Urdu and its syntax
Yogesh Sethi
> [Once again: this message was posted last night, but has not shown
> up on Google yet. Reposting...]
>
> Yogesh Sethi wrote:
> >
> > What is so terrible about using non-Persian words in izzafat?
>
> What is so terrible, Yogesh-ji, is that, as far as I understand,
> it is an absolute no-no!
> ...
UVR ji, so were a lot of old English expressions that ain't so now!
:-)
And a language must grow! Let me lay out some parameters and see if we
can agree at least on the basis on which to debate this issue:
1. Urdu is an independent language with its own syntax, grammar and
poetic meter not withstanding that many of the features may have been
adapted from other languages.
2. All words commonly used and assimilated in a language become a part
and parcel of that language. Hence all words adapted in Urdu ,
whatever their etymological roots may have been, need to be referred
to as Urdu words and not as Persian or Hindi or Sanskrit words.
3. In a language all words, once adapted, receive the same treatment
in its syntax. In English, we do not treat words like caravan, veranda
etc. any differently simply because their roots are not Latin. They
enjoy the same flexibility and limitations as any other word in
English – I believe that is true for most of the developed languages.
Why do we continue to distinguish words within the Urdu language
solely on the basis of their roots and then insist that some words be
treated differently than the others. Is there something in the Urdu
grammar that is radically different from other languages?
On the one hand we say that literature and poetry is an art form - a
vibrant volcano of creativity and excitement that enriches our lives
thru its myriad explosions. On the other hand we continue to insist
upon boxing the creativity by some rules which may or may not have had
validity at one point but no longer seem to hold a persuasive
imperative in today's world. I would like to suggest that we try to
keep at least an open mind and provide at least a reasonable
justification of such rules that on the surface, to some, may appear
arbitrary and unnecessary.
Please keep in mind that I am not talking about what some people might
consider preferable or aesthetically more pleasing - a highly
subjective criterion. But, whether it should be regarded as wrong or
not permissible is the point of contention!
In light of the above, you or someone else can perhaps explain why
must we continue with the "absolute no-no " attitude on the
flexibility with the ‘izzafat' and the like in Urdu poetry.
Regards,
Yogesh
Yashowanto N. Ghosh
With apologies for intruding into the discussion, I wanted to post
what I currently understand about this (warning: I am likely to be
completely wrong---which is part of the reason why I am writing, with
the hope that my mistakes will be corrected in the course of this
thread)---
yls...@netscape.net (Yogesh Sethi) wrote in message news:<b08be108.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> u...@usa.net (UVR) wrote in message :
> > [Once again: this message was posted last night, but has not shown
> > up on Google yet. Reposting...]
> >
> > Yogesh Sethi wrote:
> > >
> > > What is so terrible about using non-Persian words in izzafat?
> >
> > What is so terrible, Yogesh-ji, is that, as far as I understand,
> > it is an absolute no-no!
> > ...
>
> UVR ji, so were a lot of old English expressions that ain't so now!
> :-)
>
> And a language must grow! Let me lay out some parameters and see if we
> can agree at least on the basis on which to debate this issue:
>
> 1. Urdu is an independent language with its own syntax, grammar and
> poetic meter not withstanding that many of the features may have been
> adapted from other languages.
>
> 2. All words commonly used and assimilated in a language become a part
> and parcel of that language. Hence all words adapted in Urdu ,
> whatever their etymological roots may have been, need to be referred
> to as Urdu words and not as Persian or Hindi or Sanskrit words.
>
> 3. In a language all words, once adapted, receive the same treatment
> in its syntax. In English, we do not treat words like caravan, veranda
> etc. any differently simply because their roots are not Latin. They
> enjoy the same flexibility and limitations as any other word in
> English - I believe that is true for most of the developed languages.
>
I agree completely upto here.
Now, here is what I suspect: the "-e-" and "-o-" constructions are not
native to Urdu, but to Persian and/or Arabic (I wonder whether that is
true). As such, Urdu accepts some (but not all?) Persian and Arabic
words, and does not(?) accept all of Persian and Arabic *grammar*.
A compound word in Urdu like "aab-o-havaa" or "jaan-e-man" is to be
interpreted as an entire (compound) word from Persian which has been
assimilated into Urdu, and *not* as individual words "aab" and "havaa"
(both Persian) (or "jaan" and "man"=I, me---again both Persian) which
have been taken separately into Urdu and are being used together to
form a *new* compound in Urdu. The difference here is the same as the
difference between "imported from Country X to Country Y" and "assembled
in Country Y using parts imported from Country X".
Next: I consulted Platts' Grammar---on p.62 (in the section on the
"Noun-e-Noun" izaafaat) he makes the following remark: "In employing
this construction in Urdu, a Hindi proper noun may stand in the place
of the *governed* noun, but the *governing* noun must be Persian or
Arabic; e.g. shahre barelii "the city of barelii"."
He does not mention any liberties that may be taken with the
"Noun-e-Adjective" construction.
Finally: I have a question of my own about compound words, and would be
grateful to anyone who would be kind enough to reply.---How is a compound
formed from *several* root words to be read?---Often it is clear from
the context---for example, Ghalib's "roz-e-abr-o-shab-e-mahtab" is to
be read as "{roz-e-abr}-o-{shab-e-mahtab}", Firaq's
"boo-e-zulf-e-shikan-shikan" is to be read as
"boo-e-{zulf-e-{shikan-shikan}}", et cetera. But is there a stated rule
about how to read long compounds? Or is it the responsibility of the
speaker to ensure absence of confusion?
Thanks much!
Jasho.
UVR
> > >
> > > What is so terrible about using non-Persian words in izzafat?
> >
> > What is so terrible, Yogesh-ji, is that, as far as I understand,
> > it is an absolute no-no!
> > ...
>
> UVR ji, so were a lot of old English expressions that ain't so now!
> :-)
>
> And a language must grow!
Indeed it must, Yogesh saahib. But not all languages "must"
grow by the same means -- bastardization of vocabulary AND
grammar! Nor "must" all languages grow at the same pace or
use the same "laws" of growth. Surely you don't disagree with
those last two statements?
> Let me lay out some parameters and see if we
> can agree at least on the basis on which to debate this issue:
You have advanced some very compelling and "logic"al arguments
in support of your point. However, when you say this --
> On the one hand we say that literature and poetry is an art form - a
> vibrant volcano of creativity and excitement that enriches our lives
> thru its myriad explosions. On the other hand we continue to insist
> upon boxing the creativity by some rules which may or may not have had
> validity at one point but no longer seem to hold a persuasive
> imperative in today's world. I would like to suggest that we try to
> keep at least an open mind and provide at least a reasonable
> justification of such rules that on the surface, to some, may appear
> arbitrary and unnecessary.
it is obvious that you are ignoring one very basic fact about the
grammar [of any language]: that it *IS* a set of arbitrary,
inexplicable rules that more often than not have no basis in logic!
[Indeed, why must they be based on logic?] Pick any language you
want. Urdu? Is there any logic behind, say, gender assignment?
Why must we say '"bus" aa rahii hai' and 'yeh meraa "pen" hai'
(masculine) but '"truck" aa rahaa hai' and 'yeh merii "pencil" hai'?
This lack of logic is not restricted to words borrowed from English,
either. Why is "qalam" masculine and "gaaRii" feminine? Don't
let us think that only gender assignment is illogical. Consider
word pluralization. Why are some words never modified in the
plural? -- "ek aadmii, hazaaroN aadmii" but "ek laRkaa, hazaaroN
laRke"? Why are only masculine adjectives pluralized in Urdu/Hindi?
-- kaalaa ghoRaa, kaale ghoRe, kaalii ghoRii, kaalii ghoRiyaaN?
Why doesn't this "rule" extend to Punjabi, where -- lammii raat,
lammiyaaN raataaN -- is the norm? Why do we find it acceptable
to 'hear' a Deccani Urdu speaker saying "kal maiN bhauuut se naami-
giraami logaaN se poochhaa -- unoN bole, miyaaN, aisaa nako karne
kaa, inoN Ghalat hai so", but don't ever think of using this kind
of language in any sort of serious poetry or literature? Finally,
why won't we ever question the basic rules of Urdu grammar, when
we do not hesitate to challenge (and even hope to change) those
other rules of *the same* grammar [izaafat]?
> Please keep in mind that I am not talking about what some people might
> consider preferable or aesthetically more pleasing - a highly
> subjective criterion. But, whether it should be regarded as wrong or
> not permissible is the point of contention!
IMHO, what is wrong or not permissible in a language is entirely
subject to those [arbitrary, illogical] rules of grammar. Again,
IMHO, as students of the language, it is advisable for people like
you and me to experiment within the bounds of these rules. One
can definitely question the rules and even try to transgress,
break and change them, but one can not *demand* acceptance of
one's transgressions or attempts to change from literary public.
And least of all through logic :))
> In light of the above, you or someone else can perhaps explain why
> must we continue with the "absolute no-no " attitude on the
> flexibility with the ‘izzafat' and the like in Urdu poetry.
You will note that "izzafat" is an absolute no-no :) Why? It's
the wrong spelling, dude :) Just kidding.
-UVR.
Vasmi Abidi
since it's about English Pronunciation, not Urdu Syntax - but I'm
posting something I came across recently, in the hope you'll find it
interesting.
The issue is that many Americans (e.g. Pres. Bush) pronounce the word
"nuclear" as "nucular":
Webster's standard response to readers inquiring about "nucular":
--- <start quote> ---
"
We do not list the pronunciation of "nuclear" as \'nü-ky&-l&r\ as an
"acceptable" alternative. We merely list it as an alternative. It is
clearly preceded by the obelus mark \÷\. This mark indicates "a
pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is
considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable." A full
description of this can be found in the Guide to Pronunciation on our
website at http://www.m-w.com/pronguid.htm. We are definitely not
advocating that anyone should use the pronunciation \'nü-ky&-l&r\ or
that they should abandon the pronunciation \'nü-klE-&r\.
To say "the word is spelled (x), and therefore should be pronounced
(y)" doesn't make any sense. Spelling is not a legitimate basis for
determining pronunciation, for the following reasons:
1) English spelling is highly irregular. For example, "move", "dove",
and "cove" are spelled similarly but pronounced differently.
Likewise, "to", "too", and "two" are spelled differently and
pronounced the same.
2) English spelling is frequently based on factors besides
pronunciation. For example, the "c" represents three different sounds
in "electrical", "electricity" and "electrician", but is spelled the
same in all to show that the words are related.
3) Most importantly, spoken language is primary, not written language.
Speaking is not the act of translating letters into speech. Rather,
the opposite is true. Writing is a collection of symbols meant to
represent spoken language. It is not language in and of itself. Many
written languages (Spanish, Dutch, etc.), will regularly undergo
orthographic reforms to reflect changes in the spoken language. This
has never been done for English (the spelling of which has never been
regularized in the first place), so what we use for written language
is actually largely based on the spoken language of several centuries
ago.
All of the entries in our dictionary (pronunciation, meanings, etc.)
are based on usage. We have an extensive collection of files which
date back to the 19th century. Language is changing all of the time
in all respects, and any dictionary which purports to be an accurate
description of the language in question must be constantly updated to
reflect these changes. All words were pronounced differently at some
time in the past. There is simply no scholarly basis for preferring
one pronunciation over another. To not list all pronunciation
variants would be irresponsible and a failure of our mission to
provide a serious, scholarly, record of the current American English
language
"
--- <end quote> ---
yls...@netscape.net (Yogesh Sethi) wrote in message news:<b08be108.02100...@posting.google.com>...
Yogesh Sethi
Thank you. In my opinion you are on the mark! A good dissertation with
solid examples holds much greater appeal versus parroting categorical
assertions devoid of analysis! Unless there are posts that can
contradict your in depth research on this topic, it would be
reasonable to assume that your view is being accepted. Here is a sweet
couplet:
shahd-o-shakar se shiirii.N urduu zubaa.N hamaarii
hotii hai jis ke bole miiThii zubaa.N hamaarii
-[Hali]
With kind regards,
Yogesh
---------------------------------------
u...@usa.net (UVR) wrote in message news:<9c085b63.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> [Once again: this message was posted last night, but has not shown
> up on Google yet. Reposting...]
>
> Yogesh Sethi wrote:
> >
> > What is so terrible about using non-Persian words in izzafat?
>
> What is so terrible, Yogesh-ji, is that, as far as I understand,
> it is an absolute no-no!
janaab "Yogesh o UVR" saahibaan:
sab se pehle to daKhl dar ma'aqoolaat kee ma'azarat! amaa ba'adahu,
arz hai k mujhe yaad hai k janaab Irfan Abid saahib ke she'er par
kaafee logoN ne 'etiraaz kiyaa thaa (jin meN ye 'ehqar bhee shaamil
thaa!). us ke ba'ad kuchh baateN is mas'ale se muta'aliq mutaali'ye
meN aayee haiN. aaj is laRee ne mauqa faraaham kar diyaa k kuchh arz
kiyaa jaa'ye. so nazr e dostaaN:
izaafat e Farsi ba alfaaz e Urdu:
Urdu kaa mashoor o ma'aroof "kuliya" hai k Urdu (yaa Prakrit) alfaaz
aur Arabi o Farsi alfaaz kaa vaav e ataf yaa kasra e izaafat se
rishtaa qaa'im naheeN kiyaa jaa saktaa. Maulaa Hasrat Mohani apnee
mash'hoor kitaab "Mu'aa'ib e SuKhan" (The Vices of Verse) meN farmaate
haiN k ye "saraasar ma'oob aur naa-jaa'iz hai". Urdu ke aik aur
qavaa'id-daan Maulaanaa Tamanna 'Aadi kaa farmaan dekhiye:
ba'az juhalaa vaav 'ataf ke saath "cheeKh o pukaar" likhaa karte haiN,
haalaaN k do Hindi, yaa aik Hindi aur aik Arabi yaa Farsi, lafz ke
darmiyaan vaa e 'ataf laanaa chaahiye, na kasra e izaafat".
lekin dosto, ab is amr ko kyaa keejiye k ye "jahaalaat" na sirf ye k
qadeem se hotee chalee aa'yee hai, bal k aaj tak bartee jaa rahee hai.
Mughal e Azam, Akbar, ne vaalee e Ambar, Bhaaraa Mal, ko Khat meN
likhaa:
"eeN laaDlaa e man ast" !!!
Mughal darbaar, jo Farsi kaa bahut baRaa sarparast thaa, meN hee is
qism kee taraakeeb 'aam istemaal meN theeN: chabootra e choonaa, gul e
champaa, chaarpaa'ee e chob, vaqfa e yak ghaRee -- vG, vG, vG -- aur
meraa pasandeeda tareen, "aKhaaRaa e sanaasiyaan," LOLOL. isee tarah
usee daur meN aisee taraakeeb bhee 'aam honaa shuru' hu'eeN jo aaj
bhee "bai-dhaRak!" ist'emaal ho rahee haiN: maze-daar, choohe-daan,
taange-baan, sheesha-ghar, jootaa-chor, vG. 16veeN sadee kee aik
kitaab "Kalmatul Haqaa'iq" meN ye fiqra darj hai:
saij meN "phal o phool"...
thoRaa qareebee zamaane meN aa'iye:
Shah Mubarak 'Aabroo' (valaadat: 1683)
haath meN rakh apne to saahib, rumaal
poonchhtaa reh dam badam "mukhRaa o gaal"
Mirza Mazhar Jaan e JaaN, 1699-1771 (Farsi/Urdu ke mash'hoor shaa'ir
aur 'aalim faazil shaKhsee'at, jo Dehli meN aik baRe dabistaan e fikr
(school of thought) ke baanee the:
kisee ke Khoon kaa pyaasaa, kisee kee jaan kaa dushman
nihaa'at moonh lagaayaa sajan ne "baiRaa e paaN" ko
Mir Taqi Mir (http://www.eurdubazaar.com/mir_tauqi_mir.htm)
magar baazeecha samjhe Mir "ishq e Khurd-saaloN" ko
Mir 'Sauz' (1733-1799)
"jhooT o tazveer" o makr o fan o faraib
haiN jalau meN miree qitaar qitaar
Bahaadur Shah 'Zafar' (1775-1862)
aankheN haiN kaToraa see vo sitam, gardan hai suraahee-daar Ghazab
aur us meN "sharaab e surKhee e paaN", rakhtee hai jhalak phir vaisee
hee
Mirza Ghalib (http://www.eurdubazaar.com/ghalib_devaan.htm):
phir khulaa hai dar e 'adaalat e naaz
garm "baazaar e fauj-daaree" hai
(vaazih ho k yahaaN "fauj-daaree" Urdu ma'anoN meN aayaa hai)
Rajab Ali Baig 'Suroor' (Lucknow ke saahib e tarz adeeb; Urdu kee
mash'hoor tareen daastaanoN meN se aik, "Fasaana e 'Ajaa'ib", ke
Khaaliq):
"navaadiraat e jahaaN se har "dukaan o koTThe" bhare rehte the."
Muhammad Hussain 'Azad':
(http://www.eurdubazaar.com/m_hussain_azad.htm)
aaj mulk e Bangaala meN kitne hee "kaalij o kameTiyaaN"....
Mir Nasir Ali (saahib e tarz adeeb aur jadeed Urdu nasr ke baanioN meN
se aik)
[buRhaape umr] kisee "gintee o shumaar" meN naheeN.
neez
rail o taar o masheen
neez
phool o phal, vG.
Maulvi Abdul Haq (ta'aaruf meN in kaa Khitaab, "Baabaa e Urdu," hee
kaafee hai):
"lab e taalaab" (vaazih rahe k "taalaab" Munda zabaan kaa lafz hai jo
kam az kam 6000 saal se zair zabar ke kisee farq ke baGhair bolaa jaa
rahaa hai!)
