"saMbhal" vs "saNbhal"
Zoya
ek savaal le kar haazir huii huuN. maiN Roman meiN hameshaa lafz
"saMbhal" hii likhtii aayii huuN, kyuNk maiN ne hameshaa is ko Hindi
meiN "sa-m-bhal" hii sunaa hai.
ab mere ek senior Urdu speaking dost ne mujh se kahaa hai k yeh ghalat
hai, aur mujhe "saNbhal" likhnaa chaahiye, voh kehte haiN k ise
"sa-n-bhal" hii bolte haiN!
Now, I am confused. I told him that I will raise this question on Alup,
and go with the verdict of my Alup friends/ustaads. Once again, let me
stress that I am coming from the spoken version of the word, not how it
is written in Urdu script.
I am very curious about what all of you have to say about this. Please
let me know what you think, this issue is really going to bug me until
you help me settle it, one way or the other!
Thank you! :)
____________Zoya
Naseer
Zoya bahin, aadaab-o-tasliimaat,
I am writing to you neither as an ustaad (which I am not) nor as a
friend (which I am really) but as Naseer bhaaii!
I know you are not talking about the written word but I will start
contrary to your wishes. What's different, you may ask!
In both Hindi and Urdu scripts, the word is written...
s+a+N+bh+aa+l...ao there is no difference in the way the word is
written.
Now to the pronunciation...I had to think about this one and attempted
to pronounce the word taking into account this spelling. I believe one
can, in very careful speech, avoid uttering the "miim" sound, although
there appears to be an inclination towards it. The reason for this will
already be known to you. When one gets a combination of n+b sounds, one
ends up with a "miim" sound. An example of this is the word
"junbish"... as in..
go haath ko junbish nahiiN aaNkhoN meN to dam hai
rahne do abhii saaGhar-o-miinaa mere aage...Ghalib
So, in summary...your friend is right! You write it with an "m" because
it sounds as if the spelling is " s+a+m+bh+aa+l but in very careful
speech, it is possible to nasalise the "a" after "s" and combine it
with "bh" without producing"miim"...but who has the time for this sort
of accuracy these days?
du'aa-go,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
I think the question really was how to transcribe this word in Roman
English. One way would be to write it as "saNbhal". Just my
opinion.
Afzal
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan wrote:
> I think the question really was how to transcribe this word in Roman
> English. One way would be to write it as "saNbhal". Just my
> opinion.
>
>
> Afzal
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, KHush aamaded!
In school, our teachers insisted that we pay attention to the question
in hand and then write the answer. It appears I have not paid heed to
my teachers! Not only did I get the question wrong, but I have also
been writing "saNbhaal" instead of "saNbhal". But this should not make
any difference to my argument.
Yes, I would concur with you and say that Zoya Sahiba should write
"SaNbhal".
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Zoya
itnii jaldii aur itnii tafsiil se javaab dene ke liye bahut shukriyah!
baat ab taqriiban saaf ho gayii hai. So, it is "n+b" combination that
sounds like "m" ! This kind of explanation is exactly what I needed to
hear. In fact, in the past, I have paused over 'jumbish/junbish' too.
This is another excellent example of the exact same situation.
So, from now on I will try to type "sanbhal", though I really want to
stay with "sambhal"! That comes more naturally to me and still seems
more appealing to my logical / illogical sense!! :)
Thanks again! :) :).
___________Zoya
P.S. You do have all the right qaulifications to be an 'ustaad', so if
I get really desperate ........!!!!!!! :) :)
Naseer
Zoya Sahiba, aadaab 'arz hai!
aap ne likhaa hai "baat ab taqriiban saaf ho gayii hai". This implies
that the matter is not completely clear yet (?)
You also say.."So, from now on I will try to type "sanbhal", though I
really want to
stay with "sambhal"!
For the word in question, we don't have the full "n" but a nasal "n".
So, you should, if you are being really accurate, write "saNbhal" and
not "sanbhal" as you have threatened to do!
For words which have "n+b" combination, both my Urdu and Hindi
dictionary writers transliterate this combination with an "m". So, you
can write these with an "m" without any hesitation!
Following are some of the main words where we have "n+b" combination
URDU/HINDI
anbaar (heap/store)
tanbuu (tent)
tanbuuraa (tambourine)
tanbiih (warning)
chanbelii (jasmine)
chanbar (disk)
zanbuur (wasp)
sunbul( hyacinth)
shanbah (Saturday)
'anbar (ambergris)
kunbah (family)
gunbad (dome)
minbar (pulpit)
Just to add to your confusion, it is not just "n+b" which ends in "m"
but "n+p" also. Infact "n" + "p", "ph", "b", "bh" would result in an
"m" sound . If you look at your Hindi alphabet "chart", you will see
that each group of consonants has it's own nasal consonant. "p", "ph",
"b", "bh" has "m" attached to the group. So, I would say, this is the
reason why a nasal consonant preceding this group of consonants ends up
as an "m".
I think, one could pronounce all the above type of words with an "n" in
careful speech but it is much easier to go for the "m"! Just one more
bit of information for you and anyone else who may be interested. When
one learns to recite the Qur'aan, one comes across "n+b" combination
quite often. For example..
min ba'di (ba'd se). To remind the reader that this should be
pronounced as "mim_ba'di", a little "miim" is written on top of the
"nuun" of "min".
Finally, before anyone corrects the Ghalib shi'r I quoted in my initial
posting, the word "mere" should have been "mire".
KHair-Khwaah,
Naseer
Zoya
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Naseer bhaaii!!
I thought I almost had it, now you are confusing me again!!!
I'll have to read your latest post a few times, absosb it, and then
respond again.
And yes, earlier I meant that I'll make the switch to 'saNbhal', with
the usual nuun-e-ghunaa sound.
I'll be back, what really got me just now is 'taNbuu (tent), it has
always been 'taMbuu' for me!!!!!!!
I'll be back! :)
___________Zoya
Naseer
Zoya bahin, aadaab!
Please do not get stressed out for nothing. All the words in the list I
have given have proper "nuun" written in them but they are pronounced
if they had an "m". Get it?
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Amit Malhotra
Naseer sahib, your post was most excellent in explanation... and don't
get me wrong, I do understand what you are saying, but with regards to
the original word of query "saNbhal"... i have seen it written in hindi
with "aadha ma" ... is that spelling of the word in Hindi wrong?
TIA,
Amit Malhotra
Naseer
Amit Malhotra wrote:
>
> Naseer sahib, your post was most excellent in explanation... and don't
> get me wrong, I do understand what you are saying, but with regards to
> the original word of query "saNbhal"... i have seen it written in hindi
> with "aadha ma" ... is that spelling of the word in Hindi wrong?
>
> TIA,
>
> Amit Malhotra
janaab-i-Amit Malhotra Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
Thank you very much indeed for your kind words. I am no expert on Hindi
orthography (or any other subject for that matter) but I checked the
words "saNbhalnaa", "saNbhaalnaa" in an Urdu/English dictionary
(Kitaabistaan's 20th Century Urdu/English Dictionary by Bashiir Ahmad
Qureshi) and "The Oxford Hindi/English Dictionary by R.S. McGregor".
Both spell these words with a nasal nuun (nuun-i-Ghunnah and
chandra-binduu respectively).
So, the spelling with a "half ma" would be a variation on the theme and
I would say, strictly speaking inaccurate.
Technically speaking, the chandra-binduu should be used for all vowel
nasalisation and the anusvaara is a convenient device to accomodate the
nasal consonants as used in the words "rang", "panjaab" "anDaa",
"hindii" and "lambaa".
