# Urdu: Lab-o-lahjah



## Qureshpor

*Dear All,

In another forum the topic of "Urdu Lab-o-lahjah" was discussed in detail. For interested parties who wish to browse through its posts, here is a link to that debate.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt...._frm/thread/c30c1deece6ce994?tvc=1&q=urdu+lab

My purpose here is not to go over the same points but to discuss it from a different angle. I wish to add that my intention is not to start any kind of heated or unsavory debate but to put forward a point of view with which I hope at least some of you might be in agreement.

I think we would all agree that for a person intending to learn another language, it is paramount that he/she emulates the examples set by that language's best speakers and writers. After all, they are the experts in their language. Similarly, a Punjabi/Bengali/Marathi/Pashtoon/Sindhi..who is speaking and writing Urdu should also have the "creme de la creme" of Urdu society as models for them. This is what native speakers would expect and they would rightly feel hurt if their language was being "spoiled". I must also add that there are many non-native Urdu speakers who feel just as strongly about correct Urdu usage, perhaps even more so at times.

There are, however, certain 'ground realities" which one must not loose sight of. A lot of the times people are not really aware of their mispronunciations and grammatical errors. Unless someone points these out to them, be they Ministers of Parliament or Heads of State, they will obliviously go on speaking (and writing) with wrong articulation, intonation and grammar. Secondly, one must not get bogged down with the "qaaf syndrome" as if its continuous mispronunciation will ultimately throw our planet off its orbit! Yes, one must endeavor to get these things right but if it does n't happen, there is no need to stoop to racist attitudes as displayed, for example, by yagana Yaas Changezii when he was referring to Iqbal as Ikbal! This and similar kind of attitude to non-native Urdu speakers will do nothing but alienate the "natives" and the "non-natives". We must have an inclusive attitude to others not the attitude of some 'aasmaanii maKhluuq" which can do no wrong. We all know that English for example has many many varieties. Within the US there are different varieties. One has Canadian, Australian, South African, New Zealand English as well as British English. And British English itself is so diverse. There are varieties within Scottish English (Edinbugh and Glasgow for example), Geordie, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cockney... and of course the so called "Queen's English". No one degrades any of these types of English. Why must everyone just speak Queen's English? Why must the Lakhnavii Urdu be considered the only variety worth talking about. There is (or was) Dehlii Urdu and even that would be different from Merath on the one hand and Agra on the other. My point is that in as much as some Urdu types are to be cherished and emulated, if one does not or can not achieve this, one must n't reject people for speaking whatever level they do manage to achieve. They can not all be expected to speak like, I don't know, Iftikhar Arif say. General Musharraf's Urdu (supposedly the Delhi variety) is nothing to write home about. I would personally listen to Ziya Muhyiddin (from Lyallpur/Faisalabad) all day!

Just going back to the "qaaf" factor. I have heard some Scottish people pronounce "murder" with the Urdu dental 'daal". I do not ever recall an English man or woman ever complaining about this pronunciation! It's no big deal. 

In summary, these negative vibes about Urdu speakers from non-native backgrounds need to be stopped. After all, languages go through natural process of evolution and if certain aspects of the language are changing or have changed, then let us embrace the change without having to give up one's own high standards.

If I were in control of Pakistan's language policy, I would make sure that in all official circles (and this includes the Parliament!), Urdu is the sole language. I would seek out the best Urdu speakers and have their faces and voices as the best that Urdu can offer on TV and Radio. This would set certain standard for us and others in the neighborhood to aspire to. If we are going to broadcast "tripe", is it a surprise that we end up speaking "tripe"?

If there already has n't been enough food for thought for you, here is a link to a topic entitled, "us ne vaapas aanaa hai kabhii".

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....64c0e?lnk=gst&q=US+NE+VAAPAS#b9ddffd4dc064c0e*


----------



## UrduMedium

Thanks for referencing this in a recent thread, QP saahib. Well said, and I agree 100% with your comments. 



> *Secondly, one must not get bogged down with the "qaaf syndrome" as if its continuous mispronunciation will ultimately throw our planet off its orbit! *



Funny, and right on!! What I learned is that a large percentage of Arabs either choose to or cannot say the qaaf either. Its really not that big a deal. How can one make a big deal of the proper qaaf delivery while they butcher se (samar), dhaal, duaad, zoi, suaad, and couple of other letters, as per proper Arabic?


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> *…
> I think we would all agree that for a person intending to learn another language, it is paramount that he/she emulates the examples set by that language's best speakers and writers. After all, they are the experts in their language. Similarly, a Punjabi/Bengali/Marathi/Pashtoon/Sindhi..who is speaking and writing Urdu should also have the "creme de la creme" of Urdu society as models for them. This is what native speakers would expect and they would rightly feel hurt if their language was being "spoiled". I must also add that there are many non-native Urdu speakers who feel just as strongly about correct Urdu usage, perhaps even more so at times.
> 
> There are, however, certain 'ground realities" which one must not loose sight of. A lot of the times people are not really aware of their mispronunciations and grammatical errors. Unless someone points these out to them, be they Ministers of Parliament or Heads of State, they will obliviously go on speaking (and writing) with wrong articulation, intonation and grammar. Secondly, one must not get bogged down with the "qaaf syndrome" as if its continuous mispronunciation will ultimately throw our planet off its orbit! Yes, one must endeavor to get these things right but if it does n't happen, there is no need to stoop to racist attitudes as displayed, for example, by yagana Yaas Changezii when he was referring to Iqbal as Ikbal! This and similar kind of attitude to non-native Urdu speakers will do nothing but alienate the "natives" and the "non-natives". We must have an inclusive attitude to others not the attitude of some 'aasmaanii maKhluuq" which can do no wrong. We all know that English for example has many many varieties. Within the US there are different varieties. One has Canadian, Australian, South African, New Zealand English as well as British English. And British English itself is so diverse. There are varieties within Scottish English (Edinbugh and Glasgow for example), Geordie, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cockney... and of course the so called "Queen's English". No one degrades any of these types of English. Why must everyone just speak Queen's English? Why must the Lakhnavii Urdu be considered the only variety worth talking about. There is (or was) Dehlii Urdu and even that would be different from Merath on the one hand and Agra on the other. My point is that in as much as some Urdu types are to be cherished and emulated, if one does not or can not achieve this, one must n't reject people for speaking whatever level they do manage to achieve. They can not all be expected to speak like, I don't know, Iftikhar Arif say. General Musharraf's Urdu (supposedly the Delhi variety) is nothing to write home about. I would personally listen to Ziya Muhyiddin (from Lyallpur/Faisalabad) all day!
> 
> ….*


  If people are not aware of their mispronunciation then they can be reminded without any recourse to derision or ridicule. I absolutely  agree!

qaaf syndrome! I thought we are talking about a language convention. All languages have conventions and Urdu proper has more conventions than just qaaf! But since this thread is about qaaf, let us just discuss this one.

True, mispronouncing Urdu may not throw the planet off its orbit but it does the language. So, it is:

*qiil o qaal* and not *kiil o kaal * -  _kiil_ goes with _hathauRaa_ and _hathauRii_! 
*3aql* (wisdom, reason, understanding etc.) and not* akl *(food)
*qaanuun* (law) and not _*kanuun*_ (used in names of months in the Arabic solar calendar)
_*quTub*_ (pole; highest spiritual pivot) and not _*kuTub*_, even worse _*kutub*_ (books) - and now I'm talking about pronunciation and not transliteration!  
etc.

Whatever Yagaanah said about Iqbal may be considered ungentlemanly, not racist! But that is nothing compared to his vicious criticism Ghalib and his Urdu poetry - and he wasn’t alone in calling the latter an _obscurantist_!  

I agree that English comes in many varieties but all the same there is a standard English language.

