tishnagi vs. tashnagi
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
I was just wondering as to what is the correct pronouncation for this
word.
maiN ne ek jagah lafz "tishnagi" likhaa to mujhe kisii ka msg aayaa k
lafz ka sahiih talaffuz "tashnagii" hai, to maiN ne Platts meiN check
kiyaa jahaaN iska talaffuz "tishnagii" likhaa huaa hai. yuuN to maiN
Platts par poora bharosaa kartaa huuN, magar maiN ne sochaa kyoN na
aap sab ki raaye bhi letaa chalouN.
peshgi shukriyaa haazir hai,
javaab ka muntazir,
Amit Malhotra
Yogesh Sethi
Amit Sahib:
I believe the correct word is 'tashnagii'. One of the difficulties, in
deciphering proper pronunciation from Urdu script, lies in the
frequent omission of 'zer-zabar-pesh' etc. Which leaves the script
anything but phonetic and could lead to transcription errors. However,
when the word is written in Hindi, there can be no doubt as to the
correct pronunciation. In addition to Platts, no less a person than
Nathani gives us 'tishnagii' in "Intekhab-o-Lughat". On the other
hand, Muddah, the eminent lexicographer, gives only 'tashnagii' - so
does Sani in "Aaina-e-Ghazal".
ab iraado.n pe bharosaa hai na taubaa pe yaqiin
mujh ko le jaa_e kahaa.n tashanaalabii shaam ke baad
-Sani
phir mujhe diidaa-e-tar yaad aayaa
dil jigar tashnaa-e-fariyaad aayaa
-Ghalib
lab-e-Khushka dar tashnagii, murdagaan kaa
ziyaaratakadaha huu.n, dil-aazurdagaan kaa.
-Ghalib
Regards,
Yogesh Sethi
UVR
>
> Amit Malhotra <amit @ bollyvista . com> wrote:
>>
>>I was just wondering as to what is the correct pronouncation for this
>>word.
>>
>>maiN ne ek jagah lafz "tishnagi" likhaa to mujhe kisii ka msg aayaa k
>>lafz ka sahiih talaffuz "tashnagii" hai, to maiN ne Platts meiN check
>>kiyaa jahaaN iska talaffuz "tishnagii" likhaa huaa hai.
>
>
> I believe the correct word is 'tashnagii'.
I am not so sure, Yogesh saahib. :)
Sometime back, a situation similar to that described by Amit sb.
occurred to me. I spelled the word as 'tishnagii' in a sh'er,
and one of our senior ALUPers corrected me saying it's 'tashnagii'.
"yooN to maiN un saahib par poora bharosaa karta hooN", magar
mujhe Khud par bhi (thoRa-saa, bas thoRa-saa) yaqeen hai :P,
is liye sochaa k luGhat meN bhI ek daf'a dekh liyaa jaaye to
kya buraa hai?" :)
pahle Platts dekhi. 'tishnagi'. lagaa, ho saktaa hai Platts ne
Ghalati ki ho, so Maulana Abdul Haq ki luGhat kholi. 'tishnagi'.
ab to mu'aamlaa bahut hi dilchasp ho gayaa thaa. sochaa k in
sab Urdu adeeboN ko kinaare kiyaa jaaye, aur seedhe is lafz ki
"source language", ya'ani faarsi, ki kisi luGhat ko "consult"
kiyaa jaaye.
So, Steingass. And?
You guessed it. *tishnagii*.
> Nathani gives us 'tishnagii' in "Intekhab-o-Lughat". On the other
> hand, Muddah, the eminent lexicographer, gives only 'tashnagii' - so
> does Sani in "Aaina-e-Ghazal".
Interesting.
> ab iraado.n pe bharosaa hai na taubaa pe yaqiin
> mujh ko le jaa_e kahaa.n tashanaalabii shaam ke baad
> -Sani
yeh sh'er dar-asl shaa'ir janaab Krishan 'Adeeb' ki us Ghazal
se hai jis ka matla hai:
jab bhi aati hai tirii yaad kabhi shaam ke ba'ad
aur baRh jaati hai afsurdah-dilii shaam ke ba'ad
Since you enjoy music, Yogesh sb., you'll find a nice-ish rendition
of this Ghazal in HMV's "Rare Gems -- Jagjit & Chitra Singh" album.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
A few days back, there was some talk of "diggaj" folks
on ALUP. So, here is the take of a non-"diggaj" !!
