qaafiya tang
UVR
kal shaam ek ajeeb saa sawaal zahn meN ubhraa. farz keejiye
kisi Ghazal ke qawaafi hoN: gulshan, madfan, rauzan, (raushan!),
waGhairah. zaahir hai ba-taur qaafiya, "fann" aur "Zann"
(e.g., husn-e-Zann) bhi is Ghazal meN qubool hoNge. magar kyaa
'fauran, waqtan, ittifaaqan, fardan' jaise alfaaz bhi, jinheN
nuun ke saath naheeN, bal-k tanween ke saath bartaa jaataa
hai, is Ghazal ke qaafiye ho sakte haiN? agar naheeN, to kyoN
naheeN, aur agar haaN, to is qism ke ist'emaal ki misaaleN
kis ustaad ke kalaam meN mil sakti hai?
waazeh rahe k maiN (kam az kam filhaal to :-D) aisi kisi Ghazal
par mashq naheeN kar rahaa hooN. yeh sawaal mahz ek 'takneeki'
nukte ki tahqeeq ke liye poochhaa jaa rahaa hai.
maiN Khaas taur se Afzal Khan, RajKumar aur Sarwar saahibaan
se is sawaal ke jawaab meN kuchh kahne ki guzaarish kartaa
hooN. digar ashKhaas bhi apni apni aaraa kaa zaroor izhaar
kareN.
faqat
-UVR.
PS: A short English translation of the post for those who may
find it hard to follow the above:
If a Ghazal is being composed using these as "qaafiya"s:
gulshan, madfan, rauzan, etc, then 'fann' and 'Zann' (as
in husn-e-Zann) are also acceptable qaafiya-s. However,
are words like fauran, waqtan, ittifaaqan, and fardan,
in which the 'n' is affected by a 'tanween' also acceptable?
If not, why not, and if yes, then in the work of which
particular poet may examples of this sort of use be found?
Note that I'm (at least at the present time) not working
on any Ghazal of this sort -- this question is being asked
solely with the intent of researching a matter of technical
interest.
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
In my personal view, such qawaafi (fardan, waqtan,
fawaqtan etc.) ought not to be used with other
qawaafi (like gulshan, madfan etc.) in the same ghazal.
To repeat, it is just my view.
Afzal
UVR
>
> UVR Saheb,
>
> In my personal view, such qawaafi (fardan, waqtan,
> fawaqtan etc.) ought not to be used with other
> qawaafi (like gulshan, madfan etc.) in the same ghazal.
> To repeat, it is just my view.
>
>
> Afzal
Afzal saahib,
Many thanks for your reply. Even if this is only your view,
it holds a lot of weight, if only because of your extensive
exposure to the works of various poets. I'm eager to know,
however, if you'd be willing to explain why (this is your
view)? Is it because the 'an'-s are *spelt* differently in
each of these sets of words, or is there some other, more
basic, reason?
I'd like to take a moment to insist that this is NOT a flippant
question -- I do have some logic (and accompanying 'evidence')
to justify my question. But more on that later.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
I don't think I can give a very erudite, "fan"-based reply.
{"Fan" = Art (of poetry)}. No pun intended !
In simple terms, composing poetry and making it public is
a script-based art. Usually, a ghazal has to be written
down and then either recited at a Mushaira or given for
printing/publication. In a purely phonetic or sauti sense,
the two sets of qawaafi may seem identical, but they are
fundamentally different in their script version. I don't
think it would be right to mix them up in the same ghazal.
It is probable that some treatise may set out a specific
rule, ruling out such combos in the same ghazal. Equally
probably, ghazal-composers themselves are more likely to
know about such a rule.
To reiterate, it is just my view. And I am sure yours is
by no means a flippant query. Looking forward to see
the evidence you have collected in this behalf.....
Afzal
UVR
>
> In simple terms, composing poetry and making it public is
> a script-based art. Usually, a ghazal has to be written
> down and then either recited at a Mushaira or given for
> printing/publication. In a purely phonetic or sauti sense,
> the two sets of qawaafi may seem identical, but they are
> fundamentally different in their script version. I don't
> think it would be right to mix them up in the same ghazal.
> It is probable that some treatise may set out a specific
> rule, ruling out such combos in the same ghazal. Equally
> probably, ghazal-composers themselves are more likely to
> know about such a rule.
>
> To reiterate, it is just my view. And I am sure yours is
> by no means a flippant query. Looking forward to see
> the evidence you have collected in this behalf.....
Afzal saahib,
I don't disagree that publishing poetry is a script-based art.
Infact that's one of the reasons I had this question. I have
posted a similar question on ALUP earlier, too.
The "evidence" I was alluding to earlier is not directly related
to words with the 'an' ending, but it's still something to look
at. I request you to divert your kind attention to the following
verses by Ghalib:
1. rashk kahtaa hai, k uskaa Ghair se iKhlaas, haif!
'aql kahtii hai, k woh be-mehr kis kaa aashnaa
zarra zarra saaGhar-e-maiKhaana-e-nairaNg hai
gardish-e-majnuuN ba-chashmak_haa-e-*Lailaa* aashnaa
2. na hui gar mire marne se tasallii na sahii
imtehaaN aur bhii baaqii ho, to yeh bhii na sahii
nafas-e-qais, k hai chashm-o-charaaGh-e-sahraa
gar nahiiN sham'-e-siyah_Khaana-e-*Lailaa*, na sahii
3. dahr meiN naqsh-e-wafaa wajh-e-tasallii na huaa
hai yeh woh lafz k sharmindah-e-ma'ani na huaa
dil guzargaah-e-Khyaal-e-mai-o-saaGhar hi sahi
gar nafas jaadah-e-sar_manzil-e-taqwaa na huaa [taqwaa?]
mar gayaa sadmah-e-yak_jumbish-e-lab se 'Ghalib'
naa_tavaani se hareef-e-dam-e-Isaa na huaa [Isaa?]
So, here we observe that the alif maqsoora is a legal rhyme
both for 'alif' (kis kaa <=> Lailaa), as well as for 'ye'
(tasalli <==> Lailaa, taqwaa, Isaa). So, clearly just the
"shape" of the letter is not the only thing one must go by;
the pronunciation of the word also matters.
One could, of course, take the position that alif maqsoora
"looks like" both 'alif' and 'ye', in which case the examples
above are actually supporting proof for your position.
Hmm... now I'm even more confused ...
-UVR.
Raz
Ravindra SaaHeb: namaskaaraa!
aap logoN kee yeh beHc bohat dilchasp hai. maiN akcar Khaamosh is liYe
rehtaa hooN keh kuch` teHqeeq kar looN to muNh kh`olooN! so teHqeeq
jaaree hai lekin us kaa nateejah ma'loom hai! ya'nee yeh keh maiN ne
apnee taqreeba" saaTh-saalah shaa,i'raanah zindagee meN aisee koyee
micaal naheeN dekh`ee jahaaN :zan, tan, fora" waGhairah: qaafiye
ista'maal huwe hoN. is kaa Zikr un kitaaboN meN bh`ee naheeN hai jo
mere paas haiN aur nah hee meree tarbiyat ne is kee jaanib kabh`ee
koyee ishaarah kiyaa. ek aur kitaab jald hee aane waalee hai. mumkin
hai keh us meN kuch` ho. agar huwaa to likh`ooN gaa.
bideehee t^aur se (instinctively) yeh ista'maal munaasib naheeN lagtaa
hai. likh` kar dekh`eN to baat ziyaadah waaZ^eH ho jaatee hai. ph`ir
bh`ee sanad to chaahiYe! aap ko yaad ho gaa keh Ghalib kee in GhazaloN
par ALUP meN ek baar mufaSSil baat huyee th`ee.
dekh`iYe aur dost kyaa kehte haiN.
Sarwar A. Raz :Sarwar:
Zafar
ye baat sun kar baRee hairat huvee k Urdu shaa'iree tehreeree fan hai,
haalaaN k haqeeqat is ke bil-kul bar'aks hai. classical mashraqee
shaa'iree hamesha se sun'ne sunaane kee cheez rahee hai, na k likhne
likhaane kee. yehee vajh hai k hamaare haaN shaa'iree ko *kalaam* kahaa
gayaa hai, ya'anee bolne vaalee cheez. shaa'ir hazraat aaj bhee ye
kahte haiN k "Ghazal *kahee* hai," na k likhee hai. Mir:
baateN hamaaree yaad raheN, phir baateN aisee na sunni'ye gaa
kehte kisee ko suni'ye gaa to der talak sar dhuni'ye gaa
aur vaise bhee vo kyaa 'aalam hotaa ho gaa jab, misaal ke taur par, Mir
apnee Ghazal mushaa'ire meN sunaate hoN ge:
Mir dariyaa hai, sune she'er zabaanee us kee
Allah Allah re tabee'at kee ravaanee us kee!
mazeed bar'aaN, shaa'iree to alag rahee, hamaaree to tamaam tar
rivaayat hee seena ba seena naql hotee aa'yee hai, kyaa shaa'iree, kyaa
mauseeqee, kyaa tibb, kyaa mazhab. hadith kee misaal saamne hai. aur
aaj bhee agar Quran kee tabaa'at meN ko'yee Ghalatee dar aatee hai to
dosre nusKhoN se muqaabila naheeN kiyaa jaataa bal k mustanad qaari'een
se tas'heeh karvaa'yee jaatee hai. doosree mashraqee tehzeeboN kaa bhee
yehee haal hai.
UVR wrote:
> In a purely phonetic or sauti sense,
> the two sets of qawaafi may seem identical, but they are
> fundamentally different in their script version. I don't
> think it would be right to mix them up in the same ghazal.
> It is probable that some treatise may set out a specific
> rule, ruling out such combos in the same ghazal. Equally
> probably, ghazal-composers themselves are more likely to
> know about such a rule.
kalaaseekee Arabi/Farsi/Urdu urooz meN to vaazih taur par samaa'ee
qaafi'ye ko makrooh qaraar diyaa gaya hai. lekin is ke ala-ar-Gham,
aise qaafi'ye baratne kee khulee chuTTee hai jo tehreeree taur par to
yaksaaN hoN lekin jin ke ma'anee muKhtalif hoN (Angraize meN in ko
Ghaliban 'homonym' kahaa jaataa hai). misaal ke taur par agar aap apnee
Ghazal ke matle meN 'kaan' (ear) aur 'kaan' (mine) qavaafee baandheN ge
to ko'yee aap kee taraf aankh uThaa kar dekhne kee jur'at naheeN kar
sake gaa :)
ye baat kam az kam mujhe to ajeeb lagtee hai k 'fauran' aur 'man', yaa
phir 'faiz' aur 'tez' baandhnaa to jaa'iz naheeN hai lekin 'haar'
(defeat) aur 'haar' (necklace) baandhnaa solah-aane durust hai. is
marhale par savaal ye uThtaa hai k kyaa zarooree hai k jo kuchh baRe
kitaaboN meN likh ga'ye haiN vo abadan-abadaa aankheN band kar ke
tasleem kar liyaa jaa'ye?
jaane se pehle ye 'etizaar paish karnaa zarooree hai:
agarche behs to bai-kaar bhee naheeN kartaa
maiN apnee baat pe israar bhee naheeN kartaa!
