Is there a "Nuun-i-Ghunnah" in Persian Poetry?
Naseer
Farsi poetry often comes under discussion in ALUP, the most recent
case in point is the "maa raa ba-Ghamzah kust..." Ghazal thread
started by UVR Sahib. Consequently, I hope I will be forgiven for
initiating this discussion.
Only the other day, Vijay Sahib requested a couplet of Ghalib. I
provided that couplet and later posted an amended version since I
realised that I had typed one word incorrectly.
"biaavared gar iiN-jaa buvad zabaan-daane
Ghariib-i-shahr suKHanhaa'e guftanii daard"
Zafar Sahib pointed out two further mistakes. One that the word in the
first misra' should be "zabaaN-daane" and secondly the last word of
the second misra' should be "daarad". My first error was committed due
to my ignorance of "prosody" AND ALSO, not having an "ear/eye" for the
correct balance of words. The second was simply a typo. So, this is
how the couplet should have been presented.
biyaavared gar iiN-jaa buvad zabaaN-daane
Ghariib-i-shahr suKHanhaa'e* guftanii daarad
Allow me please to set the scene, so to speak.
1) If one gets hold of any Farsi book of prose or poetry printed in
Pakistan or India, one finds "Nuun-i-Ghunnah". I have set eyes on the
original "Yaadgaar-i-Ghalib" by Haalii and it clearly indicates the
"Nuun-i-Ghunnah". So, our masters in India were definitely using this
nuun. On the other hand, books printed in Iran or Afghanistan show
the full dotted nuun.
2) My experience has been that the Iranians and Afghans seem to be
completely oblivious of "Nuun-i-Ghunnah". They pronounce the full nuun
whilst reciting poetry.
3) I am aware that in prosody rules the "Nuun-i-Ghunnah" is not
counted, so zabaaN is not the same as zabaan. It must therefore be
apparent that the (modern) Iranian and Afghan mode of recitation must
( ? ) reckon the syllables differently.
4) Two books to which I have had access to support our "Nuun-i-
Ghunnah" system. I quote the following from " A Millenium of Classical
Persian Poetry" by Wheeler. M. Thackston.
"Syllable-final n preceded by a long vowel is generally not reckoned
in scansion. Formerly this must have resulted in nasalisation of the
vowel; but it is not done in reciting Persian poetry in Iran today,
although the practice is general in the Indian subcontinent....".
This seems to indicate that there was a time when even in Iran, the
"n" was nasalised in recitation. But, at some stage, this nasalisation
ceased.
Your thoughts please.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
I have a theory which may be completely wrong.
The absence of a written noon-e-GHunna may be only a
script aberration. In other words, the sound did
exist, but it was not made clear (in writing) by
omitting the dot ('nuqta').
Possibly, we may have no evidence of how verses
involving this sound were actually pronounced.
Some time back, an ALUPer raised the question of
diacritical marks and how their absence in Urdu made
certain pronunciations a little difficult for some
people. You were good enough to cite a reference
to an extensive (earlier) thread, where it was
stated (in defence of the existing system) that
ordinary Urdu readers were sort of conditioned to
mentally provide the (missing) diacritical marks.
Is it not possible that people in Iran/Afghanistan
were also in a position to distinguish between the
two sounds (i.e. with or without the 'elaan) ?
The dot might have been written in all cases, but
could have been omitted in appropriate cases, while
reciting the verses ?
Just a theory, or (more appropriately) a shot in the
dark.
Afzal
Zafar
Naseer saahib:
As you know, prosody differentiate between noon e Ghunna and noon e
mu’allan and it’s not possible to read a she’r in meter without
minding the difference. In fact, noon e Ghunna is not scanned at all
and is treated as if it was never there. So “zabaaN” (1+2) is treated
as “zabaa” and is metrically identical with such words as “kahaa”,
“sunaa”, “uThaa”, etc.
“zabaan”, on the other hand, is equivalent to the metrical foot
“fa’ool” (1+2+1), and the noon at the end of the word is taken into
account during scansion.
Modern Persian speakers drop the first long syllable before the noon e
Ghunna to "hammer" the line into meter. For example:
zabaaN --> zaban
zabaan-daaN --> zabaan-dan
aasmaaN --> aasman
deeN --> din
nuktan-cheeN --> nukta-chin
etc.
I think dropping the "nuqta" from noon e Ghunna is an invention of the
Subcontinental writers and the practice is not very old either. I've
seen books written in the late 19th century where the nuqta is used
for all kinds of noons.
Zafar
RC
> "Syllable-final n preceded by a long vowel is generally not reckoned
> in scansion. Formerly this must have resulted in nasalisation of the
> vowel; but it is not done in reciting Persian poetry in Iran today,
> although the practice is general in the Indian subcontinent....".
>
> This seems to indicate that there was a time when even in Iran, the
> "n" was nasalised in recitation. But, at some stage, this nasalisation
> ceased.
