Compound Word Formation (or Lack of) in Urdu

[Naseer]

dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 3arz hai

Recently, janaab-i-Irfan SaaHib quoted the following shi3r by Parveen Shakir..

yih havaa kaise uRaa le ga'ii aaNchal meraa
yuuN sataane kii to 3aadat mire Ghanshyaam kii thii!

and with regard to the word "Ghanshyaam", described it as "unexpected". I presume he used the word "unexpected" because "Shyaam" was being rhymed with "naam", "shaam" "kaam", (an)"jaam" and (aa)"raam". My question to Irfan SaaHib is this. If "Shyaam" can be ham-qaafiyah with "shaam", then would it be acceptable to rhyme "pyaar" with "paar" and "pyaas" with "paas"?

The maqta3 of Parveen Shakir's Ghazal is ..

bojh uThaate hu'ae phirtii hai hamaaraa ab tak
ai zamiiN-maaN terii yih 3umr to aaraam kii thii

I presume the compund "zamiiN-maaN" is to be understood as "mother-earth" (zamiiN jo maaN hai) which to me, Irfan Sahib" is quite unusual. Is it a direct conversion of "dhartii-maaN"? In Hindi, compound word formation is very common whereas I do not believe this is the case in Urdu. In Urdu, there is the izaafat of course, but this is not really a compund. We do have compounds that in essence are set Persian formations such as "jahaaN-panaah", "saNg-dil" and "nek-naam" etc but these are rather restricted.

Can we have the following, for example?

Playground/Sports Field/Ground > khel-maidaan
Sports Centre > khel-markaz
Sports Club > khel-anjuman
Sports Arena > khel-akhaaRaa
Sports Stadium > khel-dangal

Prem-nagar - 3ishq-shahr (?)
Prem-rog - 3ishq-maraz (?)

My question are these.

1) Why does Urdu (or Urdu-vaalas) refrain from using compound words?

2) Should innovation in compound word formation be encouraged?

3) Should our writers and poets set a precedence as Parveen Shakir has done?

Naseer

[Irfan Abid]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:45:43 PM UTC-4, Naseer wrote:
> dostaan-i-giraamii, aadaab 3arz hai
>
>

Naseer sb, aadaab arz hai!

Thanks for starting this thread. I am happy to share my proverbial two cents. :) In the process I would also like to say a couple things just to set the record straight.

> Recently, janaab-i-Irfan SaaHib quoted the following shi3r by Parveen Shakir..
>
> yih havaa kaise uRaa le ga'ii aaNchal meraa
> yuuN sataane kii to 3aadat mire Ghanshyaam kii thii!
>

I believe you are referring to the thread "she'r-o-naghma." The above she'r was actually quoted by Zoya sahiba.

> and with regard to the word "Ghanshyaam", described it as "unexpected". I presume he used the word "unexpected" because "Shyaam" was being rhymed with "naam", "shaam" "kaam", (an)"jaam" and (aa)"raam". My question to Irfan SaaHib is this. If "Shyaam" can be ham-qaafiyah with "shaam", then would it be acceptable to rhyme "pyaar" with "paar" and "pyaas" with "paas"?
>

The exact word I used was "interesting." The reason was that I had not seen the word "Ghanshyaam" being used as a qafiya in an Urdu Ghazal. I know "Shyaam" can be rhymed with "naam" and "shaam" because the 'ye' in "Shyaam" is considered "yaa-e-maKhluut," is not counted in the vazn and "Syaam" consequently is treated as "shaam." As per the same rule it's acceptable to rhyme "pyaar" with "paar" and "pyaas" with "paas." ek misaal dekhiye.

hameN to saahil-e-dariyaa kii pyaas honaa thaa
sukuut-e-hijr kaa ik Gham-shanaas honaa thaa (Faiz)

> The maqta3 of Parveen Shakir's Ghazal is ..
>
> bojh uThaate hu'ae phirtii hai hamaaraa ab tak
> ai zamiiN-maaN terii yih 3umr to aaraam kii thii
>
> I presume the compund "zamiiN-maaN" is to be understood as "mother-earth" (zamiiN jo maaN hai) which to me, Irfan Sahib" is quite unusual. Is it a direct conversion of "dhartii-maaN"? In Hindi, compound word formation is very common whereas I do not believe this is the case in Urdu. In Urdu, there is the izaafat of course, but this is not really a compund. We do have compounds that in essence are set Persian formations such as "jahaaN-panaah", "saNg-dil" and "nek-naam" etc but these are rather restricted.
>
> Can we have the following, for example?
>
> Playground/Sports Field/Ground > khel-maidaan
> Sports Centre > khel-markaz
> Sports Club > khel-anjuman
> Sports Arena > khel-akhaaRaa
> Sports Stadium > khel-dangal
>
> Prem-nagar - 3ishq-shahr (?)
> Prem-rog - 3ishq-maraz (?)
>
> My question are these.
>

And now here are my two cents I promised above. :)

> 1) Why does Urdu (or Urdu-vaalas) refrain from using compound words?
>

Urdu vaalaas in the modern times have used compound words like "zamiiN-maaN." I have seen such words, albeit sparingly, in the modern Urdu poetry. I was trying to recall some examples for you when I chanced upon this misra in the nazm "waba ke dinon mein" (poet unknown) on Rekhta: Khvaab-bastiyaaN ujaR rahii haiN. As I said, such words have not become popular, at least to my knowledge, perhaps because there is no dire need for them in Urdu poetry.

