HELP NEEDED WITH BEHR, VAZN ETC.
deedawar
hai. Mehrbaani se iss ki haalat darust kar diijiiye. Umiid hai ke
chand shaa'ir zaroor shirkat karenge :-)
Baat chalii terii aa.Nkho.n se jaa pahu.Nchii paimaane tak
Saki se nazar churaa ke sab chale tere mehKhaane tak
farah
UVR
Farah saahiba,
us doosri "thread" meN aap ke hukm ki ta'ameel ke liye banda haazir
hai. sh'er ki "kulli" haalat durust karna to shaayad mere bas meN
naheeN hai. haaN is kaa doosra misr'a behr se Khaarij hai; agar use
yooN kahaa jaaye:
baat chalee teree aaNkhoN se jaa pahuNchi maiKhaane tak
*saaqee se sab churaa ke nazreN chale tire maiKhaane tak*
to behr kaa mas`la hal ho saktaa hai. lekin is shakl meN bhi sh'er ko
samajhne meN mujhe diqqat ho rahi hai. yaqeenan yeh meri kam.fehmi
kaa nateeja hai. is sh'er ko kahne meN aap ki kyaa muraad thi?
-UVR.
deedawar
Shukariya UVR Sahib.
Sh'ir ka maqsad hai ke Saqi ka maiKhana choD ke sab uss ki aankohn se
peene ke liiye chale hain.
Kya ye shi'r behter rahe ga?
deedawar
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
sorry pressed by mistake.
I meant this one.
baat chalee teree aaNkhoN se jaa pahuNchi maiKhaane tak
NazreN churaa ke Saqi se sab chale tire maiKhane tak
UVR
wazaahat kaa shukriya, Farah saahiba. awwal to aap ki ijaazat se main
apni Khud ki ek Ghalati kaa a'itiraaf kartaa hooN, k pahle misr'e meN
"paimaane tak" hai. meri Ghalati aap ki post meN bhi perpetuate ho
gayi hai, aur is kaa gunahgaar maiN hee hooN.
doyam, "nazreN churaa ke" se meraa naheeN Khayaal k woh mafhoom adaa
ho rahaa hai jo aap ne oopar darj kiyaa hai. "nazar bachaa kar" ko
ist'emaal kar ke dekhiye, shaayad koi farq paRe.
waise aap ki ittila' ke liye kahtaa hooN k chooN-k yeh sh'er mere
"style" kaa naheeN hai, is liye ho saktaa hai maiN is se aage aap ko
behtar raaye yaa sujhaao na dene paaooN.
-UVR.
deedawar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeh bhi likh ke dekh lete hain.
baat chalee teree aaNkhoN se jaa pahuNchi maiKhaane tak
NazreN bachaa ke Saqi se sab chale tire maiKhane tak
dekhen ab koii aur bhi apni raaye deta hai ke nahin.
farah
deedawar
>
> - Show quoted text -
baat chalee teree aaNkhoN se jaa pahuNchi paimaane tak
premc...@gmail.com
Farah behen,
thora sa aage peeche karke mujhe aapka sher aur achcha lagta hai.
"Bacha ke NazreN Saqi se chale tere maiKhane tak "
PJ
tanhaa
wrote:
Farah Sahiba, the meter used is, IMO, one of the harder meters to
master due to its flexibility. When things are set in stone, they are
easier to manage and to adhere to. This meter (is the same as UVR
pointed out in one of the posts as "pattaa pattaa buuTaa buuTaa haal
hamaaraa jaane hai") is commonly known as Mir's Hindi meter. The
master of Ghazal used this meter a lot and it is an extremely
rhythmic, musical and flexible meter. None the less, you are starting
with it and you require some assistance in understanding it.
Also as UVR pointed out, "nazar churaa ke" or "nazreiN churaa ke"
won't do justice to your thought as "nazar bachaa kar" will.
I think PJ sahib provided a nice alternative to your misra but
unfortunately, his misra is a bit out of meter as well, but that can
be easily fixed:
bachaa ke nazreiN saaqii se sab chale tire maiKhaane tak
so the whole couplet becomes:
baat chali teri aaNkhoN se, jaa pahuNchii paimaane tak
bachaa ke nazreiN saaqi se sab chale tire maiKhaane tak
(this is just to fit the couplet in meter, and not a suggestion to
improve the connection between the two lines which still seems a bit
vague)
Hope this helps
Amit Malhotra
premc...@gmail.com
Amit bhai,
My effort was also to simply make the line musical and not to improve
the connection between the lines. I agree that my suggestion was a
bit "light" in vazan. But I felt that adding a few milliseconds
silence made the line musical enough to sing it in Taal (tabla beat)
However adding the word "sub" makes the line a bit "heavier" and
leaves a bit of awkwardness in recitation. But the line can be sung
by speeding up "sub-chale tire" a few milliseconds. Of course I am
talking as a layman and amateur singer.
This sher is based on Keherva taal consisting of eight beats.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8
Ta-ta Ta-ta Ta-ta Ta-ta Ta-ta Ta-ta Ta-ta Ta-ta
For recitation and singing, the artists add and subtract a few
milliseconds between syllables to adjust the meter and enhance the
melody.
PJ
UVR
Amit saahib,
[I hope Farah saahib and others will excuse the slightly "technical"
tone of this part of my post]
Allow me to commend you on your attempt to fix the behr of Joshi
saahib's suggested line. However,are you quite sure that this meter
does accept a short syllable at the very beginning of a line? I don't
know if it does (by that I mean 'I do not know', not 'it does not
accept'). I think the first and last syllables must be long; short
syllables are only allowed in the "middle" of the line. In fact, in
general I've observed that short syllables must also occur in
consecutive pairs, not singly amongst two long syllables. In other
words: 2-2-2-2 can be turned into 2-1-1-2-2 or 2-2-1-1-2 but only
very rarely does one come across 2-1-2-1-2. In addition, I think only
one pair-of-short-syllables can be used between any two long
syllables; that is, 2-1-1-2-2 is OK, but 2-1-1-1-1-2 is not!
Farah saahiba,
One reason Amit saahib and I are finding the connection between the
two lines of your couplet a bit nebulous could be the following. A
common image in traditional Urdu poetry is, as I'm sure you are aware,
of the saaqi as the ma'ashooq. aksar woh saaqi hi hotaa hai jo
aaNkhoN se pilaataa hai, aur pilaataa kyaa hai maiKhaanoN ki chhuTi
kar detaa hai. Your couplet, however, in question treats the saaqi
and the mehboob as two distinct individuals and the saaqi is reduced
to being just a random bystanding bartender. I think this dilutes the
effect that could be produced by the sh'er.
