KHush-buu kaa, phuul kaa hai jo rishtah sabaa ke saath
Naseer
thoRe hii dinoN kii baat hai kih Afzal Sahib ne ek KHaatuun shaa'irah
ya'nii Noor JahaaN Naaz kaa kalaam pesh kiyaa thaa. shaa'iraat ke
mauzuu' ko faroGh dete hu'e aap kii KHidmat meN Noor JahaaN Noorii kii
ek Ghazal Haazir hai.
...........................................................................................................
KHush-buu kaa, phuul kaa hai jo rishtah sabaa ke saath
apnaa bhii aisaa rishtah hai ik be-vafaa ke saath*
ulfat kii chhaa'ii aisii ghaTaa jhuumtii hu'ii
dil-kash dhanak ke rang hu'e haiN ghaTaa ke saath
pal bhar meN merii ruuH mu'attar sii ho ga'ii
aayaa jo us kii yaad kaa jhoNkaa havaa ke saath
ik sar-KHushii-o-kaif saa paataa hai dil meraa
chaahe vuh be-ruKHii bhii kare ik adaa ke saath
vuh saamne ho maiN use jhii bhar ke dekh luuN
khultii hai subH aaNkh mirii is du'aa ke saath
bandah-navaaz ho ke jo kartaa hai bandagii
ik rabt-i-KHaas hotaa hai us kaa KHudaa ke saath
Nuurii kii har Ghazal meN hai us Husn kii chamak
har lafz jagmagaataa hai us kii ziyaa ke saath
Noor JahaaN Noori
* Zoya Sahiba, should it be "apnaa bhii aisaa hii rishtah..?"
............................................................................................................
Naseer
Zoya
> ...........................................................................................................
>
> KHush-buu kaa, phuul kaa hai jo rishtah sabaa ke saath
> apnaa bhii aisaa rishtah hai ik be-vafaa ke saath*
>
> * Zoya Sahiba, should it be "apnaa bhii aisaa hii rishtah..?"
> ............................................................................................................
>
> Naseer
NO sir, it should be just as you typed in the original sher,
inserting 'hii' in the misra will mess up the behr.
vaise, kya aap mujhe ustaad banaane ke chakkar meiN haiN?! meraa
shumaar to shagirdoN meiN hotaa hai, Naseer sahib!! :)
_____Zoya
B.G.M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pal bhar meN meri ruuH mu'attar si ho gayii
aayaa jo us ki yaad kaa jhoNkaa havaa ke saath
woh saamne ho, maiN usay jee bhar ke dekh luuN
khultii hai subH aaNkh mirii is du'aa ke saath
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waa...h!!
==============================================
Naseer
Zoya Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
is meN ko'ii shak nahiiN kih bazm-i-ALUP meN asaatizah kii ta'daad
chhe hai; kisii KHaas tartiib ke baGhair..Afzal Sahib, Raj Kumar
Sahib, Sarwar Sahib, Jamil Sahib, UVR Sahib awr Zafar Sahib. aap ko
maiN kaise ustaad kah saktaa huuN. aap jaantii haiN kih lafz ustaad
meN kabhii kabhii kuchh nafii aasaar bhii poshiidah hote haiN, jaise,
"tum *baRe* ustaad ho vGh, vGh. aap to ustaa(d)nii haiN!! vaise is
"equality and diversity" ke zamaane meN shaayad ab yih lafz bhii Ghair
ma'quul ho.
acchaa Zoya Sahiba yih bataa'iye kih agar asaatizah ustaad kii jam'
hai to asaatizah meN "z" kahaaN se aan Tapkaa hai?
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> aap ko
> maiN kaise ustaad kah saktaa huuN.
>
> acchaa Zoya Sahiba yih bataa'iye kih agar asaatizah ustaad kii jam'
> hai to asaatizah meN "z" kahaaN se aan Tapkaa hai?
> Naseer
Naseer Saheb,
Ek taraf aap Zoya Saheba se yeh bhi kehte haiN ke "maiN aap ko
ustaad kaise keh sakta hooN ?" Doosri taraf aap un se aisa
sawaal bhi karte haiN jo 'umooman asaatiza(h) se kiya jaata
hai !!
Aap ke is sawaal ka agar maiN jawaab dene ki koshish karooN to
yeh goya "ustaadi ustaad se" ke mutaraadif ho ga !!
Hum log 'aam taur se lafz "ustaad" ist'emaal karte haiN. Lekin
is lafz ka "pedagogical pronunciation" 'ustaaz' hai, jise "zaal"
se likha jaata hai. Meri naa~cheez raaye men "asaatiza(h)"
isi ki jam' m'aloom hota hai.
Other ALUPers may also please offer their views.
Afzal
UVR
My view is that there can be no other view than the one you have
presented, Afzal saahib!
-UVR.
nages...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me conflate a couple of threads with this post. First, thank you
so much, Naseer Sahib, for posting this excellent ghazal. Second,
this ghazal reminds me of two Momin ghazals that I posted to this
newsgroup many years ago, under the title "Twin ghazals". Here are
the matlas of the two ghazals in question.
1. dilbastagi si hai koi zulf-e du-taa ke saath
paalaa paRa hai hamko Khuda kis balaa ke saath
2. ulte voh shikve karte haiN aur kis adaa ke saath
betaakati ke taane haiN uzr-e jafaa ke saath
I'll try to post both ghazals to the group when I am back home with my
books.
Regards.
Nagesh
Naseer
On Jun 2, 8:41 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Naseer wrote:
> > aap ko
> > maiN kaise ustaad kah saktaa huuN.
>
> > acchaa Zoya Sahiba yih bataa'iye kih agar asaatizah ustaad kii jam'
> > hai to asaatizah meN "z" kahaaN se aan Tapkaa hai?
> > Naseer
>
> Naseer Saheb,
>
> Ek taraf aap Zoya Saheba se yeh bhi kehte haiN ke "maiN aap ko
> ustaad kaise keh sakta hooN ?" Doosri taraf aap un se aisa
> sawaal bhi karte haiN jo 'umooman asaatiza(h) se kiya jaata
> hai !!
maiN ne Zoya Sahiba ko is liye kahaa hai kih "maiN aap ko ustaad kaise
kah saktaa huuN?" kyoNkih vuh ustaanii haiN! awr ustaanii hone ke
naate maiN un se savaal puuchh saktaa huuN!:)
> Aap ke is sawaal ka agar maiN jawaab dene ki koshish karooN to
> yeh goya "ustaadi ustaad se" ke mutaraadif ho ga !!
jii haaN, aap ne ba-jaa farmaayaa hai:) awr duusarii baat yih hai kih
yih savaal maiN ne Zoya Sahiba se puuchhaa hai awr ab tak apne javaab
ke intizaar meN huuN!:)
> Hum log 'aam taur se lafz "ustaad" ist'emaal karte haiN. Lekin
> is lafz ka "pedagogical pronunciation" 'ustaaz' hai, jise "zaal"
> se likha jaata hai. Meri naa~cheez raaye men "asaatiza(h)"
> isi ki jam' m'aloom hota hai.
kyaa farmaayaa aap ne? "pedagogical pronunciation"! Inglistaan ke gore
jin se ham ne angrezii siikhii hai vuh aisii angrezii to nahiiN bolte!
aap se mu'addabaanah guzaarish hai kih mujh jaise saadah-lauH shaKhs
ke liye mujhe 'aam bol-chaal vaalii zabaan meN apnii baat samjhaa'iye!
> Other ALUPers may also please offer their views.
janaab-i-UVR Sahib ne to aap se jhaT hii ittifaaq kar liyaa hai.
yaqiin-an aap kii baat un ke palle paR ga'ii ho gii!:)
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
UVR
>
> > Hum log 'aam taur se lafz "ustaad" ist'emaal karte haiN. Lekin
> > is lafz ka "pedagogical pronunciation" 'ustaaz' hai, jise "zaal"
> > se likha jaata hai. Meri naa~cheez raaye men "asaatiza(h)"
> > isi ki jam' m'aloom hota hai.
>
> kyaa farmaayaa aap ne? "pedagogical pronunciation"! Inglistaan ke gore
> jin se ham ne angrezii siikhii hai vuh aisii angrezii to nahiiN bolte!
> aap se mu'addabaanah guzaarish hai kih mujh jaise saadah-lauH shaKhs
> ke liye mujhe 'aam bol-chaal vaalii zabaan meN apnii baat samjhaa'iye!
>
> > Other ALUPers may also please offer their views.
>
> janaab-i-UVR Sahib ne to aap se jhaT hii ittifaaq kar liyaa hai.
> yaqiin-an aap kii baat un ke palle paR ga'ii ho gii!:)
>
> KHair-andesh,
> Naseer
Naseer saahib, aadaab.
shaayad yahi farq hai angrezi goroN se seekhne aur desiyoN se seekhne
meN, k ek "desi" ki baat samajhne meN diqqat (yaa aasaani) ho sakti
hai. :)
waise mere palle Afzal saahib ki 'pedagogy'-waali baat sirf is liye
paR gayi kyoN.k us kaa seedhaa-seedhaa ta'alluq pedantry se hai, jis
se ek raah etymology ko jaati hai, aur doosri shaa'iri (aur Khaas taur
se Urdu ke puraane ustaad sh'oraa ki shaa'iri) se ho kar guzarti hai.
-UVR.
Zoya
>
> My view is that there can be no other view than the one you have
> presented, Afzal saahib!
>
> -UVR.
I second it. :)
___Zoya
Afzal A. Khan
> muHtaram Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
>
>> Hum log 'aam taur se lafz "ustaad" ist'emaal karte haiN. Lekin
>> is lafz ka "pedagogical pronunciation" 'ustaaz' hai, jise "zaal"
>> se likha jaata hai. Meri naa~cheez raaye men "asaatiza(h)"
>> isi ki jam' m'aloom hota hai.
>
> kyaa farmaayaa aap ne? "pedagogical pronunciation"! Inglistaan ke gore
> jin se ham ne angrezii siikhii hai vuh aisii angrezii to nahiiN bolte!
> aap se mu'addabaanah guzaarish hai kih mujh jaise saadah-lauH shaKhs
> ke liye mujhe 'aam bol-chaal vaalii zabaan meN apnii baat samjhaa'iye!