Ra'ees Amrohvi, 1914-1988 (John Eliya ke bhaa'ee aur, Ghaliban, Urdu
ke sab se baRe qita-nigaar):
guzree thee jin kee SilhaT o Dhaakaa meN aik umr
"sannaa' o kaarobaaree o taajir" bane huve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ye to huveeN 500 saal se ikaTThee kee ga'yee misaaleN. ab zaraa Ghaur
karte haiN k aaKhir ye taraakeeb kyoN Ghalat haiN. kahaa jaataa hai k
chooN k Farsi meN aisaa karnaa Ghalat hai, is liye Urdu meN bhee
Ghalat Thehraa. lekin agar Farsi kaa mutaa'iya kiyaa jaa'ye to
ma'aloom hotaa hai k vahaaN to Farsi-Arabi, Farsi-Turki, hatta k
Farsi-Angraizi aur Farsi-Fransisi alfaaz bilaa-takalluf kasra e
izaafat aur vaav e 'ataf se baandhe jaate haiN. is kee vajh baRee
asaan hai: Farsi meN to Urdu kee tarah harkat e izaafat ("kaa", "ke",
"kee") maujood hee naheeN, is liye un kee to majbooree hai k "har"
zabaan ke lafz ko Farsi ke lafz ke saath kasra e izaafat se hee
milaa'yeN. chand misaaleN dekhi'ye jo Farsi meN raa'ij haiN:
pust e zameenee (surface mail), mushtariyaan e seneemaa (film
watchers), ba-vaseela e telfun (by telephone), maasheen e tehreer
(type writer) ... ad infinitum.
to phir kyaa is baat kee ijaazat de dee jaa'ye k Urdu meN man-maane
alfaaz ko kasra o vaav se milaa diyaa jaa'ye??? zaahir hai hamaaree ye
haisee'at naheeN k itnaa baRaa fatvaa jaaree kar sakeN. hamaaraa
kehnaa to sirf ye hai
chooN k:
1.
Farsi meN door door tak is qism kaa koyee usool maujood naheeN hai,
2.
azmana e qadeem se le kar aaj tak Urdu ke "garaaN-Deel" :) hasteeyaaN
is usool se "dheengaa-mushtee" kartee chalee aa'yee haiN,
3.
aaKhir aik bai-chaaraa Urdu bolne vaalaa kaise ma'aloom kar sake gaa k
fulaaN lafz kis zabaan se ta'aluq rakhtaa hai? (aik hal: vo Urdu kaa
ko'yee "etymological" qaamoos Khareed le :)
lihaaza
meree istid'aa hai k:
a.
is qism kee taraakeeb ko ba-yak junbish e qalam mustrad na kiyaa
jaa'ye,
b.
faisilaa tarkeeb ke sautee aahang aur qubool e 'aam kee buniyaad par
kiyaa jaa'ye.
c.
jo taraakeeb Urdu meN raa'ij ho chukee haiN (masalan, kamra e
imtihaan, vG) un ke iste'emaal ko "jahaalat" na samjhaa jaa'ye.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
to kyaa kehte haiN aap beech is mas'ala ke?
Zaff
UVR
omitted a short annotation on one of the points I made earlier.
UVR wrote:
>
> Why are only masculine adjectives pluralized in Urdu/Hindi?
> -- kaalaa ghoRaa, kaale ghoRe, kaalii ghoRii, kaalii ghoRiyaaN?
> Why doesn't this "rule" extend to Punjabi, where -- lammii raat,
> lammiyaaN raataaN -- is the norm?
The pluralization of feminine adjectives, BTW (which is also a
feature of Sanskrit), was quite acceptable during the time of
Meer Taqi Meer, as evidenced by several of his couplets,
including the famous:
paRhte phireNge galiyoN meN in reKhtoN ko log
muddat raheNgi yaad ye baateN hamaariyaaN.
However, needless to say, this kind of grammar is considered
rather *wrong* by today's standard.
-UVR.
Yashowanto N. Ghosh
Yogesh saahab, thanks a lot for bringing Zafar saahab's remarkable
article over to this thread!---
yls...@netscape.net (Yogesh Sethi) wrote in message
---And, janaab-e-Zaff, let me first compliment you upon your
excellent article. Every one of your points is well-argued,
and every one of your arguments, in turn, is presented beautifully.
Capital.
Next, sir, if I may please have your kind permission, I would
like to raise a few humble questions---
>
> chooN k:
>
> 1.
> Farsi meN door door tak is qism kaa koyee usool maujood naheeN hai,
>
> 2.
> azmana e qadeem se le kar aaj tak Urdu ke "garaaN-Deel" :) hasteeyaaN
> is usool se "dheengaa-mushtee" kartee chalee aa'yee haiN,
>
> 3.
> aaKhir aik bai-chaaraa Urdu bolne vaalaa kaise ma'aloom kar sake gaa k
> fulaaN lafz kis zabaan se ta'aluq rakhtaa hai? (aik hal: vo Urdu kaa
> ko'yee "etymological" qaamoos Khareed le :)
>
> lihaaza
>
> meree istid'aa hai k:
>
> a.
> is qism kee taraakeeb ko ba-yak junbish e qalam mustrad na kiyaa
> jaa'ye,
>
> b.
> faisilaa tarkeeb ke sautee aahang aur qubool e 'aam kee buniyaad par
> kiyaa jaa'ye.
>
> c.
> jo taraakeeb Urdu meN raa'ij ho chukee haiN (masalan, kamra e
> imtihaan, vG) un ke iste'emaal ko "jahaalat" na samjhaa jaa'ye.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> to kyaa kehte haiN aap beech is mas'ala ke?
>
> Zaff
1. On the examples which you have quoted:
(a) UVR saahab points out in his "follow-up" post in this thread
that certain practices which were perceived to be correct at
the time of Meer have *lost* acceptability over time---perhaps
some similar fact could explain a few of the examples which
you give?
(b) Also, perhaps a few more of your examples could be explained
as instances of Masters ("Ustaads") taking recourse to poetic
liberty?
2. On the argument concerning common usage in Urdu: You are surely
aware, sir, that no language in the world readily accepts a
practice based upon common usage alone? While a good
dictionary would take pains to mention words, compounds, etc.
which are in common use, it would also take care to state
clearly which of these are incorrect, "corrupt.", "vulg.", etc.
See, for example, Vasmi saahab's post in this thread.
3. On the argument concerning usage in Persian: Does Urdu
necessarily accept every word and compound which is acceptable
in Persian? For that matter, does Urdu necessarily accept
every one of Persian's grammatical practices?
Finally: A week ago to-day, I posted a reply to your lovely post
"maraatib e vujood...", and Google promptly misplaced my reply.
When I read my post again (on my usual newsreader) I realized that
it was too long, and contained too little substance---so I refrained
from trying to re-post it. Instead, let me take this opportunity
to thank you for sharing the beautiful poem and your translation with
us---and, in particular, to congratulate you for the brilliant
translation.
With best regards for all,
Jasho.
UVR
> janaab Zaff ji:
>
> Thank you. In my opinion you are on the mark! A good dissertation with
> solid examples holds much greater appeal versus parroting categorical
> assertions devoid of analysis! Unless there are posts that can
> contradict your in depth research on this topic, it would be
> reasonable to assume that your view is being accepted. Here is a sweet
> couplet:
>
> shahd-o-shakar se shiirii.N urduu zubaa.N hamaarii
> hotii hai jis ke bole miiThii zubaa.N hamaarii
> -[Hali]
Yogesh saahib,
You are right. There is no way to refute Zafar saahib's scholarly
dissertation. Henceforth, if you use "...arbaab-e-chalan" and any
other combination that strikes your fancy, we will be unable to
take exception to it. It is another matter that we may not fancy
those combinations, but then, as you yourself said, that is a matter
of personal "taste".
Meanwhile, may I request that we please refrain from making 'snide'
remarks like "parroting categorical assertions devoid of analysis?"
In my opinion, no constructive purpose is served by such comments.
Meanwhile, turning to Zafar saahib's post for a minute:
> Mirza Ghalib (http://www.eurdubazaar.com/ghalib_devaan.htm):
>
> phir khulaa hai dar e 'adaalat e naaz
> garm "baazaar e fauj-daaree" hai
> (vaazih ho k yahaaN "fauj-daaree" Urdu ma'anoN meN aayaa hai)
I disagree with the classification of this compound as an example
of Ghalib's violation of the "Arabi/Farsi-e-Arabi/Farsi only" rule.
Poets use well known words in new metaphors and new meanings every
day, but that does not change anything w.r.t their origin. AFAIK,
the rule of "a/f-e-a/f only" merely talks about the origin of the
word, not the way in which it is applied. "fauj" is Arabic in
derivation.
Infact, I daresay you will not find ANY examples of violation
of this rule in all of Ghalib's work (Urdu OR Farsi).
> Ra'ees Amrohvi, 1914-1988 (John Eliya ke bhaa'ee aur, Ghaliban, Urdu
> ke sab se baRe qita-nigaar):
>
> guzree thee jin kee SilhaT o Dhaakaa meN aik umr
> "sannaa' o kaarobaaree o taajir" bane huve
What exactly is being violated here? Aren't all three words
Arabi/Farsi in origin? sannaa'[A], kaar-o-baar[P], taajir[A]
> meree istid'aa hai k:
>
> a.
> is qism kee taraakeeb ko ba-yak junbish e qalam mustrad na kiyaa
> jaa'ye,
Ok! :)
> b.
> faisilaa tarkeeb ke sautee aahang aur qubool e 'aam kee buniyaad par
> kiyaa jaa'ye.
Fine. :) mujhe zaati taur par is qism kii taraakeeb baRii be-tukii
aur sar-aa-sar Ghair-zaroori lagtii haiN. aap chaaheN to inheN
shauq se istima'al kareN, magar mere hal'q se yeh nivaala nahiiN
utarne kaa :(
> c.
> jo taraakeeb Urdu meN raa'ij ho chukee haiN (masalan, kamra e
> imtihaan, vG) un ke iste'emaal ko "jahaalat" na samjhaa jaa'ye.
tarkeeb-e-"kamraa-e-imtihaan" :) ke darshan aaj maiN ne zindagi
meiN pehli martaba aap kii is post meiN kiye. hameshaa ise
"imtihaan kaa kamraa" yaa "igjaamineshan haal" :)) hi kahaa aur
sunaa hai.
goyaa is daf'a bhii Dilli waaloN kii zubaan ziyaada *faseeH*
niklee. :)) kyoN Zaff-bhaa`ii?
-UVR.
Sushil Sharma
Yogesh Saahib,
Aadaab. A few days back I came across a very scholarly paper
by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi in vol 13 (1998) of the Annual of Urdu Studies
of Center for South Asia, University of Wisconsin—Madison. This article
touches on several aspects of what is considered acceptable and what
is not by contemporary Urdu scholars, and provides historical
background for the changes in attitudes in Urdu scholarship. It also
mentions (towards the end) the topic of compound words created
with Arabic/Persian-Indic words (see quoted text below). It appears
that hybrid (Arabic/Persian-Indic) compound words were in use during
the early periods of Urdu developement, and till 18th century, but
were growingly considered inappropriate later, owing to various factors,
straight-jacketing of Urdu and excessive authority awarded to
Persian being some of them (to the extent that many of our
present day Urdu Pundits consider these as an "absolute no-no"!) :-))
This paper is available on internet at
http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/13/04faruqiUnder.pdf
and I am quoting a relevant section below, but I strongly
recommend perusal of the entire paper.
"Perhaps Insha Allah Khan Insha (1753-1817), poet, linguist, courtier,
polemicist, and man about town, sensed this feeling, and, in spite of his
own prejudices and reservations, knew it to be pernicious. He issued a
warning in Darya-e Laπtafat; he declared, "Let it be clearly understood that
every word that becomes current in Urdu is an Urdu word, regardless of
whether it is Arabic, or Persian, or Turkish, or Syriac, or Panjabi; and
regardless of whether it conforms to its original usage, or not, it is correct
Urdu. The correctness or incorrectness of its use is determined by the way
it is accepted in current Urdu. Whatever is against Urdu usage is incorrect,
and whatever is in accord with Urdu usage is correct, even if it
shouldn't be according to its original source. Although this fact has
already been hinted at in this work, a fuller explanation is offered at this
point."40 This comes at the very end of the book, as if the author wished
to make his point linger in the reader's memory. He followed up the
statement of principle with a number of examples. He didn't however go
to the extent of permitting Persian/Arabic-Indic compounds, which were
common in the eighteenth century, and which are to be found in his
poetry too.41 His prohibition may have strengthened the growing prejudice
against such "license," but whatever he did permit was forwardlooking
enough, and it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
Sadi said, "The foundation of inequity on earth was small; everyone
who came later added to it."42 Insha's prohibition of Arabic/Persian-Indic
compounds was not a small inequity, and was self-contradictory in light
of his own rule about loan words quoted above. Those who came after
him practiced every kind of inequity and placed every kind of constraint
on Urdu. That this implied denial of the status of an independent
language to Urdu, doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. Privileging
Iranian Persian above all others seemed to be what mattered most."
A Relevant Footnote:
"41 Examples are given from the middle of p. 471 to p. 475. On p. 475 is also
the prohibition against hybrid compounds. It is worth noting that Baqar Agah,
writing in the south, and perhaps before Insha, discouraged hybrid compounds.
See his preface to the Urdu divan in Alim Saba Navedi, Maulana Baqar Agah ke
Adabi Navadir (Madras: Tamil Nadu Urdu Publications, 1974), p. 65."
I hope this helps the ongoing dialogue in this thread.
Regards,
Sushil
--
Sarwar Alam Raz
> > [Once again: this message was posted last night, but has not shown
> > up on Google yet. Reposting...]
> >
> > Yogesh Sethi wrote:
> > >
> > > What is so terrible about using non-Persian words in izzafat?
yaaran.e.alup: aadaab!
Yogesh saaheb ne yeh dilchasp beHs shuroo' kar ke ham sab ko sochne
samajhne kaa jo mauqa' diyaa hai uss ke liye maiN zaatee taur per un
kaa shukr.guzaar hooN. meraa bhee jee iss beHs meiN Hissa lene ko
chaahtaa hai lekin Haalaat se iss vaqt majboor hooN. dekhiye aa'inda
kyaa soorat hotee hai.
iss vaqt aap sab se sirf iss qadar darKhwaast hai k beHs ko bilkul
adabee satH per rakhiye aur iss kaa Khayaal rakhiye k kisee per ko'ee
shaKhsee Haashiya na likhaa jaaye. mujh ko ma'loom hai k ham sab iss
muaa'male meiN bohat muHtaat haiN. phir bhee yaad.dehaanee meiN ko'ee
harj naheeN hai. shukriya!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
paabagil
(Hope you won't mind my replying in Urdu cuz I find it rather awkward
to write about Urdu in English (just a personal bias! :))
post yahaaN chaspaaN karne aur mere Khayaalaat se ittifaaq karne kaa
shukriya. maiN janaab e Jasho ke savaalaat kaa muKhtasir javaab dene
kee koshish kartaa hooN:
aik baar maiN ne muhtarmee Sarwar saahib se poochhaa thaa k faseeh
kyaa hai. Ghaliban un ko masroofiat kee vajh se javaab dene kaa mauqa
na mil sakaa, is liye maiN Khud hee is savaal kaa javaab dene kee
koshish kar rahaa hooN.
vo lafz, tarkeeb, mahaavara yaa usool saheeh aur faseeh maanaa jaa'ye
gaa jise Urdu ke "aik se ziyaada" musallimus-suboot asaatiza ne apnee
tehreeroN meN bartaa ho.
is kee aik vaazih misaal "taqaabul e radeefain" kaa mu'aamila hai.
Urdu ke ba'az maahireen (jin ka ta'aluq ziaada tar dabistaan e Lucknow
se thaa) ne kahaa k taqaabul e radeefain Ghalat hai. maiN ne Mir,
Dard, Mus'hafi, Aatish, Zauq, Ghalib, Dagh, aur Faiz ke davaaveen se
taqaabul kee mislaaleN DhoonD nikaaleeN. is se ye saabit huvaa k jis
cheez ko ye 8 musallimus-suboot asaatiza saheeh samajhte haiN, vo
laaziman, bilaa-Khauf e tardeed, saheeh ho gee, chaahe qavaa'id daan
kuchh bhee kehte phireN!
dabistaan e Lucknow kee kaaristaaniyaaN:
maiN is mauzoo' par pehle bhee kaafee tafseel se likh chukaa hooN,
yahaaN sirf Khulaasa bayaan karooN gaa k is qism ke tamaam
Khud-saaKhta usool Lucknow ke us inhitaat-pazeer mu'aashire kee
paidaavaar haiN jis ne ye bhaanp liyaa thaa k Dehli kaa muqaabila
shaa'iree meN to ho naheeN saktaa, kyoN na zabaan ko hee sanvaaraa
(dar'asl bigaaRaa!) jaa'ye, aur is tarah apnee bartaree saabit kee
jaa'ye! chunaaNche tarah tarah ke qavaaneen usee daur meN vaza' huve,
jin meN tanaafur, 'elaan e noon, taqaabul e radeefain, eetaa e jallee
o Khafee, vG, shaamil haiN. aik aur "kaarnaama" Lucknow ke asaatiza ne
ye sar-anjaam diyaa k bai-shumaar alfaaz par "Ghair-faseeh" kaa
Thappaa lagaa kar unheN zabaan se baarah patthar baahar kar diyaa
gayaa! ko'yee mujhe ye samjhaa de k is se zabaan kee kyaa Khidmat
huvee? aur hazart e NaasiKh (NaasiKh = qainchee!) ne jin laa-ta'adaad
alfaaz kaa "huqqa-paanee" band kar diyaa thaa, un ke badle meN ko'yee
aik na'yaa alfaaz "coin" bhee kiyaa?
aaj jab ham us daur se door khaRe haiN, hameN chaahiye k un "asaatiza"
ke vaza' karda qavaaneen par aankheN band kar ke "aameen" na kehte
chale jaa'yeN bal k khule dil o dimaaGh se dekheN k aaKhir huvaa kyaa
hai.
kasra e izaafat:
jaise k maiN pehle bhee arz kar chukaa, ye sirf zaatee pasand o
naapasand kee baat hai. ab "surKhee e paaN" ko Ghalat kehnaa kisee
bhee tareeqe se jaa'iz naheeN k kam az 2 musallimus suboot asaatizaa
is ko istemaal kar chuke haiN. ba-taur e usool is ko Ghalat kehnaa is
liye Ghalat hai k kam az kam 10 musallimus-suboot asaatiza yehee
"Ghalatee" farmaa chuke haiN.
neez
mujhe ko'yee bataa'ye k Urdu inshaa ke baare meN maiN Muhammad Hussain
Azad kee sunooN yaa Tamanna 'Aadi' kee???
neez
agar Urdu/Farsi alfaaz kaa milaap mumkin naheeN to "laa-pataa",
"laa-chaar" aur -- gasp! -- "bai-chain" ko bhee Urdu zaKheera e alfaaz
se Khaarij karnaa paRe gaa? Maulaanaa Hasrat kasra par 'etiraaz karte
haiN, lekin ye she'er kaa hai?
bai-chain bahut phirnaa...
hai k naheeN?
agar ab bhee ko'yee shak hai to Urdu ke do mashoor zabaan-daanoN kee
sifaarishaat haazir haiN:
1.
janaab Shan ul Haq Haqqee (Urdu ke naam-var shaa'ir, zabaan-daan aur
muhaqqiq. in kaa ye she'er kis ne naheeN sunaa: tum se ulfat ke
taqaaze...):
"... Hindi-Farsi kaa joR paivand Urdu ke mizaaj se bai-mail naheeN ...
