kis alif-siin ko is paRhuuN awr kis alif-siin ko us?
Naseer
In May 2005, Yogesh Sethi Sahib started a thread entitled, "Lack of
Clarity in Urdu Script", in which he made the following assertions.
a) Omission of zer and pesh was a "serious flaw" in Urdu script.
b) There is better clarity in Roman transliterated form and Hindi
script.
c) What would be the merrit in having books in Urdu script if they were
to become available in an alternative, more phonetic script also?
A lively discussion took place and unfortunately, it ended up dwelling
on b) and c) and left a) unfinished, as it were. I am not suggesting
that the topic could have been brought to a mutually satisfactory
conclusion but I do feel, perhaps, there could have been more insight
provided regarding the "is/us" issue at hand.
Sarwar Sahib discussed the importance of "siyaaq-o-sibaaq" or context.
He also talked about the concept of whether the person being talked
about is present or not and so on and so forth.Vijay Sahib brought into
discussion a couplet by Faiz..
kaii baar us (is) kaa daaman bhar diyaa Husan-i-do 'aalam se
magar dil hai ki (is) us kii KHaanah-viiraanii nahiiN jaatii
Sarwar Sahib suggested that in both places the appropriate word is "is"
as the poet is talking about his own heart. UVR Sahib then entered the
discussion by stating:-
"yeh bahs to bahut hi dilchasp ho gayi hai! maiN ne Vijay sb
kaa sawaal dekhaa to mujhe bhi yahi lagaa k sh'er meN shaa'ir
apne dil ki jaanib ishaara kar rahaa hai, is liye yahaaN donoN
misroN meN "is" hi saheeh hai.
lekin mere paas Faiz ki shaa'iri kaa ek nusKha, "saare suKhan
hamaare", Hindi script meN maujood hai, aur us meN mazkoora
sh'er kuchh yooN darj hai:
ka`ii baar *is* kaa daaman bhar diyaa husn-e-do_'aalam se
magar dil hai k *us* kii Khaana-veeraani naheeN jaati...".
Vijay Sahib then offered an explanation that, in the second line, Faiz
is saying ... 'jo dil hai vuh kuchh aisa hai kih 'us' kii KHaanah-
viiranii nahiiN jaatii".
I do not wish to say anything about b) and c) apart from the fact that
Urdu script, which is derived from Arabic/Persian script, is a
consonental script. What this means is that, the norm in the writing
system is not to indicate short vowels. These are added in children's
primers and the Qur'an for reasons already given in that thread by
Afzal Sahib. I would like to concentrate on a) only of Yogesh Sahib's
post.
I must admit that prior to reading this post, this is/us "issue" had
not crossed my mind. I have discussed this matter, privately, with
Vijay Sahib. I then thought I would carry out a small piece of
"research", using "diivaan-i-Ghalib", to see if there are any
"patterns" in the usage of "is"/"us". I used a copy of the diivaan
which was published by "majlis-i-yaadgaar-i-Ghalib, Punjab University,
Lahore" at the time of Ghalib's 100th death anniversary.
"tahqiiq-i-matan-o-tartiib" was done by Haamid Ali Khan. This is a copy
of high quality printing with is/us clearly marked. In places where I
had doubts, I compared the ash'aar with two copies compiled by Maulana
Ghulam Rasul Mihr.
This small effort on my part is certainly not the last word on this
issue. It would be an indication as to how is/us was used by the master
poet himself and we can say that this would be a good learning
exercise.
I have divided the is/us usage into essentially three divisions.
1) Jis kii laaThii us kii bhains...type. (around 16 examples)
This is the easiest to follow. Let me give you a few examples..
jo yih kahe kih reKHtah kyoNkih ho rashk-i-Faarsii
guftah-i-Ghalib ek baar paRh ke use sunaa kih yuuN
yih fitnah aadamii kii KHaanah-viiraanii ko kyaa kam hai
hue tum dost jis ke, dushman us kaa aasmaaN kyoN ho
One can ofcourse have this this the other way round..."us kii bhains
jis kii laaThii".
gunjiinah-i-ma'nii kaa tilism us ko samajhiye
jo lafz kih Ghaalib mire ash'aar meN aave
In this type of construction, one appears to have an exception to the
rule. However, you will see that this is not an exception.
Let's look at the following shi'r..
is rang se uThaaii kal us ne asad kii na'sh
dushman bhii jis ko dekh ke Gham-naak ho gaye
Here one would expect "us rang se...". However, here "is rang..."
descrines the manner. Adverbial constructions do not have "us". Other
examples are ...
zindagii jab is shakl se guzarii....
phir is andaaz se bahaar aaii...
is qadr.... ( this gives amount)
is saadagii pih kaun nah mar jaae Ghaalib
laRte haiN awr haath meN talvaar bhii nahiiN... (here is gives "kind").