>
>> Other ALUPers may also please offer their views.
>
> janaab-i-UVR Sahib ne to aap se jhaT hii ittifaaq kar liyaa hai.
> yaqiin-an aap kii baat un ke palle paR ga'ii ho gii!:)
> Naseer
Naseer Saheb,
Jis aNgrezi zabaan ka aap zikr kar rahe haiN, usi men ek mohaawara
hai :
"Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds"
Which means : "Trying to support two opposing causes or views"
First, do please tell us who used to send detailed posts on
subjects like "jussive/subjunctive/nominative" and "future
counterfactual", "past counterfactual" etc. etc. ???
The word "pedagogical" used by me has a simple enough meaning :
"Characterized by pedantic formality"
I am sure most, if not all, ALUPers must have understood what I
meant --- and not merely UVR Saheb. And I do hope you had no
problem with the other word "pronunciation".
I recall that, in some old thread, UVR Saheb had referred to
certain hard/guttural sounds/pronunciations like the 'h' and
"'ain" etc. (as in "mahkoom" and "ma'aashra" etc.), mostly used
by clerics in sermons etc. He meant to say that such stylized
pronunciations were "pedagogical" in nature, and were not used
by ordinary Urdu speakers. I also have a faint recollection
that you too had agreed with him. Perhaps UVR Saheb would be able
to remember the exact thread.
In another thread "Ghalib's Scientific Thought" initiated by Jamil
Saheb, he had talked about "some pedagogical purpose".
GHaraz yeh ke aap ab itne saada~lauh bhi naheeN haiN !!!
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
>> Naseer wrote:
UVR Saheb,
Aap ne meri raae ki taaiid ki, is ke liye aap ka shukriya ada karna
mujh par waajib hai.
YahaaN maiN apna ek aur KHayaal bhi zaahir karna chaahta hooN. Ho
sakta hai ke asl lafz "ustaaz" hi ho, jo 'Arabi men ist'emaal kiya
jaata ho. Aur jis ki jama' ('asaatiza') hum aaj bhi Urdu men
ist'emaal kar rahe haiN.
In my time, I have often heard people referring respectfully to
their teachers with words like "ustaazi Maulvi Moinuddin Ahmed"
(or some other name). And I have read this term used in books
also. And I do believe that this term is an Arabic term,
meaning "my teacher". Obviously, no one uses the term with a
'daal" --- it is always with "zaal".
Afzal
Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
aap ke javaab se aisaa lagtaa hai kih shaayad aap ne merii halkii-
phulkii baat ko zaruurat se kuchh ziyaadah hii sanjiidagii kii nigaah
se dekhaa hai varnah yih "hare" awr "hounds" mauzuu'-i-guftuguu nah
bante.yih "smiley" kaa nishaan go bahut mufiid "iijaad" hai lekin phir
bhii har duusre jumle meN is kaa izhaar achchaa nahiiN lagtaa. ek aadh
maziid "smiley" nah lagaane se merii Dhakii chhupii zaraafat kii
koshish mukammal taur pih raa'igaaN ga'ii hai. KHair, ko'ii baat
nahiiN..aa'indah ke liye iHtiyaat karnaa paRe gii.
ab chalte haiN us savaal kii taraf jo maiN ne "chalte chalte" Zoya
Sahiba se puuchhaa hai. maiN ma'luum karnaa chaahtaa thaa kih Zoya
Sahiba ustaad awr asaatizah ke rishte ke baare meN kyaa ma'luumaat
rakhtii haiN. aap ke nazdiik "ustaaz" pedagogical talaffuz hai yaa vuh
talaffuz jis meN "pedantic formality" ho.
"ustaaz", "gunbad/z" (dome) kii tarH Farsii kaa lafz hai. kalaasiikii
Farsi ke daur se pahle Farsi zabaan meN "zaal-daar" alfaaz kii
bharmaar thii awr is "zaal" kaa tallafuz 'ain usii tarH thaa jaise
'Arabii zaal kaa hai..yaa jaise "th" kaa talaffuz hai lafz "that" meN.
vaqt ke saath saath zaal vaale alfaaz daal kii aavaaz se bole jaane
lage. asaatizah usii zamaane kii jam' hai jab ustaad ustaaz hu'aa
kartaa thaa.ya'nii Farsi lafz ko 'Arabi qaa'ide ke mutaabiq jam' kii
shakl dii jaa rahii thii.
ustaazii ke vahii ma'ne haiN jin kaa aap ne zikr kiyaa hai, ya'nii "my
teacher". zaahir hai kih 'Arabii liHaaz se "ustaadii" kaa matlab bhii
"my teacher" nikaltaa hai lekiN is ke ma'nii "teacher's job or office/
masterly skill" bhii ho sakte haiN. is ibhaam ko duur karne ke liye
shaayad "ustaazii" Urdu meN ziyaadah der tak raa'ij rahaa jab kih
"ustaaz" Ghaa'ib ho chukaa thaa. jadiid 'Arabii meN ustaaz ke ma'nii
"professor" ke haiN.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Zoya
Thank you gentlemen, this discussion has been most educational for me!
MY conclusion: I am nowhere close to being an ustaad/ ustaaz in this
group! ( BTW, what was the original/derived female version of the
word?! ;) )
In fact, I am not qualified to be even a TA around here!!
Naseer sahib, kya shaagird kii koii female version hai? agar haaN, to
maiN voh huuN! :)
Regards to all,
____Zoya
UVR
yeh sab to Theek hai, Naseer saahib, lekin yeh raaz bhi aap faash kiye
dete to kyaa buraa thaa k jab un Farsi-daanoN ne 'ustaaz' kaa ustaad
ho jaanaa qubool kar liyaa, to phir asaatezaa kaa asaatida kyoN naheeN
kar diyaa?
yaa kaheeN aisaa to naheeN k 'asaateza' asl meN ustaad ki jam'a ho hi
naheeN?! :)
-UVR.
Naseer
> yeh sab to Theek hai, Naseer saahib, lekin yeh raaz bhi aap faash kiye
> dete to kyaa buraa thaa k jab un Farsi-daanoN ne 'ustaaz' kaa ustaad
> ho jaanaa qubool kar liyaa, to phir asaatezaa kaa asaatida kyoN naheeN
> kar diyaa?
>
> yaa kaheeN aisaa to naheeN k 'asaateza' asl meN ustaad ki jam'a ho hi
> naheeN?! :)
janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
aap kaa savaal bi_lkul jaa'iz hai. shaayad aap yih puuchh rahe haiN
kih agar ustaaz ke zaal kii daal banaa dii ga'ii hai to asaatizah ke
zaal se daal kyoN nahiiN pak sakii KHusuus-an jab asaatizah awr ustaaz
ham-'asr the?:)
mere KHayaal meN jab ustaaz >>>>> asaatizah banaa, asaatizah ne ek
jaamid shakl iKHtiyaar kar lii kyoNkih use 'Arabii hii kaa lafz
gardaanaa jaane lagaa. is meN ko'ii shak kii gunjaa'ish nahiiN kih
asaatizah ustaaz kii jam' nah ho.
Zoya Sahiba, aadaab.
aap ko ustaazah kahaa jaa saktaa hai, agar ham 'Arabii ke qaa'ide ko
zihn meN rakheN. Farsi meN yih chakkar nahiiN thaa/hai isii liye
ustaad se Urdu meN ustaanii banaanaa paRaa. isii tarH, jahaaN tak
mujhe 'ilm hai, shaagird kaa bhii ko'ii mu'annis roop nahiiN hai.
tilmiizah?
Naseer
Ashuftasar
2- 2- 1, 2-1- 2- 1, 1 -2- 2- 1, 2- 1- 2-1 / -2
agar inn mein 2,1 ki munasbat se lafzoon ko HUZF karte huay auzan ka
khayal kia jaay tau shair bilkul right hota hay.
jaiase
Khush-buu-ka, phuu-l-ka he-jo rish-tah sa-baa-ke-saa-th
2 -2- 1, 2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -2 - 1- -2 -1 -2 - 1
ub inn mein mein lufzoon ko rakhtay jaain aur ghazal tayyar???????????
KHush-buu kaa, phuul kaa hai jo rishtah sabaa ke saath
apnaa bhii aisaa rishtah hai ik be-vafaa ke saath*
ulfat kii chhaa'ii aisii ghaTaa jhuumtii hu'ii
dil-kash dhanak ke rang hu'e haiN ghaTaa ke saath
pal bhar meN merii ruuH mu'attar sii ho ga'ii
aayaa jo us kii yaad kaa jhoNkaa havaa ke saath
ik sar-KHushii-o-kaif saa paataa hai dil meraa
chaahe vuh be-ruKHii bhii kare ik adaa ke saath
vuh saamne ho maiN use jhii bhar ke dekh luuN
khultii hai subH aaNkh mirii is du'aa ke saath
bandah-navaaz ho ke jo kartaa hai bandagii
ik rabt-i-KHaas hotaa hai us kaa KHudaa ke saath
Nuurii kii har Ghazal meN hai us Husn kii chamak
har lafz jagmagaataa hai us kii ziyaa ke saath
Noor JahaaN Noori
ashuftasar ka salam sub ko dua kay sath
venu...@live.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
UVR sahab, mujhe yaad paRta hai meN ne kahieN ustaad ki jam'a ustadaan
bhii paRha hai. shaayad 'ustaaz' ki jam'a 'asaatezah' ho ur 'ustaad,
ki 'ustadaan'! :) aur phir kabhi kabhi 'ustaadoN' bhii jam'a ke taur
par istemaal ho jaata hai, jaise 'ustadoN kaa ehtraam karo... etc.
Zuhra
UVR
Naseer saahib, salaam.
janaab, maiN ne 'asaateza' ke (zaal waale) *ustaaz* ki jam'a hone par
kab shak kiyaa hai! maiN to sirf yeh soch rahaa thaa aisaa kaun saa
usool Farsi (yaa Arabic) ke grammar meN hai k jis ke taht astaateza
"ustaad" ki jam'a ho saktaa hai. naacheez kisi bhi aise usool se
waaqif naheeN (which is not to say that such a thing cannot exist;
just that I am not aware of any such).
baaqi baateN Zuhra-ji ko diye jawaab meN likh rahaa hooN, use bhi dekh
leejiyega to mehrbaani hogi.
