expressed analytically through full words (e.g., a tiny drop) or morphologically through word modification (e.g., the suffix -let in droplet or the -y in Johnny). This study will look specifically at Urdu and English diminutive affixes, which are elements attached to a root word, including suffixes, which attach to the end, and prefixes, which attach to the beginning. While this study will look specifically at affixational diminutives, other ways of expressing diminutives are important to understand. Diminutive affixes can carry many different meanings, both in a word’s semantics (i.e., the logical meaning of a word) and in a word’s pragmatics (i.e., the social meaning behind a word). The most widely accepted and widely used semantic meaning is smallness (Schneider, 2003), but depending on context and which affix is used, different meanings and attitudes connected to smallness can apply.

A recent study by Malaver and Paredes García (2020) investigated the use of diminutives in three Spanish-speaking cities: Medellin, Caracas, and Madrid. The researchers aimed to identify convergences and divergences in the use of diminutives across these locations. They analyzed naturalistic data collected through interviews and observations, examining the sociolinguistic factors influencing diminutive usage. The study revealed variations in the frequency, pragmatics, and sociocultural connotations of diminutives in the different cities, shedding light on how local dialects and cultural norms shape their usage. Another study by Bystrov et al., (2020) focused on English diminutives specifically in children’s literature. Their research investigated the role of diminutives in conveying directive speech acts, exploring how these linguistic forms are utilized to express commands, requests, and other forms of directives in children’s books. Through a detailed analysis of selected children’s literature texts, the researchers identified patterns and functions of diminutives in directive speech acts, highlighting their influence on the perceived politeness, authority, and intimacy of the interactions.

The use of verbal diminutives in Slovene is not an uncommon occurrence, even though the typical diminutive in all languages is a noun derived from another noun and adjective through suffixation. In Slovene linguistics, scholars like Sicherl (2013) and Kavčič (2021) have discussed diminutive verbs. To express the sense of smallness or emotionality related to the verbal action, a neutral verbal base is augmented with an infix. Toporišič identifies seven of these infixes (-k-, -čk-, -c-, -ic-, -inc-, -lj-, -ik-), and Vidovič Muha adds one more infix, which is ‑uck- for instance, [nekoliko] voh[-a-ti] > -lj-, voh-, -a-ti > voh-lja-ti. Similar to nominal diminutives, verbal diminutives can also exhibit multiple diminutiveness, although it occurs less frequently than in nominal forms. In cases of multiple verbal diminutives, either double infixation is used, or a prefix is added to the base along with a diminutive infix. The prefix employed in the diminutive function always conveys the adverbial sense of 'small quantity', as seen in the following examples: stopati > stopicati > stopicljati [step > stepDIM > stepDIMDIM].

Moreover, Wittenberg and Trotzke (2021) investigated the use of diminutive strategies in the East Franconian NP. They focused on two different noun types, namely, food nouns (e.g., Schnitzel) and personal nouns (e.g., crook). The study employed a psycholinguistic approach, combining experimental methods with corpus analysis. By examining participants’ judgments and preferences regarding the usage of diminutives, the researchers shed light on the factors that influence the application of diminutive forms. They found that in the East Franconian NP, food nouns tend to retain their larger size connotations even when diminutives are used, while personal nouns can acquire positive evaluative connotations using diminutives. Recently, Grigoryan and Strelchuk (2021) explored the use of diminutives in the Russian language, specifically on the social network Instagram. This study adopted a sociolinguistic perspective and analyzed data from Instagram posts and comments. The researchers investigated the frequency, functions, and social meanings of Russian diminutives in this digital communication context. They found that diminutives are extensively used on Instagram, primarily for expressing affection, intimacy, playfulness, and creating a friendly atmosphere. The study highlighted the social and affective dimensions of diminutive usage in Russian on a popular social media platform.

Similarly, Mattiello et al. (2021) explored the use of diminutives and hypocoristics towards pet animals in four different languages. Their study employed a comparative approach, focusing on Italian, German, English, and Arabic speakers. The researchers found that the usage patterns of diminutives varied across languages. Italian and German exhibited high rates of diminutive usage towards pets, while English displayed a lower frequency. Arabic, on the other hand, revealed limited use of diminutives. The authors attributed these variations to cultural and language-specific factors, highlighting the influence of socio-cultural norms and language structures on diminutive usage. In contrast, Ryan and Parra-Guinaldo (2021) concentrated specifically on Spanish and Italian diminutives. Their investigation aimed to analyze the alternation between two forms of diminutives within a single diasystem. The study demonstrated that while both languages utilized diminutives as a means of expressing endearment, Spanish employed a broader range of diminutive suffixes compared to Italian. Furthermore, the authors identified contextual and phonological factors that influenced the selection of specific diminutive forms in each language. They emphasized the importance of considering both linguistic and socio-cultural aspects when examining diminutive usage within a diasystem.

In their article, Kraska-Szlenk and Wójtowicz (2023) focused on the derivation and semantic autonomy of the Polish noun “głowa” meaning “head” and its diminutive form “główka”. They employed a corpus linguistic approach to analyze the usage patterns and semantic characteristics of these forms. By examining a large corpus of Polish texts, the authors explored how the diminutive suffix “−ka” modifies the meaning of the base noun and the extent to which the diminutive form has developed its own semantic autonomy. Their findings highlighted the nuanced semantic distinctions and pragmatic functions associated with the diminutive form, shedding light on the complex relationship between derivation and meaning in Polish. Recently, Kim’s (2022) doctoral dissertation focused on morphophonological consonant epenthesis in suffix realizations. The study investigated the phonological process of consonant epenthesis, specifically examining how and why certain consonants are inserted between word stems and suffixes in the morphological system. Kim adopted a theoretical framework rooted in Optimality Theory and analyzed a range of suffixes across various languages. Through extensive data analysis and phonological modeling, Kim identified the underlying phonological constraints and rankings that govern the occurrence and distribution of consonant epenthesis. The dissertation contributed to our understanding of morphophonological processes and their role in language structure.

Voghera (2023) investigated the role of diminutive suffixes in Italian Time Nouns constructions. The study aimed to understand how diminutive suffixes contribute to the semantic and pragmatic functions of time nouns in Italian. Voghera examined a range of examples and argued that diminutive suffixes in Italian can serve multiple purposes, including approximation and focus. Through an in-depth analysis of these functions, the study shed light on the nuanced meaning conveyed by diminutive suffixes in Italian time nouns constructions. In a related vein, Brucale and Mocciaro (2023) focused on the use of the diminutive suffixes “-ḍḍu/-a” in Sicilian. The study aimed to investigate how these diminutive suffixes are employed to express approximation in Sicilian dialects. Brucale and Mocciaro examined various instances of word formation involving the diminutive suffixes in Sicilian and provided an analysis of their semantic and pragmatic implications. They argued that the use of “-ḍḍu/-a” in Sicilian allows for finer gradations of approximation and highlights the significance of context in determining the intended meaning.

