kisi paRi mire aa kar sune fasaane ko...ek ghazal
Aslam Sahbaa
as_salaam_o_'alaikum,
aaj arsa_haa-e-daraaz ke ba'd idhar se guzar hua to socha apni is nai
ghazal ko yahaN chaspaaN karta chaluN. ummiid hai ki baar-e-Khaatir na
ho gi. to ghazal mulaaheza farmaaiye:
1.
"balaa-e-jaan hai!", kahte haiN..."dil ke jaane ko!"
"ziyaaN hai jaan kaa!", kahte haiN..."dil ke jaane ko!"
2.
is daur-e-tez_ravi ne bhulaaye qisse tamaam
kisi paRi mire aa kar sune fasaane ko
3.
karo na va'da vafaa magar ye soch to lo
ki muNh dikhaaoge kis muNh se phir zamaane ko
4.
maiN saari 'umr manaataa raha tujhe, sang_dil!
ba_waqt-e-marg to aa jaa mujhe manaane ko
5.
zariN_qaba ye kyuN paihnaaii hai tuu ne raqiib?
jamaal-e-yaar hi kaafi hai dil lubhaane ko
6.
na jaao yaar mire itni be_ruKhi ke saath
sawaal kis ne kiya tum se 'ahd nibhaane ko
7.
hazaar baar gaya hai to mera toR ke dil
ab ek baar to aa phir kabhi na jaane ko
8.
diye haiN tuu ne jo raNj_o_alam, dard_o_kasak
Ghilaaf-e-qalb ko kaafi haiN yeh sajaane ko
9.
zahe naseeb ki waqt-e-sahar mili aaGhosh
nakeerai'n muNtazir haiN mujhe ab sulaane ko
10.
maiN teri zad meN huN, tu Das bhi le mujhe naagin
maiN tere shauq meN laayaa huN Khud Dasaane ko
11.
sha'uur kahta hai na jaauN kabhi maiN dar pe tire
magar ye dil mira chaahe tire hi aastaane ko
12.
guzaar diN shab-e-hijraaN is movaqqif par
ki aayega vo kisi shab mujhe rulaane ko
13.
maiN laa_davaa sahi! koi to chaarah_gar hoga
jo maut ko mire baaliiN pe aaye manaane ko
14.
baa_ham mile haiN mire laKht_haa-e-qalb_o_jigar
Takraao kaafi hai hasti mire miTaane ko
shukria,
faqat Khaak_nashiN,
Aslam Sahbaa
UVR
> Khawaateen_o_hazraat,
> as_salaam_o_'alaikum,
>
> aaj arsa_haa-e-daraaz ke ba'd idhar se guzar hua to socha apni is nai
> ghazal ko yahaN chaspaaN karta chaluN. ummiid hai ki baar-e-Khaatir na
> ho gi. to ghazal mulaaheza farmaaiye:
"Sahbaa-jii", Khush_aamdeed.
aap ne to is bazm ko bhulaa hii diyaa! ab waapas aaye haiN to zaraa
der Thaharne kaa koii program banaa kar aaye haiN, k naheeN?
Ghazal 'sunaane' kaa shukriyaa. ise paRh kar yooN lagaa maano aap
kuchh "out-of-sorts" haiN, filhaal (is jumle ko Urdu meiN naheeN
likhooNga).
zail meN chand ta'assuraat likhne kii himaakat kar rahaa hooN; inheN
tanqeed yaa tanqees (yaa, Khuda-na_Khwastah) islaaH na samajh liijiyega.
aap kii Ghazal paRhte-paRhte jo Khayaalaat dil-o-zehn meN uThe, unkaa
lafzii tarjuma haiN yeh, bas!
agar meraa kuchh bhii likhaa huaa aap ko naa_gawaar guzre, to us ke
liye peshgii ma'azirat chaahtaa hooN. mera maqsad yahaaN sirf aap
se chand alfaaz-e-dostaana (=friendly words) kahne kaa hai, aur
kuchh naheeN.
faqat,
-UVR.
P.S. Post zara lambii ho gayii hai, itminaan se paRheN.
> 1.
> "balaa-e-jaan hai!", kahte haiN..."dil ke jaane ko!"
> "ziyaaN hai jaan kaa!", kahte haiN..."dil ke jaane ko!"
matla Khoob hai. taaham 'arz hai k "kahte haiN dil ke jaane ko" kaa
jo jumla donoN misr'oN meN aa gayaa hai us se yeh gumaan hotaa hai
k yeh poore ka poora jumla hi aap kii radeef hai, na k sirf lafz "ko".
agar pehle misr'e meN "dil ke jaane ko" kii bajaa`e "dil lagaane ko"
likha jaaye to kaisaa rahe? ek aur baat -- merii haqeer raaye meN,
"dil kaa jaanaa" kii jagah agar "jii kaa jaanaa" kaheN (jo k is
muhaavre kii qadeem-o-asli soorat bhii hai), to shaayad sh'er meN
aur nikhaar aa jaaye. dekhiye:
"balaa-e-jaan hai", kahte haiN dil lagaane ko
"ziyaaN hai jaan kaa", kahte haiN *jii ke jaane* ko
> 2.
> is daur-e-tez_ravi ne bhulaaye qisse tamaam
> kisi paRi mire aa kar sune fasaane ko
pehla misra behr se Khaarij hai. bajaa`e "is daur-e-tez_ravi" ke,
agar "jahaan-e-tez_ravish" kaheN to (behr ke lihaaz se) misra durust
ho saktaa hai. doosre misre meN, "kisi paRi" ya'ani che? apni post
ke unwaan meN bhii aap ne yahii alfaaz istemaal kiye haiN, magar
yaqeenan aap "kise paRi" hi kahnaa chaahte the. agar ijaazat ho to
yeh bhi arz hai k doosre misre meN idhar ke lafz *udhar* muta'aqqid
ho gaye (= baNdh gaye) haiN -- meraa mansha
jahaan-e-tez_ravish ne bhulaaye qisse tamaam
kise paRi sune aa kar mire fasaane ko
se hai. halaaN k ab bhi donoN misroN kaa baahami rabt thooooRa-sa
"unclear" hai.
> 3.
> karo na va'da vafaa magar ye soch to lo
> ki muNh dikhaaoge kis muNh se phir zamaane ko
waah! is sh'er ke buniyaadi Khayaal ke, Aslam bhaa`i, kyaa kahne!
doosre misre par to, Raam-qasam, achchhe acchhoN kii bolti band ho
jaaye! lekin ... afsosan kahnaa paR rahaa hai k pehla misra phir
Khaarij-az-behr hai :( "vafaa" aur "magar" ke beech meiN ek aise
lafz kii zaroorat hai jo "haaN" yaa "tum" ke wazn kaa ho.
> 4.
> maiN saari 'umr manaataa raha tujhe, sang_dil!
> ba_waqt-e-marg to aa jaa mujhe manaane ko
lafz-e-"sang_dil" kaa saheeh wazn kyaa hai? aap ne ise "sag_dil"
tasawwur kiyaa hai, lekin Ghalib ke mash_hoor sh'er
vafaa kaisii? kahaaN kaa 'ishq? jab sar phoRnaa Thaihraa
to phir ai *sang_dil* teraa hi sang-e-aastaaN kyooN ho
se ma'aloom hotaa hai k is lafz ke saheeh talaffuz digar haiN.
> 5.
> zariN_qaba ye kyuN paihnaaii hai tuu ne raqiib?
> jamaal-e-yaar hi kaafi hai dil lubhaane ko
pehla misra behr kii paTrii par se utar gayaa hai :)) mazaaq bar_taraf,
jis tarah yeh misra filhaal darj hai, us se aaKhir ke teen lafzoN ko
yooN paRhnaa paR rahaa hai -- "tu ne raaqib". doosra misra bahut Khoob
hai. ek sh'er yaad aa rahaa hai --
achchhi soorat ko saNwarne ki kyaa zaroorat hai
saad_gii bhii to qayaamat ki adaa hotii hai
(is kaa doosra misr'a bahut Ghazab kaa hai!)
apne sh'er meiN aap yeh kah rahe haiN k jab dil lubhaane ko yaar kaa
haseen jamaal hii bahut hai, to phir use (ya'ani yaar ko) zareeN-qiba
pahan_ne ki kyaa zaroorat aan paRi. Khayaal nek hai ;) lekin 'arz hai
k yeh waazeh naheeN ho paa rahaa hai k yeh "raqeeb" saahib kaun haiN
k jin ki AAP KE mehboob ko *qibaa pehnaane* kii had tak rasaa`ii hai!?
laa_haula wa laa quvvata ... :)) ROTFL!!!!
> 6.
> na jaao yaar mire itni be_ruKhi ke saath
> sawaal kis ne kiya tum se 'ahd nibhaane ko
doosre misre ko lafz ahd ke saheeh talaffuz se paRheN to behr
"laRkhaRaa" rahii hai. ise dekh liijiyegaa.
> 7.
> hazaar baar gaya hai to mera toR ke dil
> ab ek baar to aa phir kabhi na jaane ko
bahut achchhe! "to" --> "tu"? is se "Faraaz" saahib kaa(*) woh
sh'er yaad aataa hai --
jaise tujhe aate haiN na aane ke bahaane
waise hi kisii roz na jaane ke liye aa!
[(*) yeh sh'er dar'asl Talib Baghpati kaa hai, lekin janaab Mehdi
Hassan ise hamesha Faraaz saahib kii "ranjish hi sahi" ke saath pesh
karte haiN, aur nateejatan, yeh sh'er Faraz saahib ke hii naam se
mash_hoor ho gayaa hai]
> 8.
> diye haiN tuu ne jo raNj_o_alam, dard_o_kasak
> Ghilaaf-e-qalb ko kaafi haiN yeh sajaane ko
yeh "pillowcase of the heart" kis chiRiyaa kaa naam hai, huzoor? :))
LOL! Seriously, "Ghilaaf-e-qalb ko sajaane" se kyaa muraad hai?
jahaaN tak mujhe ma'aloom hai, insaani jism meN dil ke gird ek
"cover"-saa hotaa hai, jise k Ghilaf-ul-qalb kahaa jaataa hai.
pehle misr'e meN "ranj-o-alam" aur "dard-o-kasak" ke beech ek lafz
behr ke lihaaz se kam jaan paRtaa hai. ek nazar dekh leN.
> 9.
> zahe naseeb ki waqt-e-sahar mili aaGhosh
> nakeerai'n muNtazir haiN mujhe ab sulaane ko
mere Khayaal se (jo k Ghalat bhi ho saktaa hai) munkar+nakeer ko
"nakeera'een" kahaa jaataa hai. lihaazah doosre misr'e meN lafz
"mujhe" zaa`id hai. ise haTaa deN, to yeh misr'a -- sub_haan
Allah!
phir bhi aap se ek wazaahat talab karnaa paR rahii hai -- waqt-e-
sahar jo aaGhosh milii woh kis kii thi? munkar+nakeer kii? agar
haaN, to phir "zahe naseeb" kyoN?
> 10.
> maiN teri zad meN huN, tu Das bhi le mujhe naagin
> maiN tere shauq meN laayaa huN Khud Dasaane ko
Ok. lagtaa hai kal raat aap Sridevi kii film "naagin" dekh rahe
the ... :)) laayaa hooN --> aayaa hooN?
> 11.
> sha'uur kahta hai na jaauN kabhi maiN dar pe tire
> magar ye dil mira chaahe tire hi aastaane ko
is sh'er kii behr durust kar leN.
> 12.
> guzaar diN shab-e-hijraaN is movaqqif par
> ki aayega vo kisi shab mujhe rulaane ko
pehle misr'a behr kii kasauTi par kharaa nahiiN utartaa.
> 13.
> maiN laa_davaa sahi! koi to chaarah_gar hoga
> jo maut ko mire baaliiN pe aaye manaane ko
*doosra* misr'a behr kii kasauTi par kharaa naheeN utar rahaa.
> 14.
> baa_ham mile haiN mire laKht_haa-e-qalb_o_jigar
> Takraao kaafi hai hasti mire miTaane ko
is sh'er meN bhii behr durust karne kii zaroorat hai.
> shukria,
>
> faqat Khaak_nashiN,
>
> Aslam Sahbaa
yeh sab to Theek hai, "Khaak nasheen" saahib :)) magar is Ghazal kaa
woh sh'er kahaaN gayaa jis meN "Sahbaa-ji" kaa naam aataa hai? meraa
matlab hai, maqta to aap ne kahaa hii naheeN? kyaa baat hai?
-UVR.
paabagil
vah jee vaah, saahib, aap to musallimus suboot ustaad ban ga'ye haiN
:)) kyaa dhuvaaN-dhaar "critique" kee hai! mazaa aa gayaa paRh kar:
Allah kare zaur e raqam aur ziyaada!
>
> > 4.
> > maiN saari 'umr manaataa raha tujhe, sang_dil!
> > ba_waqt-e-marg to aa jaa mujhe manaane ko
>
> lafz-e-"sang_dil" kaa saheeh wazn kyaa hai? aap ne ise "sag_dil"
> tasawwur kiyaa hai, lekin Ghalib ke mash_hoor sh'er
>
> vafaa kaisii? kahaaN kaa 'ishq? jab sar phoRnaa Thaihraa
> to phir ai *sang_dil* teraa hi sang-e-aastaaN kyooN ho
>
> se ma'aloom hotaa hai k is lafz ke saheeh talaffuz digar haiN.
Ghalib kaa ye "mash'oor" she'er bhee nazar meN rakhiye:
maiN ne MajnooN pe laRakpan meN 'Asad'
"sang" uThaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa!
niaaz-mand,
pbg
PN: aap ne "elsewhere" mere naam ke baare meN poochhaa thaa, to arz
hai k:
ham ne chaahaa thaa k "chhup" jaa'yeN, so vo bhee na huvaa!
