A Deluge of Verbs ... ?
Roshan Kamath
'Annual of Urdu Studies, vol 19, 2004', which was an translation into
English of M. H. `Askari's "qaht-E af`Al" published in 1953. According to
Mr. `Askari, urdU literature has stagnated since its *early* days and one
of reasons is the relative lack of non-compound/indigenous verbs in
'modern' literary works (and, indeed, in everyday use). [In the same
issue of the AUS, you'll find other essays by Mr. `Askari pertaining to
literature and literary theory/criticism.] Before I get to the point of
my post, allow me to quote the relevant excerpts which condense the
essence of his thesis (Translation by Mr. B. Rehman). You can read the
full document from the AUS site anytime.
<<<<
Literature can be vibrantly alive only when not just the writers but
also the readers have at least some interest in the problems of literary
language and expression ... If we are still concerned about the life or
death of our literature, we must learn to read before we start
writing ... Pick up a magazine or a book and choose a random page as a
sample. Make a list of the types of words used. The whole picture of
literary stagnation will become clear.
...
The subject or the experience should be present, not just in the
whole poem or short story, but it should be there in every word and
phrase. If the writer has an honest and creative investment in his
experience, the only proof of this would lie in his making sure that his
words are not mere corpses that serve to fill a hole, but are operative
in the verb mode.
...
The true poet’s words and phrases don’t just contain emotions and
feelings. They also contain action.
...
Fenollosa says that a poet’s greatness can be determined by the fact
that the verbs used by him contain action within them, for such verbs
make us conscious of the great powers of nature ... Fenollosa has even
said, use the word “is” and poetry disappears. And in reality, excessive
use of this word is a sign of the entire nation’s biological decline.
>>>>
Mr. `Askari acknowledges the provisional nature of his thesis and
anticipates possible criticism:
<<<<
To what extent these ideas are true and how closely the world’s great
literature does conform to them cannot be the issue under discussion here.
>>>>
He then continues:
<<<<
Even a cursory look at Urdu literature will show you how far our
language has declined in vigor and vitality through successive stages in
its history. Mir has many verbs which describe the different actions of
the human body, not like Shakespeare to be sure, but still, he has quite
a few. You will find these only occasionally in Ghalib. Ghalib has always
tried not to use any verb other than "to be" ... After Ghalib, and during
the time of Ghalib idolizing, our literature fell on truly bad times.
Writers like Niyaz Fatehpuri and his contemporaries tried to write prose
which had few verbs but a whole slew of adjectives with each noun. And
when the sense of action dried up, these people lost the sense of things
too. By separating the object from its quality (adjective) they made both
their language and diction quite hollow. [Read the essay on adjectives to
understand what he means.] As a result, their prose gives the impression
of layer upon layer of bricks piled one on top of the other without
mortar. A little push, and the whole pile topples over. This was a period
of extreme weakness for Urdu prose.
...
Now our prose and, especially, poetry are dominated by that one verb
"to be". And this reflects the attitude of all of us towards life. We
have lost touch with action that is in tune with the diversity of
nature’s powers ... We describe this situation as literary stagnation and
feel content, although the matter is not as simple as that.
...
One disintegrative element was there already when Urdu was
constructed. Persian speakers are responsible for the undesirable
invention of adding "budan" ("to be") and "kardan" ("to do") to Arabic
words and making verbs out of them. On top of that, the Urdu speakers
imitated this style and started adding "karna" ("to do") and "hona" ("to
be") to Persian words and fashioning verbs in abundance, kicking out
adequate and rather useful *indigenous* words to make room for the
neologisms ... Very few verbs have entered the Urdu language since their
time. But what is most incredible today is that we seem to have forgotten
verbs entirely. My estimate is that these days the newspapers or
magazines don’t use more than fifty verbs ... there must be at least a
minimum of a thousand verbs [in urdU] ... things have come to such a
pretty pass that apart from "to do" ("karna") and "to be" ("hona") it is
difficult to find a third verb in our writings.
>>>>
In the same essay, Mr. `Askari asserts the following point which does not
have a direct bearing on this post, but may be of interest to some of us
anyway:
<<<<
The problem of the use of verbs is also part of another basic
problem. In many ways, our entire literature has been a victim of the
ghazal. Perhaps we should thank the ghazal for not allowing a sense of
architectonics to develop among Urdu poets and prose writers. Even the
greatest of our non-ghazal poems do not achieve a clear symphonic form.
>>>>
That's it for the excerpts. Now to the point of this post.
I thought that it may be worth my while to have a ready list of non-
compound verbs that are part of the hindUstAnI idiom. (By 'non-compound
verbs' I mean constructions that are not in the form "X karnA", "X hOnA",
"X jAnA", "X lEnA", "X dEnA", "X paRnA", etc.). So, I mined the online
version of Platts' dictionary for verb entries and kept a running list.
In doing so, I was often surprised by how many verbs I was completely
unaware of. In some cases, I was surprised that many compound verbs used
in urdU actually have a non-compound equivalent, but I'd never
encountered them in literature. In yet other cases, I was delighted to
see verbs like "jEvnA" whose equivalents I use, pretty much everyday, in
Marathi (as "jEvNa"), in Konkani (as "jEv*"), etc.
So, if you are twiddling your thumbs and are bored to an extent that
looking at a list of verbs sounds like an exciting prospect, I invite you
over to check out
http://roshbaby.blogspot.com/2008/04/deluge-of-verbs.html
which is pretty much the same rant as this post. But, at the very bottom,
you'll find links to the individual verbs organised in the 'fArsI'
alphabet order. I think I've collected a total of *4171* entries. And
their breakdown is:
alif - 353
be - 489
pe - 362
te - 167
Ta - 140
jIm - 234
Che - 401
Khe - 8
dAl - 186
Da - 128
re - 124
ze - 1
sIn - 292
ShIn - 9
zAd - 1
Ghayn - 5
fe - 3
qAf - 1
kAf - 339
gAf - 216
lAm - 155
mIm - 197
nUn - 165
vAv - 50
ChHOTI he - 144
ye - 1
A tiny minority of these may be argued to be compound verbs, but I
included them anyway at my discretion. Quite a few are 'proxy entries'
which redirect to another verb elsewhere. I may have missed out on a few
entries here and there given the sheer mundane-ness of the effort, and I
hope you'll forgive me for that!
Someday I hope to list the 'indigenous' verbs used by Ghalib and Iqbal in
their Urdu Ghazals. But that day is most definitely far off.
Happy Spring,
roshan
Vinay
>
> Someday I hope to list the 'indigenous' verbs used by Ghalib and Iqbal in
> their Urdu Ghazals. But that day is most definitely far off.
>
Roshan Sb.:
Thanks for writing about a topic that is of great interest to me
personally. I hope that the "someday" arrives sooner than you plan.
Thanks also for the link to your blog. Needless to say that It is now
part of my feed reader.
Vinay
> Happy Spring,
> roshan
UVR
Not to put too fine a point on it, but, Vinay, it's now part of your
"feed reader" or part of your "reader feed"?
I suppose it doesn't matter. Just like the verbs really don't. The
question is how well a poet has conveyed an idea. For example,
"phoolna" is a single verb, but "phalna phoolna" and "saa.Ns
phoolna" are two different things, no?
Not to suggest that this topic (how many and what verbs a poet
has used) does not offer a lot of scope for academic research.
But only academic.
There's another thing of academic interest -- how many and
which, "muhaavras" a poet has used. Even more so, how
many, and which, muhaavras a poet has *invented*. Hope-
fully Shri Kamath will find it interesting enough to research
this topic as well.
-UVR.
Roshan Kamath
I appreciate your support & encouragement.
> Thanks also for the link to your blog. Needless to say that It is now
> part of my feed reader.
I must confess that I am unable to blog as much as I would prefer. I do
have lots of thoughts/opinions (especially concerning urdU/hindI), but
the amount of time I now devote to urdU is ~1% of my free time. I have my
fingers in far too many pies ... so you're going to stumble onto various
non-urdU related ramblings - on and off - whenever I get the chance to
write something coherent. :)
cheers,
roshan
Roshan Kamath
> I suppose it doesn't matter. Just like the verbs really don't. The
> question is how well a poet has conveyed an idea. For example,
> "phoolna" is a single verb, but "phalna phoolna" and "saa.Ns phoolna"
> are two different things, no?
What's up Shri UVR? Why did you 'raO.nd' into the dirt my verb lists so
mercilessly!? :-D
Knowing that a verb like 'sAdHnA' exists in the lexicon, one might be
tempted to come up with, or use, a construction like 'sA.ns sAdHnA' which
has a better alliterative/euphonic effect than, say, 'sA.ns rOknA', or
'sA.ns pakaRnA' ... each combination meaning something different ever so
slightly. Thus, one can extend her capability of expression if she has an
awareness of options that exist.
So, I think verbs, especially indigenous ones, do matter. Otherwise, I
wouldn't have spent so much of my time in filtering them into lists! I'm
sharing this with the wide world with the hope that at least one person
somewhere may learn something new and augment her knowledge & idiom. You
don't seem to share my opinion or enthusiasm, but I understand that I
can't please everybody! :)
maE.n akElA hI ChalA tHA jAnib-E ma.Nzil magar ...
cheers,
roshan
----
P.S.: "How well a poet has conveyed an idea" is a relatively subjective
assessment independent of the existence of 'academic' lists (like a
dictionary!!). But having a ready/internalised repertoire of words helps
in understanding, and contributing to, literature.
UVR
We seem to be talking two different "languages!" See below for why
I say this.
On Apr 22, 8:06 pm, Roshan Kamath <ros...@fake.doma.in> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:43:57 -0700, UVR wrote:
> > I suppose it doesn't matter. Just like the verbs really don't. The
> > question is how well a poet has conveyed an idea. For example,
> > "phoolna" is a single verb, but "phalna phoolna" and "saa.Ns phoolna"
> > are two different things, no?
>
> What's up Shri UVR? Why did you 'raO.nd' into the dirt my verb lists so
> mercilessly!? :-D
>
But I didn't! I only made the very same point you have yourself
made below! To wit:
> Knowing that a verb like 'sAdHnA' exists in the lexicon, one might be
> tempted to come up with, or use, a construction like 'sA.ns sAdHnA' which
> has a better alliterative/euphonic effect than, say, 'sA.ns rOknA', or
> 'sA.ns pakaRnA' ... each combination meaning something different ever so
> slightly. Thus, one can extend her capability of expression if she has an
> awareness of options that exist.
>
Quite! What I was driving at is that it is not enough to just
include "saadhnaa" in the list without considering HOW it
has been used. Would you disagree that the same verb is
used differently in the construct 'teer saadhnaa' versus 'chup
saadhnaa'? Indeed, 'saadhnaa' in each of these is not even
the same action at all, so perhaps it wouldn't be wrong if we
treated these as not one but TWO verbs!
Furthermore, whereas you have explicitly chosen to exclude
(what you call) "compound verbs" from your list, I think it is
those very verbs which, perhaps more than others, indicate
a poet's command over the idiom of the language s/he is
writing in!
> So, I think verbs, especially indigenous ones, do matter. Otherwise, I
> wouldn't have spent so much of my time in filtering them into lists!
Your second sentence is obviously seeking to "elevate" the
value of the exercise! I would ask -- why is an "indigenous"
verb different from a "borrowed" one? Aren't they both
part of the same language?
> I'm
> sharing this with the wide world with the hope that at least one person
> somewhere may learn something new and augment her knowledge & idiom. You
> don't seem to share my opinion or enthusiasm, but I understand that I
> can't please everybody! :)
>
> maE.n akElA hI ChalA tHA jAnib-E ma.Nzil magar ...
I must say that you have completely misunderstood my position
in this matter. This seems to be happening fairly frequently
these days, which is what makes me wonder if we're speaking
in two different languages!
For the record, I do not think that there is anything wrong, in
the least, with academic pursuit of the kind you're proposing.
(Or of any kind of academic pursuit that strikes anyone's fancy.)
But, that said, every academic seeking to publish his work
openly invites approbation and disagreement alike. In my
personal and humble opinion, the approach you're taking
is a tad myopic, for it is liable to "miscalculate" the real
strength of a poet's language. That is all. Surely you are
not suggesting that everyone on ALUP should be in complete
and unequivocal agreement with your approach?
That you have seen my post as dismissive and belittling
of your effort is, I must say, saddening in no small measure.
-UVR.
Kali Hawa
कभी मुझ् मेँ तुझ् मेँ क़रार् था , अभी दर्मियान् दरार् है
मेरा इश्क़् दफ़्न् है उस् जगह् , जहाँ मेरे दिल् का मज़ार् है
kabhi mujh meN tujh meN qaraar thaa, abhi darmiyaaN daraar hai
miraa ishq dafn hai us jagah, jahaaN mere dil kaa mazaar hai
bohat Khoon janaab-e- Raushan Sahib.
"mere dil kaa" mostly 'mere' is uttered 'mire' in poetry here it is
'mere' i.e long 'me'
Vinay
> On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 8:48 pm, Roshan Kamath <ros...@fake.doma.in> wrote:
>
> > > Someday I hope to list the 'indigenous' verbs used by Ghalib and Iqbal in
> > > their Urdu Ghazals. But that day is most definitely far off.
>
> > Roshan Sb.:
>
> > Thanks for writing about a topic that is of great interest to me
> > personally. I hope that the "someday" arrives sooner than you plan.
>
> > Thanks also for the link to your blog. Needless to say that It is now
> > part of my feed reader.
>
> > Vinay
>
> > > Happy Spring,
> > > roshan
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but, Vinay, it's now part of your
> "feed reader" or part of your "reader feed"?
>
Feed reader. I am inclined to say GIYF :). Google Reader is the feed
reader that I use and I have included his blog as one of my feeds.
Actually "reader feed" wouldn't make much sense as things stand in the
web world right now. Again, GIYF :).
> I suppose it doesn't matter. Just like the verbs really don't. The
> question is how well a poet has conveyed an idea. For example,
> "phoolna" is a single verb, but "phalna phoolna" and "saa.Ns
> phoolna" are two different things, no?
>
I agree with you that the important thing is that the idea has been
conveyed well. But ...
1) poetry is essentially related to words and sounds, so one cannot
discount the difference of effect that one word may have over another,
even though they both mean the same. Of course you know this.
2) For a single poet it is all right to work in a specific vocabulary
and he/she cannot be blamed for it. It simply could be his/her style.
But if a whole generation (or worse, several generations) of writers
shies away from using a large part of the language's power, then it
may be a matter of concern. That's what I took as Roshan Sb's position
from his post.
3) I personally am a fan of indigenous and obscure word usage. When
Ravindra Jain says "koii tere path me.n deep *baale*" or Gulzar goes
"birahaa kii *jaaii* rainaa", I can't tell you how much extra
enjoyable the whole thing becomes for me. Apart from the fact that it
helps me connect with the song and its surrouding a great deal lot
than if the poets used 'jalaae' or 'paidaa kii huii' respectively.