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
Yogesh
Well put, Zafar Sahib. As far as Urdu is concerned, if we look at the
verse, prior to the artificial edicts issued by Insha, the flexibility
is evident. But thereafter the onerous effects of the edicts begin to
manifest themselves. No wonder even the greatest of masters felt
compelled to retain a 'whipping checker, aka master' for their
works, lest they be labeled technically 'deficient'. Is there a
precedent in any other language, where even the greatest of poetic
minds feared the technical accuracy of their compositions to the extent
that a second learned opinion was almost 'always' sought, sometimes
clandestinely. It is time that we take a fresh look at some of the
artificial commands of the fandangle so zealously promoted by Insha.
And look at the position of our own sagacious UVR Sb. - straddling
the fence! On the one side he chastised us with "It's something far
more fundamental -- it's that Urdu meter is governed by the *sounds* of
the words, and not their spellings", and then there is an about turn
with the statement: "I don't disagree that publishing poetry is a
script-based art" followed by an enlightening confession: "Hmm...
now I'm even more confused ...,". Well, UVR Sb., welcome to the
club! But please do clarify where your stand.
Regards,
Yogesh
Afzal A. Khan
MaiN bhee apni baat par israar naheeN karta, phir bhee.....!
Likhna = To Write Kehna = To say, utter or recite
In this context, we may even include a third word : "Karna".
When we talk about Poetry, i.e. Shaa'iree, we usually say :
"Shaa'iree kee jaatee hai; shaa'iree na to likhee jaati hai na
hee kahee jaatee hai". When we talk about a poet, we say :
"UVR Saheb shaa'iree karte haiN" (among so many things). We
don't say "Sarwar Saheb shaa'iree kehte haiN, ya phir shaa'iree
likhte haiN". So, should we generalize that : "Poetry is 'done',
it is neither 'written', nor 'recited'" ?
Kehna, Likhna, Karna : I believe these are merely phrases that
have evolved over a period of time, and need not be treated in
a literal sense. IMHO, we should be more concerned with the
entire process --- how poetry is composed and how it becomes known
to and read by a vast number of people. In this post, I shall be
talking about the real significance of the written or printed
word (in relation to oral traditions etc.) in making poetry such
a vibrant force in people's lives.
The process no doubt begins in the poet's mind. And, let me hasten
to add, all human activity originates there. When UVR Saheb
posted his original query, or when Zafar Saheb sent his rejoinder,
or now, when I am tapping out the keys, we are putting on paper
(or on the computer) thoughts which originate in our mind. So the
thought process takes place first. When languages were mere
dialects, i.e. when scripts were not developed, these thoughts
could be communicated to other people only through the oral
process. The origin and development of scripts should, therefore,
be seen as a sign of progress and evolution. And such an evolution
is an on-going process. The decipherment of Egyptian Hieroglyphics
is an instance in point.
Meer and Sauda, Insha and Mas'hafee, Zauq and Ghalib did indeed
recite their poetry in Mushairas. But, today, if we are able to
read them and discuss their poetic merits, it is only because
their poetic output has been collected in diwans and made available
to us all these years. Most of these poets sought in their own
lifetime to ensure that such diwans got printed and put in the hands
of the masses. Reliance was not placed on oral traditions alone.
I daresay people in Shakespeare's time (and earlier) had a fair
idea about the meaning of words. But it was only the publication
of Samuel Johnson's dictionary that standardized the meaning of
these words and became a reference point for people. Since then,
there have been vast improvements, so much so that we now have
huge dictionaries like the OED etc. When we discuss and argue
about the meaning of various words and expressions in ALUP, so
many of us refer to Platts. And now, the much more extensive
Qaumi Dictionary (compiled by Dr. Jamil Jaalibi) is also being
consulted. Can we still rely on the "seena~ba~seena" process
for our consultation purposes ?
Talking about ancient times, the Arabic language was highly
developed even before the advent of Islam. Poetic creations of
the time used to be written down and "nailed" to the Ka'aba walls.
These were commonly referred to as "Mu'allaqaat", or (loosely)
the "hanging ones". Communication of ideas (including poetry)
through the oral method has always had a limited audience. It is
only the written and printed word that has resulted in the
spread of knowledge.
When the angel Jibreel ('A') revealed the aayats/soorats of the
Holy Book to the Prophet, these were no doubt learnt by heart by
many of the early adherents of Islam. But, even in the Prophet's
lifetime, these were written down by the noted scribe Hazrat
Hassaan bin Saabit. A few years later, when quite a few "Huffaaz"
(those who had learnt the Holy Book by heart) were martyred in the
Battle of 'Ohad", the need for preserving the Quraan was acutely
felt and it was decided to have the entire Holy Book written down.
Hadees : There are literally thousands of "hadees" spread over
different books. Those which are considered "relatively
authentic" have been collected in two pre-eminent compilations,
Saheeh BuKHaari and Saheeh Muslim. Thousands of others have been
discarded. How did it happen that so many anecdotal quotations
were deemed as "weak" ("kamzor") or relatively less reliable ?
That is mainly on account of the deficiencies inherent in the
oral tradition. Hadees-related books are replete with instances
where the 'ulema (steeped in "'ilm-e-hadees") have explained why,
in a particular case, "raavi za'eef hai" (the narrator is not
entirely reliable). It doesn't mean that someone might have been
lying or manufacturing a "false" hadees. It only means that the
the exact text has lost considerably in oral narration from person
to person. We all know the mischief that such inexact narrations
(like rumours or gossip) can cause.
When Sultan Mahmood Ghaznawi commissioned Firdausi to compose
his Shahnaama, I don't think the poet went to the court and
recited the 60000 verses orally. He took quite some time in
composing the lengthy ballad and committing it to paper, before
presenting his manuscript to the Sultan.
There is a specific genre of Urdu poetry known as "Masnawee".
We can perhaps refer to it in English as "Ballad". These are
also very long poems and we can rightly assume that these too
are "written" over a period of time. Examples : "Zehr-e-'Ishq",
"Sahrul Bayaan", "Gulzaar-e-Naseem" etc.
We always say that Shakespeare "wrote" his plays. But many of
his plays include pieces of beautiful poetry (like his sonnets).
When Coleridge had a vision of that fragmentary masterpiece
"Kubla Khan" in an opium dream, he woke up and immediately started
committing the poem to paper. Soon after he began, he was
interrupted by a visitor and, by the time the poet had seen him
off, he couldn't remember the remaining part. To this date (and
for ever), it remains a fragment. Another classic of English
Poetry is Thomas Gray's "Elegy Written In a Country Churchyard".
It is to be noted that the title itself contains the word
"Written". It is also quite well-known that he wrote the initial
draft and then re-wrote it --- he went on polishing and refining
it for well nigh 40 years before its publication. Poems like
Keats' "Hyperion" and "Endymion", Wordsworth's" Prelude", Milton's
"Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained", Sir Walter Scott's "Lay of
the Last Minstrel" are all compositions that were written over
a period of time. A few additional examples of English poems
that were actually "written" and not merely "recited" :
Lord Tennyson : Idylls of the King
P. B.Shelley : Queen Mab
T. S. Elliot : The Wasteland
Today, when we want to understand and appreciate Shakespeare,
we may have no "oral traditions" to fall back upon. But we do
have authoritative texts by Profs. Middleton Murry and A. C.
Bradley.
Coming closer home, we have been told that Mirza Ghalib used to
indulge in "fikr-e-sher" at night, and since there was no light,
he used to make knots in his waist-band. And, in the morning,
he would note down the ghazal. Permit me to quote two of his
shers from a ghazal :
Aur to rakhne ko hum dahr men kya rakhte the
Magar ik sher men aNdaaz-e-rasa rakhte the
Us ka yeh haal ke koi na ada~saNj mila
Aap likhte the hum aur aap uTha rakhte the
Mark the words "likhte the".
Ghalib was always keen that his "kalaam " should be printed in
beautifully brought out Editions and with correct text. Details
of his keenness and anxiety in this regard can be found in his
biographies and in his "KHutoot".
We find that the expression "likhna" was applied to poetry or
"kalaam" at other places too. In "Aab-e-Hayaat", for instance,
Azaad narrates a story where the poet Zauq is asked to add a
misra to a ghazal by the Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, thereby
converting it into a "musallas". The story gets continued :
"Baadshaah ne ghazal inheN dee. (Obviously the written
ghazal). InhoN ne qalam uThakar ek sher par nazar kee aur
fauran misra laga diya. Tamaam sheroN par nazar Daal kar
be~taammul saath hee misra likhte gaye..."
The well-known story about the two Sehraas composed by Ghalib
and Zauq also contains a reference to "writing" :
"Mirza Ghalib ne apna sehra baadshah kee KHidmat men
guzraana. Jab Zauq darbaar men pahuNche to baadshah ne
unheN woh sehraa diya aur israar kiya ke (is ka jawaab)
abhee likh do...."
Another well-known story concerns a ghazal recited by Insha
in a Mushaira towards the end of his life, when he was in
the Nawaab's disfavour. He reached the venue a little early
and, finding that the Mushaira would commence later, insisted
on reciting his ghazal right then and there and leave immediately
thereafter. Azaad writes : "....he took out a piece of paper,
recited his ghazal and left".
I have quoted these examples only to illustrate my belief that
the phrases "kehna" and "likhna" are just that : phrases.
A ghazal may be composed in the mind and recited orally in a
Mushaira, but more often than not, it is the written version
that is recited. Many of us have actually seen this happening
in Mushairas. Maybe, ALUPer poets like UVR Saheb himself and
Sarwar Saheb etc. can tell us whether (or not) they have pen and
paper at hand while composing their "kalaam".
We can even take a look at Indian poets who wrote in languages
other than Urdu. Examples are given below :
Kaalidaas : Kumaarasambhavam
Raghuvamsha
Maithili Sharan Gupt : Jayadratha Vadha
Panchavati
Saketa
Jai Shankar Prasad : Kamayani
Sri Aurobindo : Savitri (This very long poem is in
English)
Can we say that "yeh sab kaveetaayeN sirf kahee gayee haiN,
likhee naheeN gayeeN ?"
