# Urdu-Hindi: kaaGhaz (paper)



## Qureshpor

Urdu, once again, uses a Persian word for "kaaGhaz" for "paper". Does Hindi have an Indic word for paper?


----------



## flyinfishjoe

I don't think such a word exists. Even in other Indian languages the Persian word has been borrowed. In Kannada we call it _kaagaj. _Perhaps paper was brought over to India by the Persians? I remember we had a similar situation with the word for "chair".


----------



## marrish

This one from Platts might have been used: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:4945.platts

S پتر पत्त्त्र _pattra_, पत्र _patra_, _patr_, vulg. _pattar_, s.m. Wing of a bird, pinion, feather, feather of an arrow; any vehicle (e.g. chariot, cart, horse, camel, &c.); leaf (of a tree, or of a flower, or of a book); leaf of the _Laurus cassia_ (syn. _tej-pattā_); *a leaf prepared for writing on, paper;* letter, epistle, document, deed; gold leaf, &c., a thin piece, or plate, of metal; a grant or conveyance of land engraven on a plate of metal; lines and signs painted on the face with musk and other fragrant substances:—_patrāṅk_ (_patra_+_aṅka_), s.m. The figure or number of the page of a book, paging:—_pattrāṅg_, _patrāṅg_ (_patra_+_aṅga_), s.m. Red sanders, _Pterocarpus santolinus_; red or sappan wood; a species of birch:—_patra-pushp_, s.m. A species of plant, a red sort of _Tulsī_ or basil, _Ocymum sanctum_:—_patra-pushpak_, s.m. A species of birch (from the bark of which _ḥuqqa_ snakes, &c. are made):—_patra-raṅjan_, s.m. Embellishing a page, illuminating, gilding:—_patra-sirā_, _patra-nāṛikā_, s.f. The vein or fibre of a leaf:—_patra-gupta_, s.m. A species of Euphorbia:—_patropaskar_ (_patra_+_up˚_), s.m. The plant_Cassia sophora_:—_patrottar_ (_patra_+_ut˚_), s.m. Reply to a letter:—_patrorṇa_ (_patra_+_ūr˚_), s.m. The plant _Calosanthes Indica_; and _Bignonia Indica_.


----------



## panjabigator

No clue, Qureshpor, but perhaps apropos to your query: I've seen the word "kāgad" written many times in the Guru Granth Sahib. Reminded me of your comment on "gumbad" and "gumbaz."


----------



## marrish

panjabigator said:


> No clue, Qureshpor, but perhaps apropos to your query: I've seen the word "kāgad" written many times in the Guru Granth Sahib. Reminded me of your comment on "gumbad" and "gumbaz."


It may be of interest to you, PG SaaHib, in Gujarati it is kaagaL with a retroflex l.


----------



## panjabigator

Very interesting, Marrish! Thanks for telling me.


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> No clue, Qureshpor, but perhaps apropos to your query: I've seen the word "kāgad" written many times in the Guru Granth Sahib. Reminded me of your comment on "gumbad" and "gumbaz."



Very interesting PG Jii. I have heard Punajbi speakers (illiterate) say kaaGhat" but not "kaagad".


----------



## bakshink

In Punjabi sometime they are used together. "Pulis noon talaashi de dauraan koyee kaagaz- patar nayeen milayaa." Police didn't get any paper during the search.


----------



## Qureshpor

bakshink said:


> In Punjabi sometime they are used together. "Pulis noon talaashi de dauraan koyee kaagaz- patar nayeen milayaa." Police didn't get any paper during the search.


Perhaps "kaaGhaz-patar" could be translated as "documentation". Often, one hears "xat-patar" for a letter.


----------



## tonyspeed

marrish said:


> This one from Platts might have been used: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:4945.platts
> 
> S پتر पत्त्त्र _pattra_, पत्र _patra_, _patr_, vulg. _pattar_, s.m. Wing of a bird, pinion, feather, feather of an arrow; any vehicle (e.g. chariot, cart, horse, camel, &c.); leaf (of a tree, or of a flower, or of a book); leaf of the _Laurus cassia_ (syn. _tej-pattā_); *a leaf prepared for writing on, paper;* letter, epistle, document, deed; gold leaf, &c., a thin piece, or plate, of metal; a grant or conveyance of land engraven on a plate of metal; lines and signs painted on the face with musk and other fragrant substances:—_patrāṅk_ (_patra_+_aṅka_), s.m. The figure or number of the page of a book, paging:—_pattrāṅg_, _patrāṅg_ (_patra_+_aṅga_), s.m. Red sanders, _Pterocarpus santolinus_; red or sappan wood; a species of birch:—_patra-pushp_, s.m. A species of plant, a red sort of _Tulsī_ or basil, _Ocymum sanctum_:—_patra-pushpak_, s.m. A species of birch (from the bark of which _ḥuqqa_ snakes, &c. are made):—_patra-raṅjan_, s.m. Embellishing a page, illuminating, gilding:—_patra-sirā_, _patra-nāṛikā_, s.f. The vein or fibre of a leaf:—_patra-gupta_, s.m. A species of Euphorbia:—_patropaskar_ (_patra_+_up˚_), s.m. The plant_Cassia sophora_:—_patrottar_ (_patra_+_ut˚_), s.m. Reply to a letter:—_patrorṇa_ (_patra_+_ūr˚_), s.m. The plant _Calosanthes Indica_; and _Bignonia Indica_.