Vinay
> Not to suggest that this topic (how many and what verbs a poet
> has used) does not offer a lot of scope for academic research.
> But only academic.
>
> There's another thing of academic interest -- how many and
> which, "muhaavras" a poet has used. Even more so, how
> many, and which, muhaavras a poet has *invented*. Hope-
> fully Shri Kamath will find it interesting enough to research
> this topic as well.
>
> -UVR.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
UVR
> On Apr 22, 9:43 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thanks also for the link to your blog. Needless to say that It is now
> > > part of my feed reader.
>
> > "feed reader" or part of your "reader feed"?
>
> Feed reader. I am inclined to say GIYF :). Google Reader is the feed
> reader that I use and I have included his blog as one of my feeds.
> Actually "reader feed" wouldn't make much sense as things stand in the
> web world right now. Again, GIYF :).
>
Web-schmeb! "Reader feed" simply refers to the feed that is fed
to your (RSS) feed reader. Yes, G*I*YF! Check it out.
> 2) For a single poet it is all right to work in a specific vocabulary
> and he/she cannot be blamed for it. It simply could be his/her style.
> But if a whole generation (or worse, several generations) of writers
> shies away from using a large part of the language's power, then it
> may be a matter of concern. That's what I took as Roshan Sb's position
> from his post.
>
What "concern!" We have not too long ago discussed on these
very pages how language ostensibly "evolves" and develops
new usage. All spurred by my use of the word 'unfortunate' to
describe the mixing up of "pha" and "fa" (the word in q. being 'fir').
At that time, we had people taking up cudgels on behalf of the
"uncouth masses", justifying these as 'new' pronunciations on
the basis of linguistic evolution. And now we have you crying
foul about the ostensible banishment of some verbs from the
language of certain poets (or from that of poets of a given
generation). What gives? You can't have it both ways, can you,
now? :)
Yes, I do think it is unfortunate for certain words to fall out of
favor with writers and poets -- it harms the language. But I'm
asking why this cannot be considered part of the natural
evolution process of language.
> 3) I personally am a fan of indigenous and obscure word usage. When
> Ravindra Jain says "koii tere path me.n deep *baale*" or Gulzar goes
> "birahaa kii *jaaii* rainaa", I can't tell you how much extra
> enjoyable the whole thing becomes for me. Apart from the fact that it
> helps me connect with the song and its surrouding a great deal lot
> than if the poets used 'jalaae' or 'paidaa kii huii' respectively.
I agree with you about obscure words. I'm all for using them. But
honestly, I don't get this whole "indigenous word" business. Give
an example of a non-indigenous verb, please, for verbs is what we
are talking about here, and why using said non-indigenous verbs
is not as "exciting" as "baalna" or "jaanaa" (in the sense of
'birthing').
And I'll point out that "jalaanaa" is also an 'indigenous' verb :)
-UVR.
Vinay
> On Apr 23, 6:56 am, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 9:43 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Thanks also for the link to your blog. Needless to say that It is now
> > > > part of my feed reader.
>
> > > Not to put too fine a point on it, but, Vinay, it's now part of your
> > > "feed reader" or part of your "reader feed"?
>
> > Feed reader. I am inclined to say GIYF :). Google Reader is the feed
> > reader that I use and I have included his blog as one of my feeds.
> > Actually "reader feed" wouldn't make much sense as things stand in the
> > web world right now. Again, GIYF :).
>
> Web-schmeb! "Reader feed" simply refers to the feed that is fed
> to your (RSS) feed reader. Yes, G*I*YF! Check it out.
>
> > 2) For a single poet it is all right to work in a specific vocabulary
> > and he/she cannot be blamed for it. It simply could be his/her style.
> > But if a whole generation (or worse, several generations) of writers
> > shies away from using a large part of the language's power, then it
> > may be a matter of concern. That's what I took as Roshan Sb's position
> > from his post.
>
> What "concern!" We have not too long ago discussed on these
> very pages how language ostensibly "evolves" and develops
> new usage. All spurred by my use of the word 'unfortunate' to
> describe the mixing up of "pha" and "fa" (the word in q. being 'fir').
> At that time, we had people taking up cudgels on behalf of the
> "uncouth masses", justifying these as 'new' pronunciations on
> the basis of linguistic evolution. And now we have you crying
> foul about the ostensible banishment of some verbs from the
> language of certain poets (or from that of poets of a given
> generation). What gives? You can't have it both ways, can you,
> now? :)
>
I just said that's what I took from Roshan Sb's post. I didn't say I
agree or disagree with it. What I agree to is that it is an
underutilization of the language's power. I don't subscribe to the
concern thing. Who am I to be concerned about the state of Urdu poetry
anyway? Now, since you have mentioned the "other thread" let me state
that I actually agree to the position of Roshan Sb in that matter,
although I think that your position was not really very different from
his. But let's not go back there. Besides I don't have anything of
value to add to whatever has been said.
I will just say that there's a difference between the subject of that
thread and this one. And it is in the fact that the verbs that Roshan
Sb mentioned have not fallen out of use in the "normal" world. People
still use them. At least a lot of them. They were using them in their
day to day life during the entire period when the poets were ignoring
them. This is not linguistic evolution because poetry or literature is
a much more conscious enterprise than normal day-to-day speech.
> Yes, I do think it is unfortunate for certain words to fall out of
> favor with writers and poets -- it harms the language. But I'm
> asking why this cannot be considered part of the natural
> evolution process of language.
>
> > 3) I personally am a fan of indigenous and obscure word usage. When
> > Ravindra Jain says "koii tere path me.n deep *baale*" or Gulzar goes
> > "birahaa kii *jaaii* rainaa", I can't tell you how much extra
> > enjoyable the whole thing becomes for me. Apart from the fact that it
> > helps me connect with the song and its surrouding a great deal lot
> > than if the poets used 'jalaae' or 'paidaa kii huii' respectively.
>
> I agree with you about obscure words. I'm all for using them. But
> honestly, I don't get this whole "indigenous word" business. Give
> an example of a non-indigenous verb, please, for verbs is what we
> are talking about here, and why using said non-indigenous verbs
> is not as "exciting" as "baalna" or "jaanaa" (in the sense of
> 'birthing').
>
> And I'll point out that "jalaanaa" is also an 'indigenous' verb :)
>
I never said otherwise. That example was to show the obscurity of the
verb "baalanaa" in poetry. And since you point out the indigenousness
of jalaanaa, you must be aware of non-indigenous ones too :).
As for examples, you just need to follow one of the lists created by
Roshan Sb on his blog and compare it with a list of compound verbs
(especially those created by adding "karanaa" or "honaa" to nouns)
that are in use. You will find many.
Vinay
> -UVR.
Naseer
Before I go into your post, please take the trouble of reading the
following poem, which Afzal Sahib posted almost a year ago. I can
honestly say that there are numerous verbs in this poem whose meaning
I would struggle to convey with any precision.
"Akbar Ilah'baadi gave due credit to Southey in his Urdu
rendition
and retained the name "Lodore". His poem used to be included in
children's school curriculum, in my time --- probably in the
seventh standard. I think the title was "Aab-e-Lodore". It is
a
pretty long poem. So here goes :
Woh Southey, suKHan~go-e-sheereeN~maqaal
Jo Angrez shaa'ir tha ik be~misaal
Ba~farmaaish-e-duKHtar-e-baa~tameez
Ke rakhta tha jis ko woh dil se 'azeez
Likhi us ne hai nazm ik la~jawaab
Dikhai hai shakl-e-rawaaneeye~aab
Jo behta hai paani mian-e-Lodore
Usi ka dikhaaya hai shaa'ir ne zor
Munaasib jo English masaadir mile
Muqaffa kiye un ke sab silsile
Yeh jamee'at af'aal ki KHoob ki
Ke darsi bhi hai aur dilchasp bhi
Yeh israar karte haiN bhai Hassan
Ke maiN bhi hooN is behr men GHota~zan
DikhaaooN rawaaneeye~daryaa-e-fikr
Ke gauhar shinaason men ho jis ka zikr
'Ajab hai, naheeN un ki is par nazar
Kuja maiN, kuja Southey-e-naamwar
Siwa is ke haiN aur bhi mushkileN
NaheeN sehl is raah ki manzileN
Mire paas sarmaaya kaafi naheeN
Woh masdar naheeN, woh qawaafee naheeN
ZubaaN men na wus'at na waisa mazaaq
Udhar to hai kuchh aur hi tamtaraaq
Agar tarjuma ho to Darta hooN maiN
Magar KHair kuchh fikr karta hooN maiN
Jo theeN diqqateN keh chuka bar'mala
GHaraz dekhiye ab yeh paani chala .............
Uchhalta huwa aur ubalta huwa
AkaRta huwa aur machalta huwa
Yeh banta huwa aur woh tanta huwa
Tapakta huwa aur chhanta huwa
Rawaani men ik shor karta huwa
RukaawaT men ik zor karta huwa
PahaaRon ke rauzan, zameeN ke masaam
Yeh hai kar raha har taraf apna kaam
Idhar phoolta aur pichakta udhar
RuKh is samt karta, khisakta udhar
PahaaRon pe sar ko paTakta huwa
ChaTaanon pe daaman jhaTakta huwa
Woh pehloo-e-saahil dabaata huwa
Yeh sabze pe chaadar bichhaata huwa
BhaTakta huwa, GHul machaata huwa
Woh jal~thal ka 'aalam rachaata huwa
Woh gaata huwa aur bajaata huwa
Yeh lehroN ko paiham nachaata huwa
Idhar jhoomta aur maTakta huwa
Udhar ghoomta aur aTakta huwa
Bipharta huwa, josh khaata huwa
BigaR kar woh kaf mooNh men laata huwa.........
Woh ooNche suroN men tamavvuj ka raag
Woh Khud josh men aa ke laana yeh jhaag
Sudharta huwa aur saNwarta huwa
Thirakta huwa, raqs karta huwa
Idhar gooNjta, gungunaata huwa
Udhar KHud~baKHud bhinbhinaata huwa
LipaT'ta huwa aur chimaT'ta huwa
Yeh phaT'ta huwa, woh simaT'ta huwa
Yeh ghaT'ta huwa aur woh baRhta huwa
Utarta huwa aur chaRHta huwa
Woh roo-e-zameeN ko chhupaata huwa
Woh KHaaki ko seemeeN banaata huwa
Gul-o-KHaar yaksaaN samajhta huwa
Har ik se baraabar ulajhta huwa
Bahaata huwa aur behta huwa
Hawa ke tamaaNchoN ko sehta huwa
Larazta huwa, tilmilaata huwa
Bilakta huwa, bilbilaata huwa
Bulandi se girta~giraata huwa
NasheboN men phirta~phiraata huwa
Uchakta huwa aur uRta huwa
ATakta huwa aur muRta huwa
Woh khetoN men raaheN katarta huwa
ZameenoN ko shaadaab karta huwa
Yeh thaaloN ki godoN ko bharta huwa
Woh dharti pe ehsaan dharta huwa
Yeh phooloN ke gajre bahaata huwa
Woh chakkar men bajre phaNsaata huwa
Lapakta huwa dan'danaata huwa
UmaDta huwa, sansanaata huwa
Chamakta huwa aur jhalakta huwa
SaNbhalta huwa aur chhalakta huwa
HawaaoN se maujeN laRaata huwa
HabaaboN ki faujeN baRhaata huwa
TaRapta huwa, jagmagaata huwa
Shu'aaoN ka joban dikhaata huwa..........
YooN'hi al~GHaraz hai yeh paani rawaaN
Bas ab dekh leN shaa'ir-e-nukta~daaN
Woh Southey ka sailaan-e-aab-e-Lodore
Yeh behr-e-KHayaalaat-e-Akbar ka zor"
Now Akbar only lived "yesterday". Do you think that his poetry is
showing verbal stagnation?
It is (un)fortunate that UVR Sahib has beaten me in making the too
valid a point of "Darwinian" evolution and the process of "natural
selection"- indeed even the phenomenon of "survival" of the fittest. I
agree with him that on the one hand you were talking about the natural
process of evolution when it came to "phir">>>"fir" and "aap kareN/
kiijiye">>>"aap karo" but here you seem to be mourning (or at least
showing agreement with janaab-i-''Askari Sahib) the demise of some
indiginous verbs being replaced by compound verbs based on Persian and
Arab noun/adjective forms.
On Apr 23, 1:48 am, Roshan Kamath <ros...@fake.doma.in> wrote:
> Some years ago I had chanced on the essay "A Famine of Verbs", in the
> 'Annual of Urdu Studies, vol 19, 2004', which was an translation into
> English of M. H. `Askari's "qaht-E af`Al" published in 1953. According to
> Mr. `Askari, urdU literature has stagnated since its *early* days and one
> of reasons is the relative lack of non-compound/indigenous verbs in
> 'modern' literary works (and, indeed, in everyday use).
> Literature can be vibrantly alive only when not just the writers but
> also the readers have at least some interest in the problems of literary
> language and expression ... If we are still concerned about the life or
> death of our literature, we must learn to read before we start
> writing ... Pick up a magazine or a book and choose a random page as a
> sample. Make a list of the types of words used. The whole picture of
> literary stagnation will become clear.
As can be seen from Akbar's poem, the comment above is not true. He
goes onto mention Miir and Ghalib. If you look at the very first
Ghazal in Ghalib's diivaan you will find, excluding "honaa" the
following verbs.
puuchhnaa, karnaa, laanaa, dekhnaa, chaahnaa and bichhaanaa.
You will no doubt agree that "naqsh faryaadii hai.." is one of
Ghalib's poems with a much higher Persian vocabulary than, for
example, "koii ummiid bar nahiiN aatii".
> The subject or the experience should be present, not just in the
> whole poem or short story, but it should be there in every word and
> phrase. If the writer has an honest and creative investment in his
> experience, the only proof of this would lie in his making sure that his
> words are not mere corpses that serve to fill a hole, but are operative
> in the verb mode.
> ...
> The true poet’s words and phrases don’t just contain emotions and
> feelings. They also contain action.
> ...
> Fenollosa says that a poet’s greatness can be determined by the fact
> that the verbs used by him contain action within them, for such verbs
> make us conscious of the great powers of nature ... Fenollosa has even
> said, use the word “is” and poetry disappears. And in reality, excessive
> use of this word is a sign of the entire nation’s biological decline.
It is true that words and phrases contain emotions, feelings and
actions. Well, "honaa" is a state "to be" and also a change of state
"to become"
dil-i-nadaaN tujhe huaa kyaa hai
aaKHir is dard kii davaa kyaa hai
"huaa kyaa hai"? What has happened....? Does this indicate stagnation.
To me, it is showing shear turmoil!
> Mr. `Askari acknowledges the provisional nature of his thesis and
> anticipates possible criticism:
>
> <<<<
> To what extent these ideas are true and how closely the world’s great
> literature does conform to them cannot be the issue under discussion here.
Why not? Please read on!