I think the original or classical pronunciation of the
word was no doubt "tAshnagi" (capitalized for emphasis).
But, over the years, this has come to be regarded as
archaic or pedantic. For quite some years now, I think
the popularly accepted pronunciation of the word is
with a 'zer' --- "tIshnagi". We should have no hesitation
in accepting the "evidence" furnished by UVR Saheb. He has
also mentioned something about music, so here is another
example from the world of music where the word has been
pronounced as "tIshna" :
In the film "Barsaat Ki Raat", there is a pseudo-poet
(played in his inimitable style by the late Mirza
Musharraf) who is supposed to provide lyrics for a
qawwali competition. And when he cannot come up with
anything suitable, he uses his own taKHallus "Tishna"
and foists it on a Ghalib sher :
Ishq par zor naheeN hai yeh woh aatish "tishna"
Ke lagaaye na lage aur bujhaaye na bane
Afzal
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
<me_a...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>UVR wrote:
>>
>> Yogesh Sethi wrote:
>> >
>> > Amit Malhotra <amit @ bollyvista . com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I was just wondering as to what is the correct pronouncation for this
>> >>word.
>> >>
>> >>maiN ne ek jagah lafz "tishnagi" likhaa to mujhe kisii ka msg aayaa k
>> >>lafz ka sahiih talaffuz "tashnagii" hai, to maiN ne Platts meiN check
>> >>kiyaa jahaaN iska talaffuz "tishnagii" likhaa huaa hai.
>> >
>> > Amit Sahib:
>> >
>> > I believe the correct word is 'tashnagii'.
>>
>> I am not so sure, Yogesh saahib. :)
>>
>>
>> -UVR.
>
>
> I think the original or classical pronunciation of the
> word was no doubt "tAshnagi" (capitalized for emphasis).
> But, over the years, this has come to be regarded as
> archaic or pedantic. For quite some years now, I think
> the popularly accepted pronunciation of the word is
> with a 'zer' --- "tIshnagi". We should have no hesitation
> in accepting the "evidence" furnished by UVR Saheb. He has
> also mentioned something about music, so here is another
> example from the world of music where the word has been
> pronounced as "tIshna" :
>
> In the film "Barsaat Ki Raat", there is a pseudo-poet
> (played in his inimitable style by the late Mirza
> Musharraf) who is supposed to provide lyrics for a
> qawwali competition. And when he cannot come up with
> anything suitable, he uses his own taKHallus "Tishna"
> and foists it on a Ghalib sher :
>
> Ishq par zor naheeN hai yeh woh aatish "tishna"
> Ke lagaaye na lage aur bujhaaye na bane
>
>
> Afzal
Gentlemen,
Thank you very much for your inputs. I wanted to wait a bit longer to
see who else would reply before thanking all of you, magar lagtaa hai
ab vaqt aa hi gayaa hai k maiN aap sab ka to shukriyaa adaa kar hi
douN :)
But it won't be enough to say "thankyou", I do have a few points to
make.
Yogest sahib, as you confirmed:
Platts puts the word as "tishnagii" and so does Nathani (i have both
the dictionaries with me, hence I can say for sure that you are not
wrong on that). I am not sure where Muddah gives it as "tashnagii"
(is it confirmed with a roman pronouncation guide or just in urdu with
a zabar on top?)
UVR:
I also, incidently, did a search on Google before coming here with the
question. I did notice the thread you were talking about where the
senior ALUPer corrected you by saying it's "tashnagii" and not
"tishnagii". However, in other threads while doing a search for
"tishnagii" and "tashnagii", I saw the same Senior ALUPer using the
word "tishnagii" at a couple of places. :) I guess that senior ALUPer
in question can probably clarify what his position is on the
pronounciation of this word and why is that?