2) Proximity.....the use of "is" ( around 25 examples)
The promimity is not necessarily in distance but how the speaker (the
poet) perceives the reality around him. Here "is" is used for physical
and non-physical concepts.
i) non-physical
pii jis qadr mile, shab-i-mahtaab meN sharaab
is balGhamii mizaaj ko garmii hii raas hai
kii vafaa ham se to Ghair is ko jafaa kahte haiN
hotii aaii hai kih achhoN ko buraa kahte haiN
huii is daur meN mansuub mujh se baadah aashaamii
phir aayaa vuh zamaanah jo jahaaN meN jaam-i-jam nikle
likhte rahe junuuN kii Hikaayaat-i-KhuuN-chakaaN
har chand is meN haath hamaare qalam hue (is meN=is likhne meN)
dil-i-naadaaN tujhe huaa kyaa hai
aaKhir is dard kii davaa kyaa hai
ii) Physical
falak ko dekh ke kartaa huuN us ko yaad asad (here us=maHbuub)
jafaa meN is kii hai andaaz kaar-farmaa kaa (is=falak,
kaar-farmaa=maHbuub)
dil-o-jigar meN par-afshaaN jo ek maujah-i-KHuuN hai
ham apne za'm meN samjhe hue the is ko dam aage
saae kii tarHa saath phireN sarv-o-sanaubar
tuu is qad-i-dil-kash se jo gul-zaar meN aae
taa kih maiN jaanuuN kih hai is kii rasaaii vaaN tak
mujh ko detaa hai payaam-i-va'dah-i-diidaar-i-dost (is kii=is Ghair
kii..Ghair is mentioned in the previous line)
When the poet talks about himself, "is" is used as in "is KHastah-tan
ke paaNv", "is biimaar ko".When he talks about his heart, he says..
tum apne shikve kii baateN nah khod khod ke puucho
Hazar karo mire dil se kih is meN aag dabii hai
3) Remoteness... the use of "us". Here again, it is not necessarily the
distance in time/space, but how the poet perceives the concept. (26
examples and around 50+ for maHbuub)
i) non-physical
fanaa ta'liim-i-dars-i-be-KHudii huuN us zamaane se
kih majnuuN laam alif likhtaa thaa diivaar-i-dabistaan par
be-talab deN to mazah us meN sivaa miltaa hai (us meN=deneN meN)
vuh gadaa, jis ko nah ho KHuu-i-savaal, achhaa hai
bhaage the ham bahut, so us kii sazaa hai yih (us kii=bhaagne kii)
ho kar asiir daabte haiN raah-zan ke paaNv
laag ho to us ko ham samjheN, lagaao
jab nah ho kuchh bhii to dhokaa khaaeN kyaa
Husn-i-mah gar chih ba-hangaam-i-kamaal achhaa hai
us se meraa mah-i-KHurshiid-jamaaal achhaa hai
kii ham-nafasoN ne asr-i-giryah meN taqriir
achche rahe aap us se magar mujh ko Dubo aae (us se= us taqriir se)
ii) physical
nasiim-i-misr ko kyaa piir-i- kan'aaN kii havaa-KHvaahii
use yuusuf kii buu-i-pairahan kii aazmaaish hai
jab us ke dekhne ke liye aaeN baadshaah (us ke= laalah-zaar ke)
logoN meN kyoN numuud nah ho laalah-zaar kii
apnaa nahiiN vuh shevah kih aaraam se baiTheN
us dar pih nahiiN baar to ka'be hii ko ho aae (us dar= maHbuub kaa dar)
gar chih hai kis kis buraaii se vale baa iiN hamah
zikr meraa mujh se bihtar hai kih us maHfil meN hai
sham' bujhtii hai to us meN dhuaaN uThtaa hai
shu'lah-i-'ishq siyah-posh huaa mere ba'd
jaan dii dii huuii usii kii thii (usii kii=KHudaa kii)
Haq to yuuN hai kih Haq adaa nah huaa
us kii ummat meN huuN maiN, mere raheN kyoN kaam band (us kii=MuHammad
kii)
vaaste jis shah ke Ghaalib gunbad-i-be-dar khulaa
Ghaalib nah kar Huzuur meN tuu baar baar 'arz
zaahir hai tiraa Haal sab un par kahe baGhair (un par =bahaadur shaah
Zafar)
suKhan meN KHaamah-i-Ghaalib kii aatish afshaanii
yaqiin hai ham ko bhii, lekin ab us meN dam kyaa hai (us meN=Ghaalib
meN)
maiN ne rokaa raat Ghaalib ko va-gar-nah dekhte
us ke sail-i-giryah meN garduuN kaf-i-sail-aab thaa (us ke=Ghaalib ke)
diyaa hai dil us ko, bashar hai, kyaa kahiye (us ko=raqiib ko)
huaa raqiib to ho, naamah bar hai, kyaa kahiye
qaasid ko apne haath se gardan nah maariye
us kii Khataa nahiiN hai, yih meraa qusuur hai (us kii=qaasid kii)
kareN ge kohkan ke Hausale kaa imtiHaaN aaKHir
hanoz us KHastah ke niiruu-e-tan kii aazmaaish hai (us KHastah ke=
Farhaad ke)
"us"/"un" is more frequently used for the "maHbuub"..