This word is still used today but more commonly as an alternative to xat and chiTThii.


----------



## marrish

That means that the meaning I had highlighted has been transferred onto ''_kaaGhaz_'' and its alternative pronunciations while the meaning which is listed subsequently is what has been retained for ''patra''.

Maybe my idea can be clearer this way:

Classically:

_patra = chiTThii = xatt = a letter, epistle;
__patra = pattra = pattar = kaaGhaz = kaagaj etc. = qirtaas = kirtaas = paper

_Now it seems this puzzle goes this way:
_
patra = chiTThii = xatt = a letter, epistle; patra = pattra = pattar /
kaaGhaz = kaagaj etc. = qirtaas = kirtaas = paper
_


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> It may be of interest to you, PG SaaHib, in Gujarati it is kaagaL with a retroflex l.



Ahem, if you are referring to Gujarati ળ, then it is not pronounced as a retroflex l, but rather as a retroflex r. I think that many texts and courses still keep on referring to it as retroflex l, but I have never heard that "l" part - which, for example, can be heard when a Kannadiga says "maLe" (rain). For me, what I have heard for paper in Gujarati is more kaagaR rather than kaagaL.


----------



## JaiHind

*Hindi word for English "Paper"*

Platts clearly mentions "patr" पत्र meaning "paper" amongst its other meanings in Hindi. 



> पत्त्त्र _pattra_, पत्र _patra_, _patr_, vulg. _pattar_, s.m. a leaf prepared for writing on, paper
> 
> http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:4945.platts



*Hindi word for English "Paper" is पत्र. *

Application can be seen in *"Newspaper" in English is called "समाचार पत्र" in Hindi*. Or in *"Question Paper" in English which is called "Prashn Patr" प्रश्न पत्र in Hindi.* An interesting poem mentions it: 



> टीचर प्रश्‍न पत्र हाथो मे ले सब को ललचाता है ,
> 
> आँखो के इशारे से उसकी :ग्रॅविटी” समझता है !
> 
> दिल भी कुछ छण के लिए धड़कना भूल जाता है ,
> 
> सचमुच ऐसा होता है जब आता है “प्रश्‍न पत्र हाथ मे” !



Along with meaning only "paper", "patr" also means "a letter" or a "leaf of a plant/tree" (may be having similarities with the fact that earliest times we used to write over leaves as paper. 

Also, a *"certificate" is called "pramaan patr" प्रमाण पत्र in Hindi*. For example, a poem mentions it: 



> पत्नी बोली आकर पति से,
> श्रीमान जी,इधर तो आओ,...
> प्रेम बस मुझे करते हो, प्रमाण पत्र दिखलाओ..



Also, a "sheet" of paper is called "prishth" पृष्ठ in Hindi.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> *Hindi word for English "Paper"*
> 
> Platts clearly mentions "patr" पत्र meaning "paper" amongst its other meanings in Hindi.
> 
> *Hindi word for English "Paper" is पत्र. *
> 
> Application can be seen in *"Newspaper" in English is called "समाचार पत्र" in Hindi*. Or in *"Question Paper" in English which is called "Prashn Patr" प्रश्न पत्र in Hindi.* An interesting poem mentions it:
> 
> Along with meaning only "paper", "patr" also means "a letter" or a "leaf of a plant/tree" (may be having similarities with the fact that earliest times we used to write over leaves as paper.
> 
> Also, a *"certificate" is called "pramaan patr" प्रमाण पत्र in Hindi*. For example, a poem mentions it:
> 
> Also, a "sheet" of paper is called "prishth" पृष्ठ in Hindi.



I would suggest that the fundamental meaning of the word "patr" is "leaf" and "letter" or "sheet" in the form of prem-patr, samaachaar-patr, prashn-patr is the extended meaning.

How would you say the Urdu phrase "kaaGhaz ke phuul" in Hindi?

By the way, your quotation on "prashn-patr" contains spelling errors.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> How would you say the Urdu phrase "kaaGhaz ke phuul" in Hindi?



Ask any Hindi speaker if he understands "kaagaz ke phuul" and he will say yes: how is the phrase not Hindi?


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Ask any Hindi speaker if he understands "kaagaz ke phuul" and he will say yes: how is the phrase not Hindi?


For clarification, you are right, it is of course Hindi for in Urdu there is the consonant "Ghayn" Gh where your version has "g".


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> For clarification, you are right, it is of course Hindi for in Urdu there is the consonant "Ghayn" Gh where your version has "g".



I shall wait for JH's reply to whom my question was put.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Originally Posted by *greatbear*
> Ask any Hindi speaker if he understands "kaagaz ke phuul" and he will say yes: how is the phrase not Hindi?
> 
> 
> 
> For clarification, you are right, it is of course Hindi for in Urdu there is the consonant "Ghayn" Gh where your version has "g".
Click to expand...