Let us now examine the world of Law and Justice. When a person
is convicted of dacoity or rape or murder (and sentenced by the
Court), it is due to the fact that the nature of the crime and
the extent of the punishment has been explicitly and specifically
laid down in the Penal Code. And the Sessions Court tries such
cases as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the U.S., if everybody has a guarantee against self-incri -
mination, it is because of a specific right that is enshrined in
the U.S. Constitution, by way of an Amendment. In India, if such
a guarantee is available, it is specifically under the provisions
of Article 20 of the Indian Constitution.
It is my belief that when we talk about correct or incorrect
usages, we examine our positions with reference to specific
rules and regulations. In English, Fowler's English Usage used
to be the standard text for the purpose. About 60-70 years back,
when people (and students) discussed rhymes and Prosody in
English Poetry, they had authoritative texts, like Saintsbury, as
the basis of their discussions/study. The same is the case with
regard to Farsi and Urdu Poetry. Masters of Prosody have in
fact laid down various rules and regulations in books like the
"Hadaaiq-ul-BalaaGHat" (there is an excellent translation by
Imaam BaKHsh Sahbaayee, a contemporary of Ghalib). In recent
times, Shamsur Rahman Farooqi has written "'Arooz, AahaNg Aur
Bayaan". Mention can be made of Maulana Hasrat Mohani's
"Nikaat-e-SuKHan". This title was in fact borrowed by our own
Sarwar Saheb when he presented his tracts on this subject for
the benefit of ALUPers 3 years back.
I can summarize my submissions as under :
1. "Kehna", "Likhna" etc. are merely phrases. These ought not
to be treated in a rigidly literal sense. What is important
is the process in its entirety.
2. "Oral tradition" may have had its uses. But it cannot
be determined exactly and accurately over a period of time.
And, in any case, the written and printed word must be accorded
its due.
3. When we discuss rights and wrongs, correct and incorrect
usage etc., we are talking in the context of established
rules and regulations. And, where available, we can and
should rely on standard texts.
My observation that "composing poetry and making it public is a
script-based art" was made in this particular background.
When mention is made of "homonyms" like "kaan" (ear) and "kaan"
(mine), the source is not some "seena~ba~seena rivaayat" but
some written/printed text where this provision has been explained.
When UVR Saheb talks about "alif maqsoora" and cites words
like "'Eesa", "taqwa" etc., we can easily understand the nature
of his argument, only because the "written" form of these letters/
words (apart from their pronunciations) readily springs before
our mind's eye.
I have already talked about the mischief that can be created by
inexact narration. This can happen due to wrong attribution too.
Towards the close of his post, Zafar Saheb has cited a paragraph
as "UVR wrote".... But actually, the quoted paragraph is from a
post by Yours Truly, not a post by UVR Saheb.
In conclusion, I must apologize for sending this long riposte,
but I thought I owed it to myself.....
Afzal
UVR
>
> And look at the position of our own sagacious UVR Sb. - straddling
> the fence! On the one side he chastised us with "It's something far
> more fundamental -- it's that Urdu meter is governed by the *sounds* of
> the words, and not their spellings", and then there is an about turn
> with the statement: "I don't disagree that publishing poetry is a
> script-based art" followed by an enlightening confession: "Hmm...
> now I'm even more confused ...,". Well, UVR Sb., welcome to the
> club! But please do clarify where your stand.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yogesh
One was under the impression, Yogesh saahib, that it was
only "complicated Urdu" that you wanted simplified on this
newsgroup. One is, consequently, astonished that even text
written in relatively simple English has caused you to be
tied up in knots. Wonders, as the old adage goes, never
cease! :-P
First things first, there is no 'straddling the fence'
business going on here. None whatsoever. Period. Nor is
there any inconsistency or mutual disagreement in the
statements of mine that you have generously quoted above.
Urdu meter (note: meter) is an aural art, not a visual
science. Here's another: music. However, the fact that
it is an aural art *does not* mean that any and every-
thing derived from or based upon it must also, of necessity,
be aural? Have you never seen many a talented musician
referring to sheaf upon sheaf of sheet music? Is the
writing down of musical phrases on a page of sheet music
an 'aural' art, in your opinion? Likewise, publishing a
book of Urdu poetry involves a considerable amount of hard
work by a kaatib or a type-setter to ensure that the
resultant publication is aesthetically and visually pleasing.
So, where exactly is the inconsistency in averring that the
*publishing* of Urdu poetry is a 'visual' art?
And, now, please revisit what it was that I had said.
Right.
Now, perhaps your dicombobulation really arose from my query
about whether 'ittefaaqan' and 'daaman' rhyme with each other
(something which, certainly, should be possible to determine
aurally). But if it did, why did you not say so?
Anyway, that's where the rub lies. Can *you* say for sure that
these words really rhyme? I can't. Why? Read on.
>From my admittedly limited exposure to the work of the Urdu
poetry masters, I have observed (observed -- mind you) that
the asaateza have steered clear of rhyming such consonants
as do not sound similar when pronounced in their language
of origin. Take 'iqtibaas' and 'Khaas', whose 's' sounds
the same in Urdu, but not in Arabic. Just think about it --
if these words did rhyme, wouldn't at least one of the
BIG GUYS have used them in the same Ghazal? Coming to
'ittifaaqan' and 'daaman', I have no idea how the faseeH
talaffuz of their language(s) of origin goes, so I thought
I'd ask those who are more informed, knowledgeable and
understanding than myself. Once again, none of the asaateza
seem to have rhymed these words with each other -- and
there HAS TO have been a reason for that. What could that
reason be? Are you not even the least bit curious about
that? Or do you know the answer already? If you do, do
please enlighten the rest of us.
It may be that you wish to argue, like Zafar saahib has,
that these words are all Urdu words at least as of today,
and we must consequently only go by their Urdu pronunciations
to determine whether they rhyme or not. Fair enough -- you
are entitled to your opinion. However, you will excuse me
if, where Urdu poetry is concerned, I put more stock in the
work of Meer, Ghalib, Daagh and Iqbal than in the word of
Yogesh Sethi or Zafar Iqbal Syed! :) Were you in my shoes,
I daresay you would (should!) do exactly the same thing.
And, oh, BTW, there's the little matter of the rhyming of
the words Lailaa, Isaa and taqwaa with tasalee, bhee, etc.
Perhaps, while you are formulating your arguments in support
of the 'Must Use Urdu Pronunciation Only!' theory, you would
like to think about why these are acceptable, or if you'd
be comfortable taking on Ghalib chachaa in his own akhaaRaa.
Regards,
-UVR.
Yogesh
UVR ji: "dicombobulation" - There you go again - did I a touch
a raw nerve or is it a Freudian slip?
And here I was expecting a 'sagacious' discourse. Come back when
you had some rest!
Regards just the same,
Yogesh
UVR
> UVR wrote:
> > Yogesh wrote:
> > >
> > > And look at the position of our own sagacious UVR Sb. - straddling
> > > the fence! On the one side he chastised us with "It's something far
> > > more fundamental -- it's that Urdu meter is governed by the *sounds* of
> > > the words, and not their spellings", and then there is an about turn
> > > with the statement: "I don't disagree that publishing poetry is a
> > > script-based art" followed by an enlightening confession: "Hmm...
> > > now I'm even more confused ...,". Well, UVR Sb., welcome to the
> > > club! But please do clarify where your stand.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Yogesh
> >
> >
> > One was under the impression, Yogesh saahib, that it was
> > only "complicated Urdu" that you wanted simplified on this
> > newsgroup. One is, consequently, astonished that even text
> > written in relatively simple English has caused you to be
> > tied up in knots. Wonders, as the old adage goes, never
> > cease! :-P
> >
> > First things first, there is no 'straddling the fence'
> > business going on here. None whatsoever. Period. Nor is
> > there any inconsistency or mutual disagreement in the
> > statements of mine that you have generously quoted above.
> >
> > Now, perhaps your dicombobulation really arose from my query
> > about whether 'ittefaaqan' and 'daaman' rhyme with each other
> > (something which, certainly, should be possible to determine
> > aurally). But if it did, why did you not say so?
>
>
> UVR ji: "dicombobulation" - There you go again - did I a touch
> a raw nerve or is it a Freudian slip?
>
> And here I was expecting a 'sagacious' discourse. Come back when
> you had some rest!
>
>
> Regards just the same,
>
> Yogesh
[Ignoring that sideswipe at the typographical error]
Hmm. So is it your statement that you were NOT thrown into
a state of confusion by my -- in your opinion -- mutually
contradictory statements? And yet you found the necessity
to state that *I* am straddling some so-called fence?
Very well, then. Since you want 'sagacious' discourse, let
us have some. This time *you* go first, please. Kindly
describe this "fence" that I am ostensibly straddling, and
explain how exactly, in your opinion, I am straddling it.
Sincerely,
-UVR.
Yogesh
It is not just the 'typo', it is the word itself that I object to.
Its use in the context is well below the norms of this forum. Yes, it
has graduated from being a slang, but is still a base word. I dare say
that if it were an Urdu word, it would fall in the category of words
that your favorite lexicographer Platts would have probably labeled
'vulgar'. There will always be some disagreements, but I hope we
use a considerate language, consistent with the norms of this forum, to
express our views.
Between your categorical assertions, rhetoric, and rehash, sometimes it
is difficult to separate core from the chaff - I wonder if you ever
heard of the expression 'less is more'- whether it is due to my
inability to understand you or your ability to express clearly, remains
a moot point. I had no trouble understanding the point lucidly made
transparent by Afzal Sahib. If you do not have an issue with his
position there is nothing more for me to say on this.
If Afzal Sahib's post had appeared before mine, I probably would not
have posted. After reading his 'riposte', the issue has become
fairly clear to me. However, if you are willing to remain civil, we can
quickly review it further.
It seems to me that there are three main points:
1. "The written and printed word must be accorded its due". (Afzal
Sahib's position). After reading his explanation, I do not have any
problem with this assertion.
2. Scanning of certain words for 'poetic' purposes only. For
metric purposes, when the pronunciations get over ruled, to accommodate
the spellings of 'foreign' words, it could appear unreasonable to
some. This takes us to the next point that Zafar Sahib raised and was
the primary reason that prompted my post.
3. "savaal ye uThtaa hai k kyaa zarooree hai k jo kuchh baRe kitaaboN
meN likh ga'ye haiN vo abadan-abadaa aankheN band kar ke tasleem kar
liyaa jaa'ye? " ( Zafar Sahib's point). I think it is very valid
question. A language needs to grow instead of remaining mired in some
archaic rules - Just my opinion.