So, why don't we try to construct the second line of the couplet
treating the saaqi and the ma'ashooq as one and the same? The second
line will have to undergo certain modifications in order to do that --
(i) ma'ashooq is the addressee of line #1. so make saaqi the addressee
of line #2. Meaning that we can think of beginning the line with 'ai
saaqi', 'saaqi tuu', or some derivative of those.
(B) doosre misr'e meN bhi mehboob (=saaqi now) ki aaNkhoN / nazroN /
nigaahoN aur paimaanoN / maiKhaanoN meN baa.hami rabt paida kiyaa
jaaye
(3) kuchh is tarah ki baat ki jaaye k "ai saaqi teri mastaani nigaahoN
ne maiKhaane tak ki chuTTi kar dee, maiKhaane Kharaab kar diye, ujaaR
diye', waGhairah, yaa yooN k 'saaqiya teri nigaahoN se maiKhaane jalte
haiN' (burn up in jealousy), "teri nazroN ke aage maiKhaane heech
haiN', etc etc.
agar aap ko yeh tajveez Theek lage, to sh'er is "naye" sire se kah kar
dekhiye. warna yeh Khat phaaR-phooR ke nazr-e-Tokri-e-raddee :-)
keejiye aur mujhe ijaazat deejiye!
-UVR.
Zoya
Definitely a great learning opportunity for all of us. I am staying
tuned.
And now I am going to comment on another sh'er posted in the original
thread. Here is a snip from Gaurav's post:
"mujh jaise kam-umr urdu-
premiyoN ke liye ye baDaa hii achchha mauqaa hai.
ek koshish pesh karne kii jurrat karnaa chaahtaa thha, magar zaraa
hichkichaa rahaa thaa...lekin ijaazat ho to arz hai:
baat chalii terii aankhoN se jaa pahuNchii paimaane tak,
terii oar chalaa har majmaa, masjid se maikhaane tak
aadaab,
-gaurav "
Gaurav, when I first read you sh'er, one thought came to me
immediately:
If you change 'har' to 'ik', it will make better sense, i.e.
terii oar chalaa 'ik' majmaa.....
Also, I am not sure that 'masjid' actually fits well here. There is a
possible inference that the discussion 'aaNkhoN se paimaane tak'
actually took place in 'masjid', and then folks started heading
towards maiKhaana, that does not add up somehow.
Do you see what I mean? In my opinion, your attempted misraa is pretty
good actually, but you may want to replace 'masjid' by some other
word.
Hope I have been of some help.
__Zoya
tanhaa
UVR ji, thanks for picking up on that. In fact, I also read about it
a bit and in my haste, perhaps useless things on my mind that had
nothing to do with poetry, I made a mistake of correcting the line by
adding "sab" in there. I'm not sure how the taqtee was playing in my
mind when I did it yesterday, but after doing it again today, I can
see my mistake.
Ok, point by point, and then I'll respond to Joshi sahib:
Does this meter accept a short syllable in the beginning. I had the
same doubt, but as you said it yourself, 2-1-2-1-2 does occur. In
fact, I read it in the meter book by Frances Pritchett that 1-2-1
seems acceptable.. albeit rare, as long as short syllables are always
present in pairs as is the case in his experience.
meter as we all know is 22-22-22-22 22-22-22-2
So if that's acceptable, why wouldn't it be in the first feet as
well? Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking it would be, but the 1-2-1
pattern in the first feet adheres to the fact that two small sounds
are present in the first feet. Pritchett says:
[...]Hardly anything is absolutely fixed in this meter except that the
last syllable in each line must be long, short syllables must occur in
pairs, and the short syllables in each pair may be separated by no
more than one long. [...] Moreover, in this meter short syllables can
also sometimes occur in a kind of syncopated pattern, (- = -), which
is not allowed for in any of the above diagrams. [...] Even in this
syncopated form short syllables do, however, always occur in pairs.
[...]
Of course, if the meter has never been used as such then probably one
shouldn't be starting it with a short syllable. Though it is to be
noted that according to Pritchett, Mir has used this meter in very
complex ways....
As you said, the first and last syllables must be long .... in fact,
there's a short syllable allowed at the end. Though that's an
additional syllable allowed like in many other meters, so one can
argue that the actual last syllable is never broken down.
Saying all this, I'll still say that I agree with you, I didn't think
after reading the line suggested by Joshi sahib that a short syllable
should have started this misra. After reading Pritchett though, I
just thought .. "hmmm.. if 1-2-1 is ok, then why not the first feet as
well" :-)
>In fact, in
> general I've observed that short syllables must also occur in
> consecutive pairs, not singly amongst two long syllables. In other
> words: 2-2-2-2 can be turned into 2-1-1-2-2 or 2-2-1-1-2 but only
> very rarely does one come across 2-1-2-1-2.
Think I handled this above. I don't have examples of Ghazals,
Pritchett never gave one! But I'll take his word for it.
>In addition, I think only
> one pair-of-short-syllables can be used between any two long
> syllables; that is, 2-1-1-2-2 is OK, but 2-1-1-1-1-2 is not!
>
I agree, after reading about it, I highly doubt that 2-1-1 1-1-2 is
acceptable. Mir has used it as 211-211-211-211-211-211-211-21 but
never the way you just said it, which means that the line I suggested
in reply to Joshi sahib is not acceptable. That "sab" shouldn't be
there. Then the breakdown of his line becomes:
ba-chaa-k naz-reiN saa-qii se-cha-le te-re mai-khaa ne-tak
121 - 22 - 22 - 211 - 22 - 22 - 22
are we missing one long syllable at the end? Of course, all this is
only valid if 1-2-1 in the first feet is acceptable. If not, then we
have a problem right from the beginning.
Joshi Sahib,
You are right, the "sab" shouldn't have been there, my mistake, I
didn't think it through. But it did seem that something was missing
from your suggestion. That 3 second silence as you mentioned is
probably what made me think something is missing. It may just be that
one long syllable at the end would kill the 3 second silence, but I
can't suggest an alternative to your line that would do the job.
Farah Sahiba,
Ignore my suggestion, but do read the ensuing discussion and see if it
helps in any way in understanding this meter thing more. It's not as
complicated as we are making it out to be, in fact its really simple..
take Joshi sahib going at it with a purely musical manner. That's
essentially what meter is, rhythm.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
UVR
> Amit Malhotra
Amit,
I'm leery of prolonging the 'boring technicalities' portion of this
thread for fear of detracting from the purpose with which Farah
saahiba started this thread. So, I'll try to keep this short.
