Premchand And The "Hindustani" Language - Part II - Conclusion
Afzal A. Khan
{This is the concluding part --- the first Part was posted yesterday}
The Introduction is a sort of commentary on Premchand's Hindi
article that follows. The former uses a specific term to refer
to regional languages like Bengali, Gugarati, Tamil, Telugu, etc.
And this term is "vernacular" --- a word that is seldom used
these days. And yet, there was a time not so long ago when we
were quite familiar with the word, what with so many "Anglo-
Vernacular" Schools established throughout British India.
I believe the idea was to indicate quite clearly that, besides
English (the premier language in the country) such a school also
taught other languages spoken and used by Indians, e.g. Punjabi,
Urdu, Marathi, Hindi etc. Also, the word "Vernacular" has a
slightly pejorative connotation --- it describes the language of
an enslaved or subservient community. {Vernaculus = Latin,
"belonging to a household slave"}. By bringing in this word, the
author (of the Introduction) may subconsciously be displaying a
slavish mntality --- a sort of acknowledgment that these other
(native) tongues are in fact somewhat inferior in status. Other-
wise, he could have used the perfectly appropriate word "regional".
Also, the author confers an aura of innocence on Premchand, by
referring to his theory (as explained in the Hindi article) as
"ingenuous". This word signifies something entirely lacking in
cunning or guile, something that is frank and straightforward.
I am not sure such conferment of "innocence" is justified. For,
a few sentences later, the author also uses another expression :
"sleight of hand" which has exactly the opposite meaning ---
'trickery', 'deviousness', 'deception' etc. Of course, "the
truth will out", as Shakespeare says.
Now, let us examine Munshi-ji's (Hindi) article itself :
It begins by taking a condescending view of those people who
would rather let the two principal Indian languages, viz. Urdu
and Hindi, continue to develop in an uninterrupted fashion.
The first paragraph explains this viewpoint in detail. It is in
the second paragraph that Premchand seeks to demolish and demonize
this viewpoint. He tries to distinguish between the regional
languages used in various parts of India, e.g. Marathi, Gujarati,
Bengali, Tamil, Telugu etc. and accords a higher status to "some"
language that must be anointed as the NATIONAL language of India.
The deviousness of his logic and arguments can be seen by examining
the first sentence of his second para. I am giving below a
rough English translation of the same :
"If Urdu and Hindi were to keep themselves confined to their
respective birth-places and propagation areas (or areas of
regular usage), we shall not have any objection to their
natural growth and development".
Is he trying to argue that Urdu and Hindi originated and grew up in
different areas ? Also, he does not specify their respective
(i.e. different) birthplaces and distinct areas of popular usage.
Urdu at the time was used in most parts of the country. Apart from
areas now in Pakistan, it was being used in Eastern Punjab, Kashmir,
areas around Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, (undivided) Bengal,
Rajasthan, Gujarat, C.P. & Berar and also in the South (Hyderabad
and Mysore States). His theory is clearly fallacious. Quite
possibly, even Hindi might not have had such widespread usage, in a
geographical sense.
Premchand goes on to say that "we are not concerned at all with the
regional languages --- they can include and assimilate as many words
from Arabic, Sanskrit and Latin (sic) as they like. But the case
of Urdu and Hindi is different. Both are aspiring to become India's
National Language. But neither of them (in their original shape and
form) could fulfil national requirements and, therefore, they became
assimilated in each other. And it is this composite structure that
we call as 'Hindustani'"
When this article was penned in 1934, I doubt whether any significant
campaign was being carried on by Urdu-wallahs to make Urdu India's
(sole) National Language. Proponents of a separate nation did get
the Urdu language embroiled in politics --- but that still lay in the
future. So the basic premise and consequent conclusion are both
erroneous.
Premchand continues : "India's National Language cannot be that Hindi
which is laden with difficult Sanskrit words. Neither can it be that
Urdu which has a whole lot of unfamiliar and unusable Arabic and
Farsi words." Maybe, he has used these two words with reference to
Hindi-wallahs --- for the Urdu folks, such words would neither be
unfamiliar nor unusable.
Further on : "....If speakers of Urdu and Hindi try to converse with
each other face to face in their respective literary language,
neither will be able to understand each other". And here we have so
many ALUPers who not only understand literary Urdu but are able to
carry on a meaningful discussion in our Newsgroup. And what happened
to the refrain we constantly hear, for the last so many years, that
Urdu is essentially Hindi itself ? "Urdu Hindi ki hi ek shaili hai".
Further : "The only criterion for our National language should be
whether our common people can readily understand it. These people
would not worry if the origin of a certain word is Sanskrit or Farsi.
And who are these common people ? They include Hindu, Musalman,
Punjabi, Bengali, Maharashtrians and Gujaratis etc.". I suppose the
latter four are neither Hindus nor Muslims. Munshi-ji has given a
rather communal colour to this vexed question and also brought in
linguistic entities. At that time, most (if not all) Punjabis
knew Urdu quite well. I have met a great many people from that era
who wrote their letters in Urdu and kept their accounts in Urdu too.
Even today, Urdu-speakers constitute the second largest group in
states like Maharashtra (next to Marathi) and Gujarat (next to
Gujarati).
Premchand next cites the example of England, Japan, China and Iran
where the national language is English, Japanese, Chinese and Irani
(or Farsi). "If our land is known as Hindustan, our national lang-
uage should also be called Hindustani. And if we call this as Hind,
then this language can also be called Hindi". How convenient !
It is this sort of logic which the author of the Introduction calls
as "sleight of hand".
His last sentence is a real classic : "Urdu can be our National
language only if our land comes to be called as Urdustan. And
since this is impossible, Urdu too cannot be our National language."
In conclusion, one can also say that there is much greater linguistic
diversity in India than in most other countries of the world.
Outsiders may be surprised, but the fact remains that our Consti-
tution recognizes about 22 Languages under the Eighth Schedule. And
it is possible that some others may also join the list in future.
Also, we have been constrained to extend the continued use of
English, for the sake of our brethren from South India. In recent
times, there has been an increased realization in India that reliance
on English can ultimately do much greater good for us. Blind
antipathy against English may not be in our own interest.
The final argument against his theory is the language employed by him
in the above article. Can it be called "Hindustani", by any stretch
of imagination ?
All of us have great respect for Munshi Premchand as our foremost
writer of short stories. These are not merely great literature
but also reveal the true aspects of Indian rural life. These also
contain valuable moral lessons of honesty, decency, service,
family relationships --- one can club them under a single term
"humanism". It is these ideals that should motivate all of us.
Premchand did have his own views on the language question, just as
we have our own individual views. But he is not recognized as a
great thinker or researcher on linguistics. It saddens me when his
literary stature is utilised to promote such squabbles.
I would like to apologize if my analysis of Munshi Premchand's
article has hurt anybody's feelings. Believe me, it was never my
intention at all.
Afzal
Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
Prem Chand ke mazmuun "Urdu, Hindi aur Hindustani" kaa tajziyah aap ne
jis mashaqqat awr baariik-biinii se pesh kiyaa hai us ke liye bilaa-
shubh tamaam ALUP vaale aap ke qadr-daan haiN. bahut bahut shukriyah.
go maiN is mazmuun ke baare meN apnii nihaayat hii muKHtasar raa'e
bayaan kar chukaa huuN, magar, aap kii taHriir paRhne ke ba'd chand
baateN zihn meN aa'ii haiN jin kaa izhaar maiN zaruurii samajhtaa
huuN. asl mazmuun ke qabl jo ta'aarufii pesh-lafz thaa, us meN likhaa
hai..
"According to Premchand, national language must be a compromise, free
from an excessive reliance on either Sanskrit or Perso-Arabic *loan
words* (my emphasis).
mujhe "loan words" kii tarkiib se qadre iKHtilaaf hai. jab aap kisii
se qarz lete haiN to aaj nahiiN to kal vuh qarz chukaanaa hii paRtaa
hai. zaahir hai kih yih alfaaz vaapas nahiiN kiye jaa'eN ge. duusrii
baat yih hai kih Urdu meN jo 'Arabii yaa Farsi ke alfaaz aa'e haiN vuh
Prem Chand ke zamaane se bahut hii pahle ke haiN jab kih us qism ke
Sanskrit alfaaz jo janaab-i-Prem Chand Sahib ne apne mazmuun meN
isti'maal kiye haiN vuh shaayad adabii Hindi meN itne ziyaadah 'arse
ke nah hoN. kahne kaa maqsad yih hai kih 'ain mumkin hai kih 'Arabi-
Farsi alfaaz jo kih ek taviil 'arse se Urdu meN barate chale aa rahe
haiN, vuh Urdu bolne vaaloN ke liye ziyaadah maanuus hoN, jinheN aap
ne Prem chand ke lafzoN meN "unfamiliar and unusable Arabic and Farsi
words" qaraar diyaa hai, ba-nisbat Sanskrit ke Hindii meN nau-vaarid
alfaaz ke.
