question.
the_cu...@my-dejanews.com
what is the difference between a 'rubaai' and a 'qataa' ?
what are the different rhyming patterns used in a 'nazm' ?
thanks in advance.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
rajkp...@my-dejanews.com
the_cu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> friends,
>
> what is the difference between a 'rubaai' and a 'qataa' ?
> what are the different rhyming patterns used in a 'nazm' ?
>
> thanks in advance.
------------
Dear Friend:
A rubaai, as well as, a qata' consists of 4 lines.
The rhyming scheme of a rubaai is --- a a b a --- so that the 1st, 2nd and 4th
lines rhyme, while the 3rd is free. In a qata' the rhyming can be --- a a b a
or b a c a --- so that the 2nd and 4th lines rhyme, the 1st may or may not
rhyme, while the 3rd is again free.
However, the most vital difference between the two is in regard to the meter
(= wazan). The rubaai, for instance, has a UNIQUE meter, which I'll
illustrate here with the help of a beautiful example from Josh Malihabadi:
ghunche! tiri zindagi pe dil HILTA hai
tu aek tabassum ke liye KHILTA hai
ghunche ne kahaa hans ke, chaman mein baba!
yeh aek tabassum bhi kise MILTA hai?
Please note the rhyming scheme and also try to assess the meter here. Each and
every rubaai must conform to these two features.
A qata', on the other hand, is not constrained by any particular meter; in
that regard, it enjoys the same degree of freedom as a ghazal does.
Sometimes, even two she'rs of a ghazal may constitute a qata' --- but mostly
a qata' is a creation in its own right. Here are two very good examples:
1. scheme a a b a and a short meter [by Naresh Kumar Shaad]
har kali mast-e-KHWAAB ho jaati
patti patti GULAAB ho jaati
tu ne daaleeN na mai-fashaaN nazreN
varna shabnam SHARAAB ho jaati
Please note that this meter is NOT the same as that of a rubaai.
2. scheme b a c a and a long meter [by Nashoor Waahidi]
ranj aur khushi dono hain rafeeq-e-deireena
paas paas rehte hain, saath saath CHALTE hain
aarzooeN duniya mein sab hi bar naheen aateeN
kuchh chiraagh bujhte hain, kuchh chiraagh JALTE hain
---------
A nazm too has no restriction of meter but is allowed a much larger variety of
rhyming schemes. May be, we can talk of those some other time. For now, please
try to assimilate the above information and, if you have any questions, don't
hesitate to get back to me.
khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
P.S. As far as possible, please write the title of your letter in URDU. R.K.
ahm...@noka.ub.bw
rajkp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7dgqke$cl7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> the_cu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > friends,
> >
> > what is the difference between a 'rubaai' and a 'qataa' ?
> > what are the different rhyming patterns used in a 'nazm' ?
> >
> > thanks in advance.
>
> ------------
>
> Dear Friend:
>
> A rubaai, as well as, a qata' consists of 4 lines.
>
> However, the most vital difference between the two is in regard to the meter
> (= wazan). The rubaai, for instance, has a UNIQUE meter, which I'll
> illustrate here with the help of a beautiful example from Josh Malihabadi:
>
khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
A qata', from what I understand, does not have to be limited to 4 lines. Any
number of ash'aar (at least 2 or more) of a ghazal or otherwise, that are
connected by a common theme can comprise a qata'. Many qat'aat can be quoted
in support of this, but what better authority than the Mirza himself. I
quote a full qata' from Diwaan-e-Ghalib. I will also separately post another
qata', but please look for that one in the Akbar Illaabadi thread.
---------------------
Uthaa ik din bagulaa sa jo main kuchh josh-e-vahshat men
Phiraa aaseema sar, ghabraa gayaa tha jee bayaabaan men
Nazar aaya mujhay ik taa'er-e-majrooh par-basta
Pataktaa tha sar-e-shoreeda deewaar-e-gulistaan se
Kaha main ne keh o naakaam aakher maajaraa kiaa hai
paRaa hai kaam tujh ko kis sitamgar aafat-e-jaan se
Hansaa kuchh khilkhilaa kar pehle phir mujh ko jo pehchaana
To yoon royaa keh joo-e-khoon behi palkon ke daamaan se
kahaa main said hoon is ka keh jis ke daam-e-gaisoo men
phansaa karte hain taa'er roz aa kar baagh-e-rizwaan se
Usi ki zul-o-rukh ka dhiyaan hai shaam-o-shar mujh ko
Na matlab kufr se hai aur na hai kuchh kaam eemaan se
Ba-chashm-e-ghaur jo dekha meraa hi taa'er-e- dil tha
Keh jal kar ho gaya tha khaak apni aah-e-sozaan se.
-----------
This is a continuous narrative and could not be called a ghazal,
but conforms to rules of rhyme and rhythm for a ghazal.
See you in the Akbar Illaabadi thread.
Jamil
il_...@yahoo.com
ahm...@noka.ub.bw wrote:
> In article <7dh884$p9b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> rajkp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <7dgqke$cl7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > the_cu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > friends,
> > >
> > > what is the difference between a 'rubaai' and a 'qataa' ?
> > > what are the different rhyming patterns used in a 'nazm' ?
> > >
> > > thanks in advance.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > Dear Friend:
> >
> > A rubaai, as well as, a qata' consists of 4 lines.
> >
> ...
> > However, the most vital difference between the two is in regard to the meter
> > (= wazan). The rubaai, for instance, has a UNIQUE meter, which I'll
> > illustrate here with the help of a beautiful example from Josh Malihabadi:
> >
> ...
> khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
>
> A qata', from what I understand, does not have to be limited to 4 lines. Any
> number of ash'aar (at least 2 or more) of a ghazal or otherwise, that are
> connected by a common theme can comprise a qata'. Many qat'aat can be quoted
> in support of this, but what better authority than the Mirza himself. I
> quote a full qata' from Diwaan-e-Ghalib.
>
> Uthaa ik din bagulaa sa jo main kuchh josh-e-vahshat men
> Phiraa aaseema sar, ghabraa gayaa tha jee bayaabaan men
>
(Rest of the Qita deleted)
> This is a continuous narrative and could not be called a ghazal,
> but conforms to rules of rhyme and rhythm for a ghazal.
> Jamil
Jamil Sahib, you are absolutely right. A qata does not
have to be limited to just 4 lines. I would like to
quote another qata from Ghalib jis men shair ne duniya ke
chand-roza aish-o-aaraam ka baRa pur-asar naqsha kheencha
hai :
Ai taaza-waardaan-e-bisaat-e-hawae-dil
Zinhaar gar tumhen hawas-e-naao-nosh hai
Dekho mujhe jo deeda-e-ibrat-nigaah ho
Meri suno jo gosh-e-naseehat-niyosh hai
Ya shab ko dekhte the ke har gosha-e-bisaat
Daamaan-e-baGhbaaN wa kaf-e-gulfarosh hai
Lutf-e-khiraam-e-saaqi-w-zauq-e-sadaae-chang
Yeh jannat-e-nigaah woh firdaus-e-gosh hai
Saaqi ba-jalwa dushman-e-iimaan-o-aagahi
Mutrib ba-naGhma rahzan-e-tamkeen-o-hosh hai
Ya subha-dam jo dekhiye aakar to bazm men
Nai woh suroor-o-shor na josh-o-kharosh hai
DaaGh-e-firaaq-e-sohbat-e-shab ki jali huwi
Ik sham'a rah gayi hai so woh bhi khamosh hai
Yeh poori Ghazal murassa hai aur mere nazdeek Ghalib ki
yaadgaar GhazloN men se ek hai. Is ke baaqi sher bhi
pesh-e-khidmat haiN :
Zulmat-kade men mere shab-e-Gham ka josh hai
Ik sham'a hai daleel-e-sahar so khamosh hai
Nai mazhda-e-wisaal na nazzaara-e-jamaal
Muddat huwi ke aashti-e-chashm-o-gosh hai
Mai ne kiya hai husn-e-Khud-aara ko be-naqaab
Ai shauq yaaN ijaazat-e-tasleem-o-hosh hai
Gauhar ko aqd-e-gardan-e-KhoobaaN men dekhna
Kya auj par sitaara-e-gauhar-farosh hai
Deedar baada, hausla saaqi, nigaah mast
Bazm-e-khayaal maikada-e-beKharosh hai
And the maqta' :
Aate haiN Ghaib se yeh mazaameeN Khayaal men
Ghalib sareer-e-Khaama nawae sarosh hai
Afzal
rajkp...@my-dejanews.com
ahm...@noka.ub.bw wrote:
> In article <7dh884$p9b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> rajkp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <7dgqke$cl7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > the_cu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > friends,
> > > what is the difference between a 'rubaai' and a 'qataa' ?
> > > thanks in advance.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > Dear Friend:
> >
> > A rubaai, as well as, a qata' consists of 4 lines.
> >
> ...
> > However, the most vital difference between the two is in regard to the meter
> > (= wazan). The rubaai, for instance, has a UNIQUE meter, which I'll
> > illustrate here with the help of a beautiful example from Josh Malihabadi:
> >
> ...
> khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
-------------
> A qata', from what I understand, does not have to be limited to 4 lines. Any
> number of ash'aar (at least 2 or more) of a ghazal or otherwise, that are
> connected by a common theme can comprise a qata'.
>
> Jamil
-------------
Thanks, Jamil Sahib, for providing a proper definition of a qata'. I readily
grant that --- but, at the same time, I wonder why people often ask the
question: "what is the difference between a rubaa'i (which definitely has 4
lines) and a qata'. The reason for that FAQ is worth exploring.
I surmise that, while historically poets have written qata's of all lengths,
lately there has been a rather large preponderance of 4-liners. For instance,
between 1953 and 1964 I attended so many mushaa'iras in Delhi, at which many
poets (notably, Nashoor Waahidi and Naresh Kumar Shaad) recited numerous
qata's that were invariably 4-liners. In fact, Shaad's book 'QaasheN', which
consists of qata's only, has nothing but 4-liners. May be, not only I but
others too have been exposed primarily to qata's of this particular size ---
which explains why people wonder about the difference between a qata' and a
rubaa'i?
Since currently I don't have any references to guide me, will you kindly look
into the writings of modern-day poets who have writtrn qata's and see if
qata's of all sizes are still in vogue or have become a matter of the past?
In other words, would it be correct to say that, THESE DAYS, the qata's
written by Urdu poets are MOSTLY 4-liners?
aap ke jawaab ka muntazir, Raj Kumar
ahm...@noka.ub.bw
rajkp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Thanks, Jamil Sahib, for providing a proper definition of a qata'. I readily
> grant that --- but, at the same time, I wonder why people often ask the
> question: "what is the difference between a rubaa'i (which definitely has 4
> lines) and a qata'. The reason for that FAQ is worth exploring.
...
...
> Since currently I don't have any references to guide me, will you kindly look
> into the writings of modern-day poets who have writtrn qata's and see if
> qata's of all sizes are still in vogue or have become a matter of the past?
> In other words, would it be correct to say that, THESE DAYS, the qata's
> written by Urdu poets are MOSTLY 4-liners?