Last one is the only issue that has not been fully addressed. You are
welcome to express your views on this, if you like.
Regards,
Yogesh
Afzal A. Khan
Sethi Saheb,
I am grateful to you for going through my long "riposte" !
As regards the last point ( # 3), my own feeling is that
things would become very chaotic if each one of us (or
many people) started making their own "rules", disregarding
the usages mentioned in texts written by our "elders".
Things have to evolve over a period of time. The general
public should have sufficient time to become accustomed to
new usages and deem them acceptable. And then they can
become part of the language, and may even replace earlier
"rules" too. Take, for instance, words like "kisoo", "kabhoo"
and the general pattern of the language used by Meer. Over
the years, these have become "matrook" and replaced by alternate
expressions. Now, if Sarwar Saheb wants to compose a ghazal
in that style, he prefers to give us a sort of advance warning !
When new words are added to, say, the Oxfor English Dictionary,
it is only after they have been in general use for some time.
"Blank Verse" had been tried out in Urdu poetry quite some
decades back. Had it caught on, we might be seeing a great many
examples of it today. Just my opinion.
Afzal
Zafar
>
> 1. "Kehna", "Likhna" etc. are merely phrases. These ought not
> to be treated in a rigidly literal sense. What is important
> is the process in its entirety.
>
> 2. "Oral tradition" may have had its uses. But it cannot
> be determined exactly and accurately over a period of time.
> And, in any case, the written and printed word must be accorded
> its due.
>
> 3. When we discuss rights and wrongs, correct and incorrect
> usage etc., we are talking in the context of established
> rules and regulations. And, where available, we can and
> should rely on standard texts.
Wow, that was a long and I should say, scholarly, riposte. I have some
points in response but before I present them, I must add that whatever
I say here is my personal view based upon what I have read over the
years and I present it in all humbleness and understand any differing
points of views. My apologies if some of the points seem digressive
from the initial crux of the thread, but to indulge in that is to
indulge in bombastic rhetoric, which I have no interest in being a part
of. So, here we go:
There was perhaps some lack of communication on my part in the previous
post regarding the 'battle' between the written vs. oral
traditions. My point was that the 'mashriqee' tradition is an oral
tradition (by Eastern I mean the three great Oriental traditions,
namely, the Chinese Tradition, the Hindu Tradition and the Muslim
Tradition. If you ponder further, you'd notice that all three
traditions are metaphysical in nature, i.e., all their guiding
principles have been derived from metaphysics. And, believe me or not,
all metaphysics is oral by nature!
This is sharply in contrast with the Western civilization - if you
can call it a civilization in the first place! - where there is no
oral tradition and no sacred language. This is why they insist so much
on the written word - a case in point are the so-called
'orientalists' of the 19th century who weren't prepared to give
any weightage to the oral traditions. This was changed, mind you, by
the famous structuralist anthropologist Levi-Strauss in mid 20th
century but, of course, I can't go into details.
Furthermore, every tradition has the right to judge itself by its own
standards. The West stumbled when it tried to stamp their standards to
estimate our tradition. If they think that the written word is supreme,
they cannot force us to follow the same. We have our own standards and
we think that the Oral Tradition may have its own merits compared to
the written one. For instance, the Oral Tradition has the ability to
correct and improve itself, whereas once the word is committed to
paper, it cannot be changed.
So, as things stand, I'm not 'against' the written tradition or
anything; I merely want to state that our tradition is basically oral
in nature. This includes Urdu poetry, which is an oral art, rather than
a written one. Of course, writing has tremendous merits of its own,
nobody denying that but that doesn't change the facts.
You raised some questions about the nature of the creative process and
the 'pen and paper' techniques that some poets adopt. Well, allow
me to say that the creative process works in exactly the opposite way!.
Without going into details, I'd humbly suggest that the creative work
is done by the subconscious, rather than by the 'number-crunching',
'pencil-totting' grey matter! Poets write their work merely to save
it with almost always without being consciously aware of the process:
aksar Ghubaar e fikr jab utraa dimaaGh se
maiN dang reh gayaa k ye kyaa likh gayaa hooN maiN!
Finally, it's generally agreed upon that complex languages were in
use at least 50 thousand years ago, whereas writing was invented only 6
or 7 thousand years ago (please note that many cultures - including
those in the Subcontinent -- didn't have any writing system
whatsoever as recently as the 20th century). So for almost 90% of this
time, the only tradition was the oral one. Of course, the finest of the
fine arts of poetry originated, evolved and flourished in that era,
long long before the advent of writing, making it amply clear that it
is indeed an oral art.
> I daresay people in Shakespeare's time (and earlier) had a fair
> idea about the meaning of words. But it was only the publication
> of Samuel Johnson's dictionary that standardized the meaning of
> these words and became a reference point for people. Since then,
> there have been vast improvements, so much so that we now have
> huge dictionaries like the OED etc. When we discuss and argue
> about the meaning of various words and expressions in ALUP, so
I'd disagree that Samual Johnson 'standardised' the meanings of
words. Lexicography simply doesn't work this way. The duty of a
lexicographer is to document and record what is in vogue and what is
accepted and not accepted by the masses. His job is to present, not
prescribe; show, not tell. Moreover, to change the course of a language
is beyond the powers of a single person -- or a group of persons --
anyway.
> many of us refer to Platts. And now, the much more extensive
> Qaumi Dictionary (compiled by Dr. Jamil Jaalibi) is also being
> consulted. Can we still rely on the "seena~ba~seena" process
> for our consultation purposes ?
I don't know what you mean by this Qaumi Dictionary by Dr. Jamil
Jalibi. Are you referring to the "Urdu LuGhat, taareeKhee usool
par", a project of the Pakistani Urdu Dictionary Board? This project,
which is the third largest for any languages of the world, is more than
40 years old, is still a work in progress and the latest published
volume that I have seen is comprised of words starting with the letter
'noon'. This is the 19th volume and each volume has 1000 large size
pages. My understanding is that the finished work would have 23 volumes
in all. The Board is also planning to publish a 'concise' version
of the magnum opus as well. IIRC, Dr. Jamil Jalibi is the current
director of the Board but there have been many other directors as well,
including such Urdu stalwarts as Maulvi Abdul Haq, Shan ul Haq Haqqi,
Jamil ud Din Aali and Dr. Farman Fatehpuri. The Board employs quite a
large staff of lexicographers and publishes a quarterly journal as well
in which opinions of Urdu scholars are sought on controversial matters.
So in my opinion, it's not right to call this a dictionary
'compiled by Dr. Jamil Jalibi'.
My apologies if you are referring to some other 'much more
extensive' Urdu dictionary by Dr. Jalibi, which, I must admit, I'm
totally unaware of.
Aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
Yogesh
Zafar wrote:
...
> So in my opinion, it's not right to call this a dictionary
> 'compiled by Dr. Jamil Jalibi'.
Zafar Sahib, please permit me to clarify:
> ... if you are referring to some other 'much more
> extensive' Urdu dictionary by Dr. Jalibi, which, I must admit, I'm
> totally unaware of.
It is not an Urdu to Urdu dictionary. It is an English-Urdu dictionary.
The full name is "Quami English-Urdu Dictionary" , contains 2,356
pages, first edition published in 1992, and name of the editor is
listed as Dr. Jameel Jalibi. My inadequate explanation, while referring
to this tome earlier, might have caused Afzal Sahib to think
differently - if so my apologies to Afzal Sahib.
Regards,
Yogesh
Zafar
Urdu dictionary, which was surprising for me because I thought I had a
good acquaintance with important Urdu lexicographical works. I have
also written on the subject at ALUP.
I had this dictionary back in Pakistan. It was the best English-to-Urdu
dictionary of its time -- the pedestal was later claimed by Oxford
English to Urdu Dictionary, written single-handedly by Shan ul Haq
Haqqi.
Zafar
Afzal A. Khan
Sethi Saheb has already clarified the matter.
Actually, I have mentioned more than once on ALUP that I have
no dictionaries with me here (in the U.S.). An extract from
one of my recent messages is reproduced below :
"Unfortunately, I don't have any dictionaries with me
here. I suppose there are online dictionaries available
for consultation, but I have always been very lazy in this
regard. So, I cannot presume to speak anything about their
shortcomings or faults."
As regards the other points in Zafar Saheb's earlier message,
I would be replying to them separately --- but I promise that
this time around my response would be much much shorter than
the earlier riposte !
Afzal
Yogesh
few questions if you don't mind.
1. Which in your view is the best overall Urdu dictionary, in any
language format, available on the market?
2. Which dictionary, or any other reference book, best includes the
diacritical marks so often omitted in the publications?
3. Is their a reference work which deals with synonyms etc. in Urdu,
something along the lines of a thesaurus?
4. Is their a good reference book available which deals with the
syllables, so commonly illustrated in English dictionaries?
Regards,
Yogesh
Zafar
> Zafar Sb., on the subject of Urdu dictionaries and reference books, a
> few questions if you don't mind.
>
> 1. Which in your view is the best overall Urdu dictionary, in any
> language format, available on the market?
Yogesh saahib, the best dictionary is of course the Urdu Dictionary
Board's mega lexicon. But as I had pointed out earlier as well, it's
not yet complete and, moreover, due to its size and depth, it won't be
practical for common people. Initial volumes of the dictionary were set
in typeface but volumes completed 1990s and thereafter have been
composed in Noori Nastaleeq, the ubiquitous computer font.
All in all, the following dictionaries can be considered authentic and
'mustanad':
1. A Dictionary of Urdu Hindi and Hindustani, by Platts, published in
1880s (1 vol.)
2. Farhang e Aasfiya, by Maulvi Syed Ahmad Dehlvi, c published in 1890s
(3 vols.)
3. Noor ul LuGhaat, by Noor ul Hassan, published in 1927 (4 vols.)
4. Urdu luGhat, taareeKhee usool par, by the Urdu Dictionary Board,
incomplete (23 vols. in all, published so far, 19 vols.)
Of the complete lot, I think the 'Noor' can safely be adjudged the best
Urdu dictionaries so far. Please note that almost all other
dictionaries, including Maulvi Abdul Haq's dictionary, Feroz ul
LuGhaat, etc., have too many errors to be safely consulted for
scholarly work.
> 2. Which dictionary, or any other reference book, best includes the
> diacritical marks so often omitted in the publications?
All of the above have extensive systems of showing the exact
pronunciation. The last dictionary uses a more reliable system instead
of the diacritical marks (also found in some Persian dictionaries).