-UVR.
UVR
Zuhra-ji: bahut Khoob!
mere Khayaal meN aap saheeh raah par haiN. leejiye mulaahaza
farmaaiye k Sulaiman Hayyeem ki Farsi-Angrezi luGhat is zimn meN kyaa
kahti hai:
استاد (ostad) Noun A master, a teacher. A professor. One who is
skilled in an art or profession, an artisan. [... The word استاد
having been introduced into the Arabic and changed to استاذ becomes in
the plural اسائیذ asateez or اساتذه asatezah. But in Persian the
plural, if intended to be in the Arabic form, is usually اسائید
asateed. Otherwise, the Persian plural استادان ostadan serves as
well].
Naseer saahib: how's that for pedagogy! :)
-UVR.
Naseer
muHtaram UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
With due respect I have to say that if Professor Haim is suggesting
that the original Persian word was "ustaad" and upon entering Arabic
it lost its daal and gained a zaal, then I do believe he is wrong. Why
could n't Arabic have kept the daal and made the plural "asaatidah" or
"asaatiid"? Arabic grammar books do not mention "asaatiid", but do
mention "asaatiiz" which is a second plural for "ustaaz". If asaatiid
is also used by the Persians, then I would suggest that it is a kind
of "back-formation".
uataaz >>>>>>>>>>>>.asaatizah
ustaaz >>>>>>>>>>>> ustaad
ustaad >>>>>>>>>>>- asaatiid
(cf raaja >>>>>>>> raajnii >>>>>>>>> raanii
raanii >>>>>>>>>>>..raanaa )
I could be wrong of course. I don't know how one could prove for
certain that "ustaaz" is the original Persian word. I might come back
to this.
Naseer
Naseer
On Jun 5, 7:04 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:48 am, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 3:55 am, UVR <u.v.ravin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > yeh sab to Theek hai, Naseer saahib, lekin yeh raaz bhi aap faash kiye
> > > dete to kyaa buraa thaa k jab un Farsi-daanoN ne 'ustaaz' kaa ustaad
> > > ho jaanaa qubool kar liyaa, to phir asaatezaa kaa asaatida kyoN naheeN
> > > kar diyaa?
My brain must be getting tired. From above, are you saying..
If ustaaz >>>>>>>>>>>>> ustaad is acceptable by Iranians, then why
is n't..
asaatizah >>>>>>>>>>> asaatidah also acceptable?
If this is the case, then I thought I have already answered this
question. This is how I see the logical development.
ustaaz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asaatizah
Then, ustaaz, along with hundred of "zaal containing" words, changed
to a "daal containing" word and became "ustaad" whilst "asaatizah"
kept its place because it acquired an Arabic word status.
> > > yaa kaheeN aisaa to naheeN k 'asaateza' asl meN ustaad ki jam'a ho hi
> > > naheeN?! :)
asaatizah, ustaad kii kabhii jam' thii hii nahiiN, balkih, ustaaz hii
kii jam' thii awr ab tak hai...lekin lafz-i-vaaHid ya'nii ustaaz bach
nahiiN sakaa!
- Show quoted text -
lekin "asaatizah" ustaad kii jam' hai hii nahiiN! awr agar aap ko
usuul hii chaahiye to yih 'Arabii tariiqah "fa'aalilah" pattern par
*mabnii* hai.
masal-an
tilmiiz (pupil)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talaamizah
ustaaz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>asaatizah (also asaatiiz)
usquf ( bishop)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asaaqifah
saidaliiy (a chemist) >>>>>>>>>>> sayaadilah
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
UVR
mohtaram,
ma'aloom hotaa hai meri kisi baat ne aap ko naaraaz kiyaa hai. to us
ke liye banda ma'azirat Khwaah hai aur dast.basta guzaarish kartaa hai
k aap Ghussa thook deejiye aur maan leejiye k maiN aap par kisi bhi
"angle" se ustaadi 'jhaaRne' ki koshish naheeN kar rahaa thaa/hooN.
maiN to sirf in zabaanoN -- Urdu, Farsi, Arabi -- kaa taalib-'ilm
hooN, aur us se ziyaadah kuchh naheeN. aap yaqeen kareN na kareN, kam
az kam language aur grammar ke lihaaz se to aap in zabaanoN meN mujh
se kaheeN ziyaadah 'ilm ke dhani haiN. Most probably in all other
aspects as well.
ba'ad is 'ibtidaaiye' ke, ab ruKh kareN apni ustaad/asaateza waali
bahs ki jaanib? aap ko yaad hi hogaa k Zoya saahibaa se awwal-awwal
swaal aap ne yeh kiyaa thaa:
<quote> acchaa Zoya Sahiba yih bataa'iye kih agar asaatizah ustaad kii
jam'
hai to asaatizah meN "z" kahaaN se aan Tapkaa hai? </quote>
to 'ain isee "bilaa-smiley-ke" andaaz meN meraa kahnaa thaa k "kaheeN
aisaa to naheeN k asaatizah ustaad ki jam'a ho hi naheeN!" (na jaane
kyoN aap ko lagaa k maiN is ke ustaaz ki jam'a hone par shak kar rahaa
hooN. Khair, ab aap bhi yahi kah rahe haiN k "asaatizah ustaad ki
jam'a hai hi naheeN" to phir bahs kaisi?
-UVR.
Naseer
janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab.
nah jaane aap kyoN samajh rahe haiN kih mujhe aap kii kisii baat par
Ghussah aa gayaa hai! hargiz nahiiN. Ghusse kii ko'ii baat hii
nahiiN.haaN "frustration" thoRii ho to yih awr baat hai!:) lagtaa hai
kih ham donoN (wonderful film!) kisii bhaNvar meN phaNs ga'e haiN awr
ek hii baat duhraa'e jaarahe haiN!
> Khair, ab aap bhi yahi kah rahe haiN k "asaatizah ustaad ki jam'a hai hi naheeN"
> to phir bahs kaisi?
lekin UVR Sahib, "ab" nahiiN balkih shuruu' hii se. chaliye aap ko
H.G.Wells kii "Time Machine" meN biThaa kar chand saal piiche le jaate
haiN.
Naseer
UVR
>
> Naseer
Now it is I who must admit to being "lost", Naseer saahib. On the one
hand, aap israar kar rahe haiN k "ab" naheeN shuruu' hi se aap ne
"asaateza is not the plural of ustaad" kahaa hai. Okay, then, but on
the other hand, faraaham aap ne link ek aisi 'qadeem' thread kaa kiyaa
hai jis meN aap kaa naam hi naheeN deekhtaa! bal-k nazar aataa hai
Khaak.saar kaa ostensible qaul to the contrary!
What gives?
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
>
> janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab.
> lagtaa hai
> kih ham donoN (wonderful film!) kisii bhaNvar meN phaNs ga'e haiN awr
> ek hii baat duhraa'e jaarahe haiN!
> Naseer
Film to zaroor "wonderful" thi. Lekin yahaaN aaKHir men
noon-e-GHunna kahaaN se aa Tapka ?
The official title of the film was "Hum Dono".
Waise is men koi shak naheeN ke aap donoN haz'raat bhi
"wonderful" haiN. (Mere KHayaal men yahaaN kisi 'smiley'
ki zaroorat naheeN hai !)
Afzal
Jamil
asaatizah aur talaamiiz ki Khidmat meN
The discussion is very interesting and informative. Most of what
needs to be said has been said as far as the written forms of the
singular (ustaad, ustaaz) and plural (asaatiid, ustaadaan, asaatizah)
is concerned. Let me give my own view about how Urdu has the singular
with daal, but plural with zaal.
Naseer Sahib's source may be right that the word in classical Farsi
was with a zaal, but I have my doubts. zaal is an import from Arabic
and it is agreed that ustaad is an original Farsi word which was
imported into Arabic from Farsi. How could an original Farsi word in
pre-Arab, classical Farsi be written with a yet-to-be-imported Arabic
letter?
How do we know that ustaad is an import into Arabic? Simple: all
indigenous Arabic words are formed from a three-letter root, and
ustaad (or ustaaz) does not have such a root. The corresponding
Arabic words are mu'allam (from 'ilm), or mudarras (from dars; root:
drs), or mudarrab (drb).
So, how did ustaad become ustaaz when it went to Arabic? The reason,
as far as I could fathom, lies in the pronunciation of the letter zaal
in Arabic. To my untrained ear, zaal in standard Arabic sounds just
like daal. (Arabic word for Iranians, and other non-Arabic speakers,
was al-'ajam or "dumb" in its literal sense). So when the word ustaad
went into Arabic, Arabs could have written it with zaal or daal. If
they pronounced it with zaal, Persians would not have known the
difference.
The plural (asaatizah) was formed in Arabic by the usual rules, by
anology with an authentic Arabic word. Urdu imported singular from
Farsi and plural from Arabic. Pronto! We have ustaad, but
asaatizah. Interestingly Farsi made its own broken Arabized plural,
asaatiid (probably by anology with words like miqdaar, maqaadiir), but
keep the daal.
The way it is pronounced in different Arabic accents is also
instructive. Egyptians pronounce it as ustaaz (with a z) since in
their dilaect the sounds of zaal and ze are identical (as they are in
Urdu and Farsi), as do people from Shaam (Syria, Lebanon). But people
from the Gulf and Arabian peninsula pronounce it as a soft (or dental)
daal.
Another word that has intrigued me is guzar (pass). In Urdu it is
written with ze, but in Farsi they use a zaal. I don't know if
classical Farsi used a ze or zaal. Naseer Sahib can tell us. If they
did, then my argument about the unlikelihood of ustaad being written
with a zaal in the old days would have been refuted.
Jamil
Naseer
Please allow me to make another, and perhaps final ( :) )attempt at
putting my views in concise and I hope as clear a manner as possible.
