us ne waapas aanaa hai kabhi [ghar meN]
UVR
is mauzoo' par nayi laRi shuru' karne kaa Naseer saahib kaa hukm ba-
jaa laa rahaa hooN. Zafar saahib se guzaarish hai k jawaab isee laRi
meN deN, aur 'bait-baazi' ko is bahs se (aur is ko us se!) paak
rakheN.
-UVR.
aap sab ki sahoolat ke liye zail meN muKhtalif ALUPers ki tahaareer
'bait-baazi' waali threads se lekar dee gayi haiN. ummeed hai is se
bahs ke liye munaasib samaaN baNdh sakegaa. agar kisi ko mazeed
"context" ki zaroorat mahsoos ho, to "bait-baazi" waali thread dekhi
jaa sakti hai.
__________________________________________________________
> > > > > On Aug 13, 5:51 pm, Zafar <ZaffS...@gmail.com> wrote:
ye ghar jis kaa hai us ne waapas aana hai kabhi is meN
isi Khaatir dar o deewaar ko chamkaaye rakhte haiN
[Zafar Iqbal]
--
Zafar
_________________________________________________________
> > > > On Aug 13, 10:02 am, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
janaab-i-Zafar Shib,aadaab.
kyaa Zafar Iqbal Sahib kii grammar durust hai? "...use vaapas aanaa
hai..."?
Naseer
__________________________________________________________
> > > On Aug 13, 3:51 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Zafar (Iqbal) saahib kaa sh'er paRh kar mere bhi zahn meN ain yehi
sawaal uTThaa thaa. Naseer saahib, thanks for asking it here.
BTW, "us ne" ko "use" se badalne se misr'a behr se Khaarij ho
jaayega. "us ko" se badal leN. magar sawaal yeh hai k ZI ne "us ko"
kyoN naheeN ist'emaal kiyaa.
-UVR.
__________________________________________________________
> > On Aug 13, 2:27 pm, Zafar <ZaffS...@gmail.com> wrote:
is mauzoo' par be-tahaashaa behs o tamhees ho chuki hai, lekin Urdu
meN kam az kam aik sadi se ziyaada arse se ye iste'emaal rawaa rakhaa
jaa rahaa hai.
jahaaN tak "ne" ko "ko" se badalne ki baat hai to arz hai k Zafar
Iqbal ne jo likhaa hai use badalne kaa hameN iKhtiyaar naheeN hai.
--
Zafar
__________________________________________________________
> On Aug 13, 7:36 pm, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Zafar saahib,
maiN aap se muttafiq hooN k ZI ke sh'er ko badalne kaa haqq kisi ko
hai to sirf Khud ZI ko. maiN ne isee liye apni baat is sawaal par
Khatm ki thi k "(aaKhir) ZI ne 'us ko' kyoN naheeN ist'emaal kiyaa?"
Naseer saahib se "us ko se badal leN" kahne kaa matlab thaa k -- "agar
badalnaa hi hai, to phir behr ke pesh-e-nazar, 'us ko' se badleN."
rahi aap ki "ek sadi se ziyaadah" puraani baat, to agar yeh itni
muddat se rawaa rahaa hai, to phir yaqeenan aap ke paas aur aise sh'er
hoNge jis meN is qism ki zubaan must'amal hai. kyaa hi achchhaa hotaa
k aap aise aur sh'er bhi pesh kar dete. aaj tak meri nazar se kisi
bhi "naam cheen" (:-P) shaa'ir kaa koi aisa sh'er naheeN guzra.
-UVR.
__________________________________________________________
On Aug 13, 8:55 pm, Zafar <ZaffS...@gmail.com> wrote:
to goyaa Zafar Iqbal aap ki nazar meN naam-cheen shaa'ir naheeN hai?
Zafar
__________________________________________________________
maiN ne aisaa kab kahaa? lekin ZI to *aaj kal* ke shaa'ir haiN. meraa
ishaara un sh'ora ki taraf thaa jo ZI se pahle sikka jamaa gaye haiN.
kahne kaa matlab yeh, k agar yeh ist'emaal (us ne aanaa hai) Urdu meN
yaqeenan "ek sadee se ziyaadah" se, ba-qaul aap ke, rawaa rakhaa gayaa
hai, to phir dauraan is taveel arsey ke, kisi aur choTi ke shaa'ir ne
bhi ise ist'emaal kiyaa hi hogaa? to bas phir us shaa'ir/un sh'ora ke
kalaam se bhi is ki koi misaal mil jaati to achchhaa thaa.
-UVR.
__________________________________________________________
Naseer
janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
maiN soch rahaa thaa kih Zafar Sahib aa leN to maHfil meN shirkat
karuuN gaa lekin mujhe yuuN lag rahaa hai jaise Zafar Sahib yahaaN
tashriif laane ke liye asliHah ikaTThaa kar rahe haiN!:)
maiN aap kaa ek taraf to mamnuun huuN kih aap ne is mauzuu' kaa paudaa
ek jagah se ukhaaR kar nai zamiin meN lagaayaa hai lekin duusarii
taraf mujhe aap par ThoRaa Ghussah bhii aayaa hai kih jo mauzuu' maiN
agle mahiine "Topic of the Month" meN chheR saktaa thaa use aap ne
isii maah meN "zaa'i'" kar diyaa hai:) KHair UVR Sahib, ek mauzuu' aap
par udhaar rahaa!!
Zafar Sahib ne farmaayaa hai..
"is mauzoo' par be-tahaashaa behs o tamhees ho chuki hai, lekin Urdu
meN kam az kam aik sadi se ziyaada arse se ye iste'emaal rawaa rakhaa
jaa rahaa hai."
savaal yih uThtaa hai kih kyaa yih baHs "ALUP" meN huii hai yaa kih
kahiiN awr. Zafar Sahib, agar aap is silsile meN bhii kuchh raushanii
Daal deN to mihr-baanii ho gii. is ke 'ilaavaah agar yih isti'maal ek
sadii se beshtar 'arse se chalaa aa rahaa hai to Zafar Iqbal Sahib se
koii Ghalatii sar-zad nahiiN huii. phir bhii apnii ma'luumaat meN
izaafe ke liye achchaa ho gaa agar Zafar Sahib chand awr misaaleN de
deN.
"mujhe jaanaa hai">>>>>>>>>>>>"maiN ne jaanaa hai" kii tabdiilii kaa
ilzaam aksar awr din-dihaaRe ahl-i-Panjaab ke sar thopaa jaataa hai.
maiN yih ummiid baaNdhe baiThaa huuN kih Zafar Sahib kisii "ahl-i-
zabaaN" shaa'ir kii bhii misaal faraaham kareN ge jis se kam az kam
Panjaab vaale to bariyyu_zzimmah ho jaaeN ge!:) munaasib vaqt par maiN
do naHviyoN kii aaraa' pesh karuuN gaa jin kii taHriiroN se ek musbat
pahluu bhii ruu-numaa hotaa hai.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
>> ye ghar jis kaa hai us ne waapas aana hai kabhi is meN
>> isi Khaatir dar o deewaar ko chamkaaye rakhte haiN
>> [Zafar Iqbal]
>>
>> --
>> Zafar
>>
>> kyaa Zafar Iqbal Sahib kii grammar durust hai? "...use vaapas aanaa
>> hai..."?