Best Wishes,
Naseer
Amit Malhotra
Shukriya Naseer sahib :)
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Sushil Sharma
> Amit Malhotra wrote:
> >
> > Naseer sahib, your post was most excellent in explanation... and don't
> > get me wrong, I do understand what you are saying, but with regards to
> > the original word of query "saNbhal"... i have seen it written in hindi
> > with "aadha ma" ... is that spelling of the word in Hindi wrong?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Amit Malhotra
>
> janaab-i-Amit Malhotra Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
>
> Thank you very much indeed for your kind words. I am no expert on Hindi
> orthography (or any other subject for that matter) but I checked the
> words "saNbhalnaa", "saNbhaalnaa" in an Urdu/English dictionary
> (Kitaabistaan's 20th Century Urdu/English Dictionary by Bashiir Ahmad
> Qureshi) and "The Oxford Hindi/English Dictionary by R.S. McGregor".
> Both spell these words with a nasal nuun (nuun-i-Ghunnah and
> chandra-binduu respectively).
>
> So, the spelling with a "half ma" would be a variation on the theme and
> I would say, strictly speaking inaccurate.
Naseer saahib,
Hindi gets sambhalnaa, sambhaalnaa from Sanskrit "sa.mbhR^i" (which is
fomed by adding the sam.h [I am using the ITRANS convention .h to
indicate vowel-less ending, which is indicated by the "viraam" notation
in Devanaagarii Sanskrit, also called a "halanta"] to the root bhR^i),
and "sa.mbhaara". In Sanskrit, the anuswaar is pronounced (and also
written) as half of the nasal of the consonant varga to which the
letter following the anuswaar belongs. Thus, sam.h+giita (music) can be
written in Devanagari as sa.mgiita (i.e. with a dot on sa) or as
sa~Ngeeta (i.e. sa without a dot + {joint legature for ~N-g} + ii
maatraa + ta), with the latter being more technically correct as it
reflects the correct pronunciation. Similarly, sam.h+taapa = sa.ntaapa
or santaapa, sam.h+bandha = sa.mbandha or sambandha etc. Just like
sambandha is NEVER to be pronounced sanbandh, sambhaara should NEVER be
prounced sanbhaar. Due to the Sanskrit provenance of sambhal,
sambhaalanaa etc, the correct pronunciation of these words IS with the
m sound, not with the n sound, after sa. As far as I know, most of the
occurrences of vowel nasalization (chandrabindu) in Hindi, are for the
words that show a marked change as they evolved from Sanskrit (tadbhava
form) and acquire nasalization where none was there in the original
Sanskrit (tatsam) form (e.g. Skt chaayaa, Hindi chaa.Nha, or Skt
kamala, Hindi ka.Nwal, Skt shyaamala, Hindi saa.Nwaraa - note that
vowel nasalization is accompanied with significant change in the
following consonant sound, in Hindi, as compared to the Sanskrit form)
or for the words that have no direct equivalents in Sanskrit (deshaj
words) such as saa.Nya-saa.Nya etc, not for words that are inherited in
Hindi without much change in the original Sanskrit form (such as
sambhaar/sambhaal)
To conclude, as far as my knowledge goes, sambhal/sambhalnaa are to be
spelt (in Hindi Devanagarii), either with anuswaara (dot on sa) or with
sa+aadhaa-ma+bha...(with the latter being technically more accurate and
reflective of correct pronunciation), and the pronunciation should
always be with the m sound, not with n sound. I have never seen
sambla/sambhalnaa being written with a chandrabindu on sa or being
pronounced with any n sound or vowel nasalization with sa, in any
reliable Hindi work.
My knowledge of the Urdu orthography is nothing to write home about, so
I have no comment about how it is (or is to be) written in Urdu script.
However, sambhal being a Sanskrit origin word, I would guess it is to
be prounced and written in Urdu, the same way as in Hindi.
> Technically speaking, the chandra-binduu should be used for all vowel
> nasalisation and the anusvaara is a convenient device to accomodate the
> nasal consonants as used in the words "rang", "panjaab" "anDaa",
> "hindii" and "lambaa".
All the the example words you mentioned above, could be written either
with anuswaara or with conjunct consonant forms using the nasal of the
consonand varga of the letter following the anuswaara (ra~Nga,
pa~njaab, aNDaa, ...), with the latter being technically more accurate,
reflective of true pronunciation, and preferred!
Regards,
Sushil
Naseer
janaab-i-Sushil Sharma Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
> To conclude, as far as my knowledge goes, sambhal/sambhalnaa are to be
> spelt (in Hindi Devanagarii), either with anuswaara (dot on sa) or with
> sa+aadhaa-ma+bha...(with the latter being technically more accurate and
> reflective of correct pronunciation), and the pronunciation should
> always be with the m sound, not with n sound. I have never seen
> sambla/sambhalnaa being written with a chandrabindu on sa or being
> pronounced with any n sound or vowel nasalization with sa, in any
> reliable Hindi work.
aap raNg meN bhaNg kyoN Daal rahe haiN? kyaa aap ko ma'luum nahiiN kih
Zoya Sahiba pahle hii kitnii uljhan meN paRii huii haiN? ( just
joking!)
It appears that the discussion around correct Roman transcription for
my "saNbhalna/saNbhaalnaa" and your "sambhalna/sambhaalnaa" has taken a
180 degree turn! If, before Zoya Sahiba raised the question, someone
had asked me how I would spell this word in Roman, I would have spelt
it as "saNbhalnaa". My intuition was confirmed by both Urdu and Hindi
dictionaries. Having said this, the Urdu "nuun-i-Ghunna" covers a
multitude of sins (it does the work of the chandra-binduu and the
anuswara). McGregor, being a (X) Reader in Hindi at Cambridge
University should be considered a reliable authority. On the page where
he gives "saNbhalnaa" with a chandra-binduu, there are other words
spelt with an anuswara. So, this word (along with saNbhaalnaa) has been
clearly distinguished. The point being that in this word, the author is
suggesting that it is the vowel after "s" which is being nasalised and
that is NOT "s" + the nasal consonant+bh etc...( and this would give
either a spelling with the anuswara or the more accurate nasal
consonant, the half "m" as Amit Sahib has indicated).
You would also be aware that total accuracy is not always followed in
the orthography. For example, the word "nahiiN", as it contains vowel
nasalisation, should have a chandra-binduu but more often than not,
only an anuswara is used to avoid cluttering.
It is possible that a half m is used to write this word (inaccurately
according to McGregor) because for all intent and purposes, it sounds
as if it has an "m" sound. Beyond that, we Urdu speakers have a saying
"wa_allahu a'lam" which means "God knows best"! So, the million dollar
question is ...
After the "s" in the word under discussion, is there a nasalised vowel
or a nasalised consonant?
If the answer is the former, then I along with Zoya Sahiba's friend and
Afzal Sahib are right and if the latter is the case, then Zoya Sahiba,
Amit Sahib and you are right! So, Zoya Sahiba, it appears that the jury
is still out!
> All the the example words you mentioned above, could be written either
> with anuswaara or with conjunct consonant forms using the nasal of the
> consonand varga of the letter following the anuswaara (ra~Nga,
> pa~njaab, aNDaa, ...), with the latter being technically more accurate,
> reflective of true pronunciation, and preferred!
I agree and this is what I have said.
KHair-KHwaah,
Naseer
UVR
I have a problem with accepting the argument that "sambhal" is
*the correct* spelling of this word. The reason? This seems to
insist that the correct pronunciation of the word should also be
"sambhal", identical in metric weight and length to, say, "jangal".