muHabbat meN nahiiN hai farq jiine awr marne kaa
usii ko dekh kar jeete haiN jis kaafir pih dam nikle
ham ko un se vafaa kii hai ummiid
jo nahiiN jaante vafaa kyaa hai
kii mire qatl ke ba'd us ne jafaa se taubah
haae us zuud-pashemaaN kaa pashemaaN honaa
dard-i-dil likhuuN kab tak jaauuN un ko dikhlaa duuN
ungliyaaN figaar apnii KHaamah KhuuN-chakaaN apnaa....and so on .
So, going back to Faiz's shi'r...I'll leave this for the moment. I
would like other readers to put forward their views.
One final point. Is n't ambiguity (or multiple meanings) supposed to
enhanse beauty of a poem. Well, in Urdu, there is the is/is phenomenon!
aadaab 'arz ahi,
Naseer
Kali Hawa
> a) Omission of zer and pesh was a "serious flaw" in Urdu script.
> ded in children's
> primers and the Qur'an for reasons already given in that thread by
> Afzal Sahib. I would like to concentrate on a) only of Yogesh Sahib's
> post.
is/us probably is only one facet of zer /pesh omission, therefore you
have concentrated on only is/ us issue and not zer/pesh omission
problem. Often I confuse Bihar with Bahar in newspaper reports.
(kidding)
> One final point. Is n't ambiguity (or multiple meanings) supposed to
> enhance beauty of a poem. Well, in Urdu, there is the is/is phenomenon!
confusion isn't ambiguity, is it?
aadab arz hai!
Kali Hawa
Vijay
kar bohat kucch siikhne ko mila. maiN sarwar sahib kii baat se qadre
muttaffiq thaa ki amuuman she'r ke 'context' se is/us kaa masla hal ho
jaata hai. lekin mujhe uljhan paRtii hai to vahhaN jahhaN 'context'
saaf na ho. aap kii msiaaloN meN aise aik do she'r the lekin aaj
dobaara jaldi jaldi muta'ala kiia to sirf aik hii saamne aaya, aur voh
hai:
kii vafaa ham ne to Ghair is ko jafaa kahte haiN
hotii aaii hai kih achhoN ko buraa kahte haiN
yahaaN pehle misre meN yeh baat acchi tarah se saaf nahiiN ho paa rahi
ki agar 'is' kii jagah 'us' ho to 'context' kaise tabdiil ho ga. balke
maiN to yahaaN 'us' ko tarjiih duuNga, yaani ki 'jo vafaa ham ne kii
ghairoN ne 'use' jafaa jaana? nahiiN?
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Naseer
Kali Hawa wrote:
>
> is/us probably is only one facet of zer /pesh omission, therefore you
> have concentrated on only is/ us issue and not zer/pesh omission
> problem. Often I confuse Bihar with Bahar in newspaper reports.
> (kidding)
janaab-i-Kala Sahib, aadaab!
I apollogise for the late reply. I was waiting for some reaction from
other ALUPers to bring the pot to the boil, but, it seems that the
issue which Roshan Sahib raised, is no where as acute as it was made
out to be. At least, this is one conclusion I can draw from the lack of
interest of audience participation. I may be wrong.
Yogesh Sahib's post, concentrated on is/us issue, as was indicated by
the court scenario he presented. Hence, I concentrated on is/us.
As I have indicated earlier, Urdu script is a consonanatal script.To
the best of my knowledge, all scripts based on the Arabic script do
not, in normal circumstances, indicate short vowels. Hebrew (another
semitic script) is also consonantal. It might be that this is something
inherent in semitic scripts.