>
> aap ke jawaab ka muntazir, Raj Kumar
Raj Sahib, you have pointed out one of the instances where modern poets seem
to have broken with tradition and seem to be writing only 4-liner qata's. I
checked out the works of Faiz, who I knew had written many qat'aat and had
labelled them as such. His books include more than a dozen qat'aat and every
single one of them is a 4-liner. If that is anything to go by, it does seem
that modern poets have a preference for 4-line qat'aat. Similarly Jigar
Muradabadi has labelled some of his 4-liners as qata'.
One explanation of this classical vs modern difference comes to mind. In
classical poetry there was no tradition of giving a title to a poem. So when
a poet wrote a qata' such as the ones written by Ghalib and quoted by Afzal
Sahib and me, it was labelled as qata'. In modern times such a qata' would
be given a title, and we won't recognize it as a qata'. I hazard a guess
that Jigar Muraabadi's 'shikast-e-tauba': Saaqi ki har nigah peh bal kha ke
pee gaya Lehron se khelta hua lehra ke pee gaya ... would have been just
labelled qata' if it had been written in Ghalib's time.
My collection of books is woefully inadequate, so I cannot say how general
the tendency of writing 4-line qata's is. Maybe Sana Sahiba can enlighten us
about what the practice is among most of the contemporary poets.
Incidentally, Mir Taqi Mir had a preference for 6-liners, although I have come
across a qata' of his with 26 lines.
In the process of going through Faiz, counting the lines of each of his
qat'aat, I was struck by the extraordinary beauty of the following qata'. I
would like to share it with others.
In dinon rasm-o-rah-e-shehr-e-nigaaraan kia hai?
Qaasidaa, qeemat-e-gulgasht-e-bahaaraan kia hai?
koo-e-jaanaan hai keh maqtal hai keh maikhaana hai?
Aaj kal soorat-e-barbaadee-e-yaaraan kia hai?
Jamil
the_cu...@my-dejanews.com
> > what is the difference between a 'rubaai' and a 'qataa' ?
> ------------
> However, the most vital difference between the two is in regard to the meter
> (= wazan). The rubaai, for instance, has a UNIQUE meter, which I'll
> illustrate here with the help of a beautiful example from Josh Malihabadi:
>
> ghunche! tiri zindagi pe dil HILTA hai
> tu aek tabassum ke liye KHILTA hai
> ghunche ne kahaa hans ke, chaman mein baba!
> yeh aek tabassum bhi kise MILTA hai?
>
> Please note the rhyming scheme and also try to assess the meter here. Each and
> every rubaai must conform to these two features.
>
> A qata', on the other hand, is not constrained by any particular meter; in
> that regard, it enjoys the same degree of freedom as a ghazal does.
> khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
Raj Saheb and other responders,
Shukriya for all the information and beutiful examples. However, I'm still a
bit unclear about the meter that can help differentiate between a 4-liner a a
b a rubaai and 4-liner a a b a qata (may be this is very trivial for the
veterans but I'm stumped !). Is a meter simply the length (# of syllables
perhaps) of a misra or is it much more than that ? I'm certain that ALUPers
(including myself) will benefit immensely from the discussions that may
ensue.
Ever grateful and khair-andesh,
one curious ALUPer
il_...@yahoo.com
the_cu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > what is the difference between a 'rubaai' and a 'qataa' ?
> > > what are the different rhyming patterns used in a 'nazm' ?
> Shukriya for all the information and beutiful examples. However, I'm still a
> bit unclear about the meter that can help differentiate between a 4-liner a a
> b a rubaai and 4-liner a a b a qata (may be this is very trivial for the
> veterans but I'm stumped !). Is a meter simply the length (# of syllables
> perhaps) of a misra or is it much more than that ? I'm certain that ALUPers
> (including myself) will benefit immensely from the discussions that may
> ensue.
>
> Ever grateful and khair-andesh,
> one curious ALUPer
The general concensus is that a 4-liner will be a rubaa'i if
its metre is the same as the Islamic tenet
La Haul-a wa la qoowat-a illa billah
Roughly translated, this means that Allah is the Source for
all our energy, power and the capacity to do things. Of
course, its general usage in literature and films has been
more like an imprecation.
Any 4-liner where the metre is different from the above will
be a qata. Of course, a qata can have more than 4 lines, as
per the examples quoted earlier by Jamil Sahib and myself.
As is obvious from the name itself, a rubaa'i can only be
of 4 lines.
A qata can be a "stand-alone" composition or, as is the case
in traditional poetry, part of a Ghazal.
Afzal
Ashok
>
>quote a full qata' from Diwaan-e-Ghalib.
>
>Phiraa aaseema sar, ghabraa gayaa tha jee bayaabaan men
>
>but conforms to rules of rhyme and rhythm for a ghazal.
>
>Jamil
In article <7dr40q$srv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, il_...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Jamil Sahib, you are absolutely right. A qata does not
> have to be limited to just 4 lines. I would like to
> quote another qata from Ghalib jis men shair ne duniya ke
> chand-roza aish-o-aaraam ka baRa pur-asar naqsha kheencha
> hai :
>
> Ai taaza-waardaan-e-bisaat-e-hawae-dil
> Zinhaar gar tumhen hawas-e-naao-nosh hai
<snipped>
>
> Afzal
So, a qata' is a ghazal without the opening couplet and
with all couplets on the same theme?
Ashok
ahm...@noka.ub.bw
il_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The general concensus is that a 4-liner will be a rubaa'i if
> its metre is the same as the Islamic tenet
> La Haul-a wa la qoowat-a illa billah
> Roughly translated, this means that Allah is the Source for
> all our energy, power and the capacity to do things. Of
> course, its general usage in literature and films has been
> more like an imprecation.
...