There is no doubt in my mind that ustaad is the changed form of the
original Farsi word "ustaaz" spelt with a final "zaal". Arabic, like
any other language has words originating from other languages and
they, where possible, follow Arabic grammar rules. So, ustaaz was
incorporated into the Arabic language with "asaatizah" being its
plural. Now, as I have indicated previously, Farsi literally had
hundreds of words with "zaal" in them ( I shall elaborate upon this
point in my reply to Jamil Sahib) and for whatever reason the zaal
began to loose ground and was replaced by daal. This is what happened
to almost all the "zaal" words including "ustaaz" which became
"ustaad". However, asaatizah had taken a independent life of its own
becoming a fully fledged Arabic word as it were. For this reason it
was able to hold onto the "zaal" in Farsi/Urdu environment. Again, as
formally stated, Arabic has on occasions has words which form their
plurals in more than one manner, e.g. shahr (month), ash_hur/shuhuur;
nahr (river), anhaar/anhur. ustaaz does the same with asaatizah and
asaatiiz. asaatid in my view is a later development when ustaaz had
become ustaad.
Your posts seemed to me were indicative of a disagreement with the
above. However, the link that I provided showed that you were in
agreement with me! I was trying to say to you that on the one hand you
appear not to agree with what I am saying yet, in the past, you had
said exactly the same as I am saying now. I hope I have clarified my
position.
Best Regards,
Naseer
Naseer
On Jun 7, 11:25 am, Jamil <dehq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The discussion is very interesting and informative. Most of what
> needs to be said has been said as far as the written forms of the
> singular (ustaad, ustaaz) and plural (asaatiid, ustaadaan, asaatizah)
> is concerned. Let me give my own view about how Urdu has the singular
> with daal, but plural with zaal.
>
> Naseer Sahib's source may be right that the word in classical Farsi
> was with a zaal, but I have my doubts. zaal is an import from Arabic
> and it is agreed that ustaad is an original Farsi word which was
> imported into Arabic from Farsi. How could an original Farsi word in
> pre-Arab, classical Farsi be written with a yet-to-be-imported Arabic
> letter?
>
"udaabaa-i-qadiim miyaan-i-"daal" va "zaal" farqe guzaashtah and. daal
dar bisyaare az kalimaat-i-Farsi dar qadiim "zaal" buudah va misl-i-
zaal talaffuz me-shudah va bah-muruur-i-zamaan talaffuzish tabdiil
shudah va daal shudah ast ....". (dastuur-i-zabaan-i-panj ustaad).
I translate the above for the benefit of those who do not know Farsi.
This has been taken from a grammar book entitled " A grammar of the
(Persian) Language by Five Teachers".
" Ancient writers distinguished between "daal" and "zaal". daal in
many of the Persian words of old was a zaal and was pronounced like a
zaal; with the passage of time its pronunciation changed and it has
become daal".The passage goes onto to give examples where the letter
is definitely a daal and where it was definitely a zaal.
daal: mard, burd, sard, zard etc ( Notice no vowel between daal and
previous consonat)
zaal: bi-baraz, gunbaz, navaz, buuz, namuuz, gashuuz, baaz, yaaz,
daaz, shaniiz, rasiiz etc etc
> How do we know that ustaad is an import into Arabic? Simple: all
> indigenous Arabic words are formed from a three-letter root, and
> ustaad (or ustaaz) does not have such a root. The corresponding
> Arabic words are mu'allam (from 'ilm), or mudarras (from dars; root:
> drs), or mudarrab (drb).
Yes you are right Jamil Sahib but "ustaaz" is not a word of a three-
letter root, but it is a four-letter root. Arabic does have such words
"tha'lab" (fox) and even five-letter root, e.g
'andaliib" (nighingale), 'ankabuut (spider). Plural patterns for these
types come in handy for the foreigh words such as "ustaaz",
"usquf" (bishop). There are of course three-letter roots of foreign
origin too. "film" plural "aflaam".
> So, how did ustaad become ustaaz when it went to Arabic? The reason,
> as far as I could fathom, lies in the pronunciation of the letter zaal
> in Arabic. To my untrained ear, zaal in standard Arabic sounds just
> like daal. (Arabic word for Iranians, and other non-Arabic speakers,
> was al-'ajam or "dumb" in its literal sense). So when the word ustaad
> went into Arabic, Arabs could have written it with zaal or daal. If
> they pronounced it with zaal, Persians would not have known the
> difference.
I have already indicated above that Farsi had as part of its
consonantal repertoire the letter zaal, with the Classical Arabic zaal
pronunciation. By the way Jamil Sahib, you must have come across
Punjabis pronouncing "gunbad" as "gunbaz".
> Another word that has intrigued me is guzar (pass). In Urdu it is
> written with ze, but in Farsi they use a zaal. I don't know if
> classical Farsi used a ze or zaal. Naseer Sahib can tell us. If they
> did, then my argument about the unlikelihood of ustaad being written
> with a zaal in the old days would have been refuted.
Professor Gilbert Lazard, considered to be *the* authority on such
matters has informed me in a private communication that "ustaaz"
apparently still remains as ustaaz in some Iranian dialects. As for
"guzashtan", according to Professor Lazard it was originally with
zaal, continued to remain with a zaal and then finally became a "ze".
The Iranians might have kept the "zaal" orthography as there is no
difference anyway between the zaal and ze in the "modern" language.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
On Jun 6, 1:50 am, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Naseer wrote:
>
> > janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab.
> > lagtaa hai
> > kih ham donoN (wonderful film!) kisii bhaNvar meN phaNs ga'e haiN awr
> > ek hii baat duhraa'e jaarahe haiN!
> > Naseer
>
> Film to zaroor "wonderful" thi. Lekin yahaaN aaKHir men
> noon-e-GHunna kahaaN se aa Tapka ?
>
> The official title of the film was "Hum Dono".
As you know I try to follow the Urdu system of writing in my Roman
tranliteration. At 1:29 you will see the Urdu words "ham donoN"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE3EtpgI1zY&feature=PlayList&p=A66C8E9B52B10C5B&index=0&playnext=1
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
This has been a most informative thread.
However, there is one fundamental point which, I feel, still
needs some clarification.
We have assumed, ab initio, that "ustaaz" was originally a
Farsi word which was borrowed and incorporated into Arabic
language. What is the authority for such an assumption ? If
one has been cited in the above discussion, I must have missed
it.
Arabic too has had a rich literary heritage, dating back to pre -
Islamic days. It is not for nothing that Arabs referred to
the Persians as "al~'ajam". Did Arabic have no equivalent word
(i.e. having the same meaning as ustaaz) prior to absorbing
the Persian word ? Jamil Saheb has quoted some other words like
"mudarras" and "mo'allam". I am positive that these words are
still in use. What was the special need, then, to borrow another
word (with more or less the same meaning) from people who were
considered to be "al~'ajam" ?
I hope you or Jamil Saheb will throw some light on this aspect of
the discussion.
One last comment : what Jamil Saheb has stated about the similar
Arabic pronunciation of "zaal" and "daal" makes much sense.
Afzal
Naseer
Firstly could you or UVR Sahib please change the title of this thread
at the appropriate juncture to "Origins of the word ustaad" or
anything else which is appropriate. I don't know how this is done else
I would have done it myself.
On Jun 7, 4:59 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> This has been a most informative thread.
>
> However, there is one fundamental point which, I feel, still
> needs some clarification.
>
> We have assumed, ab initio, that "ustaaz" was originally a
> Farsi word which was borrowed and incorporated into Arabic
> language. What is the authority for such an assumption ? If
> one has been cited in the above discussion, I must have missed
> it.
You make a valid point. The evidence, I suppose, could be classed as
"circumstancial".
1) If one looks up the word "ustaad" in any reputable dictionary, its
origins are indicated as Persian.
2) If the original word was indeed "ustaad" (whether it is Arabic or
Persian), then one would have expected the plural to be "asaatidah" in
Arabic, which is not found. (I have already attempted to give a
possible reason for "asaatiid")
3) If the original word was "ustaad" in Persian, then it is illogical
to assume that the Arabs felt the need to transform it into "ustaaz".
They already had a "daal" in their alphabet. Why change a daal to a
zaal?
4) The "Bible" of Classical Arabic is considered to be "Arabic
Grammar" by W.Wright (Cambridge University Press; First Edition 1859,
but both volumes published together in 1967), which itself is a
translation of an Arabic grammar work in German, gives the origins of
the word "ustaaz"as Persian (page 230 Volume 1 1967 edition).
5) It is true that Platts (Urdu) and Steingass (Persian) dictionaries
give "ustaaz" as Arabic, but give "ustaad" as Persian. I believe they
are wrong in this. Professor Lazard has conducted considerable
research into Middle Persian and Early (New or Classical) Persian,
looking into the oldest samples of the language including stone
engravings. His work "La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose
persane" was published in 1963. This shed light on hitherto
unexplained grammatical features. It also transcribes the "zaal" words
with a Greek letter delta.* Both Platts and Steingass would not
necessarily have been aware of the findings of Lazard in their time. I
shall ask him the question directly. I hope his reply would be
considered authoritative.
> Arabic too has had a rich literary heritage, dating back to pre -
> Islamic days. It is not for nothing that Arabs referred to
> the Persians as "al~'ajam". Did Arabic have no equivalent word
> (i.e. having the same meaning as ustaaz) prior to absorbing
> the Persian word ? Jamil Saheb has quoted some other words like
> "mudarras" and "mo'allam". I am positive that these words are
> still in use. What was the special need, then, to borrow another
> word (with more or less the same meaning) from people who were
> considered to be "al~'ajam" ?
Yes, mudarris and mu'allim are still in existence. In any language
despite the existence of perfectly good words, one finds synonyms. We
need only look at Urdu;
maaN, maadar, ammii
baap, pidar, abbaa/abuu
ThanDaa/sard etc etc.
There are numerous words in the Qur'aan which are of non-Arabic
origins including Persian. One example we will all be familiar with is
the word for "elephant". You know about "asHaab-i-fiil". In Persian,
the word is "piil".
> I hope you or Jamil Saheb will throw some light on this aspect of
> the discussion.
>
> One last comment : what Jamil Saheb has stated about the similar
> Arabic pronunciation of "zaal" and "daal" makes much sense.
