hello people
ahmaq
i have joined this group today. name is ankur kulshrestha. i am a
wannabe shayar and this group has been recommended to me by a dear
friend and guide amit malhotra.
i have been writing imperfectly since last two years. dont have any
urdu background and dont erally nkow the language. bas jitna ghazal etc
paDh kar sun kar samajh mein aata hai usi ki jaankaari hai. lekin aage
seekhne ki tamanna hai.
urdu shayari ki details seekh raha hoon aur i hope i can get some
really good teachers out here.
apni ek purani ghazal pesh kar raha hoon. sare sher beher mein nahi
honge lekin kahaan kya galti hai, agar aap log point out kar sakenge to
i'll be grateful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wisaal-e-mukhtasar mein aur hai kuchh baat baki,
shikayat hi nahi thi, aur hai jazbaat baki.
tere khamosh lab aur aankhein tashnakaam meri,
koi poochhe, guzari kis kadar phir raat baki.
shab-e-guftaar hai, bolo, nikalo hasratein sab,
subah lafzon se keh dena, 'nahi khairaat baki'.
wo do boondein huii.n jannat-nashii.n, aariz pe dhal ke,
hai bemani meri jaanib se ye barsaat baki.
kyun is khuda ko chahiye, mere hi dil ka naap,
kya bas gaye shahar ke kharaabaat baki.
'ahmaq' jo na likhe to use de qalam dua,
janaaze tak rahegi, ek khurafaat baki.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jab likhna shuru kiya tha to takhallus 'ahmaq' rakha tha. i know the
meaning so its not really a mistake. but now i have come to realize
that it does not sound too ofensive to me because urdu is not my
language. its just a word for me whose meaning i know vaguely. it must
really sound strange and maybe rude to urdu speaking people... so maybe
i'll change it later but as of now i am a self declared idiot :)
thanks
ankur
Kali Hawa
>
> jab likhna shuru kiya tha to takhallus 'ahmaq' rakha tha. i know the
Ahmaq is perfctly all right.
ahmaq
suiting me :))
Black Wind
ahmaq wrote:
> janaab kya meri so called ghazal itni buri hai !!! ahmaq seems to be
> suiting me :))
Aur janaab ye baaki kya balaa hai?
aapkaa maqsad kahiN b'aaqi se to nahi? Koi gham nahi Hindi script meN
Urdu paRhne waaloN ka yahii aNzaam hotaa hai. Janaab jis school ke aap
abhi student haiN wahaan ham Head Master rah chuke haiN ( yaani Qudrat
ko Kudrat likhne waale) .Ab chuNke kisii saahib-e-sukhan ne aap kii
houslaa afzaaii ki zaroorat mehsoos nahi ki , lihaazah is kaam ko
aNzaam hameen ko denaa paRegaa. itna to kaheNge ke guNzaais bohat hai.
Lekin aapke ash'aar hamaare zehn meN nahi utre!
mehrbaani kar ke aap seedhi saadhi zubaan men bataayeNge ki aaap
kahnaa kyaa chahte haiN, e.g.
"kyun is khuda ko chahiye, mere hi dil ka naap,
kya bas gaye shahar ke kharaabaat baki. "
dono mesre maiN koii mel nazar nahi aa rahaa hai.
Kali Hawa
ahmaq
raha hoon aur itna kuchh pata chala hai ki seekhna hai, so if u tell me
ki urdu ki roman scripting bhi seekho to main bhaag hi jaaoonga.
kharaabaat ka matlab jo mujhe pata tha was like a deserted or weeraan
place.
lekin abhi doubt hua to ebazm par check kiya. aur meri nazar se dekhiye
to is meaning se sher aur sudhar gaya.
Urdu: Kharaabaat
English: Wine-Bars
"kyun is khuda ko chahiye, mere hi dil ka naap,
kya bas gaye shahar ke kharaabaat baki. "
khuda ko basne ke liye ek koi jagah chahiye, to usne mujhse mere dil ka
maap maanga hai. maybe to ensure its sufficient or suitable or not. i
am amazed because my heart / home is the last place where a khuda would
like to stay. so i am wondering ki kya shahar ke saare kharaabaat khali
nahi hain jo ki khuda itna desperate hokar mere ghar ka naap maang raha
hai.
kya waakai ghalat hai???
Zoya
Welcome to Alup! :)
aap Amit Malhotra ke dost haiN to phir hamaare bhii dost hue!! :)
Black Wind wrote:
>
>
> Aur janaab ye baaki kya balaa hai?
> aapkaa maqsad kahiN b'aaqi se to nahi? Koi gham nahi Hindi script meN
> Urdu paRhne waaloN ka yahii aNzaam hotaa hai. Janaab jis school ke aap
> abhi student haiN wahaan ham Head Master rah chuke haiN ( yaani Qudrat
> ko Kudrat likhne waale) .Ab chuNke kisii saahib-e-sukhan ne aap kii
> houslaa afzaaii ki zaroorat mehsoos nahi ki , lihaazah is kaam ko
> aNzaam hameen ko denaa paRegaa. itna to kaheNge ke guNzaais bohat hai.