However, if one looks at the works of established poets (at least in
Urdu), one finds that 'samhal' (or saNbhal), identical in metric
weight and length to, say, "sakal" (or nikal) is how they have used
this word. Some examples from "modern" poets --
deedah-o-dil ko samhaalo, k sar-e-shaam "Firaaq"
saaz-o-saamaan baham pahuNchaa hai ruswaaii kaa
Here, samhaalo/saNbhaalo is ham-wazn with nikaalo.
mire badan meN khule jangaloN ki miTTi hai
mujhe saNbhaal ke rakhnaa, bikhar na jaaooN maiN
Nida Fazli also uses this word with the same weight as nikaal
baada phir baada hai, maiN zahr bhii pee jaaooN "Qateel"
shart yeh hai koi baaNhoN meN samhaale mujh ko
It appears to be the same regardless of which side of "the Border"
one owes one's linguistic allegiance to!
Things like this indicate to me that perhaps the word must be
written in Hindi with the "aspirated m-h" consonant that appears
in 'tumheeN' :) Or, if you are a different kind of pedant, with
a chandrabindu and bha (saNbhaal).
Over to Sushil and Naseer for more expert comments.
-UVR.
Naseer
janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
Thank you for providing evidenve from the prosody perspective. It seems
McGregor et al are correct in writing "saNbhal" ( I know your preferred
spelling would be samhal!). It would be an interesting exercise, UVR
Sahib, if either you or anyone else could bring samples from Hindi
poetry. We would then, perhaps, be able to see how prosody rules are
applied there.
KHair-KHwaah,
Naseer
UVR
Naseer saahib, aadaab.
I will attempt to provide examples from Hindi poetry, but
right now I am at work, so I'll just take your leave after
providing more "evidence" that appears to indicate that
there may be more to the *mh* spelling than initially
meets the eye.
Sanskrit: kumbhakaaraH (potter) -- Hindi: ku*mh*aar
Sanskrit: kumbheeraH (ghaRiyaal) -- Hindi: ku*mh*eer
Sanskrit: jR^imbhaNa (to yawn) -- Hindi: ja*mh*aanaa
So why not "sambharaNa -- samhaalnaa"? It seems
quite plausible to me.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
> Naseer wrote:
>
>>Amit Malhotra wrote:
>>
>>>Naseer sahib, your post was most excellent in explanation... and don't
>>>get me wrong, I do understand what you are saying, but with regards to
>>>the original word of query "saNbhal"... i have seen it written in hindi
>>>with "aadha ma" ... is that spelling of the word in Hindi wrong?
>>>
>>>TIA,
>>>
>>>Amit Malhotra
>>
>>janaab-i-Amit Malhotra Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
>>
>>Thank you very much indeed for your kind words. I am no expert on Hindi
>>orthography (or any other subject for that matter) but I checked the
>>words "saNbhalnaa", "saNbhaalnaa" in an Urdu/English dictionary
>>(Kitaabistaan's 20th Century Urdu/English Dictionary by Bashiir Ahmad
>>Qureshi) and "The Oxford Hindi/English Dictionary by R.S. McGregor".
>>Both spell these words with a nasal nuun (nuun-i-Ghunnah and
>>chandra-binduu respectively).
>>
>>So, the spelling with a "half ma" would be a variation on the theme and
>>I would say, strictly speaking inaccurate.
>
>
> Naseer saahib,
>
> Hindi gets sambhalnaa, sambhaalnaa from Sanskrit "sa.mbhR^i" (which is
> fomed by adding the sam.h
>
> spelt (in Hindi Devanagarii), either with anuswaara (dot on sa) or with
> sa+aadhaa-ma+bha...(with the latter being technically more accurate and
> reflective of correct pronunciation), and the pronunciation should
> always be with the m sound, not with n sound. I have never seen
> sambla/sambhalnaa being written with a chandrabindu on sa or being
> pronounced with any n sound or vowel nasalization with sa, in any
> reliable Hindi work.
>
> My knowledge of the Urdu orthography is nothing to write home about, so
> I have no comment about how it is (or is to be) written in Urdu script.
> However, sambhal being a Sanskrit origin word, I would guess it is to
> be prounced and written in Urdu, the same way as in Hindi.
> Sushil
If I read you correctly, then the word, as written in hindi
i.e. Devanagri script, can be transcribed in Roman English
as "sambhal", since ('half-ma') is used in D. script.
But you also state that it is to be pronounced AND WRITTEN in
Urdu the same way as in hindi.
That, however, does not happen to be the case. In the Urdu
script, it is always written as s+n+bh+l, not with "m".
The 'n' is not written as noon-e-GHunna. It is combined or
linked with "bh" (i.e. do~chashmee he) and a dot is always
put over it. The word no doubt is pronounced with the "m"
sound.
You must of course be aware that "Sambhal" (where the two parts
are separately pronounced in a distinctive manner, as in 'jungle')
is a large town in Uttar Pradesh (Moradabad District). I believe
Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, (the current Chief Minister of U.P.) was
elected to the Lok Sabha from this constituency in 1998.
UVR Saheb has also cited some Urdu verses. Since all three of us
(UVR, Yours Truly and your good self) are fond of HFM, let me cite
a song from a quite old movie "Saaqi" :
Haseena, saNbhal saNbhal ke chal, saNbhal ke chal
PaR na jaayeN kamar men bal, kamar men bal,
haseena..aa..
I think it was picturised on the late comedian Gope.
Afzal
Sushil Sharma
Dear Naseer and UVR saahibaan,
Looks like I should get my order of "humble pie" (not the the
proverbial "crow" please, I am a vegetarian, you see), quick and fast!
:-)
After posting my instinctive opinion on "sambhal" v/s "saNbhal" I could
not help thinking about it more, and to my horror, I could easily
remember some examples of old braj and avadhi poems where sambhaar is
used with the first letter (sa/saN) having the weight of laghu,
indicating vowel nasalization instead of true anuswaar! For example, in
perhaps the most popular piece of "poetry" for North India, Tulasi's
hanumaan chaaliisaa, it goes "aapan tej sambhaaro aapai ..." the
chaupaaii meter would be violated if "sambhaaro" is assigned
guru-guru-guru. Similarly, Bihaarii's famous dohaa (it is a nice one,
so please let me quote it here in full) goes as
"bhuuShaNa bhaar sambhaariye, kyoN ihi tan sukumaar
suudhe paaNya na dhari paraiN, sobhaa hii kai bhaar"
[My crude translation - "why burden this delicate body with jewelry and
ornaments? She is already finding it difficult to walk straight, under
the weight of her great beauty!" Try this as a defence, next time your
spouse brings up the demand for more jewelry. Good luck. :-)]
again, the dohaa meter would be violated, unless sambhaariye is to be
read as "saNbhaariye". Then I thought, may be this was the case with
the old braj and avadhi poets only, and knowing it full well that in
those days, poets were allowed the liberty of taking ANY anuswaar as
nasalized vowel if the meter demanded so (e.g. at some places you could
even see aananda being used prosodically as aanaNda), I was hoping I
could fish out some "aadhunik" Hindi examples where "sambhal" was used
with a true anuswaar sound (and thus a guru first letter), but alas, I
could only remember the following from the famous Maithili Sharan Gupt
poem "nar ho na niraash karo man ko":
"saNbhalo ke suyog na jaay chalaa
kab vyartha huaa sadupaay bhalaa ..."
Obviously, even Gupt jii used sambhalo as laghu-laghu-guru, hence with
vowel nasalization or chandrabindu on sa.
Although I could still argue that prosodic conventions are archaic and
do not always reflect the current pronunciation (deja vu, didn't I
argue this earlier in the other thread about aspirated versus
non-aspirated lh/mh/nh etc :-)), I can already see that would be a
losing battle. Looks like the poets in both Hindi and Urdu literary
streams view sambhal as saNbhal, contrary to my instincts! It teaches
me to do my reserach well, before taking issue with anything on this
forum based on mere "gut feelings".