Even long-vowel values, in Urdu script, in theory, are indicated by a
short vowel plus a semi-vowel
Examples:-
a= alif+zabar (here this alif is merely a "carrier" for the zabar)
e.g alif+zabar+be= ab, jiim+zabar+be=jab
aa= alif+zabar+alif (it is the second alif which makes the vowel
elongated)
e.g. alif+zabar+alif(=alif mad)=aa, laam+zabar+alif=laa
i=alif+zer (alif is a carrier again)
e.g. alif+zer+siin=is, jiim+zer+siin=jis
ii=alif+zer+ye
e.g. alif+zer+ye+nuun-i-Ghunnah+Te=iiNT, kaaf+zer+ye=kii
u= alif+pesh (alif is a carrier)
e.g alif+pesh+siin=us, be+pesh+nuun=bun (weave!)
uu=alif+pesh+vaao
e.g. alif+pesh+vaao+nuun=uun (wool), jeem+pesh+vaao+nuun=juun
e= alif+ye ( this is one of two majhuul vowels in Urdu. NB Arabic does
not have these two vowels).
e.g. alif+ye+kaaf=ek, nuun+ye+kaaf+nek
o=alif+vaao (majhuul vowel)
e.g; alif+vaao+vaao=ok (contracted palm of hand), laaf+vaao+gaaf=log
Diphthongs..ai=alif+zabar+ye and au=alif+zabar+vaao)
So, if you came across the following Urdu shi'r, this is how it would
appear in the Urdu script without any short vowel markings.
bnaa kr fqyrvN kaa bhys Ghaalb
tmashaa-i-Ahl-i-krm dkhty hyN (remember that the izaafat is not always
indicated either)
This is quite a straighforward example. I would contend that you would
find this "Roman Urdu" rendering more difficult to decipher than if the
shi'r was written in Urdu script. The reason for this that an Urdu
reader learns to recongnise words as patterns. As soon as he/she sees
the word "meem+toe+meem+hamza+nuun", it is automatically read as
"mutmain" and not in any other vowel combination!
So your point about "bahaar" (spring) and "bihaar" (the state of
Bihar), though said in jest, is understandable. When you read in a
newspaper "bhaar myN chh lvg maare gae", you will need to distinguish
whether the six unfortunate persons died in Spring or Bihar. I am sure
you would n't find this too difficult.
> > One final point. Is n't ambiguity (or multiple meanings) supposed to
> > enhance beauty of a poem. Well, in Urdu, there is the is/is phenomenon!
> confusion isn't ambiguity, is it?
No confusion will result if you understand the language and the context
in which the subject matter is written.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
> Naseer sahib, bohat mehnat kar ke ap ne yeh mazmuuN likha hai aur paRh
> kar bohat kucch siikhne ko mila. maiN sarwar sahib kii baat se qadre
> muttaffiq thaa ki amuuman she'r ke 'context' se is/us kaa masla hal ho
> jaata hai. lekin mujhe uljhan paRtii hai to vahhaN jahhaN 'context'
> saaf na ho. aap kii msiaaloN meN aise aik do she'r the lekin aaj
> dobaara jaldi jaldi muta'ala kiia to sirf aik hii saamne aaya, aur voh
> hai:
>
> kii vafaa ham ne to Ghair is ko jafaa kahte haiN
> hotii aaii hai kih achhoN ko buraa kahte haiN
>
> yahaaN pehle misre meN yeh baat acchi tarah se saaf nahiiN ho paa rahi
> ki agar 'is' kii jagah 'us' ho to 'context' kaise tabdiil ho ga. balke
> maiN to yahaaN 'us' ko tarjiih duuNga, yaani ki 'jo vafaa ham ne kii
> ghairoN ne 'use' jafaa jaana? nahiiN?
muHtaram Vijay Sahib, aadaab!
yaad aavarii kaa shukriyaa. mere "mazmuun" se agar is mauzuu' kii ek
aadh girah khul gaii hai to maiN samjuuN gaa kih merii miHnat raaegaaN
nahiiN gaii!
ab aap ke pesh kardah shi'r kii taraf..
kii vafaa ham ne to Ghair is/us ko jafaa kahte haiN
hotii aaii hai kih achhoN ko buraa kahte haiN
"Haamid Ali Khan" farmaate haiN kih yahaan "is" ke bajaae "us" nahiiN
paRhnaa chaahiye. lekin yih nahiiN likhaa kih "us" kyoN nahiiN paRhnaa
chaahiye!