As regards English, diminutive affixes have multiple grammatical contexts—what they attach to and where. There are as many as eighty-six different diminutive affixes in English, but most sources accept the fourteen affixes that Schneider (2003) put forward as major and most frequent (Biały, 2012; Sicherl & Žele, 2011). These fourteen major affixes are all suffixes and consist of -a, -een, -er, -ette, -ie/- y/-ey/-ee, -kin, -le, -let, -ling, -o, -peg, -poo, -pop, and -s. Of these fourteen, -ette, -ie/-y/-ey/-ee, -let, and -ling are the most frequent and productive and therefore are more widely studied. There are also a few possible prefixes, including mini-, micro-, and under-, but these prefixes are often used as their own lexical items, unattached to words, so most sources do not count these prefixes as English diminutive affixes (Al-Ghazalli, 2012; Schneider, 2003; Schneider, 2012). In English, diminutive affixes most often attach to a base noun to form another noun (e.g., horse becomes horsie). They can also attach to adjectives to form nouns (e.g., cute becomes cutie) (Schneider, 2003). Lockyer (2014) found that the diminutive affix -ie can attach to interjections. Using a corpus of tweets from Twitter, Lockyer studied diminutive affixes on interjections in informal language and found examples of diminutive affixes in the interjections whoopsie, wowie, ouchie, oopsie, and owie.

In Urdu, the diminutive function is commonly expressed by adding the suffix “−i” or “−a” to a noun. For example, the noun “kutta” (dog) can transform into “kutti” (small dog) or “phool” (flower) can become “pankhari” (small flower or petal). This suffixation process extends beyond nouns and can also be applied to adjectives . Adjectives such as “bara” (big) can be modified to “bari” (biggy), but remain under the same category of adjectives, and an adjective like ”khush” (happy) can be transformed into a noun ”khushi” (smiley) that is significantly changing its category from adjective to noun. This observation exemplifies the productive nature of the Urdu language. However, there are exceptions to this pattern, such as the noun/hayā/(shyness), which is an unmarked noun for femininity despite ending in/ā/, which is typically associated with masculine nouns. This observation exemplifies the productive nature of Urdu language, wherein certain inflectional classes are characterized by specific endings but not exclusively so. Nevertheless, diminutive affixes are used in many different social contexts. Diminutive language is used most often in informal and casual speech (Lockyer, 2014). It is often used when speaking to children (Biały, 2012; Mattiello et al., 2021). Adult-to-child speech is often affectionate and informal, creating a perfect environment for diminutive language (Bystrov et al., 2020).

The literature review collectively provides a comprehensive analysis of diminutive usage in different languages, highlighting the linguistic, social, and cultural dimensions of diminutives. While each study focuses on different aspects of diminutives, their findings contribute to our understanding of how diminutive forms are employed and interpreted in various linguistic and cultural contexts. The contrasting findings and perspectives presented in these studies offer valuable insights into the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural variations in diminutive usage, enriching our knowledge of this linguistic phenomenon.

3. Methodology

The study utilizes a qualitative research design, which is deemed appropriate for exploring complex linguistic phenomena and understanding the intricacies of construction morphology in English and Urdu. Qualitative research methods are particularly well-suited for investigating language-related topics, as they allow for an in-depth examination of the data, capturing the richness and nuances of the diminutive forms in both languages (Weidhaas & Schmid, 2015, Winters & Nathan, 2020). By employing qualitative research techniques, the study aims to delve deep into the linguistic structures and socio-cultural implications of diminutive suffixes in English and Urdu. This approach enables the researchers to gather detailed and contextually rich data, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of how diminutives function in these languages. Further, Savin-Baden and Major (2023) argue that language is a subjective and meaning-laden system, and qualitative research methods in theoretical linguistics acknowledge the crucial role of interpretation. Researchers acknowledge that language is not solely governed by objective rules but is also shaped by individual experiences and perspectives. Qualitative methods offer a framework for capturing and analyzing the multifaceted layers of meaning inherent in language, allowing researchers to delve into the subjective aspects of linguistic phenomena.

3.1. Data collection

The data collection process involves gathering relevant linguistic examples and instances of diminutive forms in English and Urdu. Multiple sources are consulted, including corpora, dictionaries, linguistic databases, literary works, and language resources. A comprehensive collection of authentic data is obtained to ensure the representation of a wide range of diminutive forms and constructions. Fifty (50) words (see appendix A) are selected from each language using the above-mentioned multiple sources specifically focusing on those words which include inflectional morphemes and belong to the noun and adjective categories. This ensures that the collected data is relevant to the study’s objective.

3.2. Reliability and validity of data

Efforts are made to ensure the authenticity and representativeness of the collected data. Careful selection of diverse sources and verification of native speaker judgments are undertaken to enhance data authenticity (Maqsood et al., 2019, Khan et al., 2023). Further, to ensure reliability, a subset of the data is independently analyzed by two experts. Inter-rater reliability measure of Cohen’s kappa coefficient (0.87) is used to assess agreement and consistency in data analysis.

3.3. Data analysis and interpretation

The analysis of qualitative data is conducted through a descriptive approach. The collected linguistic examples and diminutive forms are examined in detail, focusing on their morphological structures, semantic features, and syntactic patterns. Further, the data is analyzed to identify commonalities and differences in the construction morphology (Booij, 2018) of diminutives in English and Urdu. A comparative analysis is employed to examine the similarities and contrasts between diminutive forms in English and Urdu. The identified linguistic features and patterns are compared across the two languages, highlighting the constructional variations and tendencies in diminutive morphology. Nevertheless, the qualitative research design and descriptive presentation of qualitative data in this study enable a comprehensive exploration of the construction morphology of diminutive forms in English and Urdu. By comparing the linguistic properties of diminutives in both languages, the research aims to contribute to the broader understanding of word formation and morphological processes in different linguistic systems.

3.3.1. Theoretical framework

As mentioned earlier, the design of the study is based on the schema of Construction Morphology (CxM). This framework considers constructions as signs, which are conventionalized pairings of form and meaning (Booij, 2010;). Form and meaning are interconnected through symbolic correspondence links and comprise of various intricate properties. The level of FORM can be segmented into a PHON tier and a morphosyntactic tier, which contains MORPH and SYN features (Booij, 2012). Meanwhile, the MEANING level is believed to encompass SEM, PRAG, and DISC information. This means that morphological items, just like any other constructions, are represented as distinct yet interconnected layers of structure, as demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The internal structure of a construction Source: Adapted from Croft (2001, p. 18).

