Urdu zabaan se vaabasta chand baateN
Naseer
I would like to hear your comments, views on the following Urdu
language related matters.
a) The use of "do chashmii" he with the consonants "l",
"m" and "n"
Usually, this "he" is used to convey sounds which in English are
called "aspirates", e.g. bh, ph etc. Why is it customary to spell
"tumhaara", "kul_haaRii", "nan_nhaa" etc spelt with "do
chashmii" he. I am aware that kul_haaRii and chuul_haa are also spelt
with the "normal" he too.
b) The "gobbling up" of a vowel when a consonant follows a long
vowel
For example "naazaniin is pronounced "naazneen"
"aaKhirii =aaKhrii
This phenomenon is not necessarily found in "uneducated" speech but
is also noticeable in speech of educated people. For example
Khush aamaded= Khush aamded
aamadam bar sar-i-matlab= aamdam bar sar-i-matlab
b) Intonation
ek bajaa hai= It is one o'clock
dhol bajaa= play the drum
Is there a way to indicate the difference in the two words as given
above which are exactly the same but pronounced very differently?
4) In Urdu a village is normally written as "gaaoN" where as in
devaanaagrii it is written "gaaNv". Can any one offer an
explanation for two ways of writing (and I assume too ways of
pronunciation) of the same word?
5) Related to above is the formation and pronunciation of verbal nouns.
For example, in Urdu one would say "chunaao" for "choice" etc
whereas in Hindi, this is written "chunaav". Why the preference of
the "o" sound conveyed by hamza and vaao in Urdu. Also the
pronunciation of "dev-daas" as "deo-daas". Why?
iHsaan-mand
Naseer
Zoya
> Dear ALUPers,
>
> I would like to hear your comments, views on the following Urdu
> language related matters.
aadaab Naseer Sahib!
You have raised some very interesting points, thanks.
I have a couple of comments.
> b) The "gobbling up" of a vowel when a consonant follows a long
> vowel
>
> For example "naazaniin is pronounced "naazneen"
> "aaKhirii =aaKhrii
Interesting!!
While typing Roman Urdu, 'aaKhirii' is one word I have sometimes
paused over, wondering if 'aaKhrii' would actually fit better in the
meter.
But 'naazaniin' has always been 'naazniin' for me!! :)
>
> This phenomenon is not necessarily found in "uneducated" speech but
> is also noticeable in speech of educated people. For example
>
> Khush aamaded= Khush aamded
Another word I've sometimes pondered over!!
>
> b) Intonation
>
>
> ek bajaa hai= It is one o'clock
>
> dhol bajaa= play the drum
>
> Is there a way to indicate the difference in the two words as given
> above which are exactly the same but pronounced very differently?
bajaa farmaa rahe haiN aap, dekhiye duusre dost is baare meiN kya kehte
haiN! :)
>
> 4) In Urdu a village is normally written as "gaaoN" where as in
> devaanaagrii it is written "gaaNv". Can any one offer an
> explanation for two ways of writing (and I assume too ways of
> pronunciation) of the same word?
>
> 5) Related to above is the formation and pronunciation of verbal nouns.
> For example, in Urdu one would say "chunaao" for "choice" etc
> whereas in Hindi, this is written "chunaav". Why the preference of
> the "o" sound conveyed by hamza and vaao in Urdu. Also the
> pronunciation of "dev-daas" as "deo-daas'.
I have never heard 'Deo daas', always 'Dev daas' .
Having said that, this is something that I'have always wanted to
discuss. A few months ago, while typing a ghazal on Alup (by Krishen
Bihari Noor Sahib), I paused many times. You know why?
The qaavaafii of that particular ghazal are: chunaav/ chunaao,
jhukaav/jhukaao, bhaav/ bhaao etc. You get the idea.
I think I decided to go with chunaav, jhukaav etc, probably because I
am more comfortable in Devanagri script. But it bothered me, and later
on while quoting one of the ashaar elsewhere, I actually switched to
'jhukaao' !!
Naseer Sahib, I too would love to hear from other Alup friends on this
particular issue, so that it can be settled for me.
Thank you.
___________Zoya
Naseer
Zoya bahin aadaab 'arZ hai,
Thank you for your comments. For a while I thought all ALUP-ers had
taken a ride on the space shuttle!
You have started a new thread..."Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi" passes away. This
is typical of what I am talking about in one of my points above. It
should be written and pronounced as "Qasimi" with the "a" and the
second "i" as "aa" and "ii" respectively. This is because the pattern
is that of "faa'il" being "doer"...so, qaatil=murderer etc. aaKhir also
is based on the same Arabic pattern from which one gets "aaKhirii". I
may be wrong, but our "Vasmi" Sahib's name should correctly be written
as "Vasimi" with long "a" and long second "i".
As for "naazaniin", when I was at University I had several Iranian
friends. One day, I was talking about a young lady whose name I
pronounced as "naazniin". Well, I could n't make my self understood
until my Iranian friend said..."Oh! You mean naazaniin"! So, not being
one to accept things at face value, I decided to look this word up in a
reputable dictionary. To my surprise, I was wrong and my friend was
right! Having said this, I believe "naazneen" has become the accepted
"correct" pronunciation. But it still brings out my point of a vowel
being "gobbled" up.
Concerning "Khush aamaded", this is how it should be written and
pronounced. The past "stem" for the verb "aamad-an" to come is "aamad"
to which second person plural ending "-ed" is added. Do not forget
that -ed is the classical pronunciation and this is how we "desi" from
the sub-continent pronounce it. The Iranians have moved on and
pronounce it as "aamadiid" and you may come across this pronunciation
amongst Urdu speakers too, though I prefer the older pronunciation.
Coming to "jhukaao/jhukaav" issue, I don't know why Urdu/Hindi have
diverged here. Same applies for gaaNo/gaaNv. You said you have never
come across "deo-daas". I myself thought this may be a Punjabi
phenomenon until I spoke with Dr.Stuart McGregor whom I know personally
.You may know that he is considered an authority on Hindi, at least in
the UK. He said to me that the "-o" and "-v" pronunciations are both
equally acceptable pronunciations in Hindi.We were talking about
"dev-daas/deo-daas".
khair-andesh,
Naseer
UVR
The topics you have raised in your post are amongst those that I have
myself been interested in for a long time. Thank you for posting them
on ALUP and giving us all a chance to discuss them on this forum.
Naseer wrote:
> Dear ALUPers,
>
> I would like to hear your comments, views on the following Urdu
> language related matters.
>
> a) The use of "do chashmii" he with the consonants "l",
> "m" and "n"
>
> Usually, this "he" is used to convey sounds which in English are
> called "aspirates", e.g. bh, ph etc. Why is it customary to spell
> "tumhaara", "kul_haaRii", "nan_nhaa" etc spelt with "do
> chashmii" he. I am aware that kul_haaRii and chuul_haa are also spelt
> with the "normal" he too.
It may come as a surprise to you, Naseer saahib, that in many
dialects of Hindi and certain other languages of the "Hindi/Urdu
belt" of the Indian subcontinent, *every* unaspirated consonant
has an aspirated equivalent (with the exception of the sibilants
(s, sh), the 'vowel consonants' [y, w/v], and the retroflex L and N).
Thus, there exist aspirated counterparts of ka ga cha ja Ta Da
ta da na pa ba ma ra Ra la. Devangari has special characters
to represent all but four of these sounds, but in the Urdu script,
using the "do chashmi he" is the most appropriate representation.
As for examples, a perusal of an authoritative dictionary of
Hindi/Urdu (such as Platts') will reveal a number of words in
which these sounds occur not only in the middle of the word
(such as in tumheN, unheN, dulhan), but also as the initial
consonant of words! (except Rh, of course) For example, the
word 'nannhaa' is also pronounced and spelt 'nhannaa'.
> b) The "gobbling up" of a vowel when a consonant follows a long
> vowel
>
> For example "naazaniin is pronounced "naazneen"
> "aaKhirii =aaKhrii
>
> This phenomenon is not necessarily found in "uneducated" speech but
> is also noticeable in speech of educated people. For example
>
> Khush aamaded= Khush aamded
> aamadam bar sar-i-matlab= aamdam bar sar-i-matlab
aaKhirii/aaKhri may be an exception, but the 'gobbling up
of vowels' is also an artefact of the "Hindi" style of pronunciation.
BTW, it doesn't only happen when a consonant follows a long
vowel, for example, k+m+l = kamal, but ch+T+n+ii = chaTni
(not chaTanee!) , u+ch+T+naa = uchaTnaa and u+b+T+n
= ubTan. As one finds more and more examples (from 'Hindi'
words), a pattern begins to emerge which, when superimposed
on 'borrowed' words like 'aamadam' or 'muqaddama' will show
why they become aamdam or muqadma.
> b) Intonation
>
>
> ek bajaa hai= It is one o'clock
>
> dhol bajaa= play the drum
>
> Is there a way to indicate the difference in the two words as given
> above which are exactly the same but pronounced very differently?
Are these two words really *pronounced* differently? Perhaps
you meant to say that these words are pronounced exactly the
same but mean different things?
AFAIK, there is no way to tell these apart based purely on their
spellings or pronunciations. Nor is the inability to tell homonyms
apart from each other unique to Hindi/Urdu.
That said, in the specific example you have given, is the word
'bajaa' really different in the two sentences? I do not believe so.
I think it means exactly the same thing (strike/struck) in both
sentences. The clock has struck one (or make the clock strike
one). The drum has been struck (or, strike the drum!). What
do you say?
> 4) In Urdu a village is normally written as "gaaoN" where as in
> devaanaagrii it is written "gaaNv". Can any one offer an
> explanation for two ways of writing (and I assume too ways of
> pronunciation) of the same word?
I think 'gaa.Nv' (or, more precisely, gaa.Nw [see response to #5])
is the original pronunciation of the word. There was a time in
the not too distant past when even Urdu script users wrote gaano,
paano, chhaano etc for gaa.Nw, paa.Nw, chhaa.Nw. Clearly,
the relative inability of the Urdu script to clearly distinguish the
medial noon-Ghunna from a terminal one caused the shift to
the modern "-oN" terminated spellings. That inability does not
exist in Devanagari and hence there was no need to modify
the spellings in that script.
> 5) Related to above is the formation and pronunciation of verbal nouns.
> For example, in Urdu one would say "chunaao" for "choice" etc
> whereas in Hindi, this is written "chunaav". Why the preference of
> the "o" sound conveyed by hamza and vaao in Urdu. Also the
> pronunciation of "dev-daas" as "deo-daas". Why?
IMO, there is no difference in how the terminal "v" or "w" is
pronounced in Hindi vs. Urdu. You're right that the Hindi
script uses 'v' to represent this sound, but the Urdu script
also uses "v", it's just that the 'v' also doubles as the character
used for 'o'. In both Hindi and Urdu, the pronunciation of
the terminal vowel-less 'v' varies between a hard 'v' and a
soft 'w' based on geographical and dialectical criteria. It
is my belief that an overwhelming majority of native Hindi/
Urdu speakers use a sound closer to 'w' (the labio-velar
approximant) than to 'v' (the hard labio-dental fricative);
This is why, for example, you hear some people pronounce
devadaas as "dev-daas" and some others as "deo-daas"
(where the 'o' is not the long o of honaa, but a shorter,
more consonantal 'w'-like sound).
-UVR.
UVR
>
> I think 'gaa.Nv' (or, more precisely, gaa.Nw [see response to #5])
> is the original pronunciation of the word. There was a time in
> the not too distant past when even Urdu script users wrote gaano,
> paano, chhaano etc for gaa.Nw, paa.Nw, chhaa.Nw. Clearly,
> the relative inability of the Urdu script to clearly distinguish the
Slip of the pen. I meant to write, "(the inability) to distinguish the
medial noon-Ghunna from the medial noon, versus the ease of
recognizing the nasal sounds of a noon-Ghunna from a terminal
one"
> caused the shift to
> the modern "-oN" terminated spellings. That inability does not
> exist in Devanagari and hence there was no need to modify
> the spellings in that script.
-UVR.
Vasmi
> > > b) Intonation
> > >
> > >
> > > ek bajaa hai= It is one o'clock
> > >
> > > dhol bajaa= play the drum
> > >
> > > Is there a way to indicate the difference in the two words as given
> > > above which are exactly the same but pronounced very differently?
> >
what?
I pronounce the bajaa in "ek bajaa hai", "Dhol bajaa" and "bajaa
farmaayaa" exactly the same. how could they be different?
> I may be wrong, but our "Vasmi" Sahib's name should correctly be written
> as "Vasimi" with long "a" and long second "i".
>
how do you figure this?
I spell and write and pronounce it exactly as in Steingass's
dictionary:
(vaao seen meem ye) wasmi - Spring rain
What word were you thinking of and what does it mean?
maiN aksar apne aap ko bhi pahchaan nahiiN paataa huuN
auroN ko kyaa jaanuuN Khud ko jaan nahiiN paataa huuN
Vasmi
Naseer
Vasmi Sahib, aadaab 'arZ hai,
Vasmi Sahib: Naseer! kya vaqt huaa hai?
Naseer: HuZuur ek bajaa hai. maiN aap ke lie mez par
khaanaa
lagaa duuN?
Vasmi Sahib: nahiiN abhii nahiiN! main is vaqt khaane ke
"mood" meN nahiiN
huuN. main chaahtaa huuN kuchh mawSiiqii
ho jaae! tuu murlii
bajaa awr main saath saath bhajan gaauuN
gaa!
Do you mean to say that you can not discern any difference in the word
"bajaa" used
in the two situations above? Surely there is a difference. Bajna would
give the
imperative as "baj", whereas "bajaanaa" being a transitive verb
would give the
imperative as "bajaa", as you are commanding me to do in the above
dialogue. In
"aap ne bajaa farmaaya", this "bajaa", in my opinion can have
both pronunciations
depending on whether one is talking fluently or, whether one is
deliberate in one's
pronunciation to be accurate.
Regarding my comment on your name, I did say "I may be wrong, but our
"Vasmi
Sahib's name should correctly be written as "Vasimi" with long "a" and
long second
"i". I made my comment without consulting any dictionaries and assumed
that it was
Arabic origins. You have come across the name "waseem" meaning
"handsome" and
for this reason I thought the active participle of the verb would be
"waasim" and
hence "vaasimii". I could not find "vasmi" in Steingass. If you
say it is a Farsi word
meaning "spring rain" then I'll take your word for it. Apologies
if you thought I was
trying to tell you who you were!
Naseer
Naseer
muHtaramii UVR Sahib, tasleemaat!