Farsi kaa kasra e izaafat hamaare liye zarooree hai. is ke istemaal
par jo bandisheN 'aaid haiN, un ko baratnaa 'avaam un naas ke liye na
pehle mumkin thaa na ab ho gaa ... is bai-kaar bandish kaa zaroor
azaalaa kiyaa jaa saktaa hai k Urdu kee nisf luGhat nisf deegar se
aamez na hone paa'ye!"
(Shan ul Haq Haqqee. Urdu alfaaz meN chhoot chhaat. Shab Khoon. 1998;
221:23-29)
2.
janaab Shamsur Rahman Farooqee (in kee ta'areef meN ko'yee
mubaaliGha-aaraa'yee karnaa mushkil hai. Urdu ke 'azeem naqqaad,
shaa'ir, maahir e lisaaniyaat, luGhat-navees, muhaqqiq aur daanishvar
... janaab Sushil Sharma kaa bai-had shukriya k unhoN ne Farooqee
saahib ke aik laajavaab mazmoon kaa pataa diyaa. ye mazmoon kuchh arsa
qabl Urdu meN bhee shaa'e ho chukaa hai.)
"... ko'yee bhee do alfaaz, agar vo Urdu meN daKheel haiN, kasra e
izaafat ke mutahammil ho sakte haiN. in alfaaz kee asal Hindi hai yaa
Ghair-Hindi, ye behs Ghair-zarooree hai!!!"
(Shamsur Rahman Farooqee. Shab Khoon. 1998. 215;5-37)
muKhlis,
Zaff
pas navisht: Jasho saahib, "maraatib e vujood..." aur "Strange are the
Cadres..." pasand farmaane kaa bahut shukriya ... maiN to samjhaa thaa
k shaa'id ye nazm ALUP ke umoomee mizaaj se yaksar muKhtalif hone kee
binaa par kisee ko bhee pasand naheeN aa'yee.
paabagil
janaab e vaalaa:
lagtaa hai kisee ne mere Khilaaf aap ke kaan aise bhare haiN k aap
meree ko'yee baat maan ke hee naheeN dete :( mujhe to is saazish ke
peechhe aik hee "shaKhsee'at" kaa haath nazar aataa hai (hint: vo
shaKhsee'at is vaqt tund o taiz havaa ke thapeRe khaa rahee ho gee,
LOLOL). Khair, aamadam bar sar e matlab:
biraadir e buzurg :) "fauj-daaree" aur "kaarobaaree" bilkul usee tarah
Urdu ke alfaaz haiN -- aur Farsi/Arabi ke naheeN -- jaise "boree'at"
aur "kaalijoN" aur "filmaanaa" Urdu ke alfaaz haiN -- aur Angraizee ke
naheeN!!! agar aap Farsi kee kisee luGhat meN mujhe "fauj-daaree"
ba-ma'anee e "aik qism kaa muqaddima" dikhaa deN to maiN apne mu'aqqif
se haath jhaaR kar (bal k dho kar :)peechhe haT jaa'ooN gaa :))
> tarkeeb-e-"kamraa-e-imtihaan" :) ke darshan aaj maiN ne zindagi
> meiN pehli martaba aap kii is post meiN kiye. hameshaa ise
> "imtihaan kaa kamraa" yaa "igjaamineshan haal" :)) hi kahaa aur
> sunaa hai.
ye "rooh-farsaa" :) tarkeeb to maiN bachpan se suntaa chalaa aayaa
hooN UVR jee. aap bhee note kar hee leN. is kaa matlab to ye hai k aap
ne phir "raaqim e chiTThee", "baraamda e baiThak", "yak Daalee e
maiva", "bar binaa e bahee khaataa", aur "raqm e bachat" (LOLOLOL) ke
bhee daras naheeN kiye hoN ge. Khair, aap bhee kyaa yaad kareN ge, ham
ne aap ko ye "mu'ajiza" bhee dikhaa diyaa :)
(darj e baalaa tamaam misaaleN "Siraaj ul AKhbaar", 1934, se lee
ga'yee haiN)
> goyaa is daf'a bhii Dilli waaloN kii zubaan ziyaada *faseeH*
> niklee. :)) kyoN Zaff-bhaa`ii?
huzoor, dil jalaane kee baat karte haiN, kis zamaane kee baat karte
haiN? maiN to ye jaantaa hooN k san 2002 Eesvee meN Islamabad Urdu kaa
(kam az kam shaa'iree kee had tak) sab se baRaa markiz hai! mere is
da'avee kee daleel ye hai k aap chaahe jis se bhee "aaj" kee Urdu nazm
ke "top ten" shu'araa kee fehrist banvaa leN, un meN se kam az kam 5
shu'araa Islambad meN muqeem hoN ge aur kam az kam 2 mere gehre dost
hoN ge :)) qareeb qareeb yehee soorat e haal aap ko afsaane meN bhee
nazar aa'ye gee.
aap ne Mir kaa vo qita' naheeN sunaa, Dilli jo aik shehr "thaa"...?
Zaff
PN: maiN isee laRee meN aik aur "pust e dil-mast" :) tehreer kar rahaa
hooN; vaqt mile to dekh leejiye gaa.
Raj Kumar
abhi chand din qabl maiN ne Vinod Saahib ki "prayog-karda" tarkeeb ---
chilman-e-naaz --- par eit'eraaz uThaaya tha magar un ka radd-e-amal
abhi tak mausool naheeN huaa. idhar Sarwar Saahib ne Yogesh Saahib ki
"prayog-karda" tarkeeb --- arbaab-e-chalan --- par aisa hi eit'eraaz
uThaaya tha, albatta Yogesh Saahib ka radd-e-amal ghan-garaj ke saath
ham sab ke saamne hai. is radd-e-amal par jo kuchh bhi UVR Saahib ne
kahaa hai, voh meri "kal tak ki raaye" se to milta julta hai ---
albatta, Zaff ji ka mazmoon paRh kar meri raaye ab badal gayee hai!
maiN un ke maNdarja-zail sujhaaoN ka aadar-maan karta hooN --- Khaas
kar juzv b) to mujhe ati mufeed nazar aayaa hai! goya, faisilaa
tarkeeb ke sauti aahaNg par mabni ho --- haalaaN-k baat yeh bhi baRi
subjective si hai!!!
maslan, Toronto ki aek mehfil meiN mash_hoor muhaqqiq janaab-e-Gyaan
Chand Jain ne apni aek Ghazal meiN aek aisi hi tarkeeb barti thi jaisi
taraakeeb ki baat yahaaN par ho rahi hai aur unhoN ne bhi us tarkeeb
ke javaaz meiN vuhi kuchh kahaa tha jo apne Zaff ji keh rahe haiN.
aur, huzoor, jahaaN tak mujhe yaad hai voh tarkeeb thi "jheel-e-
munjamid" --- a frozen lake!
jahaaN tak mera ta'assur kaam karta hai --- hardly anyone there bought
it!
>
>
> lihaaza
>
> meree istid'aa hai k:
>
> a.
> is qism kee taraakeeb ko ba-yak junbish e qalam mustrad na kiyaa
> jaa'ye,
>
> b.
> faisilaa tarkeeb ke sautee aahang aur qubool e 'aam kee buniyaad par
> kiyaa jaa'ye.
>
> c.
> jo taraakeeb Urdu meN raa'ij ho chukee haiN (masalan, kamra e
> imtihaan, vG) un ke iste'emaal ko "jahaalat" na samjhaa jaa'ye.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mujhe Zaff ji se sirf aek shikaayat hai, voh yeh k unhoN ne jo
misaaleN di haiN voh beshtar puraani haiN. kuchh beesveeN sadi ki
misaaleN dete to behtar hota --- taake ham yeh jaan sakte k hameN ab
aa'iNda kis taraf jaana hai!
kuchh Iqbaal, Faiz, Josh, Jigar, Firaaq ya phir Faraaz hi ke kalaam ko
khaNgaalte to kuchh baat bhi thi --- puraani cheezeN to aaj kal ke
zamaane meiN raa'ij bhi ho sakti haiN --- aur matrook bhi!
maiN ne Zaff Saahib ke mazmoon ki is kami ko poora karne ki haqeer
koshish ki hai --- aek Ghazal jo k chaNd maah qabl ki hai us ke kuchh
ash'aar aap sabhi ki Khidmat meiN pesh kar rahaa hooN --- taake aap
par saaf zaahir ho jaaye k yeh maKhloot taraakeeb jin par log
jahaalat ka ilzaam lagaate haiN asl meiN jadeed
"saahibaan-e-qalam-davaat" par ravaa haiN!
haal hi meiN, Khud Yogesh Saahib ne aek misra diyaa tha aur logoN ko
us misre ki baihr aur zameen meiN ash'aar kehne ki da'avat di thi.
misra tha:
ai "man-e-man"! tujhe huaa kyaa hai?
ab aap kaheN ge k yeh "man-e-man" kyaa hota hai?
to javaaban arz hai k yahaaN par pehla man to Hindi ka hai aur doosra
Faarsi ka --- goya, "ai man-e-man" ka matlab hai: "ai mere man"!
dekha aap ne is tarkeeb ka sauti aahaNg? hai na niraa "rooh-leva"?
un ka poora she'r tha:
ai "man-e-man"! tujhe huaa kyaa hai?
"rog-e-ushshaaq" ki davaa kkyaa hai?
is mashq ke liye matla' apne Irfaan Abid Saahib ne likh bheja tha;
farmaate haiN k
1. dekhiye, haasil-e-vafaa kyaa hai?
aaj "aNdaaz-e-premikaa" kyaa hai?
aur Khud UVR Saahib (jo k aaj kal ke jaloosoN meiN
"jhaNDaa-e-qadaamat-parasti" le kar pesh pesh haiN) ne yeh she'r likh
bheja tha:
2. "raNj-o-dukh, peeR-e-yaas, cheeKh-o-pukaar"
ham ko AUR ishq meiN milaa kyaa hai?
aur Khud Yogesh Saahib ki "contribution-e-aali-maqaam" dekhiye:
farmaate haiN k
3. tuu ne paayaa vuhii jo maaNgaa tha
"dil-o-kaNgaal"! ab gilaa kyaa hai?
aur Amit Saahib ne to do she'r likh bheje the:
4. "premi-e-jaaN-nisaar" se na jhijak
aa mire dil meiN, sochtaa kyaa hai?
5. "bhed-e-hastii" sa ban gayaa hooN maiN
meri aaNkhoN meiN DhooNDataa kyaa hai?
aur sunaa hai k Urdu ke "kavi-e-azeem" Shri Ghaalib ji ne bhi is
zameen meiN kuchh she'r kahe haiN --- maiN ne socha k do-aek nageene
un ke bhi aap ko dikhaata chalooN. to leejiye saahib, aaN-hazrat apni
mehbooba ka sar-aa-paa dekh kar farmaate haiN k
6. yeh "pari-roop" shaKhs kaisaa hai?
"apsaraana" si yeh adaa kyaa hai?
7. zulf "maaniNd-e-kaala naag" hai kyooN?
aur yeh "aaNkh-e-surma-saa" kyaa hai?
aur dekhiye, husn-e-fitrat ka mushaahida karte huye huzoor kyaa kehte
haiN; farmaate haiN k
8. yeh "phal-o-phool" "kaaN" se aaye haiN?
"baadal-o-bijli-o-havaa" kyaa hai?
aur is ALUP-Ghazal ka maqta tha:
9. "arthi-e-Qais" dekh kar bole:
koi poochhe, ise huaa kyaa hai?
to, saahibaan, jin taraakeeb ka zikr aap kar rahe haiN voh taraakeeb
aaj se 100, 200, 300, 400 ya 500 baras pehle hi naheeN bal-ke aaj kal
bhi raa'ij haiN aur in se faraar paana hamaare bas ki baat naheeN hai!
Khair-chiNtak (ya'ani-k shubh-aNdesh) Raj Kumar
Raj Kumar
>
> 3. tuu ne paayaa vuhii jo maaNgaa tha
> "dil-o-kaNgaal"! ab gilaa kyaa hai?
A minor correction, please: dil-o-kaNgaal ---> dil-e-kaNgaal.
R.K.
Abhay Phadnis
"Vasmi Abidi" <vab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2761a60a.02100...@posting.google.com...
(snip)
> Likewise, "to", "too", and "two" are spelled differently and
> pronounced the same.
This assertion is simply not correct, and detracts from an otherwise
stimulating write-up. 'To' is NOT pronounced the same way as "too" and "two"
(which ARE pronounced identically) - the latter have a definite elongation
of the "u" sound (the Itrans "uu") while the former has a short, clipped "u"
(to use Devanagari terminology, 'rhasva' as compared to the 'diirgha' in too
and two).
Warm regards,
Abhay
Vasmi Abidi
Abhay Phadnis wrote:
> Totally unrelated to Urdu syntax, of course, but...
>
> "Vasmi Abidi" <vab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2761a60a.02100...@posting.google.com...
> (snip)
> > Likewise, "to", "too", and "two" are spelled differently and
> > pronounced the same.
>
> This assertion is simply not correct,
the assertion is simply not incorrect, either :)
( I mean, the issue isn't straightforward. The exact pronunciation depends on
the context in which the word is used, whether it is stressed or unstressed,
etc.)
there are cases where "to", "two" and "too" are pronounced the same.
I gather this from perusing a couple of dictionaries.
( I expect some Aluper will ask us to go to alt.english.pronunciation now!)
regards,
Vasmi
UVR
> Abhay Phadnis wrote:
>
> > Totally unrelated to Urdu syntax, of course, but...
> >
> > "Vasmi Abidi" <vab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2761a60a.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > (snip)
> > > Likewise, "to", "too", and "two" are spelled differently and
> > > pronounced the same.
> >
> > This assertion is simply not correct,
>
> the assertion is simply not incorrect, either :)
> ( I mean, the issue isn't straightforward. The exact pronunciation depends on
> the context in which the word is used, whether it is stressed or unstressed,
> etc.)
>
> there are cases where "to", "two" and "too" are pronounced the same.
> I gather this from perusing a couple of dictionaries.
>
> ( I expect some Aluper will ask us to go to alt.english.pronunciation now!)
>
> regards,
> Vasmi
Abhay-ji aur Vasmi saahib:
is mas`ale ko hal karne ke liye "aep" yaa "OUP" tak jaane kii
kyaa zaroorat hai? -- k is kaa jawaab to duniyaa kaa bachchaa-
bachchaa jaantaa hai. ma'aloom hotaa hai aap donoN hazraat ke
*zehnoN* se 'the most popular song in the world' utar chukaa
hai -- us geet kaa mukhRaa hi mulaahiza farmaaiye:
happy birthday tooooo yooooooooooou
:))
-UVR
UVR
> >
> > > phir khulaa hai dar e 'adaalat e naaz
> > > garm "baazaar e fauj-daaree" hai
> > > (vaazih ho k yahaaN "fauj-daaree" Urdu ma'anoN meN aayaa hai)
>
> > I disagree with the classification of this compound as an example
> > of Ghalib's violation of the "Arabi/Farsi-e-Arabi/Farsi only" rule.
> > Poets use well known words in new metaphors and new meanings every
> > day, but that does not change anything w.r.t their origin. AFAIK,
> > the rule of "a/f-e-a/f only" merely talks about the origin of the
> > word, not the way in which it is applied. "fauj" is Arabic in
> > derivation.
> >
> > Infact, I daresay you will not find ANY examples of violation
> > of this rule in all of Ghalib's work (Urdu OR Farsi).
> >
> > > Ra'ees Amrohvi, 1914-1988 (John Eliya ke bhaa'ee aur, Ghaliban, Urdu
> > > ke sab se baRe qita-nigaar):
> > >
> > > guzree thee jin kee SilhaT o Dhaakaa meN aik umr
> > > "sannaa' o kaarobaaree o taajir" bane huve
> >
> > What exactly is being violated here? Aren't all three words
> > Arabi/Farsi in origin? sannaa'[A], kaar-o-baar[P], taajir[A]
>
> Urdu ke alfaaz haiN -- aur Farsi/Arabi ke naheeN -- jaise "boree'at"
> aur "kaalijoN" aur "filmaanaa" Urdu ke alfaaz haiN -- aur Angraizee ke
> naheeN!!! agar aap Farsi kee kisee luGhat meN mujhe "fauj-daaree"
> ba-ma'anee e "aik qism kaa muqaddima" dikhaa deN to maiN apne mu'aqqif
> se haath jhaaR kar (bal k dho kar :)peechhe haT jaa'ooN gaa :))
Well, well, well ... biraadar-e-azeez-e-man,
hameN Khud to, Khair, "Farsi" aatii hai "siFar" ke baraabar [!!!]
albatta, is baat sheh aap ne di hai, to baazi ham maar jaayeNge :))
to, hazzat, kamar kasiye, aur le jaaiye tashreef is URL par:
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/steingass/advanced.html
aur
(1) Find words starting with "fauj"
(2) Find words starting with "kar"
aur hakke-bakke rah jaaiye alfaaz "fauj-dar/fauj-dari" aur
"kar-u-bar" dekh kar.
*is se ziyaadah haajat-e-sharh-o-bayaaN naheeN!* aur yooN bhi,
jale par namak chhiRakne ki hamaari aadat naheen :) waise itnaa
zaroor kaheNge k shaayad aap hi ki-sii adaa dekh kar shahr-e-
badaayuu.N ke aik mash_hoor shaa'ir ne likhaa thaa:
=> abhii naa_samajh ho, uThaao na Khanjar
=> kaheeN muR na jaaye tumhaarii kalaa`ii!
aur, ab aap aaiye, ek-adad Lux Supreme Khareed kar laaiye aur
apne "naajuk-naajuk" haathoN ko *mal-mal* kar dhoiye. ;) LOL ...
balke ROTFL
> > goyaa is daf'a bhii Dilli waaloN kii zubaan ziyaada *faseeH*
> > niklee. :)) kyoN Zaff-bhaa`ii?