Ghulaam Rasuul Mihr kii ek kitaab meN "us" likhaa huaa hai awr tashriiH
vaalii kitaab meN zer/pesh vujuud na-daarad!
shi'r kii tashriiH yuuN karte haiN...
maHbuub ne ham se vafaa kaa aaGhaaz kiyaa to GhairoN awr raqiiboN ne
vafaa ko jafaa kaa naam de diyaa. un kaa maqsad yih thaa kih maHbuub ke
Husn-i-suluuk par nuktah-chiinii kar ke use bar-gashtah kar deN taa kih
vuh vafaa tark kar de.
merii Haqiir raae meN yahaaN "is" ziyaadah munaasib hai kyoN kih..
kii vafaa ham se, to Ghair (is vafaa ko...the subject at hand...ko)
jafaa kahte haiN.
agar aap tashriiH dekheN to yih zaahir hotaa hai kih chaahe aap "is"
paRheN yaa "us" ,ma'nii meN koii farq nahiiN paRtaa. mere Khyaal meN
(ma'zarat chaahuuN gaa agar yih Khayaal Ghalat ho) aap har is qism ke
jumle ko "jis kii laaThii us kii bhaiNs" qism ke jumle me tabdiil kar
dete haiN. is taraH tabdiil karne meN, grammar ke liHaaz se "us" hii
aae gaa!!!!
patah nahiiN kih aap mere is javaab se mutmain haiN kih nahiiN????
KHair-Khwaah,
Naseer
Kali Hawa
> No confusion will result if you understand the language and the context
> in which the subject matter is written.
>
> KHair-andesh,
> Naseer
Janab Naseer Sahib,
maiN sharmiNdah hun ke is laRi men be-vajeh dastak de di. dar-asl I
have no technical knowledge of Urdu language/poetry. I appreciate it on
impulse and as a matter of spontaneity.
GustaKHi ke liye muaafi chaahtaa huN
aadaab arz hai
Kali Hawa
Naseer
mere bhaii Kala Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
aap ek baar choR, hazaar baar tashriif laaeN, mere liye aap kaa
tashriif laanaa baa'is-i-sad musarrat ho gaa!! apnii thoRii bahut
suujh-buujh ke mutaabiq jo kuchh maiN ne likh diyaa, bas likh diyaa.
mere paas koii zabaan awr adab kii DigriyaaN nahiiN haiN (awr jis
mazmuun meN Digrii rakhtaa huuN us meN bhii koii tiir nahiiN maar
liye!!!) awr nah hii ba-qaul aap ke, koii "technical knowledge" hai.
bhaii aap ne koii gustaaKHii nahii kii. is liye sharmindah hone kii
kyaa baat aap ne kah dii? ham sab yahaaN lutf-andoz hone ke liye aate
haiN awr agar lage haathoN kuchh siikh bhii leN to maiN ise "bonus"
samajhtaa huuN. zaatii taur pih maiN ne ALUP-nagar* kii buzurg (nah
sirf 'umr me buzurg, balkih 'ilm meN bhii) hastiyoN se bahut kuchh
siikhaa hai...masalan Afzal Sahib, UVR Sahib, Sarwar Sahib, Zafar
Sahib, Sunil Sharma Sahib, Vasmi Sahib, Raj Kumar Sahib, Vijay Sahib
awr Amjad Sahib vaGhairah. agar anjaane meN kisii kaa naam lenaa bhuul
gayaa huuN to is kii ma'zarat chaahtaa huuN.
sab se aham baat yih hai kih jab se maiN is anjuman meN aayaa huuN, aap
jaise achhe achhe insaanoN se mel-jol huaa hai. is se baRh kar kyaa awr
kyaa tamannaa kii jaa saktii hai?
chaahiye achhoN ko jitnaa chaahiye
yih agar chaaheN to phir kyaa chaahiye?!!
yahaaN sab log ek duusare kii 'izzat karte haiN. koii gaalii galoch
nahiiN. bad-tamiizii nahiiN. haaN ham ek duusare se iKhtilaaf zaruur
karte haiN, lekin tahziib ke daaire meN rahte hue.
* ALUP-nagar kii tarkiib mujhe is liye pasand hai kih yih
ba-vazn-i-ruup-nagar hai!!
Rafi marHuum ke ek gaane ke bol haiN..
ruup-nagar se aa kar chandaa un kaa ruup churaae
meraa dil dekh dekh rah jaae
bhalaa yih baat mujhe kyoN bhaae?
Khair-Khwaah,
Naseer
Vijay
pehle to maiN apni ghalti qabuul kar luuN ki maIn ne pehla misra ' lii
vafaa ham ne' likh diia 'ham se' kii bajaae.
maiN aap kii baat se qadre mutmaaiin huuN ki is she'r meN 'is' ya 'us'
likhne meN ma'anii meN itna farq nahiiN paRta. yeh jafaa ho ya voh
jafaa.
