# Urdu/Hindi: jhuNjhlaahaT



## marrish

Greetings to the Urdu-daanaaN,

The word in question is as in the thread title, which raises at least two questions: does this word belong to the Urdu proper, is it a word shared by Colloquial Hindi, what is the spelling of this word in Hindi and whether there are synonyms that can be used instead. More questions can of course give birth to further description of this word, as it happens here, from unexpected angles.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Greetings to the Urdu-daanaaN,
> 
> The word in question is as in the thread title, which raises at least two questions: does this word belong to the Urdu proper, is it a word shared by Colloquial Hindi, what is the spelling of this word in Hindi and whether there are synonyms that can be used instead. More questions can of course give birth to further description of this word, as it happens here, from unexpected angles.



Could you please specify if your thread deals with standard language or just plane street talk?

I thought the word was "jhuNj(h)alaahaT" and it is equally Urdu and Hindi.


----------



## marrish

_aap kaa Hukm tasliim hai magar afsos! laRii ke 3unwaan meN ab tabdiilii laanaa naa-mumkin ho chukaa hai! maiN taHriirii Ghalatii (typo) kii nishaandihii kaa be-Hadd mamnuun huuN aur abhii mudiiraan (can you accept this for moderators?) ko rapaT dene jaa rahaa(N?) huuN.

_I thought the word was juNjhlaahaT (please note that I made a typo i/u) and the aspiration on the second syllable.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Could you please specify if your thread deals with standard language or just plane street talk?


Look, I think I was clear about it when I specified the source language as something that visually is disturbing with that slash. Then I used the word colloquial to signalize that this word may be colloquial and further on my question specified a separate entity, Urdu proper, to extend the question on this language. So, recognizing the need to specify the standard or other forms of the language, as it is done in other subfora, I can say that my enquiry stretches between both.


----------



## greatbear

As for me, the word is "jhunj(h)alaahaT": the "n" is distinctly pronounced, rather than any nasal happening.


----------



## JaiHind

Jhanjhanahat झनझनाहट is the word to describe sound or feeling of "jhan jhan". For  example, when someone slaps one on the ears, one can say that "मेरा कान  झनझना गया |" 

Or else here: कहीं आपके हाथों में _झनझनाहट_ तो नहीं 

Or here: पैरों में _झनझनाहट_ या एनीमिया जैसे लक्षण

Also, I agree with greatbar above.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> Jhanjhanahat झनझनाहट is the word to describe sound or feeling of "jhan jhan". For  example, when someone slaps one on the ears, one can say that "मेरा कान  झनझना गया |"
> 
> Or else here: कहीं आपके हाथों में _झनझनाहट_ तो नहीं
> 
> Or here: पैरों में _झनझनाहट_ या एनीमिया जैसे लक्षण
> 
> Also, I agree with greatbar above.



I have a feeling that you have a completely different word in mind to what the rest of us are talking about!


----------



## marrish

JaiHind said:


> Jhanjhanahat झनझनाहट is the word to describe sound or feeling of "jhan jhan". For  example, when someone slaps one on the ears, one can say that "मेरा कान  झनझना गया |"
> 
> Or else here: कहीं आपके हाथों में _झनझनाहट_ तो नहीं
> 
> Or here: पैरों में _झनझनाहट_ या एनीमिया जैसे लक्षण
> 
> Also, I agree with greatbar above.


I don't understand. You write somethig totally different but still agree with greatbear.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Greetings to the Urdu-daanaaN,
> 
> The word in question is as in the thread title, which raises at least two questions: does this word belong to the Urdu proper, is it a word shared by Colloquial Hindi, what is the spelling of this word in Hindi and whether there are synonyms that can be used instead. More questions can of course give birth to further description of this word, as it happens here, from unexpected angles.


Greetings marrish SaaHib! As QP SaaHib has already indicated the word indeed has an _aspirated _'j' at the start (i.e. _*jh*unjhlaahaT_) and is very much used in Urdu as it is in Hindi. 
Here it is:
جهنجهلاهٿ _jhunjhlāha__ṭ_ is of course from جهنجهلانا _jhunjhlānā_ . Interestingly Platts gives two pronunciations: جهنجلانا झुंजलाना _jhunjlānā_, v.n.=_jhunj*h*lānā_, and even more interestingly also give جهنجهلاٿ झुंझलाट _jhunjhlā__ṭ_, s.f.=*jhunjhlāha**ṭ*

In our speech it is always _jhunjhlaahaT_ and never _jhunjhlaaT.

I also agree with greatbear that the 'n' is not nasalized! At least according to the standard pronunciation. _


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> Greetings marrish SaaHib! As QP SaaHib has already indicated the word indeed has an _aspirated _'j' at the start (i.e. _*jh*unjhlaahaT_) and is very much used in Urdu as it is in Hindi.
> Here it is:
> جهنجهلاهٿ _jhunjhlāha__ṭ_ is of course from جهنجهلانا _jhunjhlānā_ . Interestingly Platts gives two pronunciations: جهنجلانا झुंजलाना _jhunjlānā_, v.n.=_jhunj*h*lānā_, and even more interestingly also give جهنجهلاٿ झुंझलाट _jhunjhlā__ṭ_, s.f.=*jhunjhlāha**ṭ*
> 
> In our speech it is always _jhunjhlaahaT_ and never _jhunjhlaaT.
> 
> I also agree with greatbear that the 'n' is not nasalized! At least according to the standard pronunciation. _



Thank you (QP SaaHib has been thanked already) and greatbear for pointing out to the lack of nasalization. Actually I was pronouncing this word with nasalization, how stupid of me. I'm also surprised by ...laaT. Could you please tell me whether in your speech both jiims are aspirated?