>>
>> Naseer
>> __________________________________________________________
>>
>> Zafar (Iqbal) saahib kaa sh'er paRh kar mere bhi zahn meN ain yehi
>> sawaal uTThaa thaa. Naseer saahib, thanks for asking it here.
>> -UVR.
>> __________________________________________________________>
>>
>> is mauzoo' par be-tahaashaa behs o tamhees ho chuki hai, lekin Urdu
>> meN kam az kam aik sadi se ziyaada arse se ye iste'emaal rawaa rakhaa
>> jaa rahaa hai.
>>
>> jahaaN tak "ne" ko "ko" se badalne ki baat hai to arz hai k Zafar
>> Iqbal ne jo likhaa hai use badalne kaa hameN iKhtiyaar naheeN hai.
>>
>> --
>> Zafar
>> __________________________________________________________>
>>
Naseer Saheb,
In my humble opinion, questions like "ahl-e-zabaan" and
"naam~cheen" etc. are not quite relevant here.
Briefly, I would say that I am in agreement with Zafar
Saheb that the 'tarkeeb' --- "us ne waapas aana hai" ---
is quite OK. This sort of usage has been seen in Urdu
writings for many many years, though we may not be able to
quote any specific examples here.
As in "lab-o-lehja", variants in general Urdu usages can be
found even in writings. It is quite on the cards that the
above usage may be used commonly in the Punjab, but that (in
itself) does not make it questionable. Possibly, "ahl-e-
zabaan" may not use this 'tarkeeb', but then the Urdu world
is not peopled by "ahl-e-zabaan" alone.
Afzal
Naseer
On Aug 16, 7:18 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In my humble opinion, questions like "ahl-e-zabaan" and
> "naam~cheen" etc. are not quite relevant here.
"ahl-i-zabaan" is relevant only so far as the assumption that the
bench mark for correct Urdu usage would be the language employed by
(educated) people whose mother tongue is Urdu. Any other peoples'
usage (pronunciation and grammar) might be considered to be affected
by their own mother tongues. Seeking examples from the works of well-
known (naam-chiin) poets would therefore serve the purpose of
affording credibility to the usage with "ne". Icing on the cake would
be if one could cite examples from the works of those writers who not
only pride themselves in their command of the Urdu language but in
whose language the public turns to whenever correct usage is the
issue. DaaGh would be one such writer.
> Briefly, I would say that I am in agreement with Zafar
> Saheb that the 'tarkeeb' --- "us ne waapas aana hai" ---
> is quite OK. This sort of usage has been seen in Urdu
> writings for many many years, though we may not be able to
> quote any specific examples here.
I also think that the usage with "ne" is acceptable but invariably a
finger is pointed at this usage as incorrect. Also, I accept that it
may not be easy to give examples from verse (or prose) from writers of
repute to illustrate this usage. There was no "challenge" to Zafar
Sahib as such to produce such examples. It was merely a point of
interest to see what other examples could be shared with ALUPers.
> As in "lab-o-lehja", variants in general Urdu usages can be
> found even in writings. It is quite on the cards that the
> above usage may be used commonly in the Punjab, but that (in
> itself) does not make it questionable. Possibly, "ahl-e-
> zabaan" may not use this 'tarkeeb', but then the Urdu world
> is not peopled by "ahl-e-zabaan" alone.
>
You make an extremely valid point that the Urdu world is not peopled
by "ahl-i-zabaan" alone. However, it is a sad state of affairs and
certainly it is my experience that this grammatical point is one which
is always cited as a short-coming of the Punjabi Urdu speakers as well
as their supposed inability to utter the letter "qaaf" properly. If
this "ne" usage was also available in "ahl-i-zabaan" writers, then one
could say that this phenomenon is not unique to the Punjabi speakers.
We know of course that even a section of the "ahl-i-zabaan"community
find themselves pronouncing "qaaf" as "KHe". But this is another
issue:)
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai
>
> On Aug 16, 7:18 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In my humble opinion, questions like "ahl-e-zabaan" and
>> "naam~cheen" etc. are not quite relevant here.
>
> "ahl-i-zabaan" is relevant only so far as the assumption that the
> bench mark for correct Urdu usage would be the language employed by
> (educated) people whose mother tongue is Urdu.
Do you think that this is the correct definition of "ahl-e-
zabaan" ?
I don't think UVR Saheb had this sort of generalized defini-
tion in mind when he raised this issue. Normally, this term
is used in a specific sense. But let us not get involved in
a discussion on that.
People from the South (particularly from Hyderabad etc.) are
also highly educated and their mother tongue is also Urdu.
But are they usually referred to as "ahl-e-zabaan" ? That is
why I had said in my earlier post that we shouldn't really
raise this issue here.
> Any other peoples'
> usage (pronunciation and grammar) might be considered to be affected
> by their own mother tongues. Seeking examples from the works of well-
> known (naam-chiin) poets would therefore serve the purpose of
> affording credibility to the usage with "ne". Icing on the cake would
> be if one could cite examples from the works of those writers who not
> only pride themselves in their command of the Urdu language but in
> whose language the public turns to whenever correct usage is the
> issue. DaaGh would be one such writer.
>
>> Briefly, I would say that I am in agreement with Zafar
>> Saheb that the 'tarkeeb' --- "us ne waapas aana hai" ---
>> is quite OK. This sort of usage has been seen in Urdu
>> writings for many many years, though we may not be able to
>> quote any specific examples here.
>
> I also think that the usage with "ne" is acceptable but invariably a
> finger is pointed at this usage as incorrect. Also, I accept that it
> may not be easy to give examples from verse (or prose) from writers of
> repute to illustrate this usage. There was no "challenge" to Zafar
> Sahib as such to produce such examples. It was merely a point of
> interest to see what other examples could be shared with ALUPers.
It is my feeling that when a "GHair~faseeh" or inappropriate
usage occurs anywhere, it normally strikes at least some
people immediately as something "odd". I don't think I found
anything 'odd' in that sher by Zafar Iqbal (?). Since you and
UVR Saheb had questioned this usage, maybe you (and also UVR)
can cite some rule of Urdu Grammar which sort of invalidates
this usage. Please note that I am quite open-minded in this
case. If it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this sort
of usage is wrong (as per some authentic and dependable rule
of Urdu Grammar), then I will have no hesitation in agreeing
with that view.
>
>> As in "lab-o-lehja", variants in general Urdu usages can be
>> found even in writings. It is quite on the cards that the
>> above usage may be used commonly in the Punjab, but that (in
>> itself) does not make it questionable. Possibly, "ahl-e-
>> zabaan" may not use this 'tarkeeb', but then the Urdu world
>> is not peopled by "ahl-e-zabaan" alone.
>>
>
> You make an extremely valid point that the Urdu world is not peopled
> by "ahl-i-zabaan" alone. However, it is a sad state of affairs and
> certainly it is my experience that this grammatical point is one which
> is always cited as a short-coming of the Punjabi Urdu speakers as well
> as their supposed inability to utter the letter "qaaf" properly. If
> this "ne" usage was also available in "ahl-i-zabaan" writers, then one
> could say that this phenomenon is not unique to the Punjabi speakers.