First, please no "UVR ji", just UVR. You will notice that I have
dispensed with the 'saahib' appendage above as a sort of advance quid
pro quo for you to accede to my request! :)
Second, thanks for mentioning Dr. Pritchett. What an accomplished
person she is! We should all consider ourselves lucky if we could
even accomplish in our chosen field(s) of endeavor even half of what
she has in hers. Oh well.
Anyway, in connection with your question about whether the first
metric foot of this behr can be a short syllable or not, it is NOT.
Maybe I wasn't quite "decisive" in my previous post, but there is no
doubt in my mind that this meter needs to be anchored at either end by
a long syllable (with the customary allowance of a non-scanned short
syllable at the terminal end). You'll see this if you review the
section on Mir's "Hindi Meter" in Dr. Pritchett's book once again
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/meterbk/06_meters.html?#6_2
There's a part where she has described a set of 8 different forms
which the first half of this meter can take. She also mentions a kind
of a "formulaic" description by Ralph Russell the simplicity of which
is so breathtakingly elegant! I'll encourage you to look at the
Russell representation.
So, the "bachaa ke nazreN ..." alternative is not metrically sound.
-UVR.
deedawar
> There's a part where she has described a set of 8 different forms
> which the first half of this meter can take. She also mentions a kind
> of a "formulaic" description by Ralph Russell the simplicity of which
> is so breathtakingly elegant! I'll encourage you to look at the
> Russell representation.
>
> So, the "bachaa ke nazreN ..." alternative is not metrically sound.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thankyou all so much for your input. I am reading with interest and
dedication. Here is my second attempt.
Baat chalii terii aa.Nkho.n se jaa pahu.Nchii paimaane tak
Saath chali duniya saari jab hum chale mehKhaane tak
Is this any better?
farah
premc...@gmail.com
Farah behen,
One small complaint about this line. The word "Tere" is critical to
the meaning.
After all, "jiskee nazarain hain paimaana, usee ka hota hai
maikhaana"
Kisi terah aap apni line main "Tere maikhaane" zaroor istmaal karain.
PJ
UVR
> dedication. Here is my second attempt.
>
> Baat chalii terii aa.Nkho.n se jaa pahu.Nchii paimaane tak
> Saath chali duniya saari jab hum chale mehKhaane tak
>
> Is this any better?
>
> farah
Unfortunately, this is not in meter. The addition of a "hai" before
duniya can fix the meter, provided 'chale' is read as two short
syllables.
However, the sh'er still seems a bit flat (Sarwar saahib used to use
the word "sapaaT", IIRC) and I'm not really sure I understand the
entire implication of it. The last mentioned would be my shortcoming,
of course, but nevertheless, would you be wiling to consider something
like this:
saaqi teri mast nazar ne/se/ke <rum pum pum> maiKhaane
tak
which is what I was trying to lead you towards? The <rum pum pum> can
be "(ne) looT liye", "(ke) qaa'il haiN", "(se) ubal paRe" (say what?)
and other such. woh maiN aap par chhoRtaa hooN. OR something along
these lines.
Once again, this type of sh'er is not really my cup of tea; I hope
you'll excuse me if I am unable to provide any useful pointers to
improve upon your original effort. Maybe Amit with his familiarity
with the paimaana side of life or Zoya saahibaa with her uniquely
feminine perspective on Life and Love will do better than me.
-UVR.
tanhaa
UVR,
I'll also put a finalizing tone in this response to ensure that the
discussion doesn't continue.
> Second, thanks for mentioning Dr. Pritchett. What an accomplished
> person she is! We should all consider ourselves lucky if we could
> even accomplish in our chosen field(s) of endeavor even half of what
> she has in hers. Oh well.
My God, I'm such an idiot. I assumed HER gender and obviously made a
mistake. I should have just done a better google search to figure
that out than the one I did in which it seemed it was a "HE" and not a
"SHE". It was a very quick, cursory google search, and I thank you
for correcting me so subtly.
>
> Anyway, in connection with your question about whether the first
> metric foot of this behr can be a short syllable or not, it is NOT.
> Maybe I wasn't quite "decisive" in my previous post, but there is no
> doubt in my mind that this meter needs to be anchored at either end by
> a long syllable (with the customary allowance of a non-scanned short
> syllable at the terminal end).
Actually you were not decisive at all, you sort of left it up in the
air. As you said, and I quote: "However,are you quite sure that this
meter, does accept a short syllable at the very beginning of a line?
I don't, know if it does (by that I mean 'I do not know', not 'it does
not accept'). I think the first and last syllables must be long".
You see, no decisiveness at all appears in those lines! :-)
Regardless, I think in my response to that, I did agree with you and
simply showed you my reasoning as to why I *thought* that it may have
been correct. And I quote myself in the reply: "I'll still say that
I agree with you, I didn't think, after reading the line suggested by
Joshi sahib that a short syllable, should have started this misra".
You'll see this if you review the
> section on Mir's "Hindi Meter" in Dr. Pritchett's book once again
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/meterbk/06_mete...
> There's a part where she has described a set of 8 different forms
> which the first half of this meter can take. She also mentions a kind
> of a "formulaic" description by Ralph Russell the simplicity of which
> is so breathtakingly elegant! I'll encourage you to look at the
> Russell representation.
>
Notice that whereever I quoted Dr. Pritchett, it was from the section
"Mir's Hindi Meter". It is fair to say that I have read it. In fact,
her meter-book has been my mini-bible for years when it comes to Urdu
meters. It is beautiful in its simplicity and the way it explains
things. I know that in her 8 forms there was none that started with a
small syllable. In fact, even Ralph Russell's diagram did not leave
that option, though (and this I quoted in my last post) Dr. Pritchett
did say that Russell's diagram does not portray the complicated
manners in which Mir used this meter or the fact that 1-2-1 is an
acceptable (though rare) occurence of short syllables. Again, I
simply assumed, and wrongly so, that it could be in the first feet as
well.
> So, the "bachaa ke nazreN ..." alternative is not metrically sound.
>
Indeed, I said that myself after reading your post. I whole-heartedly
agree. I even told Farah sahiba to ignore the alternative I suggested
as it was out of meter because of "sab" and because of 211-112
occurence in there which is obviously wrong in addition to the fact
that it starts with a small syllable.
I hope that closes the chapter on this discussion.