Why must lakhnavii or dehlavi Urdu be the variety worth talking about? Perhaps because we produced a whole lot of poets and writers, many still unsung, btw, esp. those from Lucknow! They all contributed enormously to Urdu literature and influenced many others including from other regions. Josh was from Malihabad (_maliihaabaad_) but influenced by lakhanvii Urdu esp. after he moved there before going to Paksitan. Once a frequent guest of ours as were many other poets. All "*creme de la creme *_of Urdu"  _as you put it so aptly yourself. I absolutely agree we all need to take them as our models.

General Musharraf may have been born in Delhi but didn’t grow up there! His family migrated to Pakistan when he was quite young and even in Pakistan he wasn’t necessarily in anUrdu-speaking environment. So he is a poor example! Iftikhar Arif is a better example and I know him very well. He left Lucknow as a young man when his Urdu had become _puxtah_!


----------



## Faylasoof

UrduMedium said:


> Thanks for referencing this in a recent thread, QP saahib. Well said, and I agree 100% with your comments.
> 
> 
> 
> *Secondly, one must not get bogged down with the "qaaf syndrome" as if  its continuous mispronunciation will ultimately throw our planet off  its orbit! *
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, and right on!! What I learned is that a _*large percentage of Arabs either choose to or cannot say the qaaf either. Its really not that big a deal. *_How can one make a big deal of the proper qaaf delivery while they butcher se (samar), dhaal, duaad, zoi, suaad, and couple of other letters, as per proper Arabic?
Click to expand...

 I agree with your second point! According to are original language conventions we should (and some of us do) pronounce these letters distinctly! The majority don't!

UM SaaHib, do you believe this to be true! I know many Arabic dialects may not use the the latter _*qaaf*_ but all those Arabs (the majority, I think) who read the Quran would know how to pronounce all the letters correctly, including _*qaaf*_.

Now it is true that not all Urduphones are Muslims just as not all Muslims are Urduphones (!) but many are both and the following is for them.

How do you Urduphones who happen to be Muslims as well read these verse:

*قُلۡ* أَعُوذُ بِرَبِّ ٱلنَّاسِ
سُوۡرَةُ النَّاس

*Say*: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, (1)
[Surah An-Nas (chap. 114), verse 1.]

*قُلۡ* هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
سُوۡرَةُ الإخلاص

*Say*: He is Allah, the One! (1)
[Surah Al-Ikhlas (chap. 112), verse 1.]

Do you all say *قُل* *qul*! (= _*Say!*_) or *كُل* *kul*! (= _*Eat!*_) ?


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof SaaHib, these are all very insightful observations, but I don't feel like answering the last question, and not solely because it deals with Arabic language, not Urdu. I've been always convinced that the standard Urdu pronunciation of qaaf differs from that one of Qur'anic recitation.

As a matter of my personal experience, there are Arabs who read Qur'an and are educated, but they fail to articulate all the sounds properly, including qaaf. It was a sheer surprise to me, once upon a time.

I know several native Urdu speakers who more frequently don't pronounce qaaf than they do. I agree with you, Faylasoof SaaHib, that we should pronounce it, of course, but there are people who simply can't do it.

I have another question, since you were kind to say that janaab-e Iftikhar Arif SaaHib's Urdu was _puxtah_ by the time of his emigration. Could you please comment on a discussion which spun in another *thread* in reference to a speech by him where two occurences of what I would say, irregular Urdu, are to be heard, that is ''_aap chaahte ho_'', ''_us ne kyaa karnaa hai_''. I am unsure how I should explain this phenomenon to myself.


----------



## BP.

marrish said:


> ...
> As a matter of my personal experience, there are Arabs who read Qur'an and are educated, but they fail to articulate all the sounds properly, including qaaf. It was a sheer surprise to me, once upon a time....


And to me too when I heard a Yemeni orator replace all his Qs with Gs. It is of course the standard pronunciation over there.

marrish sahib, your experience is about Arabic speakers of which origin?


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> *...**General Musharraf's Urdu (supposedly the Delhi variety) is nothing to  write home about. ...*


Some dilli waalee might attempt suicide after hearing his purportedly dehelwii lahjah!


----------



## Qureshpor

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Some dilli waalee might attempt suicide after hearing his purportedly dehelwii lahjah!



I think it would be better for them to preserve what they are able to, good or bad, rather than commit suicide and lose everything!


----------



## marrish

BelligerentPacifist said:


> And to me too when I heard a Yemeni orator replace all his Qs with Gs. It is of course the standard pronunciation over there.
> 
> marrish sahib, your experience is about Arabic speakers of which origin?



I had some Palestinian and Yemeni, too, in mind. I believe they can be found in every community.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> I think it would be better for them to preserve what they are able to, good or bad, rather than commit suicide and lose everything!


I wouldn't recommend a dying-out breed speeding up the process and committing suicide! They might take this advice seriously.


----------



## UrduMedium

Faylasoof said:


> I agree with your second point! According to are original language conventions we should (and some of us do) pronounce these letters distinctly! The majority don't!
> 
> UM SaaHib, do you believe this to be true! I know many Arabic dialects may not use the the latter _*qaaf*_ but all those Arabs (the majority, I think) who read the Quran would know how to pronounce all the letters correctly, including _*qaaf*_.
> 
> Now it is true that not all Urduphones are Muslims just as not all Muslims are Urduphones (!) but many are both and the following is for them.
> 
> How do you Urduphones who happen to be Muslims as well read these verse:
> 
> *قُلۡ* أَعُوذُ بِرَبِّ ٱلنَّاسِ
> سُوۡرَةُ النَّاس
> 
> *Say*: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, (1)
> [Surah An-Nas (chap. 114), verse 1.]
> 
> *قُلۡ* هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
> سُوۡرَةُ الإخلاص
> 
> *Say*: He is Allah, the One! (1)
> [Surah Al-Ikhlas (chap. 112), verse 1.]
> 
> Do you all say *قُل* *qul*! (= _*Say!*_) or *كُل* *kul*! (= _*Eat!*_) ?



I agree that many in the Arab world who do not speak the proper _qaaf_, may read it correctly while reading the Qur'an. Which is why I put "_choose not t_o or _cannot_". I was told by Egyptian friends that in spoken Egyptian Arabic, the _qaaf _is replaced by _hamzah _(2). So _qaasim _becomes _2aasim_. Another Sudanese friend (native Arabic speaker) tole me that they replace the _qaaf _with Ghayn, so the Qur'aan becomes Gur'aan. Gulf Arabs do somethign similar. I noticed they write _Shaariqah _and pronounce _Shaardjah_. 

So while they may recite the _qaaf _while reading the Qur'an but in spoken language they often don't and some can't. 

Also, many of us (subcontinent Urdu speakers) learn to read the Qur'an with proper _tajweed _and can deliver the sounds while reading the Qur'an almost precisely as they should be in Arabic. I believe I can recite the above verses with all the qaaf, dhaal, dhaad, Saad, the, etc. However, those same sounds do not fit well in Urdu speech. For example, a word like 'Uzma' in proper Arabic pronunciation would be almost unrecognizable to an urdu speaker. 3udzhmaa vs uzma. But in my view how we pronounce written Arabic is not the topic of discussion here. How we read/pronounce Urdu is.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> *There are varieties within Scottish English (Edinbugh and Glasgow for example), Geordie, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cockney... and of course the so called "Queen's English". No one degrades any of these types of English.*


Actually, I would say that they do. And sometimes people with, for instance, a Southern U.S. drawl may try to lose that accent, especially in a professional environment. Which is ironic because the Southern U.S. accent (at least based on an article I once read) may be closest to the English of the 1700s. So it is, in a way, more authentic than the Queen's English! 