I agree with this! In fact, I'd go further and say that since the original Hindi syllabary didn't have either the "Ghayn" or the "ze" sounds and where instead these respectively would be "g" (as in _gate_) and "j" (as in _jar_), the title of this classic film would then really be “_kaagaj ke phuul_” or else “_kaagaj ke fuul _”. The latter, if you happen to be from a region where "ph" -the aspirated "p"- is regularly converted to an "f". 

I note from post #2 that in Kannada too the Urdu usage “_kaaGhaz_” has been transformed to “_kaagaj_” - the same as the _common_ Hindi pronunciation, though many Hindiphones I know are able to clearly pronounce both "Ghayn" and "ze".


----------



## JaiHind

QURESHPOR said:


> I would suggest that the fundamental meaning of the word "patr" is "leaf" and "letter" or "sheet" in the form of prem-patr, samaachaar-patr, prashn-patr is the extended meaning.
> 
> How would you say the Urdu phrase "kaaGhaz ke phuul" in Hindi?



No, I fear we should not choose "fundamental meaning" depending on our own views on some issues. 

Both "Samachar patr" and "Prem patr" are different words: Samachar patr means news paper; prem patr means love letter. Because the word patr means both paper and the letter written on it.

For "Kaagaj ke phool", it can be said "as it is" in Hindi also. Because flower means फूल in Hindi, apart from its other words like पुष्प, कुसुम etc. 

I know you are trying to trick me with "kagaj ke phool" because since both paper/kaagaj and leaves have the same word "patr" in Hindi. Since patte (leaves) would be more naturally attached to a flower (plant) than kagak (paper), if I translate "kagaj ke phool" literally as "patr pushp" or "patr kusum", it would look as if I am pointing towards "patr" meaning "leaves" (flower petals). 

Btw, patr pushp indeed means 



> *पत्र-पुष्प*                      पुं० [ब० स०] १. लाल  तुलसी। २. एक विशेष प्रकार की तुलसी जिसकी पत्तियाँ छोटी-छोटी होती हैं। ३.  सत्कार या पूजा की बहुत ही साधारण सामग्री। ४. सामान्य या तुच्छ उपहार।
> 
> http://pustak.org/home.php?mean=68637



If you want a term in Sanskrit or Sanskritized Hindi for "kagaj ke phool", I would say none exists. Because paper-flowers didn't come naturally in nature and ancient Sages in India won't be knowing that later on flowers would be made artificially of paper (in fact they won't be knowing paper at that time which was invented later). Hence it is only naturally that in Sanskrit there won't be a term for "paper-flower". May be I don't know and others can suggest.

Also, the term "kaagaj ka phool" itself is unnatural. Do we say "ped ke phool" for natural flowers? Or do we say, "paudhe ke phool"? No. We only say "phool" for flowers. So "kaagaj ka phool" means "flower made up on paper". 

Hence in Hindi, I can say, "kritrim pushp" for "kagaj ke phool or paper flower".


----------



## JaiHind

greatbear said:


> Ask any Hindi speaker if he understands "kaagaz ke phuul" and he will say yes: how is the phrase not Hindi?



Right. It is Hindi. But may be Qureshpor was asking for Sanskrit words for the same and yet said Hindi? 

In fact if you read through his initial post where he starts with "Urdu, once again, uses..." and his "Does Hindi have an Indic".. etc. Why insert Urdu here and not simply ask "what are the alternative words in Hindi for Kagaj"? Or more clear and honest - what is the Sanskrit word for Kagaj? So it seems he had "something" in mind while opening this thread. May be he never "expected" a word like "patr" exist in Hindi  And then at the end he could have made his prepared comment. But it didn't go that way... Let us see...


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> Right. It is Hindi. But may be Qureshpor was asking for Sanskrit words for the same and yet said Hindi?
> 
> In fact if you read through his initial post where he starts with "Urdu, once again, uses..." and his "Does Hindi have an Indic".. etc. Why insert Urdu here and not simply ask "what are the alternative words in Hindi for Kagaj"? Or more clear and honest - what is the Sanskrit word for Kagaj? So it seems he had "something" in mind while opening this thread. May be he never "expected" a word like "patr" exist in Hindi  And then at the end he could have made his prepared comment. But it didn't go that way... Let us see...


You can assume what you like but after your explanation that "patr" means paper in Hindi,  I would like you to tell us how "patr" would fit in the phrase"kaaGhaz ke phuul". It is as simple as that. Answer the question.


----------



## greatbear

Forget JH, I shall answer your question. Yes, "pushp ke patr" would mean the same thing as "kaagaz ke phuul" - satisfied? Lol.


----------



## Phosphorus

In Kurdish "perr" ~ "feather" is also employed in sense of "piece of paper" or, more exactly, "page". Kurdish "perr" means "a little bit/piece of something" too, and in this sense there is also "pitir"-which I always speculate as a cognate of Sanskrit "patram" or Hittite "pittar".