> We know of course that even a section of the "ahl-i-zabaan"community
> find themselves pronouncing "qaaf" as "KHe". But this is another
> issue:)
There may certainly be some deficiencies in the Punjabi folks'
prononouncing abilities. But those can be attributed to some
physical (or perhaps physiological) disability. I cannot
pronounce the Marathi "ch" properly. Many Marathi speakers
find difficulty with the 'j' and 'z' sounds. So let us not
hold that against the Punjabi people.
But I didn't understand your statement that "a section of the
'ahl-e-zabaan' community find themselves pronouncing "qaaf" as
"KHe". I am sure you are not referring to the ("true-blue")
'ahl-e-zabaan' here ! But I don't wish to start a discussion
about that here.
Afzal
>
> KHair-KHvaah,
> Naseer
UVR
> Naseer wrote:
> > janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai
>
> > On Aug 16, 7:18 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> In my humble opinion, questions like "ahl-e-zabaan" and
> >> "naam~cheen" etc. are not quite relevant here.
>
> > "ahl-i-zabaan" is relevant only so far as the assumption that the
> > bench mark for correct Urdu usage would be the language employed by
> > (educated) people whose mother tongue is Urdu.
>
> Do you think that this is the correct definition of "ahl-e-
> zabaan" ?
>
> I don't think UVR Saheb had this sort of generalized defini-
> tion in mind when he raised this issue. Normally, this term
> is used in a specific sense. But let us not get involved in
> a discussion on that.
>
Afzal saahib,
I have not used the phrase "ahl-e-zabaan" in this discussion; what
definition of it I (might have) had in mind is irrelevant.
What I *did* have in mind, I have articulated in one of my posts: per
my understanding, "us ne aanaa hai" is colloquial usage and is NOT
considered faseeh grammar in Urdu. Since Zafar saahib has asserted
that this is 'rawaa' and has been so for over a century, I asked if
there were 'naam-cheen' Urdu poets other than Zafar Iqbal who had used
this type of grammar in their work. BTW, I interpreted Zafar saahib's
use of the phrase "rawaa rakhaa gayaa hai" to mean that "yeh faseeh
maanaa gayaa hai". If he did not mean this, then there might be
little point in continuing this discussion.
You have said that you didn't find anything wrong with the usage. I
respect your opinion and experience; since Zafar saahib has thus far
maintained a deafening silence on this thread, perhaps you could help
me: have you come across this usage in the work of any poet whom you
consider a Master of Urdu poetry?
I should add that I am no stranger to this usage, nor will I shy away
from admitting that I have myself USED it liberally! Growing up in
Delhi, at least in the 70s, this was a part and parcel of the language
I heard and spoke day in and day out. However, I have never found it
used in any poetry collection I have read. Have you?
Perhaps I should clarify one more thing -- I am specifically talking
about poetry in Urdu and that too not the kind where the poet is
seeking to "make a point," as it were, as Meer reportedly was with his
famous "ishq bure hi *Kh(y)aal* paRaa hai" sh'er.
Earlier you wrote:
> >> Briefly, I would say that I am in agreement with Zafar
> >> Saheb that the 'tarkeeb' --- "us ne waapas aana hai" ---
> >> is quite OK. This sort of usage has been seen in Urdu
> >> writings for many many years, though we may not be able to
> >> quote any specific examples here.
Your experience and knowledge dwarfs mine to the point of
insignificance, as does Zafar saahib's. However, without specific
examples, the assertion that this use is acceptable is (pardon the
analogy) is about as believable as someone insisting that the Loch
Ness monster exists because they have seen it.
Naseer saahib wrote:
> > I also think that the usage with "ne" is acceptable but invariably a
> > finger is pointed at this usage as incorrect. Also, I accept that it
> > may not be easy to give examples from verse (or prose) from writers of
> > repute to illustrate this usage. There was no "challenge" to Zafar
> > Sahib as such to produce such examples. It was merely a point of
> > interest to see what other examples could be shared with ALUPers.
I completely agree with Naseer saahib -- there was no "challenge" to
Zafar saahib, at least on my part. I was just curious if other poets
had also used this in their work. As stated above, my curiosity was
piqued mainly by Zafar saahib's apparent assertion that this is indeed
'faseeh'. Otherwise I don't think I'd have bothered.
> It is my feeling that when a "GHair~faseeh" or inappropriate
> usage occurs anywhere, it normally strikes at least some
> people immediately as something "odd". I don't think I found
> anything 'odd' in that sher by Zafar Iqbal (?).
But Afzal saahib, it *did* strike two of us ("at least some people")
as odd! Oh, wait, I see now: you're saying that we don't count!
> Since you and
> UVR Saheb had questioned this usage, maybe you (and also UVR)
> can cite some rule of Urdu Grammar which sort of invalidates
> this usage. Please note that I am quite open-minded in this
> case. If it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this sort
> of usage is wrong (as per some authentic and dependable rule
> of Urdu Grammar), then I will have no hesitation in agreeing
> with that view.
My knowledge of Urdu grammar is based entirely on my knowledge of
Hindi grammar -- in terms of ne, ko, se, ke liye, kaa-ke-ki, men-pe(h)-
par, there is zero difference between the two languages. Alas, I do
not have any of my school textbooks handy to "demonstrate" what you
ask of me. I will try to visit the library and see if I can't find
something relevant.
I wonder if Naseer saahib won't be able to respond to your challenge
sooner than I. In the past he has indicated that he has communicated
with Urdu linguists and researchers who (even if they be non-"ahl-e-
zabaan") have learned enough about the technical aspects of Urdu to be
able to opine authoritatively on matters of its grammar and
'faseeh' (as well as colloquial) usage. Perhaps with examples!
I will leave you with this thought, however: if this usage has indeed
been "rawaa" in faseeh Urdu for over 100 years, why are we -- and I
refer to the collective 'we' that encompasses all of us -- at such a
massive loss to find examples from the works of the major Urdu poets
of that period?
-UVR.
Naseer
On Aug 17, 1:29 am, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Naseer wrote:
> > janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai
>
> > On Aug 16, 7:18 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> In my humble opinion, questions like "ahl-e-zabaan" and
> >> "naam~cheen" etc. are not quite relevant here.
>
> > "ahl-i-zabaan" is relevant only so far as the assumption that the
> > bench mark for correct Urdu usage would be the language employed by
> > (educated) people whose mother tongue is Urdu.
>
> Do you think that this is the correct definition of "ahl-e-
> zabaan" ?
>
> I don't think UVR Saheb had this sort of generalized defini-
> tion in mind when he raised this issue. Normally, this term
> is used in a specific sense. But let us not get involved in
> a discussion on that.
>
> People from the South (particularly from Hyderabad etc.) are
> also highly educated and their mother tongue is also Urdu.
> But are they usually referred to as "ahl-e-zabaan" ? That is
> why I had said in my earlier post that we shouldn't really
> raise this issue here.
I agree that there is no point in discussing who are and who are not
ahl-i-zabaan. However, I would define ahl-i-zabaan as one whose
ancestors have been speaking the language for generations. People from
Hyderabad would also be included in my definition. My yardstick would
not "discriminate" one such group over another.
My logic for using the phrase "ahl-i-zabaan" is very simple. It stands
to reason that one should turn to the best of Urdu speakers (as per my
definition of ahl-i-zabaan) for clarity over a grammatical or
idiomatic issue rather than another whose mother-tongue is not Urdu,
even though his language is considered superb by all and sundry.