Warm Regards,
Amit Malhotra
> -UVR.
deedawar
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK so I have given this much thought and I am not beaten yet. ere is
something different. I am sure it still needs work but I though that
trying to fix the original shir was getting a little tiring, I know
that you will give me your honest critique. :-)
Baat challi teri aankhon se jaa pohanchi paimaane tak
Raat dhalli teri baaton mein shammah ke jal jaane tak
farah
UVR
>
> OK so I have given this much thought and I am not beaten yet. ere is
> something different. I am sure it still needs work but I though that
> trying to fix the original shir was getting a little tiring, I know
> that you will give me your honest critique. :-)
>
> Baat challi teri aankhon se jaa pohanchi paimaane tak
> Raat dhalli teri baaton mein shammah ke jal jaane tak
>
> farah
Farah saahiba,
Unfortunately, the second line of this couplet isn't in behr. The
culprit most likely is the way you are reading the word shammah.
As you know, the word is written "sheen meem+tashdeed 'ain" in Urdu.
And whilst "shammaa" is what one often hears in conversational circles
as well as in a lot of filmy and light 'verse', the correct
pronunciation of this word is "sham-a", and that's how it's expected
to be used in metered poetry -- the terminal sound is like that of the
short vowel 'a' when the word is used in the middle of a line (and
when it's used at the end of a line, the final 'ain is treated as the
consonant it really is).
-UVR.
UVR
I meant to write "meem + NO tashdeed." Sorry about that. Bad typo.
Bad UVR.
Asa'd
> something different. I am sure it still needs work but I though that
> trying to fix the original shir was getting a little tiring, I know
> that you will give me your honest critique. :-)
>
> Baat challi teri aankhon se jaa pohanchi paimaane tak
> Raat dhalli teri baaton mein shammah ke jal jaane tak
>
> farah
Farah Sahiba, I am afraid you've arrived. I am splitting up your sh'er
into four pairs. Now just read each one of it aloud and see how
similar they sound!
baat chalii ----> raat dhalii
terii aaNkhoN ----> terii baatoN
sejaa pahoNchii ----> meiNsham maake
paimaane tak ----> jal jaane tak
The problem which still remains though is the absence (or lack) of
rabt (relation) btw the two misras. Every sh'er, as you know is like a
short story and it is still not clear what your story is. But well
done.
Asa'd
deedawar
don't see a problem with the 'rabt'. The beloved's eyes led to
drinking and talking till the morning.
UVR Saahib, I understand your point and will keep trying to better the
shir. I don't give up easily. Besides I have a couple of dozen
ghazals which are all probably without behr, vazn and rabt. I will
certainly be busy for a while. Alas I am entering a busy period at
work too. Still a shir a day is all that is needed.
btw I am not letting you all off so easily. I will keep this thread
going ad infinitum and I trust that you will all continue to indulge
me. :-)
A truly grateful pupil.
farah
A truly grateful pupil.
Asa'd
Before we close Farah Sahiba, let me tell you that UVR Sahib right.
Shama' is as different from Shamma, as Asad from Asa'd. I guess both
of us were typing together , so I missed his post and point.
deedawar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes I understand that. I really am better at writing Urdu in the
Nastaliq script. This Roman business has me beat. So much to learn
and so few spare grey cells.
farah
sat pal
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dosto Adaab !
ek chhoTee si koshish
baat chalee teree aaNkhoN se jaa pahuNchi paimaane tak
nazar bachakar sham Dhale hum ja pahuNche maikhane tak
yih Hindi meter hai ya yoon kaho ki yih maatrik bhi aur bahar ke lihaz
se bahare-mutkarib aur bahre-mutdaarik ki modified form se mail
khaataa hai ,
15 felun se milkar bana hai yih , aur is meter ke baare meN detail meN
paRne ke liye aap mere blog par aa sakte haiN yih ek CHoTee se
koshish hai lekin hai devnagrii meN.
muafee chahta hooN agar kuch ghalat kaha gaya ho.
thanks
khyaal
UVR
Khayaal saahib, namaste.
Khaaksaar ke naaqis Khayaal meN aap ke kahe hue misr'e meN bhi wohi
samasya hai jis ke ham pahle bhi dar.pesh aa chuke haiN -- aur woh
samasya yeh hai k is behr meN pahle sthaan par laghu kaa ist'emaal
jaa'iz naheeN hai. lihaazaa "nazar" jaisaa lafz is misr'e kaa lafz-e-
awwal naheeN banaayaa jaanaa chaahiye.
kam az kam meri ma'aloomaat to yahi kahti hai. aap Ghaur kareNge to
shaayad yahi baat aap ko apne blog par bhi mil jaayegi -- jin
udaaharanaatmak GhazaloN kaa aap ne apni blog post ke liye chayan
kiyaa hai, unko is nazariye se phir ek baar dekh leN.
waise aap kaa dwijendra 'dwij' saahib se nikaT sampark hai, meri
maaneN to aap un se is behr ke baare meN mashvara kar leN.
-UVR.
tanhaa
Farah sahiba,
As Asad sahib said, UVR made a valid point about "shammaa" not being
two long syllables but rather one long one short syllable which makes
your line out of meter.
So as an alternative, you can try this
raat Dhalii teri baatoN meiN taaroN ke chhup jaane tak
it might be a bit lackluster.. but it also might do the job for you.
Amit
Zafar
umm, maiN to ziyaada urooz waGhaira naheeN jaantaa, lekin lagtaa hai k
shaayad Mir ko oopar bayaan-karda kuliye se kulli ittifaaq na ho, kyoN
k wo deewaan e panjum meN farmaate haiN:
bahut liye tasbeeh phire ham pehnaa hai zunnaar bahut
yahaaN par shaayad misre ki ibtidaa "fa'ool" se ho rahi hai (ba-HUT-
phi = 121). lekin 'ain mumkin hai k maiN hi Ghalati par hooN.
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
> You'll see this if you review the
> section on Mir's "Hindi Meter" in Dr. Pritchett's book once again
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/meterbk/06_mete...
> There's a part where she has described a set of 8 different forms
> which the first half of this meter can take. She also mentions a kind
> of a "formulaic" description by Ralph Russell the simplicity of which
> is so breathtakingly elegant! I'll encourage you to look at the
> Russell representation.
>
> So, the "bachaa ke nazreN ..." alternative is not metrically sound.
>
tanhaa
OMG! Zafar sahib to the rescue!!! Really? So Mir did use two small
sounds in a 121 pattern in the FIRST FEET!! I guess my assumption
wasn't that far-fetched UVR sahib!
Thank you so much for this post Zafar sahib, it's really appreciated,
and as always, I remain in awe of your knowledge and your experience.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Naseer
I am sure Farah Sahiba must have learnt quite a bit from this thread.
For me, there were two learning points.
1) Whoever aims to reach the dizzy heights of being able to compose
Urdu poetry, should have a very sound foundation in the craft of
prosody.(Unless of course they have an instinctive "feel" like our Raj
Kumar Sahib).