(Heck Raj sahib won't like it if i didn't call him out by his name, so
RK sahib, please, aap bhi aa kar bataa hi dijiye k aap is lafz ke
talaffuz ke baare meiN kyaa sochte haiN)
I also have a dictionary by Haq and as you said, it is also written
there as "tishnagii" and not "tashnagii"
I didn't get a chance to listen to the ghazal today in Rare Gems, but
the same ghazal was also sung by Mehdi Hasan and if i remember (I'll
have to double check), he pronounces it as "tishnagii" (please don't
take my word for it though, I will check tonight when i get home).
Afzal Sahib:
I would love to know why you think the classical pronounciation of the
word is "tashnagi", you did say "no doubt", so perhaps you can refer
us all to a source?
From your post, I gathered that the correct pronounciation in use
today is "tishnagii" but the archaic or classical one (that is no
longer in use of course) was "tashnagii".
IMHO however, the root of the word is "tishna" (according to Platts),
and "tishna" itself has a sanskrit root in the word "trishna", hence
it somewhat makes sense to say that even the archaic or classical
pronounciation may have been "tishnagii" because we don't say
"trashnaa" in sanskrit.
I hope other people will come out with their opinion too, but right
now, going by the comments and the dictionary references, I'd say the
favour is going towards "tishnagii" rather than "tashnagii"
Thanks to all three of you for your time and comments.
Regards
Amit Malhotra
Sushil Sharma
...
>IMHO however, the root of the word is "tishna" (according to Platts),
>and "tishna" itself has a sanskrit root in the word "trishna", hence
>it somewhat makes sense to say that even the archaic or classical
>pronounciation may have been "tishnagii" because we don't say
>"trashnaa" in sanskrit.
Amit Saheb, agar maiN arz karooN k Sanskrit meiN sahiih
talaffuz "traShNaa" to nahiiN hai (jaisaa aap ne farmaayaa),
magar, sahiih Sanskrit talaffuz "triShNaa" bhii nahiiN hai,
to umeed hai ke aap buraa na maneNge. jadiid Hindi/Sanskrit
meiN bhale hii ham log ise "triShNaa", yahaaN tak ke "trishNaa"
ya "trashNaa" bhii samjheN aur pukaareN, Sankskrit meiN to
yeh lafz "tR^iShNaa" (yaane "consonant t, vowel R^i, consonant
Sh, consonant N, vowel aa) hai. ghaur keejiyegaa k, Sanskrit
meiN R^i ek vowel sound hai. yahii wajah hai k Sanskrit prosody
meiN "upakR^ita" jaise lafz ko "laghu-laghu-laghu-laghu" ke
wazn par baandhaa jaataa hai (kR^i ko yuktaakshar nahiiN
maanaa jaataa, isii liye pa ko guru nahiiN baandh sakte).
Obviusly Sanskrit "tR^iShNaa" and Urdu/Farsi "tishNa/tashna"
are related (perhaps derived from a common ancient source),
but,IMHO, this observation does not really help in deciding
whether "tashna" or "tishna" is the right or older/classical
talaffuz in Urdu/Farsi.
Regards,
Sushil
Afzal A. Khan
One queston, if you don't mind.
Your expression --> "jadeed Hindi/Sanskrit".
Here, I am assuming that "jadeed" has been used only
with reference to Hindi, or is it applicable to
Sanskrit too ? Is there a movement to "modernize"
Sanskrit ?
It is of course well known that there are common roots
between Sanskrit and Farsi. But, here, "trishna" , I
think, refers to "thirst", whereas "tishna" means "one
who is thirsty". In other words, the Sanskrit word is
an abstract noun. Why the abstract Farsi/Urdu counter -
part has taken the form of "tishnagi" ? Also, there
are other similar sets of Farsi/Urdu words --->
"Brehna" & "Brehnagi" and "deewaana/deewanagi". Is it
that (non-abstract) Farsi/Urdu words ending in "na"
have their abstract forms ending in "gi" ?