I think in many languages there is a prestige accent, which is sought, considered "posh", and even mocked by those of "less prestigious" accents. The less prestigious accents, of course, are always mocked. I hear that German, at least, is different. Everyone speaks the variations found in their region with pride. (Not sure though, this is just hearsay.)

And certainly the issue is not quite as simple as that. Somewhere we may also have to deal with the commonly quoted "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy". Are Cockney, Geordie, etc. considered languages? Or do they have other regional languages which they speak, and only when they speak English is their regional accent apparent?

In the subcontinent Punjabi, for instance, is considered a language in its own right. When Punjabi speakers speak Urdu, their accent _might_ be obvious but I daresay a native Urdu speaker's accent in Punjabi would be obvious too and would be considered quite funny too! He might try to get rid of his "Urdu accent" to sound more natural, but not because his Urdu accent is a mark of being uneducated, or low-class, etc. It's just because it sticks out as a sore thumb, the number of native Urdu speakers attempting Punjabi being quite few.

A native Punjabi speaker on the other hand would try to lose his Punjabi accent, but not because it sticks out (the number of Punjabi speakers speaking Urdu being quite large).

Well, all this is what does happen. As for what should happen, of course no one should mock anyone else. If the Urdu of a certain time and area is considered Standard Urdu, then speakers of other languages should try to speak that Urdu. Many will retain their native or regional accent but that's fine. A speaker of the finest Urdu may have an accent while speaking English, which, for better or for worse, is considered even more prestigious in the subcontinent than zabaan-e urduu-e mu3allaa.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib, these are all very insightful observations, but I don't feel like answering the last question, and not solely because it deals with Arabic language, not Urdu. I've been always convinced that the standard Urdu pronunciation of qaaf differs from that one of Qur'anic recitation.


marrish SaaHib, there is "a method in my madness" , if you like! We know this is IIL forum where we deal with Indo-European and not Semitic languages like Arabic but I beg to differ that the Urdu _qaaf _pronunciaiton is different from that in Classical Arabic! If you had mentioned the letters _Saad_, _Dhaad_, _Taa_, _Zaa_ _He_ / _Haa_ etc. I'd almost accept it (although some of us pronounce even these better than what one normally hears, but never mind). The Urdu _qaaf _is no different from the Arabic _qaaf _and if as an Urduphone one can pronounce it properly while reading the Quran in Arabic, then one can transfer that same skill to pronounce it in Urdu. That was the point which of course I'm sure you understood I was making.


marrish said:


> As a matter of my personal experience, there are Arabs who read Qur'an and are educated, but they fail to articulate all the sounds properly, including qaaf. It was a sheer surprise to me, once upon a time.
> heard, that is ''_aap chaahte ho_'', ''_us ne kyaa karnaa hai_''. I am unsure how I should explain this phenomenon to myself.


OK! Now let me tell you something like this that happened to me! My family lived in Iraq for a while and there we heard them pronounce _qaaf _as _gaaf_! So _qabl_ -> _gabl_ etc. But when I heard ordinary Iraqis in cafes quoting verses from the Quran I heard a crisp _qaaf_! Mind you Iraq has a very high rate of literacy so perhaps that might be an explanation. Occasionally they did slip into the_ 3aamiyah_ accent when quoting Quranic verses and mispronouncing _qaaf _but always corrected themselves! Slips happen to the best of us! But I wouldn’t say that at least for the common Iraqis we met, that they had any trouble pronouncing _qaaf_ at all.
Similarly for a non-Arab people like the Iranians. Many pronounce _qaaf _as _ghain_ and, BTW, we even have one or two threads on this topic! But when trained properly they too get the _qaaf_ pronunciation right!


marrish said:


> I know several native Urdu speakers who more frequently don't pronounce qaaf than they do. I agree with you, Faylasoof SaaHib, that we should pronounce it, of course, *but there are people who simply can't do it.*


 There are many Urduphones I admit who can't get _qaaf_ right! Many are self-defined native Urdu speakers because their parents are / were native speakers but they themselves have grown in a very mixed, cosmopolitan environment – and an environment counts for a lot. Some do manage to not only get _qaaf_ right but generally have good Urdu diction others don’t. I’ve seen this phenomena not only in Pakistan but even back in Lucknow where the street language is so different now than when my parents were growing up there. So you remark of “native” Urduphones not getting _qaaf _pronounced correctly in a sense doesn’t surprise me.

One may of course turn around and say why this fuss about _qaaf_ ? The _qaaf_ syndrome! Well, the answer is as I gave above. It is one of our language conventions and has been an integral part of _one of the ways we judge how good Urdu is spoken_.

Let me give you an example from Dutch! If in Dutch you pronounce ‘ch’ as ‘sh’ – like most foreigners do, at least to begin with – and not as ‘x (as in Urdu _xaraab_)’ or pronounce the Dutch ‘g’ as the English ‘g’ and _not_ as ‘x’ , when mostly you are supposed to, then these would be considered signs of bad Dutch pronunciation!

All languages have rules and convention that govern good diction and the crisp Urdu _qaaf_ (uttered just like that in Classical Arabic) has always been _one of the ready signs_ of good Urdu diction! There are other indicators too but this is the one we look for as soon as someone opens their mouth and speaks our language.

I think what you meant when you said "*there are people who simply can't do it*", and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that there are people who haven't been trained / taught the correct _qaaf_ sound! None of us are born with the ability or inability to say _qaaf _properly. All of us if given the right training can do it! It is all about training and when Urdu teachers can't speak the language correctly (_qaaf_ plus many other things, including grammar!) then we can't expect good Urdu from students.  


marrish said:


> I have another question, since you were kind to say that janaab-e Iftikhar Arif SaaHib's Urdu was _puxtah_ by the time of his emigration. Could you please comment on a discussion which spun in another *thread* in reference to a speech by him where two occurences of what I would say, irregular Urdu, are to be heard, that is ''_aap chaahte ho_'', ''_us ne kyaa karnaa hai_''. I am unsure how I should explain this phenomenon to myself.


 I shall re-affirm that Iftikhar Arif SaaHib's Urdu was indeed _puxtah _by the time he emigrated to Pakistan. I have met him several times in the past in London and found him still speaking pretty much like a _lakhnavi_. This was in the 1980s and his _shiin-qaaf _were, needless to say, _durust_! Since then we haven't had chance to meet. The rest I shall answer in the thread you kindly mention.


----------



## Faylasoof

UrduMedium said:


> I agree that many in the Arab world who do not speak the proper _qaaf_, may read it correctly while reading the Qur'an. Which is why I put "_choose not t_o or _cannot_". I was told by Egyptian friends that in spoken Egyptian Arabic, the _qaaf _is replaced by _hamzah _(2). So _qaasim _becomes _2aasim_. Another Sudanese friend (native Arabic speaker) tole me that they replace the _qaaf _with Ghayn, so the Qur'aan becomes Gur'aan. Gulf Arabs do somethign similar. I noticed they write _Shaariqah _and pronounce _Shaardjah_.
> 
> So while they may recite the _qaaf _while reading the Qur'an but in spoken language they often don't and some can't.


 UM Sb, thanks for pointing out the Egyptian hamzah for qaaf – something I myself was going to come around to and also the qaaf -> gaaf shift. As I mention above, you can find that in Iraq too but perhaps due to higher literacy rate there I found all Iraqis we met, easily shifting from their dialect to the classical language pronunciation. Of course amongst themselves they’d rather use the local dialect.