But Afzal Sahib, when the Arabs first came into contact with the
Persians, would it not be right to assume that their Arabic would be
as Classical as it gets. They would not be speaking the colloquial of
the Arab street today. So, their "zaal" would have been as crisp as
your "qaaf". There would have been no confusion at that time. Any
educated Arabic today, in my view, while speaking modern standard
Arabic would distinguish between daal and zaal. zaliil with zaal would
be distinguished from daliil with daal.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Jamil
Afzal Sahib
As to why Arabic imported ustaad from Farsi, the reason could be that
the word was used as a title or an honorific, much as in the present
day they use "daktor" (daal, kaaf, te, vaav- re) for doctor, even
though they have original words such as tabiib and mu'aalij, which can
serve the same purpose.
Even if the dictionaries did not say that ustaaz was an import, we
would still know it. ustaad and mu'allam have roughly have the same
meanings, but mu'allam has so many related words, such as ma'luum,
'alam, 'allam (to cause to be known), 'aalim, allaamah, iste'laam and
others, but ustaad has no derivative except for the plural. That is
unusual for Arabic words. The words that Naseer Sahib mentioned as
not having three-letter roots are all technical terms of sorts - names
of animals and such - fox, spider and nightingale. There are no
verbs associated with them and they do not need to have derivatives.
It is worth mentioning that in Arabic dictionaries words are arranged
not alphabetically, but are grouped under their roots, which in turn
appear in alphabetical order. Thus mu'allam and other words mentioned
above will all be listed under the root 'ain-laam-miim. So, ma'luum
will not come under miim, but under 'ain as a sub-entry of the root.
Of course, rootless words such as ustaad and 'ankabuut are listed
alphabetically in their place among the three-letter roots.
Jamil
Afzal A. Khan
> janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> Firstly could you or UVR Sahib please change the title of this thread
> at the appropriate juncture to "Origins of the word ustaad" or
> anything else which is appropriate. I don't know how this is done else
> I would have done it myself.
MaiN ne aap ke huk'm ki t'ameel kar di hai.
>
> On Jun 7, 4:59 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This has been a most informative thread.
>>
>> However, there is one fundamental point which, I feel, still
>> needs some clarification.
>>
>> We have assumed, ab initio, that "ustaaz" was originally a
>> Farsi word which was borrowed and incorporated into Arabic
>> language. What is the authority for such an assumption ? If
>> one has been cited in the above discussion, I must have missed
>> it.
>
> You make a valid point. The evidence, I suppose, could be classed as
> "circumstancial".
If it is with a 'c', then it could be rather weak !!
Naseer Saheb,
Thank you for your detailed response. The particulars furnished
in paragraphs 4 & 5 above should be sufficient for the purpose.
But I was actually thinking in terms of whether the (classical)
Arabic language did NOT have this word originally. Is it not
possible that old Farsi might have borrowed the word from Arabic
and then changed its "zaal" into "daal" ? The books you have
quoted do give the origin of the word "ustaad" as Persian, but
there is no doubt about that. The discussion centres around the
word "ustaaz".
Arabs and Persians were virtually neighbours, so some commonality
in vocabulary is quite possible, like "fiil" and "piil". You
must of course be aware that there is a chess piece known as the
Rook or Castle. In Urdu, it is called "fiil". I don't quite
recollect the Persian "piil" being used for this. The Holy
Qur-aan would not have used the word "fiil" unless the Arabs
were quite familiar with the word.
As for Jamil Saheb's comment, is it not possible that the
similarity between the pronunciation of "zaal" and "daal" existed
even in those early times ?
Afzal
Naseer
On Jun 7, 8:12 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Naseer wrote:
> > janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> > Firstly could you or UVR Sahib please change the title of this thread
> > at the appropriate juncture to "Origins of the word ustaad" or
> > anything else which is appropriate. I don't know how this is done else
> > I would have done it myself.
>
> MaiN ne aap ke huk'm ki t'ameel kar di hai.
aap kaa iHsaan-mand huuN.
> Thank you for your detailed response. The particulars furnished
> in paragraphs 4 & 5 above should be sufficient for the purpose.
> But I was actually thinking in terms of whether the (classical)
> Arabic language did NOT have this word originally. Is it not
> possible that old Farsi might have borrowed the word from Arabic
> and then changed its "zaal" into "daal" ? The books you have
> quoted do give the origin of the word "ustaad" as Persian, but
> there is no doubt about that. The discussion centres around the
> word "ustaaz".
I suppose nothing is impossible Afzal Sahib but why would the Persians
of old borrow "ustaaz" from Arabic and then transform it into
"ustaad"? This would make sense if they had a problem with zaal. But
they did n't, at least not at that time. There would have been plently
of zaal words as part of their daily vocabulary.
If it is of any help, I have just phoned a friend of mine who is a
Dari speaker from Afghanistan. We all know that the Dari pronunciation
is rather conservative and continues to employ the vowels of the
Classical language...me-kunam, sher, dost etc instead of the Iranian
mii-kunam, shiir and duust. He tells me that "ustaaz" is the common
form in Afghan Persian, both spoken and written and "ustaad" is a
rarity. Now, does n't this tell us something?
> As for Jamil Saheb's comment, is it not possible that the
> similarity between the pronunciation of "zaal" and "daal" existed
> even in those early times ?
Afzal Sahib,"zaal" and "daal" in Arabic and Persian were (and are in
correct Arabic of today) just as dissimilar as "kaaf" and "qaaf" are
as uttered by Qari Abdul Basit! In short there is NO similarity!
I had put an asterisk after the word delta in a previous post but
forgot to explain the reason for it. Afzal Sahib (and Jamil Sahib),
you might be surprised to learn that once upon a time in Old Persian,
there was the consonant "se" as well, pronounced just like correct
Classical Arabic pronunciation. Linguists denote this sound by the
Greek letter theta.Now did Persian have a qaaf too? That is the
question!
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Jamil
Naseer sahib
If as you say, zaal and daal sound as distinct as kaaf and qaaf, then
something must be wrong with my hearing. I better hurry to an
audiologist. I watched this YouTube clip very intently, but still
could not distinguish the way the teacher pronounces zaal in haazah
from a normal daal sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_wS72rWwHE&feature=related
As for se in classical Farsi, I must profess ignorance. The modern
Iranians do voice their te, so that it sounds like our the. They say
thomaan (their currency) rather than tomaan. But Hadith, they
pronounce (like us) Hadiis. Of course pronunciations change over time
and over distances.
Jamil
Naseer
On Jun 7, 10:16 pm, Jamil <dehq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If as you say, zaal and daal sound as distinct as kaaf and qaaf, then
> something must be wrong with my hearing. I better hurry to an
> audiologist. I watched this YouTube clip very intently, but still
> could not distinguish the way the teacher pronounces zaal in haazah
> from a normal daal sound.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_wS72rWwHE&feature=related
I am not sure if there is anything wrong with your hearing. In correct
English pronunciation, "that" is pronounced with an initial "zaal" as
in the Arabic "haazaa" and "tilmiizah". The way to understand this
sound is by comparing how one utters a daal word . When one says
"daal" (lentil), the tongue touches the teeth ridge. However, if you
were to say "that" or "zikr", the tongue passes between the teeth.
daal's d is termed dental (like our te, as in tamaam) whilst the zaal
sound in zikr is termed inter-dental.
KH is to Gh as th (as in think) is to th (as in that). The first sound
in each case is termed voiceless and the second is voiced.
> As for se in classical Farsi, I must profess ignorance. The modern
> Iranians do voice their te, so that it sounds like our the. They say
> thomaan (their currency) rather than tomaan. But Hadith, they
> pronounce (like us) Hadiis. Of course pronunciations change over time
> and over distances.
The way the modern Iranians pronounce "te" is not voiced but
"aspirated" and is similar to our "th" sound as in "thaalii". However,
the "se" that I am talking about (Greek theta) is the same as the
English "th" as in "think" but again with the tongue passing between
the teeth. One word in which one finds the "se" in Old Persian is the
king's name "Kewmarth".
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> The way the modern Iranians pronounce "te" is not voiced but
> "aspirated" and is similar to our "th" sound as in "thaalii". However,
> the "se" that I am talking about (Greek theta) is the same as the
> English "th" as in "think" but again with the tongue passing between
> the teeth. One word in which one finds the "se" in Old Persian is the
> king's name "Kewmarth".
>
> Naseer
I can only say that, in Urdu, I have always found the abovenamed
king's name written as "keomars" --- the last letter is a "se"
as in "samar" (fruit).
Afzal
Naseer
Afzal Sahib, aadaab.
But the true pronunciation of this word with a "se" is "th" as in
"think". This is the Arabic pronunciation and this was the Old Persian
pronunciation.
So one had "th" as in "think" represented by "se" (theta) {Keomarth}
and "th" as in "that" represented by "zaal" (delta) (ustaath, i.e
ustaaz)
Naseer
UVR
>
> Afzal Sahib, aadaab.
>
> But the true pronunciation of this word with a "se" is "th" as in
> "think". This is the Arabic pronunciation and this was the Old Persian
> pronunciation.
>
This has indeed been a very informative thread so far, but let me
attempt to veer it back to the ustaad/ustaaz topic.
Naseer saahib,
Having read all that you have said on this matter and having done some
"Googling around" (which, in this day and age, often passes for
'research'), I don't see a reason to disagree with you that the word
ustaad might have originated in (Old) Persian as ustaaz. However, I
have my doubts about whether the original word retained its original
form as the language developed over time into "Modern" Persian.
I think a likely scenario could be that whilst the Arabic-of-the-time-
of-Old-Persian adopted and absorbed the original word into its
vocabulary, the Persian language morphed it to ustaad (with its
*Persian* plural being ustaadaan). Subsequently (several centuries
later), when Arabic was 'integrated' into Persian -- by way of
cultural give-and-take as well as military and political action -- the
original word made it back into the Persian-of-that-time, along with
Arabic plurals and rules of pluralization, et cetera.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that the status of 'ustaaz' in modern
Persian is somewhat identical to the status of words such as safed,
baadshaah, ... words that are ostensible imports from Arabic, but
actually are originally from Persian itself. Except that in the case
of 'ustaaz' the word made it back to Persian in its original Old
Persian-form.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
>> Naseer wrote:
Naseer Saheb,
There is just one thing that I do not quite follow. Why should
we (i.e. Urdu-wallahs) follow the (Old or Modern) Persian
pronunciation legacy ? With the possible exception of clerics,
I doubt if people in India (and in Pakistan, I daresay) pro -
nounce the word as "hadiith". I have always heard it as
"hadees", pure and simple. Although the masses in general may
have no concern with people like "Keomars", the few who do,
pronounce it like "Keomars" and not like "Keomarth".