Raj Kumar
.
> janaab e UVR:
>
> vah jee vaah, saahib, aap to musallimus suboot ustaad ban ga'ye haiN
> :)) kyaa dhuvaaN-dhaar "critique" kee hai! mazaa aa gayaa paRh kar:
>
> Allah kare zaur e raqam aur ziyaada!
Zaf ji mahaaraaj:
huzoor, yahaaN tak to maiN aap se solah-aanne muttafiq hoN, albatta
zaraa aage paRhiye ga!!
>
> >
> > > 4.
> > > maiN saari 'umr manaataa raha tujhe, sang_dil!
> > > ba_waqt-e-marg to aa jaa mujhe manaane ko
> >
> > lafz-e-"sang_dil" kaa saheeh wazn kyaa hai? aap ne ise "sag_dil"
> > tasawwur kiyaa hai, lekin Ghalib ke mash_hoor sh'er
> >
> > vafaa kaisii? kahaaN kaa 'ishq? jab sar phoRnaa Thaihraa
> > to phir ai *sang_dil* teraa hi sang-e-aastaaN kyooN ho
> >
> > se ma'aloom hotaa hai k is lafz ke saheeh talaffuz digar haiN.
ab aap farmaate haiN k
> Ghaalib kaa ye "mash'oor" she'er bhee nazar meN rakhiye:
>
> maiN ne MajnooN pe laRakpan meN 'Asad'
> "sang" uThaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa!
>
Zaf ji, ---
Oh boy, I like this "pseudonym" more and more I use it ---
qibla-o-ka'aba, Khaaksaar ki nazar meiN lafz "saNg" ka vazn vuhi hai
jis ki jaanib k UVR Saahib ne ishaara kiyaa hai aur, agar Khudaa jhooT
na bulvaaye to, Aslam Saahib ne is lafz ko Ghalat ist'emmaal kiya hai.
albatta, aap ka (un ki jaanib se, ba-taur-e-vakeel-e-safaaii,) yeh
kehna k Mirza Ghaalib ne bhi is lafz ko aise hi bartaa hai jaise k
Aslam Saahib ne bartaa hai, sar-aa-sar Ghalat hai!
huzoor, agar maiN faqeer-e-kamtareeN apni jaan-e-hazeeN ki amaaN
paaooN to aap ki dargaah-e-zul-jalaal meiN arz karooN k Mirza Ghaalib
ke she'r meiN is lafz ka talaffuz aur is ka vazn ain vuhi haiN jo k
UVR Saahib ne saadar farmaaye haiN. farq sirf yeh hai k, Mirza ke
she'r meiN, lafz "uThaayaa" ke "starting vowel" ne is talaffuz ki laaj
rakh li hai!
Pleeeeeeeeeeeease think about this matter dispassionately --- before
rushing back to refute me!
kehne ka matlab yeh hai k yahaaN par Mirza Ghaalib "sag uThaaya"
naheeN keh rahe ---"saNg-u-Thaaya" keh rahe haiN!
afsos-sad-afsos k Aslam Saahib ke misre meiN aisi koi "shield" maujood
naheeN hai!
>
> PN: aap ne "elsewhere" mere naam ke baare meN poochhaa thaa, to arz
> hai k:
>
> ham ne chaahaa thaa k "chhup" jaa'yeN, so vo bhee na huvaa!
isi liye, to kisi "door-ras filmi shaa'ir" ne, kayee baras pehle,
irshaad kiyaa tha k
"ham se chhupo na hamaari sajaniyaa!
ham se chhupo na, chhupo na!!!!!!!!" LOL, bal-k ROTFL
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
paabagil
> paaooN to aap ki dargaah-e-zul-jalaal meiN arz karooN k Mirza Ghaalib
> ke she'r meiN is lafz ka talaffuz aur is ka vazn ain vuhi haiN jo k
> UVR Saahib ne saadar farmaaye haiN. farq sirf yeh hai k, Mirza ke
> she'r meiN, lafz "uThaayaa" ke "starting vowel" ne is talaffuz ki laaj
> rakh li hai!
sarkaar:
lagtaa hai aap ne meree baat ko zaroorat se ziyaada sanjeedgee se le
liyaa, haalaaN k ham ne to vaise hee aik shoshaa chhoRaa thaa. kisee
jadeed shaaa'ir kaa she'er suniye ... shaa'ir kaa naam is vaqt zehn
meN naheeN aa rahaa:
fasaad e Khalq kaa hangaama deedanee thaa 'Zafar'
phir aik baar vuhee shosha chhoR, Darnaa kyaa
LOLOL
> Pleeeeeeeeeeeease think about this matter dispassionately --- before
> rushing back to refute me!
>
> kehne ka matlab yeh hai k yahaaN par Mirza Ghaalib "sag uThaaya"
> naheeN keh rahe ---"saNg-u-Thaaya" keh rahe haiN!
aap ne baRaa dilchasp nuktaa uThaayaa hai (vaise usoolan ye baat aap
ko mere liye kehnee chaahiye thee :( aap kee da'avat par ise
"dispassionately" dubaara dekh rahaa hooN:
maiN ne MajnooN pe laRakpan meN 'Asad'
sang uThaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa!
doosre misre ko 2 tareeqoN se likhaa jaa saktaa hai:
1.
"sag" uThaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa
("sang" bar vazn e "fa'")
2.
saNg "Thaayaa" thaa k sar yaad aayaa
("sang" bar vazn e "fe'el")
aap kaa israar hai k no. 2 saheeh hai aur Ghalib ne dar'asl "uThaayaa"
kaa ibtidaa'ee alif (ba ma' e paish :) uRanchhoo kar diyaa hai, na k
no. 1 meN "sang" kaa noon. kisee bhee soorat haal se "commit" kiye
baGhair aik do baateN paish e Khidmat haiN:
a:
Ghalib ne aik shaagird ke she'er par tabsira karte huve likhaa hai:
"jab misre meN alif girtaa hai to mere dil par choT lagtee hai".
b:
Faiz kaa aik zarbul misl she'er haazir hai:
na gaNvaao naavuk e neem-kash, dil e raiza raiza gaNvaa diyaa
jo bache haiN "sang" sameT lo, tan e daaGh daaGh luTaa diyaa
kyaa ham ye samajheN k Faiz ne bhee "sang meT lo" kahaa hai?
> > ham ne chaahaa thaa k "chhup" jaa'yeN, so vo bhee na huvaa!
>
> isi liye, to kisi "door-ras filmi shaa'ir" ne, kayee baras pehle,
> irshaad kiyaa tha k
>
> "ham se chhupo na hamaari sajaniyaa!
> ham se chhupo na, chhupo na!!!!!!!!" LOL, bal-k ROTFL
mahaashe jee: farsh par ziyaada mat luRhkaa keejiye, aik to aap kee
sehet is kee ijaazat naheeN detee aur doosre ye k "aunty" kyaa kaheN
gee?
LOLOLOLOL
pbg
Raj Kumar
> > huzoor, agar maiN faqeer-e-kamtareeN apni jaan-e-hazeeN ki amaaN
> > paaooN to aap ki dargaah-e-zul-jalaal meiN arz karooN k Mirza Ghaalib
> > ke she'r meiN is lafz ka talaffuz aur is ka vazn ain vuhi haiN jo k
> > UVR Saahib ne saadar farmaaye haiN. farq sirf yeh hai k, Mirza ke
> > she'r meiN, lafz "uThaayaa" ke "starting vowel" ne is talaffuz ki laaj
> > rakh li hai!
>
> sarkaar:
>
> lagtaa hai aap ne meree baat ko zaroorat se ziyaada sanjeedgee se le
> liyaa, haalaaN k ham ne to vaise hee aik shoshaa chhoRaa thaa.
bhai, mujhe kyaa ma'aloom tha k aap shoshe bhi chhoRte haiN? maiN to,
ba-qaul-e-Professor Kanaihya Lal Kapoor, "yihi samjhaa thaa k aap aek
'seedhe-saade insaan' haiN --- magar ab vaazeh hua hai k maiN to
Ghalati par tha!" :-))
> kisee
> jadeed shaaa'ir kaa she'er suniye ... shaa'ir kaa naam is vaqt zehn
> meN naheeN aa rahaa:
>
> fasaad e Khalq kaa hangaama deedanee thaa 'Zafar'
> phir aik baar vuhee shosha chhoR, Darnaa kyaa?
>
> LOLOL
yeh she'r vaaqe'ii kisi jadeed shaa'ir ka hai --- kiyooN-k Bahaadur
Shaah Zafar to aisi be-tuki kahaaN haaNkte the? LOL
B/W, this reminds me of a beautiful conversation I had with a
beautiful woman the other day. We were talking about my "ramblings" on
the Internet, and I happened to mention "a Zafar Saahib" jo k, meri
nigaah meiN, aek paRhe likkhe insaan haiN aur, is liye, voh mujhe
be-had azeez haiN. yeh sun kar, voh saahiba (apni maKhsoos
ma'asoomiyat ke aNdaaz meiN) boleeN k "kyaa aap shaihanshaah-e-Hind
Bahaadur Shaah Zafar ki baat kar rahe haiN"? yeh sun kar, maiN ne arz
kiyaa k "bhaabhi ji, naheeN, maiN un shaihanshaah-e-Hind ki baat
naheeN kar rahaa, maiN to aaj kal ke shaihanshaah-e-Paakistaan ki baat
kar rahaa hooN!"
Now, Zaf ji, can I ROTFL?
>
> > Pleeeeeeeeeeeease think about this matter dispassionately --- before
> > rushing back to refute me!
> >
> > kehne ka matlab yeh hai k yahaaN par Mirza Ghaalib "sag uThaaya"
> > naheeN keh rahe ---"saNg-u-Thaaya" keh rahe haiN!
>
> aap ne baRaa dilchasp nuktaa uThaayaa hai (vaise usoolan ye baat aap
> ko mere liye kehnee chaahiye thee :( aap kee da'avat par ise
> "dispassionately" dubaara dekh rahaa hooN:
>
> maiN ne MajnooN pe laRakpan meN 'Asad'
> sang uThaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa!
>
> doosre misre ko 2 tareeqoN se likhaa jaa saktaa hai:
>
> 1.
> "sag" uThaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa
> ("sang" bar vazn e "fa'")
>
> 2.
> saNg "Thaayaa" thaa k sar yaad aayaa
> ("sang" bar vazn e "fe'el")
>
> aap kaa israar hai k no. 2 saheeh hai aur Ghalib ne dar'asl "uThaayaa"
> kaa ibtidaa'ee alif (ba ma' e paish :) uRanchhoo kar diyaa hai, na k
> no. 1 meN "sang" kaa noon. kisee bhee soorat haal se "commit" kiye
> baGhair, aik do baateN paish e Khidmat haiN:
kaash-k aap ne maNdarja-zail baateN kehne se pehle kisi "paRhe-likhe
aadami" se salaah-mashvara kiya hota! :-(( as well as :-))
>
> a:
> Ghalib ne aik shaagird ke she'er par tabsira karte huve likhaa hai:
>
> "jab misre meN alif girtaa hai to mere dil par choT lagtee hai".
Zaf ji, Mirza Ghaalib ka yeh bayaan kisi lafz ke "aaKhiri alif" se
ta'alluq rakhta hai, na k "aaGhaazi alif" se!!! Please check this
point with your ustaad-e-mohtaram janaab-e-NaatavaaN Mauhoomi Saahib
--- I wonder if there does exist someone real who goes by that name!
Zaf ji, bhalaa Mirza Ghaalib aisi baat kiyooN kaheN ge (jaisi k aap ne
un ke naam se mansoob ki hai) --- jab k un ka maNdarja-zail she'r
nageena-e-adab kehlaata hai:
tuu aur aaraa'ish-e-Kham-e-kaakul
maiN aur aNdesha-haa-e-door-o-daraaz
Note keejiye huzoor k, is she'r ke dono misroN meiN, aaraa'ish ki aur
aNdesha ki "aaGhaazi alif" pichhle lafz ke saath madGham ho rahi hai
--- aur, agar Khudaa jhooT na bulvaaye to, yihi baat "saNg uThaayaa"
ke saath hui hai --- ise "alif ka girna" naheeN kehte, ise "sauti
iKhtelaat" kehte haiN!
I am afraid, you totally misunderstood Ghaalib's comment here.
>
>
> b:
> Faiz kaa aik zarbul misl she'er haazir hai:
>
> na gaNvaao naavuk e neem-kash, dil e raiza raiza gaNvaa diyaa
> jo bache haiN "sang" sameT lo, tan e daaGh daaGh luTaa diyaa
>
> kyaa ham ye samajheN k Faiz ne bhee "sang meT lo" kahaa hai?
My goodness, Zaf ji, yeh misaal jo aap ne di hai sar-aa-sar be-jaa
hai. huzoor, is baihr meiN to saNg saNg hai aur sameT sameT! yahaaN
par, kisi bhi lafz ka kuchh bhi naheeN gir rahaa! Then, why --- I
wonder --- you consider something having happened here that never
happened at all!
This letter, Zaf ji, makes me "eagerer" than ever (yes, "eagerer" is a
correct word, so please don't think of trampling on me for this one!)
to be on the committee that looks into your Ph.D. thesis! LOL
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Sarwar Alam Raz
> janaab e UVR:
>
> vah jee vaah, saahib, aap to musallimus suboot ustaad ban ga'ye haiN
> :)) kyaa dhuvaaN-dhaar "critique" kee hai! mazaa aa gayaa paRh kar:
>
> Allah kare zaur e raqam aur ziyaada!
>
> >
> > > 4.
> > > maiN saari 'umr manaataa raha tujhe, sang_dil!