>
> huzoor, dil jalaane kee baat karte haiN, kis zamaane kee baat karte
> haiN? maiN to ye jaantaa hooN k san 2002 Eesvee meN Islamabad Urdu kaa
> (kam az kam shaa'iree kee had tak) sab se baRaa markiz hai! mere is
> da'avee kee daleel ye hai k aap chaahe jis se bhee "aaj" kee Urdu nazm
> ke "top ten" shu'araa kee fehrist banvaa leN, un meN se kam az kam 5
> shu'araa Islambad meN muqeem hoN ge aur kam az kam 2 mere gehre dost
> hoN ge :)) qareeb qareeb yehee soorat e haal aap ko afsaane meN bhee
> nazar aa'ye gee.
waah, huzoor, maan gaye aap kii saada-dil(l)i :)) Khud apnaa nukta
"prove" karne ke liye to guzri huii sadiyoN ke DillivaaloN -- Meer,
Ghalib aur Shah-Zafar wG. kaa baRe shauq se sahaaraa le liyaa, aur
ab baat aayi zubaan ki fasaahat kii, to baat karte haiN san 2002 ki?
> aap ne Mir kaa vo qita' naheeN sunaa, Dilli jo aik shehr "thaa"...?
>
> Zaff
>
> PN: maiN isee laRee meN aik aur "pust e dil-mast" :) tehreer kar rahaa
> hooN; vaqt mile to dekh leejiye gaa.
jo aagyaa -- waqt milaa to maiN aap ko wahaaN bhi "dekh looNga" :))
-UVR.
Yogesh Sethi
> Yogesh saahib,
>
> You are right. There is no way to refute Zafar saahib's scholarly
> dissertation. Henceforth, if you use "...arbaab-e-chalan" and any
> other combination that strikes your fancy, we will be unable to
> take exception to it. It is another matter that we may not fancy
> those combinations, but then, as you yourself said, that is a matter
> of personal "taste".
UVR Sahib:
Thank you for keeping an open mind on this matter. If we begin to
judge the quality of compound expressions, the way we critique cadence
and ba.ndish, it will be more palatable.
>
> Meanwhile, may I request that we please refrain from making 'snide'
> remarks like "parroting categorical assertions devoid of analysis?"
> In my opinion, no constructive purpose is served by such comments.
OK! But we also need to contain the "smart-aleck" cracks on the typos
and the like! :-)
>
> Meanwhile, turning to Zafar saahib's post for a minute:
> ...
Many thanks to Sushil Sharma ji for bringing to our attention an
excellent article by Shamsur Rahman Farooqee. UVR ji, did you have a
chance to read it. What do you make of it?
If the facts behind the article are correct, and there appears to be
little to suggest otherwise, it is quite an eye opener! I find it
extremely disturbing that Insha, using his ability, position and
prejudice, succeeded almost single handedly in shackling Urdu poetry
to the factitious dictates of making compound expressions. Even more
incredible is the fact that hardly any outrage ensued in response to
such an egregious bias. How long will it be before the yoke of these
rules gets lifted is anyone's guess. But to acquiesce to them without
a murmur is hardly a befitting tribute to this great language Urdu.
Regards,
Yogesh
Sarwar Alam Raz
Urdu/Hindi-Farsi/Arabee alfaaz ke darmiyaan kasra.e.izaafat aur
vav.e.atf:
Yogesh saaheb kee teHreek per Haal hee meiN alup per aik dilchasp beHs
kaa aaGhaaz huaa hai. yeh beHs iss savaal se muta'alliq hai k
:kasra.e.izaafat aur vav.e.atf kyaa Hindi/Urdu aur Farsi/Arabee
alfaaz ke darmiyaan istaimaal kar ke taraakeeb banaayee jaa saktee
haiN?: bohat se dostoN ne iss mauzoo' per apne Khayaalaat kaa izhaar
kiyaa hai aur abhee yeh silsila jaaree hai. Zafar saaheb ne apne aik
dilchasp aur pur.az.ma'loomaat :post: meiN chand qadeem sho'raa ke
kalaam se misaaleN bhee dee haiN jin se yeh ishaara miltaa hai k in
sho'raa ne vaqtan fa.vaqtan kasra.e.izaafat aur vav.e.atf ko mazkoora
soorat meiN istaimaal kiyaa hai.
maiN iss beHs meiN :daKhal dar ma'qoolaat: zaraa der se kar rahaa
hooN. iss kee vajh internet per meree aaj.kal kee meHdood rasaa'ee
thee. chooN.k iss mauzoo' per paRhne, dekhne aur sochne kaa vaqt phir
bhee miltaa thaa, maiN ne kaafee vaqt iss teHqeeq meiN sarf kiyaa k
mas'ale ke kisee munaasib javaab aur mumkinah Hal tak poNhchaa jaa
sake. yeh :post: isee justujoo aur fikr kaa nateeja hai.
mas'ala.e.zer.e.beHs (ya'nee kyaa Urdu/Hindi-Farsi/Arabee alfaaz ke
darmiyaan kasra.e.izaafat aur vav.e.atf ke istaimaal se tarakeeb
banaa'ee jaa saktee haiN?) per kisee faisile yaa nateeje per poNhachne
kee chan mumkinah soorateN haiN:
(1) Urdu kee sarf.o.naHv (grammar) kee mustanad kitaaboN aur luGhaat
ko dekhaa jaaye
(2) Urdu ke mufakkireen kee raa'e iss silsile meiN dekhee jaaye k voh
kyaa kehte haiN. phir yeh dekhaa jaaye k Khud unhoN ne apnee
taKhleeqaat meiN kyaa tareeq.e.kaar istaimaal kiyaa hai. zaahir hai k
agar ko'ee shaKhs mazkoora soorat.e.istaimaal kee pur.zor Himaayat
kartaa hai lekin Khud uss kee teHreereN uss ke mauqif kee amalee
taa'eed naheeN kartee haiN to uss kee raa'e mo'tabar aur
qaabil.e.taqleed samajhne kaa ko'ee javaaz naheeN reh jaataa hai.
(3) jadeed aur maazee.e.qareeb ke udabaa.o.sho'raa kee taKhleeqaat ko
dekhaa jaaaye k iss zimn meiN un kaa kyaa tareeq.e.kaar rahaa hai.
(4) qadeem aur mustanad asaatiza ke kalaam aur teHreeroN kaa mutaali'a
kiyaa jaaye k unhoN ne iss zimn meiN kyaa ravai'yya iKhtiyaar kiyaa
thaa.
zaahir hai k yeh kaam bohat baRaa hai aur Khusoosan America ke meHdood
vasaa'il ke pesh.e.nazar taqreeban naamumkin hai. yeh bhee zaahir hai
k chand sho'raa ke ikkaa.dukka ash'aar kisee maKhsoos zaavia.e.fikr
kee taa'eed yaa tardeed meiN nikaal kar kisee mo'tabar aur qata'ee
faisile per naheeN poNhachaa jaa saktaa hai. maiN ne apnee bohat
meHdood ahliyyat, isee qadar meHdood vaqt aur uss se bhee ziyaada
meHdood vasaa'il ko baroo.e.kaar laate hue jo kuChh iss silsile meiN
kiyaa hai uss kaa Khulaasa darj.e.zel hai. ummeed hai k doosre
ahl.e.fikr.o.nazar iss meiN munaasib tarmeem.o.izaafa kar ke shukriye
kaa mauqa deN ge.
(1) sarf.o.naHv:
:Urdu kee sarf.o.naHv: (Molvi Abdul Haq) aur :tasHeel.e.Urdu: (Majid
Jami) meiN mujh ko ko'ee aisaa qaa'ida-kulliya nazar naheeN aayaa jo
zer.e.nazar masa'le meiN kasra.e.izaafat yaa vav.e.atf kee ijaazat
detaa ho. goyaa jahaaN tak muravvija sarf.o.naHv kee kitaaboN kaa
ta'alluq hai iss tareeq.e.kaar kee ijaazat naheeN hai.
(2) Urdu ke mufakkireen kee raa'e:
Zafar saaheb ne apne aalimaana Khat meiN Shan ul Haq :Haqqi: aur
Shamsur Rahman Farooqui saaheban kee raa'e likhee hai. iss se ma'loom
hotaa hai k yeh donoN Hazraat kasra.e.izzafat aur vav.e.atf ke
mazkoora istaimaal ke na sirf qaa'il haiN bal.k uss ke pur.zor Haamee
bhee haiN.
mere paas Haqqi aur Farooquee saahebaan kee taKhleeqaat aur kitaaboN
kaa nihaayat hee muKhtasar sarmaaya hai. uss ke mutaali'e ke dauraan
mujh ko aik bhee aisee misaal nazar naheeN aayee jahaaN unhoN ne apne
mubai'yyana mauqif kee taa'eed meiN kasra.e.izaafat aur vav.e.atf ko
Urdu/Hindi-Farsi/Arabee alfaaz ke darmiyaan mazkoora soorat meiN
istaimaal bhee kiyaa ho! yeh ain mumkin hai k un kee kul adabee aur
she'ree taKhleeqaat kaa mutaali'a un ke mauqif kee qaraar.vaaqa'ee
taa'eed kare k donoN apne kahe per amal bhee karte haiN. mere liye yeh
teHqeeq mumkin naheeN hai. shaayad Zafar saahab yaa ko'ee aur
karam.farmaa ba.shart.e.fursat iss per mazeed raushnee Daal sakeN.
(3) jadeed aur maazee.e.qareeb ke udubaa.o.sho'raa:
mere paas jo muKhtasar kutabKhaana hai aur jo risaale aur jareede mere
paas aate haiN un ke sarsaree mutaali'e ke dauraan mujh ko kisee ke
yahaaN aik bhee misaal aisee naheeN dikhaa'ee dee jiss se ma'loom ho k
voh mazkoora tareeq.e.kaar per amal karte haiN. vaaziH ho k mere iss
mutaali'e se sirf iss qadar hee ishaara miltaa hai k mere zaKheere
meiN aisee misaal naheeN hai. yeh bhee mumkin hai k chooN.k mutaali'a
sarsaree thaa meree nigaah kaheeN chook gayee ho. zaahir hai k maiN
yeh da'va naheeN kar saktaa k in logoN ne aisaa kabhee kiyaa hee
naheeN hai.
(4) qadeem asaatiza kaa tareeq.e.kaar:
Zafar saaheb ne apnee teHreer meiN qadeem sho'ra (Mirza Jaan.e.JaaN,
Mir Soz, Mir Taqi Mir, Abroo vaGhaira) ke jasta.jasta ash'aar diye
haiN jin se bazaahir yeh ishaara miltaa hai k in buzurgoN ne
kasra.e.izaafat aur vav.e.atf ko mazkoora soorat meiN kaheeN kaheeN
istaimaal kiyaa hai. maiN Zafar saaheb ke Khat ke issee Hisse se
muKhtasar beHs karnaa chaahtaa hooN kyoN.k yehee vaaHid pehloo aisaa
hai jiss per beHs kee gunjaa‘ish nazar aatee hai.
Zafar saaheb ne Mir Taqee Mir kaa aik misra likhaa hai jiss se Mir kee
mazkoora tareeq.e.istaimaal kee taa'eed kaa pehloo nikaalaa gayaa hai:
magar baazeecha samjhe Mir ishq.e.Khurd.saaloN ko
har.chand k mujh ko iss meiN ta'ammul hai k yeh misra iss istaimaal
kaa javaaz pesh kartaa hai ham iss ko beHs kee Khaatir aik lamHe ke
liye tasleem kiye lete haiN.
iss silsile meiN Molvi Abdul Haq ke :intiKhaab.e.kalaam.e.Mir: kaa aik
aik sher maiN ne Ghaur se paRhne kee koshish kee taa.k aise maqaamaat
kee nishaan.dehee kar sakooN jahaaN Mir ne mazkoora tareeqa istaimaal
kiyaa hai. iss majmoo'e ke seNkRoN ash'aar meiN aik misra iss taraH
kaa miltaa hai. agar Mir ke kulliyaat ko iss per qayaas kiyaa jaaye to
yeh kahaa jaa saktaa hai k un ke hazaaroN ash'aar meiN 4-6 ash'aar
aise nikal aayeN ge jin meiN kasra.e.izaafat aur vav.e.atf mazkoora
soorat meiN istaimaal kiye gaye hoN. phir agar doosre qadeem asaatiza
ke kalaam ko Mir ke kalaam per qayaas kiyaa jaaye to un ke muta'alliq
bhee yehee faisila karnaa munaasib hogaa.
iss marHale per chand savaal zehn meiN aate haiN:
(1) agar asaatiza ke nazdeek kasra aur atf kee mazkoora soorat
qaabil.e.qubool thee to yeh kyaa baat hai k un ke hazaarhaa ash'aar ke
kalaam meiN ikkaa.dukkaa hee aisee misaaleN miltee haiN jahaaN unhoN
ne iss ko ravaa rakhaa hai. aaKhir unhoN ne iss tareeqe ko iss qadar
meHdood soorat meiN kyoN bartaa hai k voh :aaTe meiN namak ke
baraabar: ho kar reh gayee hai, (bal.k iss se bhee kam)?
(2) voh daanish.var aur mufakkir jo aise istaimaal ke na sirf qaa'el
haiN bal.k uss ke javaaz ke saKht Haamee bhee haiN Khud apnee
teHreeroN meiN iss istaimaal se itne gurezaaN kyoN haiN? un ko to
chaahiye thaa k doosroN ke liye chiraaGh.e.raah kaa kaam karte aur iss
tareeqe ko ziyaada aam banaane meiN aage aage hote. yehee savaal
:jadeed: sho'raa se bhee kiyaa jaanaa chaahiye jo shaa'iree meiN
nayee raaheN nikaalne aur puraanee rivaayatoN se inHiraaf meiN aage
aage haiN. aaKhir un ke yahaaN bhee aisee misaaleN na hone ke baraabar
kyoN haiN?
hamaare saamne aham savaal yeh hai k :ham kyaa kareN?:
agar mazkoora istaimaal ko qubool kar liyaa jaaye to:
(a) kyaa yeh istaimaal her bandish aur shart se aazaad hogaa aur iss
taraH banaayee huee her tarkeeb qaabil.e.qubool hogee?
(b) agar yeh istaimaal kuChh sharaa'it kaa paaband ho gaa to voh
sharaa'it kyaa hoN gee aur un kaa tai'yyun kaun karegaa, neez un kaa
itlaaq Urdu duniyaa meiN kiss taraH kiyaa jaa sakegaa?
(c) agar yeh sharaa'it :subjective: hueeN (aur yaqeenan hoN gee!) to
in kee ifaadiyyat aur istaimaal mashkook aur ba'z auqaat
naa.qaabil.e.qubool hoN ge. misaal ke taur per agar:sautee aahaNg: kee
nafaasat aur Khoobsooratee ko iss tareeqe kee kasauTee qaraar diyaa
jaaye to yeh kaun faisila kare gaa k kab yeh :aahaNg: qaabil.e.qubool
hai aur kab naheeN?
zaahir hai k yeh savaal aasaan naheeN haiN. meraa Khayaal hai (aur iss
Khayaal kee buniyaad sirf yeh amr hai k hamaare asaatiza ne zer.e.beHs
tareeq.e.kaar ko aam taur se istaimaal naheeN kiyaa hai!) k asaatiza
ne kasra.e.izaafat aur vav.e.atf ko Urdu/Hindi aur Farsi/Arabee
alfaaz kaa maa.ben taraakeeb banaane ko aam taur se aChhaa naheeN
samjhaa hai aur jahaaN kaheeN iss ko iKhtiyaar kiyaa hai voh aik
vaqtee aur shaKhsee jazbe ke teHt kiyaa hai. mumkin hai k yeh unhoN ne
aik tajribe kee taraH kiyaa ho aur phir iss kee mushkilaat aur
naa.qaabil.e.qubool sooratoN ke iHsaas ne unko iss ke umoomee
istaimaal se door rakhaa ho. yeh baat to zaahir hai k agar iss tareeqe
ko aam kar diyaa jaaye to hazaaroN ajeeb.o.Ghareeb, muhmil, laGhv aur
mazHaka.Khez taraakeeb vujood meiN aa jaayeN gee. misaaloN kee
zaroorat naheeN hai. her saaheb.e.ilm iss Haqeeqat se vaaqif hai.
iss mauqif meiN yaqeenan vazn hai k mazkoora tareeqe se banaayee gayee
her tarkeeb ko baGhair soche samjhe mustarad karnaa daanaa'ee naheeN
hai. lekin iss ke liye zarooree hai k uss ma'yaar aur un
dalaa'el.e.raah (guidelines) kaa tai'yyun kiyaa jaaye jin kee raushnee
meiN kisee tarkeeb kee qubooliyyat yaa adam.qubooliyyat kaa faisila
kiyaa jaa sake. chooN.k ba.zaahir yeh agar naa.mumkin naheeN to be.Had
dushvaar kaam hai jiss ko duniyaa.e.Urdu ke saamne pesh karne aur uss
meiN raa'ij karaane kaa ko'ee vaseela bhee naheeN hai, shaayad ham ko
bil.aaKhir maujooda soorat ko hee tasleem karnaa hogaa.
aap se darKhwaast hai k aap bhee apne Khayaalaat se ham ko aagaah
kareN. shukriya!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
paabagil
>
> hameN Khud to, Khair, "Farsi" aatii hai "siFar" ke baraabar [!!!]
> albatta, is baat sheh aap ne di hai, to baazi ham maar jaayeNge :))
>
> to, hazzat, kamar kasiye, aur le jaaiye tashreef is URL par:
> http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/steingass/advanced.html
> aur
>
> (1) Find words starting with "fauj"
> (2) Find words starting with "kar"
>
> aur hakke-bakke rah jaaiye alfaaz "fauj-dar/fauj-dari" aur
> "kar-u-bar" dekh kar.
>
> *is se ziyaadah haajat-e-sharh-o-bayaaN naheeN!* aur yooN bhi,
> jale par namak chhiRakne ki hamaari aadat naheen :) waise itnaa
> zaroor kaheNge k shaayad aap hi ki-sii adaa dekh kar shahr-e-
> badaayuu.N ke aik mash_hoor shaa'ir ne likhaa thaa:
> => abhii naa_samajh ho, uThaao na Khanjar
> => kaheeN muR na jaaye tumhaarii kalaa`ii!
>
> aur, ab aap aaiye, ek-adad Lux Supreme Khareed kar laaiye aur
> apne "naajuk-naajuk" haathoN ko *mal-mal* kar dhoiye. ;) LOL ...