UrduMedium said:


> Also, many of us (subcontinent Urdu speakers) learn to read the Qur'an with proper _tajweed _and can deliver the sounds while reading the Qur'an almost precisely as they should be in Arabic. I believe I can recite the above verses with all the qaaf, dhaal, dhaad, Saad, the, etc. However, those same sounds do not fit well in Urdu speech. For example, a word like 'Uzma' in proper Arabic pronunciation would be almost unrecognizable to an urdu speaker. 3udzhmaa vs uzma. But in my view how we pronounce written Arabic is not the topic of discussion here. *How we read/pronounce Urdu is.*


 I agree that our Urdu pronunciation of many Arabic sounds is different but _qaaf_ , of all the sounds, _is_ an exception. We’ve always used this as one of the prime if not the prime indicator of good Urdu diction and without repeating my arguments above, I’d just say one thing. All languages have rules of good pronunciation (cf. Dutch examples above) and in Urdu _qaaf_ is one such example. Certainly one of the primary ones. This has always been so. Which is why I gave the above examples in post# 3.


----------



## UrduMedium

Faylasoof said:


> UM Sb, thanks for pointing out the Egyptian hamzah for qaaf – something I myself was going to come around to and also the qaaf -> gaaf shift. As I mention above, you can find that in Iraq too but perhaps due to higher literacy rate there I found all Iraqis we met, easily shifting from their dialect to the classical language pronunciation. Of course amongst themselves they’d rather use the local dialect.
> I agree that our Urdu pronunciation of many Arabic sounds is different but _qaaf_ , of all the sounds, _is_ an exception. We’ve always used this as one of the prime if not the prime indicator of good Urdu diction and without repeating my arguments above, I’d just say one thing. All languages have rules of good pronunciation (cf. Dutch examples above) and in Urdu _qaaf_ is one such example. Certainly one of the primary ones. This has always been so. Which is why I gave the above examples in post# 3.



I agree that the proper Urdu _qaaf _is no different from the classical Arabic _qaaf_. I also agree that its proper pronunciation _is _an integral part of Urdu phonology, _unlike _the proper Arabic pronunciation of many other letters like ث ذ ص ض ط ظ ع. So it is an exception. The problem I (and many others) have is when the ability to properly say the _qaaf _is elevated to an unreasonable level of language deficiency. If anything, it is a phonology issue, totally independent of one's overall language capability. Therefore, often it is used to stereotype and castigate otherwise very articulate and capable Urdu speakers. So as long as its scope and importance is understood within its proper bounds, and not exceeded, we can have the proper balance. It should never be an _all-encompassing Urdu litmus test._


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> marrish SaaHib, there is "a method in my madness" , if you like! We know this is IIL forum where we deal with Indo-European and not Semitic languages like Arabic but I beg to differ that the Urdu _qaaf _pronunciaiton is different from that in Classical Arabic! If you had mentioned the letters _Saad_, _Dhaad_, _Taa_, _Zaa_ _He_ / _Haa_ etc. I'd almost accept it (although some of us pronounce even these better than what one normally hears, but never mind). The Urdu _qaaf _is no different from the Arabic _qaaf _and if as an Urduphone one can pronounce it properly while reading the Quran in Arabic, then one can transfer that same skill to pronounce it in Urdu. That was the point which of course I'm sure you understood I was making.



Faylasoof SaaHib, just to reassure you, I understood perfectly what you meant by posing a question related to the articulation of Qur'anic verses by Urdu speakers. The standpoint about the possibility of transfering the skill of pronouncing qaaf onto Urdu speech I consider valid, but I see it only as an option. I may be wrong but we were taught to emphasize qaaf's while reciting in Arabic and normally I tend to put more energy in articulating Arabic than I do it for Urdu! This is merely due to the fact that Arabic is not my first language and as such, requires more attention and effort to pronounce it, while Urdu doesn't! If I am in the mood of hypercorrectness, it is not beyond my capability to bring this strong emphatic qaaf over to Urdu, but, normally it would be considered at least strange to do so! 

I've previously signalized that pronouncing qaaf's is an important feature of chaste Urdu and we pronounce them always where they should be, but I'd like to reiterate that the forcefullness of its pronunciation differs from the Arabic one.



> OK! Now let me tell you something like this that happened to me! My family lived in Iraq for a while and there we heard them pronounce _qaaf _as _gaaf_! So _qabl_ -> _gabl_ etc. But when I heard ordinary Iraqis in cafes quoting verses from the Quran I heard a crisp _qaaf_! Mind you Iraq has a very high rate of literacy so perhaps that might be an explanation. Occasionally they did slip into the_ 3aamiyah_ accent when quoting Quranic verses and mispronouncing _qaaf _but always corrected themselves! Slips happen to the best of us! But I wouldn’t say that at least for the common Iraqis we met, that they had any trouble pronouncing _qaaf_ at all.


Thank you for sharing! Most of Iraqis I met have their qaaf's right.



> Similarly for a non-Arab people like the Iranians. Many pronounce _qaaf _as _ghain_ and, BTW, we even have one or two threads on this topic! But when trained properly they too get the _qaaf_ pronunciation right!


I'm not familiar with the threads you referred to but I am surprised to hear that Iranian qaaf is pronounced as ghain. My experience tells me that they pronounce both _qaaf_ and _ghain_ in the same manner, but it is neither our _qaaf_ nor _ghain_.



> There are many Urduphones I admit who can't get _qaaf_ right! Many are self-defined native Urdu speakers because their parents are / were native speakers but they themselves have grown in a very mixed, cosmopolitan environment – and an environment counts for a lot. Some do manage to not only get _qaaf_ right but generally have good Urdu diction others don’t. I’ve seen this phenomena not only in Pakistan but even back in Lucknow where the street language is so different now than when my parents were growing up there. So you remark of “native” Urduphones not getting _qaaf _pronounced correctly in a sense doesn’t surprise me.


Faylasoof SaaHib, I know some Urduphones, native speakers with lakhnavii background who at times actually choose not to pronounce their qaaf's, however they can do it normally. It is a question of the environment you are in and a sign of change in Urdu. Of course when one is raised in the proper qaafed environment, it is not possible to mix it up but when one is confronted with different register of the language, it is no surprise that one doesn't pay attention to where the qaaf's are. I agree to the fullest about the standard of teaching nowadays.



> One may of course turn around and say why this fuss about _qaaf_ ? The _qaaf_ syndrome! Well, the answer is as I gave above. It is one of our language conventions and has been an integral part of _one of the ways we judge how good Urdu is spoken_.


 I agree that this is one of the conventions of the ''high register''. I used to be surprised at people who don't pronounce it, but I came to realise that this is too widespread to make much fuss about.


> Let me give you an example from Dutch! If in Dutch you pronounce ‘ch’ as ‘sh’ – like most foreigners do, at least to begin with – and not as ‘x (as in Urdu _xaraab_)’ or pronounce the Dutch ‘g’ as the English ‘g’ and _not_ as ‘x’ , when mostly you are supposed to, then these would be considered signs of bad Dutch pronunciation!


Your Dutch example is understandable, but the problem is that you point out to the learners' (initial) inability to pronounce 'g' and 'ch' correctly, whereas we are proceeding with regard to native speakers of the language here. I think there can be no comparison.

Moreover, there are words in Dutch when you must pronounce ''ch'' as ''sh'' and ''g'' as ''g'' (e.g. duchesse, champignon, marechaussee; mengen, tang...).



> All languages have rules and convention that govern good diction and the crisp Urdu _qaaf_ (uttered just like that in Classical Arabic) has always been _one of the ready signs_ of good Urdu diction! There are other indicators too but this is the one we look for as soon as someone opens their mouth and speaks our language.


 It is true, one has to pronounce qaaf properly in Urdu to qualify as a good Urdu speaker but I hear a difference in the Arabic and Urdu pronunciation (even if you listen to mushaa3irah's, when the articulation is of big importance).



> I think what you meant when you said "*there are people who simply can't do it*", and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that there are people who haven't been trained / taught the correct _qaaf_ sound! None of us are born with the ability or inability to say _qaaf _properly. All of us if given the right training can do it! It is all about training and when Urdu teachers can't speak the language correctly (_qaaf_ plus many other things, including grammar!) then we can't expect good Urdu from students.