> > > ba_waqt-e-marg to aa jaa mujhe manaane ko
> >
> > lafz-e-"sang_dil" kaa saheeh wazn kyaa hai? aap ne ise "sag_dil"
> > tasawwur kiyaa hai, lekin Ghalib ke mash_hoor sh'er
> >
> > vafaa kaisii? kahaaN kaa 'ishq? jab sar phoRnaa Thaihraa
> > to phir ai *sang_dil* teraa hi sang-e-aastaaN kyooN ho
> >
> > se ma'aloom hotaa hai k is lafz ke saheeh talaffuz digar haiN.
>
> Ghalib kaa ye "mash'oor" she'er bhee nazar meN rakhiye:
>
> maiN ne MajnooN pe laRakpan meN 'Asad'
> "sang" uThaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa!
>
> niaaz-mand,
>
> pbg
dosto: aadaab!
aaj kal bavujooh internet tak meree rasaa'ee meHdood hai. lekin moqa'
dekh kar ziyaarat ke liye idhar aa hee nikaltaa hooN. yeh dilchasp
beHs dekh kar kuChh kehne ko jee chaaha. chooN.k yeh aik aroozee beHs
hai maiN sirf tekneekee ma'roozaat hee pesh karooN gaa aur doosre
asHaab.e.fun ke moqif se ko'ee ta'arruz naheeN karooN gaa. iss beHs
meiN do baateN yaad rakhne kee haiN:
(1) taqtee' meiN noon.e.Ghunna kee aavaaz to sunaayee detee hai lekin
us ko kisee rukn se naheeN navaazaa jaataa hai. goyaa jis tarah :dhar:
(=rakh) aur :dar: (=darwaaza) aik hee vazn ke haiN ussee taraH :saNg:
aur :sag: (=kuttaa) bhee ham.vazn haiN!
(2) agar kisee lafz ke shuroo' meiN mutaHarrik alif aaye aur uss se
qabl ke lafz kaa aaKhiree Harf saakin ho to yeh saakin Harf uss
mutaHarrik alif meiN zam (jazb) ho jaataa hai aur donoN muttasil
alfaaz aik hee aavaaz iKhtiyaar kar leter haiN. goyaa :saNg uThhaayaa:
ko :saNguThhaayaa: keh sakte haiN.
ab chand misroN kee taqtee' Haazir hai. ummeed hai k iss se zehn kee
girah khul jaaye gee:
(1) saNg uThhaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa
fa-i-laa-tun fa-i-laa-tun fa-lun
saNg uThhaayaa thaa k sar yaa d aayaa
(2) jo bache haiN saNg sameT lo tan.e.daaGh daaGh luTaa diyaa
mu-ta-faa-i-lun mu-ta-faa-i-lun mu-ta-faa-i-lun
mu-ta-faa-i-lun
jo bache haiN saN g sameT lo tan.e.daaGh daa Gh
luTaa diyaa
(3)jo dekne ko aayaa haathoN meiN saNg laayaa
maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun
jo dekh ne ko aayaa haathoN mein saNg laayaa
(4) tujh saa kahaaN hai bevafaa saNgdil.o.sitam.shi'aar
muf-ta-i-lun mu-faa-i-lun muf-ta-i-lun mu-faa-i-laan
tujh saa kahaaN hai bevafaa saNgdil o sitam shi'aar
(5) aah bulbul kaa voh jamaa raNg
faa-i-laa-tun mu-faa-i-lun fa-l
aah bulbul kaa voh jamaa raNg
(6) to phir ae saNgdil teraa hee saNg.e.aastaaN kyoN ho
mu-faa-ee-lun mu-faa-ee-lu mu-faa-ee-lun mu-faa-ee-lun
to phir ae saN g dil teraa hee saNg.e.aa staaN kyoN ho
agar koee Ghalatee reh gayee hai to aaaah kareN. shukriya!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
paabagil
> beautiful woman the other day. We were talking about my "ramblings" on
> the Internet, and I happened to mention "a Zafar Saahib" jo k, meri
> nigaah meiN, aek paRhe likkhe insaan haiN aur, is liye, voh mujhe
> be-had azeez haiN. yeh sun kar, voh saahiba (apni maKhsoos
> ma'asoomiyat ke aNdaaz meiN) boleeN k "kyaa aap shaihanshaah-e-Hind
> Bahaadur Shaah Zafar ki baat kar rahe haiN"? yeh sun kar, maiN ne arz
> kiyaa k "bhaabhi ji, naheeN, maiN un shaihanshaah-e-Hind ki baat
> naheeN kar rahaa, maiN to aaj kal ke shaihanshaah-e-Paakistaan ki baat
> kar rahaa hooN!"
sarkaar e dil shikaar:
go k hai kis kis Kharaabee se, vale, baa EEN hama
zikr meraa mujh se behtar hai k us mehfil meN hai!
:)
vaise is baat se aik andaaza hotaa hai k vo muhtarima aap ko kis daur
se muta'aliq samajh rahee theeN. LOLOLOL!
aap ne paRhe-likhe hone/na hone kee baat kee hai, is par maiN kyaa arz
karooN. yehee ho saktaa hai k mere paas fil-vaqt jo 7 adad misaaleN
haiN, vo qalam-band na karooN. chunaaNche "sang" par sirf apne
pasandeeda she'er se behs kaa Khaatima kartaa hooN:
dil se mire lagaa na tiraa dil, hazaar haif
ye sheesha aik umr se mushtaaq e sang thaa
aur haaN huzoor, aap kaa itnaa sur'at angaiz javaab dekh kar maiN to
varta e hairat meN paR gayaa. maiN to aaj ye Ghazal "arz" karne vaalaa
hee thaa:
ham ne bhejaa jo kabhee yaar ko likh kar kaaGhaz
gayaa barbaad hee maanind e kabootar kaaGhaz
kyaa karooN yooN to too paRhtaa hee naheeN Khat meraa
haaN magar likh ke lagaa dooN tire dar par kaaGhaz
naama qaasid ne diyaa us ko jo meraa to kahaa
"aise rehte haiN paRe raah meN aksar kaaGhaz"
yooN patangoN maiN lagaa detaa hai too taao ke taao
Khat hee likhne ko naheeN tujh ko muyassar kaaGhaz
LOL,
pbg
Amit Malhotra
chhoTaa munh aur baRii baat, magar kuchh savaal aa rahein hain aapkii post
paR kar, so puuchh rahaa huu.N:
>
> (1) saNg uThhaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa
>
> fa-i-laa-tun fa-i-laa-tun fa-lun
> saNg uThhaayaa thaa k sar yaa d aayaa
>
is kaa aakhiri "fa-lun" "d-aayaa" kaise ban gayaa?? "aayaa" mein to do
lambii aavazein hain! did I miss something? Please help me understand this
one.
>
> (3)jo dekne ko aayaa haathoN meiN saNg laayaa
>
> maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun
> jo dekh ne ko aayaa haathoN mein saNg laayaa
>
is mein bhi ek baat samajh nahin aaii:
the second "maf-ool" should be "haa-thoN-mein" ... shouldn't it?? the sounds
of maf-ool should be in my understanding: 2-2-1 (maf-oo-l) and haatho.N
becomes only 2-2 ....
hopefully there is nothing wrong with the way i understand things.. please
clear up my misunderstandings.
Thanks & Regards
Amit Malhotra
Sarwar Alam Raz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amit saaheb: namaste!
yaad karne kaa shukriya. javaab de rahaa hooN. maiN aur dekh looN gaa
aur agar kuChh mere javaab se muKhtalif nazar aayaa to darj kar dooN
gaa. yaad rahe k maiN arooz kaa taalib.e.ilm hooN, maahir naheeN hooN.
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Aadab arz hai Sarwar sahib,
>
> chhoTaa munh aur baRii baat, magar kuchh savaal aa rahein hain aapkii post
> paR kar, so puuchh rahaa huu.N:
>
> > (1) saNg uThhaayaa thaa k sar yaad aayaa
> >
> > fa-i-laa-tun fa-i-laa-tun fa-lun
> > saNg uThhaayaa thaa k sar yaa d aayaa
> >
> is kaa aakhiri "fa-lun" "d-aayaa" kaise ban gayaa?? "aayaa" mein to do
> lambii aavazein hain! did I miss something? Please help me understand this
> one.
yahaaN :d: :aayaa: meiN jazb ho gayaa hai. iss kee taqtee' meiN bilkul
ijaazat hai. iss taraH aap yahaaN taqtee' karte hue :daayaa: paRheN ge
aur do aavaazeN hee adaa kareN ge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > (3)jo dekne ko aayaa haathoN meiN saNg laayaa
> >
> > maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun
> > jo dekh ne ko aayaa haathoN mein saNg laayaa
> >
>
> is mein bhi ek baat samajh nahin aaii:
> the second "maf-ool" should be "haa-thoN-mein" ... shouldn't it?? the sounds
> of maf-ool should be in my understanding: 2-2-1 (maf-oo-l) and haatho.N
> becomes only 2-2 ....
> hopefully there is nothing wrong with the way i understand things.. please
> clear up my misunderstandings.
jis taraH pehle maf-ool meiN do aavaazeN haiN (yaad rakhiye k :dekh:
ko :dek: ke vazn per taqtee' kiyaa jaayegaa aur chooN.k :dek: kaa
aaKhiree :kaaf: saakin hai uss ko taqtee' meiN naheeN shumaar kiyaa
jaaye gaa) issee taraH doosraa maf-ool bhee do aavaazoN se mushakkal
hai (haa and thoN with noon.e.Ghunna ignored).
------------------------------------------------------------------
aik arz hai k aap kabhee yeh na socheN k aap kaa yaa kisee kaa bhee
ko'ee savaal :ChhoTaa munh aur baRee baat: hogaa. ham sab yahaaN aik
doosre se seekh rahe haiN aur yeh aik baRee baat hai. aap kee muHabbat
kaa shukriya.
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UVR
> "Amit Malhotra" <am...@zonecom.com> wrote in message news:<cSed9.8678$KK.2...@weber.videotron.net>...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun
> > > jo dekh ne ko aayaa haathoN mein saNg laayaa
> > >
> >
> > is mein bhi ek baat samajh nahin aaii:
> > the second "maf-ool" should be "haa-thoN-mein" ... shouldn't it?? the
> > sounds of maf-ool should be in my understanding: 2-2-1 (maf-oo-l) and
> > haatho.N becomes only 2-2 ....
> > hopefully there is nothing wrong with the way i understand things.. please
> > clear up my misunderstandings.
>
> jis taraH pehle maf-ool meiN do aavaazeN haiN (yaad rakhiye k :dekh:
> ko :dek: ke vazn per taqtee' kiyaa jaayegaa aur chooN.k :dek: kaa
> aaKhiree :kaaf: saakin hai uss ko taqtee' meiN naheeN shumaar kiyaa
> jaaye gaa) issee taraH doosraa maf-ool bhee do aavaazoN se mushakkal
> hai (haa and thoN with noon.e.Ghunna ignored).
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> aik arz hai k aap kabhee yeh na socheN k aap kaa yaa kisee kaa bhee
> ko'ee savaal :ChhoTaa munh aur baRee baat: hogaa. ham sab yahaaN aik
> doosre se seekh rahe haiN aur yeh aik baRee baat hai. aap kee muHabbat
> kaa shukriya.
Sarwar saahib, aadaab.
yaqeen jaaniye k SIRF aap ki is baat se, k yahaaN koi bhi baat "small
mouth big talk" :)) naheeN ho sakti, maiN bhi -- Darte Darte -- apnaa
"choTaa"-saa muNh kholne kii himaakat kar rahaa hooN.
janaab-e-mukarrami, 'arz yeh hai k mere haqeer Khayaal meN Malhotra
saahib ne jo aiteraaz "maf-ool #2" kii taqtee' par kiyaa hai, sad
fee-sad saheeh hai. meri naaqis raaye meN, mazkoorah misr'a yooN
"split" kiyaa jaana chaahiye:
maf-'oo-l(u) faa-i-laa-tun maf-'oo-l(u) faa-i-laa-tun
2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
jo de kh(u) ne ko aa yaa haa thoN meN san-g(u)laa yaa
[AFAIK, yeh wahi behr hai jis meN Allama Iqbal ne apni mash_hoor-o
maqbool nazm "saare jahaaN se achchhaa" kahi hai.]
qaabil-e-Ghaur baat yeh hai k yahaaN "dekh" lafz ka 'wazn' 2-1 hai,
ain usii tarah jis tarah Faiz Ahmed Faiz kii is Ghazal meN hai --
raaz-e-ulfat chhupaa ke dekh liyaa
dil bahut kuchh jalaa ke dekh liyaa
na k Jigar Moradabadi ki is Ghazal ki tarah, jahaaN "dekh" kaa wazn
sirf "2" (as if it were simply 'de') hai --
ishq fanaa kaa naam hai, ishq meN zindagii na dekh
jalwa-e-aaftaab ban, zarre meN roshni na dekh
In the latter case, "dekh" kaa saakin "kh" misr'e ki taqtee' meN
shaamil naheeN kiyaa jaanaa chaahiye. BUT, in the former case, the
"kh" is very much elucidated AND must be explicitly included in the
length of the misr'a.
ek aur baat, is "thread" meN lafz-e-'sang' ke istemaal kii jitni bhi
misaaleN ab tak pesh kii gayii haiN, sab kii sab, bilaa 'exception,'
is baat kaa mudallal suboot (=convincing proof) detii haiN k lafz-e
"sang" wazn meN "saag" ke baraabar kaa hai, na k "sag" ke baraabar
kaa.