"By totally ignoring the vital role played by cultural affinities in
the choice of linguistic register, Prem Chand ingeniously arrives at
the simplistic conclusion that "Hindustani" should be adopted for the
national role, and by a sleight of hand he recommends that the name of
this language might as well be "Hindi".
is saqaafatii rishte kii ahmiyyat ke baare meN maiN "Roman Hindustani"
vaalii larii meN zikr chukaa huuN. mere bhii nazdiik insaan vahii
zabaan bole gaa jo us ne apne maaHaul meN rahte hu'ee siikhii hai.
mere liye "pratikriya, pravesh, ichchhaa, kripya,
Anubhooti,aagyaa,paalan bhaaShaa, hriday, nirmaan, hetu, kashT, siddh,
avsar,p'radaan, avastha, biraajmaan, cheshTha, baal'-awastha,
sundartaa" jaise alfaaz kaa baratnaa ek Ghair-fitrii saa 'amal hai.
lihaazaa agar maiN apnii bol-chaal meN aise alfaaz ke isti'maal kaa
"kashT" uThaa'uuN to mere liye is meN banaavT ke sivaa kuchh nahiiN ho
gaa. is baat kaa nichoR yih hai kih ham "cultural affinity" ko nazar-
andaaz nahiiN kar sakte jis tarH kih, is likhne vaale ke mutaabiq Prem
Chand ne kiyaa hai.
aap ke tajziye awr Prem Chand ke KHutuut se yih baat numaayaaN hotii
hai kih Prem Chand ke liye Urdu ghar kii zabaan thii. ya'nii vuh aise
maaHaul meN the jahaaN unhoN ne Maulavii Sahib se 'Arabii-Farsi
siikhii. mujh jaise PanjaabiyoN ne bhii aise hii logoN se 'Arabii
siikhii hai awr skuul meN Urdu ke 'ilaavah thoRii bahut Farsi paRhii
hai, magar bolii faqat Panjaabii hii hai. is ke bar-'aks Banaaras
vaaloN ke liye awr KHusuus-an Prem Chand ke liye yih mushkil dar-pesh
nahiiN thii kih ghar ke baahar ek zabaan awr ghar meN duusrii. awr
jahaaN tak Hindi kaa ta'alluq hai, Prem Chand ko Hindi siikhnaa paRii
awr sirf siikhnaa hii nahiiN paRii balkih Hindi meN likhne ke liye
"mashq" bhii karnaa paRii..."Hindi zabaan maiN ne bahut ba'd meN
siikhii.....ab Hindi zabaan likhne kii mashq kar rahaa huuN. Urdu meN
ab guzar nahiiN".
Prem Chand kaa Hindi kii taraf ruKh karne kii ek vajh aap ne zaruurat-
i-ma'aash bataa'ii hai. kyaa yih nahiiN ho saktaa kih ek awr vajh
siyaasii bhii ho?
ka'ii baar paRhaa hai kih Urdu awr Hindi do rusuumu_lKHat meN ek hii
zabaan kii do shakleN hai. Prem Chand ke nazdiik yih Haqiiqat nahiiN
hai. agar aisaa hotaa to vuh yih kabhii nah likhte..
"kabhii maiN Urdu meN pahle likhtaa huuN awr us kaa tarjumah Hindi meN
kartaa huun awr kabhii Hindi meN likhtaa huuN awr ba'd meN us kaa
tarjumah kar ke shaa'i' kartaa huuN"...
"aap yih sun kar KHush hoN ge kih mere Hindi naavil ne Khuub shuhrat
Haasil kii. awr aksar naqqaadoN ne ise Hindi zabaan kaa bihtariin
naavil kahaa hai. yih "baazaar-i-Husn" kaa tarjumah hai.
zaahir hai kih agar donoN zabaaneN ek hii haiN to tarjumah kaahe kaa?
aaKHir meN Prem Chand kii mantiq par bhii baat ho jaa'e kih chuuN kih
hamaare mulk kaa naam "Hindustan" yaa 'Hind" hai to zabaan kaa naam
"Hindustani" honaa chaahiye balkih "Hindi" to awr bhii bihtar hai.
mulk kaa naam "Urdustan" hai hii nahiiN to qaumii zabaan "Urdu" kaise
ho saktii hai? is soch ko madd-i-nazar rakhte hu'e, is qaumii zabaan
kaa naam "Indian" bhii ho saktaa hai awr " Bhaaratii" bhii. awr
Pakistan vaaloN ko apnii qaumii zabaan kaa naam "Pakistani" rakh lenaa
chaahiye. tamaam bakheRe Khatm ho jaa'eN ge!!
KHair-andeh,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
Thank you very much for your words of appreciation.
You have raised some questions. I propose to reply the same
tomorrow. Insha'Allah.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
Yesterday, I had sent a sort of interim reply.
Let me once again thank you for appreciating my analysis of
Munshi Premchand's article. Perhaps, even more than that, I must
compliment you for reading through the two long posts !!
Unfortunately, even this reply may turn out to be rather long !!!
In one respect, though, I find myself in disagreement with you.
You say : "....bilaa~shubh tamaam ALUP vaale aap ke qadr-daan
haiN". "Tamaam" ? I seriously doubt it. {Waise aap ki apni
shaKH'siyat apne aap men ek aNjuman se kam naheeN hai !!}
Naseer Saheb, believe me, I find all such Urdu-Hindi discussions
highly distasteful. But just as opponents of Urdu keep on firing
their barbs from time to time, I (as an Urdu lover) feel com -
pelled to defend my beloved language.
In the current phase, our worthy friend posted two links to old
and long-forgotten articles, each of which was supposedly in
praise of "Hindustani" as opposed to "Persianised" Urdu. Maybe,
the idea was to plant an idea in ALUPers' mind that if such
eminent personalities like Balraj Sahni and Munshi Premchand have
expressed their preference for "Hindustani", there must certainly
be some substance in what they had to say. At least Balraj Sahni
was sincere in what he said. But Munshi-ji was less than that;
he sought to do away with Urdu (as we know it) and, with great
subtlety, advocated its replacement with Hindi. Much as I
respect Premchand for his writings, I felt it necessary to
deal with the "mischief" and insidious effect that his article
could have had on ALUPers. That was my only purpose in writing
those long posts.
I believe a sensible approach would be if we called these two
languages simply as "Urdu" and "Hindi", without trying to add
any qualifying prefixes. We should stop using terms like
"Persianised" Urdu and "Sanskrit-laden" Hindi. Everybody knows
the extent of Sanskrit influence on Hindi. Any idea of there
being anything like "Aasaan Hindi" is clearly a non-starter.
Similarly, we know that the Urdu vocabulary includes words of
Arabic /Persian/ Turkish origin, even words from other languages.
The distance between the diction or "register" used by the two
languages would be clear from reading two recent news items ---
one in Hindi and the other in Urdu. For the benefit of ALUPers,
I am quoting both reports in Roman. And, since I am not all that
familiar with Hindi, any errors in transcriptions may please be
excused :
Recent news item in Hindi. Taken from a Hindi newspaper :
"Malegaon bam visphoT maamle men giraphtaar saabhi 11 aaropiyoN
par Makoka lagaane ki vaidhata ke baare men adaalat ne guruwaar
ko apna aadesh jaari kar diya hai. Adaalat ne pulis ko in
aaropiyoN par Makoka lagaane ke liye ijaajat de di hai. Maamle
ki agli sunwaa-ii 12 Pharwari ko hai jab sabhi aaropiyoN ki
nyaayik hiraasat khatm hogi.
Aaroppatr men pulis ne Makoka, gaikaanooni gatividhi (nirodhak)
kaanoon, Bharat daN'D samhita, hathyaar kaanoon ewam visphoT
saamagri ke kaanoon ke vibhinn pravdhaan lagaaye haiN. Makoka
lagaane ki wajah yeh hai ke Rakesh Dhaawade par do an'nya
maamle men bhi aaroppatr daayear kiye gaye haiN. Bachaav paksh
ke vakeeloN ne adaalat se aarop patr par saNgyan lene se pehle
Makoka lagaaye jaane par vichaar karne ke liye kaha tha.
Makoka adaalat ke nyayadheesh V. D. Shinde ne sarkaari vakeel
ke dastaawejoN ke aadhaar par kaha ke pratham drashshya (?)
aaropi par maamle banta hai. Saadhvi Pragya ke vakeel Ganesh
Sovani ne bhi pushTi karte huwe bataaya. Adaalat ne sabhi
aaropiyoN par Makoka lagaane ka aadesh paarit kar diya hai."
Note : "Makoka" : This represents the acronym for "Maharashtra
Control of Organized Crime Act" -- "MCOCA".