Here are two (contradictory) views on this usage.
"In the everyday Urdu of Pakistan, the logical subject of the sentence
may be followed either by "ko" or by "ne": maiN ne Dinar par jaanaa
thaa, " I was supposed to go (out) to dinner." In dialects which have
this option, the case of
"ko" tends to be restricted to external circumstances which are not
under the speaker's control, whereas "ne" refers to circumstances
permitting unternal choice, or neutral circumstances. This usage is
not correct in the standard
Urdu of Delhi."
Urdu An Essential Grammar by Ruth Laila Schmidt (Routledge 1999)
"Since the fifties, influenced by standard usage in Punjabi, many
Pakistani Urdu writers and speakers commonly use the postposition "ne"
in this indirect construction, instead of original "ko" which is still
the standard in India. Both usages are now equally correct in Urdu."
Naim, C.M. Introductory Urdu (Volume One) [Chicago]: South Asia
Language & Area Center, University of Chicago 1999
Cleary Schmidt and Naim are wrong in suggesting that this usage is
restricted to Pakistan when UVR Sahib has suggested that he has heard
and used this construction in Delhi.Even though Naim has indicated
that both usages are now considered correct, I am not sure if the
"unease" present over this issue has totally disappeared. As I have
said in an earlier post, this is one of two faults the Punjabis are
generally linked to.
> >> As in "lab-o-lehja", variants in general Urdu usages can be
> >> found even in writings. It is quite on the cards that the
> >> above usage may be used commonly in the Punjab, but that (in
> >> itself) does not make it questionable. Possibly, "ahl-e-
> >> zabaan" may not use this 'tarkeeb', but then the Urdu world
> >> is not peopled by "ahl-e-zabaan" alone.
>
> > You make an extremely valid point that the Urdu world is not peopled
> > by "ahl-i-zabaan" alone. However, it is a sad state of affairs and
> > certainly it is my experience that this grammatical point is one which
> > is always cited as a short-coming of the Punjabi Urdu speakers as well
> > as their supposed inability to utter the letter "qaaf" properly. If
> > this "ne" usage was also available in "ahl-i-zabaan" writers, then one
> > could say that this phenomenon is not unique to the Punjabi speakers.
> > We know of course that even a section of the "ahl-i-zabaan"community
> > find themselves pronouncing "qaaf" as "KHe". But this is another
> > issue:)
>
> There may certainly be some deficiencies in the Punjabi folks'
> prononouncing abilities. But those can be attributed to some
> physical (or perhaps physiological) disability. I cannot
> pronounce the Marathi "ch" properly. Many Marathi speakers
> find difficulty with the 'j' and 'z' sounds. So let us not
> hold that against the Punjabi people.
I can not believe that you have said this!!!:) Deficiencies and
pronouncing abilities amongst Punjabi folks? Afzal Sahib, IMHO no
community or race has an inherent deficiency (physical or
physiological or any other!!!). Anyone and I mean anyone, in the right
environment can learn to pronounce the sounds produced by a speaker of
another language. One only needs to be aware of the issue, say the
"qaaf" question. Then, through careful listening and appropriate
training with some diligence will work wonders! Both you and I could
even master the clicks produced by speakers of Zimbabwe:)
> But I didn't understand your statement that "a section of the
> 'ahl-e-zabaan' community find themselves pronouncing "qaaf" as
> "KHe". I am sure you are not referring to the ("true-blue")
> 'ahl-e-zabaan' here ! But I don't wish to start a discussion
> about that here.
Perhaps now or later, you could define for us the "true-blue" abl-i-
zabaan. As I have indicated earlier, "true-blue" ahl-i-zabaan can be a
Cockney, a Scot, a Welshman........as far as English is concerned.
Just going to the point of Punjabi influence over the "maiN ne jaanaa
hai" construction. I personally have serious doubts that this has its
origins in Punjabi grammar. In Punjabi one only uses "ne" in such
constructions with the third person. Examples should clarify my point.
maiN jaaNRaa e (mujhe jaanaa hai)
asaaN jaaNRaa e (hameN jaanaa hai)
tuuN jaaNRaa e ( tujhe jaanaa hai)
tusiiN jaaNRaa e (tumheN jaanaa hai)
o(s) ne jaaNRaa hai (use jaanaa hai)
o(h)naaN ne jaaNRaa e (unheN jaanaa hai)
So the usage with "ne" in Punjabi does not seem to me to be the
source. I was reading something of "Dard" yesterday and noticed that
on numerous occasions "ne" was missing where one expected its usage.
Perhaps, and I am merely guessing here, the "ne" usage in Urdu (maiN
ne jaanaa hai) is a variation in the language itself. Also, it might
well be the case that Mahmood Sheraanii's theories on the origins of
Urdu might well be correct.
Finally, I had mentioned a positive aspect coming out of the "maiN ne
jaanaa hai" construction. If Punjabis are indeed responsible for this
innovation, then according to Schmidt's explanation, the new
construction certainly gives an added dimention.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
asad
Though I'm a complete illiterate as far as Urdu is concerned, to my
Awadhi/Lakhnavi ears "us ne jaanaa hai" seemed odd. My reaction on
coming across a piece of poetry which had the same tarkeeb was that
"the poet must be a gentleman belonging to Punjab".
On second thoughts, terming these lyrics as poetry may be far fetched,
but I thought k agar faseeh urdu shaa'irii kaa Kazaanaa kha.ngaalne ke
baavajuud ye tarkiib nahii.n mil rahii to kyuu.n na filmo.n kaa
sahaaraa liyaa jaaye. :)
mulaahezaa ho hazrat-e-Anand Bakshi kaa kaalaan "Farz" se.
tumse o hasiina kabhii muhabbat na mai.n ne karnii thii
magar mere dil ne mujhe dhokaa de diyaa.
Asad
UVR
>
> [...]
>
> Just going to the point of Punjabi influence over the "maiN ne jaanaa
> hai" construction. I personally have serious doubts that this has its
> origins in Punjabi grammar. In Punjabi one only uses "ne" in such
> constructions with the third person. Examples should clarify my point.
>
> maiN jaaNRaa e (mujhe jaanaa hai)
> asaaN jaaNRaa e (hameN jaanaa hai)
>
> tuuN jaaNRaa e ( tujhe jaanaa hai)
> tusiiN jaaNRaa e (tumheN jaanaa hai)
>
> o(s) ne jaaNRaa hai (use jaanaa hai)
> o(h)naaN ne jaaNRaa e (unheN jaanaa hai)
>
> So the usage with "ne" in Punjabi does not seem to me to be the
> source. I was reading something of "Dard" yesterday and noticed that
> on numerous occasions "ne" was missing where one expected its usage.
> Perhaps, and I am merely guessing here, the "ne" usage in Urdu (maiN
> ne jaanaa hai) is a variation in the language itself.