But after all I presume, in regard with the Iranian proper, an Indic "patr" could mean "page (~ a piece of paper)" rather than "paper" itself.


----------



## Qureshpor

Phosphorus said:


> In Kurdish "perr" ~ "feather" is also employed in sense of "piece of paper" or, more exactly, "page". Kurdish "perr" means "a little bit/piece of something" too, and in this sense there is also "pitir"-which I always speculate as a cognate of Sanskrit "patram" or Hittite "pittar".
> 
> But after all I presume, in regard with the Iranian proper, an Indic "patr" could mean "page (~ a piece of paper)" rather than "paper" itself.


Thank you Phosphorus SaaHib. This is exactly what I had in mind. The Urdu phrase "kaaGhaz ke phuul" means "paper flowers", i.e. flowers made from the substance called paper. I too do not believe that "patr" stands for the material but rather it denotes an object. So, we still do not seem to have an Indic word for paper.


----------



## panjabigator

> So, we still do not seem to have an Indic word for paper.



QP Sahib, what is your rubric for "Indic" here? I would say that members have provided a general idea of equivalent or related words/concepts in Hindi for کاغذ काग़ज़. Since words from Persian and Arabic do "indigenize" in South Asian languages, can we just call کاغذ काग़ज़ the "Indic" word in addition to words like "patr," etc? 

I'm trying to recollect the conversation in the kitāb/pustak thread from earlier where someone made an assertion that "pust" was related to hyde (perhaps for writing)? Not to derail us from the conversation, but I thought I'd mention it.


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> QP Sahib, what is your rubric for "Indic" here? I would say that members have provided a general idea of equivalent or related words/concepts in Hindi for کاغذ काग़ज़. Since words from Persian and Arabic do "indigenize" in South Asian languages, can we just call کاغذ काग़ज़ the "Indic" word in addition to words like "patr," etc?
> 
> I'm trying to recollect the conversation in the kitāb/pustak thread from earlier where someone made an assertion that "pust" was related to hyde (perhaps for writing)? Not to derail us from the conversation, but I thought I'd mention it.



The "rubric" is quite simple PG SaaHib. 

siyaah (Persian) = kaalaa (Indic)
kaaGhaz (Persian) = ? (Indic)

If there is n't an equivalent, it's not a big deal. I thought there might be.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> The "rubric" is quite simple PG SaaHib.
> 
> siyaah (Persian) = kaalaa (Indic)
> kaaGhaz (Persian) = ? (Indic)
> 
> If there is n't an equivalent, it's not a big deal. I thought there might be.



Really? I thought "kaaraa" is Turkish for black, and I don't think Turkish took it from Indic.

Your question, QP, is akin to asking what is English for "debt" or "joy": they are English! People don't say debt (French) = ? (English). Oh no, that's laughable. Your question, frankly speaking, is simply rhetoric that you have been indulging in here since a long time, I don't know for what objective, since it does not seem to me that you are really after an answer.


----------



## Qureshpor

It has become obvious to me and it should have become blatantly obvious to everyone else that just like there is no Indic word for the Urdu "kursii", there is also none for kaaGhaz. 

H کالا काला_kālā [Prk. कालओ; S. कालकः], adj. & s.m. (f. -ī), Black, dark;—great, fearful, terrible;—a name of Krishṇ; the black and most venomous variety of the cobra, Coluber naga;—a sepoy:_


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> *Really? I thought "kaaraa" is Turkish for black, and I don't think Turkish took it from Indic.
> *
> Your question, QP, is akin to asking what is English for "debt" or "joy": they are English! People don't say debt (French) = ? (English). Oh no, that's laughable. Your question, frankly speaking, is simply rhetoric that you have been indulging in here since a long time, I don't know for what objective, since it does not seem to me that you are really after an answer.



*What is the need to mix Turkish into the discussion, I mean what is the relevance of black being kara in Turkish?
*
There is also no need to interpret or speculate about the words or intentions of other members. For me, it is a simple question about the Indic equivalent of the word _kaaGhaz_, which is a loan-word. I tried to offer an answer (patra) which has proven to be rather a piece of paper or leaf rather than ''paper'' as a substance. 

It would be interesting to find an answer to this question, whether the Persian word came with the introduction of paper in the Subcontinent or was there any other word for it, of Indic origins, that was to get totally replaced by the Persian and Urdu one.


----------



## Phosphorus

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you Phosphorus SaaHib. This is exactly what I had in mind. The Urdu phrase "kaaGhaz ke phuul" means "paper flowers", i.e. flowers made from the substance called paper. I too do not believe that "patr" stands for the material but rather it denotes an object. So, we still do not seem to have an Indic word for paper.



I see. Yes Qureshpor SaaHib I too agree with your viewpoint. I believe in Persian they use "برگه" ~ "leaf" in the same sense. Also there is Kurdish "pirtok" (<? "petrok*") meaning "book", but I do not know if it has any thing to do with Kurdish "pitir", Sanskrit "patram", or English "feather".