> He then continues:
> Even a cursory look at Urdu literature will show you how far our
> language has declined in vigor and vitality through successive stages in
> its history. Mir has many verbs which describe the different actions of
> the human body, not like Shakespeare to be sure, but still, he has quite
> a few.
Not having read the whole of Shakespeare and the whole of Miir, I can
not comment. Perhaps janaab-i-'Aksarii did read their complete works!
>You will find these only occasionally in Ghalib. Ghalib has always
> tried not to use any verb other than "to be" ...
I don't know exactly what is being said here. I have just quoted the
very first Ghazal which has six verbs in addition to "to be"! Is
janaab-i-'Askarii saying that Ghalib should have used another verb
wherever he has used"honaa"?
> Now our prose and, especially, poetry are dominated by that one verb
> "to be". And this reflects the attitude of all of us towards life. We
> have lost touch with action that is in tune with the diversity of
> nature’s powers ... We describe this situation as literary stagnation and
> feel content, although the matter is not as simple as that.
Of course there is more to Urdu verbs than the verb "to be". And, what
is wrong with " To be or not to be, that is the question"! Does n't
this mean "Should I carry on living or should I kill my self, that is
the question"?
Let me give you a few examples of the poor old "honaa" and you can
form your own mind regarding its usage.
pakRe jaate haiN farishtoN ke likhe par naa-Haq
aadamii koii hamaaraa dam-i-taHriir bhii thaa?
nah thaa kuchh to KHudaa thaa, kuchh nah hotaa to KHudaa hotaa
Duboyaa mujh ko hone ne, nah hotaa maiN to kyaa hotaa
giryah chaahe hai KHaraabii mire kaashaane kii
dar-o-diivaar se Tapke hai biyaabaaN honaa
> One disintegrative element was there already when Urdu was
> constructed. Persian speakers are responsible for the undesirable
> invention of adding "budan" ("to be") and "kardan" ("to do") to Arabic
> words and making verbs out of them.
This could not be further from the truth. This is the genious of the
language which has helped it to expand its verbal horizons. It is not
necessary here for me to provide examples. Suffice it to say, that the
number of Classical Persian verbs compared with Arabic was rather
limited. This tool helped the language to absorb new ideas and
concepts into it.
>On top of that, the Urdu speakers
> imitated this style and started adding "karna" ("to do") and "hona" ("to
> be") to Persian words and fashioning verbs in abundance, kicking out
> adequate and rather useful *indigenous* words to make room for the
> neologisms ...
There was nothing new in forming these kinds of compound verbs. We
already had the system in place. If you look at the following
examples, you will see that in Urdu, this process has been further
expanded allowing the language to become richer.
chorii karnaa, ThiTholii karnaa, mol lenaa, choT lagnaa, piichhaa
karnaa, DaNk maarnaa, ikaTThaa karnaa, ThanDaa karnaa, achhaa lagnaa,
sapnaa dekhnaa, baahar aanaa, lajjaa aanaa, laaj rakhnaa, saugand
khaanaa, jhuuT bolnaa, paar karnaa, jii dukhaanaa etc etc
....................................................................
mashvarah denaa/lenaa/karnaa, shuruu' karnaa, naql karnaa, bayaan
karnaa, paasbaabii karnaa, band karnaa, mu'aafii maaNgnaa, savaarii
karnaa, KHush honaa/karnaa, jam' karnaa, kaam-yaab honaa, tartiib
denaa, giriftaar karnaa, adaa karnaa, man' karnaa, baaz rakhnaa
shukriyah adaa karnaa, i'laan karnaa, qasam khaanaa. 'izzat rakhnaa
etc etc
So, what is the difference in the two lists?
Very few verbs have entered the Urdu language since their
> time. But what is most incredible today is that we seem to have forgotten
> verbs entirely. My estimate is that these days the newspapers or
> magazines don’t use more than fifty verbs ... there must be at least a
> minimum of a thousand verbs [in urdU] ... things have come to such a
> pretty pass that apart from "to do" ("karna") and "to be" ("hona") it is
> difficult to find a third verb in our writings.
>
Looking at Akbar's poem one becomes aware of the fact that we are
loosing/have lost some good words. But, as I have indicated earlier,
this is a natural albeit a painful development. But this system of
verb formation is not necessarily the cause of all extinct verbs even
though some verbs may have suffered this fate. I am sure you could
think of many examples but one comes readily to my mind..
siiNchnaa. This has not become obsolete (yet) but one does often use
"khetoN meN paanii denaa" or "aab-paashii karnaa"...the former used
simply to mean "to water" (livestock or fields) and the latter "to
irrigate".
>
> In the same essay, Mr. `Askari asserts the following point which does not
> have a direct bearing on this post, but may be of interest to some of us
> anyway:
>
> The problem of the use of verbs is also part of another basic
> problem. In many ways, our entire literature has been a victim of the
> ghazal. Perhaps we should thank the ghazal for not allowing a sense of
> architectonics to develop among Urdu poets and prose writers. Even the
> greatest of our non-ghazal poems do not achieve a clear symphonic form.
>
Again, this is not true. From Hali to Iqbal and beyond, nazms of high
quality have been and are being written. Ghazal has its place and nazm
has its niche.
Your pains-taking efforts in collecting Urdu verbs is commendable. I
shall avail myself the opportunity of visiting your site whenever I
feel a state of stagnation is coming along! It might even be worth
sifting those verbs which, in your view, have become obsolete or
almost obsolete and possibly their usage by writers of the bygone era.
> Someday I hope to list the 'indigenous' verbs used by Ghalib and Iqbal in
> their Urdu Ghazals. But that day is most definitely far off.
>
I am sure we will all look forward to your endeavour.
The same kind of phenomenon has taken place in Persian. Some verbs,
which you may find quoted in "Teach yourself Farsi" type booklets in
Urdu, would no longer make sense to ordianary everyday Iranians.
Furthermore, Arabic, which is highly "verbal"*, is also developing a
more "nominal" kind of language, especially as a result of Western
media influence.
* Arabic has verbs for "to begin to be", "to be" "to continue to be",
"to cease to be" and " to not be"!! Also it has verbs where we would
use "perhaps", "still" "almost" etc.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Roshan Kamath
I'll try and keep this short (given my tendency to verbiage).
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:42:30 -0700, UVR wrote:
> Quite! What I was driving at is that it is not enough to just include
> "saadhnaa" in the list without considering HOW it has been used. Would
> you disagree that the same verb is used differently in the construct
> 'teer saadhnaa' versus 'chup saadhnaa'? Indeed, 'saadhnaa' in each of
> these is not even the same action at all, so perhaps it wouldn't be
> wrong if we treated these as not one but TWO verbs!
Maybe we should talk about what a 'compound verb' is; though the excerpts
which I had chosen from Mr. `Askari's essay pretty much tell us. Anyhoo,
to generalize over and above Mr. `Askari's concept: a 'compound verb' can
be thought of as a construction which expresses a *very specific action*
using a *relatively generic/common verb* like karnA, hOnA, etc..
Thus `izzat karnA (expressing 'to respect') would be a compound verb
literally "to do izzat", whereas AdarnA (expressing 'to respect') would
be the corresponding non-compound verb [1].
Now, "Chup sAdHnA" or "tIr/bandUq sAdHnA", *in that sense*, are not
compound verbs. The verb is still "sAdHnA" (a specific verb). Only the
'object' of the verb differs. Both expressions would be 'valid' object
usages of the verb "sAdHnA". [Also, in my mind, both usages reflect
*same* underlying semantics of 'steadying with discipline'. But that
didn't have to be the case. Read on.]
Dictionaries attempt to try and list the various shades of the verb's
meaning as appropriate [2]. Accordingly, the set of objects which a verb
can operate on depend on the various shades of meanings it has [3], but
each such usage is not necessarily a 'compound verb'. It's just the verb
operating on an 'object'. Now, we can make lists of all possible
combinations of such object-verb constructions, or just rely on the
'limited' range of meanings for a verb and use our literary common sense
(or inspired sense) to come up with object-verb constructions on the fly.
Finally, Mr. `Askari's essay calls out only "karnA" and "hOnA" as the
generic verbs used to create compound verbs [4]. Others might add "AnA",
"jAnA", "kHAnA", "lEnA", "dEnA" etc. to the list. Some may insist on
tagging "lAnA", "pAnA", "paRnA", and so on. At the very least we could
accept Mr. `Askari's two choices as the common ground to define compound
verbs ...
roshan
----
[1] OTOH, `izzatnA, if such a verb existed in idiom, would be a non-
compound verb. In fact, when compiling the lists I noticed that the
number of such non-compound verbs (with non-indic etymologies) was a mere
handful - probably less than 10.
[2] We're fortunate that Platts has attempted to list the various shades
for each indigenous verb; so we should collectively be able to (re)invent
object usages/constructions based on those shades of meaning and thus
enrich our literary stock.
[3] Based on the range of meanings a given verb has, we may let the
creative geniuses' sitting inside us determine if the verb can be
reasonably used with a certain object, and in some cases this
determination may be positively inspired and genuinely metaphorical.
[4] His complaint is specifically levelled against the use of karnA &
hOnA with perso-arabic nouns in making up primary action verbs, even when
verbs to denote these very actions already exist in their indigenous form
or could easily be created indigenously.
----
P.S.: The point where an object usage or idiomatic construction becomes a
compound verb (in the sense above) is obviously 'fuzzy', but the more
'generic' the verb the greater the chance that you can treat the
construction as a compound verb.
How do we know if a verb is generic or specific? The more leeway you have
with using the verb the more generic it is. Take the verb 'kHAnA'. I may
say, "breakfast kHAnA" (or karnA), "apple kHAnA", "lunch kHAnA" (or
karnA), "jalEbI kHAnA", "dinner kHAnA" (or karnA), etc.. But take the
verb "jEvnA" - in Marathi/Konkani you can use it only with lunch and
dinner not with apples or jalebis. Ofcourse, it'll be richer to have
verbs like lunch-nA and dinner-nA which would trump even jEvnA :)
But I digress ...
Roshan Kamath
> honestly, I don't get this whole "indigenous word" business. Give an
> example of a non-indigenous verb, please, for verbs is what we are
> talking about here, and why using said non-indigenous verbs is not as
> "exciting" as "baalna" or "jaanaa" (in the sense of 'birthing').
Strictly speaking *any* verb used in urdU *must* be indigenous because it
is used in urdU - an indic tongue! :-D Just kidding! What most people
(and certainly I) mean with 'indigenous verb' is that the etymology of
the verb is indic. Maybe we should call them indic-genous!
Non-indigenous compound verbs: There are overflowing examples. Anything
that is "A karnA" or "P hOnA", 'A' & 'P' being arabo-persian nouns. Note
however that the 'karnA' and 'hOnA' auxiliaries themselves are indic.
Non-indigenous non-compound verbs: I just mentioned elsewhere that I
encountered only a minor handful of these. I was surprised actually that
there were as many as I encountered! I had only expected one or two.
Offhand, here are the ones I can remember and I think fall in this
category: muskiyAnA, miKhiyAnA, KharIdnA, zidnA, qubUlnA, etc.
KharIdnA at least may be considered 'assimilated' into the indigenous
garb. Don't know about the others.
roshan
----
zabA.n hamAri na samjHA yahA.n ko'I "majrUh"
ham ajnabI ki tarah apne hI vatan me.n rahE
- majrUh sultAnpUrI
Roshan Kamath
> Now Akbar only lived "yesterday". Do you think that his poetry is
> showing verbal stagnation?
I have not expressed any opinion of mine, on 'stagnation' or otherwise,
in this thread. I've merely quoted *verbatim excerpts* from Mr. Askari's
essay as a lead-in to the 'indigenous verb' lists which I'd filtered out.
roshan
----
P.S.: Nevertheless, take a peek at the verb lists and tell me if you have
encountered more than 50% of those verbs in literature.
P.P.S.: Akbar was a 'poet of the soil' IMO. Doubtless there are many
others.
Roshan Kamath
> miraa ishq dafn hai us jagah, jahaaN mere dil kaa mazaar hai
>
> bohat Khoon janaab-e- Raushan Sahib.
Thanks for the appreciation Anil bAbU. Looks like you stumbled onto a
entirely different set of my ramblings :)
> "mere dil kaa" mostly 'mere' is uttered 'mire' in poetry here it is
> 'mere' i.e long 'me'
When typing in Devanagari I prefer to retain the canonical (or free)
forms of the words, and not the form into which a syllable may be strait-
jacketed due to metrical considerations. [When typing in roman I do the
exact opposite!]
And in the specific case of mErE/mErA, when the meter forces the first
syllable to be short I personally don't pronounce it as mirE/mirA.
Instead I say merE/merA (i.e. with the first vowel short). So, once again
I have no motivation to write it as mirE in Devanagari text. :)
We each have our idiosyncrasies I suppose,
roshan
Roshan Kamath
> the language of certain poets (or from that of poets of a given
> generation). What gives? You can't have it both ways, can you, now? :)
UVR bAbU, since you mentioned the 'language evolution' thread, I think
this thread may now be analogously termed 'literature evolution' thread.
(This has nothing to do with language evolution though.)
And to carry on the analogy, Mr. `Askari's point is that we must admit
MORE of the *local verb idiom* into literature to keep it rich.
roshan
UVR
> On Apr 23, 1:12 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:56 am, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 9:43 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Thanks also for the link to your blog. Needless to say that It is now
> > > > > part of my feed reader.
>
> > > > Not to put too fine a point on it, but, Vinay, it's now part of your
> > > > "feed reader" or part of your "reader feed"?
>
> > > Feed reader. I am inclined to say GIYF :). Google Reader is the feed
> > > reader that I use and I have included his blog as one of my feeds.
> > > Actually "reader feed" wouldn't make much sense as things stand in the
> > > web world right now. Again, GIYF :).
>
> > Web-schmeb! "Reader feed" simply refers to the feed that is fed
> > to your (RSS) feed reader. Yes, G*I*YF! Check it out.
>
> Ok if you say so. :)
>
What is that supposed to mean? "Reader feed" is not something
I have coined or anything. See your friend Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22reader+feed
>
> > > 3) I personally am a fan of indigenous and obscure word usage. When
> > > Ravindra Jain says "koii tere path me.n deep *baale*" or Gulzar goes
> > > "birahaa kii *jaaii* rainaa", I can't tell you how much extra
> > > enjoyable the whole thing becomes for me. Apart from the fact that it
> > > helps me connect with the song and its surrouding a great deal lot
> > > than if the poets used 'jalaae' or 'paidaa kii huii' respectively.
>
> > I agree with you about obscure words. I'm all for using them. But
> > honestly, I don't get this whole "indigenous word" business. Give
> > an example of a non-indigenous verb, please, for verbs is what we
> > are talking about here, and why using said non-indigenous verbs
> > is not as "exciting" as "baalna" or "jaanaa" (in the sense of
> > 'birthing').
>
> > And I'll point out that "jalaanaa" is also an 'indigenous' verb :)
>
> I never said otherwise. That example was to show the obscurity of the
> verb "baalanaa" in poetry. And since you point out the indigenousness
> of jalaanaa, you must be aware of non-indigenous ones too :).