>
In addition to requiring 'ne' in "os/onhaaN ne jaanaa ae", doesn't
Punjabi also require it in "UVR/Naseer saahib ne jaanaa ae"? If so,
then
(a) my observation about Punjabi (purely from having heard it spoken
by strangers, friends and family) is correct that 'ne' is more
conspicuous by its absence in Punjabi than obvious by its presence
(also see [1]), and
(b) my inference is also correct that 'maiN/asaaN' and 'tuuN/tuseeN'
in the above examples are actually 'maiN/asaaN ne' and 'tuuN/tuseeN
ne', where 'ne' has been absorbed into the pronoun(s) per applicable
grammar. Indeed, this is the only reasonable way to explain the
absence of 'ne' in those sentences. (In other words, 'ne' is the
correct case post-position in all those sentences.)
This, and the fact that (at least in Delhi-ki-aam-bol-chaal-ki Hindi/
Urdu) it used to be predominantly the Punjabi-s or Punjabi-influenced
speakers who used the 'us ne aanaa hai'-type grammar, might give more
insight into why Punjabi is universally "blamed" as the source of this
type of use.
-UVR.
[1] Even where in Urdu we would explicitly use 'ne' in, say, "maiN ne
kiyaa", "tuu ne kiyaa", "us ne kiyaa", "UVR ne kiyaa", wouldn't the
Punjabi equivalents drop the 'ne' -- maiN kitta, tuuN kitta, oh kitta,
UVR kitta?
Zoya
>
> -UVR.
>
> [1] Even where in Urdu we would explicitly use 'ne' in, say, "maiN ne
> kiyaa", "tuu ne kiyaa", "us ne kiyaa", "UVR ne kiyaa", wouldn't the
> Punjabi equivalents drop the 'ne' -- maiN kitta, tuuN kitta, oh kitta,
> UVR kitta?
Gentlemen:
I have been reading this discussion with great interest, and will
probably contribute more later.
Right now, all I want to do is answer the question # [1] raised by UVR
sahib.
The Punjabi equivalent will be, to omit the 'ne' for first/second
person usage, but preserve it for a third person. i.e. "main kiita",
"tuuN kiitaa", "oh ne kiitaa", "UVR ne kiitaa".
Reminder: My Punjabi is Ludhiana based, not Delhi based! :)
______Zoya
Asa'd
"us ne vaapas aana hai" ka ta'lluq ahl-e-punjaab se aisaa hii hai
jaisaa aap ka ALUP se hai :)
lekin bhaaii aaKhir is meiN harj kyaa hai!
is tarah kii aam bol chaal vaalii zubaan agar kisii punjaab ke shaair
ne apne sher meiN iste'maal kii to is se koii pahaaR nahiiN TuuT
paRaa, bal.k urdu ke vasii' daaman meiN chaNd phuul aur aa paRe.
rahii ham so called *ahl-e-zuban* ki baat, to janaab hamaarii baat ab
kahaaN mo'tbar rahii! :) apnaa mannaa to ye hai k baat agar dil meiN
ghar kar rahii ho to "fasaaHat" vaGhairah ko taaq pe rakh denaa
chaahiye, apne Nazeer (Akbarabadi) kii tarah.
ek hasb-e-mauqa latiifah suniye, jo hai to merii haT meiN, lekin hai
mazedaar. maiN ne bachpan meiN BBC Urdu pe sunaa thaa.
ek martabaa "All India Radio" ke saabiq mudiir/chairman se kisii ne
daryaaft kiyaa k janaab ye baataiye k "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai"
Thiik hai ya "mujhe vahaaN jaanaa hai". unhoN ne javaab diyaa "maiN
ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" durust hai. is par puuchne vaale ne hairat kaa
izhaar kiyaa k janaab aap itne baRe urdudaan hote huye ye kaise
farmaate haiN! is par hazrat ne kahaa k, miyaaN baat siidhii sii hai.
"mujhe vahaaN jaana hai" se sirf ye pataa chaltaa haik jaanaa kahaaN
hai. jab k "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" se ye bhii ma'luum ho jaataa
hai, k aaye kahaaN se haiN! :)
Asa'd
UVR
Thank you, Zoya ji, for this response. to goyaa first and second
person hi ke saath 'ne' naheeN ist'emaal hotaa. Excellent.
-UVR.
B.G.M.
...."miyaaN baat siidhii sii hai.
"mujhe vahaaN jaana hai" se sirf ye pataa chaltaa haik jaanaa kahaaN
hai. jab k "maiN ne vahaaN jaanaa hai" se ye bhii ma'luum ho jaataa
hai, k aaye kahaaN se haiN! :)"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waa...h! Bahot Khuub!
I like this practical suggestion.
========================================================
UVR
janaab As'ad saahib,
jahaaN tak mujhe ma'aloom hai aap se ALUP par pahli daf'a muKhaatib ho
rahaa hooN. aadaab 'arz hai.
huzoor aap ne lateefah to baRa zabardast sunaaya hai. subH-sawere
haNste haNste chand lamhe guzaarne kaa mauqaa haath lagaa! bahut
shukriya! :)
aap ki Nazeer (Akbarabadi) aur fasaahat ko taaq par rakh dene waali
baat se maiN muttafiq hooN: Urdu ke har shaa'ir ko "apni si" zabaan
ist'emaal karne kaa poora poora haq hai -- ba-sharte k woh zabaan Urdu
ho :)
waise Zafar Iqbal saahib ke us sh'er par maiN ne kab koi _aitraaz_
kiyaa thaa? I had merely expressed my surprise and wondered why he
had used "us ne aanaa hai." magar badle meN jab Zafar (Syed) saahib
ne is iste'maal ko "rawaa" kahaa (jise k maiN ne "faseeh" interpret
kiyaa hai), TAB mere kaan khaRe ho gaye.
bha'ee, agar kisi zabaan ke "faseeh" hone kaa da'awa kiya jaa rahaa
hai to phir us ke jawaaz meN suboot bhi to pesh kiye jaayeN!
aur jaisaa k maiN pahle bhi kah chukaa hooN -- agar Zafar (Syed)
saahib ki "rawaa" se muraad "faseeh" na thi, to phir is bahs ko fauran
band kar diyaa jaaye!
-UVR.
UVR
aap ke is Khat kaa jawaab mujh par "udhaar" thaa, so chukaane aayaa
hooN --
On Aug 16, 7:03 am, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> maiN soch rahaa thaa kih Zafar Sahib aa leN to maHfil meN shirkat
> karuuN gaa lekin mujhe yuuN lag rahaa hai jaise Zafar Sahib yahaaN
> tashriif laane ke liye asliHah ikaTThaa kar rahe haiN!:)
>
> maiN aap kaa ek taraf to mamnuun huuN kih aap ne is mauzuu' kaa paudaa
> ek jagah se ukhaaR kar nai zamiin meN lagaayaa hai lekin duusarii
> taraf mujhe aap par ThoRaa Ghussah bhii aayaa hai kih jo mauzuu' maiN
> agle mahiine "Topic of the Month" meN chheR saktaa thaa use aap ne
> isii maah meN "zaa'i'" kar diyaa hai:) KHair UVR Sahib, ek mauzuu' aap
> par udhaar rahaa!!
