urdu word for mirage
Vikas Nehru
Thanx,
Vikas
Afzal A. Khan
>
>Does anyone know the urdu word for mirage.
>
>Thanx,
>Vikas
>
It is "Saraab".
Afzal
UVR
>
>I find that the elegant usage in good poetry greatly enhances our
>perception of a word. Here is a one such example on 'saraab':
>
> mauj-e-saraab-e-dashta-e-vafaa kaa na puuchh haal
> har zarraa, misla-e-jauhar-e-teG, aabadaar thaa
> -(Ghalib)
>
>
>Corrections, additions, explanations are welcome.
>
>Regards,
>Yogesh Sethi
I wouldn't dare to presume to explain Ghalib's sh'er, but here is a
more earthy, easier comprehended sh'er with "saraab" in it:
ab na woh maiN hooN, na tU hai, na woh maazi hai, Faraaz!
jaise do saaye tamanna ke saraaboN meiN mileN
--
UVR.
SF786
mirage= sarab.
Yogesh Sethi
Abhay P
"dasht-e-tanhaaii mei.n ae jaan-e-jahaa.n larzaa hai.n
terii awaaz ke saaye, tere hotho.n ke saraab
dasht-e-tanhaaii mei.n duurii kii khus-o-khaak tale
khil rahe.n hai.n tere pehluu ke saman aur gulaab"
kyaa baat hai!
Warm regards
Abhay
In article , UVR says...
>
>In article <36198A...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>, Yogesh says...
>>
>>I find that the elegant usage in good poetry greatly enhances our
>>perception of a word. Here is a one such example on 'saraab':
>>
>> mauj-e-saraab-e-dashta-e-vafaa kaa na puuchh haal
>> har zarraa, misla-e-jauhar-e-teG, aabadaar thaa
>> -(Ghalib)
>>
>>
>>Corrections, additions, explanations are welcome.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Yogesh Sethi
>
SF786
mauj-e-saraab-e-dashta-e-vafaa kaa na puuchh haal
har zarraa, misla-e-jauhar-e-teG, aabadaar thaa
-(Ghalib)
there is a semblance of water which is nothing but a mirage. By using the term
"mauj-e-saraab", the" wave of mirage", Galib heightens this effect by implying
a resemblance between "dasht" or desert and an ocean. At every step the
traveller in the "desert of love" looks around for water to quench his thirst.
Every grain of sand ("zarra") seems to glow in the intense heat like a "pearl"
or a water drop, ("aabdaar").
The use of the expression "misl-e-jauhar-e-teg" "like the jewel in a sword" may
mean that the sand grains shine like the jewels in a sword that won't quench
the traveller's thirst but will further parch his throat or cut through his
heart.
Saleem A Khanani
Afzal A. Khan
In this sher, Ghalib has relied a great deal on what is
commonly termed as "Ri'aayat-e-lafzi" or the use of words
which have a certain commonality of aptness in giving
meaning to the poet's thoughts.
"Jauhar" actually refers to the "sharpness" of steel of
which swords are made. "Tegh-e-jauhardaar" would mean a
sword of steel with excellent sharpness, with a tinge of
bluishness. Similarly, "aabdaar" refers to a sword of
super sharpness. "Khanjar ki aab" would refer to the
sharp edge of the knife. The poet says that every particle
of the desert (of "wafaa") was as bright and sparkling as
the sparkle of the sharp edge of a sword. Although the
handle of a sword can be studded with jewels, I do not
think that the poet is referring to the chamak or sparkle
associated with a jewel. I think the reference is to the
sharpness of the sword-edge which can glint brightly in the
sun.
Of course, the meaning is very plain. Wafa in this
world is like a mirage or "saraab". It is impossible to
find it. Ghalib has expressed the same thought in other
verses too. Two such come to mind :
Hum ko un se wafa ki hai ummeed
Jo nahiN jante wafa kya hai and
Dahr men naqsh-e-wafa wajh-e tasalli na huwa
Hai yeh woh lafz jo sharminda-e-m'ani na huwa
Afzal
SF786
Afzal Sahib
Many thanks for clarifying my concepts.
Saleem A Khanani
Afzal A. Khan
>
>UVR wrote:
>> ...
>> I wouldn't dare to presume to explain Ghalib's sh'er, but here is a
>> more earthy, easier comprehended sh'er with "saraab" in it:
>> ab na woh maiN hooN, na tU hai, na woh maazi hai, Faraaz!