For what it is worth, taking advantage of Google search with Unicode
devanagari words, here are the number of "hits" I got, for each of the
following spellings:
sa.mbhal (संभल) [with anuswaar on sa] : 6550 hits
sambhal (सम्भल) [with sa, aadhaa ma and bhal] : 417 hits
saNbhal (सँभल) [with chandrabindu on sa] : 190 hits
Apparently, like me, most of the people who are creating content on the
Internet in Unicode devanagari, feel that sambhal is to be spelt with
anuswaar sound, not with a nasalized vowel sound saN! When I carefully
analyze how I pronounce sambhal, I could feel nasalization of the vowel
in sa, but due to the following "bha" and the closing of lips for that,
the "m" sound does come before the "bha" sound. I do not know whether
this is a case of Ghalat-ul-aam or Ghalat-ul-avaam or of changing
trends in Hindi pronunciation or orthography ...
Ding-dong! Looks like my humble-pie delivery man is at the door, I got
to go now ...
Regards,
Sushil
Zoya
Thank you!
I just wanted to let all of you know that I have been reading all the
posts in this thread with great interest! :)
It seems like we are getting closer to reaching a decision. Almost
there?!
This is what I have understood so far:
1. The correct version is indeed "saNbhal", whether you are coming from
Urdu or Nagri script. Writing "saMbhal" will mess up the vazn of the
word, and examples can be easily found in Urdu and/or Hindi / Sanskrit
poetry.
2. The combination of "n+b" leads to an "m" sound in words liike "
saNbhal", "juNbish" etc. This is what caused confusion for me in the
first place.
Naseer bhaii, I will wait for you to summarize the final verdict! :)
Thanks again!
___________Zoya
UVR
>
> For what it is worth, taking advantage of Google search with Unicode
> devanagari words, here are the number of "hits" I got, for each of the
> following spellings:
>
> sa.mbhal (संभल) [with anuswaar on sa] : 6550 hits
> sambhal (सम्भल) [with sa, aadhaa ma and bhal] : 417 hits
> saNbhal (सँभल) [with chandrabindu on sa] : 190 hits
>
> Apparently, like me, most of the people who are creating content on the
> Internet in Unicode devanagari, feel that sambhal is to be spelt with
> anuswaar sound, not with a nasalized vowel sound saN!
>
> Regards,
> Sushil
Sushil saahib,
I would like to urge caution while interpreting the results of
the (unscientifict) survey you conducted through the auspices
of shrI shrI google-ji mahaaraaj. For one thing, one mustn't turn
a blind eye to the oft-repeated dictum "don't believe everything
you see on the Internet" :) For another, one must also pay due
attention to the current trends of Devanagari spelling sweeping
the mainstream print and other media. The disappointing
conclusion one draws from the last mentioned is that the poor
wretch "chandrabindu" is slowly but surely headed towards
complete and utter annihilation at the hands of the modern
Nagari spelling-mafia. Forget words like 'sa.Nbhal', the trend
these days is to spell even words unequivocally possessed of
pure nasalization such as yahaa.n, wahaa.n, kahaa.n, chaa.nd,
paa.nv, chhaa.nv, gaa.nv, et cetera with the anuswaar (bindu)
rather than the chandrabindu!
Therefore, the fact that one observes an overwhelming
preponderance of "sa.mbhaalo" on the Internet may not really
mean much. :)
-UVR.
UVR
Not so fast, Zoya ji!
The "n+b" in sa.Nbhal is QUITE DIFFERENT from the 'n+b' of
junbish, minbar, tanbuu (or tambuu, if you please), gunbad, etc.
In saNbhaal, the 'N' represents the nasalization of the consonant
'sa', whereas in the second set of words, 'n' is not a 'nasal-IZED
consonant', but the nasal consonant 'n' itself, albeit enunciated
for "half a measure". It would be an error to confuse the one
with the other.
I request Naseer saahib to elaborate upon this difference in
his very own inimitable style when he posts his "final verdict"
in this thread.
-UVR.
Zoya
>
>
> The "n+b" in sa.Nbhal is QUITE DIFFERENT from the 'n+b' of
> junbish, minbar, tanbuu (or tambuu, if you please), gunbad, etc.
>
> In saNbhaal, the 'N' represents the nasalization of the consonant
> 'sa', whereas in the second set of words, 'n' is not a 'nasal-IZED
> consonant', but the nasal consonant 'n' itself, albeit enunciated
> for "half a measure". It would be an error to confuse the one
> with the other.
>
WHAT????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May we do an audio please?!
___________Zoya
Vijay
Zoya sahiba:
AFA I can sense, it is:
saN-bhal
v/s ta-N-buu, ju-N-bish etc!!
But I also await Naseer sahib's summation!
Regards,
Vijay
Sushil Sharma
UVR saahib,
I agree with both of your comments (i.e. we shouldn't believe
everything we see on the Internet, and the usage of the chandrabindu
appears to be on the decline). I prefaced my observations with "For
what it is worth ..." on account of the first one, and I was thinking
of the second when I included "or of changing trends in Hindi
pronunciation or orthography ... " near the end of my post.
Thanks,
Sushil
Sushil Sharma
> This is what I have understood so far:
>
> 1. The correct version is indeed "saNbhal", whether you are coming from
> Urdu or Nagri script. Writing "saMbhal" will mess up the vazn of the
> word, and examples can be easily found in Urdu and/or Hindi / Sanskrit
> poetry.
Zoya saahibaa,
IMHO there is no reason to include Sanskrit in the above remark. All
this talk about anuswaar versus vowel-nasalization for sambhal/saNbhal
is applicable only to Hindi and Urdu, not Sanskrit. The relevant
Sanskrit words (to which the Hindi/Urdu sambhal/saNbhal can be traced
back) do have the anuswaar and the m sound without any vowel
nasalization, and there is no doubt about that, as far as Sanskrit is
concerned. In fact while the vowel nasalization (usually represented by
chandrabindu) is very common in Hindi/Urdu and other modern languages
of the region, there are very few places for legitimate use of
chandrabindu in Sanskrit orthography, and vowel nasalization is not
common in Sanskrit.
Regards,
Sushil
Naseer
I don't know why I am being asked to "summarise" this discussion;
perhaps it is because I stuck my nose in at the first juncture when
Zoya Sahiba put her question to "friends and ustaads" in ALUP. She
too must be regretting asking this question! By now she must have
developed an almighty headache, when one takes into account the
seemingly contradictory views being put forward! Perhaps there was an
information overload.
Zoya Sahiba! I thought I had got the argument all wrapped up when
Sushil Sahib put a massive spanner in the works! To be fair to him, I
was only going on my personal intuition, the one and only Urdu/English
dictionary I possess and R.S. McGregor's Oxford Hindi/English
dictionary. This is hardly sufficient to prove or disprove a point. For
me, the "spanner" was removed by UVR Sahib when he, from a poet's
perspective, produced "burhaan-i-qaati'", i.e. decisive proof
from a prosody point of view, quoting poets of great merit. Sushil
Sahib, with both humour and humility, not necessarily as a consequence
of UVR's post but independently came to the same conclusion. And what
is this conclusion? Let me use the word "saNbhaal" as in "pagRii
saNbhaal jaTTaa!"
It seems to me that you should be writing "saNbhaal" and NOT
"sambhaal" for two reasons:-
1) The vowel "a" after the consonant "s" is nasalized, as
indicated by "N". It is NOT a nasal consonant. This is the verdict
of at least two luGhat-naviis. If it were a nasal consonant, then
writing with "m" would be correct
2) Looking at this from a prosody angle, "m" would throw it off
balance because "N" is not counted but "m" is. (Am I right
janaabaan-i-UVR, Sarwar, Raj Kumar, Amit Malhotra, Vasmi, Brijinder,
Chakravarti??)