> Afzal
How interesting! I would have never guessed. Is there any historical reason
for the meter of rubaa'i being what it is? One wonders why some poets (Omar
Khayyam being the most famous) used this most severely restricted form of
poetry exclusively.
Jamil
il_...@yahoo.com
It may not be proper to have rigid definitions.
Suffice it to say that a qata is a continuous
narrative in verse. In earlier days, a definitive
genre of poetry (which we refer to today as "Nazm")
was not in vogue. There were other genres such as
Qaseeda, Marsiya, Masnawi etc. Ghazal was (and,
I think, continues to be) something else. According
to the original dictionary meaning, a Ghazal was a
"guftgu" or "baat-cheet" with one's beloved. In
due course, subjects other than love were also
covered in Ghazals. But basically a very large
percentage of Ghazals comprises love poetry. Rarely,
when a poet covered the same thought or theme in more
than one sher continuously, these were referred to as
"qata-band" shers or merely as a "qata". In the
Ghalib Ghazal quoted by me ("Zulmat-kade men mere..")
the first three shers are regular "stand-alone" shers.
Then the long "qata" follows. But the two are part of
the same Ghazal.
In due course, poets started composing verses on specific
topics and these came to be known as "Nazms". Theoreti-
cally a "Nazm" just means a collection of verses and, in
that sense, the term could even be taken to include a
pure Ghazal. "Ash'aar nazm karna" or "apne Khayaalaat
nazm karna" merely meant (and even now means) "to
compose poetry" or "to versify", that would include
a Ghazal or any other genre of poetry. But during the
past 120 years or thereabouts poets and listeners/readers
have made a distinction between a Ghazal and a Nazm,
the latter being a continuous narrative on a specific
topic. Last year, at my request, some ALUPers had
posted a Nazm "Noor Jahan Ke Mazaar Par" composed,
I think, by Munshi Tilok Chand Mehroom. It may be
available in the archives. Another example would be
Shams-ul-Ulama Maulvi Mohammed Husain Azad's Nazm
on "Qila-e-Akbarabad". Allama Iqbal's "Saare Jahan
se achha..." is also a Nazm. Its original title is
"Taraana-e-Hindi" (Hindi here is used in the possessive
sense, "of Hind" or "Indian"). It can be translated
in English as "The Indian Anthem". Even when it is
set to music and sung as a song, it does not become a
Ghazal, as was mentioned in a post in another
Newsgroup. The difference between a Qata and a Rubaa'i
and the specific metre of the Rubaa'i have already been
commented upon in my earlier posts.
In recent decades, it has become customary for poets
reciting their verses in Mushaira to precede their
main presentation (a Ghazal) by a rubaa'i or qata.
Although most poets have composed some rubaai's, a few
have specialised in this genre of poetry; the name of
the late Amjad Hyderabadi comes to mind in this regard.
To summarize :
a) A qata can be of 4 lines or more but it should be on
a continuing theme.
b) A 4-liner on a continuing theme and conforming to the
metre of "La Haul-a wa la qoowat-a illa billah"
is known as a rubaa'i, otherwise it is a qata.
c) A qata can be part of a Ghazal or it can be a separate
"stand-alone" Nazm.
Afzal
Parul Trivedi
il_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >Jamil
> Afzal
>
> > Ashok
>
>
> b) A 4-liner on a continuing theme and conforming to the
> metre of
> is known as a rubaa'i, otherwise it is a qata.
>
Afzal shaib, Jamil shaib, Raj shaib, Ashok Shaib (and ofcourse all other
alupers):l
There are about 24 or 26 different meters of Rubai. The one mentioned ""La
Haul-a wa la qoowat-a illa billah" is one of them. The form is " LLS SLLS
SLLLL" (s=short vowel, L=Long Vowel).
The Rubai mentioned by Raj shaib:
ghunche! tiri zindagi pe dil HILTA hai
tu aek tabassum ke liye KHILTA hai
ghunche ne kahaa hans ke, chaman mein baba!
yeh aek tabassum bhi kise MILTA hai?
The first line is "LLS SLSL SLLLL"
The second is in the same meter as "La Haul-a wa la qoowat-a illa billah"
The third is like the first one.
The last is like " La Haul-a wa la qoowat-a illa billah".
In this one two rubai meters are used. Somehow urdu poets have taken the
liberty of compsing the four lines of rubais in different rubai meters. As
Jamil shaib has mentioned the name of (OmarKhayyam ) and it would be
interesting to see some of his work. Did his rubai (all the four line consist
of the same meter?) I have no knowledge of Persian so am very helpless in
this matter.
Second example is from Firaq
Ras ke aawaz hai ki amrut ke phovar
ye roop ki pyaar ke ho jaisa chumkar
ye looch ye dhaj ye muskurahat ye nigha
ye mauj-nafas-ki sasn leti hai bhar
The first is in the form " LLL LSL SLLS SLS"
The second "LLS SLSL SLLL LS"
The third and fourth are same at second.
One interesting think happens with this type of composition is that using
different meter s"chumkar" (LLS) goes with "bhar" and "phovar". (SLS). This
would not be possible in a Ghazal.
Finally can four lines be composed in other than rubai meters and called
rubai? None other than Iqbal said it could be composed in other than the
meters fixed for rubai.
I do not have an opinion in this regard. Does anyone?
Amit
Padmanabhan Srinagesh
> SNIP
> In this one two rubai meters are used. Somehow urdu poets have taken the
> liberty of compsing the four lines of rubais in different rubai meters. As
> Jamil shaib has mentioned the name of (OmarKhayyam ) and it would be
> interesting to see some of his work. Did his rubai (all the four line consist
> of the same meter?) I have no knowledge of Persian so am very helpless in
> this matter.