Thank you for your response to my thread and as a consequence, one or
two matters have become clearer in my mind.
I have already responded to " din kaa ek bajaa hai" v " laRke!
Dhol bajaa!" in my reply to Vasmi Sahib.
You said, "It may come as a surprise to you, Naseer saahib, that in
many
dialects of Hindi and certain other languages of the "Hindi/Urdu
belt" of the Indian subcontinent, *every* unaspirated consonant
has an aspirated equivalent (with the exception of the sibilants
(s, sh), the 'vowel consonants' [y, w/v], and the retroflex L and N)
Thus, there exist aspirated counterparts of ka ga cha ja Ta Da
ta da na pa ba ma ra Ra la
This may explain why in Urdu script one finds both the do-chashmii he
and the other he for words like "tumhaaraa" etc but I still have
one problem. You say that . " Devangari has special characters to
represent all but four of these sounds, but in the Urdu script, using
the "do chashmi he" is the most appropriate representation..". These
consonants are l, m, and n (and you add r to this list). If devanaagrii
has distinct consonants for the other aspirates (which I know it has),
why does n't it have separate consonants for these four? My
"explanation" would be that these perhaps were not "true"
aspirates but may have had aspirations (joke) to be with the other
aspirates. I think the
co-incidental coming together of l+h, m+h, n+h and r+h does not
necessarily make them aspirates and by false analogy the Urdu writers
have used "do-chashmii he". If they were true aspirates, this would
have been reflected in the devanaagri script.
The "elision" of a vowel you say is "also an artefact of the
"Hindi" style of pronunciation". You say that the word "chaTnii"
is really "chaTanii". I am not convinced about this. I think, that
this pronunciation could be as a result of the so called "inherent"
a vowel between syllables in the devanaagri script. karnaa is written
ka+ra+naa. chaTnii is cha+Ta+nii.
I agree with you regarding the "v" sound in Urdu/Hindi. I believe
it is neither "v" nor "wa" but a sound in between. Also I
believe you are right when you talk about this sound as having a dual
function in both Hindi and Urdu in representing a consonant as in
"gaNvaar" and "gaaNv". I presume in accurate pronunciation of
"gaaNv", there should be no hint of "v" the consonant. (I
assume this applies to dev/deo daas too). What I am saying here is that
"jhukaao" and "jhukaav" should in theory be pronounced
identically.
The (in)ability of both Urdu and Hindi in representing the medial
"nuun-i-Ghunna" is the same. The former can represent it by a
"jazm" sign above it, whilst the letter represents by a
Chandrabindu or anusvaara.
Khair-andesh
Naseer
UVR
Thanks for your reply. I am responding to a few of your points.
This has become a rather lengthy post: I hope you will be able
to find it within yourself to excuse its lengthiness.
Naseer wrote:
> I have already responded to " din kaa ek bajaa hai" v " laRke!
> Dhol bajaa!" in my reply to Vasmi Sahib.
(Purely for my own convenience) I have cut and pasted your
words from that post here:
> Vasmi Sahib: Naseer! kya vaqt huaa hai?
>
> Naseer: HuZuur ek bajaa hai. maiN aap ke lie mez par
> khaanaa lagaa duuN?
>
> Vasmi Sahib: nahiiN abhii nahiiN! main is vaqt khaane ke
> "mood" meN nahiiN huuN. main chaahtaa huuN
> kuchh mawSiiqii ho jaae! tuu murlii bajaa awr
> maiN saath saath bhajan gaauuN gaa.
>
> Do you mean to say that you can not discern any difference in the
> word "bajaa" used in the two situations above? Surely there is a
> difference. Bajna would give the imperative as "baj", whereas
> "bajaanaa" being a transitive verb would give the imperative as
> "bajaa" as you are commanding me to do in the above dialogue.
> In "aap ne bajaa farmaaya", this "bajaa", in my opinion can have
> both pronunciations depending on whether one is talking fluently
> or whether one is deliberate in one's pronunciation to be accurate.
>
Naseer sb, with all due respect and no intention to sound patronizing,
I believe you are confusing yourself between *enunciation* and
*pronunciation* of words. There is no difference between the PRO-
nunciation of the word "bajaa" in "ek bajaa hai" (it has struck one),
"tere baarah bajaa dooNgaa" (untranslateable), "Dhol bajaa" (the
drum was played), or "Dhol bajaa" (play the drum!). They are all
100% homonyms. If there is a difference, it is only in way the word
may be enunciated based upon the speaker's emotional state but
*not* based on its meaning (the case of ba-jaa is different). For
example, for simplicity, let's just consider the 'bajaa' from the las
two "Dhol bajaa"-s. Nay, why the last two? Let us just take the
penultimate 'Dhol bajaa'. There are many different ways it can
be said:
Vocative (order): Dhol bajaa! (play the drum!)
Interrogation: Dhol bajaa? (was the drum played?)
Assertion: Dhol bajaa (the drum was played).
In all of these cases, the word being used is *the same*, but the way
the word is enunciated differs on the context, doesn't it? Indeed,
even
more ways of saying 'bajaa' can be conceived. For example, an
effective speaker would emphasize Dhol or bajaa based on what
question he is responding to:
['Falling' tonal accent on bajaa]
- *kyaa* bajaa? (what instrument was played?)
*DHOL* bajaa (it was the dhol)
['Rising' tonal accent and/or emphasis on bajaa]
- Dhol *bajaa*? (did the dhol play [or not?])
- Dhol *bajaa*! (yes, it did, and what's the matter with your ears?]
Even more ways of saying 'Dhol bajaa' exist:
A dispassionate assertion: Dhol bajaa (the drum was played)
A surprised assertion: Dhol bajaa! (How come it played!)
An angry assertion: Dhol bajaa! (It wasn't supposed to)
I will stop with the examples now. I believe these many are quite
sufficient to show that an unambiguous way of capturing tonal
fluctuations, accents, emphases, emotional state and other idio-
syncratic inflections of speech cannot be captured by any script
(aside: it appears that the chanters of the Vedas also discovered
this fact long long ago). It is futile to look for such differences.
It is *also* futile to look for differences in pronunciation of true
homonyms such as, say, "paalnaa" [n. a crib and v. to protect,
nurse (cf. parvarish)].
> You said:
>> It may come as a surprise to you, Naseer saahib, that in many
>> dialects of Hindi and certain other languages of the "Hindi/Urdu
>> belt" of the Indian subcontinent, *every* unaspirated consonant
>> has an aspirated equivalent (with the exception of the sibilants
>> (s, sh), the 'vowel consonants' [y, w/v], and the retroflex L and N)
>> Thus, there exist aspirated counterparts of ka ga cha ja Ta Da
>> ta da na pa ba ma ra Ra la
>>
> This may explain why in Urdu script one finds both the do-chashmii he
> and the other he for words like "tumhaaraa" etc but I still have
> one problem. You say that . " Devangari has special characters to
> represent all but four of these sounds, but in the Urdu script, using
> the "do chashmi he" is the most appropriate representation..". These
> consonants are l, m, and n (and you add r to this list). If devanaagrii
> has distinct consonants for the other aspirates (which I know it has),
> why does n't it have separate consonants for these four? My
> "explanation" would be that these perhaps were not "true"
> aspirates but may have had aspirations (joke) to be with the other
> aspirates. I think the co-incidental coming together of l+h, m+h,
> n+h and r+h does not necessarily make them aspirates and by false
> analogy the Urdu writers have used "do-chashmii he". If they were
> true aspirates, this would have been reflected in the devanaagri
> script.
Your joke (pun) is nice, but I'm afraid your last conjecture is not
true. It is a demonstrable fact that lh, mh, nh and rh are true
aspirates (see below). There is absolutely no requirement that the
language of a script be able to represent all sounds within that
language. A script may have greater or fewer characters than
the number of independent sounds in the language it's used to
transcribe.
That mh is a single aspirate is proved by the fact that the correct
pronunciation of the word tumhaare is not identical to the word
pair "tum haare" (you lost). Were it a pseudo-aspirate, there
would be no way to distinguish between the two. Likewise, the
pronunciation of 'nh' in 'unhoNne' is not the same as that in
'paalanhaare' (protector). The correct way to say 'kulhaaRi'
is to pronounce it exactly as if it were 'kulaaRi', but to aspirate
the 'l' so that it becomes 'lh'. We can forget about 'rh' in the
context of Hindi/Urdu, I think, because if at all this sound is
still extant in the language, it is so only in some (minor?)
dialects.
> The "elision" of a vowel you say is "also an artefact of the
> "Hindi" style of pronunciation". You say that the word "chaTnii"
> is really "chaTanii". I am not convinced about this. I think, that
> this pronunciation could be as a result of the so called "inherent"
> a vowel between syllables in the devanaagri script. karnaa is written
> ka+ra+naa. chaTnii is cha+Ta+nii.
>
I did *NOT* say that 'chaTnii' is really 'chaTanii'. Either I put
it badly (more likely) or you misunderstood me (less likely).
What I meant to say was that although from a script-perspective
the word is written as 'cha+Ta+nii', the correct pronunciation is
to silence the 'a' on the 'T'. The rule for voicing the penultimate
consonant in Hindi words is very simple indeed: if the final
consonant is 'vowel-less', the 'a' on the penultimate consonant
is voiced, otherwise it is silent.
> I agree with you regarding the "v" sound in Urdu/Hindi. I believe
> it is neither "v" nor "wa" but a sound in between. Also I
> believe you are right when you talk about this sound as having a dual
> function in both Hindi and Urdu in representing a consonant as in
> "gaNvaar" and "gaaNv". I presume in accurate pronunciation of
> "gaaNv", there should be no hint of "v" the consonant. (I
> assume this applies to dev/deo daas too). What I am saying here is that
> "jhukaao" and "jhukaav" should in theory be pronounced
> identically.
>
I agree with what you have said above, except when you say
"there should no hint of the 'v'". There is no such restriction in
Hindi/Urdu simply because we don't distinguish between a
labio-dental v and a labio-velar w.
> The (in)ability of both Urdu and Hindi in representing the medial
> "nuun-i-Ghunna" is the same. The former can represent it by a
> "jazm" sign above it, whilst the letter represents by a
> Chandrabindu or anusvaara.
Yes, but how many people who write Urdu use the jazm to
denote the medial noon-Ghunna? How many times have
you used the jazm to indicate the Ghunnat in baaNdh, or
kaaNdhaa, kheeNch, ...? These are almost always written
with a 'noon'; the reader makes the distinction on the fly. In
stark contrast to this, in Nagari, nobody is supposed to write
these words without the anuswaar or chandrabindu. I will
grant you that Hindi writers do not seem to be as fastidious
as they should about the chandrabindu (indeed, this is the
one blemish on the otherwise unexceptionably spotless visage
of janaab Platt's' dictionary -- he does NOT use the chandra-
bindu, setting, in my opinion, a most unfortunate precedent).
The anuswar, however, is not only safe and sound, it has
actually grown from strength to strength, absorbing the
function of the medial non-Ghunna half n, medial half m
and medial half retroflex N in addition to all of the other
nasalizers as well as that of the chandrabindu. Therefore,
while the "(in)ability to represent" the medial noon-Ghunna
may not be different between the Hindi and Urdu scripts, in
common practice, the recognition of medial Ghunnat is
way easier using the Hindi script than it is using Urdu script
(for an untrained or nascent reader).
-UVR.
Vasmi
Naseer Sb,
aap ne mujhe Ghalat samjhaa hai! (aur vo bhi itni mulaaqaatoN ke
baad).
na to maiN gaane-vaane kii aavaaz rakhtaa huuN, aur na hi maiN gaane
ko khaane par tarjiih deta huuN.
kabhi daavat par bulaaiye ga to ba-raah-e-karam mausiiqii ka program
khaane ke baad hi rakhiye ga. shukriya.
:)
I still don't see why the pronunciation (i.e. the way the word is
uttered in speech) of the two "bajaa" would be different.
Vasmi
Naseer
Janaab-i-muHtaram Vasmi Sahib salaam,
da'vat-i-ta'aam ?... sar aaNkhoN pe! lekin aap ko inglistaan meN aanaa
paRega! par ek baat yaad rakhiye gaa kih khwurd-o-nosh ke ba'd,
Hasb-i-va'dah aap ko, kam az kam, tarannum ke sath kuchh nah kuchh
sunaanaa paRega!
mujhe afsos hai kih aap awr UVR Sahib ke palle merii baat nahiiN paRh
rahii. 'ain mumkin hai kih is meN merii hii kotaahi ho. ba-har Haal,
fi_lHaal, is mawZuu' ko jaane dete haiN.
ba-Sad iHtiraam ke saath,
Khaaksaar,
Naseer
UVR
>
> mujhe afsos hai kih aap awr UVR Sahib ke palle merii baat nahiiN paRh
> rahii. 'ain mumkin hai kih is meN merii hii kotaahi ho. ba-har Haal,
> fi_lHaal, is mawZuu' ko jaane dete haiN.
>
No, I think I do understand the distinction you are trying to draw;
it is your contention that since "bajnaa" is different from "bajaanaa",
any word derived from the former must have a pronunciation quite
distinct from any word derived from the latter, even if the two are
spelt identically (in script). It's a luxury our language (much like
many other languages of the world) does not offer. Infact, the
existence of this pronunciational inexactitude can faciliate a variety
of enjoyable word play and puns. In any case, neither Vasmi sb,
nor I (nor Zoya-ji, for that matter) practice different pronunciations
for 'bajaa', regardless of whether its a derivative of 'bajnaa' or of
'bajaanaa'.
This is, however, not to say that *you* (as in Naseer sb) cannot
practice two different pronunciations for these two bajaa-s. For
example, you might be pronouncing bajaa in "ek bajaa" with the
stress on the first syllable, but in Dhol bajaa on the second. If so,
this would be a peculiar feature of your style of speaking. For sure
it is not the 'normal' Hindi/Urdu case.
> ba-Sad iHtiraam ke saath,
"ba-Sad" ... "ke saath"?
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
> Naseer Sb,
> aap ne mujhe Ghalat samjhaa hai! (aur vo bhi itni mulaaqaatoN ke
> baad).
> na to maiN gaane-vaane kii aavaaz rakhtaa huuN, aur na hi maiN gaane
> ko khaane par tarjiih deta huuN.
> Vasmi
Waise Mauseeqee ko GHizaa-e-rooh bhi kaha jaata hai !
Ek baat yeh bhi hai ke aksar (balke tamaam) gaane waale
khaane ke liye hi gaate haiN !!
Hum ne yeh maana ke gaayeNge naheeN, khaayeNge kya ?