>> jaise do saaye tamanna ke saraaboN meiN mileN
>>
>> --
>> UVR.
>>
>>
>typographical error: In the first misra the word 'woh' appears to be
>misplaced. It should read 'ab na maiN woh hooN, ...'
>
>Regards,
>Yogesh Sethi
This is a beautiful sher. Unfortunately, I have not read
this ghazal by Faraz, so cannot vouch, one way or other,
as to the "correctness" of the sher as quoted by UVR and
the amendment suggested by Sethi Sahib. Many a time,
poets have a way of surprising their listeners/readers
by not using an obvious "tarkeeb"; instead they use a
different set of words. Ghalib specialises in this.
On numerous occasions, I have heard many eminently
learned and erudite persons recite a Ghalib sher in the
following manner :
Kaun hota hai hareef-e-mai-e-mard-afgan-e-ishq
Hai mukarrar lab-e-saaqi pe sada mere baad
^^^^
For any person who knows Urdu well, this would appear to
be the correct version. Certainly, this word "sada"
appears most appropriate in the given context. But, as
I know and remember, Ghalib had used the word "sala"
instead of "sada". The sher as composed by Ghalib reads :
Kaun hota hai hareef-e-mai-e-mard-afgan-e-ishq
Hai mukarrar lab-e-saaqi pe sala mere baad
^^^^
While "sada" is the more obvious choice, "sala" gives
a slightly different connotation which a true Urdu lover
will certainly notice and appreciate. There are other
such examples in Ghalib's poetry, which I keep for another
day.
Now, coming to the quoted sher of Faraz, we have two
versions, depending on the "location" of the word "woh".
UVR : Ab na woh main hoon, na tu hai na woh maazi hai Faraz
Y.S.: Ab na main woh hoon, na tu hai na woh maazi hai Faraz
The emphasis has shifted somewhat. Considering the context
as a whole, I am inclined to feel that the first version
seems more "appropriate". The poet says that times have
changed. I am still there; you are still there but our
(brief) association is a distant memory of the past---
it is as if two shadows have come in contact with each other,
where (our mutual) desire itself seems to have been a mirage.
In the second version, the meaning would be somewhat like
this : I am no longer what I was.
In the first version, the meaning would be somewhat like
this : That being (me, who was so much in love with you)
is no longer there. He is no more.
The difference in emphasis is very slight but I feel it
is noticeable. In the second version, the poet would be
saying : Ab MAIN woh nahin hoon. (I have changed. Maybe
I am no longer in love with you. Maybe my love for you
was a transient infatuation.)
In the first version, the poet would be saying :
Ab woh Faraz kahaan ? "That me" is no more. Even "that you"
are a thing of the past. Even the old past is not there.
The only thing left is a distant memory where our desire
for each other itself seems like a mirage or chimerical.
This version somehow seems more appropriate to the theme
of nostalgia that characterizes the sher. It also "fits"
in well with the subsequent "woh maazi". In other words,
"woh main, woh tu aur woh maazi"---all are gone forever.
I am also reminded of an old Hindi film song sung by Talat:
Hai yeh wohi aasmaan, aur hai wohi zameen
Par meri taqdeer ka ab woh zamaana nahin
"Woh zamaana ab khatm ho gaya, guzar gaya".
It is perfectly possible, even probable, that I am reading
too much into the placement of the word "woh". As I said
earlier, the ghazal itself has not been read by me. Then
again, as in the case of Ghalib, it is possible that the
actual sher composed by Faraz may be as per the second
version, as corrected/amended by Sethi Sahib.
Another point about this sher. Faraz has used the word
"saraab" in the plural i.e. "saraaboN". Normally one
comes across this word in the singular, in something of
an abstract meaning--a state of "unreality", whereas its
use in the plural makes it something "tangible". By its
very nature, "saraab" would seem to be something "intangible".
Are there other Urdu verses where this word has been used
in the plural ?
It would be interesting to know what our worthy friends
like Jamil Sahib and Saleem Sahib and others think about
these points.
Afzal
>
Yogesh Sethi
Your discerning exposition has greatly added to my enjoyment of this
elegant sher.
Thank you!
