Nazm points to the idiom 'X Y ' (literally, 'X would know, Y would know') that is used to mean 'it's nobody's concern but X's and Y's'. In the verse, the idiom is truncated so that it's nobody's concern but the beloved's (and the Other doesn't seem to come into it at all), which is amusingly appropriate to the situation. The implication is that the beloved is significantly involved with the Other, and the speaker is bending over backwards to disavow all right to inquire about this involvement. The speaker uses this disavowal as leverage to imply that the beloved ought also to show some concern for him (as a former lover? as a fellow-lover and peer of the Other?). This is not a major request-- the beloved ought to show concern only to the very mild extent of , 'to inquire about someone['s wellbeing]'. To 'keep on' doing this would mean nothing more than occasionally making a friendly (but perhaps formal and perfunctory) inquiry about someone's health, as one might dutifully check on the condition of a sick acquaintance. The use of 'keep on' also suggests that perhaps this is all the interest the beloved has ever shown, and the lover is concerned about losing even this. Then there's the idiomatic -- 'would it be a sin?' or 'what [kind of] sin would it be?'-- that conveys more than a touch of sarcasm. Far from being a sin or wrong, the speaker implies, it would be only right and proper for the beloved to maintain at least a show of concern. The result is a verse that is completely in the future subjunctive-- a verse that does its work through implication and insinuation. This makes the wordplay of 'to know' [] and 'to inquire' [] all the more piquant. Compare 71,9 , which also uses , and also combines it with sarcastic hyperbole ('it wouldn't do any harm'). graphics/getwell.jpg