Recent news item in Urdu. Taken from an Urdu Newspaper :
"Kolkata men mohakma-e-Income Tax ke 'uhde~daaroN ne aaj 6.40
karoR rupaiy ki GHair~mehsoob naqd raqam aur deegar asaasa ~
jaat maaliyati 1.07 karoR rupaiy bar~aamad kiye. Ek sarkaari
bayaan men aaj yeh baat bataa-ii gayee. Is ke 'ilaawa(h) 360
karoR rupaiy ki naa~m'aloom aam'dani ko bhi zabt kiya gaya.
Kaan'kani aur KHaam faulaad faroKHt karne waali ek KHaan'gi
zer-e-intizaam Company ne 110 karoR rupaiy se zaaid ki aam' -
dani chhupaa-ii. Is ka pata lagaa kar 30 karoR rupaiy naqd
raqam zabt ki gayee. Mashriqee KHitte ke liye yeh ek record
hai, aur mulk men sab se ziyaada(h) records men ek hai.
Koyle ki khudaa-ii aur muntaqili men masroof ek aur Business-
Group ke mulk bhar ke jumla 38 dafaatir ki talaashi li
gayee aur 80 karoR rupaiy ki GHair~mehsoob aam'dani ka pata
chala. Is ke 'ilaawa(h) 5 karoR rupaiy ki naqd raqam aur
zev'raat ko bhi zabt kiya gaya. Kolkata ke do mumtaaz
Real Estate Developers ke dafaatir ki bhi talaashi li gayee,
jis men qaabil-e-aitiraaz dastaaweezaat aur sarmaaya~kaari ka
pata chala. Groups ne 37 karoR ropaiy se zaaid ki raqam
hawaale ki. GHair~mehsoob naqd raqam aur zev'raat maaliyati
3-4 karoR rupaiy bhi zabt kiye gaye. Durgapur aur Asansol
'ilaaqe men bhi talaashi ki kaar'rawaaiiyaaN aNjaam di gayeeN.
Taaham raza~kaaraana taur par 12.50 karoR rupaiy ki aam'dani
ko chhupaane ka aitiraaf kiya gaya. Sarkaari bayaan
men in CompaniyoN ka naam aur talaashi kaar~rawaaiiyoN ka
waqt naheeN bataaya gaya."
Note : I have retained the original spellings of certain English
words.
ALUPers can see for themselves the distance between the two
registers. And I have deliberately chosen items published in
newspapers, rather than from literary magazines. Ordinary
folks do read newspapers in their language more regularly than
literary magazines.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I propose to deal with the issues raised in your reply.
"Loan-words" : I don't think we should dwell too much on the
use of this term. Strictly speaking, it is wrong, though.
Secondly, I personally am of the view that Urdu, as a developed
language, pre-dates or ante-dates Hindi. There would definitely
be disagreement on the part of Hindi-wallahs. But they should
try to present some decisive evidence that proves otherwise.
I feel the use of the word "Hindustaani" by the Britishers is
due principally to this reason. When they came here, they
called this land "Hindustan" and referred to the dominant lang-
uage they found here as "Hindustaani" i.e "Indian". And this
dominant language was in fact Urdu. Even the "Roman Urdu
Journal" mentioned in Sushil Sharma Saheb's link accords a sort
of subordinate or subsidiary status to hindi. I am not trying
to denigrate the Hindi language in any way. I am only present-
ing my own view that "Developed Urdu" predates Hindi by quite a
few decades. It is for unbiased researchers to delve deeper
into this issue and come up with their findings. Perhaps these
findings are already there but we, on ALUP, are unaware of them.
There is another important point that is often ignored in these
discussions. In some earlier debate/s, I have already alluded
to that. And I would like to reiterate that point here once
again. Opponents of Urdu often refer to these "loan-words"
(from Arabic, Persian and Turkish) as being "non-indigenous".
I think this is entirely incorrect. Arabic has been the main
language which all Urdu-knowing people had been reading in
India for a long long time. Even as late as the nineteenth
century, Urdu-wallahs would be reading and learning texts in
Arabic. Even today, Indian Universities award Masters level
degrees in Arabic. (Even Doctorates). For such people,
Arabic is not that much of a foreign or "aprachit" language.
This is equally true (perhaps more so) of Turkish and Faarsi.
Both had been official or court languages for a long time ---
the languages of the ruling elite. It is only after the arrival
of the British that Faarsi got replaced with Urdu. It is not as
if the Indian people went abroad, learnt these languages and
brought back "loan-words" to India. These languages were known
widely and were in regular use, long before anyone thought about
Urdu. When the latter began to evolve, it was quite natural for
words from these languages to be absorbed in Urdu. In that
sense, it would be quite wrong to call this part of the Urdu
vocabulary as "non-indigenous". It is as much "indigenous" as
the remaining part.
I faulted Munshi Premchand for calling such "loan-words" as
"aprachit" and "aprachalit". If these words were in fact
"aprachit", how did they become part of the language and its
diction in the first place ? If these words were in fact
"aprachalit", they might have become sort of "extinct" and
nobody would be insisting (for the last 150 years or more) on
their retention and continued use.
Maybe the opposite is true. Once upon a time, long long ago,
Sanskrit was in fairly common use, at least in North India. It
has since become "aprachalit". The use of these two words by
Munshi Premchand, in relation to Arabic + Farsi + Turkish words,
betrays his prejudice against Urdu.
In quoting a passage from the Introduction, you have used a
wrong word. The actual word used by the author was "ingenuous",
not "ingenious". {This is a common error.} I think I did use up
a few lines in explaining this word in its proper context.
You have also said that there might have been some other reason
too for Premchand to turn to Hindi. And you have suggested that
this could have been "political".
As far as my readings about Premchand and his life and works are
concerned, I don't think your surmise is correct. Premchand was
a patriotic Indian and his animus against the British colonizers
shines through all his writings. But he was apolitical in an
active sense. We have seen that the turn-about in his attitude
(in favour of Hindi) began around 1915. At that time, Urdu had
not been forged into a political weapon. The Muslim League,
which used the language issue as a crucial part of its two -
nation theory much much later, was not a political force to
reckon with at the time. Various individuals (I am referring to
men of letters in particular) did advance the cause of their
respective language, but such debates were more or less of an
academic nature. The demand for Independence was yet to become
a nation-wide movement. This is of course not the place where
we should discuss issues relating to India's constitutional
advance and its Independence Movement. I am merely trying to
say that Premchand did not have any political motive in his
change of attitude.
Apart from the economic or financial reasons, there could have
been another factor. Premchand had always had a much closer
friendhsip or relationship with Hindi Editors and the Hindi
Press. I always get the impression that his relationships with
Urdu Editors and other Urdu literateurs were more or less
formal, though cordial. And, for this, Premchand need not be
faulted. This "correct and formal" relationship was mutual.
This is just my own perception of course.
The concluding sentence of Premchand's article again betrays a
strange sense of history. He says that, in ancient times, the
people called the local language as Hindi only. Even the notes
at the end of his article contain a wry comment on this lack of
accuracy : "...the commonplace telescoping of historical time in
Indian tradition often results in relatively recent dates having
great antiquity attributed to them".
Afzal
PremC...@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afzal bhai,
I m really enjoying this discussion. I agree with you that Farsi ,
Arabic and of course Hindi words have been used in Urdu for a long
time, However I would like to clarify thatrdu may also has words
fromTurki the language of Turkmenistan of Central Asia. I believe that
Babanama was written in Turki. I think you meant Turki and not
Turkish, the language of modern day Turkey. Please clarify.
PJ
Naseer
PremC...@gmail.com wrote:
> Afzal bhai,
>
> I m really enjoying this discussion. I agree with you that Farsi ,
> Arabic and of course Hindi words have been used in Urdu for a long
> time, However I would like to clarify thatrdu may also has words
> fromTurki the language of Turkmenistan of Central Asia. I believe that
> Babanama was written in Turki. I think you meant Turki and not
> Turkish, the language of modern day Turkey. Please clarify.
I know you have addressed your query to Afzal Sahib but I hope you
won't mind if I respond to it.
I think when Afzal Sahib used the word "Turkish", he was referring to
what is termed as "Turkii" in our literature and not the language of
the modern state of Turkey. This does not mean that the "Turkii" words
found in Urdu are not found in "Turkish".
Here is a link to Turkik languages. By looking at the chart further
down you will see that the language used by Babar in his "Babar-
naamah" namely ChaGhtay Turkish, is one of many closely related
languages in the Turkik family of languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> Afzal bhai,
>
> I m really enjoying this discussion. I agree with you that Farsi ,
> Arabic and of course Hindi words have been used in Urdu for a long
> time, However I would like to clarify thatrdu may also has words
> fromTurki the language of Turkmenistan of Central Asia. I believe that
> Babanama was written in Turki. I think you meant Turki and not
> Turkish, the language of modern day Turkey. Please clarify.