And then there is the ever-reliable Farhang e Talaffuz (A Dictionary of
Pronunciation), compiled by Shan ul Haq Haqqi and a project of the
National Language Authority of Pakistan. In addition to the d.m., it
also employs a similar system to the 'Noor' of showing the exact
pronunciation.
> 3. Is their a reference work which deals with synonyms etc. in Urdu,
> something along the lines of a thesaurus?
Yes, there is an extensive Urdu thesaurus, published - you guessed it
- by the National Language Authority.
> 4. Is their a good reference book available which deals with the
> syllables, so commonly illustrated in English dictionaries?
I am not aware if such a reference book exists for Urdu language.
Aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
UVR
> UVR Sahib:
>
> It is not just the 'typo', it is the word itself that I object to.
> Its use in the context is well below the norms of this forum. Yes, it
> has graduated from being a slang, but is still a base word. I dare say
> that if it were an Urdu word, it would fall in the category of words
> that your favorite lexicographer Platts would have probably labeled
> 'vulgar'. There will always be some disagreements, but I hope we
> use a considerate language, consistent with the norms of this forum, to
> express our views.
I am not aware that "discombobulate" is, or ever was, 'slang'.
If you were offended by my post because you thought I was
using a slang word to abuse you, then you were offended without
reason. 'To discombobulate' is to 'confuse/throw into a state
of confusion'. That's all.
If you have proof that this is a pejorative word (beyond its
inherent negative meaning), then please do furnish proof --
and I will waste no time in tendering my apologies for having
ignorantly offended your sensibilities.
> Between your categorical assertions, rhetoric, and rehash, sometimes it
> is difficult to separate core from the chaff - I wonder if you ever
> heard of the expression 'less is more'- whether it is due to my
> inability to understand you or your ability to express clearly, remains
> a moot point.
It is hard for me to understand what your intention was
behind using the word 'sagacious' in a sarcastic sense,
closely followed by the obvious finger-pointing with
"[UVR saahib is] straddling the fence." If this was
meant in jest, it definitely did NOT come through as 'jesty'.
> I had no trouble understanding the point lucidly made
> transparent by Afzal Sahib. If you do not have an issue with his
> position there is nothing more for me to say on this.
Very well then. Here's the "less" of it --
1. Urdu meter is an *aural* art.
2. Publishing poetry is a visual, script-based art.
There's nothing mutually contradictory in these statements.
Yet you pointed these out as examples of 'straddling [a]
fence.' Would you explain, please?
> It seems to me that there are three main points:
>
> 1. "The written and printed word must be accorded its due". (Afzal
> Sahib's position). After reading his explanation, I do not have any
> problem with this assertion.
>
> 2. Scanning of certain words for 'poetic' purposes only. For
> metric purposes, when the pronunciations get over ruled, to accommodate
> the spellings of 'foreign' words, it could appear unreasonable to
> some. This takes us to the next point that Zafar Sahib raised and was
> the primary reason that prompted my post.
I disagree with this point. The pronunciation of words
cannot and must not be overruled for any reason whatsoever.
This whole business of metric "scanning" of a word by
looking at its spelling is fraught with perilous pitfalls.
"Pronunciations get overruled to accommodate spellings of
'foreign' words" -- what does this mean? Can you give an
example?
> 3. "savaal ye uThtaa hai k kyaa zarooree hai k jo kuchh baRe kitaaboN
> meN likh ga'ye haiN vo abadan-abadaa aankheN band kar ke tasleem kar
> liyaa jaa'ye? " ( Zafar Sahib's point). I think it is very valid
> question. A language needs to grow instead of remaining mired in some
> archaic rules - Just my opinion.
>
> Last one is the only issue that has not been fully addressed. You are
> welcome to express your views on this, if you like.
It *has* been addressed, and in considerable detail, but
since you do not wish to read my previous post, I will
restate it here, hopefully in much simpler language this
time --
1. "aaNkheN band kar ke tasleem": am I doing this? The fact
that I even posted a question asking why 'ittifaaqan'
should not be rhymed with 'daaman' is proof that I am NOT
blindly accepting something written in some book. Indeed,
I don't even know which books these are.
2. A language needs to grow: agreed, BUT ... how exactly it
should grow is not for your (or me) to say. One thing is
for sure -- Urdu poetry has always given weight to the
"correct" talaffuz of words originated in Arabic and
Persian (barring, perhaps a rare exception here and there).
One must bear that in mind while attempting to compose
poetry.
3. qaafiya: I have *never* come across 'ittifaaqan' being
rhymed with 'daaman' -- by any of the asaateza. To me,
as well as to Afzal, Sarwar and Zafar saahebaan, these
words "sound" similar. And yet, not one of the masters
of poetry has rhymed such words with each other. I want
to find out WHY NOT! One argument is that these words
are spelt differently. I am not sure I agree 100% with
that position. I provided examples to explain why not:
Ghalib has rhymed Lailaa with 'kis kaa' as well as with
tasallee and bhee. Why is that acceptable and not this?
5. OBSERVATION: My observation is that the asaateza have
not rhymed used those words with each other which would
sound dissimilar if the pronunciation of each word's
language of origin were used. E.g., Khaas does not
rhyme with 'aas-paas' if Arabic pronunciation is used
for the former and Hindi/Urdu for the latter. Again,
this is my observation.
6. Inshallah Khan Insha has often been blamed for intro-
ducing "unnecessary" strictures into poetic Urdu. But
I have not come across these kinds of rhyme being used
even by poets who could not possibly have been influenced
by Insha -- chiefly Meer. And Sauda.
7. Whether I will now rush out and rhyme 'fauran' with
'daaman': NO, not by a long shot! First, I am still a
student whose still learning what all the "rules" are,
and I do not think that I am at a place in my Urdu life
where I can wantonly bend, stretch or break any one of
those rules.
Second, at least from 5. and 6. above, it seems possible
that 'fauran' may not even rhyme with 'daaman'. And
I place considerably more stock in the work of Meer,
Sauda, etc., than in the arguments of Zafar or Yogesh,
however logical and well-argued they may seem. For now,
I am content to 'toe the asaateza's line'.
I hope this post makes my position amply clear.
-UVR.
Amit Malhotra
Zafar wrote:
>
> > 2. Which dictionary, or any other reference book, best includes the
> > diacritical marks so often omitted in the publications?
>
> All of the above have extensive systems of showing the exact
> pronunciation. The last dictionary uses a more reliable system instead
> of the diacritical marks (also found in some Persian dictionaries).
>
Aadab arz hai Zafar sahib,
Would you be kind enough to illustrate just a bit on what type of
system is more reliable to show the exact pronounciation than the usage
of diacritical marks? :) I like the system platts uses for some
reason... that is the usage of roman urdu to illustrate the correct
pronounciation of the words and I think diacritical system is as good
as the roman urdu used by Platts to show how to pronounce the word
correctly. Anyway, this is just for curiousity sake :)
> And then there is the ever-reliable Farhang e Talaffuz (A Dictionary of
> Pronunciation), compiled by Shan ul Haq Haqqi and a project of the
> National Language Authority of Pakistan. In addition to the d.m., it
> also employs a similar system to the 'Noor' of showing the exact
> pronunciation.
>
> > 3. Is their a reference work which deals with synonyms etc. in Urdu,
> > something along the lines of a thesaurus?
>
> Yes, there is an extensive Urdu thesaurus, published - you guessed it
> - by the National Language Authority.
>
Do you know by any chance what it is called? It would be very
interesting to have an Urdu thesaurus, if i can get the name, I'll ask
someone to try and send it to me or get it for me from Pakistan. I
assume these will be hard to get here in Canada.
Warm Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Amit Malhotra
I have been following this discussion with a lot of interest and let me
first say thanks to UVR sahib for bringing here such an interesting
question.
I thought i'd give my two cents here after following up on this whole
thread closely.
I totally agree with UVR sahib when he says that Urdu meter is an aural
art. In fact, some time back, I was reading up the article (yet again)
written by Irfan Abid sahib on ba'hr (Ba'hr - the backbone of Urdu
shaayari) and i stopped at the usage of word "syllables" whereas I
would have used the word "Sounds" there. Mainly because the syllabic
distribution of the word will change because of it's pronounciation and
perfect example would be "aur" which can be one syllable or two based
on how you pronounce it.
And it obviously makes sense that "publishing poetry is a visual,
script-based art".
I do want to make a point though and this would be in the same line as
Zafar sahib that when a poet *writes* (or *says*) a ghazal, a nazm,
etc... he is obviously not concerned about the fact that it will be
published and worry about the script-based art factor of his poem. I'm
sure you agree. Which brings me to refute the point made by Afzal
sahib earlier that even though "fauran" and "daaman" seem alike
(similar pronounciations in Urdu), they are not used as qavaafi
together because of the written aspect of it.
And this brings me to the most interesting observation that UVR sahib
made in form of the example he presented by Ghalib.
> 3. qaafiya: I have *never* come across 'ittifaaqan' being
> rhymed with 'daaman' -- by any of the asaateza. To me,
> as well as to Afzal, Sarwar and Zafar saahebaan, these
> words "sound" similar. And yet, not one of the masters
> of poetry has rhymed such words with each other. I want
> to find out WHY NOT! One argument is that these words
> are spelt differently. I am not sure I agree 100% with
> that position. I provided examples to explain why not:
> Ghalib has rhymed Lailaa with 'kis kaa' as well as with
> tasallee and bhee. Why is that acceptable and not this?
>
No one here has bothered going into depth on why Ghalib has rhymed
"lailaa" with "tasallee" and "bhee". UVR sahib wrote something about
it saying, perhaps because on paper, they both look like they are
written with "baRi Ye". But for some reason, I don't think that's what
he had in his mind when he created that ghazal, whether, lailaa and
tasallee will look similar on paper!
UVR sahib said in another post (and i quote):
"So, here we observe that the alif maqsoora is a legal rhyme
both for 'alif' (kis kaa <=> Lailaa), as well as for 'ye'
(tasalli <==> Lailaa, taqwaa, Isaa). So, clearly just the
"shape" of the letter is not the only thing one must go by;
the pronunciation of the word also matters"
======
this is where i was totally left confused myself and i found it strange
that nobody here tried to really take a shot at addressing this
confusion that even UVR sahib was left with
(quote): Hmm... now I'm even more confused ... (end quote)
rhyming "laila" with "kis kaa" makes sense as we are obviously basing
pronounciation on sounds and similar sounds are what are leading to the
rhyme. In that manner, sauti qavaafii are more in vogue then they were
before because, in my opinion, it makes sense to rhyme something that
sounds similar. But why is and "aa" sound being rhymed with "ee"
sound. It really doesn't make sense that it's because they both look
alike when written down!