Now getting back to all ALUPers...
Afzal Sahib! My understanding was that as far as Urdu is concerned, the
vowel nasalization is indicated by a "nuun-i-Ghunna", whether this
"nuun" is at the end of the word or elsewhere, as in
"saNbhaal". We all also know that to indicate this in a terminal
position, no dot is placed in the "nuun" but elsewhere it is
retained. In unambiguous orthography, a jazm would be placed above it.
When the "nuun" is not performing this function of vowel
nasalization, it is nothing but a NASAL CONSONANT. However this is
where the difficulty arises. When, the "nuun-i-Ghunna" is not at
the end, how do mere mortals like me know if it is a
"nuun-i-Ghunna" or a "nasal consonant"? For example, if you saw
the word...
che+ nuun+be+laam+ye, is it "chaNbelii" or "chanbelii"? The
first, in hyper-accurate pronunciation should not give a "miim"
sound but the latter invariably would be pronounced "chambelii" and
it would not be wrong, in my opinion, to write it "chambelii" too.
Interestingly, McGregor shows this as "chaNbelii". I don't know
what your thoughts are about this. Also, to my surprise, I found
"raNgnaa" in his dictionary where I would have expected
"rangnaa". A word for "body" however is spelt "ang" (the
"n" has a dot on top of it). The ones who are not mortals (i.e.
those who understand the rules of prosody) will have no problem
deciding whether the vowel nasalization phenomenon is taking place or
if it is a nasal consonant!
A few more words where a short vowel is being nasalized are...
saNraksan (the n is reTroflex), saNsaar, saNlagn, saNyan, saNvaran (the
n is retroflex), aNsh and siNh.
chaNger (a small basket), saNkraa, chaNpii, aNdheraa, phaNsnaa,
haNsnaa, aaNdhii
saaNp, kaaNpnaa, DhaaNpna etc
A couple of words where the normal tendency might be to nasalize the
vowel but where one actually has a nasal consonant.
ekaankii and aandolan
Hindi uses four separate nasal consonants, depending on which group the
preceding consonant belongs to. ALUPers familiar with Naagrii system of
writing will know what I am talking about...
Ka kha ga gha (+ha) nasal consonant1 (I don't know how to type it!)
cha chha ja jha (+sha) nasal consonant2 (I don't know how to type
it!)
ta tha da dha na nasal consonant3
Ta Tha Da Dha nasal consonant 4(I don't know how to type it!)
pa pha ba bha ma nasal consonant 5
For 1-3, "nuun" is used and 4 as far as I know, is not considered
to be part of the Urdu consonant system. However, if a push came to a
shove, it is transcribed as a "nuun" with a little "toe" on
top. Just like "Te", "Daal" "Re" etc. Number 5, it goes
without saying, is represented by a "miim".
So, the Hindi writer has a choice of either using the appropriate nasal
consonant, which takes longer to write (!) or use a "anusvaara"
also called "bindu" I believe. Now human beings being what they
are, will always go for short cuts! The "Chandra-bindu", which
apparently did not exist in Sanskrit orthography, is used for vowel
nasalization. However, it appears, that for many users including the
"Hindi mafia" (as UVR Sahib has described the printers/publishers),
this is asking for too much. So, the vowel-nasalizer ( sounds like some
kind of inhaler!) that the poor Chandra-bindu is, is displaced by the
"bindu" which in reality should only be used for nasal consonants!
If you have n't fallen asleep yet (and this means you Zoya
Sahiba...are you paying attention?)...
According to Professor Michael Coulson of the Department of Sanskrit,
University of Edinburgh, the "anusvaara"......"it signifies that
the vowel sound is nasalized...although the ancient descriptions are
not absolutely clear...).
e.g. taN= him; taaN= her
He recommends (for those of who are interested and still reading this!)
"Phonetics in Ancient India", by W.S. Allen.
One can therefore guess that , perhaps, "the powers to be" are
following the Sanskrit system, as it was! (?).
John T Platts in his " A grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu
Language", seems to be saying that the "n+b=m" really only
applies to words of Arabic and Persian origins! I find this a bit
difficult to comprehend, although having said this, the word list I
gave in my earlier post has more words of Arabic/Persian than Hindi.
One reason could be that there are plenty of such words in Hindi but I
have n't included them. I would like to hear from ALUPers their views
on "n+b/p etc=m) Even from this list, perhaps I should be deleting
"chanbelii" as McGregor has it as "chaNbelii" .
Arabic/Persian Hindi
anbaar (store/pile/heap) tanbuu (tent)
tanbuuraa (tambourine) chanbelii (jasmine)
gunbad (dome) chanbar (disk)
shanbah (Saturday) lanbaa
(long/tall) with a "miim" in Urdu.
anboh
chanpaa (flower) (chaNpaa?)
zanbuur (wasp
sunbul( hyacinth)
tanbiih (warning)
'anbar (ambergris)
minbar (pulpit)
Now coming to a query which UVR Sahib has put forward. He suggested to
Zoya Sahiba (and Vijay Sahib please note) that the "N+b" is quite
different from the "n+b". I do agree. They are different. As to the
difference in pronunciation, that is another story. As I said earlier,
and I am merely guessing here ; when one pronounces "saNbhaal"
carefully, it is possible not to pronounce an "m" sound, although
one inclines in that direction. In a word like "junbish", again I
think theoretically it is possible to utter it as "jun-bish", but
here there is much greater inclination towards an "m". The reason
is that when one is pronouncing an "n" which is a nasal consonant
and then immediately follows it by a "b"/"bh"/p etc, the
position the lips end up as is the same position they would take if
"m" was being pronounced. Does this make sense?
Zoya Sahiba! Has your question been answered to your satisfaction or
are there still some lingering doubts? Are you still being bugged?
UVR Sahib! You have not been ignored! I don't really want to go into
"saNbhaalnaa/samhaalna" debate in this thread. maiN KHuub maalish
vaalish kar ke phir kisii vaqt dangal (daNgal??) meN aap se kushtii ke
liye utar aauuN gaa!
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Vijay
Let me be the first, Naseer Sahib, to congratulate you on this
excellent summation. I think I understood most of it, if not all. I
will have to read it again a few times to digest it fully.
I think we have all come to expect a good summation from you because
you started the trend yourself on your own lead posts.
So saN-bhal
And ju-n-bish. Well, in the second, the way I transcribe Urdu in Roman,
it will not the noon-e-gunnah sound but full noon sound. That's why I
transcribed it ju-N-bish for purposes of explanation. Otherwise I would
write both as saNbhal and juNbish.
Regards,
Vijay
Am
Afzal A. Khan
In one word ---> "Wow" !
Afzal
UVR
The points I make here are not directly related to Zoya saahiba's query
so it may perhaps be wise to continue this particular 'side' discussion
under a different thread-title. However, I leave that decision to your
good self.
Naseer wrote:
> A few more words where a short vowel is being nasalized are...
>
> saNraksan (the n is reTroflex), saNsaar, saNlagn, saNyan, saNvaran (the
> n is retroflex), aNsh and siNh.
> chaNger (a small basket), saNkraa, chaNpii, aNdheraa, phaNsnaa,
> haNsnaa, aaNdhii
> saaNp, kaaNpnaa, DhaaNpna etc
>
Pardon me for doing the 'spanner throwing' this time, but the
words "saNraksan, saNsaar, saNlagn, saNvaran, aNsh and siNh"
as well as "chaNger and chaNpii" (and I don't know what saNyan
is, but if it is saNyam, then that too) does not contain the same
nasalization as in aNdheraa, or saaNp. Or saNbhal.