>
> PJ
{Earlier posts included in your reply deleted}
Joshi-ji,
Well, I am NOT enjoying this discussion. Nor, I think, should
you. Just my view.
Any posts which are of a divisive nature and promote acerbic
exchanges ought to be discouraged in our Newsgroup. Anyway ....
I am thankful to Naseer Saheb for the link he has provided
about languages of Turkic origin. I should also clarify that I
was not referring to the language of modern Turkey.
But, apart from Linguistics, we are also concerned here with
History. And it surprises me that you haven't really thought
about this aspect of the issue. Had you done so, then (maybe)
you would not have asked the question you did.
Please note that the earliest dynasties that ruled India from
1206 onwards were of Turkic origin. Qutubuddin Aybak who
founded the so-called Slave Dynasty was a Turk belonging to the
Aybak tribe. The dynasty enjoyed power from 1206 upto about 1290
(C.E.). It was succeeded by the Khilji Dynasty. They were also
of Turkic origin. The Delhi court was of multi-ethnic background,
having Persian, Arab, Persian and Turkic elements. In the Turkic
language of the time, the word "Khilji" itself means something like
"a swordsman".
During the rule of the Khilji Dynasty, the court languages were
Faarsi, Arabic and their own native Turkoman. The dynasty promoted
Faarsi to a high degree. The co-existence of these languages led
ultimately to the birth of the earliest version of Urdu. In a few
posts in earlier threads, I have used the term "proto-Urdu" to refer
to the earliest forms of Urdu.
It is not my purpose here to deliver lectures in History (though
perhaps I could !). I only wanted to point out that the so-called
"foreign" languages had been in use in India for some centuries,
even before anybody thought about Urdu. So, it is but natural
('swabhaavik' ?) for words from these languages to become an
integral part of the Urdu language.
Afzal
Naseer
On Jan 31, 2:23 am, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Let me once again thank you for appreciating my analysis of
> Munshi Premchand's article. Perhaps, even more than that, I must
> compliment you for reading through the two long posts !!
> Unfortunately, even this reply may turn out to be rather long !!!
> In one respect, though, I find myself in disagreement with you.
> You say : "....bilaa~shubh tamaam ALUP vaale aap ke qadr-daan
> haiN". "Tamaam" ? I seriously doubt it. {Waise aap ki apni
> shaKH'siyat apne aap men ek aNjuman se kam naheeN hai !!}
Thank you for your kind words but I feel that amongst the towering
ALUP personalities such as you, UVR Sahib, Jamil Sahib, Sarwar Sahib,
Zafar Sahib, Raj Kumar Sahib and many others, I am quite insignificant
and unworthy of such praise. I read your analysis of Premchand's
article with great interest, lengthy as it might be, because language
is a subject very close to my heart. Secondly, I believe if someone
has taken great time and trouble to compose a post, I think that
person deserves some time and trouble from others.
> Naseer Saheb, believe me, I find all such Urdu-Hindi discussions
> highly distasteful. But just as opponents of Urdu keep on firing
> their barbs from time to time, I (as an Urdu lover) feel com -
> pelled to defend my beloved language.
>
> I believe a sensible approach would be if we called these two
> languages simply as "Urdu" and "Hindi", without trying to add
> any qualifying prefixes. We should stop using terms like
> "Persianised" Urdu and "Sanskrit-laden" Hindi. Everybody knows
> the extent of Sanskrit influence on Hindi. Any idea of there
> being anything like "Aasaan Hindi" is clearly a non-starter.
> Similarly, we know that the Urdu vocabulary includes words of
> Arabic /Persian/ Turkish origin, even words from other languages.
> The distance between the diction or "register" used by the two
> languages would be clear from reading two recent news items ---
> one in Hindi and the other in Urdu. For the benefit of ALUPers,
> I am quoting both reports in Roman. And, since I am not all that
> familiar with Hindi, any errors in transcriptions may please be
> excused :
In an ideal utopian world Urdu/Hindi would be considered one language,
written in one script with one name. But alas, a lot of water has gone
under the bridge for this to happen now. If anyone needs a sample of
this language, then I think there is no better example that I know of
which illustrates this one language and the ideals of Hindu-Muslim
unity than the Jogii nazm by KHushii Muhammad Naazir. For those who
have not read this poem, here is a link to the poem in Urdu. Its
transliteration can be found under another thread which was started by
Jamil Sahib entitled, "Jogi by Khushi Muhammad Naazir; Can anyone
post?".
http://www.prongs.org/urdu/poem.pdf
I agree with what you have said above. I would like to add further
that all of us need to get away from this Urdu/Hindi debate, as far as
we can, at least in ALUP. If Bollywood films and songs in my eyes are
in Urdu and in the eyes of another they are Hindi, so be it. Let he/
she and I agree to disagree. Also, if one says that such and such a
song or poem is Hindi but another says to the contrary, so be it. This
disagreement is not going to stop. It might be worth while to collect
links to all Urdu/Hindi debates on ALUP in one place under one heading
and whenever there is a "danger" of another such debate "flaring up",
one can refer the initiator to this post. For me, and it might be a
simplistic view...
Urdu= evolved form of the KhaRii bolii grammar/vocabulary base evolved
over a period of time to incorporate words, grammatical forms, idioms
and proverbs of other languages, primarily Persian and
Arabic...written in Urdu alphabet.
Hindi= Exactly the same basis as above with drastic reduction of the
Arabic/Persian element written in Devanagri but with artificially
injected Sanskrit vocabulary over a much shorter period of time.
There are also minor grammatical differences between the two. Both
these languages can be "in phase" and "out of phase" with each other,
depending on the admixture of its component parts.
> Now I propose to deal with the issues raised in your reply.
>
> "Loan-words" : I don't think we should dwell too much on the
> use of this term. Strictly speaking, it is wrong, though.
I agree this is only a minor point and I am not going to loose any
sleep over this matter:)
> You have also said that there might have been some other reason
> too for Premchand to turn to Hindi. And you have suggested that
> this could have been "political".
>
> As far as my readings about Premchand and his life and works are
> concerned, I don't think your surmise is correct. Premchand was
> a patriotic Indian and his animus against the British colonizers
> shines through all his writings. But he was apolitical in an
> active sense. We have seen that the turn-about in his attitude
> (in favour of Hindi) began around 1915. At that time, Urdu had
> not been forged into a political weapon. The Muslim League,
> which used the language issue as a crucial part of its two -
> nation theory much much later, was not a political force to
> reckon with at the time. Various individuals (I am referring to
> men of letters in particular) did advance the cause of their
> respective language, but such debates were more or less of an
> academic nature. The demand for Independence was yet to become
> a nation-wide movement. This is of course not the place where
> we should discuss issues relating to India's constitutional
> advance and its Independence Movement. I am merely trying to
> say that Premchand did not have any political motive in his
> change of attitude.
The reason for hinting that Premchand's shift to Hindi might have had
political motives behind it was simply this. I thought that as Mahatma
Gandhi had shown inclination towards "Hindustani", Premchand perhaps
had followed this line of thought. It is quite possible that Premchand
was writing Hindi long before Mahatma Gandhi had enterd the language
debate.
Perhaps unconnected with this topic, and you and other ALUPers may
disagree with this, I believe Urdu needs to break away from some of
its "shackles".
1) If in Iran an izaafat construction can contain non-Farsi (excluding
Arabci words) such as "basaamad-i-raadiyo" (radio-frequency), why is
it wrong for Urdu to say, for example "man-i-man" (meraa dil)?
2) Similarly why not "din-o-raat"?
3) If Classical Persian could allow words ending in "b" and "p" to
rhyme, why can't we rhyme "te" with "toe" "se" with "siin" and
"sawaad", "ze" with "zaal", "zawaad" and "zoe" AND the two "he"s? I
remember Zafar Sahib posted a poem with such rhyme. But I think this
was an exception rather than the rule.
The above issues may not take the language much further, but still I
believe, these restrictions are illogical.
4) IMHO, Urdu needs to find a way forward for "compound word
formation". English is a classic example of a language which can place
strings of words together without the intervening "of " "for " etc. I
can not think of a good example but I am sure you know what I mean.
Often one comes across a number of nouns which are attached to a core
noun where in Urdu we would resort to using noun/adjective
relationship with chhoTii ye and have kaa/kii/ke, ke liye etc to join
them. Hindi, through Sanskrit has this great advantage.
KHair-KHvaahm,
Naseer
PremC...@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------
Afzal bhai,
I m enjoying this discussion because Im learning so much about History
of Islamic India. I dont think the discussion is divisive at all.
Truth appears through the veil of discussion. Talking about Turkii, I
have a question for you. When I was in Turkey, I visited the tomb of
Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi. I found that the Turks pronunced the "vow"
alpahbet of Urdu script with a V sound . They pronounce and write
Maulana as "Mevlana" Where as we in Urdu write Mevlana and pronunce
it as Maulana. so What is the correct pronunciation ? And Afzal
bhai, If you are willing to teach, I will gladly be your student.