Even then, it is always good to know what the writer wrote if the
publishers can use the 'marks' that are intended to indicate this. What
if even ghalib didn't use these in his original writing, what are we to
make of this. Other scripts, like nagrii, gurmakhii or Roman have to
commit, these words can't be left wth ambiguity, the way it can be done
in Urdu. Call me finicky, but I would much rather know what the writer
intended to write, is or us in such instances as we have been
discussing.
I have always wondered if there is a rule of sorts that if the word'
alif seen' is left without a mark, it is always 'is' as 'us' will be
indicated by appropriate mark.
I think once again we seem to have had enough of this discussion. I
wouldn't be surprised if it rears its head again in future.
Till then, then:
Regards,
Vijay
Naseer
>Even then, it is always good to know what the writer wrote if the
>publishers can use the 'marks' that are intended to indicate this. What
>if even ghalib didn't use these in his original writing, what are we to
>make of this. Other scripts, like nagrii, gurmakhii or Roman have to
>commit, these words can't be left wth ambiguity, the way it can be done
>in Urdu. Call me finicky, but I would much rather know what the writer
>intended to write, is or us in such instances as we have been
>discussing.
janaab-i-Vijay Sahib, aadaab,
I am not sure if the writer (in this case Ghalib) would have indicated
is/us. You and I, as part of our individual style or preference, may
write is/us but I would say that Urdu writers in general do not put a
zer or a pesh with the alif. As for the publishers, we know that Iqbal
took great care in the preparation of the "plates" used for printing
his works. His son, Dr. Jaaved Iqbal, in the "kuliyaat" printing based
the new "kitaabat" on the older original plates. So, the kuliyaat
printed by ShaiKh Ghulaam 'Ali and Sons, essentially is the same as
that Iqbal had overseen himself.There is no consistency of is/us being
indicated, as far as I can see.
The question we need to ask is this. Did people like Iqbal, his
predecessors, and his successors (say Faiz) think this matter was that
important? If they had, then surely they would have made certain their
works were accurately printed. I don't think Iqbal or Faiz, especially
Faiz, was short of a bob or two. They both had fame in their life
times.
I have a hand- written letter by janaab-i-IftiKhaar 'Arif Sahib. He
does not indicate zer/zabar/pesh anywhere, not even a zer for an
izzafat! There are two places where is/us is used. For me, it is clear
which is "us" and which is "is".
>I have always wondered if there is a rule of sorts that if the word'
>alif seen' is left without a mark, it is always 'is' as 'us' will be
>indicated by appropriate mark.
This kind of "rule" sounds logical to my ears (eyes) but I have not
seen it applied consistently any where. But here again, are n't we
relying on the printers and not on the authors?
>I think once again we seem to have had enough of this discussion. I
>wouldn't be surprised if it rears its head again in future.
Please do not give up so easily. Let's wait for UVR Sahib, Zafar Sahib,
Zoya Sahiba, Amjad Sahib, Amit Sahib and other ALUP-ers and see what
their views are on this topic and on what has been said so far.
Besides, there is no harm in discussing such topics.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Vijay
responded so far, perhaps they are all feeling weary and fatigued by
this topic.
In light of your most recent post, I would like to summarize my views
on this matter:
1. is/us (idhar/udhar) are different words and are spelled differently
when we write them in other scripts of the subcontinent as well as in
Roman. Urdu script has the necessary marks to distinguish them from
each other but these are rarely used. This poses a particular problem
where context doesn't clarify which word is to be preferred, even
though either may be seen as 'fit for purpose', to borrow an
unfortunate phrase.
2. There are instances where the different word makes the
interpretation significantly different. This applies particularly to
Urdu poetry. For instance, in the Faiz she'r under discussion, the
reference to the word 'dil' with 'is'
or 'us' makes, in my view, a material difference to the meaning. If we
use 'us' then the 'dil' shall be viewed as objective and personified.
With 'is', it merely remains subjective, within the chest. With the
former interpretation, 'dil' becomes a more formidable adversary. Faiz
may not have thought on these lines, but if all it takes is a
diacritical mark, why not use it?
3. The argument that people who chose to ignore these marks were highly
intelligent and experts in the language is a circular one. It doesn't
quite address the issue.
Thanks for listening and like you, I will be very interested in hearing
others' views.