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Could you please tell me whether in your speech both jiims are aspirated?



If you mean "jh", then in my speech, yes both are "jh", but the second one is lighter (close to "j" yet not "j").


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Thank you (QP SaaHib has been thanked already) and greatbear for pointing out to the lack of nasalization. Actually I was pronouncing this word with nasalization, how stupid of me. I'm also surprised by ...laaT. Could you please tell me whether in your speech both jiims are aspirated?


 Yes we do aspirate _both_ jiims clearly, just as we do in _jhinjhoRnaa_. The –laaT ending given by Platts is something I’ve heard from some but I wouldn’t want to generalize and say that it is typical of the region those individuals came from.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Yes we do aspirate _both_ jiims clearly, just as we do in _jhinjhoRnaa_. The –laaT ending given by Platts is something I’ve heard from some but I wouldn’t want to generalize and say that it is typical of the region those individuals came from.



It seems that Urdu (speakers)'s tendency to drop the final aspiration in a word or a syllable has been rather swift. In Maulavi Abdul Haq's Qavaa'id-i-Urdu (1914), one still finds features which today we would term "archaic", e.g. hoNTh, jhuuTh. Farhang-i-Asifuyyah (1908) provided both jhunjhlaahaT and jhunjlaahaT. In words such as jhuuTh and jhunjh-(laahaT), I wonder whether the phenomenon of close proximity of two aspirates leads speakers to drop the latter. One could say this is similar to two proximate verbal nasals leading to the deletion of one of them. (please see rahii/rahiiN thread).


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> It seems that Urdu (speakers)'s tendency to drop the final aspiration in a word or a syllable has been rather swift. In Maulavi Abdul Haq's Qavaa'id-i-Urdu (1914), one still finds features which today we would term "archaic", e.g. hoNTh, jhuuTh. Farhang-i-Asifuyyah (1908) provided both jhunjhlaahaT and jhunjlaahaT. In words such as jhuuTh and jhunjh-(laahaT), I wonder whether the phenomenon of close proximity of two aspirates leads speakers to drop the latter. One could say this is similar to two proximate verbal nasals leading to the deletion of one of them. (please see rahii/rahiiN thread).


 I’m not sure what the reason might be for others to drop the second aspirated ‘_j_’ form (i.e. the second ‘_jh_’) in these words. It could be what you are saying but we’ve preserved these aspirations. The point of dropping the final aspiration is, I think, a little different and perhaps we can discuss it separately but if aspirations occur at the beginning or middle of words, as we are discussing here, then we always pronounce them. So as I said above, we pronounce both aspirated ‘jiims’ clearly in words like _jhunjhlaahaT, __jhunjhun__aa_ and _jhinjhoRnaa_ etc. But I do recognize that the second ‘_jh_’ can become just a ‘_j_’. I do hear this.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> If you mean "jh", then in my speech, yes both are "jh", but the second one is lighter (close to "j" yet not "j").


 That's quite precise!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> It seems that Urdu (speakers)'s tendency to drop the final aspiration in a word or a syllable has been rather swift. In Maulavi Abdul Haq's Qavaa'id-i-Urdu (1914), one still finds features which today we would term "archaic", e.g. hoNTh, jhuuTh. Farhang-i-Asifuyyah (1908) provided both jhunjhlaahaT and jhunjlaahaT. In words such as jhuuTh and jhunjh-(laahaT), I wonder whether the phenomenon of close proximity of two aspirates leads speakers to drop the latter. One could say this is similar to two proximate verbal nasals leading to the deletion of one of them. (please see rahii/rahiiN thread).


This is an important topic from the point of view of the history and evolution of Urdu. Now, if _qavaa3id_ uses the forms with the final _duchashmii he_, something must have happened there that out of a sudden everyone started applying different orthography. It should have been attested somewhere as a prescription towards the smooth Urdu. If I remember correctly, the British authors of the grammar books mentioned elsewhere have also always used the aspirated last syllables. I believe it requires more effort to pronounce that aspiration at the end of the word.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> This is an important topic from the point of view of the history and evolution of Urdu. Now, if _qavaa3id_ uses the forms with the final _duchashmii he_, something must have happened there that out of a sudden everyone started applying different orthography. It should have been attested somewhere as a prescription towards the smooth Urdu. If I remember correctly, the British authors of the grammar books mentioned elsewhere have also always used the aspirated last syllables. I believe it requires more effort to pronounce that aspiration at the end of the word.


 Although the terminal aspirations are interesting, I thought in this thread we were more concerned with aspirations other than those at the end. However, I do agree that uttering these (terminal aspirations) requires more effort which may explain may explain their dropping out from our speech generally. But the ones either at the beginning or middle of the word (in examples above) are meant to be pronounced. Of course here too you see variation in the way they may be pronounced - or not at all!


----------