Regards,
Yogesh Sethi
Yogesh Sethi
ash...@my-dejanews.com
Yogesh Sethi <yse...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> UVR wrote:
> > ...
> > ab na woh maiN hooN, na tU hai, na woh maazi hai, Faraaz!
> > jaise do saaye tamanna ke saraaboN meiN mileN
> >
> > --
> > UVR.
> >
> >
> It is indeed a lovely composition. But permit me to point out a slight
> typographical error: In the first misra the word 'woh' appears to be
> misplaced. It should read 'ab na maiN woh hooN, ...'
>
> Regards,
> Yogesh Sethi
>
>
The version of the shair as posted by UVR is not incorrect.
This is how Faraz published the first misra:
ab na vo hain, na too hai, na vo maazi hai faraz
(Notice: no 'maiN' here. 'too' is used to address himself.
and this is how Mehdi Hasan sang the simplified version for a film:
ab no vo maiN hooN, na too hai, na vo maazi hay faraz
(the actor in the film is directly addressing his heroine, so they decided to
edit that misra).
Actually i watched an interview of Faraz discussing exactly this difference in
the two versions.
And i confirmed this before writing this from the following link:
http://www.hipakistan.com/melo-prime.html
regards,
atif
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
UVR
I am left standing spellbound by Afzal saheb's excellent exposition
on the effects of the relative placement of "woh" and "maiN" in
Faraz's sh'er. A better example of how each word of a sh'er
and where it occurs affect/s the meaning of the sh'er could
hardly be found. I *would* like to clarify a few things, however.
The sh'er I quoted is from the Faraz gHazal with the matlah:
ab ke ham bichh.De to shaayad kabhi KhaaboN meiN mileN
jis tarah sookhe hue phool kitaaboN meiN mileN
and there are two versions of the sh'er I had quoted that I'm aware
of. First, the version I had quoted, is the version that appeared
in a (Pakistani) film, sung by Mehdi Hassan, and in several subsequent
concerts and private recordings (with a slightly modified tune). That
version reads "ab na woh maiN hooN, na tU hai, na woh maazI hai ..."
This version of the sh'er was (AFAIK) modified from its initial published
form that read:
ab na woh haiN, na ke tU hai, na woh maazI hai Faraz
...
The version sung by Mehdi Hassan was modified for the sake of the
situation and the 'scene on the screen' by Faraz himself.
I have not come across the version suggested by Yogesh saheb.
Afzal saheb continues:
>
> In the first version, the poet would be saying :
> Ab woh Faraz kahaan ? "That me" is no more. Even "that you"
> are a thing of the past. Even the old past is not there.
> The only thing left is a distant memory where our desire
> for each other itself seems like a mirage or chimerical.
> This version somehow seems more appropriate to the theme
> of nostalgia that characterizes the sher. It also "fits"
> in well with the subsequent "woh maazi". In other words,
> "woh main, woh tu aur woh maazi"---all are gone forever.
This is precisely the explanation that Mehdi Hassan provides in his
concerts, when he is in his talkative mode :-)
And then he says:
>
> Another point about this sher. Faraz has used the word
> "saraab" in the plural i.e. "saraaboN". Normally one
> comes across this word in the singular, in something of
> an abstract meaning--a state of "unreality", whereas its
> use in the plural makes it something "tangible". By its
> very nature, "saraab" would seem to be something "intangible".
I don't quite agree about the "making tangible" part. I actually think
that the pluralization of "saraab" increases the intangiblity of his
'tamannA'-s in this sh'er.
The operative phrase is "tamannA ke saraaboN". The (uncommon)
pluralization of "saraab" draws attention to the fact that there are
many many 'tamannA'-s, but all of them are nothing but mirages. Vain
hopes and desires that're as alluring and wishful as mirages in the
dreary desert sands (of unrequited love, perhaps). In my opinion, Faraz's
use of "tamannA ke saraaboN" is a clever technique to say the same thing
as "tamannAon ke saraab" or "saraab-si (hazaaroN) tamanna`eN" ...
--
UVR.
Just adding my (worthless) 2c-fuel to the fire :-)
Nevil Shah
A shair I heard sung by Parveen Shakir goes as follows:
Ek vaahma hai, naqsh-e-hawa hai, saraab hai
Duniya nahin hai, jaagti aankhon ka khwaab hai.
bye,
Nevil
ahm...@noka.ub.bw
UVR <u...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> I am left standing spellbound by Afzal saheb's excellent exposition
> on the effects of the relative placement of "woh" and "maiN" in
> Faraz's sh'er.