[And, may it be noted that the pun on "saag" and "sag" is VERY MUCH
intended: I have heard that Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who wrote a critical
poem about dogs (=sag), was inordinately fond of "makki di roTi te
sarsoN da saag!" :))]
mKhls,
-UVR.
PS: On the topic of taqtee', I want to mention something that I have
'felt' for a long time, but which I have refrained, thus far, from
stating explicitly (for various reasons, which we needn't go into):
All these rules and techiques of taqtee' are completely dependent
upon and subordinate to the correct pronunciation of the words as
they must be enunciated *within the context of the relevant sh'er*.
When one wants to "scan" a misra, therefore, it is VERY important,
as a first step, to try to SAY the misr'a aloud to oneself -- as if
one were reading a nursery rhyme to a child: slowly, deliberately
and clearly enunciating each and every word. It will be observed
that 99% of the time, reading the sh'er aloud to oneself in this
fashion will itself reveal the correct metric distribution in the
sh'er. It will, of course, not tell you the name of the behr, but,
to be honest, I have noticed that the NAME of the behr is amongst
the least important aspects of a Ghazal (and, yes, I do say this
after conducting the second episode of "abhi Ghazal jawaan hai" :)).
Amit Malhotra
> sarw...@yahoo.com (Sarwar Alam Raz) wrote in message news:<267193df.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Amit Malhotra" <am...@zonecom.com> wrote in message news:<cSed9.8678$KK.2...@weber.videotron.net>...
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > (3)jo dekne ko aayaa haathoN meiN saNg laayaa
> > > >
> > > > maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun
> > > > jo dekh ne ko aayaa haathoN mein saNg laayaa
> > > >
> > >
> > > is mein bhi ek baat samajh nahin aaii:
> > > the second "maf-ool" should be "haa-thoN-mein" ... shouldn't it?? the
> > > sounds of maf-ool should be in my understanding: 2-2-1 (maf-oo-l) and
> > > haatho.N becomes only 2-2 ....
> > > hopefully there is nothing wrong with the way i understand things.. please
> > > clear up my misunderstandings.
> >
> > jis taraH pehle maf-ool meiN do aavaazeN haiN (yaad rakhiye k :dekh:
> > ko :dek: ke vazn per taqtee' kiyaa jaayegaa aur chooN.k :dek: kaa
> > aaKhiree :kaaf: saakin hai uss ko taqtee' meiN naheeN shumaar kiyaa
> > jaaye gaa) issee taraH doosraa maf-ool bhee do aavaazoN se mushakkal
> > hai (haa and thoN with noon.e.Ghunna ignored).
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> janaab-e-mukarrami, 'arz yeh hai k mere haqeer Khayaal meN Malhotra
> saahib ne jo aiteraaz "maf-ool #2" kii taqtee' par kiyaa hai, sad
> fee-sad saheeh hai. meri naaqis raaye meN, mazkoorah misr'a yooN
> "split" kiyaa jaana chaahiye:
>
> maf-'oo-l(u) faa-i-laa-tun maf-'oo-l(u) faa-i-laa-tun
> 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
> jo de kh(u) ne ko aa yaa haa thoN meN san-g(u)laa yaa
>
> [AFAIK, yeh wahi behr hai jis meN Allama Iqbal ne apni mash_hoor-o
> maqbool nazm "saare jahaaN se achchhaa" kahi hai.]
>
> qaabil-e-Ghaur baat yeh hai k yahaaN "dekh" lafz ka 'wazn' 2-1 hai,
> ain usii tarah jis tarah Faiz Ahmed Faiz kii is Ghazal meN hai --
> raaz-e-ulfat chhupaa ke dekh liyaa
> dil bahut kuchh jalaa ke dekh liyaa
>
bas yahii soch kar hamne "maf'ool" number 1 par koi aiteraaz nahin
kiyaa thaa, kyo.N ki hamaare khayaal se vaahan par "dekh" ka vazn 2-1
hi thaa ... or jis tarah se UVR sahib ne misre ka breakdown kiyaa hai,
us tarah se ye baat zaahir ho jaatii hai......
vaise "sang" lafz mein "nuun-e-ghunna" to nahin aataa, isn't normal
"nuun" used in the word "sang" ???
now one thing needs to be cleared up for me though, can "dekh" be used
with a vazn of 2 ?? in the example UVR sahib gave, "dekh" is at the
end of the misra and that is the reason why the "kh" sound is being
dropped .. in the middle of the misra, is "dekh" ever ever used as
"dek" like Sarwar sahib said?
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
p.s. UVR sahib, thanks for supporting my theory on this one....
Sarwar Alam Raz
> > "Amit Malhotra" <am...@zonecom.com> wrote in message news:<cSed9.8678$KK.2...@weber.videotron.net>...
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > (3)jo dekne ko aayaa haathoN meiN saNg laayaa
> > > >
> > > > maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun maf-ool faa-i-laa-tun
> > > > jo dekh ne ko aayaa haathoN mein saNg laayaa
> saahib ne jo aiteraaz "maf-ool #2" kii taqtee' par kiyaa hai, sad
> fee-sad saheeh hai. meri naaqis raaye meN, mazkoorah misr'a yooN
> "split" kiyaa jaana chaahiye:
>
> maf-'oo-l(u) faa-i-laa-tun maf-'oo-l(u) faa-i-laa-tun
> 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
> jo de kh(u) ne ko aa yaa haa thoN meN san-g(u)laa yaa
UVR saaheb aadaab!
tasHeeH kaa shukriya. yeh meree kotaahee thee. mafool kee laam per
pesh honee chaahiye jaisaa k aap ne likhaa hai. iss kee tasdeeq maiN
ne arooz kee kitaaboN se kar lee hai. aap kaa mamnoon hooN.
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
UVR
>
> vaise "sang" lafz mein "nuun-e-ghunna" to nahin aataa, isn't normal
> "nuun" used in the word "sang" ???
You are absolutely right, Amit saahib. jahaaN tak mujhe ma'aloom
hai, "sang" meN 'normal' nuun hii aataa hai, na k 'nuun-e-Ghunna'.
In other words, the nuun of "sang" is NOT the nuun of words like
"baNT", "chhaNT" or "aaNkh". Rather, it is the nuun of "andaaz",
"zanjeer" and "zindagi".
BTW, Amit-ji, is "sang" meiN agar aap "siin" haTaa kar us kii
jagah "re" lagaa deN, to jaante haiN kaunsaa lafz paidaa hotaa
hai? "rang"!!! :)) Remember?
> now one thing needs to be cleared up for me though, can "dekh" be used
> with a vazn of 2 ?? in the example UVR sahib gave, "dekh" is at the
> end of the misra and that is the reason why the "kh" sound is being
> dropped .. in the middle of the misra, is "dekh" ever ever used as
> "dek" like Sarwar sahib said?
Theoretically, it can very much be used. I cannot recall any
examples of such use [perhaps other ALUPers -- Zaf-ji? -- can
provide some instances from the poetry of the masters where
this has been done], but theoretically, it is possible to flip
the two halves of each misra in Jigar's sh'er below to arrive at:
ishq meN zindagii na dekh, ishq fanaa kaa naam hai
zarre meN raushnii na dekh, jalwaa-e-aaftaab ban!
which is, as weird as it may sound, a valid sh'er! Isn't it?
> > na k Jigar Moradabadi ki is Ghazal ki tarah, jahaaN "dekh" kaa wazn
> > sirf "2" (as if it were simply 'de') hai --
> > ishq fanaa kaa naam hai, ishq meN zindagii na dekh
> > jalwa-e-aaftaab ban, zarre meN roshni na dekh
> >
> > In the latter case, "dekh" kaa saakin "kh" misr'e ki taqtee' meN
> > shaamil naheeN kiyaa jaanaa chaahiye. BUT, in the former case, the
> > "kh" is very much elucidated AND must be explicitly included in the
> > length of the misr'a.
-UVR.
Raj Kumar
> > >
> >
>
> "nuun" used in the word "sang" ???
naheeN, aisa naheeN hai, Amit Sahib --- is lafz meiN "noon-Ghunna" hi
aata hai. agar aisa na hota to is lafz ki aavaaz yooN hoti jaise k
lafz "khanak" ki hai --- ya'ani-k, "sanag" --- which definitely is
not the case.
albatta, yeh "noon-Ghunna" be-vazn naheeN hai! goya, is lafz ka vazn
"sag" ke baraabar hargiz naheeN hai, "saag" ya "sog" ke baraabar hai!
aap, is zimn meiN, Mirza Ghaalib ka yeh misra dekhiye:
"to phir, ai saNg-dil!, teraa hi saNg-e-aastaaN kiyooN ho?"
agar aap is misre meiN 'saNg' ko 'sag' se badal deN to kyaa
"to phir, ai sag-dil!, teraa hi sag-e-aastaaN kiyooN ho?"
baihr meiN hoga? --------- saaf zaahir hai k hargiz naheeN hoga!
azeez-e-man, baat yahaaN par vuhi ho rahi hai jo k, chaNd roz pehle,
lafz "raNg" ke saath hui thi! aap ko yaad hoga k aap ne, ALUP
GhazaL[1] vaali qist meiN, aek jagah lafz "raNg" ko "rag" ke vazn par
baaNdhaa tha aur, is baat par, us qist ke munsif saahib ne use Ghalat
qaraar diyaa tha! Remember? :-))
bas, vuhi baat aek baar yahaaN par ho rahi hai --- goya, Aslam Saihbaa
Saahib ne apni ghazal meiN lafz 'saNg' ko 'sag' ke vazn par baaNdhaa
hai, jis par UVR Saahib ne nihaayat ma'aqool eiteraaz kiyaa hai aur
Khaaksaar ne un ke is eiteraaz ki taa'eed ki hai! That is all.
ab isi baat ki mazeed taa'eed UVR Saahib ne apne haaliya Khat meiN ki
hai, jis ka zaroori iqtebaas maNdarja-zail hai.
>
> >
> > ek aur baat, is "thread" meN lafz-e-'sang' ke istemaal kii jitni bhi
> > misaaleN ab tak pesh kii gayii haiN, sab kii sab, bilaa 'exception,'
> > is baat kaa mudallal suboot (=convincing proof) detii haiN k lafz-e
> > "sang" wazn meN "saag" ke baraabar kaa hai, na k "sag" ke baraabar
> > kaa.
ab, jaate jaate, maiN aap ko Khudaa-e-suKhan ka aek "fas-klaas" she'r
sunaata chalooN. farmaate haiN k
mere saNg-e-mazaar par, Farhaad
rakh ke tesha kahe hai, "yaa ustaad"!!!
ab aap ThaNde dil se sochiye k agar yahaaN par "saNg" ki bajaaye "sag"
kahaa jaaye to bhalaa is misre ki sehat-e-vazn ka kyaa haal hoga?
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Amit Malhotra
news:c10928a.02090...@posting.google.com...
> am...@zonecom.com (Amit Malhotra) wrote in message
news:<290e31ff.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > vaise "sang" lafz mein "nuun-e-ghunna" to nahin aataa, isn't normal
> > "nuun" used in the word "sang" ???
>
> naheeN, aisa naheeN hai, Amit Sahib --- is lafz meiN "noon-Ghunna" hi
> aata hai. agar aisa na hota to is lafz ki aavaaz yooN hoti jaise k
> lafz "khanak" ki hai --- ya'ani-k, "sanag" --- which definitely is
> not the case.
>
Respected Raj Kumar Sahib,
you are absolutely correct, the sound in the word is nasalized. I guess i
should have said, its written with "normal noon" that is noon with a dot.
Well in my reply to UVR sahib's post, I pointed this fact out as well.
> albatta, yeh "noon-Ghunna" be-vazn naheeN hai! goya, is lafz ka vazn
> "sag" ke baraabar hargiz naheeN hai, "saag" ya "sog" ke baraabar hai!
>
So I guess the rule of "taqtee' meiN noon-ghunna ko kisee rukn se naheen
navaazaa jaataa...." has exceptions... especially when it comes to words
like "sang" or "rang" ..
> azeez-e-man, baat yahaaN par vuhi ho rahi hai jo k, chaNd roz pehle,
> lafz "raNg" ke saath hui thi! aap ko yaad hoga k aap ne, ALUP
> GhazaL[1] vaali qist meiN, aek jagah lafz "raNg" ko "rag" ke vazn par
> baaNdhaa tha aur, is baat par, us qist ke munsif saahib ne use Ghalat
> qaraar diyaa tha! Remember? :-))
well this whole discussion on "sang" has definitely shown me why my "rang"
was being read "rag" :-)
> ab, jaate jaate, maiN aap ko Khudaa-e-suKhan ka aek "fas-klaas" she'r
> sunaata chalooN. farmaate haiN k
>
> mere saNg-e-mazaar par, Farhaad
> rakh ke tesha kahe hai, "yaa ustaad"!!!
>
waah!!! Sh'er bahut khuubsuurat hai.... and you are right, "saNg" has a 2-1
vazn here and should not be equated to "sag" in terms of vazn.
I am learning :-)
Warm Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Amit Malhotra
news:9c085b63.02090...@posting.google.com...
> am...@zonecom.com (Amit Malhotra) wrote in message
news:<290e31ff.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > vaise "sang" lafz mein "nuun-e-ghunna" to nahin aataa, isn't normal
> > "nuun" used in the word "sang" ???
>
> You are absolutely right, Amit saahib. jahaaN tak mujhe ma'aloom
> hai, "sang" meN 'normal' nuun hii aataa hai, na k 'nuun-e-Ghunna'.
> In other words, the nuun of "sang" is NOT the nuun of words like
> "baNT", "chhaNT" or "aaNkh". Rather, it is the nuun of "andaaz",
> "zanjeer" and "zindagi".