> balke ROTFL
>
> > > goyaa is daf'a bhii Dilli waaloN kii zubaan ziyaada *faseeH*
> > > niklee. :)) kyoN Zaff-bhaa`ii?
vaah jee vaah, UVR jee, aap ne to vaaqa'ee mujhe hakka bakkaa kar ke
rakh diyaa! balke mere to kaan tak sansanaa rahe haiN aap kee "post"
paRh kar :)) maiN to samjhaa thaa k aap ne jo itnaa lambaa ban-baas le
liyaa hai to ko'yee gul e maqsood le kar tashreef laa'yeN ge lekin
vaa'ye daraiGhaa! aap ne to shagoofa hee khilaa diyaa (LOLOL). janaab
e vaalaa, aap kee tamaam tar qaabilee'at sar aankhoN par, lekin kam az
kam "Urdu" meN hameN Thukraane se pehle agar thoRaa Ghaur farmaa liyaa
keejiye to 'ain navaazish ho gee, shukriya.
mahaaraaj, aap ko ye bataataa chalooN k 1997 se Steingass se
rooshanaas hai aur vo bhee us ke "paper-and-ink edition" se! (kuchh
yaad paRtaa hai k maiN ne shaa'id kisee post meN Farsi kee is "Platts"
kaa zikr bhee kar rakhaa hai). Khair, dekhte haiN aap kee 'arq raizee
kaa samar, balke guhar :) UVR jee, lagtaa hai aap kaa kabhee
"court-kachehree" se vaasta naheeN paRaa (kam az kam Dilli meN, LOLOL)
jabhee to aap ko ma'aloom naheeN k Urdu meN fauj-daaree kise kehte
haiN. Khair, ko'yee baat naheeN, mere hote hu've aap ko kyaa Gham, to
suniye:
fauj-daaree kaa Urdu matlab hai aisaa muqaddima jis meN laRaa'yee,
jhagRaa, maar-peeT, vG ke mu'aamilaat darpaish hoN! mazeed bar aaN,
"laRaa'yee, jhagRaa, maar-peeT" ko bhee fauj-daaree kahaa jaataa hai.
aur aap kee burhaan e qaat'e kyaa keh rahee hai:
"The office or jurisdiction of a fauj-daar."
ab bataa'iye, Ghalib ne Urdu fauj-daaree baandhaa hai yaa Farsi? maiN
ne to kabhee ye da'ava naheeN kiyaa k "fauj-daaree" Farsi meN sire se
maujood hee naheeN, maiN to is ke us (Urdu) luGhat kaa zikr kar rahaa
thaa jis meN Ghalib ne is takeeb ko baandhaa hai. rahee "kaarobaaree"
kee baat to vo to aap Farsi meN "kisee" bhee ma'anee meN paish naheeN
kar sake, is liye behs laahaasil hai.
vaise chalte chalte ye bataataa chalooN k mere paas "fauj-daaree" aur
"kaaroobaaree" ke "Urdu-pan" kee "mazeed" asnaad maujood haiN, is
li'ye aap se iltimaas karooN gaa k:
sun baat miree khol ke do kaan lee'jiye
ai UVR, yaar, kahaa maan lee'jiye!
LOLOLOL
> > huzoor, dil jalaane kee baat karte haiN, kis zamaane kee baat karte
> > haiN? maiN to ye jaantaa hooN k san 2002 Eesvee meN Islamabad Urdu kaa
> > (kam az kam shaa'iree kee had tak) sab se baRaa markiz hai! mere is
> > da'avee kee daleel ye hai k aap chaahe jis se bhee "aaj" kee Urdu nazm
> > ke "top ten" shu'araa kee fehrist banvaa leN, un meN se kam az kam 5
> > shu'araa Islambad meN muqeem hoN ge aur kam az kam 2 mere gehre dost
> > hoN ge :)) qareeb qareeb yehee soorat e haal aap ko afsaane meN bhee
> > nazar aa'ye gee.
>
> waah, huzoor, maan gaye aap kii saada-dil(l)i :)) Khud apnaa nukta
> "prove" karne ke liye to guzri huii sadiyoN ke DillivaaloN -- Meer,
> Ghalib aur Shah-Zafar wG. kaa baRe shauq se sahaaraa le liyaa, aur
> ab baat aayi zubaan ki fasaahat kii, to baat karte haiN san 2002 ki?
>
> > aap ne Mir kaa vo qita' naheeN sunaa, Dilli jo aik shehr "thaa"...?
to goyaa aap is baat kaa "credit" lene kee koshish kar rahe haiN k aap
kabhee us shehr meN rahe haiN jis meN (ittifaaq se) Ghalib kaa maqbara
vaaq'e huvaa hai??? UVR jee, kyaa ho gayaa hai aap ko? ye to vuhee
baat hu'vee jo maiN apne aik "office-colleague" ke baare meN kahaa
kartaa hooN k in kaa Urdu adab se baRaa gehraa ta'aluq hai, aur vo
yooN k inhoN ne Ibn e Inshaa kaa janaaza guzrte huve dekhaa thaa!!!
LOLOL
Khaaksaar,
Zaff
PN: aap ko aik maze kaa vaaqi'a sunaa'ooN, UVR jee. guzree Itvaar kee
raat halqa e arbaab e zauq kaa ma'amool kaa ijlaas bapaa thaa, jis meN
Urdu ke saf e avval ke nazm nigaar Aftab Iqbal Shameem ne apnee
shaah-kaar nazm, "ai hamesha ke zindaanio" sunaa'ee. ba'ad az aaN nazm
kaa tanqeedee mutaa'iya paish kiyaa gayaa. aik saahib ne etiraaz
uThaayaa k nazm meN "Ghussa e baibasee" kee tarkeeb istemaal kee
ga'yee hai
(surmageeN aakh se
Ghussa e baibasee ke sharaare nichaRte huve)
jo Ghalat hai kyoN k Farsi meN Ghussa "afsos" ke ma'anee meN istemaal
hotaa hai, jab k shaa'ir ne yahaaN Urdu ma'anee (ya'anee "Ghaiz o
Ghazab") meN baandhaa hai. tis par is heech-madaaN ne jo "javaab aaN
Ghazal" paish kiyaa, kaash aap hote to sunte!
UVR
> jhagRaa, maar-peeT, vG ke mu'aamilaat darpaish hoN! mazeed bar aaN,
> "laRaa'yee, jhagRaa, maar-peeT" ko bhee fauj-daaree kahaa jaataa hai.
> aur aap kee burhaan e qaat'e kyaa keh rahee hai:
>
> "The office or jurisdiction of a fauj-daar."
>
> ab bataa'iye, Ghalib ne Urdu fauj-daaree baandhaa hai yaa Farsi? maiN
> ne to kabhee ye da'ava naheeN kiyaa k "fauj-daaree" Farsi meN sire se
> maujood hee naheeN, maiN to is ke us (Urdu) luGhat kaa zikr kar rahaa
> thaa jis meN Ghalib ne is takeeb ko baandhaa hai. rahee "kaarobaaree"
> kee baat to vo to aap Farsi meN "kisee" bhee ma'anee meN paish naheeN
> kar sake, is liye behs laahaasil hai.
Zaff-bhaa`ii:
maiN pehle bhi 'arz kar chukaa hooN k (mere Khayaal se) is "rule"
kaa ta'alluq sirf alfaaz ke ma'Khaz se hai, na k un ke ma'ani se.
is baat ko aap mujh se behtar jaante haiN k Urdu meN aa kar ba'az
Farsi/Arabi alfaaz ke ma'ani badal gaye haiN. lekin aisaa hone
par un ke ma'Khaz par to koi asar naheeN paRtaa? lafz agar Farsi
kaa hai, to Farsi ka hai, chaahe woh Urdu meN aa koi saa "huliya"
iKhtiyaar kare! "fauj-daaree" aur "kaar-o-baarii" ko to dekh hi
chuke haiN, ek misaal aur haazir hai -- ta`ammul: (bi`l alif),
jo apne `haaN ba-ma'ani-e-"hesitation" istemaal hotaa hai. aap
ko 'ilm hoga k yeh lafz dar`asl Arabi kaa hai, aur Urdu meN Farsi
se hote-hote aayaa hai. is lafz kaa 'root' word "alif waalaa amal"
hai. lekin Arabi meN is lafz ke kyaa ma'ani haiN, Farsi meN kyaa,
aur Urdu meN kyaa? aur is se us lafz ki etymology par kaun-saa
farq paR gayaa?
[(*)BTW, bhaaiijaan, Ghaur keejiyegaa k "kar-u-bari" Steingass
meN maujood hai, aur bilkul maujood hai; nazar *aap* ko naheeN
aayaa, aur kahte haiN k *maiN* use "kisee bhee ma'anee meN paish
naheeN kar" sakaa)! ab Khudaa hi samjhaaye k yeh taGhaaful hai,
k kya hai! :)) LOL]
> vaise chalte chalte ye bataataa chalooN k mere paas "fauj-daaree" aur
> "kaaroobaaree" ke "Urdu-pan" kee "mazeed" asnaad maujood haiN, is
> li'ye aap se iltimaas karooN gaa k:
>
> sun baat miree khol ke do kaan lee'jiye
> ai UVR, yaar, kahaa maan lee'jiye!
yaqeen jaaniye, mujhe aap kaa "kahaa maan_ne" se koi harj naheeN
hai. lekin, huzoor, aap koi *Dhang* kii misaal to pesh keejiye!
in baatoN se kuchh naheeN hotaa k falaaN lafz ko Ghalib ne "Urdu
maanoN meN" istemaal kiyaa hai -- meraa da'awa to aaj bhi yahii
hai k Mirza Ghalib ne kahiiN apne kalaam meN yeh "rule" naheeN
toRaa. aap is conjecture ko jooN hi disprove kareNge, maiN tooN
hi aap kaa daas ho jaaooNga ... aur woh bhi "bi-laa ta`ammul" :))
ROTFL
aur haaN, ek baat aur, apne darj-e-baalaa misroN ki behr durust
kar leejiye :)) LOLOLOL
> PN: aap ko aik maze kaa vaaqi'a sunaa'ooN, UVR jee. guzree Itvaar kee
> raat halqa e arbaab e zauq kaa ma'amool kaa ijlaas bapaa thaa, jis meN
> Urdu ke saf e avval ke nazm nigaar Aftab Iqbal Shameem ne apnee
> shaah-kaar nazm, "ai hamesha ke zindaanio" sunaa'ee. ba'ad az aaN nazm
> kaa tanqeedee mutaa'iya paish kiyaa gayaa. aik saahib ne etiraaz
> uThaayaa k nazm meN "Ghussa e baibasee" kee tarkeeb istemaal kee
> ga'yee hai
>
> (surmageeN aakh se
> Ghussa e baibasee ke sharaare nichaRte huve)
>
> jo Ghalat hai kyoN k Farsi meN Ghussa "afsos" ke ma'anee meN istemaal
> hotaa hai, jab k shaa'ir ne yahaaN Urdu ma'anee (ya'anee "Ghaiz o
> Ghazab") meN baandhaa hai. tis par is heech-madaaN ne jo "javaab aaN
> Ghazal" paish kiyaa, kaash aap hote to sunte!
aji, yeh kyaa baat hui k "aap hote to sunte"? :) ham yahaaN
*kaan khole* baiThe haiN, aap sunaaiye to sahi!
-UVR.
paabagil
1.
maiN to aap kee aik Khoobee kaa sau jaan se "aashiq" :) ho gayaa hooN
:) aur vo ye k aap kisee bhee mauzoo' e zair e behs ko "Khaa-maKhaa"
aise "Ghatrabood" kar dete haiN k pataa hee naheeN chaltaa k asl
mas'ala kyaa thaa! ab izaafat ke mas'ale kee misaal le leejiye: aap
ne, hasb e saabiq, aik aisee behs shuru kar dee jis kaa na sirf asl
mauzoo' se ko'yee ta'aluq naheeN thaa balke us ke baare meN "bhee" aap
kee ma'aloomaat na hone ke baraabar theeN! aap ko ma'aloom hee naheeN
k Ghalib ke is she'er par kyaa kyaa behs o tamhees ho chukee hai aur
kyaa kyaa 'etiraazaat uThaa'ye gaye haiN.
ye baat bhee ab faisal ho chukee hai k jo lafz ma'anee ke lihaaz se
"muarrad" ("Urdunized" :) ho chukaa ho, use Urdu kaa lafz hee tasleem
kiyaa jaa'ye gaa ... is baat se qata' e nazar k ye asl meN kis zabaan
se aayaa hai. ye baat Akhtar Usman ko ma'aloom thee isee liye us ne AI
Shameem ke "Ghusaa e baibasee" par etiraaz kiyaa thaa. is qism ke
chand aur alfaaz kee misaaleN darj e zail haiN:
alfaaz jo Arabi se aa'ye:
Khasam, tamaasha, mushaata, iKhlaas, Khairaat, takraar, toofaan,
Khafeef, masalaH, Khaatir, afraa-tafee;
Farsi:
roozgaar, roomal, rasad, murGh;
Turki:
qalaanch, aaqaa, chiq,
vG, vG.
2.
Urdu ke 'azeem naqqaad, muhaqqiq, luGhat-navees, zabaan daan aur
saheeh ma'anoN meN "ehd-saaz" shaKhsee'at, janaab Shamsur Rahman
Farooqi ke ta'asuraat to aap sun hee chuke haiN. janaab Shanul Haq
Haqqi bhee zabardast shaa'ir aur maahir e zabaan haiN. vu Urdu ke
intihaa'yee mu'aqqar lisaanee jareede "Urdu-naama" ke 16 saal tak
mudeer reh chuke haiN (jee haaN, Urdu ke ka'yee lisaanee risaale
nikalte rahe haiN).
aur ab zaraa ye dekhiye:
Gyaan Chand Jain (daanishvar, shaa'ir, muhaqqiq, naqqaad):
"maiN SR Farooqi aur Rasheed Hassan Khan ko Urdu kaa ja'yyad 'aalim
maantaa hooN, donoN 'ulemaa Farsi o Hindi alfaaz ke beech izafat aur
atf ke rishte ke vakeel haiN ... maiN in hazraat kaa mo'yeed hooN."
mu'aaf keeje gaa UVR jee, tamaam tar "dostee-yaaree" ke baavajood maiN
"in" hazraat ke muqaabile par aap ko kisee bhee qism kee "sanad"
maan-ne ke liye har-giz tayyaar naheeN hooN. ummeed hai aap buraa
naheeN manaa'yeN ge:
dost kehtaa hooN tumheN, shaa'ir naheeN kehtaa, Sha'oor
dostee apnee jagah hai, "shaa'iree" apnee jagah!!!
;)
*****
janaab e Raj Kumar saahib:
maiN election meN hissa lene apne gaa'oN gayaa huvaa thaa (vote Daalne
ke liye, na k election laRne ... jaisaa k ba'az ALUPers ne Khayaal
zaahir kiyaa hai :) vaapasee meN safar ke dauraan mujhe mauzoo e zair
e behs se muta'aliq ka'yee misaaleN yaad aa'yeeN aur saath hee saath
apnee yaadaasht par ronaa bhee k itnee saamne ke ash'aar us vaqt zehn
se hazf ho ga'ye the. to chali'ye aap kee ye
jadeed-misaaloN-ke-fuqdaan kee shikaayat kaa izaalaa kiye dete haiN:
Hakeem Sinaa'yee (died, 1152 A.D.):
na dar aaN ma'eda Khadra e maida
na dar aaN deeda "qatra e paanee!"
Amir Khusro (died, 1325 A.D.)
arrrrrreee!!! misaaleN thoRee puraanee ho ga'yeeN, Khair, ko'yee baat
naheeN, apne zamaane kee taraf palaTte haiN:
Shanul Haq Haqqi:
saj ga'yee ashk e faraavaaN se miree kisht e hayaat
kasrat e aus se hai tarf e chaman aa'eena band
nighare aise bhee haiN, Khair se, ham jin par
dar e rehmat to kujaa, duvaara e zindaaN bhee hai band
------
ye hai gyaan o gumaaN kee sarhad, kidhar hai teraa jhukaa'o ai dil
gyaaN hai fikr o nazar kaa phandaa, gumaaN meN aazaadiyaaN hai kyaa
kyaa
badal gaye naqsh o roop saare, na chal sakeN ge vu iste'aare
subak the jo harf o saut pehle, vu gosh e dil par giraaN haiN kyaa
kyaa
-------
(mujhe Sanaa'ee aur Khusro ke ash'aar pehle se yaad the; Haqqi saahib
ke ash'aar vaapas aane ke ba'ad mile)
aur haaN, yaad aayaa, Urdu ke aik mustanad, "har dil 'azeez" aur
"jadeed" (ye lafz baRe ta'aamul ke ba'ad istemaal karnaa paR rahaa
hai:) shaa'ir hote haiN, Qais Qais kar ke. nasr meN to un ke haaN
ka'yee misaaleN mil jaatee haiN lekin hazrat ne aik silsile-vaar nazm
bhee tasneef farmaa rakhee hai, "naGhma e ALUP" kee shubh naam se!
(LOLOLOL). in ko ko'yee kuchh naheeN? :)
******
janaab e Sarwar saahib:
maiN ne oopar Shanul Haq Haqqi saahib kee chand ash'aar naql kiye
haiN, ummeed hai ab aap apnee ba'az sifaarishaat par nazar e saanee
famaa'yeN ge.
niaaz-mand,
Zaff
Yashowanto N. Ghosh
> to write about Urdu in English (just a personal bias! :))
>
paRh ke Urdu seekhne kii koshish kar rahaa hooN---jinhe Urdu aatii hai
voh agar aNgrezii meiN likheN to maiN seekhooNgaa kaise?!
>
> vo lafz, tarkeeb, mahaavara yaa usool saheeh aur faseeh maanaa jaa'ye
> gaa jise Urdu ke "aik se ziyaada" musallimus-suboot asaatiza ne apnee
> tehreeroN meN bartaa ho.