Very true, but sad enough! There are people who can't get their 'r's right, notwithstanding years of guided pronunciation classes.



> I shall re-affirm that Iftikhar Arif SaaHib's Urdu was indeed _puxtah _by the time he emigrated to Pakistan. I have met him several times in the past in London and found him still speaking pretty much like a _lakhnavi_. This was in the 1980s and his _shiin-qaaf _were, needless to say, _durust_! Since then we haven't had chance to meet. The rest I shall answer in the thread you kindly mention.



I am looking forward to your contribution. Thank you for your remarks.


----------



## BP.

marrish said:


> ... I've previously signalized that pronouncing qaaf's is an important feature of chaste Urdu and we pronounce them always where they should be, but I'd like to reiterate that the forcefullness of its pronunciation differs from the Arabic one. ...


I can second that. I noticed my North African colleagues' qaaf, and my Urdu one was slightly more guttural while theirs is a bit more uvular. Also we can aspirate it into a qhaaf for emphasis (e.g. when scolding someone) while they don't. In (part of) our family accent the terminal qaaf shows a little aspiration, in words like qalaq(h). The classical Arabic qaaf remains unadulterated.

3aammiyyah Arabic is a different matter. marrish sahib's example of Lebanese Arabic I can second too. One of my Lebanese colleagues calls coffee 2ahweh! But he says my name with the proper qaaf. Some Kuwaitis and those from the Jaziirat ul Arab itself shift it towards the Ghain for some medial qaafs, but this I've only witnessed on the Internet so I'd like to leave a little incertitude on it. Unlike us though, most of them seem to use the correct qaaf when they read the Qur2aan.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> If people are not aware of their mispronunciation then they can be reminded without any recourse to derision or ridicule. I absolutely  agree!
> 
> qaaf syndrome! I thought we are talking about a language convention. All languages have conventions and Urdu proper has more conventions than just qaaf! But since this thread is about qaaf, let us just discuss this one.
> 
> True, mispronouncing Urdu may not throw the planet off its orbit but it does the language. So, it is:
> 
> *qiil o qaal* and not *kiil o kaal * -  _kiil_ goes with _hathauRaa_ and _hathauRii_!
> *3aql* (wisdom, reason, understanding etc.) and not* akl *(food)
> *qaanuun* (law) and not _*kanuun*_ (used in names of months in the Arabic solar calendar)
> _*quTub*_ (pole; highest spiritual pivot) and not _*kuTub*_, even worse _*kutub*_ (books) - and now I'm talking about pronunciation and not transliteration!
> etc.
> 
> Whatever Yagaanah said about Iqbal may be considered ungentlemanly, not racist! But that is nothing compared to his vicious criticism Ghalib and his Urdu poetry - and he wasn’t alone in calling the latter an _obscurantist_!
> 
> I agree that English comes in many varieties but all the same there is a standard English language.
> 
> Why must lakhnavii or dehlavi Urdu be the variety worth talking about? Perhaps because we produced a whole lot of poets and writers, many still unsung, btw, esp. those from Lucknow! They all contributed enormously to Urdu literature and influenced many others including from other regions. Josh was from Malihabad (_maliihaabaad_) but influenced by lakhanvii Urdu esp. after he moved there before going to Paksitan. Once a frequent guest of ours as were many other poets. All "*creme de la creme *_of Urdu"  _as you put it so aptly yourself. I absolutely agree we all need to take them as our models.
> 
> General Musharraf may have been born in Delhi but didn’t grow up there! His family migrated to Pakistan when he was quite young and even in Pakistan he wasn’t necessarily in anUrdu-speaking environment. So he is a poor example! Iftikhar Arif is a better example and I know him very well. He left Lucknow as a young man when his Urdu had become _puxtah_!




Faylasoof SaaHib, I have taken the liberty of numbering the points you have made in order respond to each point, one at a time.

1) Yes, one can point this out to such persons if one is face to face with them. Even so, one will have to be very careful because not everyone will have the enthusiasm and  concern for correct use of the language and indeed may not respond positively even if  the correction has been pointed out in the politest and subtlest manner possible. As you have said repeatedly, the answer to speaking a language well lies in its teaching, right from the primary level.

For celebrities and politicians on TV, it is another matter. If a politician on a TV debate programme is saying "tallak" for "ta3alluq", then I would suggest that each party ought to have a language advisor for the MPs (at least) so that when they open their mouths in public they give an air of confidence and pride in the language. TV producers can have a similar system in place for material that is read out. 

2) I mentioned the "qaaf syndrome" deliberately because IMHO, whilst it is paramount to pronounce ALL Urdu consonants (and vowels) accurately in the Urdu manner, not Arabic or any other language, there is nothing sacred about the consonant qaaf. No more indeed than getting the s/sh, the voiced sh (Z as in Zaalah), x/Gh, q and f distinctions correctly. Urdu is NOT "The Language of the qaaf" (as Arabic is considered "The language of the dhaad". It is unnecessary and unwise to criticise people or another community (e.g Punjabi) when some mother tongue Urdu speakers themselves utter z, Z and q incorrectly along with other wrong vowel (e.g vaapis) and make grammatical errors. "qaaf" pronunciation is just as important as any other consonant pronunciation but it is NOT the be all and end all, as it is often made out to be. 

3) Human beings are not always free from certain prejudices and in the case of Iqbal it was no different. The very fact that Yagana Yaas Changezi decided to refer to him as Ikbal was an attack on his ethnicity and that is racist behaviour in any book. Iqbal had to contend with a lot of criticism from mother tongue speakers. Some of it may have been valid but it is not a hidden fact that because of his rising popularity he was seen as an outsider in an environment where almost all if not all of the major figures were mother tongue speakers. There are such people in existence of course who can not sing enough of his praises! Shamsur Rahman Faruqi (How to Read Iqbal) and C. M . Naim (The "Pseudo-Dramatic" poems of Iqbal). I have read a comment I would view as "racist" about Faiz too but there is no need to go into detail about it here.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/srf/srf_iqbalown_2005.pdf (How to Read Iqbal)

http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/apr79/1.htm (The "Pseudo-Dramatic" poems of Iqbal)

4) You have missed out a very important word when you quoted me and that word was "only". "*Why must the Lakhnavii Urdu be considered the only variety worth talking about?"

*We all respect, cherish and pray for the continuance of the literary traditions of the two dabistaans in question. Sadly, both are on the decline and you will probably know more than most of their current situation. Before and since partition Urdu has (fortunately) taken root in other areas which now form Pakistan. The main centres of course are Karachi in Sindh and the State of Punjab where Punjabi is not taught but only Urdu. Again I do not need to emphasise this point but you and the rest of the world will know the part Punjabi literati have played in the development and survival of Urdu. I am not downplaying the role played by other communities in Pakistan but in terms of numbers and quality, Punjabi writers are at the forefront. So, long live the two dabistaans but other dabistaans are taking shape and will no doubt gel into something quite distinct from the nostalgic views we may have of the past. This is reality and we must all be sincere enough to accept it.


----------



## Qureshpor

> I agree with your second point! According to are original language conventions we should (and some of us do) pronounce these letters distinctly! The majority don't!



I hope I have not misunderstood your point.

As far as I know, in the finest Urdu possible, one is not expected to differentiate between se/siin/svaad, te/to'e, zaal, ze/zvaad/zo'e and he/He (hal and Hal). alif/3ain is a slightly different issue because the presence of an 3ain does change the way we pronounce an Urdu word even if  most of us don't pronounce the guttural 3ain when speaking Urdu. Neither is there a necessity or a convention for this to be pronounced in this manner.