>
ab aap ne RK sahib kii post to dekh hi li hogi jo ki unhone hamarii post ke
javaab mein dii hai.. unkaa kahnaa hai ki 'sang' mein "aavaaz" nuun-ghunna
ki hi hai.... magar hamne to hamesha 'sang' ko "normal" nuun ke saath hi
likhaa huaa dekhaa hai. One thing is for sure, the sound is definitely
nasalized, but I don't recall seeing it written with Noon-Ghunna.. but then
again, i have only been reading urdu since 4-5 months... But Raj Kumar sahib
has a point, if it was NOT a nasalized sound, then we would pronounce it
"sanag" which is obviously not the case.
So i checked my two "luGhat" (Platts and Haq), looked up the sh'er (vafaa
kaisii kahaaN ka ishq...) in my book "Love Sonnets of Ghalib" and read it in
Urdu script... and then i got my hands on this book: "Spoken Urdu" by
Muhammad Abd Al-Rahman Barker. He says: "Nasalization within the word is
commonly written with nuun (that is nuun with the "dot") which gives rise to
ambiguity [...]"
All this to say.. yes, likhne mein "sang" mein normal nuun hi aataa hai, but
its nasalized and does the job of a nuun-ghunna. And of course, just like
"rang" , its vazn is also 2-1 (which as you pointed out in your post was
proven by Sarwar sahib as well, even though he intended to show that "sang"
can be used as "sag").
> BTW, Amit-ji, is "sang" meiN agar aap "siin" haTaa kar us kii
> jagah "re" lagaa deN, to jaante haiN kaunsaa lafz paidaa hotaa
> hai? "rang"!!! :)) Remember?
>
Oh I remember :-) RK sahib also pointed it out...
> > now one thing needs to be cleared up for me though, can "dekh" be used
> > with a vazn of 2 ?? in the example UVR sahib gave, "dekh" is at the
> > end of the misra and that is the reason why the "kh" sound is being
> > dropped .. in the middle of the misra, is "dekh" ever ever used as
> > "dek" like Sarwar sahib said?
>
> Theoretically, it can very much be used. I cannot recall any
> examples of such use [perhaps other ALUPers -- Zaf-ji? -- can
> provide some instances from the poetry of the masters where
> this has been done], but theoretically, it is possible to flip
> the two halves of each misra in Jigar's sh'er below to arrive at:
>
> ishq meN zindagii na dekh, ishq fanaa kaa naam hai
> zarre meN raushnii na dekh, jalwaa-e-aaftaab ban!
>
> which is, as weird as it may sound, a valid sh'er! Isn't it?
>
it certainly seems like one (but I'm just a beginner in judging the metrical
structure of a sh'er)...
I hope also that someone can give me more examples of a sh'er which uses
"dekh" in a way that Sarwar sahib said.
Best Regards,
Amit Malhotra
UVR
> am...@zonecom.com (Amit Malhotra) wrote in message news:<290e31ff.02090...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>vaise "sang" lafz mein "nuun-e-ghunna" to nahin aataa, isn't normal
>>"nuun" used in the word "sang" ???
>
>
> naheeN, aisa naheeN hai, Amit Sahib --- is lafz meiN "noon-Ghunna" hi
> aata hai. agar aisa na hota to is lafz ki aavaaz yooN hoti jaise k
> lafz "khanak" ki hai --- ya'ani-k, "sanag" --- which definitely is
> not the case.
>
> albatta, yeh "noon-Ghunna" be-vazn naheeN hai! goya, is lafz ka vazn
> "sag" ke baraabar hargiz naheeN hai, "saag" ya "sog" ke baraabar hai!
VERY INTERESTING! So, this means that what I have been considering
as the "noon-Ghunna" all along is totally incorrect!
I have always been under the impression that "nuun-Ghunna" refers
ONLY to the pure, nasalized sound evident in words like "aaNkh",
"daaNt", "yahaaN", "naheeN", etc, and not to the clearly enunciated,
ALBEIT half-weight, consonant "n" in words like "andar", "andaaz",
"Khanjar", "manzil" [or "Ravindra" :)], or even in "minbar",
"inbisaat", "junbish" etc. I have always thought that the 'n' in
all these words is the same 'n', just a half-nuun, akin to the
half "he" in words like "shahr, zahr", the half-Khe in "laKht,
saKht", the half-siin in "dast, sastaa" or the half-shiin in "musht,
rashk" etc.
So, my question now comes is -- What *is* the nuun-e-Ghunna, really?
Is it only the pure-nasal 'nuun', or is any and every half-nuun sound
of Urdu called "nuun-e-Ghunna". Or is it something in-between (and,
if so, what)?
-UVR.
Roshan Kamath
>
> So I guess the rule of "taqtee' meiN noon-ghunna ko kisee rukn se naheen
> navaazaa jaataa...." has exceptions... especially when it comes to words
> like "sang" or "rang" ..
Another way to look at it could be as follows. The "nuun-ghunna" in
urdU is overloaded to represent two functions of nasalization:
a. Process of pure nasalization.
b. Process of anusvar (borrowing terminology from sanskrit).
For case a., the vazn is ALWAYS 0.
For case b., the vazn is equivalent to a :sAkin:. This is because the
anusvar is always replaced by a :sAkin: consonant. (Exactly which
consonant to use is determined by the sound group of the following
consonant).
The trick, ofcourse, is to know in which word it is a pure nasal and
in which word it is not!! :)
Sometimes, it helps to know how the word is spelt in the devnagari
script. The pure nasal uses, what we call in marathi, a
"chandra-binduu" while the anusvar case uses only a "binduu". In
transliteration, I use the ".n" for a pure nasal, and the ".N" for
anusvar.
Thus, using L for long and S for short, we have, pa.NkH (LS), sa.Njay
(LL), sa.Nt [=sant] (LS), ba.NbU [=bambU] (LL), pa.NDit [=paNDiT] (LL)
etc. due to the anusvar.
On the other hand, we have, bHa.nvar (SL), sa.nvar (SL), ga.nvAr
(SLS), sa.nbHal (SL), kHa.nDar (SL) etc. due to the pure nasal.
As I said before, it helps to know in which cases it is a pure nasal.
Listening to people whose pronunication is "pure" may also help in
such cases.
Ofcourse, I have seen incorrect spellings in devnagarii too ... so one
cannot take those spellings as definitive. For instance, I see many
write :sambHal: (LL) in devnagarii instead of :sa.nbHal: (SL).
But in general, the pure nasalization of short vowels is rare in urdU.
So, except for certain words (similar to those above), a nuun
following a short vowel is almost always an anusvar.
my pi cents,
roshan
Roshan Kamath
>
> So, my question now comes is -- What *is* the nuun-e-Ghunna, really?
> Is it only the pure-nasal 'nuun', or is any and every half-nuun sound
> of Urdu called "nuun-e-Ghunna". Or is it something in-between (and,
> if so, what)?
Dear UVR Sahib,
I have always taken the "nuun ghunna" to mean the usage of a "nuun"
which does not stand for itself; ie. one that does not stand for the
consonant :n:. While this might not be the original techinical import
of the term, I find that it is a very convenient way of looking at it
...
regards,
rosh
UVR
Thanks for the input, Roshan saahib. I'm sure your system works.
I have one of my own, and it works, too. But the question is not
one of 'convenient ways' of looking at a 'nuun'. The question,
plain and simple is -- "what is the nuun-e-Ghunna?" (and the rest
of it, as stated in my original, doubly-quoted, text above).
I am surprised that none of our learned ALUPers has answered this
question. I can only attribute it to the fact that, somehow, they
missed this post. I'm re-"subject"-izing (to coin a word) it in
the hopes that they will find it worth their while to dispel the
dark smoke of ignorance clouding my brain.
-UVR.
Sarwar Alam Raz
> Roshan Kamath wrote:
> > UVR <u...@usa.not> wrote in message news:<3D7839B2...@usa.not>...
> question. I can only attribute it to the fact that, somehow, they
> missed this post. I'm re-"subject"-izing (to coin a word) it in
> the hopes that they will find it worth their while to dispel the
> dark smoke of ignorance clouding my brain.
>
> -UVR.
Roshan aur Ravindra saahebaan: aadaab!
While I certainly can not claim to be one of the :learned: alupers, I
am looking into the matter as best I can. It may take a while but I
will post my take within a reasonable time. Thanks for this :shosha:!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
paabagil
janaab e Ravindra saahib:
aap ne sirf "learned ALUPers" ko "da'avat e suKhan" de kar ham jaise
"back-benchers" ko mushkil meN Daal diyaa hai, lekin abhee tak kisee
buzurg ne rad e amal zaahir naheeN kiyaa, so maiN samajhtaa hooN k:
qura' e faal banaam e man e deevaana zadand! :) neez ;)
Khair, is gutthee ko suljhaane kee Khaatir meree naacheez kaavish
haazir hai, to mulaahiza farmaa'iye:
noon Ghunna kee ta'areef to aap pehle hee bayaan farmaa chuke haiN,
ya'anee "nasalized noon". yaa vo noon jo zabaan se pooree tarah naheeN
bolaa jaataa balke naak se adaa kiyaa jaataa hai. Barr
e SaGheer e Hind o Pak kee taqreeban tamaam zabaanoN meN noon Ghunna
maujood hai aur yehee haal qadeem Farsi kaa bhee hai. Farsi to Khair
Sanskrit hee kee sagee behen hai, lekin Hind kee non-Aryan zabaanoN,
mas'alan Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi, Pashto, Tamil, Malayalam (vaazih rahe k
ye tamaam zabaaneN Dravidian haiN -- contrary to popular belief, which
brackets Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi and Pashto as Indo-Aryan) meN noon Ghunna
'aam hai. albata Arabi kaa mu'aamila doosraa hai, vahaaN noon Ghunna
kaa door door tak naam o nishaan naheeN hai.
ab maze kee baat suniye k Farsi meN noon Ghunna us tarah "hargiz"
naheeN bolaa jaataa jaise ham-aap Urdu alfaaz meN bolte haiN! misaal
ke taur par "jaaN, KhooN, makaaN" vaGhaira ko Irani -- aur
"Farsi-baan" Afghani -- "jun", "Khun, "makun" boleN ge!!! goyaa noon
Ghunna ke baGhair!!! (jahaaN tak mujhe ma'aloom hai, qadeem Farsi --
Austaai -- meN noon Ghunna zaroor maujood thaa, lekin ho saktaa hai
Arabi ke zair e asar ahl e Faras ne ise apne yahaaN se nikaal diyaa
thaa ho! va-Allahu a'alam)
mujhe ma'aloom hai k aap ke savaal kaa ziyaada zaur 'urooz kee taraf
hai. to is silsile meN seedhaa seedha "rule of thumb" hai k noon
Ghunna -- "by default" -- taqtee' meN naheeN aataa. jaise ye she'er
aankheN to kaheeN theeN, dil e Gham-deeda kaheeN thaa
ko taqtee' meN yooN likhaa jaa'ye gaa:
"aakhe" to "kahee" "thee", dil e Gham-deeda "kahee" thaa
mazeed misaaleN dene kee zaroorat naheeN hai kyoN k aap achchhee tarah
is kuliye se vaaqif haiN.
noon mu'allan:
ab aap poochheN ge k us "kam-baKht" lafz "sang" meN kyaa hai, jo
taqtee' meN aataa hai (jaisaa k pichhlee aik laRee meN hamaare pyaare
Shri Raj Kumar ji ne saabit kiyaa thaa)? to arz ye hai k is "qumaash"
ke alfaaz -- jaise "rang", "jang", "angusht" vaGhaira -- meN nooN
Ghunna sire se hai hee naheeN! yahaaN jo noon hai use "noon mu'allan"
kahaa jaataa hai. noon Ghunna ke bar'aks noon mu'allan taqtee' meN
aataa hai, jaise:
"ab sang madaavaa hai is aashufta saree kaa", ko taqtee' meN "ab "sag"
madaavaa hai is aashufta saree kaa" hargiz naheeN likh sakte.
lekin ye yaad rahe k ka'yee milte julte Farsi alfaaz meN noon Ghunna
hai, mu'allan naheeN, jaise "baang". aap dekh sakte haiN k darj e zail
she'er (mazedaar she'er, I must say :) meN chooN k noon taqtee' meN
gir rahaa hai, is liye saabit huvaa k ye noon mu'allan naheeN hai,
balke noon Ghunna hai:
vasl e mehboob kisee raat jo hotaa hai naseeb
shaam se "baang" Khuroosaan*e sahar dete haiN! (*Khuroos = murGha)
<!--
Urdu kee tareeKh meN noon Ghunna par baree jangeN laRee ga'yee haiN.
Khaas taur par "elaan e noon" aur "iKhfaa e noon" ke mas'ale par. jin
alfaaz o taraakeeb meN noon pooraa bolaa jaataa hai, kahaa jaataa hai
k un meN elaan e noon huvaa hai, jaise:
naaf e "zameen" hai na k naaf e Ghazaal hai
par yaar logoN (read Hasrat Mohani :) ne etiraaz kiyaa k "zameen" meN
elaan e noon naheeN honaa chaahiye thaa; Ghalib ne Ghalatee kee hai.
is ke bar'aks, Ghalib kaa ye misra dekhiye:
bas k doRe hai rag e taak meN KhooN ho ho kar
par Nazm Tabatabai ne etriaaz kiyaa hai k "KhooN" meN "iKhfaa e noon"
hai; Ghalib ne Ghalatee kee hai!!!
maiN is behs kee tafseel meN naheeN jaa saktaa kyoN k ye hamaare
mauzoo' se thoRaa haT ke hai.
--!>
to janaab e Ravindra, mere paas kehne ko yehee kuchh thaa. ma'aloom
naheeN is se aap kee tashaffee huvee yaa naheeN. bahar haal, raat
bahut ho ga'yee hai, is liye maiN to chalaa!
shubh raatree :)
pbg
Amit Malhotra
ALUP being a public forum, I thought i'd join in the discussion as well.