>
Let's not be coy, now, Vinay. You know very well that the question
I asked was not "what is a non-indigenous verb", but rather "why
is the use of non-indigenous verb less 'interesting' than the use
of an indigenous verb?"
> As for examples, you just need to follow one of the lists created by
> Roshan Sb on his blog and compare it with a list of compound verbs
> (especially those created by adding "karanaa" or "honaa" to nouns)
> that are in use. You will find many.
>
That's what I'm talking about. I think it is myopic in the extreme to
simply dismiss all 'compound verbs' created by "karnaa" or "honaa"
with a sweeping wave of the hand. What's a indigenous one-
word verb that means "mutma'in hona" or "santuShT karnaa"?
-UVR.
or
Vinay
> On Apr 23, 12:31 pm, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 1:12 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 6:56 am, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 9:43 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, Vinay <vinaypj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Thanks also for the link to your blog. Needless to say that It is now
> > > > > > part of my feed reader.
>
> > > > > Not to put too fine a point on it, but, Vinay, it's now part of your
> > > > > "feed reader" or part of your "reader feed"?
>
> > > > Feed reader. I am inclined to say GIYF :). Google Reader is the feed
> > > > reader that I use and I have included his blog as one of my feeds.
> > > > Actually "reader feed" wouldn't make much sense as things stand in the
> > > > web world right now. Again, GIYF :).
>
> > > Web-schmeb! "Reader feed" simply refers to the feed that is fed
> > > to your (RSS) feed reader. Yes, G*I*YF! Check it out.
>
> > Ok if you say so. :)
>
> What is that supposed to mean? "Reader feed" is not something
> I have coined or anything. See your friend Google:http://www.google.com/search?q=%22reader+feed
>
Did you care to look at the results? Which of the results are actually
for "reader feed"? Almost all of them are for "Google Reader feed" and
Google Reader is a product name (and it does not use any special feed
kind but the same old RSS or Atom feeds). While you are at it, try
Wikipedia too. It would be rare to not find an English term like that
there, if it was *really* used.
I can't do anything more to make you believe me on this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > 3) I personally am a fan of indigenous and obscure word usage. When
> > > > Ravindra Jain says "koii tere path me.n deep *baale*" or Gulzar goes
> > > > "birahaa kii *jaaii* rainaa", I can't tell you how much extra
> > > > enjoyable the whole thing becomes for me. Apart from the fact that it
> > > > helps me connect with the song and its surrouding a great deal lot
> > > > than if the poets used 'jalaae' or 'paidaa kii huii' respectively.
>
> > > I agree with you about obscure words. I'm all for using them. But
> > > honestly, I don't get this whole "indigenous word" business. Give
> > > an example of a non-indigenous verb, please, for verbs is what we
> > > are talking about here, and why using said non-indigenous verbs
> > > is not as "exciting" as "baalna" or "jaanaa" (in the sense of
> > > 'birthing').
>
> > > And I'll point out that "jalaanaa" is also an 'indigenous' verb :)
>
> > I never said otherwise. That example was to show the obscurity of the
> > verb "baalanaa" in poetry. And since you point out the indigenousness
> > of jalaanaa, you must be aware of non-indigenous ones too :).
>
> Let's not be coy, now, Vinay. You know very well that the question
> I asked was not "what is a non-indigenous verb", but rather "why
> is the use of non-indigenous verb less 'interesting' than the use
> of an indigenous verb?"
I didn't answer the "why" because I had already explained that earlier
in my post - it is a personal preference. *I* like it that way. And in
any case, I didn't say anywhere that it makes the use non-indigenous
verb less 'interesting' *as a rule*. If you missed that, read my point
#3 from that post again. I am sharing a subjective preference, that's
all.
>
> > As for examples, you just need to follow one of the lists created by
> > Roshan Sb on his blog and compare it with a list of compound verbs
> > (especially those created by adding "karanaa" or "honaa" to nouns)
> > that are in use. You will find many.
>
> That's what I'm talking about. I think it is myopic in the extreme to
> simply dismiss all 'compound verbs' created by "karnaa" or "honaa"
> with a sweeping wave of the hand. What's a indigenous one-
> word verb that means "mutma'in hona" or "santuShT karnaa"?
I never dismissed all compound verbs. In fact, I didn't dismiss even
one. I think many of them got into the language to fill a void. These
compound verbs actually help us express actions that were not possible
using the ones already available to the language. I am talking about
the ones that already have perfect and precise equivalents.
Vinay
>
> -UVR.
> or- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
UVR
And what is the reason we should not give the poet the
benefit of believing that s/he used the precise verb (non-
compound or compound) that s/he really wanted to,
without impugning his/her contribution to (or detraction
from) the strenght of the language used in his/her work?
In a different post on this thread you said poetry is a
much more deliberate and thoughtful creation than street
speech. I agree. That the precise reason it's (to me)
silly to just dismiss compound verbs outrightly -- even
if they have perfect and precise equivalents in other
verbs. There was a reason the poet did what s/he did,
wasn't there?
-UVR.
UVR
By "dismissing compound verbs", I, of course, am referring
to the automatic placing of use(rs) of 'non-compound' verbs
at a higher pedestal than (use[rs] of) compound verbs. I
see absolutely no justification for this. Do you? In other
words, just because Ravindra Jain says "tu jo mere path
me.n deep baale" and Ghalib says "mere dukh ki dawa
kare koi", does the language of the former poem/poet
become "better" than that of the latter?
If not, WHAT IS the basic point that is being asserted via
segregation of verbs into 'compound' and 'non-compound'
(or, if you prefer you may answer this question about
indigenous and non-indigenous verbs, or about any other
classification that is used divide verbs into 'good to use'
and 'not so good to use' lists)?
-UVR.
UVR
> > I agree with you about obscure words. I'm all for using them. But
> > honestly, I don't get this whole "indigenous word" business. Give an
> > example of a non-indigenous verb, please, for verbs is what we are
> > talking about here, and why using said non-indigenous verbs is not as
> > "exciting" as "baalna" or "jaanaa" (in the sense of 'birthing').
>
> Strictly speaking *any* verb used in urdU *must* be indigenous because it
> is used in urdU - an indic tongue! :-D Just kidding! What most people
> (and certainly I) mean with 'indigenous verb' is that the etymology of
> the verb is indic. Maybe we should call them indic-genous!
>
Okay, that's what I thought you meant. So at least here we
were speaking the same language! :)
> Non-indigenous compound verbs: There are overflowing examples. Anything
> that is "A karnA" or "P hOnA", 'A' & 'P' being arabo-persian nouns. Note
> however that the 'karnA' and 'hOnA' auxiliaries themselves are indic.
>
This is where the crux of disagreement between us lies.
You think (nay, have seemed to assert) that such compounds are
"lesser" than their 'indicgenous' equivalents, but you have not given
any reason why they are lesser. If you have, the reason is non-
obvious. Have you, for example, demonstrated with examples that
an 'indicgenous' verb could have been used, say, by Ghalib or Iqbal
in place of an "A honaa" or "P karnaa" construct while still
maintaining
the same behr, qaafiya and radeef (or other technical/literary/poetic)
framework for the poem in question? If not this, then what other
justification can you offer for summarily excluding these "compound
verbs" from your research as if they were children of a lesser god?
> Non-indigenous non-compound verbs: I just mentioned elsewhere that I
> encountered only a minor handful of these. I was surprised actually that
> there were as many as I encountered! I had only expected one or two.
> Offhand, here are the ones I can remember and I think fall in this
> category: muskiyAnA, miKhiyAnA, KharIdnA, zidnA, qubUlnA, etc.
>
> KharIdnA at least may be considered 'assimilated' into the indigenous
> garb. Don't know about the others.
Why does it matter what the etymology is? It does not appear that
this question has been adequately answered.
-UVR.
Naseer
One benefit that I can envisage for your endeavours in tabulating a
list of Urdu verbs (alive, dying and dead) is that it can act as a
kind of Thesaurus which a writer can access. S/he would for example
come across the verb "dhaanaa" as used for a building in place of the
usual "giraanaa". The same writer, if s/he wishes might want to
resuscitate some of the verbs and bring them back into circulation.
But why just stop at verbs? Why not nouns, adjectives, adverbs and the
like?
On Apr 24, 2:04 am, Roshan Kamath <ros...@fake.doma.in> wrote:
> Maybe we should talk about what a 'compound verb' is; though the excerpts
> which I had chosen from Mr. `Askari's essay pretty much tell us. Anyhoo,
> to generalize over and above Mr. `Askari's concept: a 'compound verb' can
> be thought of as a construction which expresses a *very specific action*
> using a *relatively generic/common verb* like karnA, hOnA, etc..
Even if what you are saying is "gospel" as far as the concept of *very
specific action* is concerned, I fail to understand what the problem
is with a set of verbs which are imparting precise meanings. Is n't
this aspect of language important in an age of scientific accuracy?
> Thus `izzat karnA (expressing 'to respect') would be a compound verb
> literally "to do izzat", whereas AdarnA (expressing 'to respect') would
> be the corresponding non-compound verb [1].
So, if "aadarnaa" and "'izzat karnaa" both mean "to respect" where is
the problem? Don't languages have more than one way to express the
same concept?
17. آدر आदर ādar : (page 32)
To meet with respect or attention, &c.; to receive honours or
distinctions; ādar denā (-ko) = ādar karnā, q.v.: ādar-se, adv.
Respectfully; politely; with due consideration or honour:--ādar karnā
(-kā), To show respect, or attention, &c. (to); to respect, esteem,
honour, reverence:--ādar-mān, s.m.=ādar, q.v.:--ādar milnā, v.n.=ādar
pānā, q.v: ādar-yogya, adj. Worthy of respect, esteem, or reverence;
respectable, estimable, venerable.
Platts is indicating here that from the verb "aadarnaa" one obtains...
aadar denaa= ki 'izzat denaa
aadar karnaa= 'izzat karnaa
aadar milnaa/paanaa='izzat milnaa/paanaa
aadar-yogya=qaabil-i-'izzat
I can not see any difference between "'izzat karnaa" and "aadar
karnaa"/"aadarnaa", can you?
H آدرنا आदरना ādarnā, v.t. To respect, &c.=ādar karnā, q.v.s.v. ādar.
> Now, "Chup sAdHnA" or "tIr/bandUq sAdHnA", *in that sense*, are not
> compound verbs. The verb is still "sAdHnA" (a specific verb). Only the
> 'object' of the verb differs. Both expressions would be 'valid' object
> usages of the verb "sAdHnA". [Also, in my mind, both usages reflect
> *same* underlying semantics of 'steadying with discipline'. But that
> didn't have to be the case. Read on.]
Are "tiir" and "banduuq" indiginous? Please read on.
> Dictionaries attempt to try and list the various shades of the verb's
> meaning as appropriate [2]. Accordingly, the set of objects which a verb
> can operate on depend on the various shades of meanings it has [3], but
> each such usage is not necessarily a 'compound verb'. It's just the verb
> operating on an 'object'. Now, we can make lists of all possible
> combinations of such object-verb constructions, or just rely on the
> 'limited' range of meanings for a verb and use our literary common sense
> (or inspired sense) to come up with object-verb constructions on the fly.
Does "chorii karnaa" (to steal) fall in the category of compound
verbs? Whether it does or not, it seems to me that "qatl karnaa"
should fall in the same category as "chorii karnaa", don't you think?
If it does and I believe it certainly does, what's the issue?
> Finally, Mr. `Askari's essay calls out only "karnA" and "hOnA" as the
> generic verbs used to create compound verbs [4]. Others might add "AnA",
> "jAnA", "kHAnA", "lEnA", "dEnA" etc. to the list. Some may insist on
> tagging "lAnA", "pAnA", "paRnA", and so on. At the very least we could
> accept Mr. `Askari's two choices as the common ground to define compound
> verbs ...
I am surprised that janaab-i-'Askari feels vexed only by the Persian
verbs "buudan" and "kardan" with Urdu counterparts being "honaa" and
"karnaa". All the verbs above have their Farsi counterparts (aamadan,
raftan, KHvurdan, giriftan,daadan, aavurdan, yaaftan, uftaadan) from
which Urdu has acquired numerous constructions.
> [1] OTOH, `izzatnA, if such a verb existed in idiom, would be a non-
> compound verb. In fact, when compiling the lists I noticed that the
> number of such non-compound verbs (with non-indic etymologies) was a mere
> handful - probably less than 10.
I am glad it does n't!
How would we say "he respected him" ...us ne use (?) izzataa! Yuck!!
> [2] We're fortunate that Platts has attempted to list the various shades
> for each indigenous verb; so we should collectively be able to (re)invent
> object usages/constructions based on those shades of meaning and thus
> enrich our literary stock.
This could be done without sending the so called non-indiginous verbs
to the gallows, could n't it?
> [3] Based on the range of meanings a given verb has, we may let the
> creative geniuses' sitting inside us determine if the verb can be
> reasonably used with a certain object, and in some cases this
> determination may be positively inspired and genuinely metaphorical.
Good for the people who wish to do this. Let there be rejuvanation of
the forgotton verbs!
> [4] His complaint is specifically levelled against the use of karnA &
> hOnA with perso-arabic nouns in making up primary action verbs, even when
> verbs to denote these very actions already exist in their indigenous form
> or could easily be created indigenously.
This whole concept of indiginious/ non-indiginous (foreign?) is a
dangerous one I believe. We talk about the world as a global village,
speak and write in a non-indiginous language (English) and yet in the
same breath talk about verbs formed from Persian/Arabic nouns/
adjectives with karnaa/honaa as non-indiginous! I think we need to
travel in a time-machine. Once we do that and eliminitate (or should I
say exterminate) anything/anyone non-indiginous, we will find that
there is practically nothing/no-one left!!
I personally don't see any problem with having "mol lenaa" as well as
"KHariidnaa". We can have jiibh, zabaan, lisaan simultaneously. gagan,
ambar, aakaash, aasmaan, falak, and more. Is n't this exciting?
> How do we know if a verb is generic or specific? The more leeway you have
> with using the verb the more generic it is. Take the verb 'kHAnA'. I may
> say, "breakfast kHAnA" (or karnA), "apple kHAnA", "lunch kHAnA" (or
> karnA), "jalEbI kHAnA", "dinner kHAnA" (or karnA), etc.. But take the
> verb "jEvnA" - in Marathi/Konkani you can use it only with lunch and
> dinner not with apples or jalebis. Ofcourse, it'll be richer to have
> verbs like lunch-nA and dinner-nA which would trump even jEvnA :)
>
> But I digress ...
How would janaab-i-'Askarii and his followers translate something like
"to upgrade"? A simpleton like me will go for "upgrade karnaa"! I
wonder what Platts' treasure-house has to offer in the form of one
word indiginous verb?