Those who differentiate all these consonants in the Qur'anic manner are not speaking Urdu!


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Also, many of us (subcontinent Urdu speakers) learn to read the Qur'an with proper _tajweed _and can deliver the sounds while reading the Qur'an almost precisely as they should be in Arabic. I believe I can recite the above verses with all the qaaf, dhaal, dhaad, Saad, the, etc. However, those same sounds do not fit well in Urdu speech. For example, a word like 'Uzma' in proper Arabic pronunciation would be almost unrecognizable to an urdu speaker. 3udzhmaa vs uzma. But in my view how we pronounce written Arabic is not the topic of discussion here. How we read/pronounce Urdu is.



I wholeheartedly agree with the above and I have indicated this in another post.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> Actually, I would say that they do. And sometimes people with, for instance, a Southern U.S. drawl may try to lose that accent, especially in a professional environment. Which is ironic because the Southern U.S. accent (at least based on an article I once read) may be closest to the English of the 1700s. So it is, in a way, more authentic than the Queen's English!
> 
> I think in many languages there is a prestige accent, which is sought, considered "posh", and even mocked by those of "less prestigious" accents. The less prestigious accents, of course, are always mocked. I hear that German, at least, is different. Everyone speaks the variations found in their region with pride. (Not sure though, this is just hearsay.)
> 
> And certainly the issue is not quite as simple as that. Somewhere we may also have to deal with the commonly quoted "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy". Are Cockney, Geordie, etc. considered languages? Or do they have other regional languages which they speak, and only when they speak English is their regional accent apparent?
> 
> In the subcontinent Punjabi, for instance, is considered a language in its own right. When Punjabi speakers speak Urdu, their accent _might_ be obvious but I daresay a native Urdu speaker's accent in Punjabi would be obvious too and would be considered quite funny too! He might try to get rid of his "Urdu accent" to sound more natural, but not because his Urdu accent is a mark of being uneducated, or low-class, etc. It's just because it sticks out as a sore thumb, the number of native Urdu speakers attempting Punjabi being quite few.
> 
> A native Punjabi speaker on the other hand would try to lose his Punjabi accent, but not because it sticks out (the number of Punjabi speakers speaking Urdu being quite large).
> 
> Well, all this is what does happen. As for what should happen, of course no one should mock anyone else. If the Urdu of a certain time and area is considered Standard Urdu, then speakers of other languages should try to speak that Urdu. Many will retain their native or regional accent but that's fine. A speaker of the finest Urdu may have an accent while speaking English, which, for better or for worse, is considered even more prestigious in the subcontinent than zabaan-e urduu-e mu3allaa.



Abu Talha SaaHib, you have made a number of inter-connected points and it will not be easy for me to cover everything but I will try.

Indeed there are accents which are considered "posh" in any language and if I had sufficient time, enthusiasm and most important ability and skill, I would like to speak the poshest Punjabi, Urdu, Farsi, Arabic and English. That would not be because I feel other accents are of lesser worth but merely because of my own personal inner feelings. 

It is also true that some "posh" speakers think that they are some kind of "aasmaanii maxluuq" (a term I have used in my initial post) and everyone else must be subservient to them. We live in an increasingly democratic world where an individual's and a community's rights are protected and enshrined in law. As the saying goes, "vuh din ga'e jab xaliil xaaN faaxtah uRaayaa karte the" aur jab vuh "podiine ke baaGhaat ke maalik the". Now thankfully there is a concept of diversity and I am all for celebrating this diversity. This elitist attitude is not healthy in this modern world of equality, diversity and the rule of law.

Our Prophet (PBUH) in his farewell sermon mentioned that no Arab is superior to a non-Arab and no non-Arab is superior to an Arab. No white man is superior to a black man and no black man is superior to a white man. What is important  is that person's character and his/her "taqwaa", which Muhammad Asad (Message of the Qur'an) translates as "God-consciousness". Reading between the lines one could add "No one language speaker is superior to another, however "posh" that language might be considered".


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> There are many Urduphones I admit who can't get _qaaf_ right! Many are *self-defined* native Urdu speakers because their parents are / were native speakers but they themselves have grown in a very mixed, cosmopolitan environment – and an environment counts for a lot. Some do manage to not only get _qaaf_ right but generally have good Urdu diction others don’t. I’ve seen this phenomena not only in Pakistan but even back in Lucknow where the street language is so different now than when my parents were growing up there. So you remark of “native” Urduphones not getting _qaaf _pronounced correctly in a sense doesn’t surprise me.



I am curious concerning your choice of the word "self-defined". If their parents are Urdu speakers, do they need someone else to give them a certification of their mother-tongue? I don't know if there is a "convention" within the Subcontinental languages of how to define a "mother-tongue speaker" but as far as I know, in Arabic background, a person becomes an Arab if his/her mother speaks Arabic. In the case of the Urdu speakers, both parents are Urdu speakers and so if they should not consider themselves legitimate Urdu speakers what should they consider themselves?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I agree that the proper Urdu _qaaf _is no different from the classical Arabic _qaaf_. I also agree that its proper pronunciation _is _an integral part of Urdu phonology, _unlike _the proper Arabic pronunciation of many other letters like ث ذ ص ض ط ظ ع. So it is an exception. The problem I (and many others) have is when the ability to properly say the _qaaf _is elevated to an unreasonable level of language deficiency. If anything, it is a phonology issue, totally independent of one's overall language capability. Therefore, often it is used to stereotype and castigate otherwise very articulate and capable Urdu speakers. So as long as its scope and importance is understood within its proper bounds, and not exceeded, we can have the proper balance. It should never be an _all-encompassing Urdu litmus test._



I could not have expressed these thoughts more eloquently than you have managed to do. Thank you!

In a discussion in another thread entitled "us ne vaapas aanaa hai", an Urdu speaker (Urdaanii) said something quite befitting.

"Possibly, "ahl-e-zabaan" may not use this "tarkeeb", but then the Urdu world is not peopled by "ahl-e-zabaan" alone.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib, I have taken the liberty of numbering the points you have made in order respond to each point, one at a time.
> ....
> 2) I mentioned the "qaaf syndrome" deliberately because IMHO, whilst it is paramount to pronounce ALL Urdu consonants (and vowels) accurately in the Urdu manner, not Arabic or any other language, there is nothing sacred about the consonant qaaf. No more indeed than getting the s/sh, the voiced sh (Z as in Zaalah), x/Gh, q and f distinctions correctly. Urdu is NOT "The Language of the qaaf" (as Arabic is considered "The language of the dhaad". It is unnecessary and unwise to criticise people or another community (e.g Punjabi) when some mother tongue Urdu speakers themselves utter z, Z and q incorrectly along with other wrong vowel (e.g vaapis) and make grammatical errors. "qaaf" pronunciation is just as important as any other consonant pronunciation but it is NOT the be all and end all, as it is often made out to be.
> ...
> 
> 4) You have missed out a very important word when you quoted me and that word was "only". "*Why must the Lakhnavii Urdu be considered the only variety worth talking about?"*
> 
> We all respect, cherish and pray for the continuance of the literary traditions of the two dabistaans in question……... So, long live the two dabistaans but other dabistaans are taking shape and will no doubt gel into something quite distinct from the nostalgic views we may have of the past. This is reality and we must all be sincere enough to accept it.


 QP SaaHib, I hope you don't feel that I'm being indifferent to your other points that don't appear in the above quote but I feel this issue has no end in sight! I've made my points above and stand by them and though I feel I ought not to continue with these discussions as they'll lead no where, courtesy forces me to reply to at least these two points of yours.