In any ways I do not speculate Kurdish "perr", Persian "bargeh", or Indic "patr" as complete counterparts for "paper". The common word "kaaghadh" is, if I am not mistaken, originally a Chinese word itself.

I wonder if modern Hindi "patr" that the other contributors suggest to semantically cover "paper" too, is kind of a incorrect neologism or not? Perhaps something similar to modern Turkish "ulus" ~ "nation" which as far as my mind goes is borrowed back from Mongolian in sense of "empire" or "people (living in an empire)" (the Mongolian word is itself loaned from Turkish "ulush" meaning "country"!). That is improper semantic employment.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor SaaHib, my Hindi dictionary displays a word _*kaagad*_ and says it means "_kaagaj"_, while its etymology is given as Sanskrit!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, my Hindi dictionary displays a word _*kaagad*_ and says it means "_kaagaj"_, while its etymology is given as Sanskrit!



Thank you, marrish SaaHib. I have checked my Sanskrit dictionary and nothing of the sort is listed. You can draw your own conclusion.


----------



## Phosphorus

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, my Hindi dictionary displays a word _*kaagad*_ and says it means "_kaagaj"_, while its etymology is given as Sanskrit!



As far as I know "kaagad(h)" is generally considered to be of Chinese origin. Would you please cite the given Sanskrit etymology in your dictionary?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you, marrish SaaHib. I have checked my Sanskrit dictionary and nothing of the sort is listed. You can draw your own conclusion.


I have drawn my conclusion even before I posted this piece of news! Thank you for checking!

Platts has something which deals with the substance:

H کوٿ कूट _kūṭ_ (v.n. fr. _kūṭnā_, q.v.), s.m. Macerated paper, paper used for making paste-board, _papier-maché_.


----------



## marrish

Phosphorus said:


> As far as I know "kaagad(h)" is generally considered to be of Chinese origin. Would you please cite the given Sanskrit etymology in your dictionary?


The dictionary is most certainly wrong in its etymology. There is nothing more than [San.]. Another dictionary (Platts) presents the etymology as follows:

P  کاغذ_kāGhaz (for orig. kāGhad; said to be fr. kāGh, 'sound or noise'+da, 'giving forth'). 

The dictionary is old so please bear in mind that the etymological origins are not always accurate._


----------



## Phosphorus

marrish said:


> The dictionary is most certainly wrong in its etymology. There is nothing more than [San.]. Another dictionary (Platts) presents the etymology as follows:
> 
> P  کاغذ_kāGhaz (for orig. kāGhad; said to be fr. kāGh, 'sound or noise'+da, 'giving forth').
> 
> The dictionary is old so please bear in mind that the etymological origins are not always accurate._



Thanks for the citation. Yes the Sanskrit proper is out of context, and the given Persian etymology sounds tenuous. I could not find any Chinese roots for it, but the legend has it that Chinese captives in the post-Islamic Sogdiana, have introduced this word to Iranians.


----------



## marrish

Phosphorus said:


> Thanks for the citation. Yes the Sanskrit proper is out of context, and the given Persian etymology sounds tenuous. I could not find any Chinese roots for it, but the legend has it that Chinese captives in the post-Islamic Sogdiana, have introduced this word to Iranians.


It sounds very interesting, especially that it was the Chinese who invented it (I was told so). aaqaa-ye-Phosphorus, in case you happen to come up against something on this subject, please do post it.


----------



## Phosphorus

marrish said:


> It sounds very interesting, especially that it was the Chinese who invented it (I was told so). aaqaa-ye-Phosphorus, in case you happen to come up against something on this subject, please do post it.



Yes you are correct Marrish SaaHib. The earliest scientific evidences that we have so far obtained in regard with paper, leads us all the way to confirm that the Chinese have invented it.


----------



## Faylasoof

Phosphorus said:


> Thanks for the citation. Yes the Sanskrit proper is out of context, and the given Persian etymology sounds tenuous. I could not find any Chinese roots for it, but the legend has it that Chinese captives in the post-Islamic Sogdiana, have introduced this word to Iranians.


  Phosphorus SaaHib, I think this is not quite a legend. I grant you that some facts may be disputed about these captives being the main source of the Chinese paper making methods but you are right that Sogdiana looms large in the story. Here it is:

Firstly, I found *كاغد kaaGhad*  in my copy of  the Classical Arabic Lexicon: القاموس المحيط  _al-qamuus al-MuHiiT _by_ firuuzaabaadi_ (Abu-Tahir Ibn Ibrahim Majd-ud-Din al-Fairuzabadi):

الكاغَدُ: القِرْطاسُ، مُعَرَّبٌ.
_al-kaaGhadu_: _al-qirTaasu_, _mu3arrabun_ – meaning Arabicised, i.e. of non-Arabic origin.

Undisputedly, the Chinese did indeed invent paper around 105 A.D. and the person given credit for this is someone called Ts’ai-Lun. From the Han period I think. The Chinese word for paper might be *gu-zhi*.