2) There is indeed such a concept as "ustaadoN ke ustaad"!:-)
Naseer
UVR
I trust Zafar saahib, but I'm still skeptical about the behr thing. I
mean, Meer also used "Khayaal" as "Khyaal", but you don't see people
come crawling out of the woodwork dying to use the word with that
talaffuz, right?
People like Meer belong to the category of "more equal than others".
The rest of us have to mind our manners.
-UVR.
ami...@gmail.com
I will give you points on this one. I agree, if it's like one out of
thousands of Ghazals written in this meter that starts with a small
sound and uses 121 in the first feet, people like me shouldn't use
that as an excuse to start writing in that way. So I'm just going to
say, while it is possible, and it has been used by Mir before, it is
extremely rare and one should probably steer clear of that usage.
Amit
ami...@gmail.com
Naseer sahib,
Don't stop yourself from writing Urdu poetry even if you don't have a
sound foundation in the craft of prosody. Just a "cursory" knowledge
is good enough to give you a feel for it over time. That's all I had
and I have now a feel for it, that's the reason why I make many
mistakes still, and obviously, I'm not vying for the dizzy heights as
you put them, but at least I can practice the art that I love so much
every now and then. :-)
Regards
Amit
UVR
You have made it impossible for me to disagree with you :-)
-UVR.
sat pal
>
> - Show quoted text -
"aur woh
samasya yeh hai k is behr meN pahle sthaan par laghu kaa ist'emaal
jaa'iz naheeN hai. lihaazaa "nazar" jaisaa lafz is misr'e kaa lafz-
e-
awwal naheeN banaayaa jaanaa chaahiye. "
Shukria UVR ji,
aapne sahi kaha maine misra Ghalat kaha hai aur muafee chahta hoon,
is meter me hamesha Guru se misra shuru hona chahiye.
baat chalee teree aaNkhoN se jaa pahuNchi paimaane tak
shaam dhalee to rafta-rafta jaa pahunche maikhane tak
thanks again
satpal khayaal(khyaal)
sat pal
>
> - Show quoted text -
UVR ji,
as you have use this idiom for me
<trust Zafar saahib, but I'm still skeptical about the behr thing.
I
mean, Meer also used "Khayaal" as "Khyaal", but you don't see people
come crawling out of the woodwork dying to use the word with that
talaffuz, right? >
This word Khayaal aur khyaal is differentely pronounced in Hindi and
urdu and I used to use it
as khayaal( fa-oo-l or 121) and same in case of payalaa and pyalaa. I
have no intension to use it differently as you said peolple are
crawling out of woodwork or dying to use that tallaffuz.
khayaal is the right pronounciation may be Miir use it as a khyaal
(21) I think Miir might be aware of its pronounciation and I think it
is because of his interest in HIndi meters and thats why it is used by
him and later this meter known as Miir's meter.
Khayaal
Naseer
Amit Sahib, aadaab.
maiN awr Urdu shaa'irii?! aap yaqiin-an mazaaq kar rahe haiN. maiN un
"chakraa dene vaalii bulandiyoN" kaa zikr diigar aHbaab ke silsile meN
kar rahaa thaa. is baat kaa merii zaat se qat'-an ko'ii ta'alluq
nahiiN! haaN, 'ilm-i-'uruuz agar rattii bhar bhii merii samajh meN aa
gayaa to yih zaruur Ghaniimat ho gii.
Naseer
deedawar
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have indeed learned from this thread. I do have a long way to go
yet. I will endeavour to work on my own and try and post something
which is acceptable. Please be patient with me and continue to teach
me. I value all your input and am very grateful.
farah
Zafar
Sat Pal ji:
Where do you (and UVR saahib) think Mir has used Khayaal (121) as
Khyaal (21)? Can you quote a few examples?
Thanks in advance,
Zafar
> Khayaal
Zafar
Sorry to followup on my own post ... but if you were referring to this
she'r by Mir, "ishq bure hi Khayaal paRaa hai ...", I don't see any
problems here. But, on the other hand, if you had something else in
mind, I'd love to hear a few appropriate examples.
Thanks,
Zafar
Naseer
Zafar Sahib, aadaab.
I believe UVR Sahib has the same shi'r in mind as mentioned by you
above. Please take a look at post no. 11.
Naseer
UVR
>
> Naseer
Yes, indeed. That's the one. Dr. FWP writes it as:
'ishq hamaare Khyaal paRaa hai chain *gayee* aaraam gayaa
jee kaa jaanaa Thahar gayaa hai subH gayaa yaa shaam gayaa
From Meer's deewaan-e-panjum.
And, whilst Zafar saahib or I (or others) may cleverly want to read
'Khyaal' as 'Khayaal' here because the meter allows it, Ali Sardar
Jaffery in the preface to his collected works of Meer (titled
[intiKhaab-az] Deewaan-e-Meer) includes an unambiguous anecdote to the
effect that Meer himself recited it without any zer or zabar on the
Khe.
And, how about "chain gayi"? Are we allowed to use that too, now?
-UVR.
Naseer
UVR Sahib, aadaab.
This is how this shi'r is written on Dr.Frances.W. Prichett's online
site.
عشق ہمارے خیال پڑا ہے خواب گئی آرام گیا
جی کا جانا ٹھہر رہا ہے صبح گیا یا شام گیا
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00garden/xghazindex/1526_1550.html?urdu#alif
Naseer
UVR
>
> Naseer
Yes, "Khwaab gayi". "chain" was a typo. 'pulis' ki nazar se kaun saa
gunaah, aur kitni der tak, chhupaa hai! :)
In any case, I am still interested in knowing Zafar saahib's (and
yours too) answer to the question I asked in my earlier post -- are
the 'mere mortals' amongst us allowed to copy every "wrong" use of
every word/meter by the 'god of poetry'? The same, about copying the
'errors' committed by other Masters of The Art?
-UVR.
Naseer
UVR Sahib, aadaab.
Like Winnie the Pooh, who was a bear of little brain, I am a man of
extremely limited knowledge. This is especially the case in the field
of prosody, which is the central theme of this thread. I should really
have kept my nose out of it but now that you have asked me a direct
question, it would be height of bad manners not to give you some kind
of response. Of course, it goes without saying and you know full well
that the pearls of wisdom and knowledge that Zafar Sahib can bestow
upon us will be no match for this humble Khaak-saar's input.
As for meter, I have n't got the foggiest!:) But, it appears to me
that, at least the way your revered Dr.Frances.W.Prichett has
transcribed this shi'r is indicative of the fact that Miir did not use
the word as "Khyaal" but as "Khiyaal". The latter, according to
another revered personality of yours, namely janaab-i-Platts, is
"vulagar" usage. I remember, I believe it might have been janaab-i-Raj
Kumar Sahib, who once said that we must not take the word "vulgar"
here to mean VULGAR but merely colloquial or "'aamiyaanah".