As I stated, qaaf is not the only issue here. The issue is broader, however, as this thread is mostly about qaaf we need to restrict ourselves to this otherswise we'd end up with a derailed thread! So making statements like “_there is nothing sacred about the consonant qaaf. No more indeed than getting the s/sh, the voiced sh (Z as in Zaalah), x/Gh, q and f distinctions correctly. Urdu is NOT "The Language of the qaaf" (as Arabic is considered "The language of the dhaad_" are totally pointless! 

You started this thread and with the specific aim of targeting the latter qaaf! Using terms like “qaaf syndrome” shows how you feel. But* I’ve already stated that good Urdu diction goes beyond qaaf(!) *_all the same the correct pronunciation of this letter happens to be *one important criterion*_(_not the only criteron_) that is used in the same way the Dutch go for the pronunciation of ‘g’ and ‘ch”. Other languages have other conventions. To repeat we are talking of language conventions. All languages have conventions and the qaaf issue is_ one of them_ for Urdu. I therefore regard your quip about “_Urdu is NOT "The Language of the qaaf….." _ not worth answering because it has already been answered.

As to your other point (4 according to your numbering) I answered that too. It seems it is you who has become obsessed with this question not me. If I appear to promote lakhanvii Urdu it is because we are from there and we helped develop the Urdu language to a great extent. You and some others here may or may not agree with this - and to be honest that matter little - but many _urduudaanaan_ have accepted this. Besides, I’ve never denied the existence of other _dabistaans_. However, _what I see is a mutated, grammatically incorrect language being promoted both in schools & colleges and the media and dabsitaanhaa-e-karaachii o laahuar do not seem to even bat an eye!_ 

I’m well aware of the important work promoted by these two ( I’ve friends there) but regret to say how usage _of grammatically incorrect forms_ goes  unchallenged by them, e.g. use of words like _mashkuur_ (!) when _mutashakkir_ is meant. We discussed this here (and in another thread) and if you or anyone wishes to discuss _this_ point further then perhaps we should do it there.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> I am curious concerning your choice of the word "self-defined". If their parents are Urdu speakers, do they need someone else to give them a certification of their mother-tongue? .....


 Please look up the meaning if the term "self-defined" if you wish to but I see it as those Urdupnones either whose native tongue is Urdu or who learnt it as a second language.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib, just to reassure you, I understood perfectly what you meant by posing a question related to the articulation of Qur'anic verses by Urdu speakers. The standpoint about the possibility of transfering the skill of pronouncing qaaf onto Urdu speech I consider valid, but I see it only as an option. _I may be wrong but we were taught to emphasize qaaf's while reciting in Arabic and normally I tend to put more energy in articulating Arabic than I do it for Urdu!_ This is merely due to the fact that Arabic is not my first language and as such, requires more attention and effort to pronounce it, while Urdu doesn't! If I am in the mood of hypercorrectness, it is not beyond my capability to bring this strong emphatic qaaf over to Urdu, but, _normally it would be considered at least strange to do so! _


 _marrish SaaHib, my Urdu qaaf is the same as the Classical Arabic qaaf! __This is nothing strange as far as we are concerned! _…But then we follow different _dabistaans_! 


marrish said:


> Thank you for sharing! Most of Iraqis I met have their qaaf's right.


   As I pointed out above, that depends on whether they are speaking MSA or their _dialect_. Here is an example of the Iraqi _qaaf _in the local dialect:
منو ذيك البنت *الواق**فة* وراهم
_minnu Ziik il-bint *il-waagfa* waraahum
Who’s that girl standing behind them_

The word واقفة is pronounced _waa*g*fa_ where the qaaf -> gaaf shift is seen _in the Iraqi dialect_. The word is feminine of course of  *واقف* _which *in Urdu*_ (and Classical Arabic) *is pronounced as waaqif*. This is the point I meant. 



marrish said:


> ...
> Faylasoof SaaHib, I know some Urduphones, native speakers with lakhnavii background who at times actually choose not to pronounce their qaaf's, however they can do it normally. It is a question of the environment you are in and a sign of change in Urdu….


   It all depends which genration we are talking about. I've met "native" speakers of Urdu who have can't speak Urdu! The environment _is_ important. This point too has been discussed before!


marrish said:


> I agree that this is one of the conventions of the ''high register''. I used to be surprised at people who don't pronounce it, but I came to realise that this is too widespread to make much fuss about.


  High register? May be now anything above a basic level is defined as high register!

But your last point is the one I was suggesting a solution to, i.e. _*good teachers *_-  _*and let me emphasize yet again that the issue goes beyond this supposed qaaf syndrome that good teachers shall solve!*_

Just a general remark! Many contributors here agree that correct pronunciation of qaaf in Urdu is an important issue but then say it isn’t such a big deal after all! So which one is it? Is it in your eyes important? If yes, then one would need to start with instructing children’s teachers first because that is where one needs to begin _ideally_. Although I know adult Europeans who pronounce this and other letters properly when learning Urdu so it is not impossible. All a matter of training!

If, however, it is felt that this is not an issue at all then we can just go like the Turks! Ottoman Turkish had _qaaf_ proper. Not so in Modern Turkish where there is no trace of it.  We can then just dump _qaaf_ in _dabistaaanhaa-e-karaachiii o laahaur _and other budding _dabistaan_sthat you may care to mention (we intend to keep it in ours) - and then perhaps we’ll  have a good excuse to even dump the entire thread!


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> As I stated, qaaf is not the only issue here. The issue is broader, however, as this thread is mostly about qaaf we need to restrict ourselves to this otherswise we'd end up with a derailed thread! So making statements like “_there is nothing sacred about the consonant qaaf. No more indeed than getting the s/sh, the voiced sh (Z as in Zaalah), x/Gh, q and f distinctions correctly. Urdu is NOT "The Language of the qaaf" (as Arabic is considered "The language of the dhaad_" are totally pointless!
> 
> You started this thread and with the specific aim of targeting the latter qaaf! Using terms like “qaaf syndrome” shows how you feel.
> 
> As to your other point (4 according to your numbering) I answered that too. It seems it is you who has become obsessed with this question not me.



Courtesy compels me also to clarify one or two points lest there be any misunderstanding or bad feeling. I could live with the misunderstanding but would not wish any bad feeling. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

I believe what I have said is not "pointless". The point is very simple. qaaf for me is of equal worth as compared with other consonants.

I am afraid you are mistaken in your understanding of my motive behind using the term"qaaf syndrome" and I had no "specific aim of targeting the letter qaaf". You may remember a film called "The China Syndrome" in which it was suggested that if the nuclear reactor had a melt down, the  resultant material would melt everything in its path and come out all the way in China! Similarly, by using the "qaaf syndrome" (in inverted commas, I hasten to add), I suggested that the incorrect pronunciation of this consonant is not likely to throw our planet off its orbit! I hope you see the connection. 

Once again a major misunderstanding on your part, I am afraid to say. You quoted my line but missed out the crucial "only". If one is going to quote someone, then let us be accurate with the quote. I needed to come back to this omission because without it the sense completely changed. The role played by people of UP in the development of Urdu is acknowledged and documented. So, I don't know why you felt the need to question my thoughts or anyone else's on this issue. 

​Finally I did say that I might have misunderstood your implication regarding "self-defined". Here, where I am, "self-defined ethnicity" would mean the ethnicity based on how the individual perceives himself/herself to be. This is the meaning I took for "self-defined".


