# Urdu-Hindi: گورے گورے ہاتھ میں چوڑی ادھک سہائے ۔۔۔ مانو چندن ڈار ناگ رہو لپٹائے



## marrish

*Split from here. In this thread we are discussing the meaning of the dohaa (shown in blue below) mentioned by marrish SaaHib in the original thread. All attempts at translations welcome!*



Faylasoof said:


> In Urdu we do use _maano_ in the sense mentioned above although it is quite possible that for some (many) Urduphones now this may appear as unfamiliar usage.


I consulted Farhang-e-Aasafiyyah for this usage of _maano:

مانو ۔ (ہ) ۔ حرفِ تشبیہ:۔ (گیتوں میں) (۱) جیسا ۔ گویا ۔ مثلاً۔
_
What follows are other usages which are not applicable here, and an example of a _dohaa:

گورے گورے ہاتھ میں چوڑی ادھک سہائے ۔۔۔ مانو چندن ڈار ناگ رہو لپٹائے
_
_gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e --- maano chandan Daar naag raho* lipTaa'e_

This piece of information makes me think that it is not _faSiiH_ usage in Urdu. I can't remember having heard or read this _tarkiib_ in Urdu but I'm familiar with it from Hindi texts.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> * I shall try find out about this word.



H رهو रहू _rahū, s.f.=rohū, q.v.
_
H روهو रोहू _rohū [S. रोहितः, and रोहिता], s.m.f. A kind of fish, Cyprinus rohita;—(f.) corner of the evelid._


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> H رهو रहू _rahū, s.f.=rohū, q.v.
> _
> H روهو रोहू _rohū [S. रोहितः, and रोहिता], s.m.f. A kind of fish, Cyprinus rohita;—(f.) corner of the evelid._


 Many thanks, QP SaaHib! Only now I had the opportunity to look it up and indeed it as above. 

I also found its ancestral form here but we can discuss its significance and the meaning of the _dohaa_ in a new thread if we wish to.


----------



## Faylasoof

As I read it properly now, I think the _raho_ goes with _lipTaa'e_, i.e. I feel it is _lipTaa'e_ _raho_, the reference being to the _naag_ and _chuuRiyaaN_! I don't think we are talking of fish. What do you all say?


----------



## marrish

Thank you, F. SaaHib for splitting the threads.

For the sake of people unfamiliar with the Urdu script, here is the Romanization (I hope it is right, do correct it if needed, otherwise do express your opinions) and Nagarization: 

gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e --- maano chandan Daar naag rahuu lipTaa'e
गोरे गोरे हाथ में चूड़ी अधिक सुहाए --- मानो चन्दन डार नाग रहू लिपटाए

Edit: It seems I haven't transcribed the word in red in accordance with the lattest developments!


----------



## marrish

View attachment 10711

I think it can be advantageous to share the scanned fragment of the source from where this _dohaa_ comes, being the Urdu lexicon mentioned above. As you see the quality of print is poor. There is another _dohaa_ illustrating another use of _maano _but this one is even more mysterious!


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> View attachment 10711
> 
> I think it can be advantageous to share the scanned fragment of the source from where this _dohaa_ comes, being the Urdu lexicon mentioned above. As you see the quality of print is poor. There is another _dohaa_ illustrating another use of _maano _but this one is even more mysterious!


 OK, thanks! Well, I'd say from the overall meaning it seems that रहो رہو _raho _(as in _raho liptaa'e _= _liptaa'e raho_) fits better rather than रहू _rahuu_.

I just searched the net with the Nagari version and it brought me back to this thread!


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> As I read it properly now, I think the _raho_ goes with _lipTaa'e_, i.e. I feel it is _lipTaa'e_ _raho_, the reference being to the _naag_ and _chuuRiyaaN_! I don't think we are talking of fish. What do you all say?



I might be totally off the mark here but, perhaps...

gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik/aur suhaa'e/saje/phabe
maano/jaise chandan ke Daal par naag lohuu (lahuu) male


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> I might be totally off the mark here but, perhaps...
> 
> gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik/aur suhaa'e/saje/phabe
> maano/jaise chandan ke Daal par naag lohuu (lahuu) male


 This too is a possibility, QP SaaHib! As for _Daar_, we know it is _Daal _for us but I've heard _Daar_ as well in some dialects. So this poses no problem. So you are suggesting that the meaning of the second line might be clearer if we read it as if it were  _naag lohuu (lahuu) male_?