>
> Your thoughts please.
>
> KHair-KHvaah,
> Naseer
aadaab 'arz hai : All recitations I have heard in Farsi do pronounce
the full
noon sound - including audio versions of Hafiz that I have - granted
that these
are recited by modern speakers - so I have no idea when the
nasalization was
dropped from Farsi. I do not see any difference in syllable scansion
of verse
in Urdu vs. Farsi from my limited exposure though.
Regards,
Rajiv
Jamil
As Zafar Sahib has pointed out, the vowel before the nuun is shortened
in reciting Farsi poetry to keep the line in meter if needed. This is
akin to using either nuun or nuun Ghunnah in Urdu according to the
demands of the meter, as in the word "jaan" in
koii nahiiN teraa to merii jaan Khudaa hai,
against:
'arz-e-mattaa'e-e-'aql o dil o jaaN kiiye huey
In addition to the examples given by Zafar sahib, another common
example is that of "chuuN", which is recited as "chun". In speech
too, the nasal nuun is pronounced as full nuun.
This, however, does not seem to be universal. Sometimes words where a
nuun (or nuun Ghunnah) comes at the end are still pronounced with a
nasal sound. On YouTube, listen to the following poem of Iqbal
recited by an Iranian (the spelling of the name, Shirzadeh, and the
accent would suggest so). The poem is No. 33 from zabuur-e-'ajam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwZdmLxYimI
zamistan raa sar aamad ruuzgaaran
navaa-ha ziNdeh shud dar shaaKhsaaran
But
gulaaN raa raNg o nam baKhshad havaa haa
keh mii aayad z tarf-e-juu-e-baaran
The first word in the second she'r is clearly pronounced as "gulaaN",
and not as "gulan".
The qaafiyah is pronounced somewhat indistinctly, but again in the
second last she'r:
damii aasuudeh baa dard o Gham e Khiish
damii naalan chuu juu-e- kuuhsaaran
naalaan is pronounced "naalan"
Jamil
Naseer
I would go along with your theory. As you are aware, in older Urdu
system of writing, there was no way of distinguishing "chhoTii ye" and
"baRii ye" final sounds. So, ke and kii would have been written kaaf+
chhoTii ye and only from context one would know which word was implied
by the writer. In the same way, Iranians and Afghans could have
interpreted the nuqtah-daar nuun as a nuun-mu'allan or nuun-i-Ghunnah,
depending on the metrical requirements. I suppose, in Urdu if we
eliminated the nuun-i-Ghunnah altogether, we would still be able to
distinguish "maaN" from "maan".
I propose to provide some convincing "evidence" of the existence of
nuun-i-Ghunnah in Farsi.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Naseer
janaab-i-Zafar Sahib, aadaab.
Thank you for your explanation regarding the Iranians (and I suppose
the Afghans too) "hammering" the verse to conform to metrical needs.
How would they deal with "iiN"? Would it be "in"? Also, in..
agar aaN turk-i-shiiraazii...
would they say, "agar an turk-i-shiiraazii..."?
I think one has to commend whoever thought of "inventing" nuun-i-
Ghunnah by removing the nuqtah, adding three dots to Persian sound (p,
ch, Ze), an extra kashak over kaaf to give gaaf and a little "toe"
over differenct letters to indicate the typically Indian sounds. I
have seen books where, instead of the little toe, there are four dots!
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
Naseer
I have listened to the Youtube link you have provided. Unfortunately,
at least on my computer, the sound quality is rather poor. So, I was
unable to hear the word "gulaaN". Having said this, I find this rather
illogical. Why pronounce one word with a nasal nuun and pronounce the
others with a full nuun?
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
UVR
Naseer saahib, aadaab.
Knowing your insatiable appetite for digging deep until bedrock is
hit, one waits eagerly with bated breath for said evidence.
Meanwhile, here's something I came across quite by chance. It's an
excerpt from a book titled "A Sketch of the Hindustani Language" by
Charles James Lyall, published 1880. Lyall says (on page 10 of the
book [http://tinyurl.com/nc5ecc]), and I quote:
<quote>
The Persian of India, from which the Indian vernaculars have been
recruited, differs in many respects, both as to sound, idiom, and
vocabulary, from that now spoken in Eran. The sounds especially
exhibit a more archaic form of the language. Thus the distinction
between I and e and u and o, and the nasal n, or nun-i ghunnah, after
long vowels, the due observance of which is enjoined by the classical
grammarians and essential to the prosody of all classical Persian
poetry, have been retained in India, though now altogether absent from
the language of Eran.
</endquote>
The last sentence is of particular relevance to the present
discussion.
-UVR.
RC
Forgive me for intruding on your query drected to Zafar sahib - here's
a link
to a "modern" rendition of "agar aan... " by Hafez.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f073205e9f1672ec19747bd91027d4dd50ce070dd146d45f
As you can see from the clip, the answer to both questions above
(aaN --> an, eeN --> in) would be the way the current speakers
recite.