((ishq hamaare ;xiyaal pa;Raa hai ;xvaab ga))ii aaraam gayaa
jii kaa jaanaa ;Thahr rahaa hai .sub;h gayaa yaa shaam gayaa
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00garden/xghazindex/1526_1550.html?#alif
Coming to "Khvaab" having being used as a feminine noun, once again
your Piir-o-Murshid, janaab-i-Platts has a question mark over its as a
feminine noun. It appears to me, therefore that Miir has not committed
any "wrongs" for us to emulate or to put right.
In a thread of bygone era, janaab-i-Raj Kumar Sahib questioned Iqbal's
usage of the word "mataa'" in the masculine gender in one of his
shi'rs. All I would say is that neither Miir nor Iqbal nor Naseer nor
UVR Sahib are infallible!:) However, it is my view that the first two
gentleman knew a thing or two [ You too, of course know a thing or two
or three or..!:-)]. And the liklihood of their making such errors is
quite minute. I would think that Iqbal must have had precedence in the
usage of mataa' in the masculine gender. Just like, I suppose, bulbul
is used in both genders.
Finally, I am begining to think that Miir must have grown up amongst
people from my "vatan", namely Punjab!!:) And they did him a lot of
good!!:) I know that Punjabis are most likely to say "Khiyaal" and "
kal manuN Khvaab aa'ii sii.." (Yesterday, I had a dream...).
Naseer
deedawar
>
> Coming to "Khvaab" having being used as a feminine noun, once again
> your Piir-o-Murshid, janaab-i-Platts has a question mark over its as a
> feminine noun. It appears to me, therefore that Miir has not committed
> any "wrongs" for us to emulate or to put right.
>
>
> In a thread of bygone era, janaab-i-Raj Kumar Sahib questioned Iqbal's
> usage of the word "mataa'" in the masculine gender in one of his
> shi'rs. All I would say is that neither Miir nor Iqbal nor Naseer nor
> UVR Sahib are infallible!:) However, it is my view that the first two
> gentleman knew a thing or two [ You too, of course know a thing or two
> or three or..!:-)]. And the liklihood of their making such errors is
> quite minute. I would think that Iqbal must have had precedence in the
> usage of mataa' in the masculine gender. Just like, I suppose, bulbul
> is used in both genders.
>
> Finally, I am begining to think that Miir must have grown up amongst
> people from my "vatan", namely Punjab!!:) And they did him a lot of
> good!!:) I know that Punjabis are most likely to say "Khiyaal" and "
> kal manuN Khvaab aa'ii sii.." (Yesterday, I had a dream...).
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
indeed used as feminine and masculine, except my mother always says
that she saw a dream rather than had a dream. i.e. kal main ek
khvaab dekhi si.
farah
Naseer
> Naseer Sahib, I am also Punjabi and speak the language. Khvaab is
> indeed used as feminine and masculine, except my mother always says
> that she saw a dream rather than had a dream. i.e. kal main ek
> khvaab dekhi si.
>
Farah Sahiba, aadaab 'arz hai.
I have had to re-think about the word "Khvaab" as far as Punjabi is
concerned. Yes indeed one can say "kal maiN ik Khvaab dekhii/vekhii
sii" as well as " mainuuN/manuuN kal ik Khvaab aa'ii sii". Are you
saying that *in Punjabi" Khvaab has a dual gender?
In my reply to UVR Sahib, I forgot to mention that when Miir said
"Khvaab ga'ii", he meant "niiNd ga'ii" and not "dream ga'ii"!:)
Naseer
Asa'd
> Farah Sahiba, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> dekhii/vekhii sii" are both correct. I forgot to mention one thing in
> my post to UVR Sahib is that Miir used "Khvaab" ga'ii in the sense of
> "niiNd ga'ii" and not of course "dream ga'ii"!:-) I think, in Punjabi,
> we always use the word "Khvaab" in the feminine gender. We say "merii
> Khvaab" and not "meraa Khvaab". Agreed?
>
> Naseer
Dear Naseer Sahib,
I am not sure of the extent of punjabi influence on Meer, but it seems
he did use 'khvaab' as feminine gender here, as to my surprise third
she'r of the same ghazal in Kulliyat-e-Meer (Naval Kishore 1941
edition) which I have, is
kis kis apni kal ko rove, hijraaN meiN bekal us ka
khvaab *gayii* hai, taab gayii hai, chain gayaa, aaraam gayaa
UVR Sahib's question, if I may say, it is kind of tricky. How for
instance shall we define the "mere mortals". IMHO any one who writes
in behr should be allowed to use it, while it should definitely be
prohibited for people like me :).
Asa'd
UVR
In the matter of linguistic style, I must (for once) agree with Zafar
saahib -- the language in which a poet writes must be the
grammatically, idiomatically and phraseologically contemporaneous
language of his/her own time, unless there is a conscious attempt
being made towards producing a "period piece" (i.e., a Ghazal ba.rang-
e-Meer). It just won't do to write in Meer's language if you are
writing in 2010. If people are, in increasing numbers, using Khwaab
as a feminine noun TODAY, then I suppose we could all also do
likewise. But simply writing in Meer's language for the kicks of it
won't do.
The same type of argument also holds for meter. If people are, in
increasing numbers, writing poetry in this behr with the first metric
syllable being a short one, then that could be treated as the way of
the future. There would be no reason to take issue with Farah
saahiba's or Amit's lines. But, personally speaking, I'm not seeing
that this is happening.
So, then we again come back to the issue of "anomalous" use of a word
or a behr by a poet. Anomalous, meaning something that not many of
the poet's own contemporaries did, AND something that you don't see
being done today.
And my opinion is, no matter how reputed or revered the poet may be,
an anomaly is still an anomaly. Aspiring poets and/or poetic
dillettantes of today, like me, cannot brazenly brandish these
anomalies as some sort of a weapon! That just won't do!
-UVR.
Zafar
This incidence that you talk of, UVR ji, was obviously taken from Aab
e Hayaat
Mir to his guests, 'You will say, according to your books, that I
should make the ye in khiyaal [metrically] manifest. Then you will say
that the ye would ruin the scansion. But here, there is no answer
except that this is the idiom' (translation by FP and SRF).
The more closely we look at this episode, the more dubious it
appears. Here is how:
1
But the problem here is that the ye of Khayaal is fully manifest! One
only need to drop the ye in "hi" or "hamaare" (different versions of
the she'r exist). Contrary to Mir's claim, the manifestation of ye
does NOT "ruin the scansion." Why must one drop the ye of Khayaal,
when it's fully kosher to drop the ye in hi or hamaare? Occam's Razor
anyone?