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> This too is a possibility, QP SaaHib! As for _Daar_, we know it is _Daal _for us but I've heard _Daar_ as well in some dialects. So this poses no problem. So you are suggesting that the meaning of the second line might be clearer if we read it as if it were  _naag lohuu (lahuu) male_?



Yes, Faylasoof SaaHib. It's just a thought. I must confess that the real stumbling block is still the word "raho/rahuu/rohuu". 

gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e
maano chandan Daar naag rahuu lipTaa'e

gorii-gorii baaNhoN meN bal khaatii hu'ii chuuRiyaaN 
jaise ko'ii naag chandan ke Daal par "rahuu" lipTaa'e


----------



## marrish

I remember that _ rahuu_ is a celestial body in Sanskrit (and Hindi). Maybe there is a relation between Rahu and _naag_??


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> I remember that _ rahuu_ is a celestial body in Sanskrit (and Hindi). Maybe there is a relation between Rahu and _naag_??


 From what I recall, in the Hindu tradition _Raaho_ राहु is the severed head of a demonic snake which swallows the sun causing solar eclipses. But astronomically, both Raaho and its counter part, _Keto_ केतु are not physical but mathematically calculated points.

So coming back to the _dohaa_, the _naag _and _Raaho_ राहु could go together but I’m still wondering as to the exact meaning being conveyed here.


----------



## greatbear

"maano chandan Daal se naag rahe Liptaae" - "rahu" is a colloquial variant of "rahe" (verb "rahnaa"). No connection with the lunar body (and Hindu astrological body) Rahu (pron. as raahuu)!


----------



## Faylasoof

greatbear said:


> "maano chandan Daal se naag rahe Liptaae" - "rahu" is a colloquial variant of "rahe" (verb "rahnaa"). No connection with the lunar body (and Hindu astrological body) Rahu (pron. as raahuu)!


 I completely agree with you! ....and this is what I said above:


Faylasoof said:


> As I read it properly now, I think the _raho_ goes with _lipTaa'e_, i.e. I feel it is _lipTaa'e_ _raho_, the reference being to the _naag_ and _chuuRiyaaN_! I don't think we are talking of fish. What do you all say?


 But I was being open to suggestions by others. 

What this _dohaa_ is really saying is that _chuuRiyaaN_, bangles and bracelets on fair complexioned _haath_ (forearms / wrists) are comely, as if a snake (_naag_) is wound around silver branches!


----------



## greatbear

Silver? I read sandalwood branches, not silver ones: which is anyway a common belief (that snakes love to be wrapped around sandal trees). "chandan" means sandal.


----------



## Faylasoof

greatbear said:


> Silver? I read sandalwood branches, not silver ones: which is anyway a common belief (that snakes love to be wrapped around sandal trees). "chandan" means sandal.


Well, I took some liberty with the translation by taking the _gore haath_ as a cue.  I do however know that _chandan_ is _sandal_ = sandalwood.  _chandan kaa paalna_ (= Sandalwood Cradle) is a famous 1967 movie by Ismail Memon with Meena Kumari and Dharmendra.


----------



## greatbear

You also broke up a well-understood linguistic unit in taking that liberty, for "chandan" and "saaNp kaa lipaTnaa" isn't just the poet's imagination, but is a well-entrenched belief and also a part and parcel of our everyday language. This analogy is used in our day-to-day life.


----------



## Faylasoof

^ Thank you for your comments! I do not feel the need to take this any further. I could, but I shall not.


----------



## Qureshpor

"gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e --- maano chandan Daar naag raho lipTaa'e"

I have no problem going along with the thought that in this couplet we have "lipTaa'e raho" where "raho" is the "dialect" form of the standard "rahe". It would be nice if any other examples could be provided where the verb ending in "-o" is equivalent to the "-e" ending.

There is yet one more "obstacle" for me. If the word is indeed "raho" = "rahe", then "lipaTnaa" makes sense but not "lipTaanaa".