Where the last three mentioned contain a purely nasalized 'n',
the other words mentioned contain a 'voiced n' (what may be
termed the nasal consonant). Actually, pedantically speaking,
the "saN+*" words use the Sanskrit prefix "sam", and therefore,
in reality, are "sa.mrakshan, sa.msaar, sa.mlagn, sa.myam",
and so on. In Hindi, the pronunciation of the "sa.m" except
when attached to a bilabial consonant (pa, pha, ba, bha, ma)
is that of "san", as if the '.m' were the half-na. Therefore, these
these words become 'san-rakshan, san-lagn, san-saar' and so on.
The case with a.msh (an-sh) and si.mh ("singh!") is similar.
As for changeR and champi, the medial 'n' is pronounced in
a manner no identical to, say, changez (Genghis) and champak
(a flower). Using the chandrabindu while writing these words
is an error.
> A couple of words where the normal tendency might be to nasalize the
> vowel but where one actually has a nasal consonant.
>
> ekaankii and aandolan
>
> Hindi uses four separate nasal consonants, depending on which group the
> preceding consonant belongs to. ALUPers familiar with Naagrii system of
> writing will know what I am talking about...
>
> Ka kha ga gha (+ha) nasal consonant1 (I don't know how to type it!)
> cha chha ja jha (+sha) nasal consonant2 (I don't know how to type
> it!)
> ta tha da dha na nasal consonant3
> Ta Tha Da Dha nasal consonant 4(I don't know how to type it!)
> pa pha ba bha ma nasal consonant 5
>
"ha" and "sha" are perhaps better represented by "~Na" and "~na".
After all, there's no nasality associated (normally) with the sounds
ordinarily associated with 'ha' and 'sha'.
There's also a bit of an "order reversal" in your list above. The
traditional order of the 'varga-s' is: ka-cha-Ta-ta-pa; that is, the
Ta-varga precedes the ta-varga. Not that it matters in terms of
the sound these letters represent, of course.
"Nasal consonant4" in your list is the retroflex 'n'. ITRANS uses
'N' to represent it. Since is letter is taken up for noon-Ghunnah
in the scheme most of us use on ALUP, we can use something
like "NR" or "Nr" to represent this Nagari character.
> For 1-3, "nuun" is used and 4 as far as I know, is not considered
> to be part of the Urdu consonant system. However, if a push came to a
> shove, it is transcribed as a "nuun" with a little "toe" on
> top. Just like "Te", "Daal" "Re" etc. Number 5, it goes
> without saying, is represented by a "miim".
>
I suppose by 'if push came to shove' you are referring to those
extremely rare instances where it is somehow necessary to
demonstrate through the Urdu script that the 'retroflex n' is to
be pronounced. For in all other cases, the Urdu script and
language admit of only two nasal consonants -- noon and
meem.
> So, the Hindi writer has a choice of either using the appropriate nasal
> consonant, which takes longer to write (!) or use a "anusvaara"
> also called "bindu" I believe. Now human beings being what they
> are, will always go for short cuts! The "Chandra-bindu", which
> apparently did not exist in Sanskrit orthography, is used for vowel
> nasalization.
Correction: the chandra-bindu did very much exist in Sanskrit
orthography. It was just not used as widely as we need to use
it in Hindi.
>
> According to Professor Michael Coulson of the Department of Sanskrit,
> University of Edinburgh, the "anusvaara"......"it signifies that
> the vowel sound is nasalized...although the ancient descriptions are
> not absolutely clear...).
>
> e.g. taN= him; taaN= her
>
Hmm. Perahps it is Professor Coulson's transcription that's unclear!
The "ancient" inscriptions are quite unambiguous about this. The
words are "tam.h" and "taam.h" ('m.h', not "N"). The .h represents
the 'viraama' or 'halant'. It performs in Nagari the function
sometimes
performed by the jazm in the Urdu script. There are rules about
when to write these words with 'm.h' vs with '.m' (the anuswaar), but
I don't think we need to go into those -- they are not relevant to our
discussion *and* the mere fact that one writes "ta.m" vs. "tam.h" does
not change the way it must be pronounced.
> Now coming to a query which UVR Sahib has put forward. He suggested to
> Zoya Sahiba (and Vijay Sahib please note) that the "N+b" is quite
> different from the "n+b". I do agree. They are different. As to the
> difference in pronunciation, that is another story. As I said earlier,
> and I am merely guessing here ; when one pronounces "saNbhaal"
> carefully, it is possible not to pronounce an "m" sound, although
> one inclines in that direction. In a word like "junbish", again I
> think theoretically it is possible to utter it as "jun-bish", but
> here there is much greater inclination towards an "m". The reason
> is that when one is pronouncing an "n" which is a nasal consonant
> and then immediately follows it by a "b"/"bh"/p etc, the
> position the lips end up as is the same position they would take if
> "m" was being pronounced. Does this make sense?
>
Now *THIS* is what I was talking about when I referred to your
characteristic inimitable style. Well put, indeed.
> Zoya Sahiba! Has your question been answered to your satisfaction or
> are there still some lingering doubts? Are you still being bugged?
>
> UVR Sahib! You have not been ignored! I don't really want to go into
> "saNbhaalnaa/samhaalna" debate in this thread. maiN KHuub maalish
> vaalish kar ke phir kisii vaqt dangal (daNgal??) meN aap se kushtii ke
> liye utar aauuN gaa!
Ha ha. That won't be necessary. I am quite happy to write
'sa.Nbhal'. 'samhal' isn't incorrect, though. Check Platts!
-UVR.
Zoya
> Zoya saahibaa,
>
> IMHO there is no reason to include Sanskrit in the above remark. All
> this talk about anuswaar versus vowel-nasalization for sambhal/saNbhal
> is applicable only to Hindi and Urdu, not Sanskrit. The relevant
> Sanskrit words (to which the Hindi/Urdu sambhal/saNbhal can be traced
> back) do have the anuswaar and the m sound without any vowel
> nasalization, and there is no doubt about that, as far as Sanskrit is
> concerned. In fact while the vowel nasalization (usually represented by
> chandrabindu) is very common in Hindi/Urdu and other modern languages
> of the region, there are very few places for legitimate use of
> chandrabindu in Sanskrit orthography, and vowel nasalization is not
> common in Sanskrit.
>
> Regards,
> Sushil
Thank you so much, Sushil Sahib!! :)
Thanks for your previous posts in the thread too, I really appreciate
you taking the time to explain the details.
I will have to read the entire thread again, perhaps several times over
;), to absorb everything fully! I am having enough trouble with Hindi /
Urdu, I should stay completely away from Sanskrit!!
Once again, thank you, Sushil Sahib! :)
Regards,
____________Zoya
Zoya
> Zoya Sahiba! Has your question been answered to your satisfaction or
> are there still some lingering doubts? Are you still being bugged?
>
>
> KHair-andesh,
> Naseer
Naseer Bhaaii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh God, talk about being bugged!! ;)
is vaqt meraa sar ghuum rahaa hai, mujhe to yeh bhii nahiiN yaad k mera
original savaal kya tha!! ;) kuChh samajh meiN nahiiN aa rahaa, raat ko
niiNd meiN bhii "saNbhalna, saNbhalna" keh rahii
thii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :)
Give me a day or two to absorb everything!! Thank you so much for all
the time and energy that you have put into this! I can't even begin to
tell you how much I appreciate it. :)
Oh, and when you get a chance, please summarize the summary!!! :)
I'll be back!!