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Roshan Kamath
> That's what I'm talking about. I think it is myopic in the extreme to
> simply dismiss all 'compound verbs' created by "karnaa" or "honaa" with
> a sweeping wave of the hand. What's a indigenous one- word verb that
> means "mutma'in hona" or "santuShT karnaa"?
If I may say some words here at my own peril, No one on ALUP is saying
that the 'compound verbs' should be 'swept away with a wave of the hand'.
The basic thrust of even Mr. `Askari's essay, if one reads it carefully,
is that there exist non-compound/indigenous verbs which can be employed
in a majority of cases where compound verbs are used. So, why not use
them too when we can to enrich our literary experience?
Now, if a non-compound equivalent doesn't exist, it means we've
encountered a specific action which is not captured in a verb; then,
maybe we could 'coin' a new verb? In fact, Mr. `Askari's essay points out
that very few *new* verbs have entered the language since the days of
Ghalib. Instead, urdU has resorted to constructing 'compound verbs'.
best regards,
roshan
----
P.S.: Now, since these are still 'fresh' in my mind, here are some non-
compound answers for the exam you set:
For "mutma`inn hOnA": "jurAnA", - and those below.
For "santu$hT karnA": "agHAnA ", "bHarnA", "(pari)to$hnA", - and
those above.
P.P.S.: As a digression, I just remembered a hilarious coining of a new
verb by the Poet Syed Zamir Jafri:
...
fArsI pa.NjAb kE kHEtO.n me.n daORA'I ga'I
ShaEKh sa`dI kI Ghazal durgA me.n *durgA'I* ga'I!
...
The full poem is found in the Google Archives if you search for "kal SHab
jahAN maEN thA". My abdominal "6-pack"owes its continued existence to
reading that poem over and over! ;)
Roshan Kamath
> You think (nay, have seemed to assert) that such compounds are "lesser"
> than their 'indicgenous' equivalents,
I have? Seriously? No kidding? Really? (UVR, `azIz-e man, is this another
case of attributing to me a position which is not mine).
My own *personal sentiment* is that non-compound/indigenous verbs *do*
matter - and should NOT be 'swept under the carpet' in deference to
compound verbs. They should be given equal thrift.
> If not this, then what other
> justification can you offer for summarily excluding these "compound
> verbs" from your research as if they were children of a lesser god?
My dear friend, I should have to offer no justification - for there is
nothing to justify. In the first place, I didn't set out to catalogue
compound verbs! Neither was I doing this under the aegis of an ALUP grant
(which, thinking about it, actually may be quite a cool thing to
institute! :) )
But if you still need some words from me to set your heart at rest,
consider that one encounters many compound verbs in literature. So, how
about we give non-compound verbs their '15 seconds of fame in the
limelight'? Just look at the number of them that haven't probably seen
the light of day in literature in the past 150 years.
> Why does it matter what the etymology is? It does not appear that this
> question has been adequately answered.
Etymology doesn't matter. Why? Do you think it should? (Is this another
case of attributing a position to me!? ;) )
Once again, Mr. `Askari's essay is about non-compound verbs vs. compound
verbs. So, etymology could be said to 'matter' only in the sense that non-
compound verbs are automatically bound to be indic-genous (save, the
handful of exceptions we already mentioned before). Thus, one could say
the terms 'non-compound' & 'indigenous' in the same breath - and prrety
much intend the same thing. (Compound verbs on the other hand could be
either indigenous or non-indigenous.)
Elsewhere, I have 'recommended' verbs (even if said act was tongue-in-
cheek) like `izzat-nA, lunch-nA, dinner-nA. Which one of this is
indigenous? None!
roshan
Raj Kumar
janaab-e-Raushan saahib, janaab-e-UVR saahib aur janaab-e-Naseer
saahib:
I have been following this thread with a lot of diligence and, I might
say, with some diffidence too. Believe me, I can now see --- more
clearly than ever --- why most down-to-earth Urdu lovers got turned
off ALUP! :(
My dear friends, kindly stop this "other-worldly" discussion of 'this
and that' and transcend back to the "Mother Earth" where you really
belong --- for God's sake, please stop this 'overly scholarly'
dialogue and, for my sake (and for the sake of other ALUPers), I
implore each one of you to go back to your study and compose a Ghazal
that does PROPER justice to the usage of Urdu verbs, as Raushan saahib
has advocated --- regardless of whether those verbs are indigenous or
not!
This (not so humble a) request is addressed to all of my good friends
(Raushan saahib, UVR saahib and Naseer saahib) ---
in other words, to all those linguistic experts who have been so
vociferous in expressing their erudite opinions on this topic !
B/W, if (in the next 3 or 4 days) none of you stalwarts comes up with
at least a half-decent composition in this regard, I (for all my worth
or, may I say, lack of worth!) am OUT OF HERE!
R.K.
Roshan Kamath
> of Urdu verbs (alive, dying and dead) is that it can act as a kind of
> Thesaurus which a writer can access. S/he would for example come across
> the verb "dhaanaa" as used for a building in place of the usual
> "giraanaa". The same writer, if s/he wishes might want to resuscitate
> some of the verbs and bring them back into circulation. But why just
> stop at verbs? Why not nouns, adjectives, adverbs and the like?
Sure - classifying the verbs as alive, dying, or dead would be useful.
But that is beyond my humble offices. I am no litterateur to make that
call. I've hardly seen the 'skim on the surface' of urdU literature.
As for the other lists, here's the rub: a list of verbs doesn't evolve as
fast as a list of nouns since most living languages have already labelled
the set of actions employed by its speakers in their social context. Now,
one can surely come up with a list of nouns, but she will be hard-pressed
maintaining it everyday as new objects/inventions are introduced into
this world.
But sure, such lists (nouns, adverbs, particles) could, in theory, be
made ... and then we could bring all those lists together and make ...
guess what ... a dictionary! An upgraded Platts as it were :)
> Even if what you are saying is "gospel" as far as the concept of *very
> specific action* is concerned, I fail to understand what the problem is
> with a set of verbs which are imparting precise meanings. Is n't this
> aspect of language important in an age of scientific accuracy?
Per se, scientific accuracy has no bearing on literature or our
perception of it. OTOH, literary accuracy does! ;)
Also, there is no problem with a set of verbs imparting precise meanings.
In fact it would be encouraged to make verbs as specific as possible. And
if we find a action which doesn't have a verb, one could, in theory, coin
a new specific one.
>> Thus `izzat karnA (expressing 'to respect') would be a compound verb
>> literally "to do izzat", whereas AdarnA (expressing 'to respect') would
>> be the corresponding non-compound verb [1].
>
> So, if "aadarnaa" and "'izzat karnaa" both mean "to respect" where is
> the problem? Don't languages have more than one way to express the same
> concept?
There is no problem meaning wise. And languages do have more than one way
to express the same concept - and that is a VERY good thing! Now, let's
turn the table on its head. How many times have you encountered "AdarnA"
in urdU literature? Then compare with how many times you have seen
"`izzat karnA". Now, ask: are we *really* using more than one way to
express the same concept? Or are we largely stuck with "`izzat karnA"
form? (That's what Mr. `Askari's essay prods you to think ... 5 decades
down the line! But I don't think it is what he intended. But it's a nice
side-effect.)
> Are "tiir" and "banduuq" indiginous? Please read on.
tIr and bandUq are not-indigenous. Precisely why they make good examples
as 'objects' for an 'indigenous' verb!
> Does "chorii karnaa" (to steal) fall in the category of compound verbs?
> Whether it does or not, it seems to me that "qatl karnaa" should fall in
> the same category as "chorii karnaa", don't you think? If it does and I
> believe it certainly does, what's the issue?
Robbery and Murder! What's on your mind, Naseer bAbU!! ;)
"ChOrI karnA" composed using "karnA" - a very generic verb - would, with
high probability, fall into the compound verb column. The most obvious
non-compound equivalent is "ChurAnA". There may be others too.
"qatl/KhU.n karnA" would be similarly compound. Guess what some of the
non-compound equivalents are: "mArnA", "hatnA", "vadHnA", "hannA", and
even "sulAnA"!
I didn't get your point here with "what's the issue" though ...
> I am surprised that janaab-i-'Askari feels vexed only by the Persian
> verbs "buudan" and "kardan" with Urdu counterparts being "honaa" and
> "karnaa". All the verbs above have their Farsi counterparts (aamadan,
> raftan, KHvurdan, giriftan,daadan, aavurdan, yaaftan, uftaadan) from
> which Urdu has acquired numerous constructions.
I don't know why he called out only those two forms. But that he did. As
I mentioned somewhere, the question of which generic verbs should be
included in the list of 'compound verb generators' is very easily a fuzzy
one. However, I believe, the point of Mr. `Askari's essay is not to call
out hOnA & karnA specifically, but to make us think about the relative
prominence given to compound constructions over non-compound ones.
>> [1] OTOH, `izzatnA, if such a verb existed in idiom, would be a non-
>> compound verb.
>
> I am glad it does n't!
>
> How would we say "he respected him" ...us ne use (?) izzataa! Yuck!!
Sure - that would be right. It's just that we are not acquainted with
this form - and so feel 'repulsed'. This clearly shows how rarely we
conjugate 'verbs' in urdU.
>> [2] We're fortunate that Platts has attempted to list the various
>> shades for each indigenous verb; so we should collectively be able to
>> (re)invent object usages/constructions based on those shades of meaning
>> and thus enrich our literary stock.
>
> This could be done without sending the so called non-indiginous verbs to
> the gallows, could n't it?
Of course. No one is sending *non-indigenous words* to the gallows. In
fact, bring on verbs like `izzatnA, qatlnA, faryAdnA, etc.! That'll only
enrich the language. And imagine the additional metrical possibilities we
get when we conjugate such verbs. [This is only my *personal stance*. Mr.
`Askari didn't in any way suggest this though. But he did hint at the
fact that *new* verbs haven't entered urdU recently.]
> I personally don't see any problem with having "mol lenaa" as well as
> "KHariidnaa". We can have jiibh, zabaan, lisaan simultaneously. gagan,
> ambar, aakaash, aasmaan, falak, and more. Is n't this exciting?
Agreed 100%! I don't think anyone (incl. Mr. `Askari Sb.) would disagree.
> How would janaab-i-'Askarii and his followers translate something like
> "to upgrade"? A simpleton like me will go for "upgrade karnaa"! I wonder
> what Platts' treasure-house has to offer in the form of one word
> indiginous verb?
I couldn't say what `Askari Sb. would have said, but ... umm ... why not
"upgrade-nA"?
Simple rule of thumb - just add a "nA" to every noun, and you get its
corresponding 'verbed' form :) (Much like English, I suppose, where you
just prefix a "to", and/or affix a "fy", to verbify a noun. Yes "verb" is
a noun! :) ).
cheers,
roshan
Roshan Kamath
> least a half-decent composition in this regard, I (for all my worth or,
> may I say, lack of worth!) am OUT OF HERE!
Dear R.K. Sahib,
Unfortunately, poetry cannot be completely disassociated from language
and it's use - they are intertwined as ever. In fact, when I had first
encountered Mr. `Askari's essay a couple of years ago, I had gone back to
see how many verbs I used - and was horror-struck to find that it was
really a few!
Anywho, recently I had the good fortune to quote Dr. Ali Minai's Ghazal
on another thread. Let me quote it again since it is relevant: Notice
specifically the use of gHOlnA and rOlnA (the latter verb is very rarely
encountered).
merI nazar ki tIrgI me.n KhwAb kHOltA rahA
tamAm rAt mujHse mAhtAb bOltA rahA
vuH ham-safar merA adA-ShanAs-e ra.Ng-o nUr tHA
qadam qadam na'I rutO.n ke bAb kHOltA rahA
merI nadAmatO.n ki jHOliyA.n tamAm bHar ga'I.n
vuH Chasm-e KhU.n-ChakA.n se la`l nAb rOltA rahA
vuH jis ki ulfatO.n ke sA'e mE.n amA.n milI mujHE
vuhI merE lahU me.n AftAb gHOltA rahA
nigAh-e ramz AShnah payAm-e ShaOq pA ga'I
hayA ki ChilmanO.n se yU.n ShabAb bOltA rahA
merI tamAm uljHanO.n k(A) hal kahI.n usI me.n tHA
mae.n bAr bAr Ek hI kitAb kHOltA rahA
Khirad savAl dar savAl pUChHtI ChalI ga'I
merE zamIr mE.n vuhI javAb bOltA rahA
Today, Afzal Sb. has also posted a Ghazal by Bisheshwar Prasad Sb. which
has a verb as the radIf.
Not everybody who contributes on ALUP is a de-facto 'poet' - some are
just interested in poetry. So, it may be a tad unfair to ask ALUP members
to compose a Ghazal - and at short notice. Also, I'm certain that many
'lurkers' are actively interested in the verb issue based on the personal
emails I've received. Just my pi cents.
Best regards,
roshan
Afzal A. Khan
>> B/W, if (in the next 3 or 4 days) none of you stalwarts comes up with at
>> least a half-decent composition in this regard, I (for all my worth or,
>> may I say, lack of worth!) am OUT OF HERE!
>
> Dear R.K. Sahib,
>
> Not everybody who contributes on ALUP is a de-facto 'poet' - some are
> just interested in poetry. So, it may be a tad unfair to ask ALUP members
> to compose a Ghazal - and at short notice. Also, I'm certain that many
> 'lurkers' are actively interested in the verb issue based on the personal
> emails I've received. Just my pi cents.
> roshan
Yeh behs jo chhiRee huwi hai, us men hissa lene ka mera koi iraada
to naheeN hai. {Ho sakta hai, ek do din men iraada badal jaaye !}
I think what RKS really meant was this : Try to come up with at
least a half-decent composition (using whichever kind of vocabulary
and type of verbs you deem suitable or necessary) and THEN indulge
in this type of discussion. And if you can't, then stop further
discussion. Seemingly, the implication is obvious.
Afzal
Roshan Kamath
> least a half-decent composition (using whichever kind of
> vocabulary and type of verbs you deem suitable or necessary) and
> THEN indulge in this type of discussion. And if you can't, then
> stop further discussion. Seemingly, the implication is obvious.
Umm ... Afzal Sb., what's the connection between it necessarily being
*our* compositions and participating in this thread? If it helps, as an
example of verb usage, I've already quoted Dr. Ali Minai's Ghazal. One
can opine away on that particular if one so desires.
However, I don't see why we have to compose our Ghazals or even discuss
this under the context of a specific Ghazal of ours, but are prohibited
from discussing this under the larger context of the urdU poetry in
general? Mr. `Askari's essay clearly includes the sphere of urdU poetry
at large, not a specific poet per se.
Anywho, if anyone has comments w.r.t Mr. `Askari's article or w.r.t the
lists I filtered, I'll only be too glad to indulge. My point of starting
this thread was to share the verb lists, which I did in my very first
post.