>
yeh bhi Khoob rahi -- ek jaanib aap hukm karte haiN k "doosri laRi
shuru' kee jaaye!" aur doosri jaanib usee ki ta'ameel hone par naa-
Khush-o-Khafaa hote haiN. aisee 'muHabbat' se to ham baaz aaye! :)
waise jo ruKh is laRi ne apnaa liyaa hai use dekh kar to lagtaa hai k
aap kaa iraada kaamyaab hi hogaa. ma'aloom hotaa hai ab ham logoN ko
yeh fikr ziyaadah sataa rahi hai k "yeh istilaah Urdu zubaan-o-
shaa'iri meN kahaaN se aayi hui hai."
jab k meri muraad to sirf aur sirf Zafar saahib se is tarkeeb ki
misaaloN ki guzaarish karne se thi (in other words, "yeh istilaah Urdu
zubaan meN *kab se* [not kahaaN se] aayi hui hai").
Khair, kyoN na ham is maheene Punjabi[yoN] par lagee hui tohmatoN hi
se nimaT leN? *asl* sawaal agle maah aap hi "topic of the month" ke
taht post kar leejiyegaa. is se ek faa'idaa aur bhi hogaa k Zafar
saahib ko "shaafi" misaaleN DhooND nikaalne ko thoRaa aur waqt mil
jaayegaa.
kahiye, kyaa Khayaal hai?
-UVR.
Raj Kumar
> Khair, kyoN na ham is maheene Punjabi[yoN] par lagee hui tohmatoN hi
> se nimaT leN? *asl* sawaal agle maah aap hi "topic of the month" ke
> taht post kar leejiyegaa. is se ek faa'idaa aur bhi hogaa k Zafar
> saahib ko "shaafi" misaaleN DhooND nikaalne ko thoRaa aur waqt mil
> jaayegaa.
>
> kahiye, kyaa Khayaal hai?
is zimn meiN, Naseer saahib ka kyaa Khayaal hoga, yeh to maiN naheeN
keh saktaa albatta itna zaroor keh sakta hooN k mujhe yeh tajveez
yaqeenan pasaNd aa'ii hai. goyaa, agle maheene ka topic ho sakta hai:
"PanjaabiyoN ki Urdu".
On second thought, it might be more befitting to say -------------
"PanjaabiyoN ka Urdu"! :)
Raj Kumar
Zafar
meri Ghair-haaziri meN yahaaN kaafi "kushtoN ke pushte" lagaaye jaa
chuke haiN :) Khair, maiN is silsile meN apnaa nuqta e nazar paish
kiye detaa hooN:
1930s aur 40s meN Punjabi Urdu vs UP Urdu ke darmiyaan baRi zordaar
behs o tamhees kaa silsila chhiR gayaa thaa, jo ka'yi adabi risaa'il
meN chaltaa rahaa. is meN aik nukta isi "ne" waalaa bhi thaa. is
behs meN Urdu ke Punjabi-nizhaad adeeboN ne khul kar "ne" ki himaayat
ki thi. mujhe yaad paRtaa hai k in afraad meN aik naam Maulaanaa
Zafar Ali Khan kaa bhi thaa, jinhoN ne "Sher e Punjab" ke naam se
dhuwaaN-dhaar mazaameen likhe the aur "ne" ke iste'emaal ki durusti ke
haq meN dalaa'il bhi diye the.
naam-war mizaah-nigaar Patras Bukhari (d. 1958) kaa mash'hoor lateefa
aap pehle hi sun chuke haiN. is ke baawajood mausoof "ne" ke haq meN
the.
jahaaN tak Pakistan ke adabi halqoN ki baat to hai to maiN ye keh
saktaa hooN k wahaaN is mas'ale ko koyi Khaas 'aib naheeN gardaanaa
jaataa. Amrika meN kitaaboN kaa fuqdaan hai, is liye maiN koyi
bharpoor "survey" naheeN de saktaa, lekin phir bhi mere paas chand
misaaleN zaroor maujood haiN. bal k aaj sub'h jahaaz par safar ke
dauraan maiN aik risaale ki waraq-gardaani kar rahaa thaa to us meN
bhi aik shaa'ir ki Ghazal meN mujhe aisaa hi iste'emaal nazar
aayaa. ... ye alag baat k ye shaa'ir utne "naam-cheen" naheeN haiN.
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
Afzal A. Khan
> janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
I am sorry that I couldn't participate in this discussion for a
couple of days due to certain preoccupations and also because my
computer was "out of sorts".
In a way, therefore, this is a response to both (your goodself and
UVR Saheb).
For UVR Saheb :
---------------
Let me apologize to you straightway for citing your name (for
raising the ahl-e-zabaan issue). I hope you will be able to
excuse my ageing faculties.
At the same time, I must express my sense of disappointment when I
read the following passage in your post :
"Oh, wait, I see now: you're saying that we don't count!"
You have been an ALUP stalwart for more than ten years. Naseer
Saheb, arguably, has been the most active participant over the
past two or three years. For me (and I am sure I am speaking for
all ALUPers), both of you are amongst the most "count-worthy" of
ALUPers.
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Naseer Saheb :
------------------
On the one hand you say (and I quote) :
"I agree that there is no point in discussing who are
and who are not
ahl-i-zabaan."
Your very next sentence reads as under :
" However, I would define ahl-i-zabaan as one whose
ancestors have been speaking the language for generations."
I wonder which statement of yours really "counts" ! And you go on
to add further :
"People from Hyderabad would also be included in my definition."
------------------------------------------------------------------
{The following may be deemed as a sort of joint response}
Frankly, I don't know much about Zafar Iqbal and his standing in
Urdu literary circles. Occasionally Zafar Saheb has alluded to
him and also presented his Kalaam here. And I have no hesitation
in admitting that I haven't really gone through his poems or
ghazals in any detail. I merely expressed my opinion that the
expression "us ne" used by him may be considered as "permissible".
Zafar Saheb has used another expression : "...yeh ist'emaal Urdu
men rawaa rakha gaya hai". There is a subtle nuance to the latter
expression. There is no need or justification to interpret the
word "rawaa" as "faseeh". We shouldn't really put words in his
mouth or in his writings.
Also, in legal parlance, there is a certain concept, known as "the
burden of proof". If anyone points an accusatory or questioning
finger at some sher or usage, the burden of proof is on him to
provide evidence in support of his claim. It is not incumbent on
Zafar Saheb to "khaNgaalofy" books of poetry and come up with
suitable examples. I think a specific reference was made to Urdu
Grammar. Since the objection or question is based on Grammar, it
would have helped matters if some specific rule from some authen-
tic text had been cited or quoted --- some rule that would have
unequivocally stigmatized such usage.
I am sure UVR Saheb would remember the sequence in the hindi film
"Amrapali" where Vyjayanthimala questions some wrong steps or
mudras on the part of the royal dancer. And then the Rajguru
steps forward and adjudicates : "Siddh kar ke dikhaana hoga". And
then Vyjayanthimala takes the stage to prove her virtuosity.
Naseer Saheb has quoted two modern "grammarians", Ms. Schmidt and
C.M. Naim. Both are agreed that the use of "ne" is widespread,
and accepted as permissible, in certain parts of the Urdu world.
I think the discussion should end here. Why should we drag in the
question of which ethnic people are responsible for this usage ?
I do not wish to discuss the other issue any more (about some
people having deficiencies etc.) since that can be very acerbic.
These days, when all of us are trying our best to keep the banner
of our language flying high, let us not revive any arguments that
tend to be divisive. So "ahl-e-zabaan" need not feel superior to
other ethnic groups, and the latter too ought not to act as too
defensive.