>
>
This has been a most enlightening thread. Here is another qata by Faiz.
Dhalti hai mauj-e-mai ki tarah raat in dinon
Khilti hai subah-e-gul ki tarah rang-o-bu se pur
Veeran hai jaam. paas karo kuchh bahaar ka
Dil aarzoo se pur karo, aankhein lahu se pur
The translation by Shiv Kumar begins:
These days the night ebbs, like the wine's wave receding
I believe that mauj can be used both for wave and for pleasure. Shiv
Kumar has chosen to interpret mauj as wave. Does anyone think that the
alternative (mauj = enjoyment) makes more sense?
As for Khayyam, I believe Jamil Sahib has a few rubaiyat, and may be
bale to transliterate some for us. I'll try to butcher one:
Na kardeh gunah dar jahan keest baghair
Aankis (?) keh gunah nakardeh chun zeest baghair
Man bad kunim wa tu bad mukafaat (?) dahee
Pas farq mian man was tu cheest baghair
And a translation from Sayyid Mahmood's book:
Say, who has lived in the world without sinning?
Tell me how anyone lived (at all) who did not sin?
I did wrong and in retribution you did the same.
So tell me, what is the difference between you and me?
Nagesh
rajkp...@my-dejanews.com
the_cu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > what is the difference between a 'rubaai' and a 'qataa' ?
> > > what are the different rhyming patterns used in a 'nazm' ?
>
>
> > However, the most vital difference between the two is in regard to the meter
> > (= wazan). The rubaai, for instance, has a UNIQUE meter, which I'll
> > illustrate here with the help of a beautiful example from Josh Malihabadi:
> >
> > tu aek tabassum ke liye KHILTA hai
> > ghunche ne kahaa hans ke, chaman mein baba!
> > yeh aek tabassum bhi kise MILTA hai?
> >
and
> > every rubaai must conform to these two features.
-------------
> Raj Saheb and other responders,
>
> Shukriya for all the information and beautiful examples. However, I'm still a
> bit unclear about the meter that can help differentiate between a 4-liner a a
> b a rubaai and a 4-liner a a b a qata (may be this is very trivial for the
> veterans but I'm stumped !). Is a meter simply the length (# of syllables
> perhaps) of a misra or is it much more than that ? I'm certain that ALUPers
> (including myself) will benefit immensely from the discussions that may
> ensue.
>
> Ever grateful and khair-andesh,
> one curious ALUPer
-------------
Dear Friend:
Your continued uneasiness on this question is quite understandable. A full
comprehension of the "metrical" aspect of poetic composition is, by no means,
easy. It comes only with careful learning and with diligent practice; of
course, it comes easier to some than to others. Nevertheless, I do hope that
the various posts on ALUP, that have been spurred by your querry, are proving
helpful to you.
By now it must be clear that the confusion between a rubaa'i and a qata'
arises only when
(i) the qata' is a 4-liner (as seems to be the dominant trend with the
present-day poets),
(ii) its rhyming scheme is a a b a, and
(iii) its meter is (uncomfortably) close to that of a rubaa'i.
If conditions (i) and (ii) are met, then the distinction between a rubaa'i
and a qata' hinges on the meter alone! And if the meter of the given 4-liner
differs considerably from that of a rubaa'i, then there should obviously be
no confusion at all.
Now, as regards the meter, it consists of a juxtaposition of long and short
syllables arranged, for every given meter, in a WELL-DEFINED order. To assess
it, one may follow the technical route (along the lines suggested by Amit
Sahib or along other such lines) --- a route I myself have never followed ---
or else do so by 'humming' the lines to oneself --- a route most
practitioners of the art follow. With practice, it ceases to be a matter as
difficult as it seems to be in the beginning. But it is NOT trivial by any
means. Let me give you a rather urprising example.
Everyone knows of the Persian poet Omar Khayyaam, the most famous name in the
composition of rubaa'is. His works have been translated into many languages,
including Urdu. In Pakistan, at the persuation of Dr. Mohammad Din Taaseer,
this arduous task was carried out by the noted poet Abdul Hameed Adam. Now
you would expect that the translations of Persian rubaa'is into Urdu would
also be rubaa'is. But, lo and behold, most of Adam's translations are QATA'S,
not rubaa'is...... for, while they do obey conditions (i) and (ii) mentioned
above, their meter is NOT that of a rubaa'i. Here is an example from Adam:
khaatir-e-be-taPAAK le ke chale
daaman-e-chaak-CHAAK le ke chale
tere baazaar mein tire gaahak
sona laaye the, KHAAK le ke chale
A pretty good translation but, comparing with the rubaa'i (by Josh) as quoted
above, you can readily see that the meter here is quite different.
Please note that this is not a criticism of Adam; it is just an illustration
of the fact that, on almost every page of his book that I have at home in
Canada, you find a rubaa'i by Khayyaam followed by a qata' by Adam ---- a
fact that originally astounded me!
In any case, the fact remains that the distinction between a rubaa'i and a
qata' does finally hinge upon the meter, an appreciation of which requires
some practice.
khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
rajkp...@my-dejanews.com
nr...@pacbell.net wrote:
> This has been a most enlightening thread. Here is another qata' by Faiz:
>
> Dhalti hai mauj-e-mai ki tarah raat in dinon
> Khilti hai subah-e-gul ki tarah rang-o-bu se pur
> Veeran hai jaam, paas karo kuchh bahaar ka
> Dil aarzoo se pur karo, aankhein lahu se pur
>
> The translation by Shiv Kumar begins:
>
> These days the night ebbs, like the wine's wave receding
>
> I believe that mauj can be used both for wave and for pleasure. Shiv
> Kumar has chosen to interpret mauj as wave. Does anyone think that the
> alternative (mauj = enjoyment) makes more sense?