Best regards,
roshan
Kali Hawa
> On Apr 25, 5:15 am, Raj Kumar <rajkumarq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I have been following this thread with a lot of diligence and, I might
> >say, with some diffidence too. Believe me, I can now see --- more
> >clearly than ever --- why most down-to-earth Urdu lovers got turned
> >off ALUP! :(
>
> erudite author in this post wrote thus:
>
> >At that time, we had people taking up cudgels on behalf of the "uncouth masses", justifying these as 'new' >pronunciations on the basis of linguistic evolution.
>
> anybody- person or group or whatever? Aren't we really putting off
> people here? On what higher ground one would be to view others in a
> forum like this? I have seen people making off-the-cut remarks here,
> but this borders on limits of indecency and impropreity.
>
> Regards,
> al Hindi
In college one of my highbrow teachers once responded violently by
growling “I have only contempt for average people” to a student's
suggestion "….but average people do it this way!”
One student said meekly,” Aren’t we all designed to be average? Those
who excel or lag are aberrations.”
Naseer
ham ALUP vaaloN ke liye kitnii KHushii kii baat hai kih aap ne apne
"hujre" ko chhoRa hai awr bastii ke duusre logoN ke "aashiyaane" meN
aa kar unheN sharf-yaab kiyaa hai:)
On Apr 25, 1:15 am, Raj Kumar <rajkumarq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> janaab-e-Raushan saahib, janaab-e-UVR saahib aur janaab-e-Naseer
> saahib:
>
> I have been following this thread with a lot of diligence and, I might
> say, with some diffidence too. Believe me, I can now see --- more
> clearly than ever --- why most down-to-earth Urdu lovers got turned
> off ALUP! :(
mujhe afsos hai kih aap kii raae meN muHibbaan-i-Urdu, bazm-i-ALUP se
kinaarah-kashii is bunyaad par kar rahe haiN kyoNkih yahaaN par vaqt-
an favaqt-an Urdu zabaan zer-i-bahs aatii hai. mujhe is baat par
Hairaanii huii hai kih aap ke nazdiik ALUP meN gahmaa-gahmii kii kamii
kaa sabab yih zabaan-vaabastah mauzuu' haiN.
Bazm-i-ALUP ke aaiin ke mutaabiq (jis kii bunyaad 3 March 1997 ko
rakhii gaii thii) janaab-i-Khursheed Ahmed Sahib, aGhraaz-o-maqaasid
ke zer-i-'unvaan, yih farmaate haiN..
The main objectives of this Newsgroup are:
1) To provide a worldwide forum to share Urdu poetry on Internet
2) To provide discussion about Urdu language, literature and poetry...
to aap dekh hii rahe haiN kih ham log jo is qism kii bahs meN Hissah
lete haiN, yih sab-kuchh apne jumhuurii Haq ke taHt karte haiN. ham
aaiin-shikanii nahiiN kar rahe haiN:)
maziid bar aaN, kaun kisii ko majbuur kartaa hai kih is qism kii be-
mazah awr KHushk baHs meN shirkat kare. aap agar insaaf kii nazroN se
dekheN to is vaqt bhii kam az kam ek darjan laRiyaaN ravaaN (ravaaN-
davaaN nahiiN(: ) jin meN 'aashiqaan-i-Urdu Hissah le sakte haiN. awr
agar yih mazaamiin un kii marzii ke mutaabiq nahiiN haiN to vuh aHbaab
apne man-pasand mauzuu'aat par mabnii silsile shuruu' kar sakte haiN
awr agar un kii razaa hai to in "sar-phiroN" ke jhoNpRe meN bi_lkul
nah jhaaNkeN:)
> My dear friends, kindly stop this "other-worldly" discussion of 'this
> and that' and transcend back to the "Mother Earth" where you really
> belong --- for God's sake, please stop this 'overly scholarly'
> dialogue and, for my sake (and for the sake of other ALUPers), I
> implore each one of you to go back to your study and compose a Ghazal
> that does PROPER justice to the usage of Urdu verbs, as Raushan saahib
> has advocated --- regardless of whether those verbs are indigenous or
> not!
Huzuur, aap ne bhii gaahe ba-gaahe zabaan ke silsile meN kisii nah
kisii laRii meN zaruur Hissah liyaa ho gaa, masalan kisii lafz ke
baare meN kih aayaa vuh Farsi kaa hai, yaa Hindiiu_lasl hai vaGhairah.
Haal hii meN ek garmaa-garm baHs "Josh Malihabadi ki ek nazm" ke
dauraan chhiR gaii. is ke ba'd Vijay Sahib ne bhii zabaan ke baare meN
nah kuchh kahte kahte bhii bahut kuchh kah Daalaa. aaj hii maiN dekh
rahaa huuN kih Kala Sahib ne Afzal Sahib kii baat ko "challenge" kiyaa
hai. ho saktaa hai kih Afzal Sahib ke javaab meN koii aisii baat
shaamil ho jis se awr log bhii shaamil ho jaaeN. kahne kaa maqsad yih
hai, janaab-i-qaabil-i-sad iHtiraam, kih kaii baar koii ek soche
samjhe mansuube ke taHt is qism kii "laRaaii" meN nahiiN Hissah letaa,
bas aisaa kuchh ho jaataa hai. mere nazdiik, agar ham sab log ek
duusre ke nuqtah-i-nazar ke iHtaraam ko zihn meN rakheN awr guft-o-guu
ko tahziib ke daa'ire se baahar nah nikalne deN to koii mas'alah
nahiiN hai.
>
> B/W, if (in the next 3 or 4 days) none of you stalwarts comes up with
> at least a half-decent composition in this regard, I (for all my worth
> or, may I say, lack of worth!) am OUT OF HERE!
merii nihaayat mu'addabaanah awr pur-KHuluus guzaarish hai kih aap
apne Ghusse ko thuuk diijiye awr hameN is Haal-i-zaar meN nah
chhoriye. aap kii mihr-baanii ho gii.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Vinay
> On Apr 24, 2:04 pm, Vinay <v9y....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 4:30 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's what I'm talking about. I think it is myopic in the extreme to
> > > simply dismiss all 'compound verbs' created by "karnaa" or "honaa"
> > > with a sweeping wave of the hand. What's a indigenous one-
> > > word verb that means "mutma'in hona" or "santuShT karnaa"?
>
> > I never dismissed all compound verbs. In fact, I didn't dismiss even
> > one. I think many of them got into the language to fill a void. These
> > compound verbs actually help us express actions that were not possible
> > using the ones already available to the language. I am talking about
> > the ones that already have perfect and precise equivalents.
>
> And what is the reason we should not give the poet the
> benefit of believing that s/he used the precise verb (non-
> compound or compound) that s/he really wanted to,
> without impugning his/her contribution to (or detraction
> from) the strenght of the language used in his/her work?
>
I am not arguing that any poet's selection of words are *wrong*. A
poet has every right and reason to use a specific variant which he/she
thinks suits better. As I said earlier, it is not about a specific
poet or even a set of poets. It is about the whole. It is surprising
for me to note, if Mr. Askari is right, that a generation of Urdu
poetry has not used well over half of the verbs available to it.
> In a different post on this thread you said poetry is a
> much more deliberate and thoughtful creation than street
> speech. I agree. That the precise reason it's (to me)
> silly to just dismiss compound verbs outrightly -- even
> if they have perfect and precise equivalents in other
> verbs. There was a reason the poet did what s/he did,
> wasn't there?
>
I agree but I told you what I meant. And it's not just about
replacements of some compound verbs with an equivalent direct verb
(for lack of a better term thanks to my limited grammar knowledge). It
is about not using a whole lot of them (which actually do not have a
precise equivalent compound verb) at all.
I also want to clarify that when I say "compound verb" I mean exactly
the verbs as shown by Roshan Sb. in his mails. Compound verbs
technically can mean other verb forms like a combination of two verbs
to create a different meaning altogether e.g. maar Daalanaa, which are
a different beast altogether.
Vinay
> -UVR.
UVR
> On Apr 25, 5:15 am, Raj Kumar <rajkumarq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I have been following this thread with a lot of diligence and, I might
> >say, with some diffidence too. Believe me, I can now see --- more
> >clearly than ever --- why most down-to-earth Urdu lovers got turned
> >off ALUP! :(
>
> erudite author in this post wrote thus:
>
> >At that time, we had people taking up cudgels on behalf of the "uncouth masses", justifying these as 'new' >pronunciations on the basis of linguistic evolution.
>
> UNCOUTH MASSES?? Was it really warranted to use such words about
> anybody- person or group or whatever? Aren't we really putting off
> people here? On what higher ground one would be to view others in a
> forum like this? I have seen people making off-the-cut remarks here,
> but this borders on limits of indecency and impropreity.
>
> Regards,
> al Hindi
This time I will not apologize for "offending you", Sachin saahib,
for the fact of the matter is, you are simply being too touchy,
and taking umbrage at a statement made with reference to the
millions of people in the real world who say "fir" -- you're just one
of them, and (I will assert this strongly) you aren't even their
elected sole representative on ALUP. I was not referring to you
by the phrase 'uncouth masses'.
As for the phrase itself, yes, I used it. So sue me.
-UVR.
UVR
You know full well, dear respected RK saahib, that I,
for one, am most unequal to this challenge. I shall
therefore take the alternative of "butting out" of this
thread and staying there.
That said, I must state that I am truly least concerned
if people leave or come to ALUP due to my (or others')
discussions with other people. Our beloved newsgroup
has weathered many a drought, and I am quite certain
it will continue to retain its robust health with or without
these people you speak of. If you're right in saying
that these people have left (or are ready to forsake)
ALUP, _their own_ beloved newsgroup, just because
of threads and discussions such as these, then it's
also true that these selfsame ALUP-lovers cannot be
bothered to do anything about "fixing the mess" on
ALUP, _their_ beloved newsgroup. Well, then. This
"sitting in one's seat and seething silently" was never
a way of getting what one wants.
The reason I'll be staying out of this thread is that
YOU have voiced your opinion of it and your opinion
holds weight for me. You couldn't, however, pay me
enough to care about those "silent seethers".
-UVR.
Vinay
If you read my response to your other mail which I just posted it
should be apparent that I am not talking about automatic replacement.
Other than that what you are basically asking is why I like what I
like. Although it doesn't add any value to the basic discussion I will
give you some reasons why I might like them.
* I hear them all the time at other places. I have grown up hearing
verbs like uchaTanaa, a/uDiikanaa, jananaa, ugha.Danaa etc. around me.
I connect to them and their meanings in a more instant and direct
manner.
* They are obscure. This is a catch 22 kind of thing because if poets
use them a lot, they will not remain obscure and thus they will
probably lose the charm for me. 'baalanaa' is one example. Even though
it has a non-compound equivalent 'jalaanaa', it somehow appeals me
more as it is used in that song.
* I like the sound of most of them. u.Dasanaa/urasanaa ('tuune saa.Dii
me.n u.Das lii hai.n chaabhiyaa.N ghar kii'), biijanaa (megh-malhaar
ke sapane biije.n). It is not surprising that I like Gulzar who seems
to be using a lot of them; both examples are from him.
But again, these are all personal reasons. They may not work the same
way for all.
Vinay
> If not, WHAT IS the basic point that is being asserted via
> segregation of verbs into 'compound' and 'non-compound'
> (or, if you prefer you may answer this question about
> indigenous and non-indigenous verbs, or about any other
> classification that is used divide verbs into 'good to use'
> and 'not so good to use' lists)?
>
> -UVR.- Hide quoted text -
Naseer
On Apr 25, 1:56 am, Roshan Kamath <ros...@fake.doma.in> wrote:
> >> Thus `izzat karnA (expressing 'to respect') would be a compound verb
> >> literally "to do izzat", whereas AdarnA (expressing 'to respect') would
> >> be the corresponding non-compound verb [1].
>
> > So, if "aadarnaa" and "'izzat karnaa" both mean "to respect" where is
> > the problem? Don't languages have more than one way to express the same
> > concept?
>
> There is no problem meaning wise. And languages do have more than one way
> to express the same concept - and that is a VERY good thing! Now, let's
> turn the table on its head. How many times have you encountered "AdarnA"
> in urdU literature? Then compare with how many times you have seen
> "`izzat karnA". Now, ask: are we *really* using more than one way to
> express the same concept? Or are we largely stuck with "`izzat karnA"
> form? (That's what Mr. `Askari's essay prods you to think ... 5 decades
> down the line! But I don't think it is what he intended. But it's a nice
> side-effect.)
Yes we *are* using more than one way to express the same concept and
we are not stuck with "'izzat karnaa" alone. Here are a few more
examples.
adab karnaa
iHtiraam karnaa,
i'zaaz karnaa
'aziiz gin_naa/rakhnaa
tauqiir karnaa
takriim karnaa
ta'ziim karnaa
liHaaz karnaa
(se) aaNkh lagaanaa
> > Does "chorii karnaa" (to steal) fall in the category of compound verbs?
> > Whether it does or not, it seems to me that "qatl karnaa" should fall in
> > the same category as "chorii karnaa", don't you think? If it does and I
> > believe it certainly does, what's the issue?
>
> Robbery and Murder! What's on your mind, Naseer bAbU!! ;)
>
> "ChOrI karnA" composed using "karnA" - a very generic verb - would, with
> high probability, fall into the compound verb column. The most obvious
> non-compound equivalent is "ChurAnA". There may be others too.
>
> "qatl/KhU.n karnA" would be similarly compound. Guess what some of the
> non-compound equivalents are: "mArnA", "hatnA", "vadHnA", "hannA", and
> even "sulAnA"!
>
> I didn't get your point here with "what's the issue" though ...
The point is very straightforward. If "chori karnaa" is an acceptable
"indigenous" compound verb derived from the noun "chorii", "qatl
karnaa" (along with the rest of the "Persio/Arabic root+karnaa/honaa"
compound verbs) should be *equally* acceptable. Is n't this logical?
> > I am surprised that janaab-i-'Askari feels vexed only by the Persian
> > verbs "buudan" and "kardan" with Urdu counterparts being "honaa" and
> > "karnaa". All the verbs above have their Farsi counterparts (aamadan,
> > raftan, KHvurdan, giriftan,daadan, aavurdan, yaaftan, uftaadan) from
> > which Urdu has acquired numerous constructions.
>
> I don't know why he called out only those two forms. But that he did. As
> I mentioned somewhere, the question of which generic verbs should be
> included in the list of 'compound verb generators' is very easily a fuzzy
> one. However, I believe, the point of Mr. `Askari's essay is not to call
> out hOnA & karnA specifically, but to make us think about the relative
> prominence given to compound constructions over non-compound ones.
This is how the language has taken its natural, un-forced, non-
deliberate course. If non-compound verbs have fallen by the way side,
this is unfortunate perhaps but not a malicious act on the part of the
speakers of the language.
> >> [1] OTOH, `izzatnA, if such a verb existed in idiom, would be a non-
> >> compound verb.
>
> > I am glad it does n't!
>
> > How would we say "he respected him" ...us ne use (?) izzataa! Yuck!!
>
> Sure - that would be right. It's just that we are not acquainted with
> this form - and so feel 'repulsed'. This clearly shows how rarely we
> conjugate 'verbs' in urdU.