(The paper trail of paper itself then goes cold! We next hear about the defeat of the Chinese by the Arabs at the Battle of Talas, Central Asia, in 751 AD as an important event in the story but some scholars of the Soviet era challenged this. However, what has been established is that paper was being used in Central Asia around this date, perhaps slightly earlier.)

When the Arabs first encountered it in the 8th century they called it *كاغد kaaGhad*, a name said to have been borrowed from Uighur and / or Sogdian. In Turkish it is still *kâğıt*. So the Uighur connection may be worth chasing as would Sogdian - perhaps a borrowing from Uighur. 

Paper mills were soon established throughout the Middle East as testified by the 11the century Persian explorer Nasir Khusrau (_naaSir xusrau_) when he visited Fustat, Egypt. The 11th century Persian-born Arabic historian & philologist, _3abd-ul-malik ath-tha3aalibi_ , also mentions paper production in Samarqand in his book _laTa'if-ul-ma3aarif  _لطائف المعارف by _ath-tha3aalabii_ الثعالبي (The Book of Curious and Entertaining Information) and that it originally came to the Middle East from Central Asia.

BTW, the Arabic *قِرطاس qirtaas*, mentioned above, is from Greek *Χάρτης* (=_xaartes_ ; Χαρτί in Modern Greek). Otherwise Arabic uses *ورق waraq* = folio, foliage, leaf (plural أوراق _auraaq_). This is the same as* patr *in Hindi. We too use *ورق waraq* in Urdu in the sense of leaf = 2 x pages = 2 x SafHaat, but often the distinction between a page and leaf is not made. For paper of course we use *کاغذ kaaGhaz*. Platts' suggestion of a Persian etymology might reflect the source of immediate borrowing into Urdu. I do not know if he tried to look at an earlier origin. Most of the times he is correct!


----------



## Phosphorus

Faylasoof said:


> Phosphorus SaaHib, I think this is _not quite_ a legend. I grant you that some facts may be disputed about these captives being the main source of the Chinese paper making methods but you are right that Sogdiana looms large in the story. Here it is:
> ..........In Turkish it is still *kâğıt*. So the Uighur connection may be worth chasing as would Sogdian - perhaps _a borrowing from Uighur_.
> ..........Platts' suggestion of a Persian etymology might reflect the source of immediate borrowing into Urdu. I do not know if he tried to look at an earlier origin. Most of the times he is correct!



ِThanks for providing these notes Faylasoof SaaHib. My point by referring to it as a legend was emphasizing the *scientific authenticity*. The story about Chinese captives producing paper with so elaboration in Sogdiana is, as far as I know, recorded in Ibn Khordadbeh's "Book of Roads and Kingdoms" (المسالک و الممالک) for first time. The book is said to be written down some 100 years after the captivation of the aforesaid Chinese. And as a matter of fact some scholars seriously argue that the current version of this book at hand is indeed a distorted one which has been received to us throughout history. This historical gap, at least up to 100 years, is devastating to the authenticity of any historical materials. So based on my meager information in this regard I did not dare refer to it as a historical fact, but rather a legend. Please check the arguments in favor of and against the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth (a.k.a Jesus Christ) in order to have it best clarified. There you can comprehend the exquisite differences between say traditional "history" as "a distillation of rumor" and archaeology as a science. The former description perhaps explains why I have often heard the _hadith_ you have put as your signature to be sayings of the Prophet of Islam not, as you hold, the words of his son of law (since the earliest evidences of recording a7aadiith starts off some 100 years after the death of the prophet and actually most of the traditionally reliable historical sources among Muslims pertain to centuries after the death of the early Islamic figures-Prophet, his four successor, Imams, etc.).

By the way I presume in suchlike cases it is often Uyghur that borrows from Sogdian, not the vice versa. Would you please provide the source that holds the Sogdian word is perhaps a borrowing from the Uyghur proper?

And for Platt I believe that etymology is usually concerned with tracing back a word as far as possible. Platt is incorrect in pointing out that Urdu has borrowed it from Persian, but he is obviously imprecise in leaving it out there.


----------



## Phosphorus

Phosphorus said:


> ِPlatt is not incorrect in pointing out that Urdu has borrowed it from Persian, but he is obviously imprecise in leaving it out there.


----------



## Faylasoof

Phosphorus said:


> Thanks for providing these notes Faylasoof SaaHib. My point by referring to it as a legend was emphasizing the *scientific authenticity*. The story about Chinese captives producing paper with so elaboration in Sogdiana is, as far as I know, recorded in Ibn Khordadbeh's "Book of Roads and Kingdoms" (المسالک و الممالک) for first time. The book is said to be written down some 100 years after the captivation of the aforesaid Chinese…...
> 
> By the way I presume in suchlike cases it is often Uyghur that borrows from Sogdian, not the vice versa. Would you please provide the source that holds the Sogdian word is perhaps a borrowing from the Uyghur proper?
> 
> And for Platt I believe that etymology is usually concerned with tracing back a word as far as possible.
> Originally Posted by *Phosphorus*
> Platt is not incorrect in pointing out that Urdu has borrowed it from Persian, but he is obviously imprecise in leaving it out there.