> And then he says:
> > Another point about this sher. Faraz has used the word
> > "saraab" in the plural i.e. "saraaboN". Normally one
> > comes across this word in the singular, in something of
> > an abstract meaning--a state of "unreality", whereas its
> > use in the plural makes it something "tangible". By its
> > very nature, "saraab" would seem to be something "intangible".
>
> that the pluralization of "saraab" increases the intangiblity of his
> 'tamannA'-s in this sh'er.
>
> The operative phrase is "tamannA ke saraaboN". The (uncommon)
> pluralization of "saraab" draws attention to the fact that there are
> many many 'tamannA'-s, but all of them are nothing but mirages. Vain
> hopes and desires that're as alluring and wishful as mirages in the
> dreary desert sands (of unrequited love, perhaps). In my opinion, Faraz's
> use of "tamannA ke saraaboN" is a clever technique to say the same thing
> as "tamannAon ke saraab" or "saraab-si (hazaaroN) tamanna`eN" ...
>
> --
> UVR.
Saraab and saraabon. The explanation is simple really, and pretty mundane.
It is for the purpose of rhyming ('qaafia') that that the poet seems to have
used this plural. Of course that does not stop us from looking at how this
usage altered the meaning, or made it more tangible or more beautiful or
whatever.
While we are at it, how about another she'r of Ghalib using the word:
Wuh sehr mud'aa talabi men na aaey kaam
Jis sehr se safeena rawaan ho saraab men
Jamil
Afzal A. Khan
>
>
>I am left standing spellbound by Afzal saheb's excellent exposition
>on the effects of the relative placement of "woh" and "maiN" in
>and where it occurs affect/s the meaning of the sh'er could
>hardly be found.
I am overwhelmed by my friend's generosity. "Thanks" is too
small a word to express my feelings.
. First, the version I had quoted, is the version that appeared
>in a (Pakistani) film, sung by Mehdi Hassan, and in several subsequent
>concerts and private recordings (with a slightly modified tune).
>The version sung by Mehdi Hassan was modified for the sake of the
>situation and the 'scene on the screen' by Faraz himself.
I was not aware of these circumstances. Thanks for the
information. This is something similar to what had
happened many years earlier in the case of a Faiz ghazal
"Aaj ki raat..." sung by Norjahan in a Pakistani film.
>Afzal saheb continues:
>>
>> In the first version, the poet would be saying :
>> Ab woh Faraz kahaan ? "That me" is no more. Even "that you"
>> are a thing of the past. Even the old past is not there.
>> The only thing left is a distant memory where our desire
>> for each other itself seems like a mirage or chimerical.
>> This version somehow seems more appropriate to the theme
>> of nostalgia that characterizes the sher. It also "fits"
>> in well with the subsequent "woh maazi". In other words,
>> "woh main, woh tu aur woh maazi"---all are gone forever.
>
>This is precisely the explanation that Mehdi Hassan provides in his
>concerts, when he is in his talkative mode :-)
>
>And then he says:
>>
>> Another point about this sher. Faraz has used the word
>> "saraab" in the plural i.e. "saraaboN". Normally one
>> comes across this word in the singular, in something of
>> an abstract meaning--a state of "unreality", whereas its
>> use in the plural makes it something "tangible". By its
>> very nature, "saraab" would seem to be something "intangible".
>
>I don't quite agree about the "making tangible" part. I actually think
>that the pluralization of "saraab" increases the intangiblity of his
>'tamannA'-s in this sh'er.
>
>The operative phrase is "tamannA ke saraaboN". The (uncommon)
>pluralization of "saraab" draws attention to the fact that there are
>many many 'tamannA'-s, but all of them are nothing but mirages. Vain
>hopes and desires that're as alluring and wishful as mirages in the
>dreary desert sands (of unrequited love, perhaps). In my opinion, Faraz's
>use of "tamannA ke saraaboN" is a clever technique to say the same thing
>as "tamannAon ke saraab" or "saraab-si (hazaaroN) tamanna`eN" ...
>
>--
>UVR.
> Just adding my (worthless) 2c-fuel to the fire :-)
Quite to the contrary. You have brought up a completely
different line of reasoning about which I had not thought
earlier. For all that we know, this is what may have been
in the poet's mind.