> 2) Should innovation in compound word formation be encouraged?
>

IMHO, no. Urdu already has the technique of izaafat to form compound words with two or more independent words. There was a discussion on this forum some time ago about whether or not izaafat should be used with Hindi words, and I had humbly said no. One reason is that Hindi has its own tradition of making compound words - you just merge the two words, like prem+nagar. We used to break such compound words into component words in our Hindi class in the primary school and called the exercise 'sandhi-vikshed.' I think izaafat should be reserved for Arabic and Persian words and sandhi for Hindi words. I don't think mixing these techniques is necessary or appealing. I think it's okay to use "prem nagar" in Urdu poetry (provided there are other Hindi words in the poem and this word doesn't stand out,) but I am not for a compound word like "prem+shahr" or "ishq+nagar" or even "ishq+shahr." If an alternative is sought, I would prefer "shahr-e-ishq" over these weird combinations any day.

> 3) Should our writers and poets set a precedence as Parveen Shakir has done?
>

My answer to this question should be obvious by now. :) I don't think poets need to set any such precedence. Those that were set earlier haven't taken hold for reasons I mentioned above. I think ultimately it's the readers who decide what experiment is good or bad, and their verdict can be seen in the popularity of poetry that is born out of the experiment.

> Naseer
>

niyaazmand,
Irfan :Abid:

[Naseer]

ٰjanaab-i-Irfan SaaHib tasliimaat.

Thank you for responding to my queries in this thread, and not only that, your input was in detail. I am grateful for this.

One of the grammar books mentions 14 different types of izaafat. Clearly, it is therefore much more than a replacement of the Urdu "kaa, ke and kii" (excluding the izaafat-i-mausuufii*) with just the normally unwritten "zer". So, in this respect, because the words have this "zer" between them, they can not be regarded as true "murakkabaat" in the sense that we have "shah-jahaan". Consequently, in my submission, "shaah-i-jahaan" is an izaafat and "shah-jahaan" is a compound.

Just a side issue about the use of Indic words in izaafats. Using Qais SaaHib's "Raam-liilaa", I can't see why "liillaa-i-Raam" should cause any problems. On this topic, Shan-ul-Haq Haqqi in his essay "Urdu alfaaz meN chhuut chhaat"

https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/lisani-masail-o-lataif-shaanul-haq-haqqi-ebooks (pp 23-44)

considers this phenomenon rather unfortunate and quotes old masters and not so old other sources. For example...

From the Mughal era...

chabuutra-i-chuunaa
biiRaa-i-paan
gul-i-champaa
waqfa-i-yak-ghaRii
chhapar-bandii-i-durust
guR-i-xushk
akhaaRaa-i-sanyaasaan
tarkaari-i-karelaa

............................................................

biiRaa-i-paaN (Sauda)
mukhRaa-o-gaal (masnavi-i-Aabru)
zan-o-bacchoN (Zahooruddin Hatim)
jhoot-o-tazveer (Mir Soz)
dukaan-o-koThe (Rajab Ali Baig Suroor)
mulk-i-bangaalah (maqalaat-i-Azaad)
kaalij-o-kameTiyaaN (maqalaat-i-Azaad)
waqt-o-masaala (Mir Nasir Ali)
gintii-o-shumaar (Mir Nasir Ali)
lab-i-taalaab (Maulavi Abdul Haq, talaab not Persian)

.....................................................................................

Uses other examples from Risaala-i-Urdu vol 1934)
DeoRhi-i-mu3alla
navaaRhaa-i-Thekedaaraan
raaqim-i-chiTThii
saahib-i-chiTThii
bar'aamadah-i-baiThak-i-kalaaN
bar sabiil-i-Daak

He offers backing for such constructions as...

lab-i-saRak
zer-i-jharokaa-i-darshan
lab-i-chabuutraa
zer-i-chhat
zer-i-laaTh

Zafar Syed SaaHib in his post of 02/10/2002 discussed this issue in the following thread.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.language.urdu.poetry/c/mLxrtvnTPtA/m/codQhzSUrEIJ

I agree with you that it is the public who are the ultimate judges but if Persian speakers and writers do not have any problem with using a word from from any language to form an izaafat, I don't see why Urdu should n't do the same. What is "appealing" or "weird" and what is n't can be left to the public taste.

Naseer

[Afzal A. Khan]

MuHibbee,

I think 'Irfan Saheb's reply was quite appropriate, viz. it is
what the majority of Urdu'wallahs prefer to use.

Over the years, our language has evolved so much. The Urdu used
in the times of, say, Quli Qutub Shah can hardly be compared
with modern-day Urdu.

However, the examples quoted by you are sort of exceptions --- or,
perhaps, stand-alone examples.

IMHO, only two, from amongst the various examples cited by
you, may be considered today as "valid" ...........

Mulk-e-Bangaala(h)
Lab-e-saRak

Just my view.......


****************


On a lighter note, English language has intruded upon Urdu to
such an extent that I can well visualize a time when a "tarkeeb"
such as "acceptabiliti-e-'awaam" would be, well, acceptable !


****************


Every year, I think the authorities in England publish or notify
certain words from other languages that have entered (and, thereby,
have become acceptable in) the English language.



Afzal

[Naseer]

On Thursday, 29 April 2021 at 18:11:51 UTC+1, Afzal A. Khan wrote:

> MuHibbee,

> However, the examples quoted by you are sort of exceptions --- or,
> perhaps, stand-alone examples.
>
> IMHO, only two, from amongst the various examples cited by
> you, may be considered today as "valid" ...........
>
> Mulk-e-Bangaala(h)
> Lab-e-saRak
>
> Just my view.......
>

> Afzal

Now if Mirza Ghalib can say "sipurd-i-Daak", then who are we to reject such formations?!:-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZFIZWBJBFQ&ab_channel=smschoaib

Naseer