"bata-iye pehli class kis shahar main aur kub hogi ?" I should be in
India in June. issi bahaane aap se mulakat to hogi. Thanks for your
discourses.
Sincerely
PJ
And regarding your teaching History, Afzal bhai, I will glady be your
student.
B.G.M.
> Urdu= evolved form of the KhaRii bolii grammar/vocabulary base evolved
> over a period of time to incorporate words, grammatical forms, idioms
> and proverbs of other languages, primarily Persian and
> Arabic...written in Urdu alphabet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too "enjoyed" the discussion and appreciate the erudite of janaab
Afzal saahab, Waa...h!!!
My question to the ALUPers is "Why was this language known as :KhaRii
bolii:?
Keep up the good work.
===========================================================
Naseer
B.G.M Sahib, aadaab 'arz
Apparently because its verbs ended in "-aa" sound as in kahnaa, bolnaa
etc as opposed to "-o" sound. This is what I have been able to gather.
aage KHudaa jaane! (khaRii=standing).
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> Truth appears through the veil of discussion. Talking about Turkii, I
> have a question for you. When I was in Turkey, I visited the tomb of
> Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi. I found that the Turks pronunced the "vow"
> alpahbet of Urdu script with a V sound . They pronounce and write
> Maulana as "Mevlana" Where as we in Urdu write Mevlana and pronunce
> it as Maulana. so What is the correct pronunciation ? Thanks for your
> discourses.
>
> Sincerely
>
> PJ
>
> And regarding your teaching History, Afzal bhai, I will glady be your
> student.
Joshi-ji,
It is no doubt true that truth appears through the veil of
discussion. When I was young, I remember coming across a line
from the Vedas (probably the Rig Veda) appearing on the
"mast-head" of an English newspaper : "Let noble thoughts come
to us from all sides" (or words to that effect). My memory is
very hazy due to the lapse of so many years. Maybe you or some
other ALUPer can quote the exact line and its translation.
Similarly, I recall another such saying, though I can't remember
its origin : "Out of discussion, light is born".
I am not against discussions or the emergence of the truth. But
such discourses must be backed by sincerity of purpose --- there
should be a genuine spirit of enquiry. It should not be a
motivated approach.
As for your query, let me say straightaway that I have not been
to Turkey, nor do I know the language. But many (perhaps, most)
languages possess special spelling and / or pronunciation quirks
--- or significant nuances --- that others (not familiar with the
languages in question) may not be able to understand. I can give
you examples from Urdu itself. In this script, we write the word
"bil'kul" with an additional "alif", i.e. be-alif-laam-kaaf-laam.
This additional "alif" does not play any part in the pronunciation
of the word.
A few ALUPers have, on three or four occasions, have used an Urdu
word in our Newsgroup ---> "'alar~raGHm". In Urdu script, it is
written as 'ain-laam-chhoTi ye-alif-laam-re-GHain-meem. The lack
of diacritical marks makes its correct pronunciation quite diffi-
cult for non-Urdu people.
I am sure you have come across the word "hadees". It refers to
pronouncements attributed to our prophet. However, Arabic
speaking people enunciate the last constant in a different way.
That is why, I think, you will find the word spelt as "hadith" in
many English books. Similarly, the Urdu "jeem" is often written
as "G" in Roman Arabic, e.g. Gamal Abdel Nasser, rather than
Jamaal.
The word "Mevlaana" in the Turkish language represents a similar
quirk, I believe. {BTW, I am not using the word "quirk" in any
disrespectful or pejorative sense.} Since you have been to
Turkey, you may perhaps be aware of Turkish history too. Till the
beginning of the twentieth century, the Turkish Empire included
big chunks of south-eastern Europe. About 135 years back, a War
was fought between Turkey and Czarist Russia (1877/78). A major
event of this War was the Siege of Plevna (that lasted for five
months). Plevna is a town located in northern Bulgaria. Its
local name is Pleven; in Enlish, it is written as Plevna and, in
Ottoman Turkish language, it is written as Plevne. In Urdu books
of that era (and even subsequently) the town is spelt simply as
"Pilona". Here you see the same linguistic quirk at play. As far
as the Sufi Saint and poet Maulaana Rumi's first name is
concerned, it is still spelt in many books as "Celaleddin". That,
I think, is the Turkish spelling that I have seen in English
books. In Urdu, it is always written and pronounced as
"Jalaaluddin".
Around 1950, a veteran political leader Celal Bayar was elected as
President of Turkey. (Earlier, he had served for many years as
its Prime Minister). But ten years later, in 1960, he was removed
from office in a military coup, tried for treason and sentenced to
death; it was later commuted to life imprisonment. My only point
in mentioning him is that, in Urdu books and journals of the
period, his name was always mentioned as "Jalal" but, in Turkish,
this was always spelt as "Celal". Again, a linguistic quirk.
"Celal" Bayar was in turn succeeded as President by an Army
General "Cemal" Gursel. Here too, his first name was always
mentioned in Urdu newspapers and journals as "Jamaal".
One can conclude that the "correct" pronunciation of any name can
vary, depending on who is pronouncing the name. There was an
Indian politician from Assam. His name was written and pronounced
both as "Baruah" and as "Borooah".
Enough of this discourse now.
Afzal
Rajiv Chakravarti
> "Let noble thoughts come
> to us from all sides" (or words to that effect). My memory is
> very hazy due to the lapse of so many years. Maybe you or some
> other ALUPer can quote the exact line and its translation.
A brief Google search yields the following:
A no bhadrah kratavo yantu visvatoadabdhaso aparitasaa’ udbhidah Deva
no yatha sadmid vrdhe asannaprayuvo raksitaro dive-dive.
- Yajurveda 25/14
"Let benevolent, harmless, free and fruitful ideas come to us from all
sides, so that the vigilant and protector Gods continually make us
prosper."
Naseer
wrote:
>Talking about Turkii, I have a question for you. When I was in Turkey, I visited the > tomb of Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi. I found that the Turks pronunced the "vow"
> alpahbet of Urdu script with a V sound . They pronounce and write
> Maulana as "Mevlana" Where as we in Urdu write Mevlana and pronunce
> it as Maulana. so What is the correct pronunciation ?
janaab-i-Prem Joshi Sahib, aadaab.
I remember you have asked this question before. I hope this time round
the answer is more satisfactory. The quotation below is from "Dar-al-
Masnavi" site maintained by Ibrahim Gamard, an American gentleman
devoted to Maulaanaa Ruumii and his works.
"He was born in what is now the nation of Tajikistan (the country
north of Afghanistan) in town of Wakhsh , where his father worked as a
Muslim preacher and scholar. Wahksh was part of the cultural area of
the ancient city of Balkh (in present-day Afghanistan), which had been
a major center of Islamic learning for five hundred years before Rumi
was born. His father, also a great mystic, or sufi master, was from
Balkh. He named his son Muhammad, but later called him by the
additional name, Jalâlu 'd-deen ("the Glory of the Faith"). His full
name was Jalâlu 'd-deen Muhammad bin (= son of) Husayn al-Balkhî.
Later, when he moved to Anatolia (present- day Turkey) with his
family, he became known as Jalâlu 'd-deen Muhammad al-Roomee. This is
because Anatolia had been called for centuries "Rûm" (a form of
"Rome") which meant "the land of the Greeks" (who had long ruled the
area from Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and
later the Byzantine Empire). In the East, he has always been known as
Mawlânâ (pronounced "Mowlânâ" in Iran, India, and Pakistan; pronounced
"Mevlana" in Turkey). This means "our Master" in Arabic, and was
traditionally a title given to Muslim scholars. However, due to his
great fame, the respectful title "Mawlânâ" quickly came to refer
primarily to Jalaluddin Rumi. Only in the West has he been called
"Rumi." "
From the above one learns that the Turks pronounce "Maulaanaa" as
"Mevlana", the "v" having a consonat value as opposed to the correct
(Arabic) form where the "vaao" acts as a diphthong. What this means is
that the "miim+zabar+vaao" gives "mau"/"maw" sound as in our
"aur" (and).
Just to remind you where you were, here is a link to that place:)
http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/turkey/konya.htm
I hope my post has added a little to Afzal Sahib's detailed reply.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Jamil
> I am sure you have come across the word "hadees". It refers to
> pronouncements attributed to our prophet. However, Arabic
> speaking people enunciate the last constant in a different way.
> That is why, I think, you will find the word spelt as "hadith" in
> many English books. Similarly, the Urdu "jeem" is often written
> as "G" in Roman Arabic, e.g. Gamal Abdel Nasser, rather than
> Jamaal.
Afzal Sahib
Thanks for enlightening me on many aspects of the history of Urdu, and
how words from other languages were assimilated.
Let me comment on some of the examples you have given.