This still leaves the main question unanswered:
"When and why did the noon-Ghunna disappear from Farsi, if it did
exist way back"
Regards,
Rajiv
Naseer
How nice it is to see you back in ALUP. I hope everything is well with
you and your family.
> http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f073205e9f1672ec19747bd91027d4dd50...
>
> As you can see from the clip, the answer to both questions above
> (aaN --> an, eeN --> in) would be the way the current speakers
> recite.
Thank you for the above link Rajiv Sahib.
> This still leaves the main question unanswered:
>
> "When and why did the noon-Ghunna disappear from Farsi, if it did
> exist way back"
I don't know the answer to the first part of your question, i.e, when
and why did the nuun-i-Ghunnah disapper in (Iranian and Afghan) Farsi.
Did it exist it all? Well, I have already quoted "Thackston". UVR
Sahib has quoted "Lyall". Let me now quote Professor Finn Thiesen from
his " A Manual of Classical Persian Prosody" 1982 Otto Harrassowitz
Wiesbaden p 41)
"There are the following arguments for supporting that "n" in the said
position (following a long vowel and preceding a consonant) was
realised as a nasalisation of the preceding long vowel:
a) The fact that the prosodists do not reckon the "nuun". Had "nuun"
been pronounced as a distinct consonant and the preceding vowel been
shortened--as in present day recitation-- we should have expected the
prosodists to reckon the "nuun" and instead not to reckon the
preceding alif, vaa'o, ye.
b) Words like "ziiraa" (because) where the "nuun" has disappeared.
Classical Persian for "az iin raa".
( Here, Thiesen is implying that az iin raa >>>> az iiN raa >>>
ziiraa)
c) Turkish loanwords where "n" has disappeared, e.g. "jomerd"
"generous" corresponding to javaan-mard "generous youth". Classical
Persian "javaaN-mard" and "juvaaN-mard". The latter must be the source
of the Turkish word.
( I wonder if just like there was javaaN/juvaaN, one also had "zabaaN/
zubaaN" , this being the reason for "zubaaN" existing in Urdu as well
as "zabaaN".).
d) Indo-Persian* pronunciation which preserves the nasalised vowels.
e) Most important of all, the numerous Persian loan words in Urdu and
Hindi which have nasalised vowels. Thus "maaNdaa" tired from Persian
"maandah". It is important to notice that there is nothing in the
phonetic system of Hindi to prevent a form like "maandaa". "He
acknowledges" is always "maantaa hai", never "maaNtaa hai; thorn is
always "kaaNTaa" never "kaanTaa". Hence, when the Indians pronounce
"maaNdaa", not "maandaa", the reason for this must be sought in
Persian itself.
Thiesen goes onto say (page 50)
"Persian does not admit of triple consonant clusters, and even if the
poetry of Moulavi is known to be "sangiin" (heavy), it is not probable
that he should have produced verses with such clusters. Examples of
the above type are therefore very strong evidence for nuun being
realised as suprasegmental nasalisation in the position between long
vowel and consonant, since with that pronunciation the question of
triple consonant clusters no longer arises. The Classical Persian
pronunciation of "pinhaanst" must therefore have been "pinhaaNst".
* "Indo-Persian has preserved the Classical Persian pronunciation of
the vowels. Unfortunately, due to the cultural co-operation between
Iran and India (and Pakistan) every year a number of young teachers of
Persian return home from Iran to teach their compatriots the "correct"
Tehrani pronunciation, so that in another generation or two the
Classical Persian pronunciation will have been forgotton".
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
Well, I don't know if the said "evidence" would do justice to one who
waits with "bated breath" but I do think it is quite convincing. More
in reply to RC Sahib's post.
> Meanwhile, here's something I came across quite by chance. It's an
> excerpt from a book titled "A Sketch of the Hindustani Language" by
> Charles James Lyall, published 1880. Lyall says (on page 10 of the
> book [http://tinyurl.com/nc5ecc]), and I quote:
>
> <quote>
> The Persian of India, from which the Indian vernaculars have been
> recruited, differs in many respects, both as to sound, idiom, and
> vocabulary, from that now spoken in Eran. The sounds especially
> exhibit a more archaic form of the language. Thus the distinction
> between I and e and u and o, and the nasal n, or nun-i ghunnah, after
> long vowels, the due observance of which is enjoined by the classical
> grammarians and essential to the prosody of all classical Persian
> poetry, have been retained in India, though now altogether absent from
> the language of Eran.
> </endquote>
>
> The last sentence is of particular relevance to the present
> discussion.
Thank you for above, UVR Sahib. How nice it would have been if
Mr.Lyall had chosen to provide names of these classical grammarians
and the sources wherein this information was contained.
Naseer