_aziizam aaGhaa-e-phosphorus_, I take your points! Establishing historical facts are indeed at times quite tricky. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough but I meant to say that the event in question has one way or another affected the discussion about paper and hence all connected to it.
(Regarding the issue of hadith I decided to err on the right side, I think, as some have disputed over it but we can discuss this privately although there too, I feel, we understand each other).

I also understand that the flow from Sogdian to Uighur in word borrowing is usually the case but wished to leave the question open in this case as I have not enough detailed knowledge to decide on this matter. Given the “rule” it is more likely that the word went from Sogdian to Uighur. The Chinese to Sogdian is something else.

Lacking any knowledge of Uighur and not having a dependable lexicon of this language either I can’t say any more on this. In my Sogdian dictionary however we see this (*in bold*, the rest is my elaboration) :

*k’γδ’* = *kaaγaδaa*  = kaaGhadaa *کاغذ* _kaaGhaz_ 

[*q’γδ’* = *qaaγaδaa*  = qaaGhadaa   *قاغذ* _qaaGhaz_ (!) – We needn’t go into this in any detail.]

*k’γδy’kh* = *kaaγaδyaak* = kaaGhadyak = *کاغذی* _kaaGhazii_

The first above of course explains what _al-muHiit_ says for Arabic, i.e. _al-kaaGhad_.

I also had a look at my Steingass’ Arabic-English lexicon. This too deals with the vocabulary of Classical Arabic and here he has:

 کاغذ _kaaGh*i*z_ :  paper (Persian) [BTW, Steingass hardly has any etymology anyway so it is understandable that he doesn't go beyond Persian in this case.]

So far we can take it all the way back to Sogdian.... and marrish SaaHib, if I may be allowed to add, it is Sogdian and not Sanskrit, as your lexicon says, where we get our word.

Just a small point about Platts in general. He is very good at etymologies when it comes to etymologies coming from Indo-Persian and Arabic words. Beyond that he can err as we’ve discovered for other words too that seem to fall outside what looks like his specialization.


----------



## Phosphorus

Faylasoof said:


> _aziizam aaGhaa-e-phosphorus_, I take your points! Establishing historical facts are indeed at times quite tricky. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough but I meant to say that the event in question has one way or another affected the discussion about paper and hence all connected to it.
> (Regarding the issue of hadith I decided to err on the right side, I think, as some have disputed over it but we can discuss this privately although there too, I feel, we understand each other).



It's all right Faylasoof SaaHib. Yes we can indeed understand each other. And in regard to the hadith, I just wanted to exemplify the devastating uncertainties which do occur where we deal with historical materials that are either posthumous or not of first hand origin. The attribution of hadith to the Prophet or his cousin does not matter that much in practice, since the later had received enough spiritual instructions from his elder cousin to the point that peerless mystic figures such as Mawlana describe him as _Leo Dei _(اسد الله): "zen hamrahaanii sust'anaasur diilam giiriift / Sherii Xudaa-wu Rustamii Dastaanam arizost"



Faylasoof said:


> I also understand that the flow from Sogdian to Uighur in word borrowing is usually the case but wished to leave the question open in this case as I have not enough detailed knowledge to decide on this matter. Given the “rule” it is more likely that the word went from Sogdian to Uighur. The Chinese to Sogdian is something else.
> 
> Lacking any knowledge of Uighur and not having a dependable lexicon of this language either I can’t say any more on this. In my Sogdian dictionary however we see this (*in bold*, the rest is my elaboration) :
> 
> *k’γδ’* = *kaaγaδaa*  = kaaGhadaa *کاغذ* _kaaGhaz_
> 
> [*q’γδ’* = *qaaγaδaa*  = qaaGhadaa   *قاغذ* _qaaGhaz_ (!) – We needn’t go into this in any detail.]
> 
> *k’γδy’kh* = *kaaγaδyaak* = kaaGhadyak = *کاغذی* _kaaGhazii_
> 
> The first above of course explains what _al-muHiit_ says for Arabic, i.e. _al-kaaGhad_.
> 
> I also had a look at my Steingass’ Arabic-English lexicon. This too deals with the vocabulary of Classical Arabic and here he has:
> 
> کاغذ _kaaGh*i*z_ :  paper (Persian) [BTW, Steingass hardly has any etymology anyway so it is understandable that he doesn't go beyond Persian in this case.]
> 
> So far we can take it all the way back to Sogdian.... and marrish SaaHib, if I may be allowed to add, it is Sogdian and not Sanskrit, as your lexicon says, where we get our word.
> 
> Just a small point about Platts in general. He is very good at etymologies when it comes to etymologies coming from Indo-Persian and Arabic words. Beyond that he can err as we’ve discovered for other words too that seem to fall outside what looks like his specialization.



That is right. Thanks for the information pal.


----------



## JaiHind

QURESHPOR said:


> You can assume what you like but after your explanation that "patr" means paper in Hindi,  I would like you to tell us how "patr" would fit in the phrase"kaaGhaz ke phuul". It is as simple as that. Answer the question.