First Gamal Abdel Nasser. This way of writing (particularly
representing jiim by G) is restricted to Egypt and some areas of
Levant (bilaad i Shaam) and it reflects how Egyptian actually
pronounce the Arabic jiim. I am called Gamil by Egyptian friends.
Following their Coptic ancestors, Egyptians cannot pronounce the soft
jiim, just as we Urdu speakers cannot pronounce 'dwaad' and utter a
'z' sound instead (as in mazmuun).
Similarly we make do with a 'z' sound for both 'zaal' (as in 'azaab),
and 'zoe' (as in 'zulm'). If you hear a speaker of standard Arabic,
you can distinguish the difference in pronunciation of these letters
in mazmuun, 'azaab, and zulm. Of course dwaad (of mazmuun) is nowhere
near a 'z' sound in any Arabic speaking area. That is why the name of
the capital of Saudi Arabia is transliterated in English as Riyadh
(and not Riyaz), and another city is rendered as Dhahran (and not
Zahran). When the name of the capital city of UAE comes to Urdu via
English, it becomes Abu Dhaabi (with a daal and a he, like the word
"dhaak'), althougfh if we saw it in Arabic script, we would pronounce
it as Abu zabi.
I pointed this out once before that Arabic is known as the language of
dwaad; no other language has this sound. It is uttered using the back
of the tongue, and if anything it is nearer to 'd' than 'z'. Also,
Arabic pronunciation of 'saad' (as in suurat) is perceptibly different
from siin (as in salaam). Ditto for toey (as in tariiqah) vs. te (as
in taqdiir).
Afzal Sahib, you have mentioned that hadiis is written as hadith in
English. You have alluded to the reason; Arabs (again with the
exception of Egyptians) pronounce the 'se' coming at the end of this
word as something closer to the English 'th' (as in Math). The reason
that in Urdu we pronounce it as 's' is that the letter has come to us
through Farsi, which does not have the sound of 'th'. It is
interesting that the word for garlic in Arabic is se vaaw miim, what
we would pronounce as som if we followed the same rules that we do for
hadiis. But Arabs pronounce it as thom (close to how it is in
Punjabi).
> As far
> as the Sufi Saint and poet Maulaana Rumi's first name is
> concerned, it is still spelt in many books as "Celaleddin". That,
> I think, is the Turkish spelling that I have seen in English
> books. In Urdu, it is always written and pronounced as
> "Jalaaluddin".
>
When Turks adopted the Roman script, they chose a 'C' for the sound of
'j' as in jail, and reserved 'j' for the sound of 'g' as in mirage.
So, they may write Celal, but they still pronounce is as jalal.
Of course, like us, Arabs have their own difficulties in pronouncing
foreign sounds. We all know that they cannot pronounce 'p', and write
and pronounce the country's name as Bakistan. Just as we Urdu
speakers don't have a sound of w (we pronounce it as v), Arabs don't
have the 'v' sound, and pronounce it as 'f '. A friend of mine named
'Alawi spells it in English as Alvi. When it is transliterated back
into the original language, Arabic, it becomes 'Alfi'.
As you said, enough of this.
Jamil
Afzal A. Khan
Jamil Saheb,
Linguistics is not my field. I believe you and Naseer Saheb are
our "resident specialists". I was merely trying to answer
Joshi-ji's query as best as I could. In the process, I was
highlighting the spellings (but not the Turkish pronunciation) of
certain words, after the Turks switched over to the Roman script.
But the example involving "Plevna" {vis-a-vis the Urdu "Pilona"}
dates back to the pre-Ataturk days (1877).
Your inputs in this context have been invaluable. I think
Joshi-ji owes you a word of thanks.
BTW, it may perhaps be necessary to clarify that your name is to
be pronounced as "Jameel". There is always a possibility that
people like Joshi-ji may write your name, in the D. script, with
the short "i" maatra, like the 'i' in "lentil" (daal).
Afzal
PremC...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
--------------------------------------
Dosto,
I asked a small question , and I got answers to so many questions.
Thanks to all of you, who, via ALUP have imensely contributed to my
education. I an indebted forever.
And Afzal bhai, Jameel , Devnagari main bardi E ki matra lagegi.
And In Urdu Bardi "ye" Im going by the pronunciation.
Sincerely
PJ
Afzal A. Khan
>> BTW, it may perhaps be necessary to clarify that your name is to
>> be pronounced as "Jameel". There is always a possibility that
>> people like Joshi-ji may write your name, in the D. script, with
>> the short "i" maatra, like the 'i' in "lentil" (daal).
>>
>> Afzal- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> --------------------------------------
> Dosto,
>
> I asked a small question , and I got answers to so many questions.
> Thanks to all of you, who, via ALUP have imensely contributed to my
> education. I an indebted forever.
>
> And Afzal bhai, Jameel , Devnagari main bardi E ki matra lagegi.
> And In Urdu Bardi "ye" Im going by the pronunciation.
> PJ
In Urdu script, diacritical marks are not generally furnished.
In the case of the word "jameel", there is a small connecting
link (which we can call a "shosha") between 'meem' and 'laam'.
There is no 'baRi ye" here. The word, as written in Urdu, can
as well be pronounced as "jamel". Since there is no such viable
word, Urdu folks would always read and pronounce this word as
"jameel". Apart from being a name, the word is also an adjective
(meaning "beautiful, pretty, elegant, graceful"). In the case of
our friend, it is of course his name and you can interpret it as
"handsome". The word not only signifies his persona, but is also
applicable to his contributions to ALUP.
Afzal
PremC...@gmail.com
Afzal bhai,
I just checked a dictionary and its has the word Zameen spelt with
bardi ye (two dots below).
I thought Jameel will be the same way. Well, writing phonetically
has its pitfalls.
PJ
Naseer
wrote:
> Afzal bhai,
> I just checked a dictionary and its has the word Zameen spelt with
> bardi ye (two dots below).
> I thought Jameel will be the same way. Well, writing phonetically
> has its pitfalls.
janaab-i-Joshi Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
Let us give poor Afzal Sahib a break as he has been providing you with
lengthy time-consuming explanations!:)
What Afzal Sahib said as a passing comment regarding janaab-i-Jamil
Sahib's name was that although the word is being spelt as "Jamil", it
is to be pronounced "Jameel". What this means is that it is ham-vazn
with "zameen".
As for you mentioning "baRii ye"....
baRii ye is only found at the end of a word in the Urdu script, in
such words as le, de, aage, piichhe etc. In the medial position, the
"'ye" indicated by a "shosha" with two dots below could, in unvowelled
script, indicate both the "e" sound as in Ghulel and the "ee" sound in
"seen", "sheen" and "Jameel".
I hope this has clarified the situation for you.
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> On Feb 2, 11:32 pm, "PremCJo...@gmail.com" <PremCJo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Afzal bhai,
>> I just checked a dictionary and its has the word Zameen spelt with
>> bardi ye (two dots below).
>> I thought Jameel will be the same way. Well, writing phonetically
>> has its pitfalls.
>
> janaab-i-Joshi Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> Let us give poor Afzal Sahib a break as he has been providing you with
> lengthy time-consuming explanations!:)
{Explanation Deleted }
> I hope this has clarified the situation for you.
>
> Naseer
Naseer Saheb,
Thanks for stepping in.
It pains me a great deal to see that folks who profess a genuine
love and passion for the Urdu language (and its poetry) are not
willing to make even the slightest attempt to learn the basics of
its script.
PCJ talks about "baRi ye" in a word like "zameen". And that
despite a detailed explanation given by me earlier. Is he in a
position to correctly read any text written in an Urdu book ?
Should we expect the publishers of Urdu books and magazines to
start issuing special editions of their publications, using
software such as "bhoomiyo" etc. ?
In my time, several people (highly educated and highly placed) had
approached me from time to time with a request to teach them Urdu.
Initially, I did try to help them out. But soon I realized that
I was being taken for a ride, and wasting my time fruitlessly.
Subsequently, I would ask such people to first buy a set of
elementary Urdu school texts (as are used in Primary Schools). At
that time, these were available at many stores, and that too at a
pittance, so to say. These guys found my suggestion most helpful
in getting rid of their so-called passion for the Urdu language.
Afzal
PremC...@gmail.com
Afzal and Naseer bhai,
Many thanks for all you help. Your suggestion is very valid. I am
looking for an Urdu Kaida at beginners level to learn the basics of
writing and reading. Looking forward to reading more of your
discourses on language and culture of Islamic India. Thanks once
again.
PJ
Jamil
> PremCJo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> BTW, it may perhaps be necessary to clarify that your name is to
> >> be pronounced as "Jameel". There is always a possibility that
> >> people like Joshi-ji may write your name, in the D. script, with
> >> the short "i" maatra, like the 'i' in "lentil" (daal).
>
> >> Afzal- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > --------------------------------------
> > Dosto,
>
> > I asked a small question , and I got answers to so many questions.