First of all, thank you very much for this very informative email on
nuun-e-Ghunna. I learnt something new from this one today... (noon mu'allan
for ex.). I have been following up all the discussions on ALUP, and that
includes this "nuun-e-Ghunna" one as I was very intrigued by the questions
posted by UVR sahib. The only reason I'm writing this letter is when I saw
something that kinda "bugged" me in your email and its not about nuun, its
about :
> maujood hai aur yehee haal qadeem Farsi kaa bhee hai. Farsi to Khair
> Sanskrit hee kee sagee behen hai, lekin Hind kee non-Aryan zabaanoN,
> mas'alan Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi, Pashto, Tamil, Malayalam (vaazih rahe k
> ye tamaam zabaaneN Dravidian haiN -- contrary to popular belief, which
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\//\
> brackets Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi and Pashto as Indo-Aryan) meN noon Ghunna
yup, the underlined matter. Now this is extremely interesting. What
exactly are your basis for such "conclusion" or "assumption". Not only does
contrary belief says that Hindi and Punjabi are langagues that are under
Indo-Aryan, but its quite evident that these languages are heavily related
to Sanskrit. Not only through script (in case of Hindi) but also in terms
of vocabulary. One can also argue that Farsee is not as close to Sanskrit
as you said ("Sagee Behen"?). Hindi is much cloaser to Sanskrit than Farsee
is and you called it a "Non-Aryan zabaan" .. i completely disagree (this is
my personal opinion, somewhat based on things i have learnt and somewhat on
my own personal deductions). Tamil on the other hand is a dravidian
language and does not come under Indo-Aryan family of languages. I am no
linguist, but I have read a bit on these languages, a bit due to personal
interest and a bit because of the Sanskrit and other language courses that I
took during my sejour in University.
Please do tell me what sources you have used to come to this, like i said,
"conclusion" or "assumption". :-)
Best Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Roshan Kamath
<snip>
Wow, Zafar Sahib, Adab! Your very informative mail also had the
pleasant inadvertant side-effect of addressing some questions that I
had raised some days ago on ALUP; particularly concerning: (i) The
terminal vowel nasalization of nouns borrowed from fArsI; and (ii) The
issue of `aelAn-e nUn and iKhfA-e nUn. I'm forever indebted!
I can finally put to rest some discomfort of mine related to
inconsistent (rather incomplete) knowledge of my understanding of
fArsI noun usage (specifically, nouns like makAn etc. that don't seem
to fit the meter in certain fArsI compositions).
Also, I would really appreciate it (as I'm sure others on ALUP would
too) if you could find time to post your understanding on the issue of
`aelAn-e nUn vs. iKhfA-e nUn at your leisure under a different thread.
I personally am very much curious and interested to get the historical
perspective on this issue.
Thanks much!
rosh
paabagil
janaab Malhotra saahib:
I had become so drowsy last night while finishing off the post that I
forgot to add a line in the end, "References available on request". I
certainly knew I was treading on controversial grounds, but as a
matter of fact, I've come to the conclusion only after a good deal of
work on the matter in question. Actually, while tracing the origins of
Urdu language for a book, I had to go further and farther into the
annals and what I found is that not only Urdu but almost all of the
"native" languages (Urdu, Punjabi, Tamil, etc.) of Indopak were
thriving long before the arrival of the Aryans in 1500 BC! As far as
the question of Sanskrit words in these languages is concerned, many
modern linguists believe that it's actually the other way around,
i.e., "Sanskrit" has borrowed words from the native languages! Not
only this, but many alphabets of Sanskrit are actully native Indian in
origin. For example, all "haaiya" sounds of Sanskrit (like kh, bh, th,
jh, Dh, etc.) are totally alien to any other "Aryan" language ...
whereas these sounds dominate the vocabulary of almost all major
"native" languages of Indopak, and it has been established that these
sounds were present in Indopak atleast 1500 before Aryans appeared at
the scene! This fact alone is sufficient to prove that Sanskrit has
acquired a lot from the Indian languages.
At present, I don't have enough time to go into further details, but I
can provide some bibliography, if so desired. Or, better still, you
can wait for my own book! :))
***************
muhtarim Roshan saahib:
Thanks for the appreciation. Yes, I do have a thing or two to say
about "elaan" or "iKhfaa" e noon, but you'll have to give me a few
days for this.
pbg
Sarwar Alam Raz
Urdu meiN noon.e.Ghunna:
1: ibtidaa'iya
Roshan aur Ravindra saahebaan ne Haal hee meiN Urdu meiN
noon.e.Ghunna per aik dilchasp beHs kaa aaGhaaz kiyaa hai. iss silsile
meiN chand savaalaat saamne aaye haiN. yeh muKhtasar mazmoon issee
Havaale se pesh.e.Khidmat hai. ummeed hai k doosre ahl.e.ilm iss meiN
Hasb.e.zaroorat tarmeem.o.izaafe se mas'ale ke saare pehlu'oN ko
ujaagar karne meiN Hissa leN ge. vaqt aur vasaa'il kee taNgee kee vajh
se zer.e.nazar mazmoon kaa tishna reh jaanaa naa.guzeer hai. qaar'ieen
ke Khayaalaat kee raushnee meiN aa'inda iss meiN izaafa kiyaa jaa
saktaa hai.
Arabee meiN noon.e.Ghunna naheeN hai iss liye yeh kehnaa bilkul saHeeH
hai k Urdu meiN noon.e.Ghunna Farsi se hee aayaa hai. albatta iss kee
iqsaam aur un ke istaimaal ko Farsi ke muravvija usool per qiyaas
karnaa saHeeH naheeN hogaa. aik to Urdu ka'ee sooratoN se muKhtalif
zabaan hai jiss kee sarf.o.naHv (grammar) hee alag hai, doosre Farsi
kee shakl bhee ab iss qadar badal gayee hai k puraanee Farsi paRhe hue
ashaKhaas ko jadeed Farsi samajhne aur paRhne meiN Khaasee mushkil ho
saktee hai. Urdu aik aisee zabaan hai jiss kaa Khameer to maqaamee
zabaanoN aur boliyoN se uThaa hai lekin iss meiN Farsi, Arabee,
Sanskrit aur Turki ke bohat se alfaaz haiN, aur ab English, French
vaGhaira ke chand alfaaz bhee dar aaye haiN. liHaaza Urdu meiN
noon.e.Ghunna ke istaimaal ko bhee iss kee sarf.o.naHv ke tanaazur
meiN hee dekhnaa chaahiye k yehee Haqeeqat.e.Haal kaa taqaaza hai.
iss mazmoon kee tai'yyaree meiN jo tareeq.e.kaar iKhtiyaar kiyaa gayaa
hai voh yooN hai:
(1) asaatiza ke kalaam aur doosree mustanad kitaaboN meiN
noon.e.Ghunnaa ke istaimaaal kee iqsaam kee nishaan.dehee kee gayee
hai.
(2) aise istaimaaloN ko un kee asl shakl aur soorat.e.istaimaal kee
raushnee meiN muKhtalif iqsaam meiN baaNTne kee koshish kee gayee hai.
(3) iss amal ke ba'd munaasib nataa'ij aKhaz kiye gaye haiN.
2: noon.e.Ghunna kee iqsaam:
Urdu meiN noon.e.Ghunna ke istaimaal kee bohat see iqsaam haiN. in ke
mutaa'lie se ma'loom hotaa hai k Urdu ke qavaa'id Farsi aur doosree
zabaanoN ke qavaa'id se alag haiN aur aisaa honaa zarooree bhee hai.
in iqsaam meiN se chand neeche dee jaa rahee haiN:
2.1: aise alfaaz jo maqaamee zabaanoN se liye gaye haiN yaa maqaamee
istaimaal kee buniyaad per Dhaale gaye haiN. in alfaaz meiN :noon: kaa
e'laan kabhee naheeN hotaa hai aur yeh hamesha noon.e.Ghunna se hee
likhe aur bole jaate haiN, maslan:
yahaaN, vahaaN, kaheeN, yaaN, vaaN, hooN, haiN, jahaaN, kahaaN
vaGhaira.
2.2: voh alfaaz jo maqaamee alfaaz kee muKhtalif shakloN meiN
Huroof.e.illat (vowels) ya'nee :alif, vav, ye: lagaa kar noon.e.Ghunna
ke izaafe se banaaye jaate haiN. in alfaaz meiN :noon: kaa e'laan
kabhee naheeN hotaa hai aur yeh hamesha noon.e.Ghunna se hee likhe aur
bole jaate haiN, maslan:
jaa'ooN, khaa'ooN, bataa'eN, dikhaa'eN vaGhaira.
2.3: voh alfaaz jo doosree zabaanoN ke alfaaz meiN Huroof.e.illat aur
noon.e.Ghunna ke izaafe se banaa liye gaye haiN. in alfaaz meiN
:noon: kaa e'laan kabhee naheeN hotaa hai aur yeh hamesha
noon.e.Ghunna se hee likhe aur bole jaate haiN, maslan:
aarzoo'eN, naaloN, raqeeboN, tamanna'eN, bayaabaanoN vaGhaira.
2.4: voh alfaaz jo doosree zabaanoN ke alfaaz kee tabdeel.shuda yaa
bigRee shakl meiN Huroof.e.illat aur noon.e.Ghunna ke izaafe se banaa
liye jaate haiN. in alfaaz meiN :noon: kaa e'laan kabhee naheeN hotaa
hai aur yeh hamesha noon.e.Ghunna se hee likhe aur bole jaate haiN,
maslan:
daaNtoN, paa'oN, jahaazoN vaGhaira
2.5: kuChh alfaaz aise haiN jo ism.e.aam (common nouns) haiN aur apne
tanhaa istaimaal meiN noon ke e'laan aur noon.e.Ghunna ke saath donoN
taraH istaimaal hote haiN, maslan:
aasmaaN: ham kahaaN ke daanaa the, kis hunar meiN yaktaa the
besabab huaa Ghalib, dushman aasmaaN apnaa
(Ghalib)
aasmaan: kyaa taNg ham sitam.zadagaaN kaa jahaan hai
jiss meiN k aik baiza.e.moor aasmaan hai
(Ghalib)
musalmaaN: umr saaree to kaTee ishq.e.butaaN meiN Momin
aaKhiree vaqt meiN kyaa Khaak musalmaaN hoNge (Momin)
musalmaan: kaafir usse banaanaa thaa yeh kyaa kiyaa, buto!
Momin se mil ke tum bhee musalmaan ho gaye
(Momin)
2.6: kuChh ism.e.sifat (adjectives) bhee apnee donoN shakloN meiN
musta'mil haiN k noon kaa e'laan bhee hotaa hai aur noon.e.Ghunna ke
saath bhee aate haiN, maslan:
naadaaN:too hee naadaaN chand kaliyoN per qanaa'at kar gayaa
varna gulshan meiN ilaaj.e.taNgee.e.daamaaN bhee thaa
(Iqbal)
naadaan: uss zamaane ko zaalim aayaa jaan
dil meiN apne zaraa samajh naadaan (Momin)
pareshaan, parehaaN; pashemaan, pashemaaN; unvaan, unvaaN vaGhaira
bhee issee qabeel ke alfaaz haiN.
2.7 aise alfaaz jo noon.e.Ghunna ke iltizaam ke saath hee hamesha
istaimal hote haiN. in meiN noon kaa e'laan kabhee naheeN hotaa hai,
maslan:
charaaGhaaN: dil naheeN varna dikhaata tujh ko daaGhoN kee bahaar
iss charaaGhaaN kaa karooN kyaa, kaar.farmaa jal gayaa
(Ghalib)
gardooN: maiN ne rokaa raat Ghalib ko vagarna dekhte
uss ke sel.e.girya meiN gardooN kaf.e.selaab thaa
(Ghalib)
iss qabeel ke doosre alfaaz sozaaN, naagahaaN, bahaaraaN vaGhaira
haiN.
2.8: agar ko'ee aisaa lafz jiss kaa aaKhiree Harf noon ho kisee aur
Harf ke saath mil kar murakkab lafz kee shakl iKhtiyaar kar le to noon
kaa e'laan naheeN hotaa bal.k noon.e.Ghunna istaimaal hotaa hai,
maslan:
anaaN.geer: huee taaKheer to kuChh baa'is.e.taaKheer bhee thaa
aap aate the magar koee anaaN.geer bhee thaa (Ghalib)
Khasta.jaaN: yeh laash.e.be.kafan Asad.e.Khasta.jaaN kee hai
Haq maGhfarat kare ajab aazaad mard thaa (Ghalib)
bayaabaaN.navard:eHbaab chaara.saazee.e.veHshat na kar sake
zindaaN meiN bhee Khayaal bayaabaaN.navard thaa
(Ghalib)
2.9: izaafat kee soorat meiN noon kee do soorateN hotee haiN. agar
noon aisee izaafat kaa aaKhiree Harf hai to uss kaa e'laan naheeN
hotaa hai aur agar darmiyaanee Harf hotaa hai to iss kaa e'laan
hamesha hotaa hai, maslan:
soz.e.nihaaN:dil miraa soz.e.nihaaN se be.mahaaba jal gayaa
aatish.e.Khaamosh kee maanind goyaa jal gayaa (Ghalib)
Khoon.e.garm:
miree ta'meer meiN muzmir hai ik soorat Kharaabee kee
hayolaa barq.e.Khirman kaa, hai Khoon.e.garm dehqaaN kaa (Ghalib)
2.10: vav.e.atf ke saath jo murakkab alfaaz bante haiN uss kee donon
soorateN musta'mil haiN, ya'nee noon kaa e'laan bhee hotaa hai aur
noon.e.Ghunna bhee istaimaal hotaa hai, maslan:
zameen.o.aasmaaN, kaun.o.makaaN, zamaan.o.makaaN vaGhaira:
isee roz.o.shab meiN ulajh kar na reh jaa
k tere zamaan.o.makaaN aur bhee haiN (Iqbaal)
nasr meiN umooman in alfaaz meiN noon kaa e'laan aam hai maslan :
zabaan.o.bayaan, zameen.o.aasmaan ke qulaabe milaa diye, vaGhaira.