The nature of linguistic representations demonstrates the model’s connection to the Parallel Architecture (Jackendoff & Audring, 2019). However, in contrast to the Parallel Architecture’s approach, which views the PHON, MORPH/SYN, and SEM layers as equally significant, the present model highlights the symbolic dimension at the SEM-PHON and SEM-MORPH/SYN interface (Booij, 2016). To examine the complex bundle of properties related to form and meaning, which includes phonological, morphosyntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and discourse-functional information, the study employs the CxM approach.

In CxM, the morphosyntactic features of a word are considered as constructional properties, and inflectional affixes are viewed as parts of words rather than in isolation (Booij, 2010, Booij, 2012, Booij, 2016, 2018). This approach captures the hierarchical relationship between different nodes in a structure, where information from higher nodes is inherited by lower nodes through Instantiation Inheritance Links, resulting in the formation of inheritance hierarchies (Adele & Goldberg, 1995). To address the treatment of inflection, this study follows the constructionist approach to examine the diminutive suffixes in Urdu and analyze their constructional properties within a paradigmatic framework. As mentioned earlier, the present study aims to investigate the inflectional morphemes in diminutive function with relation to nouns and adjectives in English and Urdu, and the usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in Urdu and English on interpersonal communication.

4. Analysis

The current study investigates the English and Urdu diminutive suffixes from the perspective of Construction Morphology. The findings reveal that the function of inflectional morphemes, particularly bound class morphemes, in Urdu and English, is quite distinct. Inflections like/s/in English and/ʏɑ/and/i/in the Urdu language cannot be used distinctly as meaningful segments in isolation. Urdu, in terms of inflectional morphology, has very extensive inflections by way of the phonological composition of its words. In response to the first question of the current study, which aims to examine the similarities and differences in the use of diminutive forms in Urdu and English, researchers present a set of schemas for each language. The schemas numbered from 1 to 5 represent Urdu, while the schemas numbered from 6 to 10 represent English. These schemas serve to illustrate the similarities and differences between Urdu and English diminutive suffixes within the framework of construction morphology.

4.1. Diminutive as animate and inanimate in urdu

In Urdu, there are two sorts of gender for nouns: animate and inanimate. Although there are very few animate patterns, they play a significant role in Urdu nominal patterns, particularly in terms of diminutive morphology. In the view of diminutive aspect, the associative category (word and its diminutive) can be easily seen. However, certain nouns such as/khʌg.gɑ/,/naala/, and/thal/are inherently masculine and do not have a feminine counterpart in Urdu. Despite this, they can function as diminutive morphological words, meaning something small, young, or charming. Inherently masculine nouns are differentiated from inherently feminine nouns by the presence of masculine marker -a and feminine marker -ɪ at the end of their roots. Similarly, diminutive nouns can be derived from their augmented base nouns using the same principle, which is a case of cumulative exponence. These findings provide new insights into the productive use of diminutive suffixes in Urdu and their role in noun formation.

4.2. Inflection-cchema

Table

< [book-let]wi	[N]i,SG	SING[BOOKi] >
< [X- Let]wi	[N]i,SG	SING[a small book] >

The analysis of word formation reveals that form and meaning schemas exhibit traits of productivity, addition, subtraction, and paradigm organization.

4.3. Word- schema for animate and inanimate urdu diminutive

1. Schema

The overhead given schema is an [Xi]N of sapolia. Which is an [Xi]N of “sanp” - a word taken from Sanskrit. The analysis shows that the morphosyntactic structure of this construction fully conveys the meaning of the previous construction. The long vowel/a/at the end of “sapolia” does not affect the grammatical category or gender marker of the word, as it represents the masculine marker here. Semantically, this construction means “a baby of snake”. However, it carries connotative or pragmatic meaning as well, which focuses on conversational implicature—a process in which the speaker implies, and the listener infers. Since snakes denote a negative character, someone who can harm others, the baby of a snake can be considered even more dangerous due to its smaller size, sharper teeth, and increased intelligence, which makes it more capable of inflicting harm. In conclusion, the study sheds light on the morphosyntactic and semantic features of “sapolia” and how it conveys meaning beyond its literal interpretation. The WP will be:

2. Schema

The overhead given schema is an [Xi]N of naali. Naala is a word taken from Persian and used as a masculine marker as it has the long vowel/a/at the end, and its diminutive is naali. The morphosyntactic structure of this construction, “naali,” fully donates the meaning of the previous construction. In the phonological information, the long vowel/i/at the end of the word nali is not affecting the word’s grammatical category, but undoubtedly, it is changing the gender marker here as now it is representing the feminine marker. Semantically, this construction means a passage for water (or other fluids) to flow through. As an Urdu speaker, one can have various connotations for this lexical entry at the same time, naali can be a channel along the eaves or on the roof that collects and carries away rainwater, a gutter, a tube with a small bowl at one end; used for smoking tobacco. It is also used as a tube through which a bullet travels when a gun is fired. This construction denotes one more interesting pragmatic meaning which focuses on conversational implicature, “gandi naali ka keeda” a sewage worm, a despicable creature, a bad person who has proved or showed by an act that he belongs to a vile and evil place, As naali expresses here the ugliest place and the person who belongs to there cannot be expected the lotus. It is said that a person’s company and brought up matters a lot. The WP will be:

3. Schema

The schema above illustrates a [Xi]N construction using the word “pankhri,” borrowed from the Hindi language. The word means “petal” and is a diminutive of the words “wing” and “flower”. The long vowel represented by the letter/i/at the end of the word changes the gender marker from masculine to feminine phonologically. The morphosyntactic structure of this construction effectively conveys the meaning of something that is small and sensitive. Adding the inflection bound morpheme/-ri/doesn’t change the word’s morphosyntactic category. Contextually, “pankhri” suggests delicacy, beauty, and sensitivity, as often seen in poetic verses such as “The delicacy of her lips is like a petal of a rose.” This construction demonstrates the productivity of diminutive morphology, allowing for the creation of new words that convey nuanced meanings with precision. Overall, this schema provides a comprehensive understanding of the word “pankhri,” its gender marker, morphosyntactic structure, and semantic meaning. The WP follows as:

4. Schema

The above-given schema is a [Xi]N of degchi. The word “degchi” is a noun borrowed from Persian and used in Urdu. Its root word is “deg,” which means a large cooking pot. By adding the suffix/-tʃī/, the word “degchi” has become a diminutive form of “deg,” meaning a smaller cooking pot. The morphosyntactic structure of this construction functions as a [Xi]N, where the long vowel/-tʃī/changes the gender marker of the word from masculine to feminine. Semantically, “degchi” means a small metal cooking utensil. The addition of the suffix/-tʃī/conveys the meaning of something small, but the inherent meaning of the root word “deg” is still preserved. The word “degchi” retains its noun form and does not change its morphosyntactic category. In some contexts, “degchi” can refer to women who are short in height and may be considered unattractive due to their facial features. This usage can be considered derogatory and varies in different regions. Overall, the schema demonstrates the productivity of diminutive morphology in Urdu, which allows for the creation of new words that convey precise meanings. The WP as follows:

5. Schema

The schema above describes a [Xi]N construction for the word “dholak”, which is derived from the Sanskrit word “dhol” meaning a big drum. The morphosyntactic structure of this lexical item fully conveys its meaning, with the suffix -ak denoting a smaller version of the original word. Phonologically, the addition of -ak at the end of dhol does not change the word’s grammatical category, but it changes the gender marker from masculine to feminine. Semantically, dholak refers to a small drum. However, contextually, this word can also be used to describe a person whose body is de-shaped or who is overweight, as the drum or dholak has a round shape with no curves. Overall, the schema demonstrates the productivity of diminutive morphology, which allows for the creation of new words with nuanced meanings that convey precise ideas. The WP will be:

4.4. Diminutive as animate and inanimate in english

In English, the diminutive serves as a linguistic feature that expresses smallness or endearment. It is used to modify both animate (living) and inanimate (non-living) nouns, albeit with some distinctions in terms of form and usage.

4.5. Word- schema for animate and inanimate English diminutive

6. Schema

The given schema above is a [Xi]N of booklet. The word booklet is an inanimate noun that conveys the semantic meaning of “a small book” or a pamphlet. It is also used metaphorically in society to refer to an intelligent or thoughtful person. For instance, as can be seen examples such as “Instagram was my only platform that I shared my booklets on when I first created it last year,” Lim told me via email“or “Really, Johnny is a booklet”. The pragmatics meaning of this word is an intelligent child, who is very good and apt in learning and remembering the information, he is called booklet or minicomputer as pragmatics focuses on conversational implicature, which is a process in which the speaker implies, and the listener infers. The morphosyntactic structure of this construction shows the addition of an inflectional bound morpheme suffix, which has not changed its morphosyntactic category. The word’s volume or size is increased by this suffix, and phonologically, it takes a sound of/ˈbʊklət/. The word is also masculine gender, and it follows the mother-daughter schema and word-and-paradigm organizations. The WP will be:

7. Schema

The given schema is a [Xi]N of “bootie”. The word “boot” is the root noun, and adding the diminutive suffix “−ie” results in “bootie”, which is still a noun. Phonologically, “bootie” is pronounced with a near-close front unrounded vowel/ɪ/, not a back rounded vowel. Semantically, “bootie” means a short boot that covers only the foot and ankle, or an ankle-length disposable foot covering used in sterile environments. Pragmatically, “boot” can also be used as a derogatory term for a woman, but this meaning should not be encouraged. By adding the diminutive suffix “−ie”, “bootie” can also have slang meanings such as “variants” or, less commonly, “buttocks”. The word’s size or cuteness is increased in this diminutive construction. The WP will be:

8. Schema

The above schema pertains to the [Xi]N of doggy, where the noun “dog” is modified through the addition of the inflectional morpheme “−y” to create a diminutive form. The sound of the near-close, near-front unrounded vowel/ɪ/in/dɔ́gɪ/is used to convey the meaning of smallness and cuteness. Semantically, doggy refers to a small dog or puppy that is adorable and lovable. However, it can also have connotative meanings, such as being stylish and showy in informal American society, as evidenced by the phrase “doggy fashion.” This use of a diminutive suffix demonstrates the productivity of English morphological processes, as it results in a change in the morphosyntactic category of the word from a noun to an adjective. Furthermore, this word has an extended sense, as it can be used to direct a sex position. However, doggy also carries negative connotations, as it is sometimes used to describe something that is of low quality or is inferior. The WP will be:

9. Schema

The above-given schema is a [Xi]N of the cockerel. This construction is derived from the stem word “cock”, which means an adult male chicken. Morphosyntactically, this lexical is a singular and noun category-wise. The semantic meaning of this animate word cockerel is a young rooster. In the Middle Ages, the Gallic Rooster was widely used as a religious symbol, a sign of hope and faith. During the Renaissance, the rooster began to be associated with the emerging French nation. The rooster holds powerful symbolism among different cultures. Among the Native Americans, the cockerel signifies masculine power and virility. It is mainly recognized for its loud, proud call and confident attitude. Morphologically, the size or volume of the words increases by adding the inflectional bound morpheme suffix. The word- and- paradigms organisation is below:

10. Schema

The above schema represents the [Xi]N form of the word “duckling”. Morphosyntactically, this construction retains the noun category and does not change its gender marker after adding the inflection. Semantically, “duckling” means “a young duck”. The phonological structure of the word is made up of the sounds/l/velar lateral approximant,/i/near-nose near front unrounded vowel, and/ŋ/velar nasal. The term “duckling” has been in use since the early 15th century and comes from the words “duck” and ”−ling”. The ugly duckling is a famous character from Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, which was first published in Danish in 1843 and in English by 1846. The term “duckling” can also have connotative or pragmatic meanings. For example, it can be used to refer to someone or something that initially seems unpromising but has great potential. In a statement like “We also hear a good deal about agriculture, the ugly duckling of politics”, the term “ugly duckling” represents a metaphor for something that has the potential to be great despite its initial unattractive appearance. The WP will be:

As mentioned earlier, the current study investigates the English and Urdu diminutive suffixes from a Construction Morphology perspective. Our findings indicate that in English, various inflectional bound morphemes such as -y, -ing, -let, -kin, -ie, -rel, -ette, -ine, and -ino are used as suffixes for diminutive morphology. Additionally, mini- and micro- are used as prefixes for the same purpose. However, the productivity of the English diminutive system is relatively low as it does not change the category of the word. On the other hand, in Urdu, -re, -i, -ra, -tʃi, -ʒɑ, -tʃa, -a, -k are used as suffixes for diminutive morphology. The inflection of the diminutive forms from their augmented bases is also based on the same principle, which is a case of cumulative exponence. Thus, the diminutive nouns can be derived from their augmented base nouns. This study also found that Construction Morphology’s principle of gradient productivity is applicable to both English and Urdu diminutive systems. Therefore, the current research provides insight into the morphological structure and productivity of English and Urdu diminutives.