You may perhaps have read the historical novels of 'Allama
Raashid-ul-KHairi. In one such book, the name of a Roman
general is "Kelos". In Urdu, it is written with a "se". And
the few people who I had heard talk about the book always
pronounced it as "Kelos". I do not quite know what exactly is
the Latin equivalent of this name.
Afzal
Naseer
On Jun 8, 5:41 am, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Having read all that you have said on this matter and having done some
> "Googling around" (which, in this day and age, often passes for
> 'research'), I don't see a reason to disagree with you that the word
> ustaad might have originated in (Old) Persian as ustaaz. However, I
> have my doubts about whether the original word retained its original
> form as the language developed over time into "Modern" Persian.
Regarding your last sentence, ustaaz is much more common than ustaad
in the 2009 Persian (Dari) of Afghanistan. This is "modern" enough is
n't it? As I have said else where, Indian and especially Afghan and
Tajik Persian have held onto most of the older features of the
language, unlike the Iranian Persian.
>
> I think a likely scenario could be that whilst the Arabic-of-the-time-
> of-Old-Persian adopted and absorbed the original word into its
> vocabulary, the Persian language morphed it to ustaad (with its
> *Persian* plural being ustaadaan).
This is basically what I have been saying right from the start.
> Subsequently (several centuries
> later), when Arabic was 'integrated' into Persian -- by way of
> cultural give-and-take as well as military and political action -- the
> original word made it back into the Persian-of-that-time, along with
> Arabic plurals and rules of pluralization, et cetera.
We can only draw upon conjecture. But I think the "original
word" (ustaaz) along with most of the other zaal words became extinct
over a period of time covering vast areas of the Persian speaking
world. Why it continues to survive in Afganistan is any one's guess.
By the way, apart from guzashtan, paziiruftan is another such word
where the zaal has survived.
> Essentially, what I'm saying is that the status of 'ustaaz' in modern
> Persian is somewhat identical to the status of words such as safed,
> baadshaah, ... words that are ostensible imports from Arabic, but
> actually are originally from Persian itself. Except that in the case
> of 'ustaaz' the word made it back to Persian in its original Old
> Persian-form.
I would say that ustaaz has the "status" of saped and paadshaah, asp,
piil etc whereas ustaad is linked to safed, baadshaah, asb, fiil etc.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Naseer
On Jun 8, 6:22 am, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> There is just one thing that I do not quite follow. Why should
> we (i.e. Urdu-wallahs) follow the (Old or Modern) Persian
> pronunciation legacy ? With the possible exception of clerics,
> I doubt if people in India (and in Pakistan, I daresay) pro -
> nounce the word as "hadiith". I have always heard it as
> "hadees", pure and simple. Although the masses in general may
> have no concern with people like "Keomars", the few who do,
> pronounce it like "Keomars" and not like "Keomarth".
>
I have never said that we should follow any Persian pronunciation. In
Urdu we pronounce the Persian words in a way that is natural for us. I
was merely attempting to provide the "true" or "original" sounds of
"zaal" and "se" in the older language.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
UVR
> janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab.
>
> On Jun 8, 5:41 am, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Having read all that you have said on this matter and having done some
> > "Googling around" (which, in this day and age, often passes for
> > 'research'), I don't see a reason to disagree with you that the word
> > ustaad might have originated in (Old) Persian as ustaaz. However, I
> > have my doubts about whether the original word retained its original
> > form as the language developed over time into "Modern" Persian.
>
> Regarding your last sentence, ustaaz is much more common than ustaad
> in the 2009 Persian (Dari) of Afghanistan. This is "modern" enough is
> n't it? As I have said else where, Indian and especially Afghan and
> Tajik Persian have held onto most of the older features of the
> language, unlike the Iranian Persian.
>
>
Naseer saahib,
I used the term "Modern" not as a reference to contemporaneous
linguistic trends, but rather to the language linguists usually refer
to as "Moden Persian"[1], also sometimes called "New Persian". "New",
"Middle" and "Old Persian" are generally accepted as the three major
'(st)ages' in the development of the Persian language. In this
context, 'Modern Persian' is the Persian of Sa'adi as well as of
Ghalib!
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Persian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Persian
That Dari uses 'ustaaz' more than 'ustaad' is certainly interesting.
However, one must not rush to linguistic judgement based solely on
this fact. In particular, one must examine whether Dari also doesn't
prefer Arabicized pronunciations of other originally Persian words.
AND one must examine whether Dari possesses a plural of 'ustaaz'
constructed purely based on Persian rules of pluralization. More on
this in a moment.
>
> > I think a likely scenario could be that whilst the Arabic-of-the-time-
> > of-Old-Persian adopted and absorbed the original word into its
> > vocabulary, the Persian language morphed it to ustaad (with its
> > *Persian* plural being ustaadaan).
>
> This is basically what I have been saying right from the start.
>
> > Subsequently (several centuries
> > later), when Arabic was 'integrated' into Persian -- by way of
> > cultural give-and-take as well as military and political action -- the
> > original word made it back into the Persian-of-that-time, along with
> > Arabic plurals and rules of pluralization, et cetera.
>
> We can only draw upon conjecture. But I think the "original
> word" (ustaaz) along with most of the other zaal words became extinct
> over a period of time covering vast areas of the Persian speaking
> world.
>
But this is not merely idle conjecture, Naseer saahib! In Modern
Persian, the word 'ustaaz' does not appear to have a 'Persian' plural
-- the only accepted plurals are the ones that follow Arabic
pluralization rules. This seems odd to me, doesn't it to you? Do you
know of any other Persian word(s) that have only Arabic plurals and
aren't -- mistakenly -- thought to have originated in Arabic?
This is what I mean by saying that in Modern Persian, the status of
'ustaaz' is that of an import from Arabic. The word is no longer
treated as a Persian-originated word. Otherwise, there would be a
Persian plural too (ustaazaan?)
And if ustaaz does have a Persian plural, then (a) I just wasted a lot
of your time and mine with all the foregoing nonsensical prattle for
which I profusely apologize and (b) please tell me what that plural is
so that I can quietly slink away into my corner with my tail between
my legs.
> > Essentially, what I'm saying is that the status of 'ustaaz' in modern
> > Persian is somewhat identical to the status of words such as safed,
> > baadshaah, ... words that are ostensible imports from Arabic, but
> > actually are originally from Persian itself. Except that in the case
> > of 'ustaaz' the word made it back to Persian in its original Old
> > Persian-form.
>
> I would say that ustaaz has the "status" of saped and paadshaah, asp,
> piil etc whereas ustaad is linked to safed, baadshaah, asb, fiil etc.
>
> KHair-KHvaah,
> Naseer
I'm not sure you understood what I meant to say above (or maybe I
didn't say it well enough). What I meant to say is that in the
Persian we use today, the word "ustaaz" is present solely as an import
from Arabic (similar to safed, etc), and not as the archaic form of
'ustaad'.
-UVR.
Naseer
Gentlemen, whilst I am patiently waiting for replies from one or two
people, please take a look at the link below. Posts 10, 12 and 13 are
the most relevant.
Another Persian word which has held onto its original zaal is "aazar"
meaning "fire" (cf. Azerbaijan) as well as being the ninth month of
the Persian calendar. Is "kaaGhaz" Persian too?
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1268443
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
B.G.M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janaab-e-Naseer saahab,
maiN aap ko mubaarakbaad detaa huuN k aap ALUP ko urdu poetry ki site
se, eik etymological site- banaane meN kaamyaab rahe haiN :)
Kaam jaarii rakhiye kyuuN k, 50 ke qareeb qareeb posts ke b`aad bhi,
"is baal ki Khaak abhii puuri taraH nahiiN udhaiRii gayii hai!::)
=========================================================
UVR
>
> Janaab-e-Naseer saahab,
>
> maiN aap ko mubaarakbaad detaa huuN k aap ALUP ko urdu poetry ki site
> se, eik etymological site- banaane meN kaamyaab rahe haiN :)
>
> Kaam jaarii rakhiye kyuuN k, 50 ke qareeb qareeb posts ke b`aad bhi,
>
> "is baal ki Khaak abhii puuri taraH nahiiN udhaiRii gayii hai!::)
>
> =========================================================
Darte Darte poochh rahaa hooN k kaheeN is sawaal se mujh par bhi yahi
ilzaam na lag jaaye, magar, janaab-e-BGM:
baal ki Khaak? k khaal?
-UVR.
Naseer
janaab-i-B.G.M Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
I think you are being a little unkind to me. I think I have initiated
a number of threads this year and, as far as I can remember, this is
the first language related one. As you are aware, I started even this
one with a Ghazal by a lady poet. In the third post I asked Zoya
Sahiba a question and the rest is history!:) The subject of the thread
was changed to reflect the new direction.
In another thread Zuhra Sahiba has raised the issue of diacritical
marks and that thread too could slide down the slippery linguistic
path! But, this is where people like you could steer the conversations
back to their original theme(s).
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
UVR Sahib, aap par baal kii khaal udheRne kaa ilzaam lage nah lage,
"khaak chhaan_ne" kaa ilzaam zaruur lag saktaa hai!:)
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
>> "is baal ki Khaak abhii puuri taraH nahiiN udhaiRii gayii hai!::)
>>
>> =========================================================
>
> Darte Darte poochh rahaa hooN k kaheeN is sawaal se mujh par bhi yahi
> ilzaam na lag jaaye, magar, janaab-e-BGM:
>
> baal ki Khaak? k khaal?
>
> -UVR.
Pehli baat to yeh ke, aisi GHalatiyoN par KHaak Daaliye.