2.11 aise alfaaz jo :desee: haiN aur unke beech meiN noon aatee hai.
aisee jagah yaa to noon.e.Ghunna istaimaal hotaa hai yaa noon kee
aavaaz aatee to hai lekin baRee dheemee aur :subtle: jaise:
eeNT: mat in namaaziyoN ko Khaana.saaz.e.deeN jaano
k aik eeNT kee Khaatir yeh Dhaate haiN ge maseet
(maseet=masjid) (Mir)
raNg: thaa zindigee meiN marg kaa khaTkaa lagaa huaa
uRne se peshtar hee miraa raNg zard thaa
(Ghalib)
3: iKhtitaamiya
iss muKhatasar see teHqeea se ma'loom huaa k Urdu meiN noon.e.Ghunna
ke istaimaal ke kayee tareeqe haiN. jin iqsaam kaa ooper zikr huaa hai
un ke ilaava bhee aur iqsaam hoN gee jin kaa aHaata yahaaN naheeN ho
sakaa hai. aik baat bohat saaf nazar aatee hai k noon.e.Ghunna
hamesha lambe Harf.e.illat (long vowel) ke ba'd hee aataa hai, kabhee
ChhoTe Harf.e.illat (short vowel) ke ba'd istaimaal naheeN hotaa hai.
Farsi meiN noon.e.Ghunaa ka istaimaal aam hai. jadeed Farsi meiN iss
kee ajeeb shakl iKhtiyaar kar lee gayee hai aur iss ke ilaava alfaaz
kee shakl bhee aisee badal dee gayee hai k Allah.o.Akbar. maslan ab
Iran meiN Khaana (=ghar) ko Khoona kehte haiN! noon.e.Ghunaa kee
misaal yooN samajhiye k maiN ne aik Iranee doast ko Sa'dee Shirazi
kaa yeh sher paRh kar sunaaya:
doast aaN baashad k geerad dast.e.doast
dar pareshaaN.Haalee.o.dar maaNdigee
to voh kehne lage k :na na ! yeh iss taraH hai:
doost un baashad k geerad dast.e.doost
dar parinshun.Haalee.o.dar mundigee
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
UVR
>
> aap ne sirf "learned ALUPers" ko "da'avat e suKhan" de kar ham jaise
> "back-benchers" ko mushkil meN Daal diyaa hai, lekin abhee tak kisee
> buzurg ne rad e amal zaahir naheeN kiyaa, so maiN samajhtaa hooN k:
>
> qura' e faal banaam e man e deevaana zadand! :) neez ;)
LOL ... huzoor-e-"paa..gil" bhaa`ii saahib ;) aap chaahe is baat se
kitnaa hii "inkaar-e-sareeh" farmaa leN, hamaare nazdeek to aap ke
"guD-name" :) kaa bhi 'learned ALUPers' kii fehrist meN hi shumaar
hotaa hai. mujhe to is baat kii ummeed hii naheeN, intezaar bhii
thaa k aap is mauzoo' par kuchh kaheNge.
waise, aap bhi baRe *maNjhe hue* khilaaRii ma'aloom hote haiN,
warnaa yeh kahaaN likhaa hai k "back-bencher" lafz "learned" kaa
opposite word hai? ... LOL! pakRe gaye naa, bachchoo!
[<aside> jumla-e-"opposite word" kaa Urdu badal kyaa hai? </aside>]
Khair, aap kaa yeh kahnaa, k:
> noon Ghunna kee ta'areef to aap pehle hee bayaan farmaa chuke haiN,
> ya'anee "nasalized noon". yaa vo noon jo zabaan se pooree tarah naheeN
> bolaa jaataa balke naak se adaa kiyaa jaataa hai. Barr
> e SaGheer e Hind o Pak kee taqreeban tamaam zabaanoN meN noon Ghunna
> maujood hai aur yehee haal qadeem Farsi kaa bhee hai.
> albata Arabi kaa mu'aamila doosraa hai, vahaaN noon Ghunna
> kaa door door tak naam o nishaan naheeN hai.
aur yeh, k:
> noon mu'allan:
> ab aap poochheN ge k us "kam-baKht" lafz "sang" meN kyaa hai, jo
> taqtee' meN aataa hai (jaisaa k pichhlee aik laRee meN hamaare pyaare
> Shri Raj Kumar ji ne saabit kiyaa thaa)? to arz ye hai k is "qumaash"
> ke alfaaz -- jaise "rang", "jang", "angusht" vaGhaira -- meN nooN
> Ghunna sire se hai hee naheeN!
na sirf mere liye baa`is-e-tashaffii hai, bal-k baa`is-e-musarrat
bhi hai. aap kii taqreer se saabit huaa k nuun-e-Ghunna ke muta'-
alliq meraa andaazah sad-fee-sad saheeh thaa! [is "claim" kii
mazeed wazaahat is URL par dastyaab hogi --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D7839B2.5060005%40usa.not ...]
Thank you very much, Zafar saahib.
> mujhe ma'aloom hai k aap ke savaal kaa ziyaada zaur 'urooz kee taraf
> hai. to is silsile meN seedhaa seedha "rule of thumb" hai k noon
> Ghunna -- "by default" -- taqtee' meN naheeN aataa.
Yes, this is obvious and -- as you say below -- I already knew this.
Still, thanks for stating it explicitly, yet again.
> mazeed misaaleN dene kee zaroorat naheeN hai kyoN k aap achchhee tarah
> is kuliye se vaaqif haiN.
[*snip*]
Elsewhere you write:
> Farsi to Khair
> Sanskrit hee kee sagee behen hai, lekin Hind kee non-Aryan zabaanoN,
> mas'alan Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi, Pashto, Tamil, Malayalam (vaazih rahe k
> ye tamaam zabaaneN Dravidian haiN -- contrary to popular belief, which
> brackets Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi and Pashto as Indo-Aryan) meN noon Ghunna
> 'aam hai.
I don't know jack about Pashto, but you're treading on VERY slippery
ground indeed, when you club Tamil (and Malayalam) in the same list.
*EVEN IF* one subscribes to the [debatable] belief that Hindi/Urdu,
Punjabi, etc are non-Indo/Aryan languages, there are strong reasons
to suggest exclude Tamil from the same linguistic family-tree. I
can provide reasons, if you are interested (but I'm not doing so
right now, because they are not relevant to the scope of the current
thread -- and are perhaps not even relevant to ALUP).
Once again, thanks for your illuminatory comments about nuun-e-
Ghunnah and nuun-e-mu'allan!
-UVR.
UVR
>
> I had become so drowsy last night while finishing off the post that I
> forgot to add a line in the end, "References available on request". I
> certainly knew I was treading on controversial grounds, but as a
> matter of fact, I've come to the conclusion only after a good deal of
> work on the matter in question. Actually, while tracing the origins of
> Urdu language for a book, I had to go further and farther into the
> annals and what I found is that not only Urdu but almost all of the
> "native" languages (Urdu, Punjabi, Tamil, etc.) of Indopak were
> thriving long before the arrival of the Aryans in 1500 BC!
huzoor, Zafar saahib,
yeh kaun sii zubaan hai jise aap "Urdu" kaa naam de rahe haiN?
yaqeenan yeh woh zubaan naheeN ho sakti jo ALUP ke "u" meN aatii
hai, aur jise ham aaj kii taareeKh meN "Urdu" ke naam se jaante
haiN, kyoN-k, AFAIK, this language was _created_ during the
Mughal period (many centuries *after* the so-called "arrival" of
the Aryans).
> As far as
> the question of Sanskrit words in these languages is concerned, many
> modern linguists believe that it's actually the other way around,
> i.e., "Sanskrit" has borrowed words from the native languages! Not
> only this, but many alphabets of Sanskrit are actully native Indian in
> origin. For example, all "haaiya" sounds of Sanskrit (like kh, bh, th,
> jh, Dh, etc.) are totally alien to any other "Aryan" language ...
> whereas these sounds dominate the vocabulary of almost all major
> "native" languages of Indopak, and it has been established that these
> sounds were present in Indopak atleast 1500 before Aryans appeared at
> the scene! This fact alone is sufficient to prove that Sanskrit has
> acquired a lot from the Indian languages.
(1)
I have come across this argument elsewhere, too. These "modern"
linguists that you speak of appear to be treating the development
of language as an isolated sequence of events in the history of
the Indian subcontinent, independent of the development of the
peoples who spoke it. There is yet another school of modern
historians who, using the similarity between themes in Vedic
Sanskrit literature and the themes in the historical artefacts
unearthed at Mohenjodaro-Harappa and related relics recovered
from Mesopotamia, claim that the Aryans never "arrived" at all!
Rather, they (the Aryans) were a tribe that was already there
... they were just not the culturally dominant peoples. Insofar
as language is concerned, this school of historians claims that
Sanskrit is also not a language that came to the subcontinent
from "outside" -- rather, it was indigenous to the area -- only,
it was used, again, by the culturally non-dominant tribe. Their
arguments are based more on the grammatical structure of the
Sanskrit, the sounds used in it (how these are similar to the
language used in the Zend Avesta, for example) and, as I said,
the literary themes. IMHO, their claims are a bit more credible
and certainly more interesting than conjectures based simply on
common (or worse, *similar*) vocabulary.
BTW, common vocabulary alone can not conclusively determine that
language X borrowed word W from language Y, OR vice versa. It
must be proved that language Y *used* the word before X did.
One can only prove this by producing literary evidence of the use
of word W in language Y *before* it was used in X. AFAIK, no
such proof exists of usage in "Urdu"/Hindi before Sanskrit.
Proof does exist of usage of words in Sanskrit before many other
languages.
(2)
Another thing. When you club Tamil in the same class as Punjabi,
Hindi and (the language which is older than Sanskrit and which you
call) Urdu, are you considering the fact Tamil does not contain
any of those aspirated consonants (kh, gh, jh, etc.), which you
say are present in "ALL major 'native' languages?" [I leave it to
you to decide now whether you're ready to say that Tamil is not
one of the major 'native' languages! :)]
Do you also know, furthermore, that Tamil & Co. contain sounds
which are completely alien to any other language spoken in the
Indian subcontinent? Then there's the other fact that the basic
grammar of Tamil &c. is quite different from the grammar used by
Sanskrit, and Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi (all of which, incidentally,
happen to be grammatically similar to each other!).
> At present, I don't have enough time to go into further details, but I
> can provide some bibliography, if so desired. Or, better still, you
> can wait for my own book! :))
We will definitely look forward to your book! However, if you
can provide references to your sources of information, that will
be great, too!
(3)
Finally, I actually think that this topic (of languages) isn't
quite relevant to ALUP: we talk only about Urdu *poetry* here.
Discussions on the history of Urdu are passe, of course, but ONLY
as long as they do not become completely historical and
linguistic in nature. However, it makes no sense to "snuff out"
this discussion if there is sufficient interest on ALUP toward
continuing it. In that case, we should talk about it on a
different forum -- perhaps on group e-mail.
faqat
-UVR.
paabagil
> yaqeenan yeh woh zubaan naheeN ho sakti jo ALUP ke "u" meN aatii
> hai, aur jise ham aaj kii taareeKh meN "Urdu" ke naam se jaante
> haiN, kyoN-k, AFAIK, this language was _created_ during the
> Mughal period (many centuries *after* the so-called "arrival" of
> the Aryans).
>
> > As far as
> > the question of Sanskrit words in these languages is concerned, many
> > modern linguists believe that it's actually the other way around,
> > i.e., "Sanskrit" has borrowed words from the native languages! Not
> > only this, but many alphabets of Sanskrit are actully native Indian in
> > origin. For example, all "haaiya" sounds of Sanskrit (like kh, bh, th,
> > jh, Dh, etc.) are totally alien to any other "Aryan" language ...
> > whereas these sounds dominate the vocabulary of almost all major
> > "native" languages of Indopak, and it has been established that these
> > sounds were present in Indopak atleast 1500 before Aryans appeared at
> > the scene! This fact alone is sufficient to prove that Sanskrit has
> > acquired a lot from the Indian languages.
>
> (1)
> I have come across this argument elsewhere, too. These "modern"
> linguists that you speak of appear to be treating the development
> of language as an isolated sequence of events in the history of
> the Indian subcontinent, independent of the development of the
> peoples who spoke it.
> language X borrowed word W from language Y, OR vice versa. It
> must be proved that language Y *used* the word before X did.
> One can only prove this by producing literary evidence of the use
> of word W in language Y *before* it was used in X. AFAIK, no
> such proof exists of usage in "Urdu"/Hindi before Sanskrit.
> Proof does exist of usage of words in Sanskrit before many other
> languages.
Thanks for the input, Ravindra saahib. You're right that ALUP is not
for linguistic wrangling but I didn't know my remark would stir so
much dust! LOLOL
I don't know anything about those "other" historians so I can't
comment on their theories/assumtions ... but, on the other hand, it
can easily be proven that there are words used in Urdu today that were
in vogue "before" the arrival of the Aryans. Please refer to "Urdu
zabaan kaa irtiqaa" by Dr. Shaukat Sabzvaari, "Urdu kee qadeem
taareeKh" by 'Ainul Haq Farid Koti, "Lisaanee Maqaalaat", (vol 3) by
Dr. Suhail Bukhari, "Urdu zabaan kyaa hai" and "Urdu zabaan kee
muKhtarsir tareen taareeKh" by Dr. Saleem Akhatar. These books enlist
hundreds of those words and etymologies.