The second research question examines the usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in Urdu and English on interpersonal communication. Findings reveal that diminutive forms in both languages play crucial roles in shaping interpersonal communication, influencing usage patterns, and conveying nuanced meanings. In Urdu, there are two gender categories for nouns: animate and inanimate. While there are few animate patterns, they have a notable impact on Urdu nominal patterns, particularly in terms of diminutive morphology. In Urdu, diminutive forms are created by adding specific suffixes to base nouns. The schema for animate nouns follows the pattern /Xi/N, where the base noun is the masculine form, and the diminutive form is the feminine form. For example, the word “sapolia” is derived from the base noun “sanp” (snake), and the addition of the masculine marker “−a” creates the diminutive form meaning “a baby snake.”

These diminutive forms in Urdu serve not only to indicate smallness or youth but also carry connotative or pragmatic meanings. For instance, the diminutive form of “naala” (tube) is “naali,” which can be used metaphorically to refer to a person from an unclean or undesirable place. This focuses more on conversational implicature, “gandi naali ka keeda” a sewage worm, a despicable creature, a bad person who has proved or showed by an act that he belongs to a vile and evil place. These connotations and pragmatic meanings add layers of implied information and context to communication. In English, diminutive forms are created by adding suffixes or modifying the base noun. The usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in English differ from Urdu but are equally important. English diminutives often convey the meaning of smallness, cuteness, or affection. For example, the word “booklet” is a diminutive form of “book,” indicating a small book or a pamphlet. The word “doggy” is a diminutive form of “dog,” referring to a small or young dog, conveying a sense of endearment and playfulness.

English diminutives can also have extended senses and connotations. For example, the word “bootie” is a diminutive form of “boot” and can refer to a small boot, an inferior person or, in slang usage, to buttocks. These extended meanings showcase the flexibility and creativity of English diminutive forms. In both languages, diminutive forms have a productive and creative nature. They allow for the formation of new words that convey precise meanings and evoke specific connotations. Diminutives in both Urdu and English serve as powerful tools for interpersonal communication, enabling speakers to express affection, convey size or cuteness, and convey implied meanings or cultural associations. Overall, the usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in Urdu and English contribute to the richness and complexity of interpersonal communication. They provide speakers with a range of linguistic resources to express nuances of meaning, convey emotions, and shape social interactions.

5. Discussion

The study compared the inflectional morphology of English and Urdu, specifically focusing on diminutive functions of nouns and adjectives. In English, the most common pattern of inflection is adding “s” to the root word, but exceptions exist such as “men”, “theses” and “analyses”. On the other hand, Urdu employs several diminutives to convey cuteness, charm, and size. The most frequently occurring pattern of inflection in Urdu for feminine nouns is adding the -ri inflection for the diminutive marker. The study found that Urdu is richer in inflections compared to English, providing multiple ways of expressing a particular meaning depending on the speaker’s intention. The results contrast with prior research (Hamid & Faiq, 2009) on the diminutive function in Arabic and English, as diminutives in Arabic work primarily to lower the size, quality, and quantity of a statement. Conversely, diminutives in Urdu interact extensively with the category of gender marker (Gohar & Mangrio, 2021). The study highlights that a language with several inflectional forms, such as Urdu, can give it productive characteristics that distinguish it from other languages. The implications of these findings underscore the importance of considering the effects of other natural languages on the development of inflectional morphology in diverse linguistic contexts.

Further, Urdu employs a vocative case to address a person or thing, for instance “chota” for a young boy in a family, with “munna” being the vocative case. Female counterparts such as “kaki”, “choti” and “munni” are also used in families. This direct expression by the speaker to the addressee is used with the inflectional morpheme “a” or “i” at the end of masculine and feminine proper nouns respectively, to mark the vocative case in Urdu. Additionally, Urdu uses the vocative case to convey a diminutive function by employing an inflection form with animal names such as “kutta” or “kutti” (dog or bitch) used to call someone’s attention in a pejorative sense when the speaker is angry. This feature of Urdu is unique in that it employs a vocative case to convey the highest contempt for humans, including both males and females. At times, Urdu speakers even use “gadha” (donkey) as a vocative expression for the word “gadhi” (donkey) to call the attention of someone with extreme abhorrence (Green, 1895, Schmidt, 1999).

The findings regarding the diminutive function of English are similar to previous studies (Karaminis & Thomas, 2010, McCarthy, 2002), which revealed that English inflectional morphology is generally considered simple and widespread use of default forms. In contrast, the vocative case is almost dropped in Modern English, although the meaning is communicated differently in a semantic context such as “Jim, are you serious?” and “Alice, come here” (Moro, 2013). Historically, Old English used “O” to prefix vocative expressions in poetry and prose, such as “O ye of little faith” (Beare & Mathers, 1981). Urdu also employs the vocative case for names and can reduce their size by subtracting the last morpheme and adding “−i” such as “Aisha” to “Ashi” for a girl, and “Bilal” to “Bila” for a boy. Urdu also uses clipping words for the vocative case. The original word “bachon” - meaning “children” creates a clipped form: “bacho” by having the same meaning—a vocative form used to address someone respectfully. In this example, the word “bacho” (children) is a polite or formal way to address kids. In the same way, “behno” (sisters) and “bhaiyo” (brothers) are used as a vocative case to address the female and male of the original words “behnon” (sisters) and “bhaiyon” (brothers). It is also observed that the clipping of words and the use of the vocative case can vary in different contexts and regions within Urdu-speaking communities.

English diminutives are formed by adding suffixes such as ”−let”, ”−ling”, ”−ock”, ”−ette”, and ”−net” to show the small size of the entity. However, unlike many other languages, diminutives are not a common feature of Standard English (Dehham & Kadhim, 2015). Wierzbicka (2009) notes that productive diminutives in English are rare, with only isolated forms such as “doggie”, “handies”, and “girlie” commonly used by children. In English, plurality is mainly formed by adding affixes such as “s”, “es”, “en”, and zero morphemes to nouns. The addition of “en” is an irregular inflection, while zero morphemes are used only for specific noun classes, such as “sheep” and “deer”. Adding “s” to nouns like “table”, “dog”, and “cat” transforms them into plural forms, while “es” is used for words like “watch”. Vowel alteration also occurs in some English nouns to form plurals, as in the transformation of “goose” to “geese”. The inflection of vowel alterations, also known as ablauts and umlauts, is used in English to change the internal phonological structure of a word and its meaning (Lieber, 2021). However, these inflections are limited to a small number of words in English and do not contribute significantly to pragmatic or diminutive contexts. In contrast, Urdu has an extensive system of noun declension that employs plurality, vocative case, and diminutive inflections, resulting in a wide range of appreciative and depreciative expressions. This rich mechanism enhances the diminutive effects and contributes to pragmatic productivity (Dehham & Kadhim, 2015).