___________Zoya
Naseer
janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
I believe I may have transcribed inaccurately in some places in my last
post. Let me quote and paraphrase from "Outline of Hindi Grammar"
by R.S. McGregor (3rd. edition Oxford University Press)
Anusvaara
a) The anusvaara is a shorthand device enabling the writing of a word
containing nasal+ plosive of similar articulation to be simplified, and
accordingly extremely common, even in Sanskrit loan words.
e.gs. First group: (as per my "summary" post) "a+n dot above+k"
Second group: a+n sine wave above+cha+l
Third group: a+n dot below+D+aa
Fourth group: h+i+n+d+ii
Fifth group: la+m+b+aa
b) Preceding other consonant characters (chiefly in Sanskrit loan
words):
i) Before ya and usually va it denotes preceding vowel nasality;
e.g sa+m dot below +ya+m, sa+m dot below+va+ra+n (retroflex)
ii) Before ra, la and sa it denotes a preceding dental or post-dental
nasal consonant n according to the usage of most Hindi speakers;
e.g. sa+m dot below+ra+ks(as in laxmii) +n(retroflex), sa+m dot
below+la+gn,
sa+ m dot below+saa+r
iii) Before sha, it denotes a preceding pre-dental nasal consonant
aacording to the usage of many Hindi speakers;
e.g. a+ m dot below+sh
iv) Before ha it denotes a preceding velar nasal consonant n dot above:
e.g. si+m dot below+ h
In all these positions anusvaara, however realized in pronunciation, is
transliterated m dot below, and there are no alternative spellings with
conjuncts available.
Examples of Hindi words where a nasal consonant+ ba, bha, pa etc
results in "m"
Sambodhan, sampaadan, sambhraant
Chandrabindu
This is used to denote vowel nasality in its syllable. (It is rarely if
ever used in Sanskrit loan words.)
Professor Coulson's book on Sanskrit does not mention it. "A
Sanskrit Grammar for Students by A.A. Macdonell" when talking about
the anusvaara, states.."Before l it is sometimes written
(Chandra-bindu sign).
I have looked through "A Sanskrit Reader by Charles Rockwell
Lanman" but could not find the Chandra-bindu sign anywhere. I shall
use capital N for this and in my view, this is equivalent to the Urdu
nuun-i-Ghunna
e.g. haaN, baaNdhnaa, huuN, aaNdhii, suuNgnaa
raNgnaa (!), saNkraa, aNdheraa
chaNger, chaNpii (These are from McGregor's dictionary).
If Professor Coulson thinks that the ancient descriptions regarding the
anusvaara are not absolutely clear, then that is his view. I don't
think we need to worry about this. According to him..."It signifies
that the vowel sound is nasalised...". Forget about the previous
transcriptions for the moment...
He transcribes "ta+m dot below" =him. This according to my system would
be
"taN". He then gives "taa+m dot below"=her, which again I would
transcribe as "taaN".
The most important thing, for Zoya Sahiba at least, is that "saNbhaal"
is not "sambhaal"!
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
May I first of all apologise for not responding to your current post
directly, especially after you had taken great amount of time and
effort, at my behest, to go deep into the annals of Hindi Poetry. Thank
you very much indeed.
> After posting my instinctive opinion on "sambhal" v/s "saNbhal" I could
> not help thinking about it more, and to my horror, I could easily
> remember some examples of old braj and avadhi poems where sambhaar is
> used with the first letter (sa/saN) having the weight of laghu,
> indicating vowel nasalization instead of true anuswaar! For example, in
> perhaps the most popular piece of "poetry" for North India, Tulasi's
> hanumaan chaaliisaa, it goes "aapan tej sambhaaro aapai ..." the
> chaupaaii meter would be violated if "sambhaaro" is assigned
> guru-guru-guru.
I have no knowledge of meter in Urdu poetry (and for that matter any
language poetry) and if I may quote from the post (dated 24/07/2001) of
a certain Jamil Ahmad Sahib, who used to grace this group in the
past...
"she'r kehta hooN behtar az qand-o-nabaat
maiN nahiN jaanta faa'ilaatun faa'ilaat
The original is:
she'r me-goyam behtar az qand-o-nabaat
man na-me daan-am faa'ilaatun faa'ilaat"
Now you are talking about "guru guru guru" and "laghu", I said to my
self.." I must learn about this faa'ilaatun.....guru guru guru
business, because it seems so fascinating!"
Now, just imagine Sushil Sahib! If I had prosodic knowledge (and of
course a good memory to come up with some ash'aar with saNbhaal in
them..and for me it is zero on both counts!), this thread would have
ended a long time ago and you would not have had to write lengthy posts
to refute or accept the ideas being put forward. But that would have
taken the FUN out of all this. So, I am glad the thread took the course
it did.
> Similarly, Bihaarii's famous dohaa (it is a nice one,
> so please let me quote it here in full) goes as
> "bhuuShaNa bhaar sambhaariye, kyoN ihi tan sukumaar
> suudhe paaNya na dhari paraiN, sobhaa hii kai bhaar"
> [My crude translation - "why burden this delicate body with jewelry and
> ornaments? She is already finding it difficult to walk straight, under
> the weight of her great beauty!" Try this as a defence, next time your
> spouse brings up the demand for more jewelry. Good luck. :-)]
What an exquisite doha. Do you think you could "re-write" this using
alternative Urdu/Hindi words? I could n't make out what "sukumaar"
meant. I was reading it something like this..
bhuushan bhaar saNbhaaliye, kyoN hii tan sukumaar
seedhe paaoN na dhar paaeN, shobhaa hii kya bhaar (?)
I am always quite taken aback by the extent of your and UVR's knowledge
in linguistics.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
UVR
>
> What an exquisite doha. Do you think you could "re-write" this using
> alternative Urdu/Hindi words? I could n't make out what "sukumaar"
> meant. I was reading it something like this..
> bhuushan bhaar saNbhaaliye, kyoN hii tan sukumaar
> seedhe paaoN na dhar paaeN, shobhaa hii kya bhaar (?)
>
> I am always quite taken aback by the extent of your and UVR's knowledge
> in linguistics.
>
You do Sushil saahib grave injustice (and me great honor) by
mentioning his name and mine in the same breath. The fact of
the matter is that Sushil saahib can claim mastery over such a
diverse treasure-trove of knowledge that Yours Truly is like a
dhuNdlaa charaaGh in front of the bright Sun that he is. And
all indications are that this will remain so for the foreseeable
future.
W.r.t "sukumaar" (tan), one could express the same concept
using Farsi words via (tan-e-)naazuk or seemeeN(-badan).
One inept adaptation of the doha into 'bolchaal ki Urdu' might
be this:
zar-o-zewar kaa kaRaa bojh uThegaa kaise?
husn kaa baar hi saNbh_le na saNbhaale unse :)
Perhaps Afzal Khan saahib might have noticed that these
are not entirely my own words. There is a couple of lines
in a song penned by Sahir Ludhiyanvi for the film Vaasna
which I have taken generous help from. Sahir writes (and
Rafi sings under Chitragupta's baton):
itni naazuk na bano!
hadd ke andar ho nazaakat to adaa hoti hai
hadd se baRh jaaye to aap apni sazaa hoti hai
*jism kaa bojh uThaaye naheeN uThtaa tum se*
*zindagaani kaa kaRaa bojh sahogii kaise*
tum jo halki si hawaaoN meN lachak jaati ho
tez jhoNkoN ke thapeRoN meN rahogi kaise
itni naazuk na bano!
Not a work of the highest poetic calibre, you will agree,
but an interesting composition nonetheless.
-UVR.
Naseer
mere muHtaram UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
aap ke KHat kaa jawaab maiN, ba-yak vaqt, tashakkur awr shikaayat se de
rahaa huuN!