>
>
> Kali Hawa
Kala Sahib,
aNzaam => aNjaam
guNzaais => guNjaaish
Might have been typos, but since we are pointing out 'baaqii'! ;)
_________Zoya
Yogesh
Yes, we are splitting hair, and why not? The importance of correct
pronunciations in a language cannot be taken lightly. On this subject,
let me take this opportunity to bring out a few points on
transliteration that have been on my mind.
1. Since transliteration is supposed to represent a brand new script
for Urdu/Hindi, albeit with Roman alphabets, let us first dispose off
any notion of following the rules that would be applicable when writing
English in Roman script. For example: the use of upper case when
commencing a sentence. Urdu/Hindi do not have any upper case in their
alphabets, in addition, in many cases of transliteration, we
specifically employ Roman upper case alphabets with entirely different
connotation than the lower case. Therefore, how can we justify the use
of upper case letter at he start of a sentence when the Urdu/Hindi
sound does not demand it? There is no confusion when we write in either
Arabic or Devanagri script, why should it be any different when
employing the Roman script?
2. There is nothing wrong in adopting any transliteration scheme, so
long as it is consistent in its application. Take for example the
letter 'e' that in iTrans method represents the sound that we use
in words like 'de' (give), 'le' (take), 'ahl-e-fan'
(craftsman), 'betaab' (restless) etc. Yet I have seen 'e'
employed for the sound that would be more appropriately represented by
'a' - e.g. 'lehar instead of 'lahar', 'pehar' instead
of 'pahar', 'sehar' instead of 'sahar' , 'kehna'
instead of 'kahna'- it is difficult to understand the rational,
if any, behind it. And this being used by some very capable people
proficient not only in Urdu but also in transliteration schemes,
whether adopted or one of their own.
3. As to the use of 'j' instead of 'z', we find some words now
being accepted with dual usage, 'nazaria' and 'najaria' etc.,
by the Hindi-speaking world. But for this forum, dedicated to Urdu
poetry, it still would be more appropriate to follow the lexicons. Same
for 'q' vs 'k' - one has to know the correct pronunciation of
the word, there is no short cut here.
Regards,
Yogesh
Afzal A. Khan
Sethi Saheb,
Your post needs a fuller reply and, right now, I am pressed for
time. Maybe later today.
Referring to your last para, "nazariya" and "najariya" are two
different words -- not a single word "accepted with dual usage"
(i.e. with both "j" and "z"). Also, "najariya" is a sort of
colloquial pronunciation. Wasn't there an old film with that
title ? And also a well-known song : "Najariya ki maari...".
I do hope you are NOT suggesting that "nazariya" (meaning 'point
of view') is also "permissible" with a 'j' -- "najariya".
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
> Yogesh wrote:
Sorry for following up......
As promised, here is a fuller reply.
Why does anybody use Roman English while transcribing a
text in Urdu/hindi ? In a Newsgroup where it is possible
to have and use the Urdu/hindi font, I suppose no one would
be required to use Roman English. The latter's use arises
simply due to the absence or unavailability of any Urdu/hindi
font. Any transliteration scheme should be user-friendly. And
if posters and viewers are both comfortable with the Roman
English (that is used in ALUP, for instance), there should be
no objection to it. After all, it is merely a substitute for the
original script. Is there any necessity for the users to
follow a set of rules that may govern the use of the original
script ? I don't think so. In the Urdu script, there are no
capital letters. Should that mean that we must necessarily
eschew the use of capital letters, even while using the Roman
English alphabet ? We use this alphabet in ordinary posts too,
that are couched in the English language. We are all familiar
with the rules governing such usage and we always comply with
these rules, to the best of our ability. And that compliance
includes the use of capital letters where appropriate (such as
in proper nouns or at the beginning of a new sentence). And,
therefore, we find it natural and convenient to follow the same
"rules" while couching our Urdu/hindi text in Roman English. It
would be my submission that the rules for us to follow should be
those of the Script we are using, rather than those of the Lang-
uage that we are writing. In this context, I have already empha-
sised ease of use as a cardinal principle. I daresay, if people
found that dropping capital letters is easier to adopt, rather
than employing them, they would readily choose to do so. And I
for one would have no objection. But it may not be right and
proper to insist that the rules or practices of one Script must
be followed while using another Script altogether.
You further state, and I quote :
"There is nothing wrong in adopting any transliteration scheme,
so long as it is consistent in its application."