>
kaa jo istaimaal karte haiN vohee faseeh hai. is :definition: kii aik
Khoobii yeh hai k koii lafz agar kisii zamaane meiN faseeh reh bhii
chukaa ho, jadeed Urdu meiN aam taur pe uskaa istaimaal na hone se use
Ghair-faseeh Thehraayaa jaa saktaa hai. aap ne jo :definition: diyaa hai
us se to kisii lafz ko 14th/15th sadee ke asaatiza ke kalaam k binaa
par bhii faseeh kahaa jaa saktaa hai---aur aisa karne se sha'irii kee
zabaan aam Urdu se itnii muKhtalif ho jayegee k use samajhnaa
mujh-jaisoN ke liye bahut dushvaar ho jaayegaa :(
> aaj jab ham us daur se door khaRe haiN, hameN chaahiye k un "asaatiza"
> ke vaza' karda qavaaneen par aankheN band kar ke "aameen" na kehte
> chale jaa'yeN bal k khule dil o dimaaGh se dekheN k aaKhir huvaa kyaa
> hai.
>
meiN aap k aur Sushil saahab k post se saaf zaahir hai k voh aisaa kar
bhii rahe haiN), lekin Urdu (yaa phir koii aur zabaan) meiN agar koii
vusool yaa paabandii qaa'im ho gayaa ho, chaahe Ghalatii se hii sahee,
sadee'oN baad use badalnaa bhii to shaayad Ghalat hii hai?---kyoN k
kisii zabaan kee sarf-o-nahv koii ilm-e-riyazii to hai naheeN...
>
> naapasand kee baat hai. ab "surKhee e paaN" ko Ghalat kehnaa kisee
> bhee tareeqe se jaa'iz naheeN k kam az 2 musallimus suboot asaatizaa
> is ko istemaal kar chuke haiN. ba-taur e usool is ko Ghalat kehnaa is
> liye Ghalat hai k kam az kam 10 musallimus-suboot asaatiza yehee
> "Ghalatee" farmaa chuke haiN.
>
qaabil-e-qubool qaraar dene se bhii vusool shaayad naheeN TooTegaa...
maiNne is se qabl :Grammar Book: sirf aNgrezi kaa dekhaa hai, aur us
meiN to har-aik vusool ke saath :exceptions: kee lambee fehrisht hotee
hai.
>
> agar Urdu/Farsi alfaaz kaa milaap mumkin naheeN to "laa-pataa",
> "laa-chaar" aur -- gasp! -- "bai-chain" ko bhee Urdu zaKheera e alfaaz
> se Khaarij karnaa paRe gaa? Maulaanaa Hasrat kasra par 'etiraaz karte
> haiN, lekin ye she'er kaa hai?
>
> bai-chain bahut phirnaa...
>
> hai k naheeN?
>
gayaa---paabandiyaaN to shaayad sirf farsi constructions par haiN, aur
yeh "laa-pataa, laa-chaar, bai-chain" meiN jo construction hai voh to
:peculiar to Persian: naheeN hai?!
>
> "... Hindi-Farsi kaa joR paivand Urdu ke mizaaj se bai-mail naheeN ...
> Farsi kaa kasra e izaafat hamaare liye zarooree hai. is ke istemaal
> par jo bandisheN 'aaid haiN, un ko baratnaa 'avaam un naas ke liye na
> pehle mumkin thaa na ab ho gaa ... is bai-kaar bandish kaa zaroor
> azaalaa kiyaa jaa saktaa hai k Urdu kee nisf luGhat nisf deegar se
> aamez na hone paa'ye!"
>
> (Shan ul Haq Haqqee. Urdu alfaaz meN chhoot chhaat. Shab Khoon. 1998;
>
> izaafat ke mutahammil ho sakte haiN. in alfaaz kee asal Hindi hai yaa
> Ghair-Hindi, ye behs Ghair-zarooree hai!!!"
>
> (Shamsur Rahman Farooqee. Shab Khoon. 1998. 215;5-37)
>
ke beech yeh behs abhii jaarii hai (varnaa yeh saahibaan is par likhte
hii kyoN?)---I am curious to know what (if anything) other experts may
have written in support of the contrary point of view?
Finally: Did you win that election?
With best regards,
Jasho.
Raj Kumar
> *****
>
> janaab e Raj Kumar saahib:
>
> maiN election meN hissa lene apne gaa'oN gayaa huvaa thaa (vote Daalne
> ke liye, na k election laRne ... jaisaa k ba'az ALUPers ne Khayaal
> zaahir kiyaa hai :)
chaliye, yeh to Khairiyat guzri k aap sirf 'vote' Daalne gaye the, na
k inteKhaab laRne! v'allaa-h, agar aap inteKhaab laRne jaate to,
dar-eeN-haalaat, Ghaaliban muNh ki khaa ke aate! :-))
> vaapasee meN safar ke dauraan mujhe mauzoo e zair
> e behs se muta'aliq ka'yee misaaleN yaad aa'yeeN aur saath hee saath
> apnee yaadaasht par ronaa bhee k itnee saamne ke ash'aar us vaqt zehn
> se hazf ho ga'ye the. to chali'ye aap kee ye
> jadeed-misaaloN-ke-fuqdaan kee shikaayat kaa izaalaa kiye dete haiN:
>
> Hakeem Sinaa'yee (died, 1152 A.D.):
>
> na dar aaN ma'eda Khadra e maida
> na dar aaN deeda "qatra e paanee!"
>
> Amir Khusro (died, 1325 A.D.)
>
> arrrrrreee!!! misaaleN thoRee puraanee ho ga'yeeN, Khair, ko'yee baat
> naheeN, apne zamaane kee taraf palaTte haiN:
bhai, aap ke Khat meiN "jadeed misaaloN ka fuqdaan" to abhi bhi hai
--- Khair, chaliye, shaa'id aage chal kar koi kaam ki shai mil jaaye
--- haalaaN-k, ummeed to kam kam si hai! :-))
>
> Shanul Haq Haqqi:
>
> saj ga'yee ashk e faraavaaN se miree kisht e hayaat
> kasrat e aus se hai tarf e chaman aa'eena band
>
> nighare aise bhee haiN, Khair se, ham jin par
> dar e rehmat to kujaa, duvaara e zindaaN bhee hai band
> ------
>
> ye hai gyaan o gumaaN kee sarhad, kidhar hai teraa jhukaa'o ai dil
> gyaaN hai fikr o nazar kaa phandaa, gumaaN meN aazaadiyaaN hai kyaa
> kyaa
>
> badal gaye naqsh o roop saare, na chal sakeN ge vu iste'aare
> subak the jo harf o saut pehle, vu gosh e dil par giraaN haiN kyaa
> kyaa
> -------
vaah, vaa, maan gaye "laaDlaa-e-man"! --- ba-Khudaa, kyaa misaaleN di
haiN aap ne k dil seene se baahar aane ko hai!
are miyaaN, aap bhool rahe haiN k yeh "jadeed" urdu-daan to aek khel
khel rahe haiN --- aur voh bhi aisa khel k "chal gayaa to teer, naheeN
to tukka!"
agar, in jadeediyoN ke 'eemaa par, auroN ne aisi maKhloot izaafatoN ko
apnaa liyaa to in logoN ki chaaNdi hi chaaNdi hai --- aur agar kisi ne
in ki parvaa tak na ki to bhi in ka kyaa bigaRtaa hai?
agli barsaat ke ba'ad kis ko yaad rahe ga k kis "so-called muhaqqiq"
ne kyaa kahaa tha?
You see, what I mean?
azeez-e-man, these people thrive on this sort of a game! agar chal
gayee to chal agyee --- aur agar na chali to "who is going to remember
as to who advocated what --- and when?!!!
savaal mere nazdeek to yeh hai k agar maKhloot izaafateN ravaa haiN to
phir Hasrat, AsGhar, Haali, Iqbaal, Josh, Jigar, Firaaq, Faiz aur
Faraaz vGh ne aisi izaafateN kiyooN naheeN barteeN?
ba-Khudaa, koi maa'ii ka la'al is savaal ka javaab to de???
silaa-e-aam hai yaaraan-e-nukta-daaN ke liye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> aur haaN, yaad aayaa, Urdu ke aik mustanad, "har dil 'azeez" aur
> "jadeed" (ye lafz baRe ta'aamul ke ba'ad istemaal karnaa paR rahaa
> hai:) shaa'ir hote haiN, Qais Qais kar ke.
maariye goli "jadeed" ko, huzoor, is zimn meiN to "mustanad" aur
"har-dil-azeez" jaisi sifaat hi kaafi haiN! :-))
> nasr meN to un ke haaN
> ka'yee misaaleN mil jaatee haiN lekin hazrat ne aik silsile-vaar nazm
> bhee tasneef farmaa rakhee hai, "naGhma e ALUP" kee shubh naam se!
> (LOLOLOL). in ko ko'yee kuchh naheeN? :)
bhai, yeh LOLOLOL kyooN? aap ko yaad hona chaahiye k
farmaan-e-Qais moojab-e-taz_heek to naheeN
tum sun ke muskuraa diye, yeh Theek to naheeN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
are miyaaN, yahaaN par ALUP aek "proper noun" ke taur par bartaa gayaa
hai aur us soorat meiN yeh izaafat har lihaaz se ravaa hai! lagta hai
k aap ne na to sub'h-e-Banaaras dekhi hai aur na hi shaam-e-Avadh ---
aur na hi Iqbaal ka voh she'r paRhaa hai jis ka pehla misra hai:
"ai aab-e-raud-e-GaNgaa, voh din haiN yaad tujh ko?"
azeez-e-man, "naGhma-e-ALUP" bhi usi mustanad silsile ki aek aham kaRi
hai!
ab bataaiye, kaisa??? :-))
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Sarwar Alam Raz
> janaab e Sarwar saahib:
>
> maiN ne oopar Shanul Haq Haqqi saahib kee chand ash'aar naql kiye
> haiN, ummeed hai ab aap apnee ba'az sifaarishaat par nazar e saanee
> famaa'yeN ge.
Zafar saaheb salaam!
taaKheer.e.javaab kee ma'zarat! kal din bhar internet per na jaa
sakaa.
aap ke Khat se ma'loom huaa k Haqqi saaheb ne kuChh taraakeeb
istaimaal kee haiN. shukriya! kaash maiN yah bhee keh saktaa k maiN un
kee iss :bid'at: :-) kee asar-pazeeree aur she'riyyat se muta'assir
bhee huaa! zaahir hai k yeh meree :daqyaanosee: tarbiyyat aur
rujHaan.e.taba' kaa kiyaa dharaaa hai!
yeh savaal albataa dilchasp hai k Haqqi saaheb ne kiss Had tak iss
iKhtiraa' ko apne kalaam meiN istaimaal kiyaa hai aur :jadeed:
Ghazalgo shaa'iroN ne iss se iss qadaar iHtiraaz kyoN bartaa hai. maiN
aap se javaab naheeN maaNg rahaa hooN bal.k sirf soch rahaa hooN!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
paabagil
> > gaa jise Urdu ke "aik se ziyaada" musallimus-suboot asaatiza ne apnee
> > tehreeroN meN bartaa ho.
> >
> maiN to yeh samajhtaa thaa k ahl-e-zabaan alfaaz, tarakeeb aur mahaaviroN
> kaa jo istaimaal karte haiN vohee faseeh hai. is :definition: kii aik
> Khoobii yeh hai k koii lafz agar kisii zamaane meiN faseeh reh bhii
> chukaa ho, jadeed Urdu meiN aam taur pe uskaa istaimaal na hone se use
> Ghair-faseeh Thehraayaa jaa saktaa hai. aap ne jo :definition: diyaa hai
> us se to kisii lafz ko 14th/15th sadee ke asaatiza ke kalaam k binaa
> par bhii faseeh kahaa jaa saktaa hai---aur aisa karne se sha'irii kee
> zabaan aam Urdu se itnii muKhtalif ho jayegee k use samajhnaa
> mujh-jaisoN ke liye bahut dushvaar ho jaayegaa :(
janaab e Jasho saahib:
kaise haiN aap? maiN aaj kal kuchh ziyaada hee masroof hooN, aur vaise
bhee Zoya bajee :)) ne aaraam kaa mashvara diyaa huvaa hai (jaise maiN
ko'yee pahaaR khod ke nehreN nikaal rahaa thaa :) is liye aap ke sirf
aik savaal kaa javaab de saktaa hooN. ummeed hai aap isee se
"guzaaraa" kar leN ge :)
aap kaa farmaanaa ye hai k ahl e zabaan ko faseeh maan liyaa jaa'ye.
bahut achchhaa, maan liyaa! lekin pyaare bhaa'ee, konse ahl e zabaan
aur kon se zabaan? ham "in" vujooh kee buniyaad par aap ke mashvare
par amal naheeN kar sakte:
1.
aap jaante hoN ge -- yaa agar naheeN jaante to ab jaan leN :) -- k
Urdu ke ka'yee dabistaan haiN, jaise Deccan, Agra, Dehli, Lucknow ...
aur aaj ke daur meN Karachi, Lahore aur Islamabad (maiN pehle kaheeN
arz kar chukaa hooN k "aaj" Urdu kaa sab se fa'aal aur sargarm
dabistaan Islambad hai). in meN se ka'yee dabistaan aise haiN jin ke
darmiyaan shadeed iKhtilaafaat haiN. to phir fasaahat kaa faisilaa
kaise ho?
2.
ahl e zabaan ko sanad maan-ne meN aik baRee khanDat ye bhee hai k adab
kee zabaan aur hotee hai, avaam kee zabaan aur. Mir, Ghalib aur Iqbal
kee misaaleN kyaa dooN, isee bazm meN shaa'e shudaa janaab e Sarwar
kee Ghazal kaa she'er hai:
Khush-kaam.o.junooN-Khez.o.Khud-aamoz.o.Khudee-saaz
yeh nok.e.qalam, jur'at.e.izhaar hai, maiN hooN!
aap mujhe bataa'iye k is she'er kee zabaan kee tasdeeq ke liye maiN
kon se ilaaqe se sanad laa'ooN?
yehee haal taqreeban tamaam adab kaa hai (chaahe vo nasr hee kyoN na
ho) k bolee aur likhaavaT meN farq hotaa hai (ye farq kyoN hai aur ise
honaa chaahiye yaa naheeN, vo aik alag savaal hai ... agar aap is
mas'ale par dilchaspee rakhte hoN to sun leN k ST Coleridge ne apnee
mash'hoor kitaab Biographia Literaria meN shaa'iraana zabaan par baRee
achchhee behs kee hai. ye kitaab aap ko Net par mil jaa'ye gee)
3.
aap ne matrookaat kee baat kee hai. bajaa irshaad, lekin pehle ye bhee
sun leejiye k matrook hotaa kyaa hai. Urdu meN to is qism kaa ko'yee
usool (please note that the correct word is "u"sool, not "v"usool :)
naheeN hai lekin Oxford English Dictionary us lafz ko matrook maantee
hai jo pichhle 100 saal se ist'emaal na huvaa ho. ham yehee kuliya
Urdu par bhee laagoo kar sakte haiN. lekin mas'ala ye hai ba'az auqaat
shu'araa "hazraat" kisee saddioN puraane lafz ko is taKhleeqee shaan
se bart jaate haiN k saare qavaaneen khaRe moonh dekhte reh jaate
haiN. misaal ke taur par mujhe zaatee taur par Firaq kaa ye she'er
bahut pasand hai:
ab aksar chup chup se rahe haiN, yooN hee kabhoo lab kholeN haiN
pehle Firaq ko dekhaa hotaa, ab to bahut kam boleN haiN
hashv se qata' e nazar, she'er bahut kaifee'yat kaa haamil hai aur is
baat se kon inkaar kar saktaa hai k ye kaifeeyat matrookaat ke
istemaal se paidaa huvee hai. isee tarah Faiz kee Ghazal kaa she'er
hai:
kuchh pehle in aankhoN aage kyaa kyaa na nazaaraa guzre thaa
kyaa raushan ho jaatee thee galee jab yaar hamaaraa guzre thaa
yaa phir John Eliya kee Ghazal kaa matla' hai:
miraa ik mashvaraa hai iltijaa na'iN*
too mere paas se is vaqt jaa na'iN
("naheeN" kee 18th sadee kee shakl)
in tamaam guzaarishaat kee binaa par maiN -- aik baar phir -- yehee
arz karooN gaa k:
> > vo lafz, tarkeeb, mahaavara yaa usool saheeh aur faseeh maanaa jaa'ye
> > gaa jise Urdu ke "aik se ziyaada" musallimus-suboot asaatiza ne apnee
> > tehreeroN meN bartaa ho.
Khaak-basar,
pbg
Yogesh Sethi
> toRaa. aap is conjecture ko jooN hi disprove kareNge, maiN tooN
> hi aap kaa daas ho jaaooNga ... aur woh bhi "bi-laa ta`ammul" :))
> ROTFL
>
UVR Sahib:
Would you or someone kindly check this couplet and see if it qualifies
for one that contains a "mixed-izaafat".
yaarab! zamaanaa mujh ko miTaataa hai kis liye
lauh-e-jahaa.N pe harf-e-mukarrar nahii.n huu.N mai.n
-[Ghalib]
Regards,
Yogesh
UVR
No, Yogesh saahib, it doesn't. AFAIK, the origins of the respective
words on the izaafaat are: lauH, Harf, mukarrar: A and jahaa.N: P.
-UVR.
Yogesh Sethi
Thank you, UVR Sahib. I hope I can keep this debate on track! I would
like to make two points:
1. "lauH" also has a Sanskrit root - 鼠auhaavar.ND' etc. Which of the
two is more ancient I do not know. But I would assume that you chose
to apply the non-Sanskrit root for the word in question on the basis
of its usage and implied meaning here. But then how can one argue that
when it comes to applying the "rule" for determining the origin of a
word the meaning of the word does not matter?
2. Now we come to the more important point: We say that
"lauh-e-jahaa.N = taKhtii of jahaa.n" is acceptable but
"lauh-e-jahaa.N = steel of jahaa.N" may not be! Under the "rule", if
such a compound is to be formed and can be made to fit in terms of its
meaning, we must some how replace "lauhaa" with "faulaad". Hence the
question: if I were to use this 訴zaafat' with the latter meaning,
which root of the word must I apply?
In short, if we have an Urdu word with exact same scansion but two
entirely different meanings and roots, are we to assume that under the
"rules" an "izaafat" is permitted under one meaning but not under the
other! At least not without incurring the opprobrium of having a bad
taste in Urdu poetry?
Thank you,
Yogesh
UVR
> > Yogesh Sethi) wrote:
> > > UVR wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ... -- meraa da'awa to aaj bhi yahii hai k Mirza Ghalib ne
> > >
> > > UVR Sahib:
> > >
> > > Would you or someone kindly check this couplet and see if it qualifies
> > > for one that contains a "mixed-izaafat".