Naseer wrote:
> Vijay wrote:-
>
> >Even then, it is always good to know what the writer wrote if the
> >publishers can use the 'marks' that are intended to indicate this. What
> >if even ghalib didn't use these in his original writing, what are we to
> >make of this. Other scripts, like nagrii, gurmakhii or Roman have to
> >commit, these words can't be left wth ambiguity, the way it can be done
> >in Urdu. Call me finicky, but I would much rather know what the writer
> >intended to write, is or us in such instances as we have been
> >discussing.
>
> janaab-i-Vijay Sahib, aadaab,
>
> I am not sure if the writer (in this case Ghalib) would have indicated
> is/us. You and I, as part of our individual style or preference, may
> write is/us but I would say that Urdu writers in general do not put a
> zer or a pesh with the alif. As for the publishers, we know that Iqbal
> took great care in the preparation of the "plates" used for printing
> his works.
>
> Iqbal's son, Dr. Jaaved Iqbal, during the printing of his father's
> "kuliyaat" based the new "kitaabat" on the older original plates. So,
> the kuliyaat printed by ShaiKh Ghulaam 'Ali and Sons, essentially is
> the same as that Iqbal had overseen himself. There is no consistency of
> is/us being indicated, as far as I can see. The question we need to ask
> is this. Did people like Iqbal, his predecessors or his successors (say
> Faiz) think this matter was important? If they had , they would have
> made sure their works were accurately printed. Iqbal and Faiz,
> especially Faiz, were not short of a bob or two. They both had fame in
> their life times.
>
> I have a hand-written letter by janaab-i-IftiKhaar 'Arif Sahib. He does
> not indicate zer/zabar/pesh anywhere, not even a zer for an izzafat.
> There are two places where is/us is used. I would say "us" in one place
> and "is" in the other.
>
> >I have always wondered if there is a rule of sorts that if the word'
> >alif seen' is left without a mark, it is always 'is' as 'us' will be
> >indicated by appropriate mark.
>
> This kind of "rule" sounds logical to my ears (eyes) but I have not
> seen it applied consistently any where. But here again, are n't we
> relying on the printers and not on the authors?
>
> >I think once again we seem to have had enough of this discussion. I
> >wouldn't be surprised if it rears its head again in future.
>
> Please do not give up so easily. Let's wait for UVR Sahib, Zafar Sahib,
> Zoya Sahiba, Amjad Sahib, Amit Sahib and other ALUP-ers and see what
> their views are on this topic and on what has been said so far. Besides
> there is no harm in discussing such a topic, even if it has been
> discussed before. There is a possibility of new light being shed by the
> participants.
>
> KHair-andesh,
> Naseer
Naseer
Your post dated 13/07/06 about wanting to know "what did the writer
write himself" is a valid point and I agree with you.
Your last post has forced me to engage my brain once again! I shall
look at your summary and the three points you make. In the order 1, 3
and 2!
1) You are saying that it would be a good idea to have is/us,
idhar/udhar etc written out clearly even when it appears to make no
obvious difference. I agree.
3) Just because Iqbal and Faiz etc did not feel necessary to
distinguish "is/us", this does not address the issue. Agreed. I was
merely pointing to the fact that not only is this issue deemed not very
important by the general public but also by the writers themselves (I
also gave an example of IftiKhar Arif's letter).
2) Your observation about Faiz's shi'r that "is" gives it a subjective
(within the chest) heart and "us" gives it an objective, personified
heart. I agree with you once again. It's good to agree! However, I will
still go along with Sarwar Sahib's explanation, with a slight
modification.
kaii baar is kaa daaman bhar diyaa Husn-i-do 'aalam se
magar dil hai kih is kii KHaanah-viiraanii nahiiN jaatii
Faiz could be talking about his own heart OR (in my view) the heart of
a human being but instead of it being a remote "vuh" type of object, as
he is talking about it, it becones a nearby/proximate "yih" kind of
object.
magar YIH dil hai kih IS kii KHaanah-viiraanii nahiiN jaatii. Further
weight is given to this argument when one looks at the second shi'r..
kaii baar is kii KHaatir zarre zarre kaa jigar chiiraa
magar yih chashm-i-HairaaN, jis kii Hairaanii nahiiN jaatiiNote
Note YIH chashm-i-HairaaN.. again this (human eye) in general. If we
change this shi'r to prose, we get..
kaii baar IS (aaNkh) kii KHaatir zarre zarre kaa jigar chiiraa hai magr
YIH chashm-i-HairaaN (vuh aaNkh hai) jis kii Hairaanii nahiiN jaatii
hai. Without interpolating "voh aaNkh hai", this line would not make
sence.