Afzal
Naseer
UVR Sahib aadaab 'arZ hai,
There is no question of you being patronising as you were merely giving
your views. mere nazdiik aap ek manjhii huii awr jahaN-diidah
shaKSiyyat haiN awr main aap ko apnaa giraamii qadr ustaad gardaantaa
huuN. kabhi kabhi shaagird bhii ustaadoN ke saath baHS kii jasaarat kar
sakte haiN. kya Khayaal hai aap kaa?
Having read your comments in response to what I said to Vasmi Sahib, I
am glad, that at least you understand the point I am making. You have
made me feel privileged to think that I am unique in the manner I
pronounce these two words. It seems there is more to me than meets the
eye! However, on a serious note, I find it difficult to accept this
conclusion.
I do not think I am confusing "enunciation" with
"pronunciation" as the Chambers English Dictionary defines the
former as "to pronounce distinctly". I am finding it incredible
that these two words sound the same to your ears. You have said "In
any case,neither Vasmi sb, nor I (nor Zoya-ji, for that matter)
practice different pronunciations for 'bajaa', regardless of whether
its a derivative of 'bajnaa' or of
'bajaanaa'. That may be the case (although I do not think Zoya Sahiba
said this in so many words; unless this has been through private
communication) but they are not 100% homonyms. Far from it! The
utterance in each is quite distinct and the difference is the
"tone" as I indicated in my original post. As you may be aware,
Chinese is the most famous of the "tone" languages and has four
tones. Punjabi has two tones. In these languages, meaning of words is
changed merely by intonation. Here in Urdu/Hindi, the tone not the
spelling, distinguishes the meaning of the two words.
I do not think a multitude of examples necessarily clarifies the
situation. Two examples which have already been given may be sufficient
Assertion: Dhol bajaa (The drum was struck/sounded)= ek bajaa hai
{one (strike) is struck/sounded} Here the stress is on the first
syllable of bajaa.
Imperative: (order): Dhol bajaa! (Play the drum!) Here the stress is on
the second syllable.
Perhaps, if you were to record these sentences and hear your
utterances, it might clarify this issue. If not, for the time being at
least, we shall agree to disagree.
{When I wrote ba-Sad iHtiraam ke saath....mere baarah baj gaye the...a
mere "slip of the pen" on my part this time. By the way "Dhol
bajaa" is not "vocative", but "imperative". Vocative is
"laRke! idhar aa!"
"main tere baarah bajaa duuN gaa= I shall make your life unbearable
(?)}
Moving onto the "aspirates", you state "It is a demonstrable fact
that lh, mh, nh and rh are true aspirates". Could you please suggest
any Hindi/Urdu language/grammar books where the author covers this
topic.
Connected to the "elision" of a vowel, I should be most grateful to
you if you could clarify the "chuTnii" paragraph of your first
post. I could n't quite get my head (tongue!) round it, hence my
misunderstanding.
For jhukaao/v, would I be right in saying that in the pronunciation of
such words (including gaaNv), the final sound is a vowel albeit it is
represented by a dual purpose "letter"?
I have more "mavaad" for "Urdu zabaan se vaabasta chand baateN"
to go on for ....chand baateN 2,3,4....... If the ALUPers feel this may
be an interesting and useful topic, I would, from time to time, like to
post such mails...with their permission.
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
Janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arZ hai,
aap ne bajaa farmaaya hai kih mauSiiqii ruuH kii GhaZa hotii hai awr
yih bhii Thiik kahaa hai kih akSar gaane vaale apnii rozii hii ke lie
gaate haiN. in Hikmat bharii baatoN ke ba'd ba-Khudaa aSl mauZuu' kii
taraf lauTte to kitnaa achhaa hotaa!
du'aa-go,
Naseer
Naseer
Afzal Sahib,
Sorry about the after thought...
mujhe yaad hai kih pichhlii baar bhii, jab kih "Is Urdu Poetry
Artificial?" mauZuu' thaa, aap kii tashriif aavarii kisii khaane kii
baat par hii maHfil meN ruu-numaa huii thii! agar aap chaahte haiN to
isii maZmuun par koii naii baat chheR dete haiN!
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Asa'd
> da'vat-i-ta'aam ?... sar aaNkhoN pe! lekin aap ko inglistaan meN aanaa
> paRega! par ek baat yaad rakhiye gaa kih khwurd-o-nosh ke ba'd,
> Hasb-i-va'dah aap ko, kam az kam, tarannum ke sath kuchh nah kuchh
> sunaanaa paRega!
________________________________________________________________________________________
iNglistaan kii da'vat!
Akbar ka ek sher hai
sidhaareN shaiKh kaabe ko, ham iNglistaan dekheNge
vo dekheN ghar Khuda ka, ham Khuda ki shaan dekheNge! :)
ye sher paRhte hii mere zehn meiN sheroN ka taNtaa saa baNdh gayaa.
zaahir hai mad'uu to ham sabhii ALUPers haiN________k nahiiN!!!! ;)
bajaa kar Dhol, saaraNgii suroN ki taan dekheNge
sajaa kar bazm-e-mausiiqii ik aalii-shaan dekheNge
magar saahab! phir uske baad dastarkhvaan dekheNge!
puraanii mai piyeNge kuch naye pakvaan dekheNge
kareNge murGh-o-maahii saaf, vo hairaan* dekheNge
ba-andaaz-e-digar yaaro ham iNglistaan dekheNge!
* "vo" se muraad mezbaan hai, lekin saahib-e-zauq, ko agar misroN meiN
baahmii rabt kii kamii mehsuus ho to "hairaan" ko toR ke paRh sakte
haiN, barbecue ka mazaa do baalaa na ho jaaye to kahiyegaa ;)
Naseer Sahib, naachiiz maazrat khvaah hai, ke aap ki sanjiidah guftuguu
meiN yuuN mukhil huaa, lekin is cheR-chaaR ke baGhair zindagii kyaa
ma'nii!
aap hazaraat ki guftuguu maiN dilchaspii se paRh rahaa huuN aur
mustafiid ho rahaa huuN, albatta nachiiz ke paas is zimn meiN kehne ko
filhaal koii qaabile-zikr baat nahiiN hai.
Afzal Sahib ne baRii dilchasp baat kii, khaastaur pe Ghalib ke misre ko
to chamkaa diyaa! :)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
UVR
>
> UVR Sahib aadaab 'arZ hai,
>
> There is no question of you being patronising as you were merely giving
> your views. mere nazdiik aap ek manjhii huii awr jahaN-diidah
> shaKSiyyat haiN awr main aap ko apnaa giraamii qadr ustaad gardaantaa
> huuN. kabhi kabhi shaagird bhii ustaadoN ke saath baHS kii jasaarat kar
> sakte haiN. kya Khayaal hai aap kaa?
>
meraa Khayaal yeh hai k aap mujhe zaroorat se ziyaadah (aur
nihaayat "undeserved") "credit" aur "respect" de rahe haiN. magar
baqaul-e-aNgrezaaN, kisi tohfe meN mile ghoRe ke muNh meN
jhaaNkaa naheeN karte! :) So let me get what all I can while the
getting's good. :)
> Having read your comments in response to what I said to Vasmi Sahib, I
> am glad, that at least you understand the point I am making. You have
> made me feel privileged to think that I am unique in the manner I
> pronounce these two words.
I did not say "unique". I said "peculiar". There's a difference. :)
Jokes apart, I suspect that at least the majority of your immediate
family members (from your maternal/paternal house) use a style
of pronunciation very similar to yours. There are probably others
(such as those hailing from the same 'gaaoNs' as your esteemed
parents do, etc). But this does not make *your* pronunciation
THE correct pronunciation (nor does it make it wrong. It just
makes it different).
>
> ["bajaa" derived from "bajnaa" and "bajaa" derived from
> "bajaanaa"] are not 100% homonyms. Far from it! The
> utterance in each is quite distinct and the difference is the
> "tone" as I indicated in my original post. As you may be aware,
> Chinese is the most famous of the "tone" languages and has four
> tones. Punjabi has two tones. In these languages, meaning of words is
> changed merely by intonation. Here in Urdu/Hindi, the tone not the
> spelling, distinguishes the meaning of the two words.
>
That's verily the source of the disagreement between us, isn't it?
Well, as far as I know, the generally accepted wisdom amongst
linguists (I do not claim to be one) is that Hindi/Urdu are NOT
tonal languages. That is to say, these languages only use tone
to convey *emotion* and not to qualify the meanings of (similarly
transcribed) words. Punjabi *is* indeed a tonal language, so
it may well be your pronunciational heritage that is causing you
to aver that Hindi/Urdu are too.
> Assertion: Dhol bajaa (The drum was struck/sounded)= ek bajaa hai
> {one (strike) is struck/sounded} Here the stress is on the first
> syllable of bajaa.
>
> Imperative: (order): Dhol bajaa! (Play the drum!) Here the stress is on
> the second syllable.
>
Thank you for confirming what I had already suspected (and
posted on ALUP) was your point of view.
> Perhaps, if you were to record these sentences and hear your
> utterances, it might clarify this issue. If not, for the time being at
> least, we shall agree to disagree.
>
Yes, please let us do so. I think a speaker of Hindi/Urdu who hails
from Lucknow or uses that 'dialect' is as much a "native" speaker as
one from Delhi, or from the Punjab (though some asaateza have
reportedly cast aspersions on the Punjabi style of Urdu speaking).
> Moving onto the "aspirates", you state "It is a demonstrable fact
> that lh, mh, nh and rh are true aspirates". Could you please suggest
> any Hindi/Urdu language/grammar books where the author covers this
> topic.
>
I don't have any books on this topic. I will look for them and provide
references as soon as I am able to. However, a good dictionary that
illustrates pronunciations of words containing these consonants should,
in my opinion, suffice as a starting point. Or by making simple
observation of the difference in pronunciation between "tumhaare"
(your) and "tum haare" (you lost), "inhoNne" and "din hone (lagaa)",
"duulhaa" and "dhuul haa(tho.n me.n)" etc. Or even noticing that
"samhalnaa" is also spelt as "sa.Nbhalnaa" -- which would not be
valid unless the "mh" sound represented a single consonant (and
not a consonant pair?)
> Connected to the "elision" of a vowel, I should be most grateful to
> you if you could clarify the "chuTnii" paragraph of your first
> post. I could n't quite get my head (tongue!) round it, hence my
> misunderstanding.
>
Alas! In spite of repeated attempts at clarification, I have not
succeeded in making myself clear. All I meant to say was this:
even though the correct way of WRITING this word is as if it
were "chaTanii", the correct way of SAYING it is "chaTnii",
dropping the 'a' inherent in the transcription of the 'T'
This is also related to an observation that can be made regarding
the penultimate consonants of Hindi/Urdu words. A penultimate
consonant with an 'a' is pronounced sans the 'a' if the final one
has a vowel on it. Otherwise it is pronounced WITH the 'a'. For
example, the 'T' is written exactly the same way in 'm+T+r' (pea)
as well as "ch+T+n+ii", but in the former case it's pronounced
'Ta' (with the 'a') whereas in the latter, it's sans 'a'.
If I have still not managed to convey what I was saying, then
let us just please leave this topic alone, as it is clearly something
I am incapable of speaking clearly about.
> For jhukaao/v, would I be right in saying that in the pronunciation of
> such words (including gaaNv), the final sound is a vowel albeit it is
> represented by a dual purpose "letter"?
>
I'm not sure it would be correct to say "it is a vowel". It's a half-
consonant. It's just that consonant happens to be a 'vowel
consonant'. Just like the 'y' in "viShay" (topic) or "raay" (opinion).
BTW, the letters these are represented by are "dual purpose"
only in the Urdu script. We can talk about the (un)suitability
of that script to represent certain words in its own language.
> I have more "mavaad" for "Urdu zabaan se vaabasta chand baateN"
> to go on for ....chand baateN 2,3,4....... If the ALUPers feel this may
> be an interesting and useful topic, I would, from time to time, like to
> post such mails...with their permission.
>
More 'mavaad' will be most welcome, but obviously I don't speak
for any ALUPer but myself. :)
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
As'ad Saheb,
Yaqeen jaaniye, aap ke yeh misre' paRh ke ishteha aur
"chamak" gayee hai !
Aap ne lafz "baahmii" ist'emaal kiya hai. Darta hooN ke
kaheeN Naseer Saheb ise bhi "vowel-gobbling" ki ek nayee
misaal na qaraar deN !
Afzal
Naseer
As'ad Sahib aadaab 'arZ hai!
vuh aae(N) ghar meN hamaare, Khudaa kii qudrat hai
kabhi ham un ko kabhii apne ghar ko dekhte haiN!
"vuh" se muraad ALUPers hai!
mere Khayal meN aap ko apne suaal kaa jawaab mil gayaa ho gaa. aap
tamaam ALUPers tashriif laaiye...agar ghar chhoTaa paR bhi gayaa to dil
chhoTaa nahiiN paRegaa.
As'ad Sahib, aap ne nihaayat mauzooN ash'aar kaa intiKhaab kiyaa hai.
aag bujhaane ke liye kuchh nah kuchh to karnaa paRtaa hai, Khwaah vuh
peT kii aag kyoN nah ho!
iHsaan-mand,
Naseer
Naseer
Thank you, once again, for a detailed thought provoking reply covering
all the points I had raised.
"Jokes apart, I suspect that at least the majority of your immediate
family members (from your maternal/paternal house) use a style
of pronunciation very similar to yours. There are probably others
(such as those hailing from the same 'gaaoNs' as your esteemed
parents do, etc). But this does not make *your* pronunciation
THE correct pronunciation (nor does it make it wrong. It just
makes it different)".
UVR Sahib, I never for a moment stated that my pronunciation was the
correct one. All I have been saying is that, in my opinion, there is a
discernable difference in the pronunciation of the word "bajaa" in the
two situations given. To me, this does not matter whether the person
comes from Lukhnow, Delhi, anywhere in the Punjab or Kathmandu!
"That's verily the source of the disagreement between us, isn't it?
Well, as far as I know, the generally accepted wisdom amongst
linguists (I do not claim to be one) is that Hindi/Urdu are NOT
tonal languages. That is to say, these languages only use tone
to convey *emotion* and not to qualify the meanings of (similarly
transcribed) words. Punjabi *is* indeed a tonal language, so
it may well be your pronunciational heritage that is causing you
to aver that Hindi/Urdu are too".