Afzal
Sushil Sharma
Afzal saaheb, aadaab arz hai! dar-asl maiN kehnaa yeh chaah rahaa
thaa k "aaj-kal jaisii Hindi (aam bol-chaal meiN), aur Sanskrit (aam
taur par Hindu karm-kaanD, puujaa-paaTh ke silsile meiN, aksar panDitoN**
ke muNh se) sunane ko miltii hai, us Hindi/Sanskrit meiN ..."
Waise to Sanskrit zabaan meiN waqt k saath tabdiiliyaaN huii
haiN, sadiyoN ke faasale meiN muKhtalif styles aur theories bhii
evolve hui haiN, par un sab kii jaanib, yaa phir kisii "Sanskrit
modernization drive" kii jaanib ishaaraa maqsuud nahiiN thaa. :-)
** [yahaaN panDit se meraa matlab "priest" hai, "scholar" nahiiN]
> It is of course well known that there are common roots
> between Sanskrit and Farsi. But, here, "trishna" , I
> think, refers to "thirst", whereas "tishna" means "one
> who is thirsty". In other words, the Sanskrit word is
> an abstract noun. Why the abstract Farsi/Urdu counter -
> part has taken the form of "tishnagi" ? Also, there
> are other similar sets of Farsi/Urdu words --->
> "Brehna" & "Brehnagi" and "deewaana/deewanagi". Is it
> that (non-abstract) Farsi/Urdu words ending in "na"
> have their abstract forms ending in "gi" ?
Aap kaa sawaal behad dilchasp hai. I don't have enough linguistic
background to discuss it with any degree of authority, but here
are a couple of observations:
. the Sanskrit word "tR^iShNaa" (thirst, desires etc), is
formed from the verb "tR^iSh" (to thirst, to desire etc).
Their is yet another, related Sanskrit word "tR^Shaa" (thirst).
IMHO, the root "tR^ish" is common to these words, and that
root seems to have come down from some ancient source, and
that is where the Farsi "tishnagi/tishnaa" might be related to
these Sanskrit words
. one more group of related Sanskrit and Farsi words, comes ready
to my mind, where similar word-formation seems to have taken place
from some common ancient root. Please compare
Sanskrit: vand (verb - to pray/worship), vandanaa (noun - prayer/worship)
Farsi: bandaa, bandagii
-Sushil
UVR
>
> It is of course well known that there are common roots
> between Sanskrit and Farsi. But, here, "trishna" , I
> think, refers to "thirst", whereas "tishna" means "one
> who is thirsty". In other words, the Sanskrit word is
> an abstract noun. Why the abstract Farsi/Urdu counter -
> part has taken the form of "tishnagi" ? Also, there
> are other similar sets of Farsi/Urdu words --->
> "Brehna" & "Brehnagi" and "deewaana/deewanagi". Is it
> that (non-abstract) Farsi/Urdu words ending in "na"
> have their abstract forms ending in "gi" ?
I am a bit surprised at the classification of words like tishna,
deewaana, etc as non-abstract nouns. I have always known these
to be adjectives. Aren't they? Why not?
IMO the Farsi suffix '-gi' is similar to the English '-ness'.
Just as the addition of '-ness' to an English adjective yields
an abstract noun, the addition of '-gi' to a Farsi adjective
(not necessarily ending in 'na') yields an abstract noun.
That's how, I think, we get the following pairs of words, to
name just a few:
aawaara --> aawaaragi (waywardness)
deewaana --> deewaanagi (craziness)
tishna --> tishnagi (thirstiness)
afsurda --> afsurdagi (sadness)
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
I think only a grammarian, particularly one well -
versed in Farsi can tell us the relevant rules.
BTW, I had used the expression "Farsi/Urdu words",
not "non-abstract nouns" !!
Afzal
UVR
>
> UVR wrote:
>
>>Afzal A. Khan wrote:
>>
>>> It is of course well known that there are common roots
>>> between Sanskrit and Farsi. But, here, "trishna" , I
>>> think, refers to "thirst", whereas "tishna" means "one
>>> who is thirsty". In other words, the Sanskrit word is
>>> an abstract noun. Why the abstract Farsi/Urdu counter -
>>> part has taken the form of "tishnagi" ? Also, there
>>> are other similar sets of Farsi/Urdu words --->
>>> "Brehna" & "Brehnagi" and "deewaana/deewanagi". Is it
>>> that (non-abstract) Farsi/Urdu words ending in "na"
>>> have their abstract forms ending in "gi" ?
