Mir, Ghalib aur . . . Rome!
Zafar
paish kee jaa rahaa hai. dekhi'ye in tasaaveer kaa aapas meN kuchh rabt
bantaa hai yaa naheeN:
(I)
Angraizee zabaan kaa aik lafz hai "trivial", jis ke ma'anee Oxford Urdu
Dictionary ke mutaabiq haiN:
1.
adnaa, bai-qadr, bai-ehmee'at
2.
ma'amoolee baatoN meN paRne vaalaa [shaKhs]
vG.
"Trivial" kee taareeKh kuchh yooN hai k ye Lateenee zabaan ke lafz
"trivialis" se aKhaz kiyaa gayaa hai. Trivialis "tri" [teen] + "via"
[raasta] se mil kar banaa hai, ya'anee "teen raastoN vaalaa". Urdu meN
ise chowk keh leeji'ye.
kahaa jaataa hai k puraane Rome meN log chowk meN, ya'anee shehr ke
masroof 'ilaaqoN meN, ziyaada sanjeeda nau'eeyat kee guftugoo naheeN
kiyaa karte the: aisee jaghoN par halkee-phulkee aur Ghair-sanjeeda
guftugoo (Angraizee meN "small talk") kee jaatee thee. ba'ad meN yehee
is lafz ke ma'anee Thehr ga'ye.
(II)
aap ne ye Khushk aur "trivial" behs sun lee. ab Ghalib kaa aik she'er
samaa'at farmaa'iye:
samajh ke karte haiN baazaar meN vo pursish e haal
k ye kahe k sar e rah-guzar hai, kyaa kahi'ye!
[He inquires after my well-being right in the middle of the street
Knowing fully well that the roadside is not the place to discuss such
matters]
isee kaa tarjuma WS Merwin kee zabaanee bhee sun leeji'ye:
She's careful to ask how I am
in public
where I can't tell her
(III)
Urdu ke mash'hoor tazkiroN "ma'araka e Khush-zaibaa" aur "aab e hayaat"
meN likhaa hai k aik baar Lucknow ke navvab Aasif ud Daula haathee par
savaar, apne laau-lashkar ke jilau meN, kaheeN jaa rahe the, Syed Insha
ham-rikaab the. chowk meN pahunche to dekhaa k Mir Taqi Mir chale jaa
rahe haiN. navvaab ne savaaree rok dee aur donoN ke maabain ye
mukaalima roonumaa huvaa [maiN "aab e hayaat" se naql kar rahaa hooN]:
navvaab: are Mir saahib, aap ne bil-kul hameN chhoR diyaa!
Mir: baazaar meN baateN karnaa aadaab e shurafaa naheeN: ye kyaa
guftugoo kaa mauqa hai?
---
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
lazarus nodid
> k ye kahe k sar e rah-guzar hai, kyaa kahi'ye!
> She's careful to ask how I am
> in public
> where I can't tell her
i find your comparisons interesting zafar.
here are two i found
-----
partav-e-kuur se hai shabanam ko fanaa kii taaliim
main bhii huun ek inaayat kii nazar hone tak.
~ ghalib.
a dew sufficed itself, and satisfied a leaf
and felt "how vast a destiny", "how trivial is life!"
~ emily dickinson.
-----
-----
katra dariya me jo mil jaye to dariya ho jaaye,
kaam achcha hai woh, jiska m'aal achcha hai.
~ ghalib.
all's well that ends well.
~ shakespeare.
-----
--
aldrin.
Roshan Kamath
...
> Mir: baazaar meN baateN karnaa aadaab e shurafaa naheeN: ye kyaa
> guftugoo kaa mauqa hai?
Quite interesting that it is now considered almost anti-social not to
inquire into the wellbeing of old friends when you meet them on the
street :) I wasn't aware of this aspect of social demeanour in recent
history. Thanks for the article Zafar Sb.,
rosh
--
राबर्ट: सऽर, यह वासको-दॆ-गामा की गन है ।
तेजा: किस के मामा की गन है ?
- [अंदाज़ अपना अपना]
Shyam
meaning in my view is something like this.