> > Thanks to all of you, who, via ALUP have imensely contributed to my
> > education. I an indebted forever.
>
> > And Afzal bhai, Jameel , Devnagari main bardi E ki matra lagegi.
> > And In Urdu Bardi "ye" Im going by the pronunciation.
> > PJ
>
> In Urdu script, diacritical marks are not generally furnished.
>
>
> (meaning "beautiful, pretty, elegant, graceful"). In the case of
> our friend, it is of course his name and you can interpret it as
> "handsome". The word not only signifies his persona, but is also
> applicable to his contributions to ALUP.
>
> Afzal
Afzal Sahib, you make me blush, but I realize soon enough that a baby
is a helpless onlooker in the vanity that parents display in naming
it. Let us however, look at another matter now.
This has to do with the often mentioned absence of diacritical marks
in Urdu. As you correctly point out, Urdu speakers know the words and
obviously for them these marks are not necessary. In rare cases,
context does not make it absolutely clear what the word is. Then one
does find that diacritical marks are included. An example is mulk
(country) and milk (property).
As for the words with which one is unfamiliar, a dictionary is a great
help. This happens to me frequently, since my mother tongue is the
recently mentioned Hindko and not Urdu. A few days ago, when Zoya
Sahiba posted Nasir Kazmi's she'r, I had to look up whether the word
was vajuud or vujuud. Problems of this nature, one comes across in
all languages and all scripts, since even if one can correctly guess
the pronunciation from the spellings, it is impossible to be sure
about the accepted system of stresses (or accents) in an unfamiliar
word. Take the word "subject". I can guess its pronunciation even if
I come across the word for the first time, because the spelling is
quite phonetic (except for the ambiguity of u, but that is another
matter). Only a dictionary, however, will tell me if the stress should
be on the first syllable or the second. In fact in this example the
stress could be either on the first syllable or the second depending
on whether the word is used as a noun or a verb. No script in the
world will include the accents: it would be wasteful and unnecessary.
That is what dictionaries are for. Urdu script just takes it a step
further, and does away with short vowels as well.
A common misconception is that Urdu script is not phonetic. In fact,
given diacritical marks (or a dictionary that includes such marks), it
is almost totally phonetic. Exceptions amount to a mere dozen or so
words, including the silent "alif" in bilkul (totally) and other words
of this type and half silent vaav in Kha(w)aab (sleep or dream).
I have my own irritations when it comes to the printing of Urdu books
and newspapers, and I have my own views on "naskh" vs. "nasta'aliiq",
but that topic is best left to another post.
Jamil
nages...@yahoo.com
I, too, have great difficulty following written Urdu, but I seem to be
getting a little better. Take heart, Joshi Sahib; "aati hai urdu
zabaan aate aate."
I realize that the wiser members of this group, who have been
extremely generous to those who need help, can sometimes find
elementary questions tiresome. However, sometimes all we novices have
are the simple questions.
I have been trying (again) to read Persian poetry, and I am making
some progress, but I run into problems similar to the ones mentioned
by Jamil Sahib for which no elementary text book will contain useful
answers. Let me illustrate with one verse from Hafiz.
dar ma pyaala aks-e rukh-e yaar deedah eem
ai bekhabar z lazzat-e sharaab-e mudaam ma
I have included the izaafats where I think they ought to go; the
original text did not have any izaafats in it. I think the last word
in the first line is eem; it is spelt alif bari ye meem. But I don't
know if it is "eem" or "aim". In the second line, I don't know if the
"z" is "az" or "za". There is no alif before the "z".
Just one sher, and already I have been stymied at least three times by
vowels, and I have no idea where the izaafats should or should not be
placed. Add to that all the problems with fonts that Jamil Sahib
mentioned, and I am surprised that I have not given up altogether, as
so many of Afzal Sahib's students did. I guess some of us are more
stubborn than others, and we have also been blessed with ALUP (and
Afzal Sahib's patient explanations) - facilities that so many others
lack.
With many thanks for your years of patient explanations, and a quiet
prayer for many more years of the same,
Nagesh
Afzal A. Khan
>>> Afzal
Mukarramee Nagesh Saheb,
I must thank you for your kind words. My point was simply this :
Anybody who professes an abiding (or newly-found) interest in the
Urdu language and its Literature should try to expend some effort
to learn the basics of the language --- its grammar and script.
One can increase the knowledge of vocabulary by referring to good
dictionaries. I understand that such dictionaries are available
online too. Similarly, I think there must be online resources
available for learning the fundamentals of Urdu script. One may
not be able to write in Urdu script fluently at first. But it may
be possible to read Urdu script, with some effort.
There are only about 10-12 of us who are a little bit familiar with
the language and who participate regularly in ALUP discussions.
Just imagine what would happen if a host or horde of first grade
primary school students start participating in ALUP. I am not
saying that 'novices' should not visit our NG. I am only saying
that these "neophytes" should undertake some sincere hard work of
the kind I have advocated above.
Let us now take up the sher by Haafiz mentioned by you. I am sure
Naseer Saheb (and Jamil Saheb too) would be in a position to give
you a more satisfactory reply. Even then, let me make a feeble
attempt.
I think there is one word in the second misra' that you are getting
wrong. The actual word (in all likelihood) is "shurb" and not
"sharaab". "Shurb" is also a noun, but it signifies the process of
drinking. "Akl-o-shurb" is a common enough expression used in Urdu
also. It means {the process of} "eating and drinking".
I would pronounce the last word in the first misra' as "aim",
though I can't quite say whether this is indeed correct. Also,
"z" should be read a little like "ke" with a very short "e" ---
[z(e)~lazzat-e-shurb....]
The interpretation would be something like this :
The poet is addressing a friend who (according to the poet) is
entirely ignorant of the ecstasy which the poet experiences while
imbibing his drink. Because he can (also) see the image of his
beloved in the goblet.
As I said, our two friends would be able to throw more light on
this sher and its meaning.
Regards,
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
> dar ma pyaala aks-e rukh-e yaar deedah eem
> ai bekhabar z lazzat-e sharaab-e mudaam ma
> Nagesh
Nagesh Saheb,
Just a few minutes back, I posted a reply but forgot to add
one point. I think the first misra' should be :
Ma dar piyaala 'aks-e-ruKH-e-yaar........
i.e. "ma" precedes "dar".
Afzal
Naseer
I can hardly add anthing further of value to what janaab-i-Afzal Sahib
has already stated. It goes without saying that an understanding of
the language will go a long way in placing the izaafat in the
appropriate place. Having said this, there are times when I struggle
with the izaafat even in an Urdu shi'r let alone in Farsi.
This is how I would transcribe the Hafiz shi'r bearing in mind the
Classical language.
maa dar piyaalah 'aks-i-ruKH-i-yaar diidah-em
ai be-KHabar zi lazzat-i-shurb-i-mudaam-i-maa
In Classical Farsi the first and second person plurals (with maa and
shumaa) were pronounced -em and -ed (the latter as in KHush aamad-ed).
This pronunciation is still kept by Indo-Persian and Afghan/Tajik
Persian.
Naseer
nages...@yahoo.com
Afzal Sahib:
Many thanks, again. It is, indeed, shurb; a word I was not familiar
with. I assumed that the word was sharaab, and that the lack of the
alif was a peculiarity of the font or a typo of some kind.
Regards,
Nagesh
Rajiv Chakravarti
> I have been trying (again) to read Persian poetry, and I am making
> some progress, but I run into problems similar to the ones mentioned
> by Jamil Sahib for which no elementary text book will contain useful
> answers. Let me illustrate with one verse from Hafiz.
>
> dar ma pyaala aks-e rukh-e yaar deedah eem
> ai bekhabar z lazzat-e sharaab-e mudaam ma
>
> I have included the izaafats where I think they ought to go; the
> original text did not have any izaafats in it. I think the last word
> in the first line is eem; it is spelt alif bari ye meem. But I don't
> know if it is "eem" or "aim". In the second line, I don't know if the
> "z" is "az" or "za". There is no alif before the "z".
>
aadaab 'arz hai -
Included is a link to a "recitation" of the Ghazal from which the
above sh'er (right after the matl'a here) is taken from. Other members
have already identified "shurb" as the word in question - you will
hear the "current' accent of Farsi in the recitation - classical or
not.
http://www.mediafire.com/?mqmyzzmzfol
Hope this helps. If unable to download for some reason, feel free
to contact me directly and I'll be glad to mail it to you separately.
I will
not be able to keep my share open indefinitely, so please download
at your earliest convenience.
-RC
Jamil
Nagesh Sahib
Take heart; Farsi poetry is full of ambiguities, and everyone will
have some difficulty with it. My solution is to read the literal
translation and then try to reconstruct the lines, and decide where
izaafat should be. There can be multiple methods of reading a verse,
though usually most will be meaningless. Let me illustrate using the
Hafiz's sh'er that you have quoted.