Surely we conjugate verbs in Urdu all the time!
> >> [2] We're fortunate that Platts has attempted to list the various
> >> shades for each indigenous verb; so we should collectively be able to
> >> (re)invent object usages/constructions based on those shades of meaning
> >> and thus enrich our literary stock.
>
> > This could be done without sending the so called non-indiginous verbs to
> > the gallows, could n't it?
>
> Of course. No one is sending *non-indigenous words* to the gallows. In
> fact, bring on verbs like `izzatnA, qatlnA, faryAdnA, etc.! That'll only
> enrich the language. And imagine the additional metrical possibilities we
> get when we conjugate such verbs. [This is only my *personal stance*. Mr.
> `Askari didn't in any way suggest this though. But he did hint at the
> fact that *new* verbs haven't entered urdU recently.]
Earlier you have said that verbs like "'izzat-naa" would still be
termed as "non-indigenous". So, even after going through this
"purification" process, these verbs have yet to attain the sanctity
which the "indigenous" verbs enjoy. What benefit would we enjoy by
employing "'izzat-naa" in place of "'izzat karnaa"? And why are we
forcing this upon "'izzat karnaa" and its remaining community when
"chorii karnaa" is allowed to cuddle up with its "indigenous"
community. I see nothing but blatant descrimination, don't you?
> > How would janaab-i-'Askarii and his followers translate something like
> > "to upgrade"? A simpleton like me will go for "upgrade karnaa"! I wonder
> > what Platts' treasure-house has to offer in the form of one word
> > indiginous verb?
>
> I couldn't say what `Askari Sb. would have said, but ... umm ... why not
> "upgrade-nA"?
>
> Simple rule of thumb - just add a "nA" to every noun, and you get its
> corresponding 'verbed' form :) (Much like English, I suppose, where you
> just prefix a "to", and/or affix a "fy", to verbify a noun. Yes "verb" is
> a noun! :) ).
Yes, again its all very well saying that all we need to do is to add "-
naa" to the noun and hey presto we have a kosher verb. BUT exactly
what are we gaining
apart from"ham be-KHudii meN tum ko up-grad-e chale gae!!:)
If I were to summarize janaab-i-'Askari's views on "non-indigenous"
compound verbs, it would be as follows.
1) Urdu literature, since its "early" days has stagnated and one of
the main reasons for this has been its speakers imitating and
mirroring the Farsi system of verb formation (verbs like buudan and
kardan) through "honaa" and "karnaa".
2) This has been at the cost of "indiginous" verbs which have been
rounded up and deported to oblivioustaan!
Let us look at no.1 first. It is my submission that this method of
verb formation already existed in the language even before adopting
the Farsi buudan/kardan system. "chorii karnaa" "biyaah karnaa" "laaj
rakhnaa" are just a few examples. Farsi and Arabic nouns/adjectives
allowed for the existing stock of "compound" verbs to be immensely
expanded. If the non-compound verbs were that "adequate" and "useful"
they would not have met the fate they did. You have yourself said the
following.
"But if you still need some words from me to set your heart at rest,
consider that one encounters many compound verbs in literature. So,
how
about we give non-compound verbs their '15 seconds of fame in the
limelight'? Just look at the number of them that haven't probably
seen
the light of day in literature in the past 150 years."
The implication here is that even these unholy compound verbs are also
in danger of becoming extinct, or at least, their number is dwindling.
So, who is responsible for chucking these out?
As for 2) you have "mined" 4171 verbs from Platts' "minefield". Even a
language genious would not necessarily have full command of all these
verbs, be he KHusrau, Kabiir, Miir, Ghalib or anyone else, let alone
ordinary folk. Again I am quoting you.
"So, I mined the online version of Platts' dictionary for verb entries
and kept a running list. In doing so, I was often surprised by how
many verbs I was completely unaware of. In some cases, I was surprised
that many compound verbs used in urdU actually have a non-compound
equivalent, but I'd never
encountered them in literature."
Is n't the implication that even our literati are not necessarily
aware of these hidden gems? Or perhaps they were aware of some but did
not feel the need to use them. I would very much be interested in
finding out the sources of Urdu/Hindi literature Platts had a recourse
to. That would give us an indication as to where he came across these
anmol-ratans. I would also be interested to know if Hindi speakers/
writers have retained some if not all of these forgotton non-compound
verbs.
Please, Roshan Sahib, do not misunderstand me. If I could bring back
every lost word of Urdu (or any other language for that matter), I
would and I would support all efforts to "rehabilitate" all these lost
souls. But this would be a very artificial process. Languages,
generally follow a natural course of events.
"Non-indigenous non-compound verbs: I just mentioned elsewhere that I
encountered only a minor handful of these. I was surprised actually
that
there were as many as I encountered! I had only expected one or two.
Offhand, here are the ones I can remember and I think fall in this
category: muskiyAnA, miKhiyAnA, KharIdnA, zidnA, qubUlnA, etc"
Let me give you one or two more. But, what's the point. they are still
"non-indigenous"!:)
badalnaa
KHariidnaa
sharmaanaa
aazmaanaa
farmaanaa
Ghurraanaa
baKHshnaa
taraashnaa
rangnaa
guzarnaa
navaaznaa
(talaashnaa and qubuulnaa seem a bit "iffy" to me....perhaps illegal
immigrants:))
"KharIdnA at least may be considered 'assimilated' into the
indigenous
garb. Don't know about the others"
Perhaps it has been on its best behaviour and has earned the
indiginous passport:)
"Strictly speaking *any* verb used in urdU *must* be indigenous
because it
is used in urdU - an indic tongue! :-D Just kidding! What most people
(and certainly I) mean with 'indigenous verb' is that the etymology
of
the verb is indic. Maybe we should call them indic-genous!"
As I have already said,I think we need to get out of this obsession
with aboriginal and alien concepts. You quoted MajruuH Sultaanpurii 's
following couplet.
zabA.n hamAri na samjHA yahA.n ko'I "majrUh"
ham ajnabI ki tarah apne hI vatan me.n rahE
Read "ajnabii" as "non-indigenous".
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Raj Kumar
> > B/W, if (in the next 3 or 4 days) none of you stalwarts comes up with at
> > least a half-decent composition in this regard, I (for all my worth or,
> > may I say, lack of worth!) am OUT OF HERE!
>
> Dear R.K. Sahib,
>
> Unfortunately, poetry cannot be completely disassociated from language
> and it's use - they are intertwined as ever.
We all know that, Roshan bhaa'ii!
> In fact, when I had first
> encountered Mr. `Askari's essay a couple of years ago, I had gone back to
> see how many verbs I used - and was horror-struck to find that it was
> really a few!
So what, Roshan saahib? I can't understand why you were "horror-
struck" at that discovery!
My honest take on this is: I don't care HOW MANY verbs you used in
your compositions (20, 200 or 2000) --- what matters is "how
effectively" you used them!!! That, my friend, is the FINAL criterion!
> Anywho, recently I had the good fortune to quote Dr. Ali Minai's Ghazal
> on another thread. Let me quote it again since it is relevant: Notice
> specifically the use of gHOlnA and rOlnA (the latter verb is very rarely
> encountered).
>
> merI nazar ki tIrgI me.n KhwAb kHOltA rahA
> tamAm rAt mujHse mAhtAb bOltA rahA
>
> vuH ham-safar merA adA-ShanAs-e ra.Ng-o nUr tHA
> qadam qadam na'I rutO.n ke bAb kHOltA rahA
>
> merI nadAmatO.n ki jHOliyA.n tamAm bHar ga'I.n
> vuH Chasm-e KhU.n-ChakA.n se la`l nAb rOltA rahA
>
> vuH jis ki ulfatO.n ke sA'e mE.n amA.n milI mujHE
> vuhI merE lahU me.n AftAb gHOltA rahA
>
> nigAh-e ramz AShnah payAm-e ShaOq pA ga'I
> hayA ki ChilmanO.n se yU.n ShabAb bOltA rahA
>
> merI tamAm uljHanO.n k(A) hal kahI.n usI me.n tHA
> mae.n bAr bAr Ek hI kitAb kHOltA rahA
>
> Khirad savAl dar savAl pUChHtI ChalI ga'I
> merE zamIr mE.n vuhI javAb bOltA rahA
Roshan bhaiyya, mera yihii to ronaa thaa k aap jo kuchh bhi keh rahe
haiN use, deegar ALUPers tak pahuNchaane ke liye, thoRii-bahut
misaaleN to deejiye, taake ham 'pedestrians' par aap ki baat vaazeh ho
sake!
jaisa k aap ne farmaaya, is Ghazal meiN "gholtaa" aur "roltaa"
Khusuusi taur se 'qaabil-e-notice' haiN! ;)
baat to aap ki Theek hai magar hamaare kuchh sho'araa ne in verbs ko
yaqeenan barta hai aur nihaayat Khoobii se barta hai:
verb "gholnaa" ke iste'maal par to faqat aek umoomi sa misr'a hi
kaafii hai ---
"jaane, kyaa "ghol ke" saaqii ne pilaa rakkhaa hai"?
aur agar aap is verb ka Khusuusi ist'emaal dekhne ke mutamanni hoN to
aap Firaaq saahib ke yeh ash'aar dekhiye:
kaun kare hai baateN mujh se tanhaa'ii ke parde meiN?
aise meiN kis kii aavaazeN kaanoN meiN ras gholeN haiN?
chhalkaati hai jo aaNkh nigaahoN se gulaabii
is parde meiN voh zaihr bhi kuchh ghol rahii hai!
rahi baar "rolne" ki to aek baar phir Firaaq saahib hi ke do aur sh'er
suniye:
aab-o-taab-e-ash'aar na puuchho, tum bhii aaNkheN rakkho ho!
yeh jag-mag battiyoN ki damak hai yaa ham motii roleN haiN!!!
shabnam ki damak hai k shab-e-maah ki devii?
motii sar-e-gulzaar-e-jahaaaN rol rahii hai!
aur yahaaN to aap ka Khaaksaar bhi peechhe naheeN rahaa; farmaata
hai: :)
ham ne is baihr-e-kam-o-kaif meiN kyaa kuchh na kiyaa?
kabhi tuufaan uThaaye, kabhi motii role!
gustaaKhii mu'aaf, Roshan saahib (aur Miinaa'ii saahib) --- kahaaN
"motii rolnaa" aur kahaaN "Chashm-e KhU.n-ChakA.n se la`l nAb
rOlnA"?
> Today, Afzal Sb. has also posted a Ghazal by Bisheshwar Prasad Sb. which
> has a verb as the radIf.
Yes, I saw that --- it was certainly enjoyable to read that Ghazal
(or, may I say, a "musalsal Ghazal" or a "Ghazal-numaa nazm"?). No
doubt, Munshi BP saahib managed to give us an excellent composition
but --- how does it address to Askari saahib's concern for the usage
of verbs? BP saahib indeed used lafz "baras' as a verb as his radeef
but, as a part of radeef, itt remained just one and only one verb!
There were possibly other verbs in that composition; however ---
choosing a verb as radeef doesn't answer any of Askarii's concerns! It
would make much more sense if one used verbs as qavaafii rather than
radeef!
Now, I am no great a poet --- in fact, I am a pygmy in comparison with
the stalwarts I often refer to. Even so, in my Ghazal "kyooN baaGh-e-
tamannaa ko is tar'h ujaaRaa hai' --- which, a short while ago,
appeared on ALUP and you might have seen it --- I used at least seven
verbs of the type you seem to be looking for!
This takes me back to Askarii's assertion that, in Urdu literature,
hardly 100 verbs have been used --- plain nonsense!
I can bet that, in my own 150 or so Gahzals, I have used many more
verbs than 100. And if I check the kalaam of esaatiza, the number
would easily swell to a figure close to 1000!
In any case, why should anyone demand --- or expect --- that, while
penning his thought onto a piece of paper, a poet should keep a set of
dictionaries (or the list you have so laboriously compiled) in front
of him and strive his best to use this verb and that verb, so as to
please Askarii S.
No, Sir, I'll never follow that route! In my compositins, I'll use
only those words --- may they be verbs, nouns or (my favorite)
adjectives --- that I find myself comfortable with. And my observation
is that most of my listeners go happily along with that!
One more point, Roshan saahib, ---- I too have often resorted to
dictionaries but ONLY to resolve any doubts I might have about this
word or that, I don't use (and will never use) dictionaries to guide
me as to which words I employ in my compositions!
So, sorry, mere bhaa'ii, your list of verbs may well be a highly
commendable effort on your part but, alas, it will be of no use to me!
Don't be offended by this remark, Roshan bhaa'ii, because I myself, in
my own field of mathematical physics, have carried out a number of
strenuous tasks in the past that, looking back, turned out to be no
good for anyone --- including myself!
> Not everybody who contributes on ALUP is a de-facto 'poet' - some are
> just interested in poetry. So, it may be a tad unfair to ask ALUP members
> to compose a Ghazal - and at short notice.
I understand that --- In fact, I whole-heartedly accept your
suggestion that my suggestion (or challange) might have been a tad
unfair, but my point really was --------------------------- bhaa'ii
mere, aap jo kuchh bhi keh rahe haiN bar_haq ho sakta hai magar,
Bhagvaan ke liye, aap kuchh aisi misaaleN bhi to deN jin se aap ki
baat ham sabhoN par vaazeh ho sake!
I am glad, you quoted at least Miinaa'ii saahib's Ghazal which did
clarify the situation a little bit!
> Also, I'm certain that many
> 'lurkers' are actively interested in the verb issue based on the personal
> emails I've received. Just my pi cents.
I don't dispute your statement, Sir, however I often receive not just
e-mails but direct phone calls from former ALUPers who think
otherwise!
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Raj Kumar
>
> You know full well, dear respected RK saahib, that I,
> for one, am most unequal to this challenge.
Wrong, wrong, wrong --- as usual, wrong! :)
> I shall
> therefore take the alternative of "butting out" of this
> thread and staying there.
raah ko'ii bhi ho, har moR pe ham baiThe haiN!
dekheN, jaataa hai kidhar ruuTh ke jaane vaalaa? ;)
> That said, I must state that I am truly least concerned
> if people leave or come to ALUP due to my (or others')
> discussions with other people. Our beloved newsgroup
> has weathered many a drought, and I am quite certain
> it will continue to retain its robust health with or without
> these people you speak of. If you're right in saying
> that these people have left (or are ready to forsake)
> ALUP, _their own_ beloved newsgroup, just because
> of threads and discussions such as these, then it's
> also true that these selfsame ALUP-lovers cannot be
> bothered to do anything about "fixing the mess" on
> ALUP, _their_ beloved newsgroup. Well, then. This
> "sitting in one's seat and seething silently" was never
> a way of getting what one wants.
I agree with practically everything said here --- with one difference!