The use of adjectives in English differs from other languages as they do not indicate number or gender but instead inflect grammatical construction with gradable and non-gradable morphemes. English lacks a comprehensive system for denoting diminutives in the adjective class, unlike Urdu, which has a wide range of diminutive expressions for gender markers and sometimes adjectives, resulting in a more effective conveyance of multiple connotations within a single unit. This research aligns with the studies of Bin Mukhashin (2018) and Khachikyan (2015 in observing the limited productivity of English’s analytical diminutive marking mechanism that denotes a few lexical markers in distinctive forms such as “tiny,” “small,” and “little” before the noun categories. Unlike Old English, which was highly inflected and marked number, gender, and case, contemporary English only contains a few inflections for marking adjectives.

The analysis further revealed two distinct patterns of diminutive morphological function in nouns and adjective categories in English and Urdu. Interestingly, the findings suggest that Urdu’s inflectional mechanism is associated with ancient languages such as Sanskrit and is also influenced by Arabic and Persian, which were highly inflectional languages, leading to enhanced productivity in communication (Daud et al., 2017). In ancient languages, all words were formed through inflectional suffixes that denoted masculine, feminine, singular, plural, and gender distinction. Urdu is considered a highly inflectional language because the suffixes attached to the end of the words marked all cases (Khalique & Bukhari, 2016). In contrast, English uses a simple and predictable mechanism for marking genitive cases, represented by the inflection “s,” for example, in the words “boy” to “boys” and “girl” to “girls.” This study’s findings support previous research (Bybee, 2010, Lieber, 2021) by demonstrating the influence of inflectional mechanisms on the productivity of languages in terms of conveying multiple layers of connotation within a single unit.

In terms of the usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in Urdu and English on interpersonal communication, these findings are in line with previous studies (Bocian et al., 2017, Nichols, 1971, Savickienė et al., 2009) that underscore the significant roles played by diminutives in language usage and the conveyance of nuanced meanings. In Urdu, the presence of two gender categories for nouns, namely animate and inanimate, influences the patterns of diminutive usage. Although animate patterns are less prevalent, they have a notable impact on the nominal patterns in Urdu, particularly in relation to diminutive morphology. The process of creating diminutive forms in Urdu involves the addition of specific suffixes to base nouns. For inanimate nouns, a schema represented as/Xi/N is followed, where the base noun in its masculine form (Xi) transforms into the diminutive form in its feminine form (N). For example, the word ”dholak” is derived from the base noun ”dhol” (meaning ”a big drum”) by adding the feminine marker ”-aki,” resulting in the diminutive form meaning ”a small drum.” Similar patterns are observed with other nouns such as ”naali” (channel) and ”degchi” (a small cooking pot). These findings align with previous research (Gohar & Mangrio, 2021) on Urdu diminutives, contributing to our understanding of how Urdu speakers utilize diminutive forms to express affection, endearment, smallness, or familiarity in interpersonal communication. The research sheds light on the morphological processes involved, facilitating comprehension of the linguistic nuances and usage patterns within the language.

Similarly, in English, diminutives demonstrate versatility and creativity. The example of “bootie” as a diminutive form of “boot” illustrates how diminutives can extend beyond literal meanings and acquire additional senses or connotations. Previous studies (Lockyer, 2014, Schneider, 2012, Schneider & Strubel-Burgdorf, 2012) have highlighted the flexibility of English diminutives, encompassing a wide range of semantic variations. These extended senses and connotations add depth and richness to the language, enabling speakers to convey nuanced meanings and evoke specific associations. For instance, the slang usage of “bootie” to refer to buttocks showcases the playful and metaphorical meanings that diminutives can acquire. The research paper emphasizes that the productive and creative nature of diminutives extends beyond English alone. Similar patterns are observed in Urdu, where diminutive forms also play a vital role in interpersonal communication. Diminutives in both languages facilitate the formation of new words with precise meanings and evoke connotations. They serve as powerful tools in interpersonal communication, allowing speakers to express emotions, establish social connections, and shape interactions (Schneider, 2012). Diminutives enrich communication by conveying affection, playfulness, endearment, and other nuanced expressions. Hence, these findings reinforce the understanding that diminutive forms in both languages are crucial elements in interpersonal communication, adding layers of meaning and complexity to language usage.

6. Conclusion

The study of diminutive forms in Urdu and English reveals both similarities and differences in their usage patterns and impacts on language and communication. Both languages employ diminutive morphology to convey meanings of smallness, cuteness, or youthfulness. However, there are distinct patterns and gender markers associated with diminutives in each language. In Urdu, diminutive forms are influenced by animate nouns and exhibit gender-specific markers. Animate nouns, inherently masculine in nature, can function as diminutive morphological words, denoting something small, young, or charming. The presence of masculine and feminine markers distinguishes between inherently masculine and feminine nouns. Diminutive nouns in Urdu are derived by adding a suffix, demonstrating cumulative exponence. On the other hand, English diminutives rely on the addition of suffixes such as “−ie” or “−y” to convey endearment or smallness. Unlike Urdu, English diminutives do not exhibit gender-specific markers and do not alter the gender of the noun. Diminutive forms in English retain the grammatical category of the base noun while adding nuances to their semantic interpretations. The usage patterns and impacts of diminutive forms in both languages have significant implications for interpersonal communication. In Urdu, diminutives play a crucial role in nominal patterns, particularly in terms of diminutive morphology. The productive use of diminutive suffixes in Urdu enhances noun formation and contributes to the richness of the language. Additionally, the pragmatic and connotative meanings associated with Urdu diminutives reveal the influence of conversational implicature and cultural contexts on interpretation. Similarly, in English, diminutive forms serve as linguistic devices to convey smallness, cuteness, or youthfulness. These forms have both semantic and pragmatic implications, specifying the size or youthfulness of the referent and potentially evoking specific mental images. However, it is important to note that some English diminutives may carry slang meanings or negative connotations depending on the context. Overall, the current study represents a significant contribution to the existing body of research on inflectional morphology in English and Urdu. By utilizing the construction morphology theoretical model, this study has provided a comprehensive analysis of the similarities and differences in inflectional bound morphemes, with a particular emphasis on the diminutive functions of nouns and adjectives in both languages. The research highlights the importance of considering the effects of other natural languages, such as Greek, Arabic, and Sanskrit, on the development of inflectional morphology in English and Urdu. Additionally, it sheds light on the nature of productivity in diminutive features in both languages. This research has important implications for language interlocutors seeking to communicate more effectively cross-culturally through semantic and pragmatic contexts and underscores the need for further study on inflectional morphology in diverse linguistic contexts. For future research, it would be valuable to explore the sociocultural aspects of diminutive forms in Urdu and English, investigating their usage in specific contexts such as family relationships, pet names, or informal conversations. A comparative analysis of diminutive forms in other languages could also provide further insights into cross-linguistic variations and similarities in diminutive morphology and usage. Examining the influence of age, gender, and social factors on the choice and interpretation of diminutives would contribute to a deeper understanding of their role in language and communication.