Bihaarii Jii ke dohe kii dil-nashiiN tashriiH ke saath saath Sahir ke
naGhme kii tafsiil kaa bahut bahut shukriyaa. janaab maiN ne aap awr
Sushil Sahib ke baare meN jo kuchh kahaa hai, pur-KHuluusii se kahaa
hai.
ab ek shikaayat! Haaliyah laRiyon meN, ek do baar jab maiN aap se
ba-raah-i-raast muKHaatib huaa huuN to aap ne javaab nahiiN diyaa! awr
jab maiN Sushil Sahib se muKHaatib thaa (go kih aap kaa zikr us
taKHaatub meN aayaa hai) aap ne mujhe javaab de diyaa hai! lekin yahaaN
bhii koii "consistency" nahiiN hai. "KahaN se KahaN Tak" meN posT no.5
awr "Shaida ke Shaida" meN posT no. 7 dekhiye! is ke 'ilaavah, "Sauda's
ChhoRaa maiN ne kufr-o-deeN ko" meN post no. 27 ko dekhiye!
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
Sorry about the follow up! I forgot to mention "KHabar-e-tahhur-e-ishq
sun" 's number 7 and of course one of my last posts in this thread.
Best Wishes,
Naseer
UVR
>
> mere muHtaram UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
>
> aap ke KHat kaa jawaab maiN, ba-yak vaqt, tashakkur awr shikaayat se de
> rahaa huuN!
>
> Bihaarii Jii ke dohe kii dil-nashiiN tashriiH ke saath saath Sahir ke
> naGhme kii tafsiil kaa bahut bahut shukriyaa. janaab maiN ne aap awr
> Sushil Sahib ke baare meN jo kuchh kahaa hai, pur-KHuluusii se kahaa
> hai.
>
> ab ek shikaayat! Haaliyah laRiyon meN, ek do baar jab maiN aap se
> ba-raah-i-raast muKHaatib huaa huuN to aap ne javaab nahiiN diyaa! awr
> jab maiN Sushil Sahib se muKHaatib thaa (go kih aap kaa zikr us
> taKHaatub meN aayaa hai) aap ne mujhe javaab de diyaa hai! lekin yahaaN
> bhii koii "consistency" nahiiN hai. "KahaN se KahaN Tak" meN posT no.5
> awr "Shaida ke Shaida" meN posT no. 7 dekhiye! is ke 'ilaavah, "Sauda's
> ChhoRaa maiN ne kufr-o-deeN ko" meN post no. 27 ko dekhiye!
>
> KHair-andesh,
> Naseer
mohtaram janaab-e-Naseer bhaa'iisaahib,
mujhe baKhoobi 'ilm hai k aap ne mere aur Sushil saahib ke
naam "ek hi saaNs meN" baRe Khuloos ke saath hi liye the.
yaqeen maaniye k maiN ne bhi utne hi Khuloos ke saath apni
baat kahi thi. maiN apnaa shumaar baRe faKhr se un ALUPers
meN kartaa hooN jinheN Sushil saahib se roo-ba-roo'ee kaa
sharaf haasil huaa hai. kisee din yahaaN aaiyegaa to aap bhi
dekh leejiyegaa k mausoof haiN kyaa cheez! aur yeh bhi k unke
aage Khaaksaar kis khet ki mooli hai!
aap ki shikaayat kaa mere paas koi jawaab naheeN hai siwaaye
is ke k "UVR does not [manage] to read every post" (although he
perhaps should, and God knows he tries to). aur yeh k "UVR does
not always have something to say". aur phir maiN koi "mu'azzin"
to hooN naheeN jo "bar-waqt" hi bolooN aur baaqi awqaat chup
saadhe rahooN. jab jo kuchh muNh meN aa jaataa hai "bak dene"
ke maraz kaa shikaar hooN.
rahi aap ki "unanswered posts" ki baat to koshish karooNgaa k
aap ko koi na koi jawaab dooN. aur agar kuchh na likh sakaa to
sirf itnaa hi likh dooNga k "I have nothing further to say". :)
-UVR.
Zoya
Sahib:
aap sab sahibaan kii maiN tah-e-dil se mamnuun huuN k aap ne is thread
ke liye itnaa vaqt nikaala.
It really has been a great learning experience for me. Of course, my
original question has been answered, and in addition, I have learnt a
lot more in the process!! :)
Thank you, gentlemen!! :)
ab chalte chalte voh sher bhii sunaa duuN jis se yeh saarii baat shuruu
huii thii:
bas ik latiif tabassum, bas ik hasiin nazar!
mariiz-e-gham kii yeh haalat saNbhal to sakti hai!! ;) :) :)
__________Zoya
Naseer
Zoya Sahiba, aadaab 'arz hai!
mujhe KHushii huii hai kih aap ko aap ke savaal kaa itmi'naan baKHsh
javaab mil gayaa hai.
aap ne apne pichhle KHat meN KHulaase ke KHulaase kii (shaayad mazaaq
ke taur par) farmaaish kii thii. vaqt nah milne par aisaa nah kar
sakaa. ba-har Haal agar aap mere pahle awr KHulase vaale KHat ke
ibtidaaii Hisse ko madd-i-nazar rakheN, to aap ko baat kaa nichoR mil
jaae gaa! lekin lagtaa hai kih ab is kii zaruurat nahiiN rahii.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Sushil Sharma
>
> mohtaram janaab-e-Naseer bhaa'iisaahib,
>
> mujhe baKhoobi 'ilm hai k aap ne mere aur Sushil saahib ke
> naam "ek hi saaNs meN" baRe Khuloos ke saath hi liye the.
> yaqeen maaniye k maiN ne bhi utne hi Khuloos ke saath apni
> baat kahi thi. maiN apnaa shumaar baRe faKhr se un ALUPers
> meN kartaa hooN jinheN Sushil saahib se roo-ba-roo'ee kaa
> sharaf haasil huaa hai. kisee din yahaaN aaiyegaa to aap bhi
> dekh leejiyegaa k mausoof haiN kyaa cheez! aur yeh bhi k unke
> aage Khaaksaar kis khet ki mooli hai!
I was away from ALUP for last several days, and on my return today, am
bemused to see this exchange between Naseer saahib and UVR saahib! Let
me put it on record that I do not think I deserve any of the kind of
praise and compliments that UVR saahib has so generously showered on
me.
UVR saaheb, maanaa ke niitishatakakaara ne sajjanoN ke baare meN kahaa
hai ki "paraguNaparamaaNuu.m parvatiikR^ityanitya.n
nijahR^idayavikasantaH santi santaH kiyantaH" [How many are the good
men, whose hearts are always gladdened in considering even a small
molecule of someone else's virtue as a mountain of goodness] magar
aisii bhii kyaa dariyaadilii aur bhalamansaahat ... mujhe to ab Dar hai
ke, jis tarah aap ne mujh nacheez ke baare meN baRhaa-chaRhaa kar
likhaa hai, us ke baad baaqii ALUPers aap kii tamaam aaraa ko shak ke
daayare meN na rakhne lageN. LOL!
Waise bhii, ALUP ke kuuche ke saakinoN ko achchhii tarah se maaluum hai
ke aap ke aage merii kyaa bisaat hai. mujhe yeh kahne meN koii saNkoch
nahiiN ke jo do-chaar baateN merii "meagre intellectual capital" meN
aatii haiN, voh aap jaise chand daanishvaroN kii suhbat kee badaulat
haiN, varnaa to baqaul-e-sukaraat "I know nothing but the fact of my
ignorance".
Naseer saaheb, bihaarii jii ke dohe kaa khulaasaa UVR saaheb mujh se
behtar kar chuke haiN, ab aage mere kuchh kahne kii guNjaaish nahiiN
hai.
Regards,
Sushil