Language is not mathematics, dear  You can't fit any word in any phrase, to mean the same.

Yet, I take your challenge and here is my answer: 

"Patr ke pushp" would mean "kagaj ke phool". 

I hope this answers your question?


----------



## JaiHind

Or may be "पत्र निर्मित पुष्प" would be more appropriate than "पत्र के पुष्प".

Also, कृत्रिम पुष्प (पत्र निर्मित) could also be used to mean the same.

As such for all practical purposes, "कागज के फूल" is in Hindi language.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> Language is not mathematics, dear  You can't fit any word in any phrase, to mean the same.
> 
> Yet, I take your challenge and here is my answer:
> 
> "Patr ke pushp" would mean "kagaj ke phool".
> 
> I hope this answers your question?


I hope your use of the word "dear" is sincere.

No, it was merely a question and not a challenge. If that was the case, I would have made it plainly obvious.

Supposing we have.. 

kaaGhaz kaa Dibbah (paper box), gatte kaa Dibbah (cardboard box), lakRii kaa Dibbah (wooden box) and lohe kaa Dibbah (Iron box). Would you really say that "patr kaa Dibbah" would mean "paper box"? kaaGhaz, as has been made clear in previous posts, is a substance and "kaaGhaz ke phuul" are "paper flowers" (flowers made from paper). In my humble view, "patr ke pushp/phuul" does not imply "paper flowers" but if this construction is used at all in Hindi speech or writing, then it could only mean "flowers made from plant/tree leaves". Indeed if "patr ke pushp" was in existence, it would not have taken six days for you to respond. 

Perhaps you can quote some instances from Hindi printed material of patr ke pushp or patr ke phuul where the meaning is "flowers made of paper". I don't think this construction exists but I could be wrong.


----------



## greatbear

I think it has been repeatedly dinned here by Hindi speakers that "kaagaz" is the usual Hindi word to denote both paper and sheets of paper: "patr ke pushp" was a suggestion only because you wanted a Sanskrit-derived word as a synonym. What's the hue and cry about then, QP? Just as "gulaab" can mean "rose" and not "rose water", so can "patr" be started to be used to mean the material paper, and not just sheets of paper, if people like you commence to strike down vocabulary like kaagaz and kursii for reasons that can only be bizarre.


----------



## JaiHind

Qureshpor जी, मुझे जो कहना था मैंने कह दिया. greatbear ने मेरी भावनाओं और सन्देश दोनों को समझा है और ऊपर के पोस्ट में explain भी किया है.

व्यवहारिक स्तर पर,  हर तर्क से, "कागज के फूल" हिंदी भाषा का हिस्सा है. पर चुकि आपने जोर दिया, मैंने उसका Sanskrit-derivated (greatbear's word) हिंदी में अनुवाद किया, जो कि "*पत्र के पुष्प*" या "*कृत्रिम पुष्प*" के रूप में था.

चुकि हमारे पास इस विषय में कोई नया point नहीं है, हमें नए सदस्यों के लिए इस thread को छोड़ देना चाहिए.


----------



## Qureshpor

JH Jii, javaab ke liye bahut bahut shukriyah. maiN apnaa javaab is tarH duuN gaa kih baaqii log bhii ise paRh sakeN! afsos kii baat hai kih aap kii baat ko Devanagri meN paRhnaa har ek ke bas kaa rog nahiiN!

shuruu3 hii se meraa maqsid sirf yih puuchhnaa thaa kih "kaaGhaz" ke liye ko'ii "Indic" lafz hai yaa kih nahiiN. is ke 3ilaavah meraa aur ko'ii Dhakaa-chhupaa iraadah nahiiN thaa. ek aadh Hindi vaale ne apne javaab meN yahii kahaa hai kih is lafz ke liye ko'ii Indic badal nahiiN hai. phir aap ne ek lambe chauRe javaab meN "patr" ko kaaGhaz ke liye pesh kiyaa. aap ko ab zaruur zaqiin ho gayaa ho gaa kih patr is ma3ne meN isti3maal nahiiN hotaa. natiijah yih niklaa kih kaaGhaz ke liye (jahaaN tak ham sab ko patah chal sakaa hai) ko'ii Indic lafz nahiiN. maiN ne yih kabhii nahiiN kahaa kih kaaGhaz (yaa aap ke lafzoN meN kaagaj) Hindi kaa lafz nahiiN.

ummiid hai kih saarii baat aap ke liye aur duusre dostoN ke liye saaf ho ga'ii ho gii. mere liye to yih kahaanii kab kii Thap ho chukii hai!

javaab le liye ek baar phir shukriyah.


----------



## JaiHind

Ok, nice 

We are discussing in this thread how we should not be rigid about languages: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2495469&page=2


----------



## Qureshpor

Let's draw this thread to a close by quoting Mast Kalkattavii.

Haqiiqat chhup nahiiN saktii banaavaT ke usuulN se
kih xushbuu aa nahiiN saktii kabhii kaaGhaz ke phhuuloN se


----------