I have not stated that Urdu/Hindi are "tone" languages. However, there
are situations where even in Urdu/Hindi (and in English) tone comes
into play. Again, it is not my "pronunciational heritage" that is
causing me to "aver that Hindi/Urdu are too". (My dear Sir, where do
you get such words as "aver" from?You must have half the English
language vocabulary stored in your great mind!)
"Yes, please let us do so. I think a speaker of Hindi/Urdu who hails
from Lucknow or uses that 'dialect' is as much a "native" speaker as
one from Delhi, or from the Punjab (though some asaateza have
reportedly cast aspersions on the Punjabi style of Urdu speaking)".
Once again (or should I say once again again?) the Punjabi element is
of no consequence.
I have spoken with a couple of persons whom I consider in high esteem,
especially with regard to language matters. Both have said that there
is a difference and that in "ai laRke, Dhol bajaa", the "aa" seems to
be pronounced a bit longer. I have tried to contact Dr.Stuart Mcgregor
but I have a feeling he may be out of the country. If I am able to
contact anyone of such stature, I shall let ALUPers know, even if that
person's view is contrary to mine.
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
As promised, I am returning to the topic after having been in
communication with
Dr. Rupert Snell of the School of African and Oriental Studies, which
is part of the University of London. He has authored several books in
the field of Hindi language and literature.
These are the questions I put to him.
1) Do you think there is any difference in pronunciation of the word
"bajaa" in the folowing two situations.
din kaa ek bajaa hai.
ai laRke idhar aa awr Dhol bajaa!
2) In Urdu/Hindi apirates are bh, th, Th, Dh etc...
One finds the "do chashmii he" which is used to indicate the aspirates
in Urdu also used after the consonanant "l", "m" and "n", ie. lh, mh,
and nh as in "tumhaara",
"nannhaa" and ""chuulhaa" etc. In these situations are these true
aspirates like bh, th etc?
His reply to question 1) is...
".....coincidentally, just before reading your mail I was sitting here
wondering how on earth one would go about explaining the English stress
system to a learner of English, who must be perennially foxed by such
words as "content" (first syllable stressed in the noun, of course, and
second in the adjective). Your bajaa is an excellent example of the
phenomenon in Hindi/Urdu, and I agree with your implication here:
clearly the drum-playing verb has a much stronger stress on the second
syllable....".
To question 2) he says...
"Your second question is a little trickier. I think one needs to be
clear here about whether this is primarily a matter of script
conventions or of phonology (and I am neither a phonologist nor an
expert in the Urdu script). Clearly there is "aspiration" in chuulhaa
and the other examples you give; but it would surely be misleading, and
perhaps a little meaningless, to think of aspirated consonants being
involved here......
I think your final question has to be re-formulated as "are these true
aspirate consonants like bh, th etc?", which would yield the answer
"no"..."
For the first question, although I have given two examples where one
has an intrasitive verb vs a transitive verb, I have come across the
following two examples from an article on the internet "Hindi-Urdu:
Stress accent or non-stress accent?"
galaa=throat galaa= (you) melt (it)!
ghaTaa= dark cloud ghaTaa=(you) reduce (it)!
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Sushil Sharma
> Dear UVR and Vasmi Sahibaan (and all remaining ALUPers),
>
> As promised, I am returning to the topic after having been in
> communication with
> Dr. Rupert Snell of the School of African and Oriental Studies, which
> is part of the University of London. He has authored several books in
> the field of Hindi language and literature.
>
> These are the questions I put to him.
>
> 1) Do you think there is any difference in pronunciation of the word
> "bajaa" in the folowing two situations.
>
> din kaa ek bajaa hai.
>
> ai laRke idhar aa awr Dhol bajaa!
Naseer saheb,
I have been following this discussion with some interest and would like
to add a few comments, if you permit. My opinion on the points you
raised in your initial post that started this thread, is mostly similar
to our esteemed UVR saheb. I do have some disagreement with him in some
of the details, and I will try to explain below.
Let's start with the first point. IMHO, all of us (including you and
UVR) agree that there is something in the two sentences with "bajaa"
quoted above by you, that tells the listener unambiguously wheher the
speaker is reporting a fact (ek baj chukaa hai) or issuing a command
(Dhol bajaao). Now, you seem to be of the opinion that "that something"
which enables this distinction, could be the difference in
"pronunciation" and UVR used the word "enunciation" for it. IMHO, that
distinction, in practice, is due to differences in context and
articulation. As I understand, there is no universally accepted
definition of what constitutes that difference in articulation for
Urdu/Hindi - some folks say it is difference in tone, and some say it
is difference in stress, and to make it worse, I think it is
combination of both. In any case, I am sure the two instances of
"bajaa" here refer to the same word, and as such, there is only one
standard, neutral, dictionary reference-able way of pronouncing this
word, when 'pronunciation' is defined as something that does not
include the variations arising from stress/tone/emotion/feelings etc.
The script (I am not implying that you suggested the script should
differentiate the articulation, and perhaps I am just stating the
obvious here), be it Nagari or the Urdu script, has no way of
describing the differences in articulation, and this is not unique to
these languages and scripts. Script is always a crude mnemonic for
documenting the spoken language.
Your initial email asked why do-chashmii-he was used in Urdu for "lh",
"mh" etc, instead of the other 'he'. My opinion is somewhat similar to
UVR's (i.e., it is an indication of these being aspirates in the
related dialects of the sub-continent). It appears to me that around
the time in history of Urdu, when such words were being first spelt in
Urdu script, these (lh, mh, nh etc) were actually aspirates in the
dialects from which these words were coming into Urdu/Hindi, and as
Urdu used the convention of do-chashmii-he for aspirates, naturally, it
was used for these as well as bh/th/ph etc. Once that spelling was
adopted, it stuck, even when Urdu lost some of the influence of those
languages from where the words were imported, and lost aspiration for
lh/mh/nh etc. In the course of evolution of both Urdu and Hindi, it
appears that aspiration of lh/mh/nh etc has been lost (or is one the
way of being lost), and my opinion differs from UVR on this last part
(he thinks the aspiration of these is alive and kicking in Hindi :-).
IMHO, this loss of aspiration for these combinations of letters, in
Urdu and Hindi is a result of the fact that modern standard Urdu tends
to align itself more towards Persian/Arabic, and modern standard Hindi
tends to align itself more and more towards Sanskrit for phonology,
prosody and various other aspects. Curiously, this results in
interesting situations where several words originate in Sanskrit,
evolve to some other form in prakrit/apbhramsha/dialects etc to get
their spelling as well as pronunciation altered, then then get absorbed
into Hindi to undergo fresh transformation in pronunciation, to align
once again with only those sounds that were available in Sanskrit! You
(and UVR) could find the following two articles interesting (if you
have not already seen these):
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/workpapph/104/6-Esposito%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.crulp.org/Publication/Crulp_report/CR04_04E.pdf
I should perhaps make it clear that my opinion about Urdu and Hindi
having lost the aspiration in mh/nh/lh etc is, only for the standard
modern form of these languages. I am fully aware that these aspirates
are very much in existance (alive and kicking :-) in various other
regional languages such as Rajasthani/Gujarati/Punjabi ... etc. and due
to regional influence, such aspirates may even show up in Urdu/Hindi
spoken in these regions.
On your question about "ao/eo" versus "w" (i.e deo-das versus dewadas),
all I can say is the following:
a. Sanskrit (and cosenquently other languages of its family) does not
have the consonant "v". It only has "w".
b. According to Sanskrit rules of euphony, w is a semi-vowel
(anta.Hstha)and has affinity with the vowels u and uu (as is seen by
manu+antara = manwantara)
IMHO, the correct (at least as per Hindi) pronunciation would be
"gaa.Nwa", "paa.Nwa" etc, not "gaa_o.N", "paa_o.N" etc. Furthermore, in
Nagari, one can't write the latter form of these words, as there is no
concept of short O sound in modern Nagari (which, as you would see, is
an influence of Sanskrit).
I have no idea if I am adding any clarity to the discussion, or adding
fuel to the fire, or just muddling the water that is already murky :-)
Regards,
Sushil
Naseer
My dear Sushil Sahib,
"I have no idea if I am adding any clarity to the discussion, or
adding
fuel to the fire, or just muddling the water that is already murky ".
No, you have not added fuel to the fire; on the contrary, I would
suggest you have brought considerable clarity to the "murky" waters
and I must express my gratitude for this. (I think you meant to say
"muddying" the water (?))
For "din kaa ek bajaa hai" vs " ai laRke Dhol bajaa!", I, never
for a moment suggested that the word "bajaa" in the two situations
was written differently in the two writing systems current for Urdu and
Hindi. My original question was whether the two systems ever
distinguish the two pronunciations. Of course, I was flabbergasted when
I was informed that these two words, in the situations given, were
pronounced alike and no distinction is made in their utterance.
What you are saying is that in the dictionaries no such distinction is
indicated and a neutral pronunciation is given when "pronunciation"
is defined as something that does not include the variations arising
from stress/tone/emotion/ feelings etc". I can live with this. You
further indicate that, you feel the difference is by way of stress and
tone. I am no expert on phonology and I am willing to accept whatever
terminology is employed for the phenomenon which I believe is real and
not imagined. For me, in the second example the "aliph" appears to
be pronounced longer. I feel acoustic tests would confirm (or deny)
this!
For the lh, mh and nh "aspirates", I accept your analysis and
conclusions and I have looked at the second link you have provided. The
researches did not conduct any work on the "nh" for some strange
reason and have come to the conclusion that "mh" has died out in
Urdu and "lh" is "hanging on". I can not really see how a small
sample of native speakers (10 males and 10 females from Lahore) can
lead to such empirical conclusions. One thing totally threw me. Amongst
the words which this group was asked to utter was "jumhuur" ( the
masses). Now, this is an Arabic word where there is no "aspiration"
in that language. This tends to go in favour of my original assertion
that these were not "true aspirates", but a co-incidental coming
together of l,m,n with the consonant h. What are your views about the
inclusion of "jumhuur" along with tumheM, kumhaar, kumhlaanaa? By
the way, for my information only, could you please give me a few
examples of Punjabi aspirates involving l,m and n.
"On your question about "ao/eo" versus "w" (i.e deo-das versus
dewadas), all I can say is the following: a. Sanskrit (and
consequently other languages of its family ) does not have the
consonant "v". It only has "w" ".
I am not sure whether Urdu vaao and Hindi va- are equivalent to the
English "w". Knowing how "w" is pronounced in English ( and it
is identical to the Arabic pronunciation) and how "v" is pronounced
in English ( identical to the "v" in Farsi), I would say our v/w is
in between the two of them. You must have come across situations (in
your early days of learning/pronouncing English) when words like
"wire" end up being pronounced "vire" and "Victoria" as
"Wictoria". This I believe, is a consequence of our v/w being
neither "v" nor "w" but a sound in between the two. In
Urdu/Farsi/Arabic writing system "vaao" is also a semi-vowel. In
gaaoN, the "o", at least in the written script, is the "o"
sound as in "mor" (peacock).
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
Is the situation any clearer for you regarding the elision of vowels
and jhukaao/v etc ?
I believe I did say that "naazniin" is the acceptable pronunciation as
opposed to the "pedantic" naazaniin.
Another common word which comes to mind is ramZaan (for ramaZaan). For
a novice like me, it appears to me that the speakers of Urdu (as well
as possiblyof other languages) are tending to divide the words into
syllables with the first syllable ending in a consonant..
naazaneen= naaz+neen
ramaZaan=ram+Zaan
qaasimi=qaas+mii
aaKhirii=aaKH+rii
baahamii=baah+mii
I think the conclusion drawn for jhukaao/v is that however this is
written in the two scripts, the pronunciation should be the same. Also
words like gaaoN, paaoN, chhaaoN should correctly be written as "gaaNo"
etc in the Urdu script. This is not the normal trend in Urdu rasm_ul
Khat but I have seen this in some Urdu books.
As for the unfortunate "bajaa", there does not appear to be a final
agreement. But this does not appear to affect your poetry compositions.
Naseer
Naseer
Can any one please tell me whether the word "jhukaao" is written
differently in devanaagrii in the following two situations?
1) us daraKht kaa jhukaao hamaare ghar ke SiHn kii taraf thaa.
2) mere yaar! apnaa sar Zaraa meri taraf jhukaao to maiN tumheN pagRii
pahnaauuN!
iHsaan-mand,
Naseer
UVR
Yes!
For (1) the consonant letter 'va' is used:
jh+u-maatraa, k+aa-maatraa, va
For (2), the vowel letter 'o' is used:
jh+u-maatraa, k + aa-maatraa, o
-UVR.
Naseer
muHtaram UVR Sahib,
Thank you for above. Could you please let me know the reason why these
words are spelt differently? I have a good reason for asking and shall
divulge this to you after your reply!
Khair Khwaah,
Naseer
Vasmi
mazeed jaankaari ka shukriya.
in my humble opinion, this is a matter of "lahja" or tone. The "much
stronger stress" on a certain syllable depends on the tone or context.
I think you are saying that the drum-beating "bajaa" is longer than
the clock-striking "bajaa". But I think the oppposite can also be the
case. For example:
(1) Scenario: I am a great singer dismissing a musical suggestion
from the drummer:
"mujhe gaane de, tu Dhol baja".
here, a short "baja" since I am being curt and dismissive.
(2) Scenario: I am complaining to someone who has kept me waiting for
several hours:
"aap ne 10 baje milne ko ko kahaa tha. 10 bajaa, 11 bajaa, 12
bajaa, 1 bajaaa ... aap ki koii Khabar hi nahiiN..."
here, a long "bajaa" for emphasis.
regards,
Vasmi
UVR
I know the trap you are laying for me, my dear sir, and I have
absolutely no qualms against what you would perhaps consider
tantamount to my walking right into it [1].
Here, therefore, is your answer: the pronunciation of 'v' is not
the same as that of the 'o'.
-UVR.
[1] Mind you: I am not really walking into any trap. :-)
Zoya
>
> (2) Scenario: I am complaining to someone who has kept me waiting for
> several hours:
> "aap ne 10 baje milne ko ko kahaa tha. 10 bajaa, 11 bajaa, 12
> bajaa, 1 bajaaa ... aap ki koii Khabar hi nahiiN..."
>
> here, a long "bajaa" for emphasis.
> Vasmi
>
Vasmi Sahib,
Excuse me for being nit picky, but wouldn't you say: "10 baje, 11
baje, 12 baje and then YES, 1 bajaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!" ;)
bhai, hamaare yahaaN to 10,11,12 bajte haiN, tab jaa kar 1 bajtaa hai!!
:) :)
__________Zoya
Zoya
> Zoya Sahiba, aadaab 'arZ hai,
aadaab, Naseer sahib!