But here, there is one more point to ponder and that is the
use of the word "tamanna". I would have thought that this
word was used in the sher in its abstract or generic sense,
much like the word "Hope" in the well-known English adage :
Hope springs eternal in the human breast....
Here, we are not talking about any particular "hope".
Similarly, did the poet have any specific desires in
mind ? We shall probably never know, nor is it necessary
for us to know. There can be no cut and dried solution to
these questions, for they are not like those mathematical
propositions which admit of only one answer. Such
discussions, about different interpretations, use of various
words etc., add to our enjoyment of the sher or ghazal under
discussion. I am inclined to heed Jamil Sahib's "mundane"
explanation that this was a "poetic concession" to the
demands of the qaafiya.
Sana Sahiba quoted a sher by Parween Shakir, where the
word "saraaboN" was used. Nayi Urdu sha'iri par unki nazar
baDi gahri hai jo qaabil-e-daad hai. Are there other
instances where a similar use has occurred ?
Ghalib's sher quoted by Jamil Sahib has this word in the
singular. The sher bears repetition :
Woh sehr mudda'aa-talabi men na aaye kaam !
Jis sehr se safeena rawaaN ho saraab men
For the benefit of some of us, it may be clarified that
"sehr" here means "jadoo" or magic. The poet says that
magic can even enable a boat to set sail on a "sea" of
desert. But alas ! even such magic cannot help a
helpless lover in attaining his desire !
Afzal
Philip Nikolayev
> In article <6vj0f4$q...@pdrn.zippo.com>,
> UVR <u...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > I am left standing spellbound by Afzal saheb's excellent exposition
> > on the effects of the relative placement of "woh" and "maiN" in
> > Faraz's sh'er.
> ...
> > And then he says:
> > > Another point about this sher. Faraz has used the word
> > > "saraab" in the plural i.e. "saraaboN". Normally one
> > > comes across this word in the singular, in something of
> > > an abstract meaning--a state of "unreality", whereas its
> > > use in the plural makes it something "tangible". By its
> > > very nature, "saraab" would seem to be something "intangible".
> >
> > I don't quite agree about the "making tangible" part. I actually think
> > that the pluralization of "saraab" increases the intangiblity of his
> > 'tamannA'-s in this sh'er.
> >
> > The operative phrase is "tamannA ke saraaboN". The (uncommon)
> > pluralization of "saraab" draws attention to the fact that there are
> > many many 'tamannA'-s, but all of them are nothing but mirages. Vain
> > hopes and desires that're as alluring and wishful as mirages in the
> > dreary desert sands (of unrequited love, perhaps). In my opinion, Faraz's
> > use of "tamannA ke saraaboN" is a clever technique to say the same thing
> > as "tamannAon ke saraab" or "saraab-si (hazaaroN) tamanna`eN" ...
> >
> > --
> > UVR.
>
> Saraab and saraabon. The explanation is simple really, and pretty mundane.
> It is for the purpose of rhyming ('qaafia') that that the poet seems to have
> used this plural. Of course that does not stop us from looking at how this
> usage altered the meaning, or made it more tangible or more beautiful or
> whatever.
maaf kijiye janaab, magar yeh khayaal thoRa naive lagta hain. He could
have chosen another rhyme, written a different shair whatsoever, but he
kept that shair because he liked other aspects of it as well, including
the plural and the altered meaning (and not merely the fact that it
rhymes). We should not assume we are cleverer than him.
> While we are at it, how about another she'r of Ghalib using the word:
>
> Wuh sehr mud'aa talabi men na aaey kaam
> Jis sehr se safeena rawaan ho saraab men
khubsurat hai.
> Jamil
faqat,
Philip Nikolayev, Esq.
nik...@fas.harvard.edu
Ashok
>
> I was not aware of these circumstances. Thanks for the
> information. This is something similar to what had
> happened many years earlier in the case of a Faiz ghazal
> "Aaj ki raat..." sung by Norjahan in a Pakistani film.
>
>
> Afzal
>
I thought the conclusion reached by the group (when the issue
of the song from film 'Jugnu' came some months ago) was that
the film song is different from the Faez song, except for
similarity in the first line.
Ashok
PS: 'Jugnu' is an Indian film. Or, are we talking about
different songs and films?