Surely, Mir would have known this.
2
Mir claims that "this is the idiom" ... but this assertion begs the
question, Why has he violated the selfsame "idiom" hundreds of times
in his own kalaam? A few examples from the first few pages of the
deewaan e awwal:
bhoole us ke qaul o qasam par haaye *Khayaal* e Khaam kiyaa
na keh k neend meN hai tu ye kyaa *Khayaal* kiyaa
dil samjhaa na muhabbat ko kuchh un ne kyaa ye *Khayaal* kiyaa
na poochh Khaab e ZuleKhaa ne kyaa *Khayaal* liyaa
us kaa *Khayaal* chashm se kal Khaab le gayaa
The point is that Mir is a musallam us suboot ustaad, and is well
known for his breathtakingly sublime use of Urdu idiom to create a
poetry of extraordinary beauty. So, IMO at least, either the story is
entirely apocryphal -- after all, everybody and their neighbor knows
that Aab e Hayaat is riddled with such tall tales -- or it's just that
Mir was pulling the legs of those clueless chaps who "dared" to
approach him directly and bother him about his poetry. Wasn't Mir
infamous as a "bad-dimaaGh" and extremely proud poet?
> And, how about "chain gayi"? Are we allowed to use that too, now?
Well, the gender of many words was not set in stone in Mir's time and
he and his contemporaries use words that were later fixed as either
entirely feminine or entirely masculine. One such word is "ser": Mir
has used it as masculine, but later on only the feminine usage
survived. This, of course, does not prove that Mir did not know his
grammar.
And, by the way, nobody has declared that one must blindly follow Mir,
or anybody else, for that matter. A question was raised whether it
was possible to have a short syllable in the beginning of the "Behr e
Mir", and I provided one such example from the man himself.
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
UVR
>
> And, by the way, nobody has declared that one must blindly follow Mir,
> or anybody else, for that matter. A question was raised whether it
> was possible to have a short syllable in the beginning of the "Behr e
> Mir", and I provided one such example from the man himself.
>
> aadaab arz hai,
>
> Zafar
But, Zafar saahib, you know as well as I do that one example does not
a tradition make! In the millions of instances where this behr (behr-
e-Meer, which, FWP implies is likely not the Khuda-e-suKhan's own
adaptational handiwork), how many examples of a short syllable being
employed in the first foot have you found?
Regarding the other anecdote, I am in no position to argue with you as
to whether it was a figment of Muhammad Hussain Azad's imagination or
not. I was just using it as an example to make the point -- that we
are not at liberty to simply use any and every thing Meer did, just
because Meer did. And whilst I agree with you that he is a musallim-
us-suboot ustaad, he was human nevertheless. He must surely have
slipped up from time to time :)
-UVR.
deedawar
I have heard khvaab used with both genders. I will quiz my mother
when I next see her as her Punjabi is so much better than mine. I am
currently reading Heer by Waris Shah and I have to ask for my mother's
help regularly. :-)
farah
sat pal
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont know but it is told by UVR ji so its over to UVR ji
Asa'd
Its okay to suggest/prioritize/adopt such measures as far as islaah/
correction of amateurs (like me) is concerned but beyond that (and I
speak for myself) poetry has more to do with “dil” than anything else.
I would perhaps not mind the use of *anomalous* word/behr if a she’r
is good and touches my heart. I’d rather listen to a beautifully
written meaningful she’r which is 98% in meter and needs to be read
with a slight zer/zabar variation, than hearing to an ordinary, 100%
technically sound one. Speaking of *anomolous* words, we do'nt have to
go far
ab aksar chup-chup se rahe haiN yuuN hii kabhuu lab khole haiN
pahle "Firaq" ko dekhaa hotaa ab to bahut kam bole haiN (Firaq)
mere hii lahuu par guzar auqaat karo ho
mujh se hii amiiro.n kii tarah baat karo ho (Kaleem Ajiz)
nazar par baar ho jaate haiN manzar
jahaaN rahiyo, vahaaN aksar na rahiyo (Jon Eliya)
Moreover, *anomolous* words/phrases in discussion often carry
different connotations today. For example if we replace ‘rahiyo’ with
‘rehna’ in the above sher, it will change the sh’er completely for me
and not be half as good as the original. Similarly, ‘kabhu’ is not
exactly same as ‘kabhi’ (or is it ?) I think contemporary poets/adeebs
refrain from using these words, not due to any particular rule, but
simply because a large section of audience (avaam.un.naas) will not be
able to understand or relate to the true essence of the word, for
obvious reasons. Since this is a big enough deterrent for the writers
today, I don’t see a reason to adopt a policy that further discourages
the use of some beautiful words/muhavras we’ve lost with time or in
our drive of shunning ‘vulgarity’. I know it doesn’t apply to all the
‘matruk’ words, but some of them, you would agree, if revived or even
kept alive would cause no harm.
Asa'd
Naseer
On Feb 16, 12:09 am, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The same type of argument also holds for meter. If people are, in
> increasing numbers, writing poetry in this behr with the first metric
> syllable being a short one, then that could be treated as the way of
> the future. There would be no reason to take issue with Farah
> saahiba's or Amit's lines. But, personally speaking, I'm not seeing
> that this is happening.
May I ask what the conclusion is so far as Miir's alleged meter lapse
is concerned? Did he insert "Khyaal" in place of the correct "Khayaal"
or has he been absolved of this " deliberate slip"?
> So, then we again come back to the issue of "anomalous" use of a word
> or a behr by a poet. Anomalous, meaning something that not many of
> the poet's own contemporaries did, AND something that you don't see
> being done today.
> And my opinion is, no matter how reputed or revered the poet may be,
> an anomaly is still an anomaly. Aspiring poets and/or poetic
> dillettantes of today, like me, cannot brazenly brandish these
> anomalies as some sort of a weapon! That just won't do!
I think the gender issue is not such a big deal. Some words at some
stage must have been dual-gender and accepted as such by all and
sundry. This would explain why such words appear blatantly wrong to
our modern sensitivities because that duality has gone. Had these
poets genuinely used the wrong gender, they would have been exposed by
thier friends and foes.
Moreover, is n't there such a thing as innovation? If Miir or anyone
else tries a slight variation here and there and the result does not
breach certain time honoured conventions ( of correct vazn for
example), what harm has this poet caused? If this "anomaly", as you
put it, does not become fashionable, so be it. And, IMHO, even if this
anomolous form is copied by a poet of our times, at least there is a
precedence of its usage. Not only this, poets may use this "daring" to
attempt new experiments in this field. If they ultimately come to
nought, at least new paths have been trodden on rather than the tried
and tested avenues of bygone times.