>>
>>I am a bit surprised at the classification of words like tishna,
>>deewaana, etc as non-abstract nouns. I have always known these
>>to be adjectives. Aren't they? Why not?
>
> not "non-abstract nouns" !!
>
> Afzal
Yes, indeed. It must have been your definition of tishna as
"one who is thirsty" (which would make it a noun) v/s simply
"thirsty" (which is an adjective), and the use of the word
'non-abstract' in the last sentence of your post which led me
to misinterpret what you wrote. My apologies.
-UVR.
Zafar
> Afzal A. Khan wrote:
> >
> > It is of course well known that there are common roots
> > between Sanskrit and Farsi. But, here, "trishna" , I
> > think, refers to "thirst", whereas "tishna" means "one
> > who is thirsty". In other words, the Sanskrit word is
> > an abstract noun. Why the abstract Farsi/Urdu counter -
> > part has taken the form of "tishnagi" ? Also, there
> > are other similar sets of Farsi/Urdu words --->
> > "Brehna" & "Brehnagi" and "deewaana/deewanagi". Is it
> > that (non-abstract) Farsi/Urdu words ending in "na"
> > have their abstract forms ending in "gi" ?
>
> Just as the addition of '-ness' to an English adjective yields
> an abstract noun, the addition of '-gi' to a Farsi adjective
> (not necessarily ending in 'na') yields an abstract noun.
> That's how, I think, we get the following pairs of words, to
> name just a few:
> aawaara --> aawaaragi (waywardness)
> deewaana --> deewaanagi (craziness)
> tishna --> tishnagi (thirstiness)
> afsurda --> afsurdagi (sadness)
yahaaN Farsi grammar kaa aik chhoTaa saa usool kaarfarmaa hai. aur vo
ye k jin alfaaz ke aaKhir meN "haa e muKhtafee" ... lekin pehle haa e
muKhtafee (HM) kaa aik chhoTaa saa jaa'iza:
Farsi meN "haa" (ya'anee "haa e havvaz"; cf. "haa e Hattee") kee do
aqsaam haiN, jin meN se aik HM hai (ise "haa e Ghair-malfoozee" bhee
kehte haiN). ye hamesha alfaaz ke aaKhir meN vaaqi'e hotee hai, bolne
meN vaazih naheeN aatee, is se pehle vaale harf par hamesha zabar
hotaa hai aur ise aksar zabar -- ya'anee aadhe alif -- kee tarah bolaa
jaataa hai [kahaa jaataa hai k HM qadeem Farsi aur Avistaa meN "k"
thee lekin Arabi rasmul-Khat meN aane ke ba'ad Ghalatee se "k" HM meN
tabdeel ho gayaa, lekin us behs ko alag hee rakheN to behtar hai! :)]
UVR saahib ne jo alfaaz oopar diye haiN un sab ke aaKhir meN HM hai.
is kee aik aur pehchaan ye hai k jab is ke haamil alfaaz se jama'
banaate haiN to ye un alfaaz se saaqit ho jaatee hai. jaise
bandah --> bandagaaN
aazurdah --> aazurdagaaN
paimaanah --> paimaana-haa
aa'eenah --> aa'eena-haa
vG.
is jumla e mu'atarriza ke ba'ad arz hai k HM vaale alfaaz se ism
banaate vaqt "gee" kaa izaafa karte haiN (jaisaa UVR saahib kee
misaaloN se zaahir hai). lekin jin alfaaz ke aaKhir meN HM na ho, un
par mahaz chhoTee "yaa" baRhaayee jaatee hai (ise yaa e masdaree kahaa
jaataa hai). jaise
veeraaN --> veeraanee
uriyaaN --> uriyaanee
vaqt --> vaqtee
rasm --> rasmee
vG.
yehee vajh hai k ba'az saahibaan Urdu meN musta'amal aise alfaaz par
naak-bhauN chaRhaate haiN jin meN HM ke baGhair hee "gee" kaa izaafa
kiyaa ga'yaa ho, jaise "adaa" (ba ma'anee e "payment" yaa
"performance") se "adaa'igee" (vaazih rahe k Farsi meN "adaa'ee" hai,
lekin yahaaN pe ahqar kaa Khayaal hai Urdu kee had tak "adaa'igee" hee
faseeh ho gaa.)