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> "gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e --- maano chandan Daar naag raho lipTaa'e"
> 
> I have no problem going along with the thought that in this couplet we have "lipTaa'e raho" where "raho" is the "dialect" form of the standard "rahe". It would be nice if any other examples could be provided where the verb ending in "-o" is equivalent to the "-e" ending.
> 
> There is yet one more "obstacle" for me. If the word is indeed "raho" = "rahe", then "lipaTnaa" makes sense but not "lipTaanaa".



Any chance this use of _raho _is an abbreviated form of '_rahaa ho_'? Seems to fit the bill for this example. Plus _rahaa ho_ (subjunctive) makes more sense with _maano/goyaa/jaise_.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Any chance this use of _raho _is an abbreviated form of '_rahaa ho_'? Seems to fit the bill for this example. Plus _rahaa ho_ (subjunctive) makes more sense with _maano/goyaa/jaise_.


Are you suggesting "maano chandan Daar naag rahaa ho lipTaa'e"?


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Are you suggesting "maano chandan Daar naag rahaa ho lipTaa'e"?



Yes, sir! 

Something like (in meaning) ... 'jaise chandan ki daalii par naag lipat rahaa ho'

Not suggesting _lipat _vs _liptaa _is resolved.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Yes, sir!
> 
> Something like (in meaning) ... 'jaise chandan ki daalii par naag lipat rahaa ho'
> 
> Not suggesting _lipat _vs _liptaa _is resolved.


janaab-i-3aalii, one has to resolve the "lipTaa'e" because it rhymes with "suhaa'e".


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> janaab-i-3aalii, one has to resolve the "lipTaa'e" because it rhymes with "sahaa'e".



Sure, I already acknowledged that. There were two separate issues. 

So, does this mean you are sold on _raho=rahaa_ _ho_ suggestion?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Sure, I already acknowledged that. There were two separate issues.
> 
> So, does this mean you are sold on _raho=rahaa_ _ho_ suggestion?


UM SaaHib, truth of the matter is that I am "stumped" with the second line and the chief cause is "raho" although "lipTaa'e" is also a source of concern. Most likely, as often happens, the solution is quite simple and is probably staring all of us in the face but we have n't been able to pinpoint it. I can not be "sold on" a partial solution. All I will say at this stage is that I am not sure.


----------



## marrish

''raho'' is indeed the primary source of concern here, while _lipTaa'e_ can be easily explained with the entry from Platts:

H لپٿانا लिपटाना _*lipṭānā*, or लपटाना lapṭānā (caus. of lipaṭnā), v.t. To cause to unite or adhere, to stick; to fold or wrap (round), to twine or wind (round), &c.;*—v.n.=lipaṭnā, q.v.*_


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> ''raho'' is indeed the primary source of concern here, while _lipTaa'e_ can be easily explained with the entry from Platts:
> 
> H لپٿانا लिपटाना _*lipṭānā*, or लपटाना lapṭānā (caus. of lipaṭnā), v.t. To cause to unite or adhere, to stick; to fold or wrap (round), to twine or wind (round), &c.;*—v.n.=lipaṭnā, q.v.*_


Perhaps I am missing something ...lekin

kaun (subject/agent) kis ko (object) lipTaa'e hai?

naag chandan (kii) Daar ko lipTaa'e hai (?)...yaa

naag chandan kii Daar se lipTe hai (?)

Edit: Sorry marrish SaaHib, I think I've finally got it.

maano chandan kii Daar *par *naag (apne aap ko) lipTaa'e (hai). 

But there is still "raho" to contend with!!! And using UM SaaHib's suggestion..

maano chandan kii Daar par naag raho/rahaa ho lipTaa'e. (But is there such a grammatical construction?)


----------



## marrish

I'm also far from sure! On one hand (not literally!) Platts seems to suggest that the secondary meaning after ";" is equivalent to _lipaTnaa_.
On the other hand, what about this point of view?

_chandan kii Daar (subject/agent) naag (ko) (apne aap se)_ _lipTaa'e (?)

_Is it possible?

Otherwise I'd go for your first option.

Edit: Just saw your update, QP SaaHib. It seems that we were both on the similar wave-lenghts so I'll leave my post above unaltered.