It IS anti social not to enquire about the wellbeing of a close friend
if one happens to meet in the street. But the context here is not the
friend but the lover. Exchanging "how do you dos" is much more formal
and social.
Imagine the situation when the world knows about the lovers, and in the
situation, the beloved is avoiding the lover (which is quite normal!!).
So to show everybody that everything is okay between the two, she is
asking a "how do you do".
Once again "gustakhi muaf"...
Shyam
Roshan
> Imagine the situation when the world knows about the lovers, and in
the
> situation, the beloved is avoiding the lover (which is quite
normal!!).
> So to show everybody that everything is okay between the two, she is
> asking a "how do you do".
Shyam ji, My response was in the direct context of Meer's statement. I
assumed (and I'm often times guilty of such infarctions) that the Nawab
and Meer weren't mutual lovers - with Meer, the beloved, trying to
avoid the suitor Nawab. Then again, if such were indeed the case, I can
see why Meer would be eager to scoot away upon the Nawab's arrival ;)
[having imposed modern western morality on Meer's times]
No, seriously, it still wouldn't explain away the etymology of the word
"trivial" as presented by Zafar Sb.. The fact that ancient roman
citizens (of all sorts, lovers included) considered smalltalk in the
street as against social norms is news enough for me!
> Once again "gustakhi muaf"...
No need/occasion to apologize. This is a honest, sane, well-behaved
discussion ... Or mebbe it was until I just ran it to the ground with
my response! (I hope not.)
cheers,
rosh
Afzal A. Khan
I think you and Shri Shyam are not talking about the
same thing. Your message was in the context of the
story about Meer's unwillingness to have any conversation
with the Nawab. Shri Shyam, OTOH, seems to be talking
about Ghalib's sher :
Samajh ke karte haiN baazaar men woh pursish-e-haal
Ke yeh kahe ke sar-e-rah~guzar hai, kya kahiye
BTW, there is no question of the Nawab being Meer's
suitor. Zafar Saheb was just narrating a story from
"Aab-e-Hayaat" which (along with other stories found
there) portrays Meer's "bad~dimaaGHee".
I think we must recognize the different social norms
that were prevalent in those times. Serious-minded
"shurfa" would prefer to visit a friend's house for
social interaction. Standing and talking in the
chowk or baazaar was left to people who did not belong
the "gentry". One more point to be noted here is that
the Nawab was passing by on his "sawaari" (I don't recall
any specific reference to an elephant in the book, but it
can be safely presumed that the "sawaari" was in fact an
elephant). Meer must have been going on foot. Even for a
Nawab, it is poor form to accost someone who is passing
through on foot. Also, the question ("aap ne to hameN
bilkul chhoR diya") was ill-phrased. The response from
a "naazuk~dimaaGH" person like Meer was quite typical of
the poet.
Ghalib's sher is more or less self-explanatory. But, in
contrast to Meer's story, the beloved has no compunction
in accosting the poet and asking about his welfare ---
taking advantage of the fact that, in a public place, the
lover would not be inclined to talk about his misfortunes
and complain about the beloved's indifferent/inimical
behaviour.
Afzal
Roshan
...
> Ghalib's sher is more or less self-explanatory. But, in
> contrast to Meer's story, the beloved has no compunction
> in accosting the poet and asking about his welfare ---
> taking advantage of the fact that, in a public place, the
> lover would not be inclined to talk about his misfortunes
> and complain about the beloved's indifferent/inimical
> behaviour.
...
Yep, this is exactly how I see it too (as opposed to the beloved
wanting to shy away from meeting the lover).
Thanks for elaborating on the social norms for those times,
rosh
--
Lady Chatterly
Roshan Kamath <roshan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>>Zafar wrote:
>>>
>>>....
>>
>>> Mir: baazaar meN baateN karnaa aadaab e shurafaa naheeN: ye kyaa
>>> guftugoo kaa mauqa hai?
>>
>>Quite interesting that it is now considered almost anti-social not to
>>inquire into the wellbeing of old friends when you meet them on the
>>street :) I wasn't aware of this aspect of social demeanour in recent
>>history. Thanks for the article Zafar Sb.,
>
>rosh
Hosch
--
Lady Chatterly
"You're replying to a bot, you know..." -- OhSojourner