>
> Is the situation any clearer for you regarding the elision of vowels
> and jhukaao/v etc ?
NO!! Between all of you guys, I am getting more confused by the
minute!! ;)
>
> I believe I did say that "naazniin" is the acceptable pronunciation as
> opposed to the "pedantic" naazaniin.
You did. :)
>
> Another common word which comes to mind is ramZaan (for ramaZaan). For
> a novice like me, it appears to me that the speakers of Urdu (as well
> as possiblyof other languages) are tending to divide the words into
> syllables with the first syllable ending in a consonant..
>
> ramaZaan=ram+Zaan
This one is interesting, all my Arab and even American friends always
say "ramadaan", but Indain/Pakistani friends say "ramzaan".
> I think the conclusion drawn for jhukaao/v is that however this is
> written in the two scripts, the pronunciation should be the same. Also
> words like gaaoN, paaoN, chhaaoN should correctly be written as "gaaNo"
> etc in the Urdu script. This is not the normal trend in Urdu rasm_ul
> Khat but I have seen this in some Urdu books.
Did we actually come to a conclusion about this?! ;)
I guess I have to go back and read all the posts again!! :)
>
> As for the unfortunate "bajaa", there does not appear to be a final
> agreement. But this does not appear to affect your poetry compositions.
I think this one is still out there, free for all! ;)
Jokes apart, I am really learning a lot from this discussion, and
actually enjoying the process! :)
Thank you, sir!
__________Zoya
Sushil Sharma
> My dear Sushil Sahib,
>
> "I have no idea if I am adding any clarity to the discussion, or
> adding
> fuel to the fire, or just muddling the water that is already murky ".
>
> No, you have not added fuel to the fire; on the contrary, I would
> suggest you have brought considerable clarity to the "murky" waters
> and I must express my gratitude for this.
>
> (I think you meant to say "muddying" the water (?))
Naseer saheb,
Though one could replace "muddling" with "muddying" in my sentence
above without changing its meaning, I wonder why would one want to do
so, or why you had to ask this question at all. Did you suspect the
validity of "muddling"?
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: mud·dle
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mud·dled; mud·dling
transitive verb
1 : to make turbid or muddy
2 : to befog or stupefy especially with liquor
3 : to mix confusedly
4 : to make a mess of : BUNGLE
intransitive verb : to think or act in a confused aimless way
Here is a link to the online version:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/muddling
> For the lh, mh and nh "aspirates", I accept your analysis and
> conclusions and I have looked at the second link you have provided. The
> researches did not conduct any work on the "nh" for some strange
> reason and have come to the conclusion that "mh" has died out in
> Urdu and "lh" is "hanging on". I can not really see how a small
> sample of native speakers (10 males and 10 females from Lahore) can
> lead to such empirical conclusions. One thing totally threw me. Amongst
> the words which this group was asked to utter was "jumhuur" ( the
> masses). Now, this is an Arabic word where there is no "aspiration"
> in that language. This tends to go in favour of my original assertion
> that these were not "true aspirates", but a co-incidental coming
> together of l,m,n with the consonant h. What are your views about the
> inclusion of "jumhuur" along with tumheM, kumhaar, kumhlaanaa? By
> the way, for my information only, could you please give me a few
> examples of Punjabi aspirates involving l,m and n.
Only the people who conducted the said experiment could explain why
they chose to include "jumhuur". My guess would be, to validate if Urdu
had any intrinsic tendency on its own to cause aspiration in words that
include the "mh" cluster, even when the parent language for the
borrowed words has no such aspiration.
My knowledge of Punjabi is far from satisfactory, and I would rather
avoid hazarding any guesses for examples of aspirated lh/mh/nh, but if
you insist, my guess would be words like chuulha, nhaanaa, etc. Perhaps
you or others who speak Punjabi, may better answer this question. My
inclusion of Punjabi alongwith Rajasthani, Gujarati etc, as examples of
languages that show aspiration for lh/mh/nh clusters, was more on
account of my overall impression of Punjabi phonology, not on account
of specific examples that I knew of. My first language is Rajasthani,
and I could give you several examples of words that show aspiration for
these consonant clusters, in this language. Here are some (Rajasthani)
examples that quickly come to mind:
lhyaaii : a kind of glue (I think the equivalent Hindi/Urdu words are
lihaaii or laaii)
lhesuaa : a type of berry (laso.Daa/leso.Daa in Hindi, jisase ek laziiz
achaar banta hai :-)
nhaavaN : a ritual bath
mhaaraa : mine
kumhaar : potter
The lh/nh/mh clusters are unambiguously aspirated in these words, in
Rajasthani.
Regards,
Sushil
Naseer
Janaab-i-UVR Sahib,
Thank you for "an" answer! I would like to know why "v" is used in one
situation and an "o" in the second..in the two examples given. I am
aware, as you have amply demonstrated in the previous e-mails, that "v"
has a dual function.
It does not behove Naseer to "lay a trap" for anyone let alone the
esteemed and respected UVR Sahib. The whole of this thread is a
learning exercise for me. In fact taking part in this group ek siikhne,
lutf andoz hone awr sukooN paane kii kaavish hai. If I am right about
something, so be it. If another ALUPer is right, again so be it.
aap ke jawaab kaa muntaZir,
Naseer
Naseer
muHtaramii-o-mukarramii Vasmi Sahib, aadaab!
kam az kam aap ab yih to i'taraaf kar rahe haiN kih in do jumloN meN
"lahje/tone" kaa daKhal hai!
jo do miSaaleN aap ne pesh ki hain, meri Haqiir raae meN "tuu Dhol
bajaa" ke "bajaa" kaa alif har Haalat meN mujhe kuchh taveel-tar
maHsuus hotaa hai.
pichhlii "ii-mel" meN aap ne baRii saKhtii se "gaane vaane" se
laa-taa'aaluqii Zaahir kii thii jabke ab aap farmaa rahe haiN kih "I am
a great singer dismissing a musical suggestion from the drummer"! farq
Sirf itnaa hai kih is daf'ah aap ke saath ek "Dhol-nawaaz" hai awr us
daf'ah ek "murlii-nawaaz" thaa!!
Khaak-saar,
Naseer
Naseer
> Sunil Sahib wrote
> Though one could replace "muddling" with "muddying" in my sentence
> above without changing its meaning, I wonder why would one want to do
> so, or why you had to ask this question at all. Did you suspect the
> validity of "muddling"?
> According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
>
> Main Entry: mud·dle
> Function: verb
> Inflected Form(s): mud·dled; mud·dling
> transitive verb
> 1 : to make turbid or muddy
> 2 : to befog or stupefy especially with liquor
> 3 : to mix confusedly
> 4 : to make a mess of : BUNGLE
> intransitive verb : to think or act in a confused aimless way
>
> Here is a link to the online version:
> http://m-w.com/dictionary/muddling
mere pyaare Sunil bhaaii ! ( I don't know your age otherwise I would
have said "mere yaar Sunil!)
maiN ne to aap kii taraf ek chhoTaa saa paTaKha choRa hai awr lagtaa
hai aap ne to mujh par ek "aiTam bam" phaink Daalaa hai! Khudaa kaa
shukr hai kih baal baal bac gayaa huuN awr aap se muKhaatib hone kaa
mawqa'a milaa hai. ma'Zarat chaahta huuN agar mujh se Ghalatii sarzad
ho gaii hai. umiid hai kih aap mujhe mu'aaf kar deN ge.
It seems that it is very easy for human beings to err ( "To err is
human" after all) and some humans may err more frequently than others.
I must be one of them!
I think ( and I may be wrong), the meaning of "to muddle"= "to make
turbid or muddy" is American and not British English. I shall say no
more as we were talking about other matters and this would be going on
a tangent.
Thank you for your comments for matters under discussion.
Khataa-kaar ( awr uskii mu'aafii kaa Khwaast-gaar)
Naseer
Vasmi
Zoya Saahiba,
shaayad mere ghar kii ghaRi kii Khaami hai - us meN 10, 11, 12, 1 -
sab ek hi tarah bajte haiN.
:)
Vasmi
Vasmi
janaab,
lahje/tone ka daKhl to to har jumle meN hota hai.
> jo do miSaaleN aap ne pesh ki hain, meri Haqiir raae meN "tuu Dhol
> bajaa" ke "bajaa" kaa alif har Haalat meN mujhe kuchh taveel-tar
> maHsuus hotaa hai.
>
> pichhlii "ii-mel" meN aap ne baRii saKhtii se "gaane vaane" se
> laa-taa'aaluqii Zaahir kii thii jabke ab aap farmaa rahe haiN kih "I am
> a great singer dismissing a musical suggestion from the drummer"! farq
> Sirf itnaa hai kih is daf'ah aap ke saath ek "Dhol-nawaaz" hai awr us
> daf'ah ek "murlii-nawaaz" thaa!!
>
jii nahiiN, Naseer Saahab. farq itnaa hai kii pahlii baat haqiiqat hai,
aur doosrii baat mahz misaal ke taur par hai.
Vasmi
> Khaak-saar,
>
> Naseer
UVR
> UVR wrote:
> > Naseer wrote:
huzoor, Naseer saahib,
awwal to aap se mujhe 'aashiqoN waala shikwa karna hai -- k aap
(v/o waale sawaal ke peechhe jo raaz thaa use faash karne kaa)
wa'ada kar ke mukar gaye :) doyam, woh 'trap' waali baat maiNne
yooN hi, mizaahiya taur par ki thi (=kidding).
aap ne is daf'a jo sawaal kiyaa hai, uskaa jawaab denaa mere
liye qadre mushkil hai. I do not presume to know *WHY* words
are spelt the way they are in Devanagari (or, for that matter, in
any other non-phonetic script I know). It is, however, my guess
(which I have already stated earlier) is that the verb conjugation
jhukaao is written the way it is because the proununciation of the
'o' is not the same as that of the 'v'. Not even when jhukaao (v.) is
pronounced with a short 'o'[1]. The latter is close, but no cigar.
-UVR.
[1] maiN nazar se pee rahaa hooN, yeh samaaN badal na jaaye
na jhukaao tum nigaaheN, kaheeN raat dhal na jaaye
UVR
>
> [...] in history of Urdu, when such words were being first spelt in
> Urdu script, these (lh, mh, nh etc) were actually aspirates in the
> dialects from which these words were coming into Urdu/Hindi, and as
> Urdu used the convention of do-chashmii-he for aspirates, naturally, it
> was used for these as well as bh/th/ph etc. Once that spelling was
> adopted, it stuck, even when Urdu lost some of the influence of those
> languages from where the words were imported, and lost aspiration for
> lh/mh/nh etc. In the course of evolution of both Urdu and Hindi, it
> appears that aspiration of lh/mh/nh etc has been lost (or is one the
> way of being lost), and my opinion differs from UVR on this last part
> (he thinks the aspiration of these is alive and kicking in Hindi :-).
> IMHO, this loss of aspiration for these combinations of letters, in
> Urdu and Hindi is a result of the fact that modern standard Urdu tends
> to align itself more towards Persian/Arabic, and modern standard Hindi
> tends to align itself more and more towards Sanskrit for phonology,
> prosody and various other aspects. Curiously, this results in
> interesting situations where several words originate in Sanskrit,
> evolve to some other form in prakrit/apbhramsha/dialects etc to get
> their spelling as well as pronunciation altered, then then get absorbed
> into Hindi to undergo fresh transformation in pronunciation, to align
> once again with only those sounds that were available in Sanskrit! You
> (and UVR) could find the following two articles interesting (if you
> have not already seen these):
>
> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/workpapph/104/6-Esposito%20et%20al.pdf
> http://www.crulp.org/Publication/Crulp_report/CR04_04E.pdf
>
Sharmaji,
While the studies in these publications and their findings are
fascinating to me in the extreme, I am still not convince that (as
you state above) the aspirations of the 'lh', 'mh' and 'nh' have
been lost from "Modern Standard Hindi". I don't know how you
define "alive and kicking", but to me a language contains a
sound if the majority of native speakers of that language (taking
into account all dialectical variations) know how to make that
sound. And this, I believe, is verily the case with 'mh/nh/lh'.
A walk on any Hindi/Urdu-speaking street of our subcontinent
will, believe bear this out.
What is more, if one takes but even a fleeting look at the at the
(metered) verse of the masters of Hindi and Urdu poetry (pick
your favorites), one will immediately observes that whenever
words containing these consonants, they are used with a 'weight'
equalling the weight of any of the other 'true' consonants. For
example, when Makhanlal Chaturvedi writes (thanks, Naseer
sb., for mentioning 'kumhlaanaa'):
kiranon se pragaT hue sooraj ke sau rahasya tum khol uThe se
kintu aNtaRiyoN meN Ghareeb kii kumhalaaye swar bol uThe se
kaaNch kaleje meN karuNaa ke Dore se hi khilte ho
kaisi hai pahchaan tumhaaree!
the pronunciation of the 'mh' ligature is that of an aspirated 'm'
not a combination of 'm+h' as in "jumhoor". Likewise, the 'nh'
and 'lh' ligatures can be found without much trouble.
In short, I am not prepared to accept (despite the word of those
respectable academicians and researchers who have been
quoted in this thread) that these sounds have diisappeared
from our language.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
One friend used the word "muddling", another 'corrected' it to
"muddying". Let me add one more --> "meddling", which is what
I am doing by replying to the above post !
Perhaps UVR Saheb could have rephrased his explanation here :
He seems to be saying that the spelling is different because
the pronunciation is different. It may be the other way round.
"daraKHt ka jhukaao" = Here the word is a noun.
"sar jhukaao" = Here the word is a (conjugated)
verb.
It is quite possible that there may be different rules for
spelling and pronouncing the different parts of speech.
Caveat : My acquaintance with the Devanagari script is minimal
and knowledge of hindi grammar even less than that;
hence my use of the word "meddling".
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
>>ramaZaan=ram+Zaan
>
>
> This one is interesting, all my Arab and even American friends always
> say "ramadaan", but Indain/Pakistani friends say "ramzaan".
I think it is even more complicated than that. I believe the
Arab pronunciation is, like, "ramad(w)aan".
Afzal
> __________Zoya
>
UVR
>
> One friend used the word "muddling", another 'corrected' it to
> "muddying". Let me add one more --> "meddling", which is what
> I am doing by replying to the above post !
>
Meddling (or anything else) by you is always a welcome!
> Perhaps UVR Saheb could have rephrased his explanation here :
>
> He seems to be saying that the spelling is different because
> the pronunciation is different. It may be the other way round.