Raha sawaal ilzaam ka, to abhi haal men hi Hazrat Saail
Dehlvi ka yeh sher dekhne ko mila hai, jise aap ne bhi
bahut pasaNd kiya hai :
aap jis jurm kaa chaaheN mujhe mujrim Thehraa'yeN
shart ye hai k wo tasneef ho, taaleef na ho
Mere KHayaal men yeh ilzaam aap ke liye "taaleef" ke
zumre men aata hai.
Afzal
UVR
yeh bhi bhali rahi. Khair, isee bahaane ma'aloom paR gayaa k ALUP ki
bhi 'ain waisi jamhooriyat hai jaisi ba'az mulkoN ki. k yahaaN bhi, ba-
qaul-e-shaKhse "some ... are more equal than others" ... !
-UVR.
B.G.M.
Khaal ki ba-jaay Khaak tau ik typo thaa.
Ab, ik aur baat..!
ALUP ko ik -Moderator- ki bhi zaruurat hai, jo isay
Chat-Room yaa eymological site hone se bachaaye rakhkhay!
Any takers?
========================================================
Naseer
janaab-i-B.G.M Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai
In the link to the thread given below (maHfil-i-ALUP awr aap kii
raae), I hope you will get your answer regarding language discussions.
As for the need for a moderator, if you type the words "moderate"
"moderator", you will get plenty of hits and take a look at what
people have said in the past. It might be worth your while to start a
new thread on the topic of language threads/moderator etc and obtain
the views of the current participants in ALUP.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
UVR
>
> KHair-KHvaah,
> Naseer
Let it be my turn to say "let's not waste our time on that discussion
once again." Here are some facts:
1. It is a rare group in the USENET alt.* hierarchy that is moderated.
2. Changing a group from unmoderated to moderated status is not easy
AT ALL
E.g., http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:change_mod
And here is an opinion: ALUP does not need a moderator.
-UVR.
Naseer
>
> And here is an opinion: ALUP does not need a moderator.
>
> -UVR.
UVR Sahib, tasliimaat.
It might have been better if you had made your comments directly to
B.G.M Sahib.
My suggestion to B.G.M Sahib to start a new thread was for the
following reasons.
1) The topic of moderation ought not be discussed in the "ustaaz/
ustaad" thread.*
2) It is obvious that B.G.M Sahib has felt the need for the group to
be moderated. One reason could be his unease over the language-based
discussions. I personally can not think of a good reason under the
current atmosphere. However, the new thread would offer him an
opportunity to air his views. "jumhuurii nizaam" kaa yahii taqaazaa
hai.
3) That thread then would have been a perfect opportunity for you to
say what you have said above and for other interested parties to
participate in such a debate. And, if you did n't wish to waste any of
your time, you could of course refrain from taking part in that
thread. Needless to say, I was already aware of your opinion on this
matter.
* Here I am going against my own argument by discussing this topic
further in this thread. Unfortunately, I had to make my position
clear.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
UVR
aadaab 'arz hai, Naseer saahib:
My response was in reply to *your* suggestion for a new thread to be
started about moderation.
I did take the opportunity to address BGM saahib's post as well. That
was because, well, "let's not waste any more time [space, bandwidth]
on this issue."
Needless to say, neither you, nor BGM saahib, nor anyone else need pay
any heed to what I have to say. That's the beauty of the unmoderated
ALUP.
This will be my final post on this matter in this thread.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
> aadaab 'arz hai, Naseer saahib:
>
> This will be my final post on this matter in this thread.
>
> -UVR.
"In this thread" ---> are these the operative words ? !!
Afzal
B.G.M.
>
"...And, if you did n't wish to waste any of
your time, you could of course refrain from taking part in that
thread...."
:In that thread: is indeed a welcoming "operative" phrase, for some-
one who likes to read good ash`ars, their meaning(s), the shaa`irs
background and "related" adabii baat-cheet,and be able to post
Ghazals, nazms etc. for the other readers.
Thank you Naseer saahab, for your "clarification"
Ab aap kisii bhi eik thread ko pakaR kar jitni marzii chaahe,
etymological aur chat room ke dariya`o meN tairte raheN, ham aap se
baRe Khush haiN.
==========================================================
Naseer
On Jun 8, 10:51 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But this is not merely idle conjecture, Naseer saahib! In Modern
> Persian, the word 'ustaaz' does not appear to have a 'Persian' plural
> -- the only accepted plurals are the ones that follow Arabic
> pluralization rules. This seems odd to me, doesn't it to you?
This is how I see the saga behind the "ustaadicization" of the word
"ustaaz". Let us venture into the distant times, say from 644 AD when
Persia came under Arab rule to around a century before the birth of
Firdausi (Firdausi was in 935 AD).During this time words like
"ustaaz" (along with its natural plural "ustaazaan") and hundred of
other zaal containing words were part of the every day language.
During this time, Arabic took into its fold words like "ustaaz",
"farmaan" and "dastuur" and formed their plurals adhering to the
Arabic patterns resulting in "asaatizah"/"asaatiiz", "faraamiin" and
"dasaatiir" I believe, by the time of Firdausi, almost all of the zaal
words had lost their zaal and acquired a daal . As to the reason, I
have no idea why this happened. It certainly had nothing to do with
Arabic, which had its own zaal. However "asaatizah" managed to keep
its zaal as it now could be considered as a purely Arabic word, its
origins placed on the "taaq-i-nisyaaN". Having said this, their
distant memory did not quite die off. "ustaaz" remains alive in Dari
of Afghanistan today and, according to Lazard, in some Iranian
dialects. Also, writers especially poets, tend to cling onto older
usages and one should be able to cite examples of Firdausi and later
poets and prose writers.
Well, where is the proof of this existence, you might say? I have been
told by a reliable source that the most comprehensive dictionary,
"Lughatnameh-yi-Dehkhoda" contains information on this very topic. I
hope to receive this information by post soon.
> Do you know of any other Persian word(s) that have only Arabic
> plurals and aren't -- mistakenly -- thought to have originated in Arabic?
I am nopt sure if the following words have *only* Arabic plurals. But
one can say, perhaps, that the Arabic plurals are the more usual ones.
kaaGhaz-aat
baaGh-aat
jangal-aat
navaazishaat
farmaa'ishaat
KHvaahishaat
navishtah-jaat
mevah-jaat
gauhar (Persian) >>> jauhar >>>> javaahir >>>> javaahiraat
> This is what I mean by saying that in Modern Persian, the status of
> 'ustaaz' is that of an import from Arabic. The word is no longer
> treated as a Persian-originated word. Otherwise, there would be a
> Persian plural too (ustaazaan?)
Please take a look at this link below. Read lines 6 and 7 of the first
paragraph only.
http://www.answers.com/topic/islamic-movements-in-afghanistan
> And if ustaaz does have a Persian plural, then (a) I just wasted a lot
> of your time and mine with all the foregoing nonsensical prattle for
> which I profusely apologize and (b) please tell me what that plural is
> so that I can quietly slink away into my corner with my tail between
> my legs.
If the above link is not sufficient evidence, then I hope to get
something from Dih-KHudaa's "LuGhat-naamah".
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
venus
> On Jun 13, 3:22 pm, "B.G.M." <b_manejw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 7:25 am, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Afzal, UVR and Jamil Sahibaan, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> > > Gentlemen, whilst I am patiently waiting for replies from one or two
> > > people, please take a look at the link below. Posts 10, 12 and 13 are
> > > the most relevant.
>
> > > Another Persian word which has held onto its original zaal is "aazar"
> > > meaning "fire" (cf. Azerbaijan) as well as being the ninth month of
> > > the Persian calendar. Is "kaaGhaz" Persian too?
>
> > >http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1268443
>
> > > KHair-KHvaah,
> > > Naseer
>
>
> > Janaab-e-Naseer saahab,
>
> > maiN aap ko mubaarakbaad detaa huuN k aap ALUP ko urdu poetry ki site
> > se, eik etymological site- banaane meN kaamyaab rahe haiN :)
>
> > Kaam jaarii rakhiye kyuuN k, 50 ke qareeb qareeb posts ke b`aad bhi,
>
> > "is baal ki Khaak abhii puuri taraH nahiiN udhaiRii gayii hai!::)
>
> > =========================================================
>
> janaab-i-B.G.M Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> I think you are being a little unkind to me. I think I have initiated
> a number of threads this year and, as far as I can remember, this is
> the first language related one. As you are aware, I started even this
> one with a Ghazal by a lady poet. In the third post I asked Zoya
> Sahiba a question and the rest is history!:) The subject of the thread
> was changed to reflect the new direction.
>
> In another thread Zuhra Sahiba has raised the issue of diacritical
> marks and that thread too could slide down the slippery linguistic
> path! But, this is where people like you could steer the conversations
> back to their original theme(s).
>
> KHair-andesh,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Naseer sahab, mujhe tu aik sawal aur bhi aap se poochna hai is thread
meiN (chaahe mujh par koii bhii ilzaam aae :))
Aur yeh sawaal hai Arabic letter ‘jeem’ kii sound ke muta’liq:
aap ne is thread meiN aik jagha explain kiyaa thaa keh Arabi mieN
'zaal' ki sound 'daal' se kaise farq hai. maiN yeh poochna chah rahi
hooN ke kya Arabi ‘jeem’ kii sound bhii Urdu ‘jeem' se muKhtalif hoti
hai? mujhe aise lagta hai keh kuchh Arab log (khaas tur par Egypt,
Syria, Sudan waGhaira se) ‘jeem’ ko ‘yeem’ ya ‘jyeem’ bolte haiN.
misaal ke taur par ‘jamal/jazar’ waGhaira ko lagta hai jyamal/jyazar
keh rahe hoN . kya waqii aisa kuchh hai yaa yeh sirf mera weham hai?