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Courtesy compels me also to clarify one or two points lest there be any misunderstanding or bad feeling. I could live with the misunderstanding but would not wish any bad feeling. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
> 
> I believe what I have said is not "pointless". The point is very simple. qaaf for me is of equal worth as compared with other consonants.
> 
> I am afraid you are mistaken in your understanding of my motive behind using the term"qaaf syndrome" and I had no "specific aim of targeting the letter qaaf". You may remember a film called "The China Syndrome" in which it was suggested that if the nuclear reactor had a melt down, the  resultant material would melt everything in its path and come out all the way in China! Similarly, by using the "qaaf syndrome" (in inverted commas, I hasten to add), I suggested that the incorrect pronunciation of this consonant is not likely to throw our planet off its orbit! I hope you see the connection.
> 
> Once again a major misunderstanding on your part, I am afraid to say. You quoted my line but missed out the crucial "only". If one is going to quote someone, then let us be accurate with the quote. I needed to come back to this omission because without it the sense completely changed. The role played by people of UP in the development of Urdu is acknowledged and documented. So, I don't know why you felt the need to question my thoughts or anyone else's on this issue.
> 
> ​Finally I did say that I might have understood your implication regarding "self-defined". Here, where I am, "self-defined ethnicity" would mean the ethnicity based on how the individual perceives himself/herself to be. This is the meaning I took for "self-defined".


  Thanks for your above contributions and clearing any misunderstandings that we might have had! I’ve already made my points above so it is no use repeating!


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> _marrish SaaHib, my Urdu qaaf is the same as the Classical Arabic qaaf!
> 
> __*Thank you for sharing. It is not the case with me as I stated before. It might be that my Classical Arabic qaaf is not as it should be, viz. too emphatic.*__
> This is nothing strange as far as we are concerned! _…But then we follow different _dabistaans_!
> _*
> Overarticulating qaaf and other consonants (be it 'R' or 'D' or 'Z') is considered strange, but surely not their normal pronunciation. I don't think we follow different dabistaans - it is just difficult to describe the sounds one makes.
> *_
> As I pointed out above, that depends on whether they are speaking MSA or their _dialect_. Here is an example of the Iraqi _qaaf _in the local dialect:
> منو ذيك البنت *الواق**فة* وراهم
> _minnu Ziik il-bint *il-waagfa* waraahum
> Who’s that girl standing behind them_
> 
> The word واقفة is pronounced _waa*g*fa_ where the qaaf -> gaaf shift is seen _in the Iraqi dialect_. The word is feminine of course of *واقف* _which *in Urdu*_ (and Classical Arabic) *is pronounced as waaqif*. This is the point I meant.
> 
> It all depends which genration we are talking about. I've met "native" speakers of Urdu who have can't speak Urdu! The environment _is_ important. This point too has been discussed before!
> High register? May be now anything above a basic level is defined as high register!
> 
> *Urdu without qaafs is considered a sort of regional variety by us. There are people who are completely surprised to hear that there is a difference in pronunciation of kaaf and qaaf! Not only non-ahl-e zabaan, also Pashtuun, Punjabi and Sindhi and others.
> *
> But your last point is the one I was suggesting a solution to, i.e. _*good teachers *_- _*and let me emphasize yet again that the issue goes beyond this supposed qaaf syndrome that good teachers shall solve!
> *_*
> The root of the problem lies here!*
> 
> Just a general remark! Many contributors here agree that correct pronunciation of qaaf in Urdu is an important issue but then say it isn’t such a big deal after all! So which one is it? Is it in your eyes important? If yes, then one would need to start with instructing children’s teachers first because that is where one needs to begin _ideally_. Although I know adult Europeans who pronounce this and other letters properly when learning Urdu so it is not impossible. All a matter of training!
> *
> I believe it is important for myself but when I hear people mispronounce qaafs it doesn't result in me not being able to understand them. I know that I don't have the power to make millions of people speak correctly so let me limit myself to my own articulation apparatus.*
> 
> If, however, it is felt that this is not an issue at all then we can just go like the Turks! Ottoman Turkish had _qaaf_ proper. Not so in Modern Turkish where there is no trace of it. We can then just dump _qaaf_ in _dabistaaanhaa-e-karaachiii o laahaur _and other budding _dabistaan_sthat you may care to mention (we intend to keep it in ours) - and then perhaps we’ll have a good excuse to even dump the entire thread!
> 
> *I'm sure it is an issue, but there are bigger issues when it comes to the preservation of the language. My last note on the subject of qaaf is the suggestion to everyone to try to pay attention to the qaafs, it just needs more attention (I know a couple of speakers who've changed their speaking habits under my influence). Anyone who knows how to write the words correctly can get his or her qaafs where required.*


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> If, however, it is felt that this is not an issue at all then we can just go like the Turks! Ottoman Turkish had _qaaf_ proper. Not so in Modern Turkish where there is no trace of it.  We can then just dump _qaaf_ in _dabistaaanhaa-e-karaachiii o laahaur _and other budding _dabistaan_sthat you may care to mention (we intend to keep it in ours) - and then perhaps we’ll  have a good excuse to even dump the entire thread!



Faylasoof SaaHib, you may form whatever conclusion you wish to arrive at but I do not believe anyone has suggested "dumping" the qaaf. 

I do not have any narrow geographical or ethnic allegiances so far as Urdu is concerned. For me, no matter where the speaker comes from, it should be spoken correctly. The various "dabistaans" will come and go but if there are sufficient number of people anywhere who care about the language, the language will continue to thrive in its relatively pristine form. There need not be any discriminatory rivalry and inflexible attitude between any of the regions. We need to work together and not form our own little pockets of self-importance.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> Abu Talha SaaHib, you have made a number of inter-connected points and it will not be easy for me to cover everything but I will try...


Thanks Qureshpor Sb. There is not much to disagree with in your reply, except I can not comment on what others think of themselves. I only meant to show that the situation in the Urdu speaking world is not wholly unique.


----------



## UrduMedium

One late thought in defense of the proper _qaaf_. There seems to be many more words in the case of _qaaf _which can lead to misleading meanings because a kaaf equivalent or something very close also is used in the language. This phenomenon is not so severe in other cases like seen, se, saad, and the many z sounds. For example, without proper qaaf:

qamar (moon) becomes kamar (back)
qabiih (wretched) sounds awfully close to kabhii (moment in time)
qaari (reciter) sounds like kaari (craft suffix as in meena kaari)
qaash (fruit slice) becomes kaash (wishing)
baqaa (survival) becomes bakaa (verbal form of baknaa)
firaaq (separation) sounds very much like firaak (dress, frock, word commonly used in Urdu)
muqarrar (appointee) becomes mukarrar (repeated)

The point is that the words clashes may be disproportionately higher for a mispronounced qaaf than for another letter.

This is a very small list. I'm positive there are dozens or hundreds of such common use words. I searched one online dictionary for all the words containing the _qaaf _and found more than ten thousand.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ You need not waste time on producing such lists UM SaaHib because everyone is agreed on correct pronunciation of all consonants and vowels in the prescribed manner for Urdu. But if you do happen to hear someone talking about "kamar" whilst talking about the heavenly object (from context and this is masculine), you will know that he is not talking about his weak kamar which happens to be feminine.

If one is mixing qabiiH with kabhii, then there is more than a "qaaf" problem. The listener ought to know that "kabhii" has an aspirated b, whereas "qabiiH" does n't.

If "kaarii" is followed by "saaHib/saaHab", then you will know the speaker is talking about a "maulanaa" who has expertise in the recitation of the Qur'an!

Of course if the speaker is talking about a "qaash", but pronouncing it as "kaash", then there would not be a subjunctive or a irrealis tense in his sentence!

If our lover is talking about "dard-i-firaak", you will know which one is intended. If it is too tight, then it is "firaak", if it is n't, then of course he/she must have meant "firaaq"!

This just leaves "baqaa/bakaa"..

bakaa kiye ham hameshah, maanaa
kasuu din un ne kahaa nah apnaa!

Miir


----------



## UrduMedium

^ You have successfully deconstructed my less than healthy argument. 

Translation: hazrat ne hamaari baat ki dhajjiyaaN bakher di haiN  

I owe you all the time saved not going through 10K words.


----------