Based on this thinking, let us look at the following three options.
kaii baar is kaa daaman bhar diyaa Husn-i-do 'aalam se
magar (yih) dil hai kih is kii KHaanah-viiraanii nahiiN jaatii
kaii baar us kaa daaman bhar diyaa Husn-i-do 'aalam se
magar (vuh) dil hai kih us kii KHaanah-viiraanii nahiiN jaatii
kaii baar is kaa daaman bhar diyaa Husn-i-do 'aalam se
magar (vuh) dil hai kih us kii KHaanah-viiraanii nahiiN jaatii
I think you will agree that option two does not sound right at all. In
Option three, it does not look right when one has a shift of "is" to
"us"... "is kaa daaman" and then in the second line " magar....us kii
KHaanah-KHaraabii).
I will stop here, although I have a few points to add to my original
post.
KHair-Khwaah,
Naseer
Vijay
I wanted to quote the 'magar yeh chashm-e-hairaaN' she'r in my previous
post as an instance where diacritical marks were not necessary because
the word 'yeh' in the second misra settles it. But I omitted this
reference for the sake of economy. But we have no such indicator in the
she'r in question.
I mostly agree with you. I may have a sublte disagreement with your
point that if we used 'us' for dil in both misras, she'r doesn't look
right! lekin mujhe to is she'r kii yeh suurat bhii Thiik lagtii hai.
aap tassavur karen ki koii apne dil se bohat bezaar hai, aur 'us' ke
baare meN kisii se baat kar raha hai. to is suurat meN dil ko 'us'
kehna itna na-jaaiz to nahiiN hoga. aur agar ham dil ke liie 'us' aur
phir doosre she'r meN 'chashm-e-hairaaN' ke liie 'is' istemaal kareN,
to thoRii 'mausiiqiiat' bhii baRhtii hai. app donoN she'r aik saath bol
kar paRheN to shayad aap pe merii baat waazeh ho jaae.
mere kehne ka maqsad sirf yeh hai, is she'r meN 'is' aur 'us' donoN
chal sakte haiN. yeh alag baat ki diigar ALUPers ko shayad 'is' hii
ziaada jaNche!
Regards,
Vijay
Naseer
Would you agree that if one has an "is" or an "us" in both lines, then
logically these words are pointing to the same concept/body/person? In
the couplet under consideration, the subject is the heart.
Just using "diivaan-i-Ghalib" as a source of "research", let's talk
about "is" in both lines. I was unable to find this combination.This
does not mean that one can not get this combination. Where one has "us"
in both lines, the poet invariably is talking about the beloved.
kii mere qatl ke ba'd us ne jafaa se taubah
haae us zuud-pashemaaN kaa pashemaaN honaa
I did not find two "us" to indicate anything else. Again, this does not
mean that one can not get this combination with other concepts. By the
same token if one has an "is" in one line and an "us" in the second
line, then the poet is likely to be talking about two things.
KHudaa ke vaaste daad, is junuun-i-shauq kii dunyaa
kih us ke dar pih pahuNche haiN naamah-bar se aage
In your post of 2005, you said.." jo dil hai vuh kuchh aisa hai kih
'us' kii KHaanah- viiranii nahiiN jaatii". This is "jis kii laaThii us
kii bhainS" conversion! One could transform any "is" type of
construction to "jo/us" construction. I do not think this provides a
viable solution. However, one could look at it from another
perspective...
kaii baar is (dil) kaa daaman bhar diyaa Husn-i-do 'aalam se
magar (vuh aisaa) dil hai kih us kii Khaanah-viiraanii nahiiN jaatii
This may be a "solution" for reconciling is/us shift but I do not feel
comfortable with it. Mainly because of the shift from "is dil" to "vuh
aisaa dil hai" .
In summary, I have attempted to formulate patterns based on some
logical ideas. How far this has been successful, I don't know. What I
can say is that on any point we have a disagreement, we shall agree to
disagree. In the absence of other participants' input , I seem to have
exhaused my grey matter!
KHair-Khwaah,
Naseer
Vijay
Just to flog this dead horse a little more (perhaps for the last time
from me), what I stated in my last post was that if we used 'is' in
both lines and 'us' in both, the word 'dil' will emote differently.
With 'is', it will still be something one is fond of, something close
to one's chest, literally and metaphorically. Whereas with 'us', it
will carry a feeling of being alienated from one's self. I feel the
difference significant enough, hence my desire to know what Faiz
originally wrote.
Vijay
P.S. I stand corrected that 'is' in first line and 'us' in second
either doesn't sound right or doesn't make any difference or both.
As nobody else has participated in this thread, may I suggest that if
you want to talk about it further with me, we do it through p.m.?