Correction

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude and acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Dr. Baber SA Khan in shaping our academic journey and fostering our passion for theoretical linguistics. Over the past six years, Dr. Khan has played a pivotal role in cultivating our interest in the intricate fields of Syntax and Morphology. His unwavering dedication to teaching and mentoring has been instrumental in expanding our knowledge and deepening our understanding of these complex linguistic domains. His expertise, patience, and enthusiasm have continuously inspired and motivated us to delve deeper into the nuances of theoretical linguistics. We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Baber SA Khan for his exceptional mentorship, which has been pivotal in shaping our academic growth and nurturing our passion for theoretical linguistics.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the NA [NA].

Notes on contributors

Rabia Batool

Ms. Rabia Batool is an English lecturer pursuing a PhD in Linguistics at the University of Central Punjab in Lahore, Pakistan. With a background in theoretical linguistics, she is dedicated to scholarly pursuits and education. Her research focuses on exploring the fundamental principles and structures of language systems.

Tahir Saleem

Dr. Tahir Saleem is a Professor at the University of Central Punjab Lahore, Pakistan, with a strong emphasis on theoretical linguistics. He has contributed significantly to the field through research, showing a deep passion for understanding language structure and its governing principles. His interests cover syntax, morphology, and semantics within theoretical linguistics.

Appendix A

Urdu

Table

Sr.	Words	Suffix	Diminutive	Phonetics	Meaning	Category
-ya
1.	Sanp	−ya	Sanpoliya	/Sapŋoliyā/	A baby snake	Noun
2.	Bindi	−ya	Bindiya	/bīṅḍiyā/	A small or dotted ornament for the forehead.	Noun
3.	Gudda	−ya	Guriya	/guṛiyā/	A dolla humble or poor bride,	Noun
4.	Handi	−ya	Handiya	/haṅḍiyā/	A small earthen boiler or pot	Noun
5.	Laundi	−ya	Laundiya	/lauṇḍiyā/	Slave-woman	Noun
6.	Bhai	−ya	Bhaiya	/bhaiyā/	Younger brother	Noun
7.	Pankha	−ya	Pankhiya	/paṅkhiyā	A small fan	Noun
8.	Beti	−ya	Betiya	/beṭiyā/	dim. of beṭi	Noun
9.	Puri	−ya	Puriya	/puṛiyā/	Anything wrapped up in paper	Noun
10.	Chadar	−ya	Chudariya	/chudariyā/	a small cloth used as a head covering/sheet	Noun
11.	Dabba	−ya	Dabbiya	/dabbiyā/	A small box	Noun
12.	Nagar	−ya	Nagariya	/nagarīyā/	A small city, town	Noun
13.	Kamar	−ya	Kamariya	/kamariyā/	A thin waist	Noun
14.	Naw	−ya	Naiya	/naiyā/	A small boat/man	Noun
15.	Kambal	−ya	Kambliya/kambali	/kambalīyā/	A small blanket	Noun
16.	Khatt	−ya	Khutiya	/khutiyā/	A small bed	Noun
-i
17.	Naala	−i	Naali	/nālī/	A small but long Pipe	Noun
18.	Aara	−i	Aari	/ārī/	A small saw	Noun
19.	Piyala	−i	Piyali	/piyālī/	A small cup	Noun
20.	Pahar	−i	Pahari	/pahāṛī/	A small hill a hillock	Noun/Adj
21.	Thal	−i	Thali	/thālī/	A small flat dish	Noun
22.	Pateela	−i	Pateeli	/pātilī/	A small pot, with a wide mouth,	Noun
23.	Tokra	−i	Tokri	/ṭokrī/	A kind of small basket	Noun
24.	Dala	−i	Dali	/ḍālī/	A branch, a small branch	Noun
25.	Rasa	−i	Rasi	/rasī/	A small and thin rope	Noun
26.	Burj	−i	Burji	/burjī/	Small tower, turret cut-water of the pier of a bridge	Noun
-ri
27	Pankh	−ri	Pankhri	/paṅkhṛī/	Petal, leaf of a flower	Noun
28	Pag	−ri	Pagri	/pagṛī/	A turban	Noun
29.	Ankh	−ri	Ankhri	/aṅkhṛī/	Eye; glance of the eye. (dim. of ankh),	Noun
30.	Dam	−ri	Damri	/damṛī/	One-fourth or one-eighth of a paisa	Noun
31.	Palang	−ri	Palangri	/palangṛī/	A small bedstead.	Noun
32.	Tang	−ri	Tangri	/ṭaṅgṛī/	Leg; thigh.	Noun
33.	Gath	−ri	Gathri	/gaṭhṛī/	A bundle, parcel, packet	Noun
-chi
34.	Deg	−chi	Degchi	/degtʃī/	A metal cooking utensil (smaller than a deg̠)	Noun
35.	Dum	−chi	Dumchi	/dumtʃī/	A crupper; the lower part of the back	Noun
36.	Sahan/sahn	−chi	sahanchi	/ṣaḥantʃī/	A court, court-yard, area, square; a level or plain tract	Noun
37.	Sanduk	−chi	Sandukchi	/sandūktʃī/	A small case, box or locker	Noun
38.	Bukcha	−chi	Bukchi	/buktʃī/	A case of leather, nylon, or other sturdy fabric, for carrying on the back the food, clothing	Noun
-chah
39.	Bagh	−cha	Baghicha	/bagītʃā/	A small garden	Noun
40.	Bazi	−cha	Bazicha	/bāzī-tʃa/	Dim of bazi, to be beaten, to lose	Noun
41.	Khawan	−cha	Khawancha	/khawantʃa/	A small food mate	Noun
42.	Dar	−cha	Daricha	/darītʃa/	A small hole for the admission of light, small door/window	Noun
43.	Kitab	−cha	Kitabcha	/kitābtʃa/	A small book	Noun
44.	Tak	−cha	Takcha	/tāktʃa/	A small recess/shelf	Noun
-ra
45.	Bacha	−ra	Bachongra	/bɑtʃɔ̃ŋɾɑ/	Moppets	Noun
46.	Dukh	−ra	Dukhra	/dukhṛā/	Constant suffering, to be overtaken by misfortune	Noun
47.	Mukh	−ra	Mukhra	/mukhṛā/	Face, features, expression	Noun
48.	Billa	−ra	Bachongra	/bɑtʃɔ̃ŋɾɑ/	kitten	Noun
-k
49.	Dhol	−k	Dholak/dholki	/dholak/ḍholkī/	A small drum.	Noun
50.	Mard	−k	Mardak/Mardwa	/mardak/	A low or contemptible fellow	Noun