>
If by "the other way around" you are saying that the pronunciations
of these words differ from each other *as a result of* their spellings
being different from each other's, then I beg to differ. It is my
opinion that the pronunciation is always the first thing 'invented'
(for any language). Script always comes along later as a recording
device. Probably only languages like Esperanto and Ido, or perhaps
those weird Tolkein tongues are the exceptions to this (and who knows,
maybe not even those!)
> "daraKHt ka jhukaao" = Here the word is a noun.
>
> "sar jhukaao" = Here the word is a (conjugated)
> verb.
>
> It is quite possible that there may be different rules for
> spelling and pronouncing the different parts of speech.
Agreed, but I'd say "pronouncing and (therefore) spelling" (in that
order).
-UVR.
Zoya
Afzal sahib,
I am not touching this one!!!!!
Naseer Sahib,
It is all yours!!!!!!! :)
__________Zoya
Naseer
Zoya Sahiba, aadaab 'arZ hai,
I am aware of the true Arabic pronunciation (as it involves the
consonant daad...which I don't know how to transcribe but I can
pronounce it) but I don't wish to complicate the issue any more than it
is.
Naseer
UVR
Someone told me that the way (or at least ONE way) to make the
'original' sound [of the (d)Z(w)aad] is to "expand the tongue until
it fills the whole mouth, escaping from between the teeth to touch
the inside edge of the lips" and to try to say "Z". I can make a
sound like that, and it does sound a lot like a "d appoximant", but
I'm damned if I know if the sound I make is the correct one.
-UVR.
Naseer
Below may be of benefit to you and any other ALUpers who may be curious
as to the TRUE value of some of the consonants used in Urdu which are
not found in Sanskrit. I shall place these consonants in brackets and
try to transiliterate their Urdu names.
voiveless voiced
te daal
(toe) ( zawaad)
(He) ('ain)
(KHe) (GHain)
(se) as in think (zaal) as in "that"
(Zoe)
seen (ze) as in English z
(sawaad)
sheen (ZHe) as in the "s"of vision.
(fe) as in film vaao
Then there is ofcourse the back of the throat qaaf.
So "toe" is an emphatic "te". No differentiation in Urdu=te
"zawaad" is an emphatic "daal". There is no "zedness" in it whatsoever.
It is an emphatic daal. Urdu speakers pronounce it as if it were a
"ze".
"He" is a dry throaty "h" and it's voiced equivalent is the gutteral
'ain.
Urdu speakers pronounce the form as an "h" and as for the latter,
mainly the "'ulamaa" pronounce it correctly. Most mortals pronounce it
as if it were an "alif".
KH is as in KHargosh and GH is as in GHam
se as the Greek theta ( as in think). The Urdu mortals pronounce it as
an "s"
zaal is the voiced eqiuivalent as in "that". Urdu speakers pronounce it
as a "z! It's emphatic sound is "zoe", but we can not be bothered about
this. We pronounce it as a "z" again!
Everyone knows about "ze". It is a pure "z", the voiced version of
"seen" "sawaad" is an emphatic "seen". We don't have the time to give
it any importance.
The voiced version of sheen is rarely correctly pronounced in Urdu. As
in "vision".
Again everyone is familiar with "fe".
qaaf as in qalam (pen).
A very basic explanation...but perhaps it may show the inter-relation
between these consonants.
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
It is no doubt true that scripts followed the spoken version of
different languages. But it is moot whether we should apply
this historical truth to all such questions, because it is not
merely a question of script but also of grammar. As a layman,
I find it a little hard to believe that, in all such cases, it
is grammar which wraps itself around pronunciation.
Sometime back, we had a discussion about words like "KH(w)aab".
If the true pronunciation of this word is "KHaab" (as Zafar
Saheb has opined) or even a very lightly enunciated (w) --
as I pronounce the word -- how come the spelling of the word
includes the unmistakable "waav" ? Why didn't it disappear over
the centuries ? How come we don't write the word "bilkul" in
its phonetic form ? Why don't we pronounce the word "alar~
raGHm" exactly in accordance with the way it is written ?
About an year back, you had initiated a discussion about rhymes
like "rauzan" and "fauran". Why do we write these words
differently ? My point is : it may not be correct to assume
a simple, direct relationship between pronunciation and
spelling/grammar in all cases.
Let me take this opportunity to narrate an event that happened
nearly 60 years back. It must have been late 1947 or early
1948. At one place, an Urdu-hindi Mushaira was organized.
As it happened, a very large proportion of the local populace
were Urdu speakers (perhaps a 'majority'). The place had a
distinct (Urdu) literary tradition. Mushairas used to be
held quite frequently. But these were strictly Urdu affairs.
But this particular Mushaira was held under "political aegis".
And it was held in the Town Hall; prominent local people were
asked to sit right in front. Most of the poets were of course
Urdu poets, only a few were hindi kavis. The audience was
composed overwhelmingly of Urdu speakers. At one point, a
local kavi came on the stage and began reciting a kavita
which had some political/social undertones, lamenting the
conditions obtaining in the country as distinct from the
people's aspirations. The kavita had a refrain that went :
MaiN yeh dekhooN ya woh dekhooN
Mere man batla, maiN kya dekhooN
Except that the kavi would pronounce the two words like
"yaha" and "waha" and that too in a very 'pronounced' fashion.
I daresay that this may be the correct pronunciation of these
words in hindi. Also, the kavi would pronounce a word in the
second line as "batala". (No vowel~gobbling !). Additionally,
the "kya" sounded more like "ka"(as in the song 'hum ka maaphee
dayee do').
By the time, the refrain came to be repeated for a second
time, the audience picked it up. The hall resounded with the
voices of the audience who would recite the refrain in a
sing-song manner :
MaiN 'yaha' dekhooN ya 'waha' dekhooN
Mere man 'batala' maiN ka dekhooN
After one more stanza, the kavi quit the stage in a huff.
It was quite embarrassing.
The relevance of this narrative to our discussion is the
pronunciation of the words "yeh" and "woh". I don't quite
know whether the kavi's pronunciation ought to be deemed as
"correct", "archaic" or "pedantic". In hindi movies or even
in TV serials, we hardly get to hear these "specialized"
pronunciations. However, I daresay that the spelling of the
two words has not changed at all over the years.
In conclusion, I think we can leave the larger discussion to
linguists, etymologists etc.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Shaayad isee liye "un" kee koi KHabar hee naheeN !
Ho sakta hai shaam ke 6 baje aayeN. AaKHir 6 bhee to is
ghaRee men 10 kee tarah hee bajte haiN !
Afzal
UVR
> UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arZ hai.
>
> Below may be of benefit to you and any other ALUpers who may be curious
> as to the TRUE value of some of the consonants used in Urdu which are
> not found in Sanskrit. I shall place these consonants in brackets and
> try to transiliterate their Urdu names.
>
> voiveless voiced
> te daal
> (toe) ( zawaad)
>
> So "toe" is an emphatic "te". No differentiation in Urdu=te
> "zawaad" is an emphatic "daal". There is no "zedness" in it whatsoever.
> It is an emphatic daal. Urdu speakers pronounce it as if it were a
> "ze".
>
> "sawaad" is an emphatic "seen". We don't have the time to give
> it any importance.
>
> between these consonants.
>
> Naseer
mohtaram Naseer saahib,
I am grateful to you the detailed explanation of these sounds. This
(sounds unique to various language-families) is a topic that I am
extremely interested in. It seems you are too. My motivation to
visit the UK and inflict my company upon your esteemed self just
got a lot stronger.
Perhaps I should state that I have heard this "z(w)aad is an emphatic
daal and s(w)aad is an emphatic seen" statement before. These may
well be the correct pronunciations, but somehow, I am afraid this does
not make too much sense (to me). To me the following seems logical:
s(w)aad: voiceless [X]
z(w)aad: voiced equivalent of s(w)aad
t(o)e: voiceless [Y]
z(o)e: voiced equivalent of t(o)e
As to what X and Y are, precisely, is not known to me at this time.
The explanation that has most resonated with me is, "t(o)e is a thick
te' and 's(w)aad' is a thick seen". Of course, in Urdu, we have
dispensed with all of these (and many other) 'difficult' consonants,
regardless of their origin.
But maybe that's just as well and none of all this really matters:
after all, isn't it Urdu pronunciation that we are primarily concerned
about in this thread (and on ALUP)? :-)
-UVR.
Naseer
UVR wrote:
> > I am grateful to you the detailed explanation of these sounds. This
> (sounds unique to various language-families) is a topic that I am
> extremely interested in. It seems you are too. My motivation to
> visit the UK and inflict my company upon your esteemed self just
> got a lot stronger.
>
> Perhaps I should state that I have heard this "z(w)aad is an emphatic
> daal and s(w)aad is an emphatic seen" statement before. These may
> well be the correct pronunciations, but somehow, I am afraid this does
> not make too much sense (to me). To me the following seems logical:
>
> s(w)aad: voiceless [X]
> z(w)aad: voiced equivalent of s(w)aad
>
> t(o)e: voiceless [Y]
> z(o)e: voiced equivalent of t(o)e
>
> As to what X and Y are, precisely, is not known to me at this time.
> The explanation that has most resonated with me is, "t(o)e is a thick
> te' and 's(w)aad' is a thick seen". Of course, in Urdu, we have
> dispensed with all of these (and many other) 'difficult' consonants,
> regardless of their origin.
>
> But maybe that's just as well and none of all this really matters:
> after all, isn't it Urdu pronunciation that we are primarily concerned
> about in this thread (and on ALUP)? :-)
>
> -UVR.
UVR Sahib, tasliimaat,
"Infliction" is a necessary part of "love" and I very much look forward
to that threat! My family would be extremely happy to receive your
exalted presence.
I do have interest in this field, as well as many others (scatter
brain...that is what I am). I have looked at your perspective but,
currently, do not agree. I will need to give it some more thought
though.
aap hii to baat ko kisii awr "tangent" par le jaane ke ustaad haiN! ham
par ilzaam kaisaa? ham to ek machhlii kii taraH haiN jo aap ke "bait"
kii taraf khichii jaatii hai!!
Naseer
Naseer
Janaab-i-UVR Sahib,
'ishq meN intiZaar kaa taSavvur bhii to hotaa hai! koii e=mc squared
valii baat bhii nahiiN! mujhe kuchh waqt chaahiye. insaan ko kabhi
kabhi kisii majbuurii kaa saam(h?)naa bhii to paR saktaa hai.
iraadat-mand,
Naseer
Sushil Sharma
> Sharmaji,
UVR saheb,
I am quite bemused on my return to ALUP after a brief absence of just a
few days. On the one hand Naseer saheb is calling me "Sunil", and on
the other hand you are addressing me as "Sharmaji"! Back in India, this
would have created quite a confusion in our household, as "Sunil" is
the first name of my elder brother and "Sharmaji" is expected to be
used only to address the eldest Sharma in the family, that, is my
father.
bhale aadamiyo (here I am addressing both you and Naseer sb), what do
you find wrong in just calling me "Sushil"? :-) [Just Kidding!]
> While the studies in these publications and their findings are
> fascinating to me in the extreme, I am still not convince that (as
> you state above) the aspirations of the 'lh', 'mh' and 'nh' have
> been lost from "Modern Standard Hindi". I don't know how you
> define "alive and kicking", but ...
UVR saheb, I respect your opinion, and as I wrote in my reply to Naseer
saheb, I am aware of this difference between our respective views on
the state of affairs with regards to the aspiration of lh, mh and nh in
current Hindi pronunciation. We can just agree to disagree on this, if
both of us, and the people who carried out the experiments in those
papers derive our conclusions based on what each of us respectively
observed in the pronunciation of native speakers of the language, as
such conclusions are naturally expected to be dependent on the size and
number of speech samples of such native speakers, which, in each case,
would be a small sub-set of the total Hindi/Urdu speaking population,
and such conclusions would also be subject to variations caused by time
and place etc. No quarrels with that. However, I hope, you would allow
me to address the other points that you have mentioned, in support of
your views.
Before proceeding further, let me also add that I don't claim the
aspiration for each of these {lh, mh, nh} is already irrevocably lost
in current Hindi pronunciation, but I do think that it is either on the
verge of being lost, or is well on its way to be so.
You wrote:
> ... to me a language contains a
> sound if the majority of native speakers of that language (taking
> into account all dialectical variations) know how to make that
> sound. And this, I believe, is verily the case with 'mh/nh/lh'.
> A walk on any Hindi/Urdu-speaking street of our subcontinent
> will, believe bear this out.
Pardon me, but this argument, at least the way it is put here, appears
to be a "red herring". Even if the majority of Hindi speakers "know how
to make" a sound, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that they DO use
that sound in Hindi. A large section of Hindi speakers are
multi-lingual, and if the other languages they speak, use the aspirated
sounds for lh/mh/nh they would of course know how to pronounce the
aspirated versions of these, but it is possible that they do not use
the aspiration when speaking Hindi. As you know, several of the
medieval North Indian poets who wrote in Braj, Avadhi etc, were
accomplished Sanskrit scholars as well, and just because they used
aspirated versions of these consonant clusters in their regional
languages, you wouldn't argue the Sanskrit they spoke would also have
aspirated versions of these sounds. Would you?
To me, it appears that the current generation of Hindi speakers that is
growing in urban population centers in India, is not as deeply exposed
to the dialects or regional languages as the older generations were,
and their concept of Hindi pronunciation of these consonant clusters is
based for a significant part, on how they read these in the script, and
to my ears, many of them speak these consonant clusters without
aspiration. Such a trend, could perhaps also be influenced by the
tendency in mainstream Hindi literary circles and print media, of
increasingly aligning Hindi with Sanskrit. [As a side note, when I was
growing up, in my pocket of the country, people would say "lokpriya"in
Hindi, without the vowel a sound after k, but on my recent trips to
India, I hear it in Hindi as "lokapriya" which is the correct Sanskrit
pronunciation!] This is a very subjective opinion, and that's my whole
argument.
> What is more, if one takes but even a fleeting look at the at the
> (metered) verse of the masters of Hindi and Urdu poetry (pick
> your favorites), one will immediately observes that whenever
> words containing these consonants, they are used with a 'weight'
> equalling the weight of any of the other 'true' consonants. For
> example, when Makhanlal Chaturvedi writes (thanks, Naseer
> sb., for mentioning 'kumhlaanaa'):
> kiranon se pragaT hue sooraj ke sau rahasya tum khol uThe se
> kintu aNtaRiyoN meN Ghareeb kii kumhalaaye swar bol uThe se
> kaaNch kaleje meN karuNaa ke Dore se hi khilte ho
> kaisi hai pahchaan tumhaaree!