Naseer
UVR
On Feb 16, 1:50 pm, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> May I ask what the conclusion is so far as Miir's alleged meter lapse
> is concerned? Did he insert "Khyaal" in place of the correct "Khayaal"
> or has he been absolved of this " deliberate slip"?
>
I don't think it's possible to conclusively "convict" or "absolve" the
suspect. Let's just say that the jury is still out. My opinion is
that he *did* use Khyaal, because that way the syllabic
"flow" (ravaani) of the entire sh'er resolves better. But this is
little more than a personal feeling. It really boils down to whether
you believe the Aab-e-Hayaat or not.
Yes. "Innovation" is certainly possible -- if you want to call it
that. However, if Meer himself was unable to get traction for this
kind of 'innovation', doesn't that tell us something? Under what
authority can the rest of us presume to dig up said "innovation" from
its centuries old resting place? Let's try the innovations and stuff
*after* we have understood, comprehended, digested and even (dare we
hope) mastered the basics.
I hope you and Farah will excuse me for saying what I am about to say
now -- I believe this thread has completely overstayed its welcome.
For the past several posts, we have not discussed the topic and
original purpose with which Farah saahiba had started it. Therefore,
I think it's time we "chalta karo'ed" this thread. If Farah saahiba
is still interested in "benefiting"(!) from these discussions, she can
let us know.
I know that I for one have had my fill of the wares on display and am
off to a badly needed siesta :)
-UVR.
Naseer
On Feb 16, 10:12 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Naseer saahib, aadaab.
>
> On Feb 16, 1:50 pm, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> > May I ask what the conclusion is so far as Miir's alleged meter lapse
> > is concerned? Did he insert "Khyaal" in place of the correct "Khayaal"
> > or has he been absolved of this " deliberate slip"?
>
> I don't think it's possible to conclusively "convict" or "absolve" the
> suspect. Let's just say that the jury is still out. My opinion is
> that he *did* use Khyaal, because that way the syllabic
> "flow" (ravaani) of the entire sh'er resolves better. But this is
> little more than a personal feeling. It really boils down to whether
> you believe the Aab-e-Hayaat or not.
This is indeed a pity. I was under the impression that Zafar Sahib
felt that "Khayaal" was the word in the misra' and it fitted "like a
glove" without taking off even a millimetre from the meter!:)
As for me, I have n't even begun to understand the beginings of the
basics let alone getting to the digestion process. My contribution to
this thread, and I need not really say this, was only as a lay
observer and not of a person who has knowledge of the subject matter.
I blame you for "dragging" me into all this!:)
> I hope you and Farah will excuse me for saying what I am about to say
> now -- I believe this thread has completely overstayed its welcome.
> For the past several posts, we have not discussed the topic and
> original purpose with which Farah saahiba had started it. Therefore,
> I think it's time we "chalta karo'ed" this thread. If Farah saahiba
> is still interested in "benefiting"(!) from these discussions, she can
> let us know.
>
> I know that I for one have had my fill of the wares on display and am
> off to a badly needed siesta :)
yih to vuh baat hu'ii nah kih KHud peT bhar kar khaa liyaa awr phir
duusroN ko kahte haiN kih chalo, chhoRo yih khaanaa piinaa, ab cinema
dekhne chalte haiN. idhar hamaare peT meN abhii chuuhe dauR rahe
haiN!:)
By the way YOU started the "crawling of woodwork" business and Khyaal/
Khayaal stuff, UVR Sahib! chalo Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiik hai, yahii se
qissah tamaam karte haiN. ab chuuNkih aap kaa "matlab" nikal gayaa hai
to ab mujhe javaab dene kii zaruurat nahiiN. vaise bhii 58 se 59 posts
kuchh achchhii nahiiN lageN gii. Let's round off on an even number,
shall we?:)
Naseer
UVR
> Khayaal stuff, UVR Sahib! chalo Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiik hai, yahii se
> qissah tamaam karte haiN. ab chuuNkih aap kaa "matlab" nikal gayaa hai
> to ab mujhe javaab dene kii zaruurat nahiiN. vaise bhii 58 se 59 posts
> kuchh achchhii nahiiN lageN gii. Let's round off on an even number,
> shall we?:)
>
> Naseer
That is an EXTREMELY unfair characterization of my participation in
this thread, Naseer saahib, and one that I cannot let pass without
protesting, however feebly.
I think that if you were to review the progression of this thread, you
will observe that I did nothing even remotely resembling what you
accuse me of. You appear to have thoroughly misread my initial post
mentioning "Khyaal" -- the intent of which was simply exhort beginners
of poetry NOT to be swayed by "anomalous" (or "innovative", if you
please) uses of the language or its prosody and to focus on
understanding the basics first. Before that, my attempt was to try
and encourage Farah saahiba to come up with alternatives to her
couplet on her own, without trying to 'feed' any constructed lines to
her. Even when Amit mentioned Dr. FWP and her site, I tried to deal
with it in as short and swift a manner as I could, precisely because I
wanted to avoid a long drawn discussion of the "nuanced uses" of this
behr. See, I am of the strong opinion that one must learn to walk
before one can attempt to run like Usain Bolt, and it's little more
than useless digression to discuss advanced technicalities when we're
trying to focus on the very basics.
You can also review the thread to see *exactly* where and when the
thread went off course, and I don't think I should have to explain
anything beyond this.
But if it please the Court to accuse, convict and incarcerate the
innocent without so much as even the appearance of a fair trial, then
so be it! At least I won't have to make an excuse for keeping my
mouth shut.
-UVR.
tanhaa
I wholeheartedly agree with UVRs conclusion. Lets not get into the
nuances of this thread, it seems to be much more complicated and that
one needs to walk before one can run. When the basics are in
discussion, there's no point going into the advanced topic. This was
meant to be behr 101 and not 301! That's why I said in my first post
I believe, or somewhere in one of the threads about this tarahi misra
that the be'hr chosen is one of the more complicated ones in my humble
opinion to start off your Urdu meter learning experience. I remember
in AGJH episodes, the first be'hr we used was "dil-e-naadaaN tujhe
huaa kyaa hai" --- a much simpler one to understand and to start the
learning experience with.
We do need more new poets on this newsgroup to allow us folks to learn
more from the discussions that ensue. This was a great discussion,
even though the topic was slightly digressed from Farah Sahiba's sh'er
to Mir's behr.... it was none the less an amazing read and I for one
learnt a great deal from it. Thank you for those who participated.
So who's going to post another tarahi misra for us to talk about? :-)
Amit