Lastly, there IS such a term as "ahl-e-zabaan". It is used and
understood in a specific context and that too is undeniable. In
whatever way Naseer Saheb (or myself) choose to 'define' it, the
original connotation is not going to change.
Afzal
UVR
>
> Frankly, I don't know much about Zafar Iqbal and his standing in
> Urdu literary circles. Occasionally Zafar Saheb has alluded to
> him and also presented his Kalaam here. And I have no hesitation
> in admitting that I haven't really gone through his poems or
> ghazals in any detail. I merely expressed my opinion that the
> expression "us ne" used by him may be considered as "permissible".
> Zafar Saheb has used another expression : "...yeh ist'emaal Urdu
> men rawaa rakha gaya hai". There is a subtle nuance to the latter
> expression. There is no need or justification to interpret the
> word "rawaa" as "faseeh". We shouldn't really put words in his
> mouth or in his writings.
>
Agreed. And we should let Zafar saahib speak to what he meant.
On my part, I had already recognized the possibility that he may not
have meant 'faseeh' by 'rawaa.' Not only that, I had gone so far as
to state that he had but to categorically state that he did not indeed
imply 'faseeh', and I would cease to pursue this question.
And Zafar saahib has now responded. Sans the categorical separations
of 'faseeh' from 'rawaa.' Instead, a history of the bahs/mubaahisa
around this question has been presented. From reading his post, I
still do not see a clear statement that this grammar is considered
'faseeh' even now, although it is very widespread amongst the speakers
of the language.
> Also, in legal parlance, there is a certain concept, known as "the
> burden of proof". If anyone points an accusatory or questioning
> finger at some sher or usage, the burden of proof is on him to
> provide evidence in support of his claim.
Yes, and that's why I agreed to visit the library and see if I could
find relevant material. However, I have now caught myself in the
impossible predicament of having to "prove a negative!"
For indeed I have not been able to find a single book that says "us ne
aanaa hai" is valid. Not only that, I have failed to find a single
she'r in all of Ghalib, Meer, Dagh Jigar, Faiz and Faraaz (all that I
have), which uses this grammatical construct. Note that two of these
gentlemen are Punjabis from Pakistan.
To me, this provides sufficient proof that the usage in question is
STILL colloquial and isn't faseeh. But is this also sufficient proof
for you? I don't know.
> It is not incumbent on
> Zafar Saheb to "khaNgaalofy" books of poetry and come up with
> suitable examples. I think a specific reference was made to Urdu
> Grammar. Since the objection or question is based on Grammar, it
> would have helped matters if some specific rule from some authen-
> tic text had been cited or quoted --- some rule that would have
> unequivocally stigmatized such usage.
>
The problem, Afzal saahib, is that it is well nigh impossible to find
a grammar book that talks about wrong usage! One can at best say that
whatever does not appear in the grammar book is most probably wrong.
That's exactly what I have done (previously, and now) -- state that I
cannot find any examples of such use in the sources I have come
across.
Now, I'll admit that I don't have access to ALL of Faraaz's work, and
my exposure to the works of notable Pakistani poets is minimal, to say
the least. Isn't the right approach for me to ask Zafar saahib for
help? Is it wrong for me to say, "Based on everything I have read so
far, I don't think this is faseeh, because I can't find anyone having
used it. But if you say it is, then please present some examples"
-- ?
> Naseer Saheb has quoted two modern "grammarians", Ms. Schmidt and
> C.M. Naim. Both are agreed that the use of "ne" is widespread,
> and accepted as permissible, in certain parts of the Urdu world.
> I think the discussion should end here.
Agreed, but there's still the matter of whether this is faseeh Urdu or
not -- THAT was my original question. Nothing in Ms. Schmidt's or
Prof. Naim's words says this is faseeh.
> Why should we drag in the
> question of which ethnic people are responsible for this usage ?
I agree. This is not necessary to discuss. However, by itself it's
not an uninteresting NOR an injudicious question to ask. After all,
if we can happily ask which Farsi mohavras have made it into Urdu, why
can't we ask whether the source of this usage is Punjabi?
> These days, when all of us are trying our best to keep the banner
> of our language flying high, let us not revive any arguments that
> tend to be divisive.
Genuine research can NEVER be divisive in and of itself. It's the way
said research is presented (or spun) or received that can be divisive.
-UVR.
UVR
Zafar saahib,
jawaab kaa shukriya. to goyaa yeh bahs Pakistan meN "ThanDii" paR
chuki hai aur wahaaN ke sh'oraa befikr ho kar "us ko aanaa hai" ki
bajaaye "us ne aanaa hai" ist'emaal kar rahe haiN. achchhi baat hai.
jahaaN tak meraa Khayaal hai, Hindustan meN ab tak aisi istilaahoN ko
literary halqoN meN "stamp of acceptability" naheeN haasil ho paayi
hai.
aap ke paas sh'oraa-e-Pakistan ke kalaam se jo bhi misaaleN haiN,
(mushkil na ho to) zaroor pesh keejiye. If nothing, we will be able
to end this discussion on a proper note.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
Sorry for intervening here......
How can it be said with any degree of certainty that Pakistani
poets have completely abandoned the alternative usage "us ko
aana hai" ?
Afzal
UVR
Afzal saahib,
Did I say they have abandoned the use of 'us ko'?
I simply said (nay, reiterated Zafar saahib's statement) that
Pakistani poets ostensibly have no qualms (befikr) about using "us ne"
instead of "us ko". This simply means that *when they do use "us
ne"*, they do so without a second thought. Not that they've forsaken
the use of 'us ko.'
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
When one says "ki bajaaye", it is tantamount to saying "instead of".
So, in effect, when you say what you have said, it would mean :
Pakistani poets (without a second thought) are using "us ne"
INSTEAD OF "us ko". In other words, even where they could have
used "us ko", they are using "us ne".
Afzal
UVR
Afzal saahib,
If this is indeed what my words (in Urdu) meant, then my response to
you (in English) may kindly be taken as a clarification that indicates
what I really meant. Apologies, and thank you.
However, I am curious about your final sentence. I am (still) of the
firm belief that "us ko" can be used INSTEAD OF "us ne" EVERYWHERE in
all 'us ne aanaa hai'-type constructs. On the other hand, it seems
that you are saying there could in fact be situations where "us ko"
cannot replace "us ne" in such constructs. If so, I'd be very
interested to know what such situations might look like.
-UVR.
Sarwar A. Raz
===========================================================
yaaraan-e-ALUP: aadaab!
aap kee yeh dilchasp guftgoo maiN shauq se paRhtaa rahaa hooN. meraa
iraadah to "daKhl-dar-ma'qoolaat" kaa naheeN thaa lekin baat ba-
z^aahir kisee muHkam-o-mut^laq anajaam ko naheeN poNhach sake gee.
maiN ne sochaa keh apnee :do kauRee: kee bhee keh dooN!
aaj ke kuchh shaa,i'roN ke yahaaN :mujh ko jaanaa hai: ke ba-
jaaYe :maiN ne jaanaa hai: kee qabeel kee bunat miltee hai. lekin
aisaa ista'maal Urdu ke kisee bhee mash,hoor/ustaad/mustanad shaa,i'r
ke yahaaN naheeN mile gaa. Punjab ke ustaad/mustanad shaa,i'roN ke
kalaam meN bhee aisee koyee micaal milnee taqreeba" naa-mumkin
hai. :taqreeba": is liYe keh rahaa hooN keh kisee shaa,i'r ke har
she'r kaa meree yaa kisee aur kee nigaah se guzraa huwaa honaa ba,e'ed-
az-qiyaas hai. Iqbal se le kar Hafeez aur Faiz tak kaheeN aisaa
ista'maal kam se kam meree nigaah se naheeN guzraa.