> maa dar pyaala aks-e rukh-e yaar deedah eem
> ai bekhabar z lazzat-e shurb-e mudaam maa
The sh'er can be read perfectly correctly (though meaninglessly) as:
maadar, pyaala-e aks-e rukh-e yaar deedah eem
ai bekhabar z lazzat-e shurb-e mudaam maa
all I have done is to suppose that the reader mistakenly joins maa and
dar, and puts an izaafat after pyaala. The she'r is still in metre,
and the first line can now be translated to give the (nonsensical)
phrase:
oh mother, we have seen the cup of the picture of the beloved's face
Such are the pitfalls of the Farsi poetry! To give other examples:
"guftam" can be translated either as "I said" or "he (or she) said to
me". "guftamand" can be "I said to them" or "they said to me". az is
more often than not shortened to z, so that "ke az" becomes "kaz" The
word "chuun" can mean "why" (question) and "because" (answer),
sometimes in the same sentence as in the Ghazal that you listened to:
maa muriidaaN ruu ba suu-e-ka'bah chuun aariim chuun
ruu basuu-e-Khaanah-e-Khammar daarad piir-e-maa
[How (chuun) can we, the followers, face ka'bah, because (chuun) our
piir himself is facing the wine house.]
Let me, however, add quickly that Farsi is one of the easiest
languages to learn, and not just for Urdu speakers. There are no
inflections, as we have in Urdu and Hindi (e.g. kitaaboN and
kitaabeN); no genders of neutral objects, no verb changes whether the
subject is masculine or feminine. No difference in construction when
the subject is he, she or it. The basic vocabulary is simplicity
itself. Many words are made by joining basic words. peshraft
(progress) is from pesh (front) and raft (from go). peshgoii or
peshbiini (forecast), az pesh gariftan (prevent) pesh-nihaad (put
forward, or suggestion). Similarly az dast daadan (to lose) ba dast
aavardan (to gain) dastgaah (instrument), chahaar chuub (frame;
literally four pieces of wood), kaargaah (place of work, or
workshop).
The font that Farsi books have been using for over half a century is
naskh (what has been referred to as Arabic font on this Forum);
unambiguous and clear to read, unlike the nasta'liiq used in Urdu
books, where sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between vaav and
daal, and sometimes one is not sure to which letter the dots belong.
It is admirable that you continue to have interest in a language that
is more than three languages removed from your own - to coin a phrase.
Jamil
Afzal A. Khan
> This is how I would transcribe the Hafiz shi'r bearing in mind the
> Classical language.
>
> maa dar piyaalah 'aks-i-ruKH-i-yaar diidah-em
> ai be-KHabar zi lazzat-i-shurb-i-mudaam-i-maa
>
> In Classical Farsi the first and second person plurals (with maa and
> shumaa) were pronounced -em and -ed (the latter as in KHush aamad-ed).
> This pronunciation is still kept by Indo-Persian and Afghan/Tajik
> Persian.
>
> Naseer
Naseer Saheb,
Thanks for the clarification. However, I would like to know
whether the "em" is pronounced as in "empress". This "em"
is discernibly different from the "aim" that I had mentioned,
hence the query. Thanks.
Afzal
Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab.
-em to rhyme with the English word "name". I believe both of us are
pointing to the same sound. It just happens to be the case that our
transcriptions are somewhat different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYQjGRwdmd4
Naseer
nages...@yahoo.com
And now some transcriptions from "A History of Urdu Literature" by Ali
Jawad Zaidi, Sahitya Akademi Press, 19993. The hard back version was
available for Rs. 140 - a mere pittance! The excerpts relate to the
topic of this string.
"The term rekhtah has had different connotations at different times.
Originally, of the stock of musical terminology, rekhtah signified
intermixing of Hindi and Persian lines or couplets to harmonize with
the blend of Indian and Iranian ragas or raginis. The experimental
rekhtah in poetry appears first in Amir Khusrau's time as it was he
who had thought of blending Indian and Iranian music and conceived of
the new poetic form for that purpose."
The book then provides the text of Khusrau's well-known ghazal, "z
haal-e mishkeen", and then presents another Khusrau ghazal that I have
heard sung by Shobha Gurtu:
jab yaar dekha nain bhar, dil se gayi chinta utar
aisa nahin koi magar rakhe use samjhaae kar
After a very brief discussion of Khusrau and some early writers (Hasna
Dehlavi, Korki and Mashhadi) who wrote in a similar style, we have the
following passage:
"Ishqi Khan Iraqi went a step farther and added several Urdu verses to
his Persian qasidah. The Persian poet Nasir Ali Sirhindi wrote many
Urdu ghazals too, which gained some popularity and secured a place for
itself in many private anthologies. Two of his couplets alluding to
the appearance of European beauties on the Indian scene are quoted
below:
chandra see mukh par ye khaal mushkeen, nipat ba shokhi latak raha hai
ajab hai yaaraan k aik zangi ba-mulk rumi atak raha hai
but-e firangi baqatl hamara, rakhe choo bar cheen jabeen damaadam(?)
(or vamaavam?)
hua hai jeev na jagat mein mushkil k tegh abroo sarak raha hai
The translation provided in the book is as follows:
To the moon-like face clings mischievously this musk-colored mole
An unusual sight, a Negro struggling against the Roman kingdom!
The British beauty wrinkles her forehead, ever poised to kill me
It's hard to live in this world, for the sword of the brows moves
steadily onwards.
I had to look up "cheen" and "abroo" in the dictionary, but I could
not find "damaadam". I may be reading the font wrong.
Anyway, I found it interesting that it was Khusrau's interest in
combining Indian ragas with Persian ragas that led to poems like "z
haal mishkeen".
Zaidi's book makes for interesting reading. He covers poets that
others do not, and picks poems I have not come across in the other
(more accessible) books I possess. He has a short chapter on Nazir
Akbarabadi, and a longer chapter on Iqbal. On Iqbal, he had the
following tidbit (of which I was unaware): "He came of a Kashmiri
Muslim family with Brahmin descent. He never used the caste name
Sapru but recalled with pride his brahmincial association by referring
to himself as "brahmanzadeh-e Kashmir (the Brahmin-born Kashmiri)."
Nagesh
Rajiv Chakravarti
>
> I had to look up "cheen" and "abroo" in the dictionary, but I could
> not find "damaadam". I may be reading the font wrong.
"dam aa dam" is indeed the correct word. Perhaps the following
famous sh'er of Iqbal himself may help you remember it in the future.
yeh kaainaat abhi naa.tamaam hai shaayad
k. aa rahi hai damaadam sadaa-e- kun.fa.yakooN
damaadam = continuously/incessantly.
Hope that helps.
RC
nages...@yahoo.com
wrote:
First, my sincere apologies for not acknowledging the responses by
Naseer, Afzal, Jamil and Rajeev Sahibaan. My browser showed only the
first 25 posts in this thread and I did not notice that subsequent
posts were available on a continuation page.
I have heard the ghazal posted by Rajeev Sahib, and I can understand
why modern Persians cannot understand me when I try to recite a sher
in their language. However, when I recite the shers to myself, I find
a very appreciative audience :-)
With many thanks for your responses,
Nagesh
Srinage...@gmail.com
I noticed in both my book and the recited version of the ghazal that
the maqta with Hafiz's takhallus was the second last couplet in the
ghazal. I always thought the maqta was supposed to be the last
couplet. Is this practice (ie, maqta as penultimate or non-ultimate
couplet) common, and if so is there a reason for departing from the
norm?
Nagesh
Jamil
<Srinageshfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I noticed in both my book and the recited version of the ghazal that
> the maqta with Hafiz's takhallus was the second last couplet in the
> ghazal. I always thought the maqta was supposed to be the last
> couplet. Is this practice (ie, maqta as penultimate or non-ultimate
> couplet) common, and if so is there a reason for departing from the
> norm?
>
> Nagesh
Nagesh Sahib
Is it the "maa dar piyaala ..." ghazal that you are referring to? My
copy of the divan gives the last she'r as the one with takhallus:
Hafiz ze diidah daanah-e- ashke hame fashaan
baashad keh murGh-e-vasl kunad qasd-e-daam-e-maa
[Hafiz spread the grain of tears from (your)eyes. Perhaps the bird of
visaal will come towards our net].
However, the version posted here:
http://www.hafizonlove.com/divan/01/011.htm
does give this she'r as the second last. The posted version has
several other couplets in an order different from my divan. Also it
is short by one she'r. I have greater confidence in my copy of the
divan.
Jamil
Srinage...@gmail.com
Sea of Heaven, a translation of 50 Hafiz ghazals), Rajeev Sahib's
audio file, and the web site I am linking to all contain the "extra"
couplet at the end. Indeed, the couplet is the one associated with
the title of the book I own.
http://www.hafizonlove.com/divan/01/011.htm
Nagesh