> 5. OBSERVATION: My observation is that the asaateza have
> not rhymed used those words with each other which would
> sound dissimilar if the pronunciation of each word's
> language of origin were used. E.g., Khaas does not
> rhyme with 'aas-paas' if Arabic pronunciation is used
> for the former and Hindi/Urdu for the latter. Again,
> this is my observation.
>
But then how is "tasallee" being pronounced the same way as "laila"??
unless "laila" is pronounced that way (i.e. "lailee") in its language
of origin, is it? :)
> 7. Whether I will now rush out and rhyme 'fauran' with
> 'daaman': NO, not by a long shot! First, I am still a
> student whose still learning what all the "rules" are,
> and I do not think that I am at a place in my Urdu life
> where I can wantonly bend, stretch or break any one of
> those rules.
>
I also agree with you, I wouldn't rhyme them, I would even try to stay
away from "sauti qavaafi" but me being really weak with urdu spellings,
i sometimes don't know whether it's being ended with swaad or seen
(etc.). But then again, based on my limited experience, I wouldn't
rhyme "laila" with "bhee" either... to me that just wouldn't seem
right. I am really curious to know as to why Ghalib rhymed them
together!
UVR sahib, the subsequent conversations in this thread didn't really
answer this question, that's why I thought i'd raise it again (sorry
for butting right between you and yogesh Sahib's discussion) :)
Regards
Amit Malhotra
Yogesh
Amit Malhotra wrote:
> UVR, Yogesh, Afzal and Zafar sahebaan,
>
> I have been following this discussion with a lot of interest and let me
> first say thanks to UVR sahib for bringing here such an interesting
> question.
Amit Sahib, It is indeed very interesting.
>
> UVR sahib said in another post (and i quote):
>
> "So, here we observe that the alif maqsoora is a legal rhyme
> both for 'alif' (kis kaa <=> Lailaa), as well as for 'ye'
> (tasalli <==> Lailaa, taqwaa, Isaa). So, clearly just the
> "shape" of the letter is not the only thing one must go by;
> the pronunciation of the word also matters"
>
> ======
>
> this is where i was totally left confused myself and i found it strange
> that nobody here tried to really take a shot at addressing this
> confusion that even UVR sahib was left with
>
Here you do have a choice. Both 'lailaa' and 'lailii' are
correct pronunciations and are listed as such in the dictionaries. As
you know, in Urdu as well as in Hindi scripts, the two forms will be
written differently i.e the shape of the end character will be
different. The character, 'alif maqsoora', will appear only in the
case of the first and not in the second form. Therefore, in my opinion,
it is not correct say that." alif maqsoora is a legal rhyme both for
'alif' (kis kaa <=> Lailaa), as well as for 'ye' ", at least this
example does not support such an assertion.
Regards,
Yogesh
Amit Malhotra
ok, cool.. if lailii is a legal pronouncation, can you say Isaa or
Isiii? Anyway, I hope someone can clarify how does Lailaa and Isaa
rhyme with bhii, etc.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
UVR
>
> > 5. OBSERVATION: My observation is that the asaateza have
> > not rhymed used those words with each other which would
> > sound dissimilar if the pronunciation of each word's
> > language of origin were used. E.g., Khaas does not
> > rhyme with 'aas-paas' if Arabic pronunciation is used
> > for the former and Hindi/Urdu for the latter. Again,
> > this is my observation.
> >
>
> But then how is "tasallee" being pronounced the same way as "laila"??
>
> unless "laila" is pronounced that way (i.e. "lailee") in its language
> of origin, is it? :)
May be it is! Who knows? (See below)
> UVR sahib, the subsequent conversations in this thread didn't really
> answer this question, that's why I thought i'd raise it again (sorry
> for butting right between you and yogesh Sahib's discussion) :)
Amit saahib,
Thanks for your post in this thread. As far as the question
of Lailaa-Isaa-taqwaa being rhymed with tasallee, bhee, etc
is concerned, I had posted this very question on ALUP around
2-1/2 years ago, in response to which our esteemed Sarwar sb.
had posted a very deeply researched and exceptionally well-
written article. You should read that article; I think it's
absolutely fascinating how much information is present in
that one post. My original query is here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/msg/c7e9aedcbf092351?hl=en
and Sarwar saahib's article is here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/msg/c7e9aedcbf092351?hl=en
The gist of Sarwar saahib's article w.r.t the Lailaa-tasallee
question seems to be as follows:
(1) This is acceptable because of the way these words are
spelt (alif maqsoora, which looks like a chhoTi ye with
an alif dangling above it like the sword of Damocles).
(That is to say, these are VISUALLY identical words).
(2) This is acceptable because Ghalib has done it.
In addition to this, here is something else I received in
response to my question [identity of person withheld upon
request]:
<quote>
If you read the shers where Ghalib has rhymed Lailaa, Isaa
and taqwaa... with tasallee, bhee... you will find that they
employ these words as 'of Laila', 'of Isaa', etc. I suspect
this means one is supposed to read these words as 'Laila-ee',
'Isa-ee' and so on, and may be the 'a' is silent in 'a-ee'.
We should also ask someone who knows classical Arabic/Persian
well to ascertain whether Lailee is a valid pronunciation
(or was valid during Ghalib's time). We know Ghalib threw
these 'curve balls'. E.g., in the "daa'im paRaa huaa" Ghazal,
he rhymes patthar, mukarrar etc with -- kaafar!
</quote>
There. Now you have all the information I have.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb (and also Amit Saheb),
Without getting into the larger discussion, let me give
a bit of info and my take on the same :
"Laila" : In Urdu, this is written in both ways, i.e
with "chhoTi ye" and "baRi ye". In either case, there
is a small 'alif' placed on the letter "ye".
I do not know or recall whether this aspect has been commented
upon in this or prior discussion/s.
To suit the requirements of "qaafiya", poets sometimes do use
a word as "qaafiya" by seemingly altering its pronunciation.
In one "masnawee" (probably 'Zehr-e-'Ishq'), the poet is
talking about the "ephemerality" of this earthly life. So, at
one place, he says :
Maut se kis ko rust~gaari hai
Aaj woh kal hamaari baari hai
And, in another sher (where I can't recall the first misra),
the poet says :
Ab na woh Qais hai na Lailee hai
Here the pronunciation of the word has been altered to
"Lailee", as in "Sea of Galilee". It rhymes with a similar
sounding word in the preceding misra (which I can't quite recall).
Also, I think one point which UVR Saheb brought up is quite
correct : Pronunciation alone cannot be the basis of "qaafiya".
Even if the pronunciation is similar, but the spelling is
different, it may not be proper to use these words as "qawaafee".
For example, "aas" (hope) and "KHaas" (special). Although
the pronunciation is similar, the spelling is different. The
first word is written with "seen" and the second with "s(w)aad".
These ought not to be used as "qawaafee" together. I think
UVR Saheb has given a similar example : "iqtibaas" and "iKHlaas".
Afzal
Zafar
> Aadab arz hai Zafar sahib,
>
> Would you be kind enough to illustrate just a bit on what type of
> system is more reliable to show the exact pronounciation than the usage
> of diacritical marks? :) I like the system platts uses for some
> reason... that is the usage of roman urdu to illustrate the correct
> pronounciation of the words and I think diacritical system is as good
> as the roman urdu used by Platts to show how to pronounce the word
> correctly. Anyway, this is just for curiousity sake :)
The 'Noor' would describe the pronunciation of the word 'mustaqbil' as
follows (please note that I don't have the dictionary at the moment,
I'm just trying to reconstruct the way it works; the actual might be
somewhat different):
avval mazmoom, duvam saakin, sivam maftooh, chahaaram saakin, panjam
maksoor
As you might already have noted, it's spelling out of the d.ms. This
might sound a little complicated but it sure is more reliable than the
d.m., because sometimes they are harder to pinpoint to the letter,
there is more chance of "typos", and finally, there could be some
printing errors as well, like spreading of ink, etc., that might
interfere with the d.m.
[I should clear here that the correct pronunciation of the word in
Arabic is with baa e maftooh, i.e., with zabar over the baa), but in
Urdu, baa e maksoor (with a zer under the letter) is considered more
faseeh]
Good dictionaries also give a similar sounding, but more common, word
to depict the exact pronunciation, as well as the exact vazn. The Noor
and the Farhang, for instance, would say, 'mudda'aa', bar vazn e
'intihaa' (again, just an example) and also give one or two
ash'aar in illustration.
The Farhang e Talaffuz also uses a similar system, albeit with
contracted symbols instead of the full words.
> > And then there is the ever-reliable Farhang e Talaffuz (A Dictionary of
> > Pronunciation), compiled by Shan ul Haq Haqqi and a project of the
> > National Language Authority of Pakistan. In addition to the d.m., it
> > also employs a similar system to the 'Noor' of showing the exact
> > pronunciation.
> >
> > > 3. Is their a reference work which deals with synonyms etc. in Urdu,
> > > something along the lines of a thesaurus?
> >
> > Yes, there is an extensive Urdu thesaurus, published - you guessed it
> > - by the National Language Authority.
> >
>
> Do you know by any chance what it is called? It would be very
Yes, I know it by chance, the chance being that I had it in my
collection :) As far as the name of the book is concerned, it's quite
'ism e baa-musammaa', i.e., the name is "Urdu Thesaurus". I
can't recall the name of the author at the moment.
> interesting to have an Urdu thesaurus, if i can get the name, I'll ask
> someone to try and send it to me or get it for me from Pakistan. I
> assume these will be hard to get here in Canada.
I am going to Pakistan in late June. If you promise to pay :), I'll
send both books (also the Farhang e Talaffuz, which I really like and
would recommend to anybody interested in Urdu). If you want to make the
arrangements yourself and have somebody in Rawalpindi/Islamabad, ask
them to buy the book from the bookshop of the Muqtadara in I-8 area of
Islamabad, near Shifa International Hospital. I don't think it'd be
available from anywhere else.
Zafar
Afzal A. Khan
>>>
>>>mazeed bar'aaN, shaa'iree to alag rahee, hamaaree to tamaam tar
>>>rivaayat hee seena ba seena naql hotee aa'yee hai, kyaa shaa'iree, kyaa
>>>mauseeqee, kyaa tibb, kyaa mazhab. hadith kee misaal saamne hai.
>>>jaane se pehle ye 'etizaar paish karnaa zarooree hai:
>>>
>>>agarche behs to bai-kaar bhee naheeN kartaa
>>>maiN apnee baat pe israar bhee naheeN kartaa!