---------------------
An interesting question, Nagesh Sahib. I am afraid, however, that the answer
--- on purely technical grounds --- happens to be in the negative.
The word mauj, meaning wave, comes from Persian, while the word mauj, meaning
fun, pleasure, enjoyment, ... comes from Hindi. You know, a fun-loving person
is said to be man-mauji --- an obviously Hindi word-combination.
Now, the term mauj-e-mai appearing in this qata' is a 'murakkab-e-izaafi'
that results from the application of an 'izaafat' between the words mauj and
mai. According to the rules of grammar, you CANNOT apply an 'izaafat' between
a Hindi word and a Persian word. That rules out the option your query
entails.
I must, however, say that the translation of this qata' at the hands of Shiv
Kumar seems to start out rather well. Would you kindly post his translation in
full? Thanks.
il_...@yahoo.com
> This has been a most enlightening thread. Here is another qata by Faiz.
>
> Dhalti hai mauj-e-mai ki tarah raat in dinon
> Khilti hai subah-e-gul ki tarah rang-o-bu se pur
> Veeran hai jaam. paas karo kuchh bahaar ka
> Dil aarzoo se pur karo, aankhein lahu se pur
>
> The translation by Shiv Kumar begins:
>
> These days the night ebbs, like the wine's wave receding
>
> I believe that mauj can be used both for wave and for pleasure. Shiv
> Kumar has chosen to interpret mauj as wave. Does anyone think that the
> alternative (mauj = enjoyment) makes more sense?
No. Mauj in the sense of fun or enjoyment is a hindi word
e.g. mauj-masti. It cannot be combined with Mai (sharaab)
which is a Persian word. Secondly, the misra itself suggests
that "mauj" here is used in the sense of "wave". When wine
is poured in a goblet, bubbles rise up, which are comparable
to a wave. (In colloquial English, wine is sometimes referred
to as "bubbly"). And then the liquor settles, the bubbles
disappearing, much like the ebb of a wave. The poet is
comparing the passing of the night to the ebb of the wine-
wave ("mauj"). The word "dhalti" refers to the passing of
the night. I do not know if you are interested in film music.
In an old film "Kohra", there was a song : "Jhoom jhoom dhalti
raat".
In the second misra, I think there is no "izaafat"
between "subha" and "gul". The meaning becomes clearer if
the two words are separated by a pause or comma :
Khilti hai sub'ha, gul ki tarah rang-o-bu se pur
Amongst modern poets, I think Faiz ranks supreme in his
choice of felicitous diction.
Afzal
> Nagesh
Parul Trivedi
phela misra mein husna ka khat-e-jabin
aur dusare mein lato ki taziin
chautha ho nikalta huwa yun tesare se
jaisa bhegi mashen ho abru se hasin............Firaq
The first line should reflect the beauty's perfect brow
The second portray the sabel locks aglow
Ther fourth form the third should thus seem to flow
As the greening upper lip form the arched eye brow.
Amit
Pakchap
<tri...@facstaff.wisc.edu> writes:
This is exactly how I was taught the difference between Qita and Rubaii.
Besides the restriction of a specific meter, the subject in a Rubaii is
supposed to flow from first misra ,ending with the fourth misra being the main
message.
Ibne Saeed.
Padmanabhan Srinagesh
Thanks for the comments! You certainly added to my understanding of the
verse.
Nagesh
Nagesh
Ashok
>> This has been a most enlightening thread. Here is another qata by Faiz.
>>
>> Dhalti hai mauj-e-mai ki tarah raat in dinon
>> Khilti hai subah-e-gul ki tarah rang-o-bu se pur
>> Veeran hai jaam. paas karo kuchh bahaar ka
>> Dil aarzoo se pur karo, aankhein lahu se pur
>>
>> The translation by Shiv Kumar begins:
>>
>> These days the night ebbs, like the wine's wave receding
>>
>> I believe that mauj can be used both for wave and for pleasure. Shiv
>> Kumar has chosen to interpret mauj as wave. Does anyone think that the
>> alternative (mauj = enjoyment) makes more sense?
Afzal replied:
> No. Mauj in the sense of fun or enjoyment is a hindi word
> e.g. mauj-masti. It cannot be combined with Mai (sharaab)
> which is a Persian word.
> Afzal
Earlier, Rajkumar had said:
>An interesting question, Nagesh Sahib. I am afraid, however, that the answer
>--- on purely technical grounds --- happens to be in the negative.
>
>The word mauj, meaning wave, comes from Persian, while the word mauj, meaning
>fun, pleasure, enjoyment, ... comes from Hindi. You know, a fun-loving person
>is said to be man-mauji --- an obviously Hindi word-combination.
>
>Now, the term mauj-e-mai appearing in this qata' is a 'murakkab-e-izaafi'
>that results from the application of an 'izaafat' between the words mauj and
>mai. According to the rules of grammar, you CANNOT apply an 'izaafat' between
>a Hindi word and a Persian word. That rules out the option your query
>entails.
So, what was Iqbal up to when he wrote "aab-e-rood-e-gangaa"?
I am trying to get clarity regarding the nature of the "rule". Is
it a rule of Persian grammar? Or Urdu grammar? Or a dictum about
Persian usage? Or Urdu usage? Or rules/conventions of Persian poetry?
Or Urdu poetry? Or just a case of frequency of usage become a
de facto convention?
What exactly does the rule say? That Persian and non-Persian words
ought not to be combined with an izaafat? Or just that Persian and
Hindi words cannot be combined? Since many Persian-sourced words
are part of Hindi, I suppose something narrower is meant by Hindi.