The difficulty is that it is virtually impossible for people
(meaning ALUPers here) to agree to a single transliteration
scheme. You speak of iTrans. You must also be aware of a very
elaborate scheme devised by our own Sarwar Saheb. Except Raaz
Saheb himself, I doubt if anyone else uses that scheme here.
And, as far as I am aware, we find iTrans confined to the
ISB and Giitaayan only (for the limited purpose of archiving
lyrics). {Although UVR Saheb always claims that it has so many
different uses !}
I would say that the present practices that are being observed in
ALUP are quite in order. We understand and follow each other's
ideas and there is a healthy debate. If all of us were agreed
on a single transliteration scheme, then your suggestion about
"consistency in its application" would have some merit. For the
time being at least, we can follow the time-honoured adage of
"the greatest good of the largest number".
Let us now take up your point about "lehar" and "lahar" etc.
I think the very fact that people largely use "e" in such
words (rather than "a") should suggest that "e" represents the
most acceptable pronunciation for most people. Maybe the
letter 'e' can be replaced in such words by the two letters
"ai". But the single letter "a" connotes a different sound.
I am sure you remember the Indian TV adaptation of the
Jungle Book (that was telecast on Doordarshan some 10-12 years
back). The title song (probably penned by Gulzar) contained a
line : "chaDDi pahan ke phool khila hai". In ordinary use,
the word is pronounced as "peh'n". But Gulzar deliberately
used a diffeent (colloquial or 'dialectic') pronunciation.
Maybe someone like Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav would say " "Hum to
bhai, dhoti pahan ke hi amreeka jaayeNge".
I have already dealt with para 3 of your post. If this debate
continues, I suggest that it should be done under a different
thread. We need not invlove Shri Kulshrestha and his poetry
unnecessarily. I would suggest that your post and my two
rejoinders can be included as the starting point of a new
thread.
With best regards,
Afzal
Black Wind
aik kahavat yahaaN saabit ho gayii::
neem hakeem khatre jaan.
Afzal A. Khan
khatre jaan = KHatra~e jaan
Maze ki baat yeh hai ke aise hakeem KHud apni hi
jaan ke liye bhi bahut baRa KHatra haiN !!
Afzal
Black Wind
>
> khatre jaan = KHatra~e jaan
>
> Maze ki baat yeh hai ke aise hakeem KHud apni hi
> jaan ke liye bhi bahut baRa KHatra haiN !!
>
>
>
> Afzal
Afzal saahib,
Mere Khayal se meri baat 'kahavat' ke lihaaz se theek hai aur aap ki
baat 'muhavare' ke lihaaz se!
aadaab arz hai
Kali Hawa
qure...@googlemail.com
Distinguished Members of the Group, aadaab 'arz hai,
This is my first contribution to your group and I would seek
your forgiveness if I unwittingly breach any procedures or
etiquette.
The discussion about the pronunciation of words written as
"pahan", "shahr","qahr" etc pronounced as "paihan", "shaihr" etc is an
interesting one. From my reading of one or two sources, it appears that
there are a couple of factors behind this phenomenon:
1) The vowel, invariably follows the consonants "h" (Lahori)
and "H" (Halwe waali He) and 'ain . In addition to the above examples,
one can cite "kahnaa", "rahnaa" etc
"mahr"(dowry),"mihr"(kindness),"muhr"(seal)
"aHmad","muHammad","iHtiraam","i'tiraaf" etc.
These are pronounced ""maihr","mehr", "mohr", "aiHmad",
"MoHammad","eHtiraam", "e'tiraaf" etc. It appears that the presence of
the h/H sound "forces" Urdu/Hindi?Farsi speakers to slightly elongate
and relax the original vowel. Afzal Sahib mentioned Shri Laloo Prasad
pronouncing "pahan" as it is written. I would like to add that, at
least Punjabis who are not necessarily affected by Urdu/Persian
pronunciation pronounce in the same fashion as Laloo Prasad Yadav! I
say this, because my grandmother used to call me by my middle name
"aHmad" and pronounced it as it is written.
2) There appears to be a vowel shift from "a" to "ai", "i" to
"e", "u" to "o".
Examples "Deevaan-i-GHaalib" is pronounced "deevaan-e-GHaalib", and
this "e" sounds almost if not totally the same as "baRii ye".
Roz-i-umed u beem" is pronounced "roz-e-umed o beem" (NB. Um(m)eed was
pronounced as umed!). This is how the transcription is in Steingass's
Persian dictionary is given. The implication of this is "waw-i-'taf"
was pronounced like a "pesh" sound and the "izaafat" was pronounced
like a "zer" sound.
In passing, could I please pose a question or two to members of the
group?
What book/books would people from the sub-continent have used, say in
Mirza GHalib's time to learn Farsi?
Afzal SaaHib, would it be possible for you to contact me via my e-mail
address as I need to ask you a few questions about Farsi? I would be
most grateful to you for this.
Best Regards,
Naseer
Peteborough, England.