Zuhra
Naseer
Zuhra Sahiba, tasliimaat.
mere KHayaal meN Jamil Sahib aap ke savaal kaa javaab bihtar de sakte
haiN. phir bhii maiN apnii taraf se koshish kartaa huuN.
jahaaN tak jiim kaa ta'alluq hai, claasiikii 'arabii ke zamaane meN
awr us se bhii pahle "jiim" kuchh qabiiloN meN "gaaf" kii aavaaz meN
musta'mal thii. aap jaantii haiN kih Qur'aan-i-majiid meN jiim kii
aavaaz jiim hii hai. misr awr suuDaan meN jiim ko gaaf kii aavaaz se
bolaa jaataa hai.
jamaal >>>>>>> gamaal
shaam vaGhairah meN jiim ko "Ze" talaffuz diyaa jaataa hai jaise
angrezii ke lafz "pleasure" meN "s" kii aavaaz hai.
ummiid hai kih yih javaab aap ke liye itmi'naan-baKHsh hai.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> On Jun 15, 5:47 pm, venus <venus_...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 1:01 pm, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 3:22 pm, "B.G.M." <b_manejw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 7:25 am, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Afzal, UVR and Jamil Sahibaan, aadaab 'arz hai.
>>>>> Gentlemen, whilst I am patiently waiting for replies from one or two
>>>>> people, please take a look at the link below. Posts 10, 12 and 13 are
>>>>> the most relevant.
>>>>> Another Persian word which has held onto its original zaal is "aazar"
>>>>> meaning "fire" (cf. Azerbaijan) as well as being the ninth month of
>>>>> the Persian calendar. Is "kaaGhaz" Persian too?
>>>>> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1268443
>>>>> KHair-KHvaah,
>>>>> Naseer
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-------------------------------------
>>>> Janaab-e-Naseer saahab,
>>>> maiN aap ko mubaarakbaad detaa huuN k aap ALUP ko urdu poetry ki site
>>>> se, eik etymological site- banaane meN kaamyaab rahe haiN :)
>>>> Kaam jaarii rakhiye kyuuN k, 50 ke qareeb qareeb posts ke b`aad bhi,
>>>> "is baal ki Khaak abhii puuri taraH nahiiN udhaiRii gayii hai!::)
>>>> =========================================================
>>> janaab-i-B.G.M Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>>> I think you are being a little unkind to me. I think I have initiated
>>> a number of threads this year and, as far as I can remember, this is
>>> the first language related one. As you are aware, I started even this
>>> one with a Ghazal by a lady poet. In the third post I asked Zoya
>>> Sahiba a question and the rest is history!:) The subject of the thread
>>> was changed to reflect the new direction.
>>> In another thread Zuhra Sahiba has raised the issue of diacritical
>>> marks and that thread too could slide down the slippery linguistic
>>> path! But, this is where people like you could steer the conversations
>>> back to their original theme(s).
>>> KHair-andesh,
>>> Naseer-
>> Naseer sahab, mujhe tu aik sawal aur bhi aap se poochna hai is thread
>> meiN (chaahe mujh par koii bhii ilzaam aae :))
>>
>> Aur yeh sawaal hai Arabic letter �jeem� kii sound ke muta�liq:
>>
>> aap ne is thread meiN aik jagha explain kiyaa thaa keh Arabi mieN
>> 'zaal' ki sound 'daal' se kaise farq hai. maiN yeh poochna chah rahi
>> hooN ke kya Arabi �jeem� kii sound bhii Urdu �jeem' se muKhtalif hoti
>> hai? mujhe aise lagta hai keh kuchh Arab log (khaas tur par Egypt,
>> Syria, Sudan waGhaira se) �jeem� ko �yeem� ya �jyeem� bolte haiN.
>> misaal ke taur par �jamal/jazar� waGhaira ko lagta hai jyamal/jyazar
>> keh rahe hoN . kya waqii aisa kuchh hai yaa yeh sirf mera weham hai?
>>
>> Zuhra
>
> Zuhra Sahiba, tasliimaat.
>
> mere KHayaal meN Jamil Sahib aap ke savaal kaa javaab bihtar de sakte
> haiN. phir bhii maiN apnii taraf se koshish kartaa huuN.
>
> jahaaN tak jiim kaa ta'alluq hai, claasiikii 'arabii ke zamaane meN
> awr us se bhii pahle "jiim" kuchh qabiiloN meN "gaaf" kii aavaaz meN
> musta'mal thii. aap jaantii haiN kih Qur'aan-i-majiid meN jiim kii
> aavaaz jiim hii hai. misr awr suuDaan meN jiim ko gaaf kii aavaaz se
> bolaa jaataa hai.
>
> jamaal >>>>>>> gamaal
>
> shaam vaGhairah meN jiim ko "Ze" talaffuz diyaa jaataa hai jaise
> angrezii ke lafz "pleasure" meN "s" kii aavaaz hai.
>
> ummiid hai kih yih javaab aap ke liye itmi'naan-baKHsh hai.
>
> KHair-andesh,
> Naseer
Naseer Saheb,
I believe the principle purpose of language (i.e. any language)
is to facilitate communication amongst people. I would have,
therefore, tried to make it clear that the reference was to
Egypt, Syria etc. At least, I would have "capitalised" the "m"
in 'misr', the "s" in 'suuDaan' and again "s" in 'shaam'
Personally, I would say that the 's' in "pleasure" is akin to
"zhe", as in "zhaala~baari".
Thanks for your above explanation.
Afzal
Naseer
> Naseer wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 5:47 pm, venus <venus_...@live.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 13, 1:01 pm, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 13, 3:22 pm, "B.G.M." <b_manejw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 13, 7:25 am, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Afzal, UVR and Jamil Sahibaan, aadaab 'arz hai.
> >>>>> Gentlemen, whilst I am patiently waiting for replies from one or two
> >>>>> people, please take a look at the link below. Posts 10, 12 and 13 are
> >>>>> the most relevant.
> >>>>> Another Persian word which has held onto its original zaal is "aazar"
> >>>>> meaning "fire" (cf. Azerbaijan) as well as being the ninth month of
> >>>>> the Persian calendar. Is "kaaGhaz" Persian too?
> >>>>>http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1268443
> >>>>> KHair-KHvaah,
> >>>>> Naseer
> >>>> Janaab-e-Naseer saahab,
> >>>> maiN aap ko mubaarakbaad detaa huuN k aap ALUP ko urdu poetry ki site
> >>>> se, eik etymological site- banaane meN kaamyaab rahe haiN :)
> >>>> Kaam jaarii rakhiye kyuuN k, 50 ke qareeb qareeb posts ke b`aad bhi,
> >>>> "is baal ki Khaak abhii puuri taraH nahiiN udhaiRii gayii hai!::)
> >>>> =========================================================
> >>> janaab-i-B.G.M Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
> >>> I think you are being a little unkind to me. I think I have initiated
> >>> a number of threads this year and, as far as I can remember, this is
> >>> the first language related one. As you are aware, I started even this
> >>> one with a Ghazal by a lady poet. In the third post I asked Zoya
> >>> Sahiba a question and the rest is history!:) The subject of the thread
> >>> was changed to reflect the new direction.
> >>> In another thread Zuhra Sahiba has raised the issue of diacritical
> >>> marks and that thread too could slide down the slippery linguistic
> >>> path! But, this is where people like you could steer the conversations
> >>> back to their original theme(s).
> >>> KHair-andesh,
> >>> Naseer-
> >> Naseer sahab, mujhe tu aik sawal aur bhi aap se poochna hai is thread
> >> meiN (chaahe mujh par koii bhii ilzaam aae :))
>
>
> >> aap ne is thread meiN aik jagha explain kiyaa thaa keh Arabi mieN
> >> 'zaal' ki sound 'daal' se kaise farq hai. maiN yeh poochna chah rahi
> >> hai? mujhe aise lagta hai keh kuchh Arab log (khaas tur par Egypt,
> >> misaal ke taur par ‘jamal/jazar’ waGhaira ko lagta hai jyamal/jyazar
muHtaram Afzal Sahib, aadaab.
I agree with you whole heartedly regarding the purpose behind any
language being communication. The reason why I do not use capitals is
simply because I am immitating Urdu system of writing where there is
no such thing as capitals. I have to confess that it all looks odd to
me too, with no capitals at the begining of sentences and for personal
and place names. Call it a "quirk" on my part.
"zhaalah-baarii" did occur to me. But, who pronounces the "zh"
correctly in Urdu these days? For this reason, I used an example from
English because I expected that Zuhra Sahiba would surely be familiar
with the sound I was hinting at.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
With due respect, your "whole-hearted agreement" (in the first
line above) doesn't quite agree with the "quirk" described
later.
The other person (reading your post) should be able to understand
what you are trying to say, and that without much difficulty.
That is why I had used the word "facilitate" in my earlier post.
Re : your second para. You will be surprised to know that quite
a few people in India do pronounce this sound correctly. You
could count Yours Truly too amongst them. And that has nothing
to do with the fact that I did acquire a smattering of French
some 60 years back, most of which I have forgotten now. But, in
those days, I could perhaps have said : "Je parle francais".....
Afzal
venus
bohat bohat shukria wazahat ke liye, Naseer sahab. aik baat aur
bataati chaloN "zhe” ko maiN bhii ‘ze’ nahi paRhti.
Zuhra
Zoya
> > baal ki Khaak? k khaal?
>
> > -UVR.
>
> UVR Sahib, aap par baal kii khaal udheRne kaa ilzaam lage nah lage,
> "khaak chhaan_ne" kaa ilzaam zaruur lag saktaa hai!:)
>
> Naseer
All right friends, I have been resisting posting a ZI sher in this
thread for the last few days, but I can't resist any more!
So here we go:
jo nikaali thii us ne baal kii khaal
ham ne voh khaal bhii udheRii hai!!!!!!!! :) :)
Now if someone makes a special request, I may be talked into posting
this entire ghazal in the ZI thread.
___Zoya
B.G.M.
> jo nikaali thii us ne baal kii khaal
> ham ne voh khaal bhii udheRii hai!!!!!!!! :) :)
>
> Now if someone makes a special request, I may be talked into posting
> this entire ghazal in the ZI thread.
>
> ___Zoya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do! Please do!!!
=========================================================
Naseer
kih 1932 meN Rutherford, Walton awr Cockcroft ne Cambridge (England)
meN aiTam kii "khaal" utaar dii thii."kunj-kaavii" bhii to ko'ii chiiz
hotii hai. shaayad isii liye Iqbal in kahaa thaa...
sitaaroN se aage jahaaN awr bhii haiN
abhii 'ishq ke imtiHaaN awr bhii haiN
Naseer