>>>Zafar
>> I have quoted these examples only to illustrate my belief that
>> the phrases "kehna" and "likhna" are just that : phrases.
>> A ghazal may be composed in the mind and recited orally in a
>> Mushaira, but more often than not, it is the written version
>> that is recited. Many of us have actually seen this happening
>> in Mushairas. Maybe, ALUPer poets like UVR Saheb himself and
>> Sarwar Saheb etc. can tell us whether (or not) they have pen and
>> paper at hand while composing their "kalaam".
>
> Zafar
Although this thread is over for all practical purposes, I thought
I should say a few words at the end, as "itmaam-e-hujjat".....
Zafar Saheb had ended his previous message with a sher :
Agarche behs to bekaar bhee naheeN karta
MaiN apni baat pe israar bhee naheeN karta
But that is exactly what he has done, when he repeats in his
new post (under reply) that "....Urdu poetry is an oral art,
rather than a written one".
UVR Saheb had asked a simple, direct question : Whether one group
of words (ending with the "n" sound , but through the tanween) can
be used alongside another group of words (ending with the same "n"
sound, but through the letter 'noon'). One could answer this
question either with a "yes" or with a "no", citing examples and,
if possible, quoting standard texts in support of the reply. There
is no necessity to seek an answer to this straightforward question
in Metaphysics. We are discussing Urdu poetry, not a religious
issue requiring an insight into the Hindu Tradition or the Muslim
tradition.
As I stated, "ghazal kehna" is a metaphor or "mohawara". It need
not be interpreted in a literal sense. When a poet says : "MaiN
ghazal kehne baiTh gaya", this is also a sort of phrase. It doesn't
mean that a ghazal can be composed only when a poet is in a sitting
posture -- it cannot be composed when a poet is standing or just
walking around.
Also, I believe that a poet doesn't merely compose verses for
himself alone. He needs to convey it to other people too.
{"Jungle men mor naacha, kis ne dekha ?"}. A mushaira was a
common enough (oral) forum for communicating his "kaavish" to
others. But the audience was very limited. In earlier days, even
a mike was not available. But was poetry intended only for those
who could be present at a mushaira and able to listen to a ghazal ?
I think not. Poetry is intended for a much wider group of people
and, that is why (as I wrote earlier) most poets were eager and
anxious to have their "kalaam" printed/published so that it could
reach that wider group of people and also be available to posterity.
I have already referred to the written tradition in the context of
the Holy Quraan and also Hadees. Zafar Saheb made a reference to
"tibb" or Medicine. One of the foremost scholars on this subject
was Ibn Sina (or Avicenna). His treatise on the subject (Al-Qanun
fi al-tibb) or the Canon of Medicine is a classic for all times.
Even noted philosophers like Faraabi and Ibn Rushd have left behind
great texts. Their beliefs and teachings have come down to us
through written books, not through the "seena~ba~seena rivaayat".
If poetry was ONLY an oral art, then UVR Saheb would perhaps never
feel the need to ask his question. The difference between the two
sets of words becomes obvious only when we think of the way they
are transcribed or written. If the script did not exist or if it
was not necessary to take the script into account, then the two
sets of words would sound identical and the need for a question would
never arise. And, further, we would find many many examples of
eminent poets using these different sets of words as "qawaafee" in
their poetry.
And why call poetry even an ORAL art, in the first place ?
If a verse takes birth in a poet's mind (or sub-conscious), we
should call it a "mental art". Why bring the tongue into play ?
Such compartmentalizations are quite misleading, I would say.
We should think of it as a combined or unified process. A sher
or an entire ghazal may be composed in the mind (mental process),
may then be recited before a group of people (oral process) and
also written down (when it becomes a "script-based" art). And
poets write down their poetry not merely "to save it without
being consciously aware of the process", but with a specific
purpose : to save it, to refine or repolish it, and to make it
available for publication, so that it can be read and enjoyed by
a vast number of people. And this is very much a conscious
process -- as poets always seek to eliminate blemishes or mistakes
and to ensure perfection so that elements of Prosody are properly
taken care of.
Afzal
Amit Malhotra
I promise to pay :) Thanks so much for the offer and the information
you provided here.
Warm Regards
Amit Malhotra
Yogesh
Amit Malhotra wrote:
> Yogesh sahib,
Amit Sahib:
Different views have been presented on this matter. Let me present
mine. I do not believe that Ghalib could have gotten away with rhyming
'iisaa' with 'bhii' , not with Zauq and Co. ready to pounce at
the slightest of infraction, not to mention the Lucknow school which
just lived to pick on technicalities.
I think there is more to it than has been described here. Let us look
at the 'qavaafii' in the entire Ghazal. Only three have been called
into question, all of the others are fairly straightforward. The three
'qavaafii' in question, as presented by UVR Sb., are: "lailaa,
takwaa, and issaa".
I have already said that it is not 'lailaa' but lailii -
supported by Urdu dictionaries. Let us try to dispense the next one
also. It is not 'takvaa' but 'takvii'. 'takvaa' meaning
abstinence does not seem to rhyme, where as 'takvii' meaning the
next world fits beautifully. The expression 'manzil-e-taqvii' that
refers to heaven is an idea that seems to fit well with the rest of the
line.
That narrows the discussion to the last item: 'iisaa'. I submit
that it is a misprint or something like that. The word usage has to be
along the lines of 'iisaa- hii' and not just 'iissa'. How it
fits the meter I cannot tell you, but the final 'arkaan' of this
meter with several permissible variations, provides tremendous
flexibility. The expression implies that even invoking the 'issa's
magic was not sufficient to save the day. So the reference is not
directly to 'iisaa' but to issa's 'magic'. And this word has
to be something along the lines 'iisa-hii' to rhyme correctly.
Last, but not the least, if Ghalib did indeed rhyme 'iisaa' with
'bhii', don't you think, considering his stature and following,
we will have such examples coming out of our ears. After all invoking
the usage of a master was very much in vogue in 'taraahii
mushiaraas'. Is there even one other such example available?
Just my personal views. Regards,
Yogesh
UVR
>
> Here you do have a choice. Both 'lailaa' and 'lailii' are
> correct pronunciations and are listed as such in the dictionaries. As
> you know, in Urdu as well as in Hindi scripts, the two forms will be
> written differently i.e the shape of the end character will be
> different. The character, 'alif maqsoora', will appear only in the
> case of the first and not in the second form. Therefore, in my opinion,
> it is not correct say that." alif maqsoora is a legal rhyme both for
> 'alif' (kis kaa <=> Lailaa), as well as for 'ye' ", at least this
> example does not support such an assertion.
Yogesh saahib,
I submit that you have been a trifle too hasty in responding
to this matter. Please understand that this question was
not asked without performing some due diligence.
1. In both my Urdu script versions of the Deewaan-e-Ghalib,
the words Laila, taqwaa and Isaa are spelt *with* the
'alif maqsura' where they are rhymed with 'tasallee' and
'kis kaa'. These versions, in my opinion, are quite
reliable -- one's published by the Ghalib Academy, Delhi,
and the other's been edited by Ali Sardar Jafri. The
entries I am primarily referring to are 'dahr meN naqsh-e
wafaa wajh-e-tasallee na huaa' and 'aql kahti hai k woh
be-mehr kis kaa aashnaa'.
This provides *ample* evidence that (at least in Ghalib's
mind) 'alif maqsura' was a valid rhyme for both 'alif'
and 'ye'. You can't just dismiss this observation out-
right as you have done above.
2. Your other point is that the words rhymed with tasallee
are actually 'Lailee' and 'taqwee', not 'Laila' and
'taqwaa'. And that 'Isaa' could be a 'typo'. I think
here again your assertions are not quite valid as stated.
First, the Lailee/taqwee question. The Ali Sardar Jafri
edited Deewaan-e-Ghalib I have infact has the Ghazals
transcribed face-to-face in Urdu and Hindi, and the Hindi
version clearly writes 'siyah_Khaana-e-*Lailaa* na sahii'
and 'ba_chashmak_haa-e-*Lailaa* aashnaa', 'gar nafas
jaadah-e-sar_manzil-e-*taqwaa* na huaa', 'naatavaani se
hareef-e-dam-e-*Isaa* na huaa'.
Second, the 'Isaa could be a typo' question. It is
well-known that the Deewaan-e-Ghalib was published
during Ghalib's lifetime itself and Ghalib himself
put in painstaking efforts to make it as free of errors
as possible. Sure, something could have slipped by
nevertheless, but it is quite unlikely in my opinion.
3. Of all the answers to this question posted on this
thread, the only one that is mildly satisfying is the
one advanced by Afzal saahib -- that the pronunciation
of the 'alif maqsura' can be changed to 'aa' or 'ee'
depending on "zaroorat-e-sh'eri". I am currently in
the process of trying to determine whether there are
other precedents/antecedents that have taken advantage
of this freedom, or if Ghalib's the only one to have
availed of it.
-UVR.
Yogesh
UVR Sb., indeed there is some haste, but it is in your implication that
I did not give this matter careful consideration, before posting my
opinion. You cite the Hindi version of your Diivaan-e-Ghalib in support
of your argument. Let me tell you that the Hindi version of these
Ghazals in the Diivan that I have very clearly shows 'laalii' &
'takvii'. Not only that, it further explains the meaning of
'taqvii'. You may think that your 'diivan' is more
accurate/reliable than mine, and vice versa - but that leads to
nowhere. Suffice to say that at least some scholar holds an opinion
contrary to what you are suggesting. In my opinion the possibility of a
printing error, that you consider 'unlikely', cannot be ruled out,
unless you can find some other conclusive evidence. In the meantime, it
may be more fruitful to look at the problem with some logic and an open
mind.
On the matter of 'laalii', since it is a regular word and would not
alter the meaning of the couplet, there seems little force in the
argument that it must first be seen written as 'lailaa' and then
must be construed for pronunciation purposes as 'lailii' due to
"zaroorat-e-sh'eri". Just to avoid admitting a printing error - strange
logic to say the least.
Let us move on to 'taqvii'. Here again we are being asked to read
the word as 'takvaa' but pronounce it as 'taqvii' due
"zaroorat-e-sh'eri", while all along the word 'taqvii' is
available. In addition the matter is not so simple because there is a
big difference in the meaning of the two words - which meaning should
we accept and why? If we are to pronounce the word as 'taqvii',
where is the logic that the meaning should be extracted from
'taqvaa'! Now, please consider what the couplet will mean, if we
regard 'taqvaa' as the correct word here. And then look at the
meaning with 'taqvii' and tell us which one do you think applies
better.