> the pronunciation of the 'mh' ligature is that of an aspirated 'm'
> not a combination of 'm+h' as in "jumhoor". Likewise, the 'nh'
> and 'lh' ligatures can be found without much trouble.
This argument, I am afraid to say, has the same logical fallacy as the
previous one. I agree with you that current conventions of Hindi/Urdu
prosody do expect lh/mh/nh to be treated as a single consonant, not as
a cluster of two consonants. This, however, in my opinion does not
automatically lead to the conclusion that ***current*** pronunciation
of lh/mh/nh is also an aspirated single consonant, not a cluster of two
adjoining consonants.
The conventions of Hindi/Urdu prosody were defined several centuries
back. The conventions of pronunciation in these living languages have
changed to some extent, while the prosodic conventions are relatively
unchanged still. Some examples:
a. Hindi prosody inherits the Sanskrit convention of treating the
varNa-s like kR^i (such as in prakR^iti) as consonant+vowel-R^i (thus
prakR^ti has the weight of L-L-L). I would say 9 out of 10 Hindi
speakers of today pronounce these sounds as consonant+ri or
consonant+ru, and if prosody were to truly reflect current
pronunciation, prakR^ti would have the weight of G-L-L. Here is an
example from a Maithili Sharan Gupt poem (the meter is Hari Giitikaa,
28 maatraa to a paada with yati on 16-12, LG at the end), note the
scanning of prakR^iti with 3 maatraas only:
"bhuu loka kaa gaurav prakR^iti kaa puNya liilaa sthala kahaa.N ?
phailaa manohar giri himaalaya aur ga.ngaajala jahaa.N"
b. According to conventions of prosody, one could occasionally treat
the ending laghu varNa for a metrical unit (paada) as diirgha, if the
meter demands it. One can't say this prosodic convention has anything
to do with the pronunciation in regular or ordinary speech
c. According to the demands of the meter, one is allowed to use short
or long i/e/o sounds, as needed. For example, see "kavitA karakE tulasI
na lasE, kavitA lasii pA tulasI kii kalA", here lasii, and kii, which
are ordinarily pronounced with diirgha ii are allowed to be scanned
with laghu i sound to fit the meter. While this is OK for "recitation"
of metered poetry, one doesn't encounter such sing-song pronunciation
in regular ordinary speech.
> In short, I am not prepared to accept (despite the word of those
> respectable academicians and researchers who have been
> quoted in this thread) that these sounds have diisappeared
> from our language.
As I said, we will agree to disagree on this, based on the subjective
criteria of what each of us observes in the Hindi speech of native
speakers, but I do not find your other arguments sufficient to
***logically*** prove your opinion as true beyond such subjectivity.
With best regards,
Sushil
Naseer
I have been able to get in touch with Dr.Stuart McGregor who, before
his retirement, was Reader in Hindi in the faculty of Oriental Studies,
at the University of Cambridge Cambridge.
This is what I asked him.
1) Could you please tell me if you can discern any difference in
pronunciation of the word "bajaa" in the following two situations.
a) din kaa ek bajaa hai.
b) ai laRke! idhar aa awr Dhol bajaa!
2) Any difference in pronunciation between the word "jhukaao/v" in the
following two situations.
a) us daraKht kaa jhukaao hamaare SiHn kii taraf thaa.
b) mere yaar! Zaraa apnaa sar meri taraf jhukaao taa kih maiN tumheN
pagRii pahnaauuN.
I believe, at least in devanaagri script these words are spelt
differently in each case. Why?
3) In words like "kulhaaRii", "tumheN" and "nanhaa", are lh, mh and nh
true aspirates compatible with for example bh, ph etc?
Following is his reply.
1. My feeling is that there would normally be a perceptible difference
in Hindi-Urdu speakers' stress and intonation between "bajaa" of
your two sentences. (I wonder if you agree?) The first sentence would
be routine and matter-of-fact in most contexts. The second is
affective, with some urgency to it. Here final -aa surely has the
stress to bear its context out. In the first sentence, -aa could no
doubt carry differing emphases according to speakers but the stress of
the preceding short -a- would be at least equal to that of -aa, I
think. There's a grammatical difference also between the two
bajaa's, of course. In the second case bajaa is an imperative, in the
first a participle, noun or adjective/adverb.
2. I suspect there usually wouldn't be much difference at all in
jhukaao as pronounced in your next two sentences. I remember hearing
that final -o in -aao endings can often vanish to pretty well zero,
especially in nouns, but probably in verbs too, and if the imperative
force of the verb isn't especially strong (e.g. sentence 2 ) there
couldn't be much difference between the two examples, I would think.
3. I don't think the examples you give here are true aspirates.
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
Sushil Sharma wrote:
> UVR wrote:
>
> > Sharmaji,
>
> UVR saheb,
>
> I am quite bemused on my return to ALUP after a brief absence of just a
> few days. On the one hand Naseer saheb is calling me "Sunil", and on
> the other hand you are addressing me as "Sharmaji"! Back in India, this
> would have created quite a confusion in our household, as "Sunil" is
> the first name of my elder brother and "Sharmaji" is expected to be
> used only to address the eldest Sharma in the family, that, is my
> father.
>
> bhale aadamiyo (here I am addressing both you and Naseer sb), what do
> you find wrong in just calling me "Sushil"? :-) [Just Kidding!]
Sushil bhaaii aadaab!
I seem to be doing nothing but apologising. I have a friend whose name
is Anil and it must be some kind of freudian slip to mix Anil with
Sushil and come up with "Sunil". Perhaps, Sunil Gavaskar might also
have been on my mind because he was here watching the first test
between England and Pakistan. This is my story and I am sticking to it!
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
Thank you for relating the atmosphere in the mushaa'ira which took
place around sixty years ago. I must admit, when I first started to
teach myself "devanaagrii", I was puzzled at the spelling of some
words, and most of all with "yaha" and "vaha". Of course, I was coming
from Urdu rasm_ul Khatt back ground; so this should not have been a
surprise. There were also plurals for these two words (ye and ve)! In
Urdu, I was used to just "yih" and "vuh" which were prounced something
like ye(h) and vo(h).
What UVR has said , in theory, is correct. Yes, speech indeed precedes
the written language. So the utterance of KHwaab/yaha/vaha preceded the
writing down of these words. This is no "rocket science". I think you
are in agreement with this but are saying that the speech has then
moved on....KHwaab....going to KH(w)aab....to KHaab and yaha/vaha/ye/ve
has moved on to "ye(h)"/"vo(h)". However, and this seems to be your
main point, that the writing has not kept in pace with the speech
change. So writing does not always follow speech! Am I right in
understanding your point?
nek tamannaaoN ke saath,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
I think the operative word here is "theory" (as in Dalton's
Atomic Theory).
I am a little reluctant to accept the above proposition as an
eternal truth, without exceptions. To use an oft-heard example
from the English language, people do pronounce "but" and "put"
differently, but these continue to be spelled the same way.
In scientific theories, calculations and formulae, there is one
factor, denoted as "k" (the Constant). As you are no doubt aware,
scientists are coming round to the view that even these "Constants"
are not really constants.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
>
>>Sunil Sahib wrote
>
>
>>Though one could replace "muddling" with "muddying" in my sentence
>>above without changing its meaning, I wonder why would one want to do
>>so, or why you had to ask this question at all. Did you suspect the
>>validity of "muddling"?
>>According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
>>
>>Function: verb
>>Inflected Form(s): mud搞led; mud搞ling
Naseer Saheb,
In all fairness, I think you should tell us what the term
"to muddle" means or implies in British English.
Afzal
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan wrote:
>
> In all fairness, I think you should tell us what the term
> "to muddle" means or implies in British English.
>
>
> Afzal
Janaab-i-Afzal Sahib,
Part of the sentence in which Sushil Sahib used this word was..
"or just muddling the water that is already murky ". The online
"Compact Oxford Dictionary" gives the following meanings for "to
muddle".
"verb 1 bring into a disordered or confusing state. 2 confuse or
perplex (someone). 3 (muddle up) confuse (two or more things) with each
other. 4 (muddle along/through) cope more or less satisfactorily".
Naseer
UVR
I daresay #4 is the sense in which Wodehouse generally appears
to employ this word. Now there's a *cough*Brit*cough* American
if ever there was one.
-UVR.
Sushil Sharma
> UVR wrote:
Apologies for following-up my own post, but there was one more point
that I had meant to include in my previous post, but somehow missed.
In addition to the lh/mh/nh clusters, the traditional Hindi prosodic
weight of consonant clusters that are formed with consonant+y sounds is
also equivalent to a single consonant. For example, chalyo, paryo,
basyo, ha.Nsyo ..., have the weight of L-G. IMHO, it only indicates
that for prosodic purposes, the time taken to pronounce lh/mh/nh
clusters, or ly, ry, sy ... clusters, is not as long as the time taken
to pronounce the clusters like pt, ts, lp etc. Therefore, while the
weight of chhapyo (as in, chhonii me.N na chhaa.N.Dyo chhapyo chhonip
ko chhonaa chhoTo...) would be L-G only, the weight of chhappaya (name
of a Hindi meter), would be G-L-L.
Now, despite the above, one wouldn't think of calling ly/ry/sy ... as a
single consonant, right? It is just a more compact consonant cluster.
IMHO, same is the case with lh/mh/nh. While it is possible to pronounce
lh/mh/nh quicker than pt, ts, lp etc, in Hindi, one can still feel the
transition from l/m/n to h (similar to the transition from l/r/s to y
for ly/ry/sy etc). For lh/mh/nh etc to be true aspirates, the
pronunciation has to be such that l/m/n smoothly or homogeneously
merges with the h sound so that no distinct transition from former to
the latter can be felt, and this, to my ears, is not the case for
lh/mh/nh in Hindi (which brings us back to the subjective judgment on
this matter, based on what one hears). Thus, prosodic convention can't
be taken as a useful or reliable indicator of lh/mh/nh being true
aspirates or otherwise.
Regards,
Sushil
RB
(...deleted..)
>>
>> The conventions of Hindi/Urdu prosody were defined several centuries
>> back. The conventions of pronunciation in these living languages have
>> changed to some extent, while the prosodic conventions are relatively
>> unchanged still. Some examples:
>> a. Hindi prosody inherits the Sanskrit convention of treating the
>> varNa-s like kR^i (such as in prakR^iti) as consonant+vowel-R^i (thus
>> prakR^ti has the weight of L-L-L). I would say 9 out of 10 Hindi
>> speakers of today pronounce these sounds as consonant+ri or
>> consonant+ru, and if prosody were to truly reflect current
>> pronunciation, prakR^ti would have the weight of G-L-L. Here is an
>> example from a Maithili Sharan Gupt poem (the meter is Hari Giitikaa,
>> 28 maatraa to a paada with yati on 16-12, LG at the end), note the
>> scanning of prakR^iti with 3 maatraas only:
>> "bhuu loka kaa gaurav prakR^iti kaa puNya liilaa sthala kahaa.N ?
>> phailaa manohar giri himaalaya aur ga.ngaajala jahaa.N"
>
Sorry to intrude in this discussion. I was wondering if there was any
information available on the web about Hindi/Sanskit meters. If not, then
maybe somebody could suggest some books on hindi meters.
Thanks,
Rajat
Sushil Sharma
>
> Sorry to intrude in this discussion. I was wondering if there was any
> information available on the web about Hindi/Sanskit meters. If not, then
> maybe somebody could suggest some books on hindi meters.
>
> Thanks,
> Rajat
[Warning: Most of what I write below would be Off-Topic for ALUP]
Rajat saheb,
Material on Sanskrit "chhandaH shastram.h" is easier to find on the web
than information on Hindi meters. The most popular reference works for
students of Sanskrit prosody are Pingala's "chhandaH shaastram.h",
Kedara Bhatt's "vR^ittaratnaakaraH", Kalidas' "shrutabodhaH" and
Gangadas' "chhandoma~njarii". I believe excellent editions of the first
two (and I forgot if the third one too) are downloadable from the
Million Book Project website
(http://www.archive.org/details/millionbooks). If you are comfortable
with Sanskrit, another excellent source of these texts is:
http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-buddhist-texts/Textual-Studies/Sanskrit-Prosody/index.htm
In addition, V.N. Apte's popular "The Practical Sanskrit-English
Dictionary" has an appendix on Sanskrit meters that is quite useful.
Hindi meters are generally included in undergraduate curriculum for
Hindi literature students at universities in India and textbooks must
be available easily in India. Unfortunately, I didn't study these
subjects formally and can't name any specific textbooks for Hindi
prosody. I picked up a small hand book called "ala~Nkaar paarijaat" (by
Narottam Das Swami of Rajasthan Gnanapiith Bikaner, published by L.N.
Agrawal Publshs. of Agra), at a bookshop in Jaipur, on my last India
trip. This was a very good value for money, and also has a chapter on
chhanda. The "Hindi Classical Tradition" by Dr Rupert Snell (available
on amazon.com), has a brief but informative chapter on Hindi prosody.
If you can get hold of S. H. Kellogg's "A Grammar of The Hindi
Language", it describes the popular Hindi meters too.
I hope you find this information useful. My apologies to rest of
ALUPers for the off-topic post.
Regards,
Sushil
PS: Though it is none of my business, I am curious to know if you the
same Rajat Bhatnagar who used to write on RMIM some 13 or 14 years ago?
RB
[Warning: Most of what is witten below would be Off-Topic for ALUP]
"Sushil Sharma" <sushi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153893645.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Thank you very much for all the above information. Even though I studied
sanskrit for a few years in school I never really made an effort to learn it
well (regretfully). It used to be classified as a third language in our
school and hence was optional regarding grades :-).
So at this time my interest is more in Hindi meters. I would have thought
that the Hindi meters would be similar to Sanskrit but then again maybe not.
One of the reasons for finding more about Hindi meters was to see if they
are similar/different from Urdu ghazal/nazm meters.
> PS: Though it is none of my business, I am curious to know if you the
> same Rajat Bhatnagar who used to write on RMIM some 13 or 14 years ago?
I probably am. I don't think there were multiple Rajat Bhatnagar's at that
time. I am little surprised that you recall me since my posts on RMIM were
very few in number and quite infrequent.
Thanks once again for the info.
Regards,
Rajat
UVR
>
> [....] at this time my interest is more in Hindi meters. I would have thought
> that the Hindi meters would be similar to Sanskrit but then again maybe not.
> One of the reasons for finding more about Hindi meters was to see if they
> are similar/different from Urdu ghazal/nazm meters.