Molana Hasrat Mohani kee kitaab :Nikaat-e-Sukahn: meN pichhle kayee
dauroN ke saikaRoN sho'raa ke hazaaroN ash,a'ar diYe gaYe haiN. mere
paas Ghalib, Mir, Jurat, Sauda, Mushafi, Fani, Jigar, Momin, Faiz,
Firaq, Zauq waGhairah ke deewaan yaa intiKhaab-e-kalaam maujood haiN.
Muhammad Husain Azad kee :Aab-e-Hayat: aur Molana Najm-ul-Hasan Ghani
kee kitaab :Behr-ul-Fasaahat: (teen jildeN) bhee haiN. kaheeN bhee yeh
andaaz naz^ar naheeN aayaa.
jis beHc kaa Zafar SaaHeb ne Zikr kiyaa hai us se maiN naa-waaqif
hooN. agar woh kuchh aur tafSeelaat bataaYeN to maiN Aligarh Muslim
University meN apne dostoN se tafteesh karwaa saktaa hooN.
muKhatSar yeh keh :ney: ke ista'maal kee do SoorateN a'am haiN aur
donoN maaZ^ee ke SeeGhe se muta,a'lliq haiN. mustaqbil kee kaifiyyat
se in kaa koyee waast^ah naheeN hai. goyaa Urdu meN :ne: maaZ^ee
(past) kee a'laamat ke t^aur par hee aataa hai. jahaaN mustaqbil
maqSood ho wahaaN :ne: kaa ista'maal naheeN dikhaayee detaa.
do ek ash,a'ar likhtaa hooN. aap ko aise saikaRoN she'r mil jaaYeN ge:
i'waZ^ t^arab ke guZishtoN kaa ham :ne: Gham kheeNchaa
sharaab auroN :ne: pee aur Khumaar ham kheeNchaa (Qaim
Chandpuri)
yeh guftgoo kabhee bhee nah aayee thee darmiyaaN
jo kuchh ke too :ne: Harf-o-Hikaayaat aaj kee (Mir Hasan)
dekhnaa taqreer kee laZZat ke jo us :ne: kahaa
maiN :ne: yeh jaanaa keh goyaa yeh bhee mere dil meN hai (Ghalib)
maiN bhee kuchh Khush naheeN wafaa kar ke
tum :ne: achhaa kiyaa nibaah nah kee (Momin)
yaar kaa aastaan paayaa hai
zor-e-dil :ne: makaan paayaa hai (Jur,at)
khaa gayaa nishtar-e-sar tez jigar dil donoN
raat kee seenah-Kharaashee meN hunar maiN :ne: kiyaa (Mir)
ham se kyaa ho sakaa muHabbat meN
tum :ne: to Khair be-wafaayee kee (Firaq)
aashob-e-naz^ar se kee ham :ne: chaman-aaraayee
jo shai bhee naz^ar aayee, gulraNg naz^ar aayee (Faiz)
inheeN par auroN ko qiyaas kar leejiYe. agar kisee dost ko :ne: kaa
woh ista'maal kaheeN milaa hai jis par guftgoo ho rahee hai to yeh
daryaaft yaqeena" munfarid aur dilchasp ho gee!
sarsaree t^aur se dekhne par aaj ke shaa,i'roN meN Zafar Iqbal ke
yahaaN :ne: kaa maZkoorah ista'maal dikhaayee diyaa:
abhee munkashif honaa hai pehlee baar ham par
abhee ham :ne: kisee naqsh-e-nihaaN par choomnaa hai
"Zafar" ham :ne: abhee Gharqaab ho jaane se pehle
kaheeN apne dareedah baadbaaN par choomnaa hai
mushkil yeh hai keh aisee :tuk-bandee: ko baRee shaa,i'ee to kyaa Sirf
shaa,i'ree hee maan,ne meN mujh ko ta,ammul hai! ziyaadah Hadd-e-adab!
Sarwar A. Raz "Sarwar"
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
If I were to give a facetious reply...... :
All those situations ("mawaaq'e") where our friends from across
the border and THEIR friends in places like modern-day Delhi
need to say what "us ne (karna) hai" implies. "Us ko" just
cannot replace "us ne".
But, as part of a serious discussion, I would merely say that
it is a question of "choice". I am sure "us ko" can be used in
all such situations. But if some people (some crores, that is)
choose to use "us ne", there is little that you and I can do
about it.
Afzal
UVR
Afzal saahib,
You are absolutely right on the matter of 'choice (of some crores) of
people'. There's nothing you or I can do about others' choice. Just
like there are crores of people who use the language that's often
found in Hip-Hop and R&B and is commonly called Black American. And
there's little that you or I, or even the people who live on the other
side of the "big pond" (Atlantic) can do about it.[1]
But as to when (IF!) this language will make it into the "mustanad"
grammar books and dictionaries, your guess is as good as mine.
-UVR.
[1] In this connection I highly recommend a television program
commissioned by the US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Entitled
"Do You Speak American", and aired every now and then from various PBS
stations, this program documents various flavours of English spoken in
the different parts of the US. It is simply fascinating, to put it
mildly.
Afzal A. Khan
>> UVR wrote:
>>>> Afzal
>>> -UVR.
Since crores of "musTaN'De" folks already use this form, it is as
good as "mustanad".
Afzal
UVR
Touche'. I had (and am having) a hearty laugh. In fact, ROTFL,
almost.
-UVR.
Asa'd
>
> - Show quoted text -
UVR Sahib
aapke javaab ke liye shukriah aur apnii ta'Khiir ke liye ma'zirat!
aapne Zafar Sahib ko to "rawaa" aur "fasiiH" ki fasiiloN ke biich
khaRaa kar diyaa, lekin Zafar Iqbal is beHs se saaf bach nikleNge,
chuuN.k unhoN ne to pehle hii keh rakkhaa hai....
"jo naa-rawaa thaa, us ko "rawaa" karne aayaa huuN" :)
Naseer
I hope to get back to this thread in the not too distant future, not
only to respond to some of the points raised but also to round things
off, as it were. It was indeed a great pleasure to have Sarwar Sahib's
input into this discussion. Sarwar Sahib, it would be nice if you
could get views of one or two of your AligaRian friends. Zoya Sahiba,
you said you would get back with some commnents. kachche va'de?
Naseer
Zoya
> Zoya Sahiba,
> you said you would get back with some commnents. kachche va'de?
>
> Naseer
Naseer sahib,
ho gayii saiNkRoN vaadoN kii vafa,
us ne jab haNs ke kahaa: "bhuul gaya!" :) :)
Fall semester has started, life has become crazier!
baqaul Amjad Islam Amjad sahib,
"Khud apne liye baiThh ke socheNge kisi din!!"
So, one of these days.......! :)
_____Zoya