As I said before, we are left with the word 'iisaa', and I find it
very hard to believe that Ghalib was so pressed for a suitable word
here that he took shelter in "zaroorat-e-sh'eri", apparently the only
time in his life. There does not appear to be another example past or
present, or at least we have not found one so far. Yes, please continue
your additional search and if you can find a logical reason for this
anomaly, I will be very happy to change my view. In the meantime, it
remains a printing error. Just my opinion, no more or less valid than
yours.
Regards,
Yoegsh
Afzal A. Khan
Sethi Saheb,
I have followed these exchanges between you and UVR Saheb with
considerable interest. Nothing surprising about that --- but
I AM a bit surprised at some of your statements/arguments on
this particular issue of Ghalib's qawaafee. But I must crave
your indulgence, maybe even pardon, if I express some disagree-
ment with your views. My observations :
1. You stated that the three qawaafee "lailaa, takwaa and
issaa, as presented by UVR Saheb" are from the same ghazal.
Only the latter two are from the ghazal which begins with
the words "Dehr men naqsh-e-wafa...". "Laila" is from a
different ghazal, where the pertinent sher begins with the
words "nafas-e-Qais". Actually, UVR Saheb had also quoted
another sher involving this word/name, but there does not
seem to be any scope for doubts or controversy as the
qawaafee used in that ghazal are "tera, dariya, paida" etc.
2. You have used the letter 'q' (qaaf) in the word "qawaafee",
which is perfectly in order. But why use "k" while
transcribing "taqwa" ? You have repeatedly spelled the
word as "takvaa/takvii", which is not easy to understand.
3. Let us now discuss this word "taqwa". You seem to believe
that the actual word Ghalib used or wanted to use is "takvii",
meaning 'the next world'. As I have said a few times earlier,
I do not have any dictionaries with me and rely only on my
memory, poor as it is. So please do excuse me for saying
that I don't recall coming across this word "takvii" in any
Urdu writing, prose or poetry. I would be much obliged if
you could please quote the dictionary and the meaning {the
next world} described there. You also state that this word
"takvii" suits the rest of the line and the meaning quite
well, in fact "beautifully". Could you please explain your
view or interpretation of the sher in greater detail ?
4. I do believe that the word used (and which Ghalib intended
to use) in this sher is "taqwa". Although it can be ex -
plained in the sense of "abstinence", I feel a more appro-
priate meaning or sense is "piety" and, I think, the word
has been used in the sher in this latter sense. I am pre-
pared to come forth with my understanding of the sher in due
course, after you have explained your interpretation (as
requested in item # 3 above).
5. Coming to the word "Laila", you have stated that the word
is not "Laila" but "lailee" or "lailii", supported by Urdu
dictionaries. I am sorry I couldn't quite follow this.
Do you mean that this is not the name of the legendary
beloved of Qais, but some other word with a different
meaning ? Or that the name of that person was in fact
"Lailee" and not "Lailaa" ? And what DO the Urdu diction-
aries actually say about this word ? We would all be grateful
to have some details/quotations from these dictionaries.
6. It is my understanding that the reference in both shers
(where the word "Laila" has been used) was to Qais's
mehboob. And I believe that word is derived from the Arabic
word "Lail" (meaning 'night'). "Night" is of course dark.
If legend is to be believed, Lailaa was rather dark in her
complexion, hence the name. If you think that the name does
not have this connotation, please tell us. Also, I have
always come across this name spelt as "Lailaa" {with a "ye"
with a small alif at the top}. There can be an exception
in a rare circumstance. I think I did refer to such an
instance, by quoting a misra from a masnawee :
Ab na woh Qais hai na Lailee hai
And there, this variant was used as a "zaroorat-e-sheri".
7. Let us now consider the third "impugned" qaafiya -- "Eesa".
You are convinced that it is a misprint and that the expre-
ssion that ought to have been been used should have been
something like "Eesa hii". But you don't explain how this
expression fits the behr. You also don't detail any other
permissible variations, though they provide tremendous
flexibility. Your view of the sher {"even invoking Eesa's
magic was not sufficient to save the day"} is also difficult
to follow. Maybe you will come forward with a detailed inter-
pretation.
8. You have asserted that the correct words are "lailee" and
some variation of "Eesa-hii", and the extant renditions in
Ghalib's diwan are misprints. In my time, I have seen quite
a few Editions of Ghalib's diwan, and let me assure you that
ALL of them contain these misprints. In all these Editions,
the two words have been spelt with a "ye", with a small alif
{alif-e-maqsoora} adorning its top. Let me also add that
the prophet's name also occurs in the Holy Quraan, and, there
also it has been spelled in the same manner.
9. It is interesting that you invoked logic in this discussion.
You feel that "zaroorat-e-sheri" is not acceptable, but
a misprint is much more likely. Can you explain how such
gross misprints occurred in the first place and, what is
much more relevant, remained uncorrected all these years
(even till date) ? If "Zauq & Co." and the "Lucknow School"
were ready to pounce on the wrong usage of such qawaafee, how
nobody ever seems to have pointed a finger at these printing
errors and ridiculed them ? And it is not just one place
where the word (and alleged "misprint") occurs. How can the
misprint occur wherever the word occurs in the diwan ?
10. What you write about "Zauq & Co." etc. is not borne out by
the history of those times that has come down to us. It is
of course a fact that Zauq was the Emperor's Ustaad or tutor
in poetry. It is also a fact that Ghalib thought himself to
be far more erudite and knowledgable in the art of poetry
(particularly Farsi poetry) as compared to Zauq. But their
supposed rivalry always remained restricted to a genteel and
refined pattern of behaviour. Neither of them stooped low
in order to belittle the other. The history of Urdu Litera-
ture is replete with details of "wordy duels" over poetic
matters but, as far as I know, there has never been any
controversy or name-calling regarding Ghalib's usage of
these qawaafee.
11. The foregoing leads us to one conclusion or at least one
theory. Ghalib's use of these qawaafee was in consonance
with some rules of Prosody. Otherwise, there would have
been a furore over such usage. Also, such an erudite
scholar of Urdu and Farsi could not have been expected to
resort to such incorrect usage with such impunity and utter
disregard of poetic norms and rules of Prosody. I can only
theorize about such a rule -- it must have been something
that paid due importance to BOTH "imla" (spelling) and
"talaffuz" (pronunciation). "Lailaa", "Eesa" and "taqwa"
are permissible qawaafee because these are written with a
"ye", corresponding to the general scheme of qawaafee used
in the ghazal, like "tasallee", "bhee", "raazee" etc. But
their original pronunciation does not change. I am sure
many ALUPers must have read various "sharahs" or exegeses
on Ghalib's diwan that have been written over the past
150 years or so. I doubt whether any criticisms have been
directed against Ghalib in these books for using such
qawaafee. Interestingly, one word occurring in the same
ghazal "ma'nee" has another, though rather pedantic,
pronunciation : "ma'naa". In sermons delivered by the
Maulanas, I have frequently heard them declaiming "Aur
taqwa ke ma'naa kya haiN ?", followed by a detailed discourse.
12. To repeat, what I said in the preceding paragraph is only a
sort of theory about a rule of Prosody. Maybe someone with
access to authoritative texts on the subject can come up with
a detailed explanation of such a rule.
13. I would also appreciate if other ALUPers, specially UVR
Saheb, express their views on what I have had to say in this
post. I referred to him by name because he started the
thread !
I would like to apologize once again if anything in my post
causes offense to anyone.
Afzal
UVR
>
> 13. I would also appreciate if other ALUPers, specially UVR
> Saheb, express their views on what I have had to say in this
> post. I referred to him by name because he started the
> thread !
janaab Afzal saahib,
yaad-aavaree kaa shukriyaa. jaisaa k maiN apni pichhli post(s!)
meN kah aayaa hooN, is zimn meN -- aur Khaas taur par Ghalib ki
zer-e-zikr GhazaloN meN 'Lailaa', 'taqwaa' aur 'Isaa' ke ist'emaal
ke muta'alliq -- mujhe aap se SAD FEE SAD ittifaaq hai. maiN
naheeN maantaa k yahaaN koi 'typo' hai, nor was Ghalib trying to
'pull a fast one'. lekin yeh bhi sach hai k Yogesh saahib ko
apni raaye Khud qaa'im karne kaa haq hai -- is meN aap yaa maiN
kyaa kar sakte haiN? lihaaza meri haqeer raaye hai k ab is 'alif
maqsoora' ki baHs meN kuchh naheeN rakkhaa; ise aur tool dene se
kuchh haasil na hogaa. haaN, agar koi is baat ki jaR tak pahuNchnaa
chaahe k aaKhir Urdu zubaan yaa shaa'iri ke woh kaun se usool
the/haiN jin ki binaa par Ghalib ne yeh qawaafi barte, to koi
baat bane. warnaa yeh kahnaa k Ghalib ne yeh qawaafee ist'emaal
kiye hi naheeN, mere nazdeek sar-aa-sar Ghalat hai.
aur haaN, 'thread' shuru' karne se yaad aayaa, k hanoz talaash
jaaree hai is laRee ke shuru'aati sawaal-e-doyam ke "poore"
jawaab ki: k aaKhir 'daaman' aur 'fauran' ek hi Ghazal ke
qawaafee jo naheeN ho sakte, to kyoN naheeN ho sakte -- kyaa
mahz in alfaaz ke 'n' kaa tahreeri farq hi is kaa kaaran hai,
yaa phir aur koi wajh (bhi) hai? koi nateeja niklaa to maiN
ALUP ko zaroor ittilaa' karooNgaa.
faqat
-UVR.
Naseer
This is a 2005 thread when I had not yet begun my participation. In 2007 I posted two threads tackling the questions UVR SaaHib had raised. I am attaching the two links to these threads.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.language.urdu.poetry/Qaafiya$20Tang%7Csort:date/alt.language.urdu.poetry/3F8HuOXGLLU/ThqPhuNJpScJ (qaafiya tang "strikes again"!!(part 3)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.language.urdu.poetry/Qaafiya$20Tang%7Csort:date/alt.language.urdu.poetry/wmv9g96auwE/R8dix8rBSUEJ (A farewell to "qaafiyah tang")
There was another thread under the title of "Qaafiya Tang, paivasta az guzashta" which should have had the correct title as "Qaafiya tang, paivastah ba-guzashta". I am giving its link below for the sake of completion.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.language.urdu.poetry/Qaafiya$20Tang%7Csort:date/alt.language.urdu.poetry/jAHspfplDgc/6sCszdHROYEJ
Naseer