Let us see, some Hindi words are 'deshi' (native); others come from
a variety of lanugages: Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, other
(Tamil, English and so on). So, which words cannot be involved in an
izaafat? Can Arabic and Turkish words be so-used? If so, what is
the rationale? After all, Sanskrit is very close to Persian
lingustically, while Arabic and Turkish are not.
I am curious about the derivation of couple of phreases. One is
"jaan-e-man"? Is "man" Persian? What does it mean?
I think it was "Aah" Sitapuri who used "naam-e-vafaa" in a song
from a film ('Pehli Nazar': "dil jaltaa hai to jalne de"). I
suppose it falls under the rule if "naam" is Persian? Is it?
Even if it is, I find "naam", taken as a Sanskrit word, euphonious,
returning me the question of rationales.
Regarding "mauj" to mean "wave", is it really Persian? The
Oxford Hindi dictionary says that it is Arabic.
Regarding "mauj" to mean "pleasure", is it really "Hindi" in
the sense of desi/Sanskrit? Again, from the same dictionary,
I get the sense that it is nearly the same word as "wave"!
(a "surge" of ecstasy/feeling/pleasure).
Ashok
Ali Minai
Ashok <ADhar...@WorldBank.Org> wrote:
>
>Afzal replied:
>
>> No. Mauj in the sense of fun or enjoyment is a hindi word
>> e.g. mauj-masti. It cannot be combined with Mai (sharaab)
>> which is a Persian word.
>
>> Afzal
>
>
>Earlier, Rajkumar had said:
>
>
>>An interesting question, Nagesh Sahib. I am afraid, however, that the answer
>>--- on purely technical grounds --- happens to be in the negative.
>>
>>The word mauj, meaning wave, comes from Persian, while the word mauj, meaning
>>fun, pleasure, enjoyment, ... comes from Hindi. You know, a fun-loving person
>>is said to be man-mauji --- an obviously Hindi word-combination.
>>
>>Now, the term mauj-e-mai appearing in this qata' is a 'murakkab-e-izaafi'
>>that results from the application of an 'izaafat' between the words mauj and
>>mai. According to the rules of grammar, you CANNOT apply an 'izaafat' between
>>a Hindi word and a Persian word. That rules out the option your query
>>entails.
>
>
>So, what was Iqbal up to when he wrote "aab-e-rood-e-gangaa"?
The rule is indeed correct, but does not apply to proper nouns.
``Ganga'' is not considered a Hindi word, but a name. In any case,
though I do not agree with this attitude, purists would not consider
Iqbal's usage or diction authoritative. In this instance, he is correct.
>
>I am trying to get clarity regarding the nature of the "rule". Is
>it a rule of Persian grammar? Or Urdu grammar? Or a dictum about
>Persian usage? Or Urdu usage? Or rules/conventions of Persian poetry?
>Or Urdu poetry? Or just a case of frequency of usage become a
>de facto convention?
The rule is that words of Hindi origin (i.e., those not imported
from Persian) cannot be used in compounds made with Persian rules
--- not just izAfat but also compounds such as Xdar, XAgIN, etc.
It is a de facto convention which is usually not broken. There are
a few exceptions which have gained common usage, but are frowned
upon by serious speakers (e.g., CHamakdAr, bhaRakdAr, lab-e saRak).
The convention simply developed as part of classical Urdu, probably
because the classical masters all knew Persan very well and found
the combination of Persian and Hindi words ``GharIb'' (weird). Also,
their models were the old Persian masters, and they were reluctant
to create new usages.
>
>What exactly does the rule say? That Persian and non-Persian words
>ought not to be combined with an izaafat? Or just that Persian and
>Hindi words cannot be combined? Since many Persian-sourced words
>are part of Hindi, I suppose something narrower is meant by Hindi.
>
>Let us see, some Hindi words are 'deshi' (native); others come from
>a variety of lanugages: Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, other
>(Tamil, English and so on). So, which words cannot be involved in an
>izaafat? Can Arabic and Turkish words be so-used? If so, what is
>the rationale? After all, Sanskrit is very close to Persian
>lingustically, while Arabic and Turkish are not.
The decision of which words are considered Hindi is made by compilers
of dictionaries (or linguists) and those who use these dictionaries.
Usually, the criterion is not whether the word is found in Hindi,
but whether it is *not* found in Persian. If it is not, it cannot
be used in a `tarkIb'.
Arabic and Turkish words can be used in Persian combination because
of the implicit assumption (largely true) that they entered
the Urdu lexicon through Persian (and with Persian pronunciation).
The Iranians, when they borrowed Arabic or Turkish words, had no
hesitation in Persianizing them and using them in compounds. That
simply carried over into Urdu. It is important to remember that,
while spoken Urdu (and Hindi) evolved from the native languages
of Northern India (pUrbI, braj-bhASHA, etc.), literary Urdu evolved
strictly in emulation of literary Persian. The primary goal of the
classical Urdu masters --- Muslim and Hindu --- was to produce a
body of work that matched Persian not only in content but also in
tone, form, and diction. Interestingly, the very early classical
Urdu poets (Quli Qutb Shah, Vali, Siraj, et al.) were relatively
free of these constraints, and derived their rules partially from
their native Dakani tradition. Once Urdu was adopted as a literary
medium by North Indian writers, though, it was ``re-civilized''
--- so to speak --- by eliminating what the Persianized writers
considered vernacular --- and therefore vulgar --- influences.
Ironically, what makes Urdu popular today in India is its Persianized
aspect, which is considered romantic and sophisticated --- mainly
due to its association with the courts of Delhi and Lucknow.
>
>I am curious about the derivation of couple of phreases. One is
>"jaan-e-man"? Is "man" Persian? What does it mean?