And that is:
I DO get concerned when people leave ALUP for whatever reason they do!
dekhiye, maiN Khud kuchh baras pehle yahaaN se duur chalaa gayaa thaa
--- is liye naheeN k maiN ALUP se uchaaT ho gayaa thaa bal-k is liye k
mere kuchh azeez-tareeN dostoN ne mujhe un ke apne 'websites' par aane
ke liye majbuur kiyaa thaa! aur jab maiN, Naseer saahib aur Zoya
saahiba ke mahabbat-aamez dabaao ke taiht vaapas lauTaa to maiN ne kam-
az-kam 5-7 ex-ALUPers ki Khidmat meiN bhi yahaaN vaapas lauTne ki
guzaarish kii. magar afsos k un meiN se kisii ne bhi merii na maani
--- yeh keh kar k "ALUP par ab "voh baat" naheeN rahii jo pehle thi!
ab zor yahaaN shaa'irii par naheeN hai, bal-k linguistics par hai aur
yahaaN ki beshtar posts be-had Khushk haiN"! :(
Even so, I decided to stick around -------------- and you know very
well that, once in the recent past, when you (for some personal
reasons) didn't show up on ALUP for about two weeks, I went ahead and
searched out for you to find out if you are OK. Luckily, the reason
for your absence turned out to be much more pleasant than I had
feared"!!!
That is me, Ravindra saahib!
> The reason I'll be staying out of this thread is that
> YOU have voiced your opinion of it and your opinion
> holds weight for me. You couldn't, however, pay me
> enough to care about those "silent seethers".
I can't tell you, azeez-e-man, how profoundly I'm overwhelmed by your
response to my plea, but I surely can't ask you to care about any
other "silent, or not-so-silent, seethers"!
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Raj Kumar
> janaab-i-muHtaram Raj Kumar Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> ham ALUP vaaloN ke liye kitnii KHushii kii baat hai kih aap ne apne
> "hujre" ko chhoRa hai awr bastii ke duusre logoN ke "aashiyaane" meN
> aa kar unheN sharf-yaab kiyaa hai:)
Naseer-e-man, yeh "aana-jaana" to is jahaan kaa ruuz-e-avval hi se
dustuur rahaa hai -------
ko'ii aataa hai, ko'ii jaataa hai magar qaafila hai k aNdhaa-dhuNd sar-
garm-e-safar rehtaa hai!
And that is what ALUP is going to do!
> mujhe afsos hai kih aap kii raae meN muHibbaan-i-Urdu, bazm-i-ALUP se
> kinaarah-kashii is bunyaad par kar rahe haiN kyoNkih yahaaN par vaqt-
> an favaqt-an Urdu zabaan zer-i-bahs aatii hai. mujhe is baat par
> Hairaanii huii hai kih aap ke nazdiik ALUP meN gahmaa-gahmii kii kamii
> kaa sabab yih zabaan-vaabastah mauzuu' haiN.
jii haaN, go k (ba-zaat-e-Khud) maiN Urdu shaa'irii ka bhi dil-daada
hooN aur Urdu zabaan ka bhi --- magar vaaq'ea yeh hai k hamaare deegar
azeezoN aur azeeziyoN ki suurat-e-haal kuchh digar hai! :(
> Bazm-i-ALUP ke aaiin ke mutaabiq (jis kii bunyaad 3 March 1997 ko
> rakhii gaii thii) janaab-i-Khursheed Ahmed Sahib, aGhraaz-o-maqaasid
> ke zer-i-'unvaan, yih farmaate haiN..
>
> The main objectives of this Newsgroup are:
>
> 1) To provide a worldwide forum to share Urdu poetry on Internet
> 2) To provide discussion about Urdu language, literature and poetry...
>
> to aap dekh hii rahe haiN kih ham log jo is qism kii bahs meN Hissah
> lete haiN, yih sab-kuchh apne jumhuurii Haq ke taHt karte haiN. ham
> aaiin-shikanii nahiiN kar rahe haiN:)
kaun kehta hai k aap is 'forum' ke buniyaadii usuuloN se munharif ho
rahe haiN --- at least, I never said so!
kehne ki baat yeh hai k hameN apne naazireen ki tab'a ko bhi madd-e-
nazar rakhna chaaiye --- varna yeh nehfil chaNd gine-chune ashKhaas ka
'takiya' ban kar reh jaaye gii!
> maziid bar aaN, kaun kisii ko majbuur kartaa hai kih is qism kii be-
> mazah awr KHushk baHs meN shirkat kare. aap agar insaaf kii nazroN se
> dekheN to is vaqt bhii kam az kam ek darjan laRiyaaN ravaaN (ravaaN-
> davaaN nahiiN(: ) jin meN 'aashiqaan-i-Urdu Hissah le sakte haiN. awr
> agar yih mazaamiin un kii marzii ke mutaabiq nahiiN haiN to vuh aHbaab
> apne man-pasand mauzuu'aat par mabnii silsile shuruu' kar sakte haiN
> awr agar un kii razaa hai to in "sar-phiroN" ke jhoNpRe meN bi_lkul
> nah jhaaNkeN:)
Very true, Naseer saahib, however I can't bend anyone's neck to see
eye-to-eye with you!
> > My dear friends, kindly stop this "other-worldly" discussion of 'this
> > and that' and transcend back to the "Mother Earth" where you really
> > belong --- for God's sake, please stop this 'overly scholarly'
> > dialogue and, for my sake (and for the sake of other ALUPers), I
> > implore each one of you to go back to your study and compose a Ghazal
> > that does PROPER justice to the usage of Urdu verbs, as Raushan saahib
> > has advocated --- regardless of whether those verbs are indigenous or
> > not!
>
> Huzuur, aap ne bhii gaahe ba-gaahe zabaan ke silsile meN kisii nah
> kisii laRii meN zaruur Hissah liyaa ho gaa, masalan kisii lafz ke
> baare meN kih aayaa vuh Farsi kaa hai, yaa Hindiiu_lasl hai vaGhairah.
> Haal hii meN ek garmaa-garm baHs "Josh Malihabadi ki ek nazm" ke
> dauraan chhiR gaii. is ke ba'd Vijay Sahib ne bhii zabaan ke baare meN
> nah kuchh kahte kahte bhii bahut kuchh kah Daalaa. aaj hii maiN dekh
> rahaa huuN kih Kala Sahib ne Afzal Sahib kii baat ko "challenge" kiyaa
> hai. ho saktaa hai kih Afzal Sahib ke javaab meN koii aisii baat
> shaamil ho jis se awr log bhii shaamil ho jaaeN. kahne kaa maqsad yih
> hai, janaab-i-qaabil-i-sad iHtiraam, kih kaii baar koii ek soche
> samjhe mansuube ke taHt is qism kii "laRaaii" meN nahiiN Hissah letaa,
> bas aisaa kuchh ho jaataa hai. mere nazdiik, agar ham sab log ek
> duusre ke nuqtah-i-nazar ke iHtaraam ko zihn meN rakheN awr guft-o-guu
> ko tahziib ke daa'ire se baahar nah nikalne deN to koii mas'alah
> nahiiN hai.
yaqeenan, agar ham aek duusre ke nuqta-e-nazar ko shaamil-e-Khaatir
rakkheN to yahaaN ko'ii bhi mas'ala paidaa naheeN hogaa ---- well, I
(for myself), can easily pledge on that but, alas, I can't vouch for
others! :(
> > B/W, if (in the next 3 or 4 days) none of you stalwarts comes up with
> > at least a half-decent composition in this regard, I (for all my worth
> > or, may I say, lack of worth!) am OUT OF HERE!
>
> merii nihaayat mu'addabaanah awr pur-KHuluus guzaarish hai kih aap
> apne Ghusse ko thuuk diijiye awr hameN is Haal-i-zaar meN nah
> chhoriye. aap kii mihr-baanii ho gii.
Got it! ;)
R.K.
Naseer
On Apr 27, 1:43 am, Raj Kumar <rajkumarq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > mujhe afsos hai kih aap kii raae meN muHibbaan-i-Urdu, bazm-i-ALUP se
> > kinaarah-kashii is bunyaad par kar rahe haiN kyoNkih yahaaN par vaqt-
> > an favaqt-an Urdu zabaan zer-i-bahs aatii hai. mujhe is baat par
> > Hairaanii huii hai kih aap ke nazdiik ALUP meN gahmaa-gahmii kii kamii
> > kaa sabab yih zabaan-vaabastah mauzuu' haiN.
>
> jii haaN, go k (ba-zaat-e-Khud) maiN Urdu shaa'irii ka bhi dil-daada
> hooN aur Urdu zabaan ka bhi --- magar vaaq'ea yeh hai k hamaare deegar
> azeezoN aur azeeziyoN ki suurat-e-haal kuchh digar hai! :(
yaqiin maaniye, Raj Kumar Sahib, maiN itnaa bhii "Bhole Naath" nahiiN
huuN kih is baat se aagaah nah huuN (houuN). maiN samajhtaa huuN kih
ek baRii aksariyyat ko zabaaN ke silsile meN itnii ziyaadah dil-
chaspii nahiiN ho gii, balkih vuh to bazm-i-ALUP ko faqat shi'r-o-
shaa'irii kaa ek markaz samajh kar hii yahaaN aate haiN awr aaeN ge.
> kehne ki baat yeh hai k hameN apne naazireen ki tab'a ko bhi madd-e-
> nazar rakhna chaaiye --- varna yeh nehfil chaNd gine-chune ashKhaas ka
> 'takiya' ban kar reh jaaye gii!
mujhe aap kii pahlii baat se mukammal ittifaaq hai. lekin agar koii
kahe kih jo log in lisaanii bhuul-bhulaiyyoN vaalii laRiyoN me Hissah
lete haiN, vuh duusare aHbaab kii lariyoN meN Hissah shaaz-o-naadir
hii lete haiN yaa KHud duusre mauzu'aat kii laRiyoN kii bunyaad nahiiN
rakhte, to yih baat sach nahiiN ho gii. bazm-i-Urdu meN, masalan,
Vijay Kumar Sahib, zabaan vaalii laRiyoN meN shaayad kabhii hii aate
hoN ge. maiN un kii 'izzat kartaa huuN awr yih kabhii bhii nahiiN
chaahuuN gaa kih vuh KHvaah-maKHvaah in laRiyoN meN Hissah leN. yih un
kii zaatii pasand hai. isii tarH merii mantiq hai kih duusre log bhii
Vijay Sahib kaa tariiqah iKHtiyaar kar sakte haiN. jahaaN un kii
marzii ho vahaaH jaaeN awr jahaaN un kaa jii nahiiN chaahtaa, vahaaN
nah tashriif laaeN.
>> mere nazdiik, agar ham sab log ek
> > duusre ke nuqtah-i-nazar ke iHtaraam ko zihn meN rakheN awr guft-o-guu
> > ko tahziib ke daa'ire se baahar nah nikalne deN to koii mas'alah
> > nahiiN hai.
>
> yaqeenan, agar ham aek duusre ke nuqta-e-nazar ko shaamil-e-Khaatir
> rakkheN to yahaaN ko'ii bhi mas'ala paidaa naheeN hogaa ---- well, I
> (for myself), can easily pledge on that but, alas, I can't vouch for
> others! :(
jii haaN aap kisii awr kii zimmedaarii nahiiN le sakte. lekin ham sab
apnii apnii zimmedaarii to zaruur le sakte haiN.
jaisaa kih maiN pahle 'arz kar chukaa huuN kih jo aHbaab "A deluge of
Verbs" jaisii laRiyoN se duur rahnaa chaahte haiN vuh is se duur
raheN, magar bazm meN awr bhii muta'ddid dilchaspii ke "salaasil"
haiN. maiN zaatii taur par zabaan awr is ke baare meN maziid 'ilm
siikhne kii Gharaz se is qism kii laRiyoN meN shirkat kartaa huuN,
magar, kabhii kabhii aise bhii vaaqi'aat guzre haiN jab kisii baat ke
radd-i-'amal meN kuchh likhnaa naa-guziir ho gayaa thaa. lekin Raj
Kumar Sahib, aap yaqiin maaniye, niyyat faqat apnaa nuqtah-i-nazar
samjhaanaa hotaa hai, laRaaii, jang yaa koii ma'rikah sar-karnaa
kabhii zihn meN nahiiN aataa.
Mohammad Hassan 'Askarii vaalii laRii meN aap aaj nazar DaaleN. mujhe
to aasaar achchhe nahiiN lagte. ek suurat yih ho saktii hai kih jo
kuchh bhii koii kahe aap KHaamoshii iKHtiyaar kar leN. duusrii yih kih
aap is "jhaRap" kii kuchh nah kuchh javaabii kaar-ravaaii kareN. lekiN
phir yih suurat-i-Haal qaabuu se baahar bhii ho saktii hai awr
jhaRap>>laRaaii>>>jang kii shakl iKHtiyaar kar saktii hai. ham meN se
koii bhii nahiiN chaahtaa kih aisaa ho.
farz kareN kih ham log (jo zabaan par baHste (Roshan Sahib please make
note of another verb!) rahte haiN, tiin maah ke liye "zabaan kaa
rozah" rakh keN, to dekhte haiN kih kitne log ( 'aziiz awr
"'aziiziyaaN") bazm meN Hissah lene ko dauRe aate haiN:) vaise, mujh
naa-chiiz kii raae meN ham par zabaan par baHs karne kii paabandii
Khvaah KHud-saaKHtah ho yaa beruunii dabaao kii vajh se ho, ham sab ke
liye naa-insaafii ho gii!!:)
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Naseer
> >This time I will not apologize for "offending you", Sachin saahib,
> >for the fact of the matter is, you are simply being too touchy,
> >and taking umbrage at a statement made with reference to the
> >millions of people in the real world who say "fir" -- you're just one
> >of them, and (I will assert this strongly) you aren't even their
> >elected sole representative on ALUP. I was not referring to you
> >by the phrase 'uncouth masses'.
>
> into this, for simple reason that such tu-tu main-main is detrimental
> to ALUP, but you forced me. I had made my comments in response to RK
> sb's post (w/o taking your name), so that it does not become one-on-
> one, sadly you had other plans :(
>
> But my real question was - is it right to call anybody UNCOUTH becuase
> you feel so? By your admission there are millions saying fir, mind you
> there are many countries in the world with even lesser population.
> Point is in these days of being politically corrent (where even Baba
> Black sheep and Three Little Piglets are getting rephrased!!) isn't
> your choice of words incorrect, on a global forum like this which is
> supposed to be a language forum?
>
> >As for the phrase itself, yes, I used it. So sue me.
> >-UVR
>
> and use it, good for you !! I can't tell you in this full house to
> mind your language.
>
> Regards,
> al Hindi
janaab-i-Sachin Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
mere bhaaii, mere yaar, jaane diijiye. is jhagRe se kuchh Haasil
nahiiN ho gaa.
UVR Sahib, aap ne Raj Kumar Sahib kii 'izzat karte hue kahaa hai kih
aap is mauzuu' par is laRii ko al-vidaa' kah rahe haiN. ab aap mere
liye Sachin Sahib kii post kaa nah javaab deN. aap kii baRii mihr-
baanii ho gii.
Naseer