---
aur haaN -- is se pehle k maiN bhool jaa'yooN -- vo tishna vs. tashna
vaalaa qaziya! Urdu kee Farhang e Talaffuz (dictionary of
pronunciation) meN ise taa e maksoor (zair ke saath) likhaa hai,
lekin, is ke bar-aks, Noor ul LuGhaat (jis ko aksar log Urdu kee
mustanad-tareen luGhat maante haiN) ne to do-Tok faisila de diyaa hai:
"ba fat'h e taa" (ya'anee taa zabar ke saath, ya'anee "tashna") durust
hai, ba kasr e taa (ya'anee taa zair ke saath, ya'anee "tishna")
*Ghalat* hai".
vaise jadeed Farsi meN "tishna" hee bolaa jaataa hai.
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
aik savaal: kyaa Urdu (qadeem Hindi) meN "haa e muKhtafee" paa'yee
jaatee hai?
Yogesh Sethi
In addition, Talat very clearly pronounces ‘tishnaa' in:
phir mujhe diidaa-e-tar yaad aayaa
dil jigar tashnaa-e-fariyaad aayaa
Yet, just as clearly, Jagjit says ‘tashnalabi' (ty,UVR) in:
ab iraado.n pe bharosaa hai na taubaa pe yaqiin
mujh ko le jaa_e kahaa.n tashanaalabii shaam ke baad
Since Jagjit's rendering came much later, how can we say that
‘tashnaa' is "to be regarded as archaic or pedantic."?
I have a question for anyone to respond: What is the reasoning behind
the omission of ‘zer-zabr' in Urdu script? And, why is there no
dictionary available, in Urdu script, that fills this gap – such
notations are essential, if a person, learning the language, has to
determine the exact pronunciation of a word. Is there an effort afoot
to rectify this drawback. Muddah's dictionary, "Urdu-Hindi Shabd Kosh"
(7th Edition 1992), somewhat fills this gap, albeit indirectly, by
providing words in Hindi script. But still omits ‘zer-zabr' for Urdu
script!
Regards,
Yogesh Sethi
mohd....@gmail.com
If you want to be grammatically correct then its "tashnagi". It comes from the base word "tash", which means "empty". The actual meaning of tashnagi is emptiness, but also used for thirst.
The best way to understand the meaning of any word is going for its etymology, that is, its origin itself. We all know that Urdu is not an indigenous language but a buffet of the languages(with Farsi as the main platter!) that came from central asia via Afghanistan.
Trust me when u get to the origin of each word u will be sirprised to find out how wrongly the words have been borrowed and how the pronunciatian, usage and the associated genders of these words have been all ruined.
BR
Naseer
> Hi
>
> If you want to be grammatically correct then its "tashnagi". It comes from the base word "tash", which means "empty". The actual meaning of tashnagi is emptiness, but also used for thirst.
kyaa aap is silsile meN ek-aadh mustanad Havaalah de sakte haiN?
>
> The best way to understand the meaning of any word is going for its etymology, that is, its origin itself. We all know that Urdu is not an indigenous language but a buffet of the languages(with Farsi as the main platter!) that came from central asia via Afghanistan.
>
aap kaa yih da3vah kis bunyaad par mabnii hai? kyaa aap is da3ve kaa sar-chashmah bataa sakte haiN?
> Trust me when u get to the origin of each word u will be sirprised to find out how wrongly the words have been borrowed and how the pronunciatian, usage and the associated genders of these words have been all ruined.
>
iraadat-mand,
Naseer