>
That topic would be very much relevant to ALUP and I request
Sushil sb and you to please initiate a discussion on this matter.
This way, maybe ignoramuses (ignorami?) like me will learn
something too.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
I am not sure that this would be "very much relevant" to
ALUP.
A little more than four years back, Sarwar Saheb had posted
a series of articles entitled "Nikaat-e-Sukhan", and I recall
that, in one of them, he had stated in unequivocal terms that
that ALL "behrs" employed in Urdu poetry are derived from
Arabic. He had also given their details.
One can quote extensively from Saintsbury or other texts about
English prosody, just to see its similarity to Urdu prosody,
or otherwise. This can probably be extended to other languages
too. IMHO, this would be just a "fishing expedition". It would
be another matter if someone postulates a definite theory FIRST
that there IS IN FACT a similarity between Urdu meters and
Sanskrit/hindi meters and then proceeds to prove this theory
with extensive examples. A good starting point could be to
establish the links and similarities between Arabic Prosody and
Sanskrit/hindi prosody. But whether that would be relevant to
ALUP is another matter.
Afzal
UVR
> UVR wrote:
> > RB wrote:
> >
> >>[....] at this time my interest is more in Hindi meters. I would have thought
> >>that the Hindi meters would be similar to Sanskrit but then again maybe not.
> >>One of the reasons for finding more about Hindi meters was to see if they
> >>are similar/different from Urdu ghazal/nazm meters.
> >
> > That topic would be very much relevant to ALUP and I request
> > Sushil sb and you to please initiate a discussion on this matter.
> > This way, maybe ignoramuses (ignorami?) like me will learn
> > something too.
> >
> > -UVR.
>
> I am not sure that this would be "very much relevant" to
> ALUP.
>
> A little more than four years back, Sarwar Saheb had posted
> a series of articles entitled "Nikaat-e-Sukhan", and I recall
> that, in one of them, he had stated in unequivocal terms that
> that ALL "behrs" employed in Urdu poetry are derived from
> Arabic. He had also given their details.
>
But something 'derived' from Arabic could have similarities
to something derived from Sanskrit, and the exploration of
those similarities could be relevant to ALUP. Just because
Arabic meters are the root of Ghazal meters, Hindi meters
do not become irrelevant to ALUP. BTW, it is not, I believe,
100% true that all Ghazal meters are derived only from
Arabic buhoor. I think there is a very 'Hindi' meter (as
in "Indian"), commonly called the 'behr-e-Meer', which does
not have an equivalent in Urdu poetry).
In any case, when we allow talk about Urdu zubaan, or about
the similarities and/or differences between Urdu and Hindi
pronunciations (which, God knows, we seem to be talking
about all the time), which are both related to the Language
dot Urdu part of ALUP's name/charter, why is a discussion
about the similarities and/or differences between Hindi and
Urdu meters not relevant to the "poetry" part?
> [...] It would
> be another matter if someone postulates a definite theory FIRST
> that there IS IN FACT a similarity between Urdu meters and
> Sanskrit/hindi meters
And I did conjecture something similar a year or two ago. It
might have been on RMIM, since I remember Ashok Dhareshwar being
in the picture. The basis of my postulate was the well-known
fact that only certain 'children' of Arabic meters are allowed
in Urdu prosody, and it is strange (to me) that some of them are
identical to meters followed in Hindi poetry.
> and then proceeds to prove this theory
> with extensive examples.
I didn't have any extensive examples myself, owing to my very
minimal familiarity with Sanskrit/Hindi meters, but Sushil sb
(as is the norm with him) did post an excellent and scholarly
response to my post. Google is our (apnaa!) friend; a search
should fish out the thread I talk of.
> A good starting point could be to
> establish the links and similarities between Arabic Prosody and
> Sanskrit/hindi prosody. But whether that would be relevant to
> ALUP is another matter.
>
gustaaKhi ma'af, but I don't think the proposition in the
final sentence has been conclusively established, yet.
-UVR.
RB
"UVR" <u...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153938077.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Afzal A. Khan wrote:
>> UVR wrote:
>> > RB wrote:
>> >
>> >>[....] at this time my interest is more in Hindi meters. I would have
>> >>thought
>> >>that the Hindi meters would be similar to Sanskrit but then again maybe
>> >>not.
>> >>One of the reasons for finding more about Hindi meters was to see if
>> >>they
>> >>are similar/different from Urdu ghazal/nazm meters.
>> >
>> > That topic would be very much relevant to ALUP and I request
>> > Sushil sb and you to please initiate a discussion on this matter.
>> > This way, maybe ignoramuses (ignorami?) like me will learn
>> > something too.
>> >
>> > -UVR.
>>
I would also like to see a discussion on this topic ( as I am a part of the
ignoramuses too..) but I can understand the reservations of Afzal sahab and
other ALUPers. It is possible that the discussion could veer into a
discussion of Hindi meter and associated kavitaayeN, which then would not be
relevant to ALUP
This is interesting. It appears that this topic has been discussed before,
atleast to some degree. I am going to try Google to find the thread.
regards,
Rajat
Naseer
I would like to summarise this thread as promised in "Urdu se vaabasta
chand bateN 2".
A)
Let me start with the easiest. The so called "gobbling up" of the
vowels. I do not know the reason behind this as this is not confined to
one speech community. The only plausible reason I can put forward is
perhaps "human laziness". One instintively arrives at pronunciations
which perhaps require the least amount of effort. One thing which one
notices is to make the first syllable end in a consonat.
ram-zaan
qaas-mii
naaz-niin
baah-mii. One could also perhaps include "Ghal-t" instead of "Ghalat".
B) Now to whether l+h, m+h, n+h are true consonants or merely the
co-incidental occurrence of the two consonants coming together.
I was of the view that they were not true consonants and perhaps it
was the co-incidental coming together. UVR Sahib thought otherwise and
stated that they were certainly in existence in other related regional
languages. My contention was..
a) If these were true aspirates, as Hindi script has seperate distinct
symbols to represent "bh,ph" etc, it logically should also have symbols
for "lh, mh and nh" but it does n't.
b) There would be uniformity in Urdu spelling convention..the lh,mh and
nh uniformly spelt with do chasmii he but this is not the case. Both
"hes" are used.
c) I asked a couple of well known figures in the field of Hindi
Studies, namely Dr.Rupert Snell and Dr.Stuart McGregor. Dr.Snell
stated.."Clearly there is aspiration in chuulhaa and the other examples
you give: but it would surely be misleading and perhaps a little
meaningless to think of aspirated consonants being involved here...".
He goes onto say.." I think your final question has to be re-formulated
as "are these true aspirate consonants like bh, th etc?", which would
yield the answer "no" ". Dr.McGregor stated, " I don't think the
examples you give are true aspirates".
Sushil Sahib stated that in both Urdu and Hindi, originally these words
came from local dialects (say KHaRii bolii) but in due course either
they (Urdu/Hindi) have lost the aspiration or on the verge of loosing
it. This, he said, would explain the use of "do-chashmii he" to
represent these sounds. If this is the case, this would explain the
non-uniformity of the "do-chashmii he" usage.
Sushil Sahib also pointed to a couple of studies on this topic. In one
of them, which clearly indicates that these are aspirates but the study
included amongst the usual suspects the Arabic word "jumhuur" which is
clearly not an aspirate. This put doubts in my mind whether the
researchers were clear in their minds as to what an aspirate is! More
importantly, this pointed more to my "co-incidental occurrence" idea.
C) Finally coming to "din kaa ek bajaa hai" and "ai laRke! idhar aa
awr Dhol bajaa". This, perhaps, has been the most "contested" of the
topics. I was and am of the view that there is a discernable difference
in the pronunciations of the word "bajaa" in the two examples given.
For me, the "aa" of the second "bajaa" appears to be longer. The stress
is on the second syllable.
Both Vasmi Sahib and UVR Sahib initially stated that they were both
pronounced the same. UVR suggested that if you (Naseer) were stressing
the second syllable in "Dhol bajaa", then "this would be a paculiar
feature of your style of speaking"! In a later message (13/07/06) UVR
Sahib appears to accept that there is stress/tone at play. Sushil Sahib
also states the same that there is stress and tone in action. Vasmi
Sahib in his post dated 18/07/06 appears to accept that "lahja" or
"tone" is in play.
Dr. Snell stated, "Clearly the drum playing verb has a much stronger
stress on the second syllable..".
Dr.McGregor stated, " Here final -aa surely has the stress to bear it's
context out".
D) Related to above is the nominal "jhukaav" and the verbal
(imperative)"jhukaao". Dr.McGregor tells me that in older Hindi
writings the noun/verb distinction was not made in the script. jhukaav
was used for both purposes. Only in the 20th century writing
conventions, this distinction has been made. I asked ALUPers how this
word in the nominal and verbal contexts was spelt. UVR informed me and
the group that the noun was spelt "jhukaav" and the verb "jhukaao". I
pressed him for a reason and he informed me that (post dated 18/07/06)
"jhukaao is written the way it is because the pronunciation of "o" is
not the same as that of the "v".
UVR Sahib. It is my contention that the difference in the pronunciation
here, which you have accepted, is the very concept that I have been
talking about in the "ek bajaa hai" and "ai laRke! Dhol bajaa!" The
over-riding difference in the two sitiations is that bajaa/bajaa do not
receive any help from the script to differentiate them but
"jhukaav/jhukaao" do! Having said all this, and to be totally honest,
Dr. McGregor has stated, " I suspect there usually would n't be much
difference at all in jhukaao as pronounced in your two sentences...". I
would look at the words "usually" and "much difference" and conclude
"some difference"!
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Sushil Sharma
> Haaziriin-i-MaHfil,
>
> I would like to summarise this thread as promised in "Urdu se vaabasta
> chand bateN 2".
Dear Naseer saheb,
I just read your summary. There were a few points where I could not
help thinking very differently from what you have concluded. As my
response is based on a quick reading of your post, and I do not have
much time at present to carefully word my comments before posting, some
of my comments below may inadvertently appear harsh or even rude. Let
me start by apologiing in advance, if that is truly the case.
> A)
> Let me start with the easiest. The so called "gobbling up" of the
> vowels. I do not know the reason behind this as this is not confined to
> one speech community. The only plausible reason I can put forward is
> perhaps "human laziness". One instintively arrives at pronunciations
> which perhaps require the least amount of effort. One thing which one
> notices is to make the first syllable end in a consonat.
>
> ram-zaan
> qaas-mii
> naaz-niin
> baah-mii. One could also perhaps include "Ghal-t" instead of "Ghalat".
Naseer saheb, how is it possible that the said "human laziness" does
not afflict the speakers of Arabic (or speakers of Sanskrit, though few
native speakers of it might be left now) as they do pronounce these
words with the vowels that are "gobbled up" in Hindi/Urdu, but
influences so badly the poor souls who speak Hindi/Urdu? How can such
"laziness" be a special prerogative of Hindi/Urdu speaking community?
IMHO, each language has its own phonetic culture (may I use the term
"sautii mizaaj" ?) and that phonetic culture of Hindi/Urdu is such that
long words are automatically modified syllabically to "gobble up"
certain vowel sounds, irrespective of the origin of such words, and
this may not have any connection to laziness etc? Modification in
pronunciation of imported words to suit the phonetic culture of the
importing language, is certainly not unique to Urdu/Hindi.
Also, your final example "Ghal-t" doesn't appear to be valid. As far as
I know, the commonly accepted and heard pronunciation is "Ghalat" with
the a vowel intact after l. Same is true for other such words like
kamal, chalan etc. However, "Ghal-tii" does not have the explicit a
vowel after l (and same is the case with other such words such as
kam-laa, chal-naa etc). This goes back to the inherent phonetic traits
as I mentioned above.
> Sushil Sahib also pointed to a couple of studies on this topic. In one
> of them, which clearly indicates that these are aspirates but the study
> included amongst the usual suspects the Arabic word "jumhuur" which is
> clearly not an aspirate. This put doubts in my mind whether the
> researchers were clear in their minds as to what an aspirate is! More
> importantly, this pointed more to my "co-incidental occurrence" idea.
In my humble opinion, you are being unfair to the authors of the said
paper, in the comment above. First, the paper you refer, only concludes
that mh does not show aspiration whereas lh does - to certain extent.
Second, the inclusion of jumhur should not lead us to doubt whether the
authors of the paper understood aspiration or not. The authors were
purely analyzing the speech patterns for presence or absence of
aspiration for lh/mh in Urdu speech, irresepctive of the etymology or
origination of the words. As I wrote earlier, it is relevant to analyze
words like jumhur to determine whether Urdu/Hindi speech shows any
native tendencies of aspiration for mh, as the mh cluster is part of
this word. When a common man uses this word (while speaking Urdu/Hindi)
he would speak it as per his natural Hindi/Urdu tendency for
pronunciation of mh cluster (aspirated or not) without first bringing
to mind whether the word originated from Arabic or Sanskrit or some
other language and then deciding whether to use aspiration or not.
Finally, it should be expected that people who went through the trouble
of analyzing this issue in some depth, performing acoustic and spectral
analysis of actual speech data and reporting all this in a published
paper, would at least understand the basic definition of what they were
analyzing and reporting, perhaps more so than armchair theorists like
us!
Regards,
Sushil
Naseer
I don't think any of us needs to be harsh or rude in this forum,
since the culture associated with Urdu is nothing but polite behaviour
and humility on the part of the speaker. You were neither harsh nor
rude.
For the gobbling up of vowels, I had said, "The only plausible reason
I can put forward is
perhaps "human laziness" ".
The very fact that I have put human laziness in inverted commas is
indicatative of the fact that this is neither a linguistic theory nor a
"law" but a non-expert's gut feeling. I don't think it needs to
be read any more deeply than that. I can assure you that only in
CAREFUL educated Arabic you will hear all the vowels pronounced fully.
In ordinary, day to day, fluent speech of educated and non-educated
Arabic speakers, this vowel assimilation phenomenon exists. I can not
comment about Sanskrit for two reasons. I can not speak the language
and secondly even if I could, I have not heard anyone speak it. As for
Arabic, I do have some knowledge and these comments are based on that.
In the type of Urdu that we are talking about, we expect people to
say "Ghalatii" and not "Ghaltii". I had said, "One could
also perhaps include "Ghal-t" instead of "Ghalat". I have heard persons
speaking Urdu (whatever language background they originally may or may
not have come from) pronounce "Ghalat" as "Ghalt".
I take your point for the reasons for including "jumhuur" in the
study.
Khair-andesh,
Naseer