English

Table

Sr.	Words	Suffix	Diminutive	Phonetic symbols	Meaning	Category
-let
1.	Book	−let	Booklet		A small bound book or pamphlet, usually having a paper cover.	Noun
2.	Arm	−let	Armlet	/ärm.lət/	A band worn on the arm for ornament or identification.	Noun
3.	Crater	−let	Craterlet	/krātər.lət/	A small crater.	Noun
4.	Drop	−let	Droplet	/drɒp.lət/	A tiny drop	Noun
5.	Ham	−let	Hamlet	/hæm.lət/	A human settlement that is smaller than a town	Noun
6.	Leaf	−let	Leaflet	/liːflət/	A small plant leaves.	Noun
7.	Tab	−let	Tablet	/tæb.lət/	A small flat pellet of medication to be taken orally.	Noun
8.	App	−let	Applet	/æp.lət/	A small computer program,	Noun
-ie
9.	Boot	−ie	Bootie	/buːti/	A short boot that covers only the foot and ankle	Noun
10	Lass	−ie	Lassie	/læsi/	A young girl	Noun
11.	Deb	−ie	Debbie	/debi/	Female name	Noun
12.	Cook	−ie	Cookie	/kʊk.i/	Dessert that is typically small,	Noun
13.	Dear	−ie	Dearie	/dɪə.ri/	A person who is dear; sweetie.	Noun
14.	Girl	−ie	Girlie	/ɡɜː.li/	A young girl.	Noun
15.	Lad	−ie	Laddie	/læd.i/	A young boy	Noun
16.	New	−ie	Newbie	/njuː.bi/	One who is new to something; a novice.	Noun
-Y
17.	Dog	−y	Doggy	/dɒɡ.i/	A small dog	Noun
18.	Kitten	−y	Kitty	/kɪ.ti/	A young cat	Noun
19.	Bud	−y	Buddy	/bʌd.i/	Friend	Noun
20.	Blue	−y	Bluey	/bluːi/	Name of a colour	Adjective
21.	Jazz (informal)	−y	Jazzy	/dʒæz.i/	With a strong lively beat, like jazz,very bright and colourful,	Adjective
-rel
22.	Cocker	−rel	Cockerel	/kɒk.ər.əl/	A young male chicken	Noun
23.	Dogrel	−rel	Doggerel	/dɒɡ.ər.əl/	Silly, badly, Cheap or trivial meaning	Adjective
24.	Waste	−rel	Wastrel	/weɪ.strəl/	A neglected child.	Noun
25.	Gang	−rel	Gangrel	/găngrəl/	A wondering bagger, a drifter	Noun
26.	Dotter	−rel	Dotterel	/dŏt ər.əl/	A small wader in the plover family of birds, easily dumped	Noun
-ling
27.	Duck	−ling	Duckling	/dʌk.lɪŋ/	A young duck	Noun
28.	Darling	−ling	Darling	/dɑːlɪŋ/	Dear one	Noun
29.	Finger	−ling	Fingerling	/fĭng.gər-lĭng/	A small fish especially up to one year of age	Noun
30.	Goose	−ling	Gosling	/ɡɒz.lɪŋ/	A young goose	Noun
31.	Under	−ling	Underling	/ʌn.dəl.ɪŋ/	A subordinate	Noun
-kin
32.	Devil	−kin	Devilkin	/dĕvəl-kĭn/	Little devil	Noun
33.	Lamb	−kin	Lambkin	/læm.kɪn/	A very young sheep	Noun
34.	Pan	−kin	Pannikin	/pæn.ɪkɪn/	A durable cup or other vessel used for drinking	Noun
35.	Nappe	−kin	Napkin	/næp.kɪn/	A piece of cloth or paper	Noun
36.	Ram	−kin	Ramekin	/ræm.ə.kɪn/	A small dish in which food for one person is baked and served	Noun
37.	Can	−kin	Cannikin	/kănĭ-kĭn/	A little can, a small wooden bucket	Noun
-ette & -et
38.	Kitchen	−ette	Kitchenette	/kɪtʃ.ənˈet/	A small cooking area	Noun
39.	Usher	−ette	Usherette	/ʌʃ.əˈret/	A girl employed to escort people to their seats, as in a theater or stadium.	Noun
40.	Leather	−ette	Leatherette	/leð.əˈret/	Inferior kind of cloth	Noun
41.	Pal	−ette	Palette	/pæl.ət/	A board	Noun
42.	Disk	−ette	Diskette	/dɪsˈket/	Athin and flexible disk	Noun
43.	Statue	−ette	Statuette	/stætʃ.uˈet/	A small statue	Noun
44.	Cigar	−ette	Cigarette	/sɪɡ.ərˈet/	A small roll of finely cut tobacco for smoking	Noun
45.	Ruele	−ette	Roulette	/roo-lĕt/	A small toothed disk of tempered steel attached to a handle and used to make rows of dots, slits, or perforations	Noun
46.	Falcon	−et	Falconet	/făl′kə-nĕt/	A small or young falcon, a small cannon,	Noun
-ine &-ino
47.	Figure	−ine	Figurine	/fɪɡ.əˈriːn/	A small model of a human, usually made of clay or porcelain	Noun
48.	Linguini	−ine	Linguine	/lɪŋˈɡwiːneɪ/	Little tongues or pasta in the shape of long, thin strips	Noun
49.	Bamboo	−ino	Bambino	/băm-bēnō/	A child; a baby	Noun
50.	Neuter	−ino	Neutrino	/njuːtriːnəʊ/	A very small piece of matter that has no electrical charge and exists for a very short time, produced during some types of nuclear reactions	Noun