I'm surprised to know that "you too" think Urdu was "created" in the
Mughal courts. Well, how do I respond to this one, Ravindra jee?
Suffice, I guess, is to say that Babar, the first Mughal king, invaded
India in 1526, whereas Hazrat Amir Khusro "died" in 1325!
> Another thing. When you club Tamil in the same class as Punjabi,
> Hindi and (the language which is older than Sanskrit and which you
> call) Urdu, are you considering the fact Tamil does not contain
> any of those aspirated consonants (kh, gh, jh, etc.), which you
> say are present in "ALL major 'native' languages?" [I leave it to
> you to decide now whether you're ready to say that Tamil is not
> one of the major 'native' languages! :)]
Yep, Tamil as well as other South Indian languages do not have "mahaa
praans" (Ref: Comparative grammar of Dravidian languages, by
Condwell), but my linguistic guru, Dr. Suhail Bukhari, thinks that
those mahaa praans were there initially but now have been changed into
"alap praans" due to the limitations of the script over the course of
millennia. But that's beside the point, ain't it?
> Do you also know, furthermore, that Tamil & Co. contain sounds
> which are completely alien to any other language spoken in the
> Indian subcontinent? Then there's the other fact that the basic
> grammar of Tamil &c. is quite different from the grammar used by
> Sanskrit, and Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi (all of which, incidentally,
> happen to be grammatically similar to each other!).
Ravindra saahib, ye kyaa keh diyaa aap ne? Sanskrit aur grammatically
similar to Urdu??? You're a Sankrit connoisseur, I believe, and I'm
just a dabbler ... but even I know that Sanskrit is entirely divorced
from Urdu/Hindi as far as grammar is concerned. Take the case of
gender (three in S, two in U), plurals (a very complicated -- and
somewhat similar to Arabic -- system in S, simple in U), verbs (dual
form in S -- again similar to Arabic -- nothing of that sort in Urdu),
etc., etc.
And one last "classic" example which might serve to illustrate the
huge chasm between the two languages: "kalattaram" is a word that
means "wife" in Sanskrit, but -- surprise, surprise! -- its gender is
neutral!!! (Interestingly, in German Madchen means a girl and it's
also neutral!)
> Finally, I actually think that this topic (of languages) isn't
> quite relevant to ALUP: we talk only about Urdu *poetry* here.
> Discussions on the history of Urdu are passe, of course, but ONLY
> as long as they do not become completely historical and
> linguistic in nature. However, it makes no sense to "snuff out"
> this discussion if there is sufficient interest on ALUP toward
> continuing it. In that case, we should talk about it on a
> different forum -- perhaps on group e-mail.
Can't agree more, Ravindra jee.
And once again, many thanks for your valuable contribution to the
topic.
pbg
paabagil
> paab...@hotmail.com (paabagil) wrote in message news:<6f3cbf2.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > janaab e Ravindra saahib:
> >
> > aap ne sirf "learned ALUPers" ko "da'avat e suKhan" de kar ham jaise
> > "back-benchers" ko mushkil meN Daal diyaa hai, lekin abhee tak kisee
> > buzurg ne rad e amal zaahir naheeN kiyaa, so maiN samajhtaa hooN k:
> >
> > qura' e faal banaam e man e deevaana zadand! :) neez ;)
>
> LOL ... huzoor-e-"paa..gil" bhaa`ii saahib ;) aap chaahe is baat se
> kitnaa hii "inkaar-e-sareeh" farmaa leN, hamaare nazdeek to aap ke
> "guD-name" :) kaa bhi 'learned ALUPers' kii fehrist meN hi shumaar
> hotaa hai. mujhe to is baat kii ummeed hii naheeN, intezaar bhii
> thaa k aap is mauzoo' par kuchh kaheNge.
janaab Ravindra saahib:
aap kee 'inaayat hai, varna to
tabl o 'alam hee paas hai apne na "ilm" o "fan" :)
> waise, aap bhi baRe *maNjhe hue* khilaaRii ma'aloom hote haiN,
> warnaa yeh kahaaN likhaa hai k "back-bencher" lafz "learned" kaa
> opposite word hai? ... LOL! pakRe gaye naa, bachchoo!
bhaai jaan, "back-benchers" se muraad thee, ALUP kee class meN
"martabe" ke lihaaz se sab se aaKhir meN beThne vaale! bas itnee see
baat thee k aap samjhe naheeN!
> [<aside> jumla-e-"opposite word" kaa Urdu badal kyaa hai? </aside>]
mutazaad
> na sirf mere liye baa`is-e-tashaffii hai, bal-k baa`is-e-musarrat
> bhi hai. aap kii taqreer se saabit huaa k nuun-e-Ghunna ke muta'-
> alliq meraa andaazah sad-fee-sad saheeh thaa! [is "claim" kii
> mazeed wazaahat is URL par dastyaab hogi --
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D7839B2.5060005%40usa.not ...]
jee haaN, huzoor e vaalaa, "claim" to aap ne kar Dalaa lekin us ko
saabit karne kaa "pushtaara" hamaare naatavaaN kandhoN par laad diyaa!
LOLOLOL
> > Farsi to Khair
> > Sanskrit hee kee sagee behen hai, lekin Hind kee non-Aryan zabaanoN,
> > mas'alan Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi, Pashto, Tamil, Malayalam (vaazih rahe k
> > ye tamaam zabaaneN Dravidian haiN -- contrary to popular belief, which
> > brackets Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi and Pashto as Indo-Aryan) meN noon Ghunna
> > 'aam hai.
>
> I don't know jack about Pashto, but you're treading on VERY slippery
> ground indeed, when you club Tamil (and Malayalam) in the same list.
> *EVEN IF* one subscribes to the [debatable] belief that Hindi/Urdu,
> Punjabi, etc are non-Indo/Aryan languages, there are strong reasons
> to suggest exclude Tamil from the same linguistic family-tree. I
> can provide reasons, if you are interested (but I'm not doing so
> right now, because they are not relevant to the scope of the current
> thread -- and are perhaps not even relevant to ALUP).
And I have reasons to show that Punjabi and Tamil have quite a bit in
common, but
vo kahaanee phir "kabhee" sahee :))
pbg
UVR
post on this topic on this newsgroup.]
paab...@hotmail.com (paabagil) wrote in message news:<6f3cbf2.02091...@posting.google.com>...
>
> it can easily be proven that there are words used in Urdu today
> that were in vogue "before" the arrival of the Aryans. Please
> refer to "Urdu zabaan kaa irtiqaa" by Dr. Shaukat Sabzvaari,
> "Urdu kee qadeem taareeKh" by 'Ainul Haq Farid Koti, "Lisaanee
> Maqaalaat", (vol 3) by Dr. Suhail Bukhari, "Urdu zabaan kyaa hai"
> and "Urdu zabaan kee muKhtarsir tareen taareeKh" by Dr. Saleem Akhtar.
> These books enlist hundreds of those words and etymologies.
>
> I'm surprised to know that "you too" think Urdu was "created" in the
> Mughal courts. Well, how do I respond to this one, Ravindra jee?
> Suffice, I guess, is to say that Babar, the first Mughal king, invaded
> India in 1526, whereas Hazrat Amir Khusro "died" in 1325!
I think there is a definitional disconnect between the two of us
here: if what you call "Urdu" is the language of Amir Khusro, then
we are not talking about the same 'Urdu' at all!
In any case, your claim that Khusro's language predated Sanskrit is
highly questionable! It is widely known that Khusro's language was
itself a derivative of an older form of khaRi boli, which in turn
can be traced back to the prakR^its [by means of historical evidence
-- such as inscriptions in brahmi, some of which date back to the
time of Samrat Ashoka (3rd C/ry B.C)]. These inscriptions, of course,
are "much younger" than several Sanskrit texts.
Now, if your definition of "Urdu" is "one of [the parents of] these
prakR^its", then we have no disagreement at all! It is definitely
conceivable that some languages existed before Sanskrit did. It is
also conceivable that Sanskrit adopted/adapted some words from those
languages, and that some of the borrowed words were passed on to yet
other languages without any modification. Some of those words prob-
ably exist even today -- perhaps in the same pristine form as they
existed in those pre-Sanskritic languages.
However, to take a few (even many) hundred words from one of today's
languages and trace it back to one of those pre-Sanskritic langauges,
and THEN to draw the conclusion that these [today's] languages were
older than Sanskrit is a quantum leap, which would be laughable if
it were not stated so seriously! yaad rahe k "many hundred words"
from any of today's languages will form but a fraction of the total
vocabulary of that language!
> Yep, Tamil as well as other South Indian languages do not have "mahaa
> praans" (Ref: Comparative grammar of Dravidian languages, by
> Condwell), but my linguistic guru, Dr. Suhail Bukhari, thinks that
> those mahaa praans were there initially but now have been changed into
> "alap praans" due to the limitations of the script over the course of
> millennia. But that's beside the point, ain't it?
It most certainly is not besides the point! Is there historical
of the existence of aspirated consonants in "pre-Sanskrit" Tamil?
I'd appreciate it if you could briefly state the nature of this
evidence (inscriptions? manuscripts? something else?) and where,
geographically, it was discovered, and when? Please give one or
two examples.
AFAIK, Tamil has not had any aspirated consonants in all of its
recorded history. As someone who has a reasonable familiarity
with the language, I think that this actually has to do with the
characteristics of pronunciation, than the "limitations of script".
Script does not cause people to change their pronunciations. It
is pronunciation that causes people to invent scripts.
Note that of the 4 major south-Indian languages (I'm avoiding the
use of the word "dravidian" here), Tamil is the only one that does
not have the aspirated sounds.
> > Indian subcontinent? Then there's the other fact that the basic
> > grammar of Tamil &c. is quite different from the grammar used by
> > Sanskrit, and Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi (all of which, incidentally,
> > happen to be grammatically similar to each other!).
>
> Ravindra saahib, ye kyaa keh diyaa aap ne? Sanskrit aur grammatically
> similar to Urdu???
You misread by (admittedly confusing) punctuation. Please accept my
apologies and note the commas in "Sanskrit[,] and Hindi, Urdu and
Punjabi". The "all of which [are] grammatically similar" applies to
the last three languages mentioned.
> You're a Sankrit connoisseur, I believe, and I'm
> just a dabbler ... but even I know that Sanskrit is entirely divorced
> from Urdu/Hindi as far as grammar is concerned. Take the case of
> gender (three in S, two in U), plurals (a very complicated -- and
> somewhat similar to Arabic -- system in S, simple in U), verbs (dual
> form in S -- again similar to Arabic -- nothing of that sort in Urdu),
> etc., etc.
You're right about Sanskrit grammar, of course, but this is the same
thing I was saying -- Sanskrit grammar is different from Urdu grammar.
Note that this diff. does not prove any chronological relationship
between the two! :)
I am not aware of a "complicated" system for plurals in Sanskrit.
The system of plurals is, infact, very simple -- one, two, many! :)
Actually, it is very interesting to know that this type of counting
scheme is used by some primitive tribes of Africa, which don't even
have a script, nor a numbering or counting scheme! So much for
"complicatedness"! :))
Elsewhere you write:
> I have reasons to show that Punjabi and Tamil have quite a bit in
> common, but
I know even less Punjabi [close to zero] than I know Urdu and Tamil,
but I am VERY interested in the reasons you have.
> > Finally, I actually think that this topic (of languages) isn't
> > quite relevant to ALUP: we talk only about Urdu *poetry* here.
> > Discussions on the history of Urdu are passe, of course, but ONLY
> > as long as they do not become completely historical and
> > linguistic in nature. However, it makes no sense to "snuff out"
> > this discussion if there is sufficient interest on ALUP toward
> > continuing it. In that case, we should talk about it on a
> > different forum -- perhaps on group e-mail.
>
> Can't agree more, Ravindra jee.
Ok, so here's the official call for subscriptions -- is anyone else
interested in this topic, and would anyone else like to contribute
to, or listen to, this discussion? If so, please send me mail me
at 'u v r "at" h o t m a i l "dot" c o m'. Zafar saahib, I request
you to send me a mail, too, and let me know whether or not you would
like to continue this discussion any further. Thanks.
> And once again, many thanks for your valuable contribution to the
> topic.
>
> pbg
-UVR.
paabagil
Very illuminating post, indeed -- and as usual -- Ravindra jee. But,
unfortunately, I disagree with almost all of your points :(( ... I
won't try, however, to address any of them due to obvious reasons. I
will create a discussion board on eUrdubazaar that deals exclusively
with the origins of Urdu. Since the original aim is to understand and
learn, who knows we might come to a conclusion there :)
Cheers!
pbg
PN: This "affair" of linguistics, by the way, has "tangented" us away
from the original -- and by far the more relevant -- business of noon
Ghunna. Should we continue, Ravindra saahib, with "elaan o iKhfaa e
noon"?
UVR
>
> PN: This "affair" of linguistics, by the way, has "tangented" us away
> from the original -- and by far the more relevant -- business of noon
> Ghunna. Should we continue, Ravindra saahib, with "elaan o iKhfaa e
> noon"?
Yes, yes, of course! ["yeh bhi koii poochhne kii baat hai?" ;)]
niyaazmand
-UVR.
Roshan Kamath
> Urdu meiN noon.e.Ghunna:
[snip]
Thanks a million Raz Sahab for that very detailed and informative
(almost academic) mail on the nUn-e Ghunna. I very much appreciate
your taking the time and effort to present the 'classifications'. It
is amazing how much I've learnt in these relatively few days after I
started reading ALUP again!
Thanks much, again!
rosh