> > >
> > > yaarab! zamaanaa mujh ko miTaataa hai kis liye
> > > lauh-e-jahaa.N pe harf-e-mukarrar nahii.n huu.N mai.n
> > > -[Ghalib]
> >
> > No, Yogesh saahib, it doesn't. AFAIK, the origins of the respective
> > words on the izaafaat are: lauH, Harf, mukarrar: A and jahaa.N: P.
> >
> > -UVR.
>
> Thank you, UVR Sahib. I hope I can keep this debate on track!
Allow me to congratulate you, Yogesh saahib, on continuing this
discussion in the spirit of scholarly inquiry. This, surely, is
one way to learn the nuances of language.
> I would like to make two points:
>
> 1. "lauH" also has a Sanskrit root - ‘lauhaavar.ND' etc. Which of the
> two is more ancient I do not know. But I would assume that you chose
> to apply the non-Sanskrit root for the word in question on the basis
> of its usage and implied meaning here. But then how can one argue that
> when it comes to applying the "rule" for determining the origin of a
> word the meaning of the word does not matter?
The question as to which of the two is more ancient is not at all
pertinent in this context, IMO. Why not? Please read on...
First, there are two distinct words that sound like "lauh" in Urdu:
they are spelt differently and mean different things:
(a) lauH (with baRii He), which refers to a writing surface such as
a tablet, stone slab or plaque, or a pad of paper sheets, etc. and
(b) lohaa (with chhoTi he), which refers to iron, hard metal, etc.
Second, AFAIK, lauhavarNna, the word you mention, means "of the
color [or type] of iron or copper" and is itself a derivative of
yet another Sanskrit word 'loha', which means copper or iron (red
metal). The Arabic "lauH" can not be derived from the Sanskrit
'loha' without much convoluted and weird logic.
> 2. Now we come to the more important point: We say that
> "lauh-e-jahaa.N = taKhtii of jahaa.n" is acceptable but
> "lauh-e-jahaa.N = steel of jahaa.N" may not be! Under the "rule", if
> such a compound is to be formed and can be made to fit in terms of its
> meaning, we must some how replace "lauhaa" with "faulaad". Hence the
> question: if I were to use this ‘izaafat' with the latter meaning,
> which root of the word must I apply?
You must apply, IMHO, the word that is the most logical to apply.
In this case, it's obviously 'lauH'. All [Urdu-script] versions
of the Deewaan-e-Ghalib spell the word with baRii He; therefore,
that must be the correct word. Additionally, "Harf" (letter of
the alphabet) along with "miTaanaa" directly seems to be related
to "writing" and "writing surfaces." You will excuse my saying so,
but it makes absolutely no sense, poetic, logical or otherwise to
think that "lohaa/lauh" [iron] is the correct word here -- it is,
why isn't it spelt that way? Besides, I do not seem to be capable
of perceiving the need to make life miserable for oneself and try
to complicate a straightforward metaphor by using a wrong word in
place of the correct one just because it happens to sound similar.
Here's what I think Ghalib is trying to say in the second misra:
"I am not an unnecessarily repetitious letter [Harf-e-mukarrar]
written on the tablet of this World."
> In short, if we have an Urdu word with exact same scansion but two
> entirely different meanings and roots, are we to assume that under the
> "rules" an "izaafat" is permitted under one meaning but not under the
> other! At least not without incurring the opprobrium of having a bad
> taste in Urdu poetry?
I'm sorry, Yogesh saahib, but I do not think "taste" comes into
the picture here. "lohaa/loh/lauh" is simply not the word Ghalib
used in his sh'er. We must not try to assume that it is.
What was it that Arthur Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say? --
"When you rule out the impossible, Watson, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth." :))
Regards,
-UVR.
Yashowanto N. Ghosh
paab...@hotmail.com (paabagil) wrote in message news:<6f3cbf2.02102...@posting.google.com>...
>
> kaise haiN aap? maiN aaj kal kuchh ziyaada hee masroof hooN, aur vaise
> bhee Zoya bajee :)) ne aaraam kaa mashvara diyaa huvaa hai (jaise maiN
> ko'yee pahaaR khod ke nehreN nikaal rahaa thaa :) is liye aap ke sirf
> aik savaal kaa javaab de saktaa hooN. ummeed hai aap isee se
> "guzaaraa" kar leN ge :)
Huzoor, javaab ke liye shukriyaa---hasb-e-ma'mool aap ke Khat meiN mujhe
bohat kuchh seekhne ko mila.
>
> 1.
> aap jaante hoN ge -- yaa agar naheeN jaante to ab jaan leN :) -- k
> Urdu ke ka'yee dabistaan haiN, jaise Deccan, Agra, Dehli, Lucknow ...
> aur aaj ke daur meN Karachi, Lahore aur Islamabad (maiN pehle kaheeN
> arz kar chukaa hooN k "aaj" Urdu kaa sab se fa'aal aur sargarm
> dabistaan Islambad hai). in meN se ka'yee dabistaan aise haiN jin ke
> darmiyaan shadeed iKhtilaafaat haiN. to phir fasaahat kaa faisilaa
> kaise ho?
saHeeH.
>
> 2.
> ahl e zabaan ko sanad maan-ne meN aik baRee khanDat ye bhee hai k adab
> kee zabaan aur hotee hai, avaam kee zabaan aur. Mir, Ghalib aur Iqbal
> kee misaaleN kyaa dooN, isee bazm meN shaa'e shudaa janaab e Sarwar
> kee Ghazal kaa she'er hai:
>
> Khush-kaam.o.junooN-Khez.o.Khud-aamoz.o.Khudee-saaz
> yeh nok.e.qalam, jur'at.e.izhaar hai, maiN hooN!
>
> aap mujhe bataa'iye k is she'er kee zabaan kee tasdeeq ke liye maiN
> kon se ilaaqe se sanad laa'ooN?
>
> yehee haal taqreeban tamaam adab kaa hai (chaahe vo nasr hee kyoN na
> ho) k bolee aur likhaavaT meN farq hotaa hai (ye farq kyoN hai aur ise
> honaa chaahiye yaa naheeN, vo aik alag savaal hai ... agar aap is
> mas'ale par dilchaspee rakhte hoN to sun leN k ST Coleridge ne apnee
> mash'hoor kitaab Biographia Literaria meN shaa'iraana zabaan par baRee
> achchhee behs kee hai. ye kitaab aap ko Net par mil jaa'ye gee)
>
saHeeH.
> 3.
> aap ne matrookaat kee baat kee hai. bajaa irshaad, lekin pehle ye bhee
> sun leejiye k matrook hotaa kyaa hai. Urdu meN to is qism kaa ko'yee
> usool (please note that the correct word is "u"sool, not "v"usool :)
> naheeN hai lekin Oxford English Dictionary us lafz ko matrook maantee
> hai jo pichhle 100 saal se ist'emaal na huvaa ho. ham yehee kuliya
> Urdu par bhee laagoo kar sakte haiN. lekin mas'ala ye hai ba'az auqaat
> shu'araa "hazraat" kisee saddioN puraane lafz ko is taKhleeqee shaan
> se bart jaate haiN k saare qavaaneen khaRe moonh dekhte reh jaate
> haiN. misaal ke taur par mujhe zaatee taur par Firaq kaa ye she'er
> bahut pasand hai:
>
> ab aksar chup chup se rahe haiN, yooN hee kabhoo lab kholeN haiN
> pehle Firaq ko dekhaa hotaa, ab to bahut kam boleN haiN
>
> hashv se qata' e nazar, she'er bahut kaifee'yat kaa haamil hai aur is
> baat se kon inkaar kar saktaa hai k ye kaifeeyat matrookaat ke
> istemaal se paidaa huvee hai. isee tarah Faiz kee Ghazal kaa she'er
> hai:
>
> kuchh pehle in aankhoN aage kyaa kyaa na nazaaraa guzre thaa
> kyaa raushan ho jaatee thee galee jab yaar hamaaraa guzre thaa
yeh misaaleN yahaaN likhne ke liye shukriyaa--- maiN in se naa-vaaqif
thaa, aur aap kaa Khat dekhne ke baad urdupoetry.com par in GhazaloN
ko paRh kar lutf uThaayaa.
lekin Firaq aur Faiz ne to pooree GhazaleN hee isee andaaz se kahaa
hai---shaayad voh is kaifee'yat ko pedaa karne ke liye hee
matrookaat kaa istaimaal kar rahe haiN?
>
> yaa phir John Eliya kee Ghazal kaa matla' hai:
>
> miraa ik mashvaraa hai iltijaa na'iN*
> too mere paas se is vaqt jaa na'iN
>
> ("naheeN" kee 18th sadee kee shakl)
yeh Ghazal mujhe dekhne ko naheeN milee...chaliye ko'ee baat naheeN
---har aik achchhee Ghazal ko kis ne paRhaa hai? afsos to is baat
kaa hai k a.l.u.p. archives meiN :na'eeN: ke liye search karne se
jo aik umdaa she'r milaa:
nigaaheN jis kee haT_tee theeN na mujh se
vo ab aaNkhoN kaa apnee aashnaa na'eeN
us kee bhee pooree Ghazal maiN naheeN paRh sakaa :(
With best regards,
Jasho.
Yogesh Sethi
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. However one point that I am trying
to make needs additional examination:
It was not my contention that Ghalib's she'r can be interpreted in two
different ways. I only wanted to say that if I used such an izaafaat
in my own couplet with the meaning of steel that it may be frowned
upon because "lohaa" has a Sanskrit root. But your point regarding
different "he" is valid and makes this example a bit murky. Therefore
let us take a simpler word like "man = heart, mind and many other
meanings" and see if we can forward this discussion:
"man" comes to us from three languages. If I want to use the
expression "jaan-e-man" which root should I apply?
Regards,
Yogesh
u...@usa.net (UVR) wrote in message news:<9c085b63.02102...@posting.google.com>...
UVR
>
> Thank you for the thoughtful reply. However one point that I am trying
> to make needs additional examination:
> let us take a simpler word like "man = heart, mind and many other
> meanings" and see if we can forward this discussion:
>
> "man" comes to us from three languages. If I want to use the
> expression "jaan-e-man" which root should I apply?
Yogesh saahib,
In this case, too, the answer is easy. The phrase jaan-e-man,
was borrowed by us *as is* from Persian. Therefore, there is
little doubt as to which word is the apposite root.
-UVR.
paabagil
aap ne mere "malfoozaat" par saad, saad ke nishaanaat lagaa kar meraa
baRaa hausala baRhaayaa hai ... varnaa meraa to Khayaal thaa k aap
itnee aasaanee se naheeN maaneN ge :))
afsos to is baat > kaa hai k a.l.u.p. archives meiN :na'eeN: ke liye
search karne se jo aik umdaa she'r milaa:
>
> nigaaheN jis kee haT_tee theeN na mujh se
> vo ab aaNkhoN kaa apnee aashnaa na'eeN
janaab e vaalaa, aap ne ye to bataayaa hee naheeN k ye "ma'arakatul
aaraa" she'er kis kaa hai? vaise agar aap darKhaast kareN to maiN us
"azeem" shaa'ir ko kahooN gaa k vu apnee poree Ghazal aap ko email kar
de. :)
Zaff
Yogesh Sethi
UVR Sahib, not so fast! Please!
The Persian word for darling is "jaanam" or "jaan man".
In Persian "man" means "I". When "man" is preceded by a preposition
its meaning changes to "Me". Lastly when "man' is preceded by an
"izaafat" it takes on the meaning of "My". Hence the compound word
"jaan-e-man" literally gets translated into "merii jaan" just the way
"braadar-e-man" would to "my brother". Therefore it would be
inaccurate to suggest that "man" here is anything but an independent
word preceded by an "izaafat".
Which brings us back to my original point:
"man" as an Urdu word has varied meanings. Under the "rule", we are
supposed to look for the root of the words when forming compound
expressions. "man" exists both in Persian and Sanskrit.
My question remains on the table: Under the "rule" which root would be
assigned to "man" when trying to check an existing or potential
izaafat of any type or a "vaav e atf" of any type that uses the word
"man"?
In Urdu the word "man" can mean "heart" but not "My". If we assign
Persian root to "man" we would be in compliance with the "rule" but
then it can not have the meaning of "heart". But it must have the
meaning of "heart" for Urdu has not yet assimilated this word with a
meaning of "My" therefore its root must be Sanskrit. But if we assign
the Sanskrit root we cannot use it in "izaafat". But it has been used
therefore it cannot have a Sanskrit root. That is "catch-22" !
Here is another simple word to check: "dam".
paka.De jaate hai.n farishto.n ke likhe par naahak
aadamii ko_ii hamaaraa dam-e-tahariir bhii thaa
-[Ghalib]
"dam" an Urdu word occurs both in Sanskrit as well as in Persian!
Which root should we apply to determine if "dam-e-tahariir" complies
with the "rule" ?
Regards,
Yogesh
UVR
> > yls...@netscape.net (Yogesh Sethi) wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > let us take a simpler word like "man = heart, mind and many other
> > > expression "jaan-e-man" which root should I apply?
> >
> > was borrowed by us *as is* from Persian. Therefore, there is
> > little doubt as to which word is the apposite root.
> >
> > -UVR.
>
> UVR Sahib, not so fast! Please!
>
> The Persian word for darling is "jaanam" or "jaan man".
I think you're just a wee bit off the mark: it's "jaan-e-man"
(or, if one wants to be pedantic, 'jaan-i-man'). This is the
phrase Urdu has borrowed.
<aside>
I do not expect nor suggest that you take my word for this.
Please *do* verify it with a Persian person/dictionary whom/
which you consider an authority on the language: I ain't one! :)
</aside>
> In Persian "man" means "I". When "man" is preceded by a preposition
> its meaning changes to "Me". Lastly when "man' is preceded by an
> "izaafat" it takes on the meaning of "My". Hence the compound word
> "jaan-e-man" literally gets translated into "merii jaan" just the way
> "braadar-e-man" would to "my brother". Therefore it would be
> inaccurate to suggest that "man" here is anything but an independent
> word preceded by an "izaafat".
It appears that you are implying I suggested some such thing.
As is clear from the text of my previous post (which is quoted
in its entirety above), I did not.
> Which brings us back to my original point:
>
> "man" as an Urdu word has varied meanings. Under the "rule", we are
> supposed to look for the root of the words when forming compound
> expressions. "man" exists both in Persian and Sanskrit.
Note that the word 'jaan' has multiple meanings in Urdu, too,
with each meaning derived from a different source. However,
it is quite obvious to both of us as to which 'jaan' is used
in this phrase. Similarly, there is little doubt as to which
'man' is used here. Unless the intent is to "cast a pun" on
this word (in which case all bets are off), there is little
need to try and apply one of the other meanings to it. For
indeed, Urdu is far more than a "do man kii zubaan" :) [A
quick quiz for you: which 'man' have I used here? :)) LOL]
> My question remains on the table: Under the "rule" which root would be
> assigned to "man" when trying to check an existing or potential
> izaafat of any type or a "vaav e atf" of any type that uses the word
> "man"?
>
> In Urdu the word "man" can mean "heart" but not "My".
Sez who?! My *Urdu* dictionary has not one but FOUR meanings
listed for 'man', and one of them *is* the Persian word that
you are rejecting here! Platts lists FIVE meanings for 'man',
and again, one of them is that Persian word. Surely you are
not suggesting that both Baabaa-e-Urdu Abdul Haq and Platts
are wrong?!
> If we assign
> Persian root to "man" we would be in compliance with the "rule" but
> then it can not have the meaning of "heart". But it must have the
> meaning of "heart" for Urdu has not yet assimilated this word with a
> meaning of "My" therefore its root must be Sanskrit. But if we assign
> the Sanskrit root we cannot use it in "izaafat". But it has been used
> therefore it cannot have a Sanskrit root. That is "catch-22" !
I do not see any catch here, much less a catch-22! If you will
excuse my saying so, I think you are making this out to be a
complex problem, whereas it is not even a problem to begin with! :)
> Here is another simple word to check: "dam".
>
> paka.De jaate hai.n farishto.n ke likhe par naahak
> aadamii ko_ii hamaaraa dam-e-tahariir bhii thaa
> -[Ghalib]
>
> "dam" an Urdu word occurs both in Sanskrit as well as in Persian!
> Which root should we apply to determine if "dam-e-tahariir" complies
> with the "rule" ?
Actually, the "rule" is irrelevant here. The 'dam' used here is
quite obviously (one of) the Persian word(s). It is a trivial
exercise to figure out which one, as it is to determine why none
of the Sanskrit 'dama'-s (meaning, "house", "self-restraint", &c.)
can be applied to this sh'er (and, consequently, to this phrase).
Here's a hint: think of the meaning of the sh'er and the concept
of 'farishta' as related to 'tahreer' and 'aadmii'.
-UVR.
Yashowanto N. Ghosh
paab...@hotmail.com (paabagil) wrote in message news:<6f3cbf2.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > nigaaheN jis kee haT_tee theeN na mujh se
> > vo ab aaNkhoN kaa apnee aashnaa na'eeN
>
> janaab e vaalaa, aap ne ye to bataayaa hee naheeN k ye "ma'arakatul
> aaraa" she'er kis kaa hai? vaise agar aap darKhaast kareN to maiN us
> "azeem" shaa'ir ko kahooN gaa k vu apnee poree Ghazal aap ko email kar
> de. :)
>
leejiye, arzi pesh hai---Zafar saahab, apnee voh Ghazal (jis meiN yeh
she'er thaa) hameN bhee sunaaiye, please?
With best regards,
Jasho.
paabagil
I must congratulate you for starting a very interesting debate and
underlining the importance of etymology while joining words through
Persian rules. But, nevertheless, I fully concur with UVR sahib that
since all the examples you quoted were lifted directly from Persian,
there is no confusion as to which language do they belong or which
sense do they convey.
For your interest, however, I'm putting forward another variation of
the theme:
There are quite a few Indian-origin words that have been picked up by
Persian over the course of centuries long "after" it parted ways with
Sanskrit. Now, when an Urdu writer uses such a word, joining it with a
Persian word through an izaafat or a vaav e atf, what the so-called
rules will have to say? For example:
1.
"but" e kaafir
"but" is actually "Budh"!!!
2.
"kotvaal" e shehr
The Persians have been using this word for at least a millennium, as
shown by this Firdawsi couplet (940-1020):
cho aagaah shud "kotvaal e hisaar"
bar aavaiKht baa Rustam e naamdaar
This word is actually from Sanskrit's "kot-paala" (fort-keeper)
3.
"daaroGha" e qila'
daaorGha, again, is from Sanskrit "druga-paala".