Yes, `man' is Persian. It means `my', so `jAn-e man' means, `my soul'
or `my love'. Nevertheless, I doubt if many serious poets or writers have
used this phrase except in a humorous context.
>
>I think it was "Aah" Sitapuri who used "naam-e-vafaa" in a song
>from a film ('Pehli Nazar': "dil jaltaa hai to jalne de"). I
>suppose it falls under the rule if "naam" is Persian? Is it?
>Even if it is, I find "naam", taken as a Sanskrit word, euphonious,
>returning me the question of rationales.
`nAm' is indeed Persian. Like I said, the rule is that, if a word
is found in Persian (Iranian Persian, not Indian Persian vernacular),
it can be used in a compound. It does not matter if the same word occurs
in Sanskrit or Hindi too --- whether by origin or borrowing.
>
>Regarding "mauj" to mean "wave", is it really Persian? The
>Oxford Hindi dictionary says that it is Arabic.
Yes, it is Arabic, with the plural `amwAj'. However, it is freely
used in Persian, so it is fine in Persian compounds like `maoj-e sabA'
and `maoj-e nasIm'.
>
>Regarding "mauj" to mean "pleasure", is it really "Hindi" in
>the sense of desi/Sanskrit? Again, from the same dictionary,
>I get the sense that it is nearly the same word as "wave"!
>(a "surge" of ecstasy/feeling/pleasure).
It is the same word. Since the word is originally Arabic (which is
not an Indo-European language), it was not a native Hindi or Persian
word. However, when used in a Persian compound, it can only be used
in the meaning it has in Persian. The use of `maoj' as in `maoj manAna'
or `maoj karnA' is purely Hindi usage, and its use in a compound would
give the poet away as a `nao-maSHq' (novice).
I should say that all these conventions are becoming increasingly
less important, and people are experimenting with new forms and rules.
These old rules come from a time when masters such as Ghalib and Mir
looked to classical Persian masters (the `asAtiza') as authorities.
Now, even accomplished poets have never read a line of Hafiz or
Firdousi, and are less constrained by their model.
Ali Minai
---------------------------------------------------------------------
pUCHhe jo kOi, `rEKHtA kyUNke ho raSHk-e fArsI?'
gufta-e GHAlib Ek bAr paRh ke usE sunA ke yUN! Ghalib
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ali Minai
Ashok
Thanks for the extremely thorough and thoughtful discussion.
Ashok
Ahmadj
usually post through dejanews, whenever it's working, and the subject
line gets included automatically. Apparently that's not the case with
Talkway.
Jamil
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
Parul Trivedi
Ashok wrote:
I second it and also want to thank Jamil shaib for the explaination.
Amit
the_cu...@my-dejanews.com
interesting and tremendously informative discussions that I feel
very enlightened. Thanks to all.
- one too curious to stop learning
Ashok
Amit,
I don't see Jamil's rsponse. :(
Ashok
Naseer
> In article <3704EC...@pacbell.net>,
> nr...@pacbell.net wrote:
> > Dhalti hai mauj-e-mai ki tarah raat in dinon
> > Khilti hai subah-e-gul ki tarah rang-o-bu se pur
> >
> > The translation by Shiv Kumar begins:
> >
> > These days the night ebbs, like the wine's wave receding
> >
> > I believe that mauj can be used both for wave and for pleasure. Shiv
> > Kumar has chosen to interpret mauj as wave. Does anyone think that the
> > alternative (mauj = enjoyment) makes more sense?
> --- on purely technical grounds --- happens to be in the negative.
> The word mauj, meaning wave, comes from Persian, while the word mauj, meaning
> fun, pleasure, enjoyment, ... comes from Hindi. You know, a fun-loving person
> is said to be man-mauji --- an obviously Hindi word-combination.
> Now, the term mauj-e-mai appearing in this qata' is a 'murakkab-e-izaafi'
> that results from the application of an 'izaafat' between the words mauj and
> mai. According to the rules of grammar, you CANNOT apply an 'izaafat' between
> a Hindi word and a Persian word. That rules out the option your query
> entails.
> Kumar seems to start out rather well. Would you kindly post his translation in
> full? Thanks.
> khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
muHtaram Raj Kumar SaaHib, aadaab
Just a couple of corrections, if you would permit me....
a) The word "mauj" is of Arabic origins and not Persian, its plural being "amvaaj"
b) There is no "Hindi" word "mauj" that I am aware of. Can you provide any reference to this at all? In "man-maujii", the word "maujii" is still linked to the Arabic "mauj" (wave). I suppose when we Punjabis are experiencing "mojaaN ii mojaaN"*, we must be having a great time on the crest of a wave. In other words, we are "on a high"!:-)
* I don't pronounce this as "maujaaN ii maujaaN".
Naseer
Nagesh
The word "mauj" does not appear in Apte's Sanskrit dictionary. In addition, Platt's gives one of the meanings of the Arabic word mauj as ecstasy. I did not know this when the original thread was posted, but I did look it up this time.
Regards,
Nagesh
Naseer
> In article <7ejl6k$i...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> Ashok <ADhar...@WorldBank.Org> wrote:
> >I am curious about the derivation of couple of phreases. One is
> >"jaan-e-man"? Is "man" Persian? What does it mean?
> Yes, `man' is Persian. It means `my', so `jAn-e man' means, `my soul'
> or `my love'. Nevertheless, I doubt if many serious poets or writers have
> used this phrase except in a humorous context.
> >
>
ham bhii ai jaan-i-man itne to nahiiN naakaarah
kabhii kuchh kaam to ham ko bhii tuu farmaayaa kar
Mushafi Ghulam Hamadani
Naseer