4.
"tanKhaah" e mulaazim
tanKhaah is the mufarras form of a kind of the currency "Tankaa",
which was used throughout the Indian subcontinent in the Mughal period
and before. Its roots, too, can be traced back to Sanskrit, where it
means a certain weight of silver. "Takaa" (one paisa or 1/100 of a
Rupee) is still in vogue, like "Take Take ke log" :)
Regards,
Zafar
Yogesh Sethi
Either you are changing your position or I did not understand it
correctly. Permit me to restate my position and yours, as I understand
it, and please correct it if I am mistaken:
I have said all along that all Urdu words need to be treated as Urdu
words irrespective of their, one or more, roots and one or more
meanings. If compound word formation is permissible with one meaning
then it should be regarded as permissible for all different meanings.
Your position is that, under the "rule", the root matters and not the
meaning. As you stated in one of your other posts: "Zaff-bhaa`ii: maiN
pehle bhi 'arz kar chukaa hooN k (mere Khayaal se) is "rule" kaa
ta'alluq sirf alfaaz ke ma'Khaz se hai, na k un ke ma'ani se. "
Now you say that: "Platts lists FIVE meanings for 'man', and again,
one of them is that Persian word. Surely you are not suggesting that
both Baabaa-e-Urdu Abdul Haq and Platts are wrong?!" You continue:
"Note that the word 'jaan' has multiple meanings in Urdu, too, with
each meaning derived from a different source. However, it is quite
obvious to both of us as to which 'jaan' is used in this phrase.
Similarly, there is little doubt as to which 'man' is used here."
In other words you are implying that the meaning of the word as used
in the expression should point to the root. But when Zaff Sahib said
the exact same thing: "ab bataa'iye, Ghalib ne Urdu fauj-daaree
baandhaa hai yaa Farsi?" You took the opposite position as per the
quote. You can't have it both ways!
Since both "jaan" and "man" according to your argument came to Urdu
from Persian and whatever other meanings they may have acquired does
not matter, I will put it simply: if you think that the "rule"
considers the following expressions permissible, with "man = heart",
for use in Urdu poetry, then I have no further questions on "man" :
jaan-o-man --> dil-o-jaan = man-o-jaan (meaning heart and soul)
As to the possible elegance of mixed "izaafats", here is a stylish
example by a master:
saarii sakhiyo.n ne mil kar, kyaa be-Khataa diyaa hai
tujh naaznii.n mohan kii ankhiyaa.n me.n Khat-e-kaajal
-Yogesh
u...@usa.net (UVR) wrote in message news:<9c085b63.02102...@posting.google.com>...
UVR
> UVR Sahib:
>
> Either you are changing your position or I did not understand it
> correctly. Permit me to restate my position and yours, as I understand
> it, and please correct it if I am mistaken:
Yes, you are mistaken. I am not changing my position.
> I have said all along that all Urdu words need to be treated as Urdu
> words irrespective of their, one or more, roots and one or more
> meanings. If compound word formation is permissible with one meaning
> then it should be regarded as permissible for all different meanings.
>
> Your position is that, under the "rule", the root matters and not the
> meaning. As you stated in one of your other posts: "Zaff-bhaa`ii: maiN
> pehle bhi 'arz kar chukaa hooN k (mere Khayaal se) is "rule" kaa
> ta'alluq sirf alfaaz ke ma'Khaz se hai, na k un ke ma'ani se. "
Yes, this is still my position.
> Now you say that: "Platts lists FIVE meanings for 'man', and again,
> one of them is that Persian word. Surely you are not suggesting that
> both Baabaa-e-Urdu Abdul Haq and Platts are wrong?!" You continue:
> "Note that the word 'jaan' has multiple meanings in Urdu, too, with
> each meaning derived from a different source. However, it is quite
> obvious to both of us as to which 'jaan' is used in this phrase.
> Similarly, there is little doubt as to which 'man' is used here."
>
> In other words you are implying that the meaning of the word as used
> in the expression should point to the root. But when Zaff Sahib said
> the exact same thing: "ab bataa'iye, Ghalib ne Urdu fauj-daaree
> baandhaa hai yaa Farsi?" You took the opposite position as per the
> quote. You can't have it both ways!
Yogesh saahib! You are either deliberately trying to confuse
yourself, or you are trying some subtle sophistry to try and
"catch me in a web of my own weaving." The former, I cannot
do anything about. Rest assured that I am not going to give
you the satisfaction you are seeking (if you are) from the
latter! :) LOL
When I referred to "meaning v/s origin" while talking to Zafar
saahib, I was talking of the shades of meaning (or adoptive
meaning, or metaphorical meaning, etc) of the SAME word. When
I suggested that you should "use the meaning to detemine the
origin" in response to your questions, I was talking about
using the meaning to determine WHICH word it is.
Yogesh-ji, let us first agree on one basic point about human
language (any language): not all words spelt the same way
are the "same word."
Let me give you a simple and VERY trivial example from English.
Take the word "might." Do you think I am using the "same word"
in both places in the following sentence? --
You might say that "might is right."
Likewise, take the word "bas" in Urdu. Would you say that
the "same word" is being used at all three locations in
this sentence? --
mere bas meN hotaa, to bas, sTop par bas laa ke khaRii kar deta.
The answer to both questions is "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" Those two
"might"-s in the English sentence are *different* words, just
as the three "bas"-es in the Urdu sentence are *different* words.
They just happen to be spelt alike.
In exactly the same way, the five 'man'-s are different words.
They have no relationship with each other. They never did.
They just happen to be spelt alike in our script. That's all.
Indeed, it is because these words are not related to each other
th
> Since both "jaan" and "man" according to your argument came to Urdu
> from Persian and whatever other meanings they may have acquired does
> not matter, I will put it simply: if you think that the "rule"
Excluse me. One of the "jaan"-s of Urdu came from Persian. One of
the 'man'-s came from Persian (another one, incidentally, came from
Arabic). The other "meanings" were not "acquired". The other WORDS
were adopted from other roots. That's how there are five (actually
six) words spelt as "man" in Urdu. Just like there are two different
words spelt "might" in English!
> considers the following expressions permissible, with "man = heart",
> for use in Urdu poetry, then I have no further questions on "man" :
>
> jaan-o-man --> dil-o-jaan = man-o-jaan (meaning heart and soul)
>
> As to the possible elegance of mixed "izaafats", here is a stylish
> example by a master:
>
> saarii sakhiyo.n ne mil kar, kyaa be-Khataa diyaa hai
> tujh naaznii.n mohan kii ankhiyaa.n me.n Khat-e-kaajal
Ok, this *fellow* was a master of the language. But which century
did he live in?
How much English of the kind that Shakespeare and Byron wrote do
you use today? Their language sounds sweet in THEIR work.
Shouldst thou try to use "Ye Olde" English grammar and spellings
today, thou wouldst but surely be considered off thine rocker.
Of course, it is up to you to use whatever kind of language you
want to use. As it is up to your listeners to understand what
you are saying.
-UVR.
UVR
> the theme:
>
> There are quite a few Indian-origin words that have been picked up by
> Persian over the course of centuries long "after" it parted ways with
> Sanskrit. Now, when an Urdu writer uses such a word, joining it with a
> Persian word through an izaafat or a vaav e atf, what the so-called
> rules will have to say? For example:
>
> 1.
>
> 2.
> "kotvaal" e shehr
> This word is actually from Sanskrit's "kot-paala" (fort-keeper)
>
> 3.
> "daaroGha" e qila'
> daaorGha, again, is from Sanskrit "druga-paala".
>
> 4.
> "tanKhaah" e mulaazim
> tanKhaah is the mufarras form of a kind of the currency "Tankaa",
> which was used throughout the Indian subcontinent in the Mughal period
> and before.
In all of these cases, Zafar saahib, "our Urdu" has picked up the
corresponding word from the non-Sanskrit word. For example, the
word "but" was taken into Urdu from Persian centuries after it was
converted from "buddha" by the latter language. BTW, please note,
NOT "budh" -- that is quite another word and means something quite
different (of course, I'm sure you knew this and it was merely a
typo). Note also that "but" in Persian and Urdu means "statue,
idol ...", but the original Sanskrit word doesn't mean anything
even remotely close to "statue" or "idol". Besides, in Urdu we do
have the the word "buddh" which refers to the Buddha, and we have
"but" which has nothing to do with the Buddha. Therefore, the only
logical and sensible conclusion to draw is that "but" was adopted
by Urdu from Persian and not from Sanskrit.
Talking in terms of parentage and lineage, you might say that the
"parent language" of 'but' is Persian, but the "grandparent" is
Sanskrit. The "parent" of 'buddh' is Sanskrit, OTOH.
I guess what I'm saying is that if Urdu had taken the word directly
from Sanskrit and done the spelling/meaning corruption, one could
claim that the Urdu word descended from the Sanskrit root. However,
when there exists a clear "middleman language" which has put its
"stamp" on the word, you would have to call the so-called "middle-
man language" the parent.
It's rather like buying an "Arrow" shirt made in India from a Macy's
store in the US. You know that the "origin" is some Indian tailor,
but you also call it an Arrow shirt! It's also YOUR shirt. Here,
You = Urdu, Arrow = Persian, Indian tailor = Sanskrit.
Similarly, "koTa-paala", "*durga*-paala" (another typo here?)
etc. can only be considered the "ancestors" of the corresponding
Urdu words. The parent would have to be Persian. In each of
these cases, the word was first taken into Persian, corrupted,
used for several years (centuries, in some cases) and THEN taken
into Urdu. Similarly, "angusht", "ushtur" etc. came to Urdu from
Persian, whereas "ashnaan" came from Sanskrit.
Finally, let me just add by way of clarification that when I
say "Urdu" I am NOT referring to that language which you claim
was older than Sanskrit :)
-UVR.
P.S. I will be away from ALUP for the next few days and hope that
we can continue this discussion after I return.
Yogesh Sethi
I think it will be easier to catch a rainbow than to catch you in a
trap! :)
No, that has not been my intention. I like a healthy debate and you
are a good debater. I also respect your views. Please stop looking for
any special motives where none exist! We are entitled to look for any
inaccuracies in a discussion - that is what gives color to a debate
and also at times leads to learning something new in the process. The
satisfaction comes from the debate itself - as long as it is a healthy
debate and is free of acrimonious language.
Seriously, your position was not clear to me and for that reason I did
not say that you had contradicted yourself but instead sought the
clarification from you. I trust that you are not saying that if a word
traveled from Sanskrit to Persian and then later on also appeared in
Urdu with a similar meaning its root should be considered Persian. I
wonder where etymologists stand on this. Suppose a Latin word traveled
to one of the Germanic languages and later on to English, would the
etymologists consider it as a word having non-Latin root? This is all
the more important for the words that are still being actively used in
the original language. Please see my question on the usage of "kaam"
below.
Your "Ye Olde" example is not relevant. Thou, thine etc. are no longer
used in today's English. But "man", "kaajal", etc. are still very
much in vogue in modern Urdu poetry. It would strain the imagination
to think that thou, thine, etc. could occur as stand-alone words in
modern English literature but not allowed in a compound phrase!
Also your description of different words spelled similarly is stated
in a manner that does not accurately portray the issue at hand.
Lexicographers list under separate headings the words that are
considered different but are spelled similarly. Otherwise different
shades of meanings for a word are give under sub-clauses 1, 2, 3 etc.
Such is the case with "might" and " might". Same way "date" with four
separate entries in a dictionary constitute four different words
spelled similarly. But "dark" with a single entry but five different
meanings remains one word with several meanings – just a
clarification.
A good example of Urdu word would be "kaam". Platts lists it under
three headings with several shades of meaning in each category - using
almost a full page in describing its nuances and roots!. Please
consider the following Ghalib couplet and tell us how you interpret it
and with which root for "kaam".
rag-o-pai meN jab utare zahar-e-GHam, tab dekhiye kyaa ho
abhee to talKHee-e-kaam-o-dahan kee aazmaayish hai
I have seen some comments to the effect that "kaam" here could mean
desire, taste, lust etc. But I would be interested in your take on it
and why should it be considered a word with Persian root.
Regards,
Yogesh
UVR <u...@usa.not> wrote in message news:<3dbca8db$1...@nopics.sjc>...
UVR
> traveled from Sanskrit to Persian and then later on also appeared in
> Urdu with a similar meaning its root should be considered Persian.
That is exactly what I am saying! :) See my example of "buying
from a Macy's store an Arrow shirt manufactured in India" in
response to Zafar's saahib post pointing out "but, kotwaal and
daroGha" as having descended from Sanskrit. Note the difference
I have drawn between the "parent" language of a word and its
"root" language.
> I wonder where etymologists stand on this. Suppose a Latin word traveled
> to one of the Germanic languages and later on to English, would the
> etymologists consider it as a word having non-Latin root?
That is an interesting question, indeed. I do not know the
answer. However, it is possible that the situation is a bit
different in our case and the same "rules" [ha ha :)] of
etymology that are applied to the Latin->German->English case
may not be applicable to the Sanskrit->Persian->Urdu case.
German and English, for the most part, are 'sister' languages.
Persian and Urdu share more of a parent->child relationship.
Besides, English doesn't have any scruples about not using a
certain word in a certain phrase because of its parentage!
> This is all
> the more important for the words that are still being actively used in
> the original language. Please see my question on the usage of "kaam"
> below.
>
> Your "Ye Olde" example is not relevant. Thou, thine etc. are no longer
> used in today's English. But "man", "kaajal", etc. are still very
> much in vogue in modern Urdu poetry. It would strain the imagination
> to think that thou, thine, etc. could occur as stand-alone words in
> modern English literature but not allowed in a compound phrase!
Point taken about "Ye Olde" construct. However, I do think
that you and I should both stop mentioning English in this
thread. For English is nothing like Urdu. It doesn't have
compound phrases of the type we are discussing here, for
example. It also has a grammar of its own whose rules are
totally different from the rules of Urdu grammar. Infact,
I would go so far as to state that ought not to use English
or any other language as a "guiding beacon" to show us what
should be passe and/or legal in Urdu. It's like asking Urdu
to allow certain constructs because Malayalam allows them.
Quite ludicrous, you will agree.
> Also your description of different words spelled similarly is stated
> in a manner that does not accurately portray the issue at hand.
> Lexicographers list under separate headings the words that are
> considered different but are spelled similarly. Otherwise different
> shades of meanings for a word are give under sub-clauses 1, 2, 3 etc.
> Such is the case with "might" and " might". Same way "date" with four
> separate entries in a dictionary constitute four different words
> spelled similarly. But "dark" with a single entry but five different
> meanings remains one word with several meanings – just a
> clarification.
Agreed. This was the point I was making in an unfinished
sentence in my previous post. Both Platts and Maulana Abd-
ul Haq list the multiple 'man'-s as separate words in their
dictionaries. This is what I meant by saying that all those
'man'-s are different words.
> A good example of Urdu word would be "kaam". Platts lists it under
> three headings with several shades of meaning in each category - using
> almost a full page in describing its nuances and roots!. Please
> consider the following Ghalib couplet and tell us how you interpret it
> and with which root for "kaam".
>
> rag-o-pai meN jab utare zahar-e-GHam, tab dekhiye kyaa ho
> abhee to talKHee-e-kaam-o-dahan kee aazmaayish hai
>
> I have seen some comments to the effect that "kaam" here could mean
> desire, taste, lust etc. But I would be interested in your take on it
> and why should it be considered a word with Persian root.
You have picked an excellent example, Yogesh saahib. It
is my opinion that this sh'er makes reasonable sense only
if one uses the "rare" (for Urdu) meaning of kaam -- the
palate, uvula (the 'hanging tongue'), etc -- in conjunction
with "dahan" (mouth). I think Ghalib is saying here that
"the bitterness of the poison of grief has only just now
begun to be tasted by the mouth: just watch what will happen
when it enters every vein." In other words: abhi Gham ki
shuru'aat hi hai aur yeh haal hai -- to jab rag-rag meN
yeh zehr utar jaayegaa, tab jaane kyaa ho!
I think the interpretation of 'kaam' as palate also makes
sense because bitterness is usually felt first near the
back of the throat/mouth, and one of the ways one tastes
the bitterness of a 'food' is by rubbing the top of the
tongue against the palate.
AFAIK, 'kaam(a)' in this meaning does not exist in Sanskrit,
therefore it must be an 'invention/adaptation' of Persian.
Finally, I do not feel that "desire" or "lust" are very
appropriate in this context -- for one thing, 'lust' is not
bitter, is it? ;) We shall not consider the connection
of "mouth" with "lust" here, since that is a bit ... umm ...
'unprintable.' :)
-UVR.
Yogesh Sethi
> > traveled from Sanskrit to Persian and then later on also appeared in
> > Urdu with a similar meaning its root should be considered Persian.
>
> That is exactly what I am saying! :) See my example of "buying
> from a Macy's store an Arrow shirt manufactured in India" in
> response to Zafar's saahib post pointing out "but, kotwaal and
> daroGha" as having descended from Sanskrit. Note the difference
> I have drawn between the "parent" language of a word and its
> "root" language.
>
UVR Sahib, I don't fully agree with this view but understand your
position.
I think the example below may be a bit more challenging.
Dhaa.npaa kafan ne daaGh-e-ayuub-e-barah nagii
mai.n varnaa har libaas men na.ng-e-vajuud thaa.
-[Ghalib]
Please give us the meaning of the above couplet and tell us why
"n.ng-e-vajuud" should not be considered a mixed "izaafat". For
"na.ng" Platts gives only Sanskrit root from the word "nagn". Thank
you.
-Yogesh
UVR
>
> UVR Sahib, I don't fully agree with this view but understand your
> position.
>
> I think the example below may be a bit more challenging.
>
> Dhaa.npaa kafan ne daaGh-e-ayuub-e-barah nagii
> mai.n varnaa har libaas men na.ng-e-vajuud thaa.
> -[Ghalib]
>
> Please give us the meaning of the above couplet and tell us why
> "n.ng-e-vajuud" should not be considered a mixed "izaafat". For
> "na.ng" Platts gives only Sanskrit root from the word "nagn". Thank
> you.
Yogesh saahib,
I will simply state here that 'nang' exists as a Persian word
AND is mentioned in Platts. Please check the dictionary again,
and look at the meaning of the word as well as its applicability
to this sh'er.
I think this thread has gone on too long for any useful outcome
to result from it. I suggest we stop it here. At any rate, I
have had my say on the matter and (finally) have nothing more
to contribute.
-UVR.