Is there such a grammatical construction? I'm quite convinced that we are dealing here with some very old/dialectical usage, so it is possible it is a non-Standard feature, if we take unto consideration that it is a _dohaa _and the dictionary which reproduced it is itself a hundred years old.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I'm also far from sure! On one hand (not literally!) Platts seems to suggest that the secondary meaning after ";" is equivalent to _lipaTnaa_.
> On the other hand, what about this point of view?
> 
> _chandan kii Daar (subject/agent) naag (ko) (apne aap se)_ _lipTaa'e (?)
> 
> _Is it possible?
> 
> Otherwise I'd go for your first option.
> 
> Edit: Just saw your update, QP SaaHib. It seems that we were both on the similar wave-lenghts so I'll leave my post above unaltered.
> 
> Is there such a grammatical construction? I'm quite convinced that we are dealing here with some very old/dialectical usage, so it is possible it is a non-Standard feature, if we take unto consideration that it is a _dohaa _and the dictionary which reproduced it is itself a hundred years old.



As this is verse and not prose, one does find situations where postpositions are missed out*. Here I have in mind a construction such as "lipTaa'e rahaa ho".

raat* yuuN dil meN terii kho'ii hu'ii yaad aa'ii
jaise viiraane meN chupke se bahaar aa jaa'e
jaise saHraa'oN meN haule se chale baad-i-nasiim
jaise biimaar ko be-vajh qaraar aa jaa'e

Faiz

* For "raat ko"


----------



## greatbear

I see the naag doing the lipTaanaa business: chandan Daal* ko *naag rahaa lipTaae, meaning the snake is tightly embracing the sandal branch, making the sandal branch tightly adhering to itself. In simpler construction, naag chandan kii Daal ko apne aap se lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> I see the naag doing the lipTaanaa business: chandan Daal* ko *naag rahaa lipTaae, meaning the snake is tightly embracing the sandal branch, making the sandal branch tightly adhering to itself. In simpler construction*, naag chandan kii Daal ko apne aap se lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai.*



Could you explain this construction? It is not simple for me at all.


----------



## greatbear

"lipTaanaa" = to make something/someone embrace, adhere to oneself; "lipTaaye rakhnaa" = to keep on doing that. If still not clear and if you could clarify what exactly you are not understanding, then I can try to explain once again.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> "lipTaanaa" = to make something/someone embrace, adhere to oneself; "lipTaaye rakhnaa" = to keep on doing that. If still not clear and if you could clarify what exactly you are not understanding, then I can try to explain once again.


Thank you anyway for your good will to explain what you wrote. It seems there is a difference between Hindi and Urdu. Your sentence is ungrammatical in Urdu.


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> Thank you anyway for your good will to explain what you wrote. It seems there is a difference between Hindi and Urdu. Your sentence is ungrammatical in Urdu.


marrish saahab- curious why the above is "ungrammatical"?


----------



## marrish

^The whole construction seems rather unfamiliar.


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> *...*
> What follows are other usages which are not applicable here, and an example of a _dohaa:
> 
> گورے گورے ہاتھ میں چوڑی ادھک سہائے ۔۔۔ مانو چندن ڈار ناگ رہو لپٹائے
> _
> _gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e --- maano chandan Daar naag raho* lipTaa'e_


marrish saahab- Could you share any more info about this dohaa? Like who wrote it and where to find the rest of the poem.


----------



## marrish

UM SaaHib, as mentioned in the opening post, I found this verse in Farhang-e-Aasafiyyah, as the exemplification of the non-standard usage of maano in the sense of goyaa. There is no further information, as it being a dohaa is a folk song, whose author is probably unknown. I have tried my best to figure out the whereabouts of the text but to no avail, unfortunately. We have only this chunk!


----------



## UrduMedium

^ Got it. Thanks marrish saahab.


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> ^The whole construction seems rather unfamiliar.



So ... unfamiliar = ungrammatical?


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> So ... unfamiliar = ungrammatical?


No, unfamiliar as I have indicated earlier, from the grammatical perspective. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how “naag chandan kii Daal ko apne aap se lipTaa’e rakh rahaa hai” (past participle in the oblique case with present continuous of the verb "rakhnaa") slots into the current standard Hindi tense system, if possible, with appropriate illustrations depicting the same construction from whatever source you may have at your disposal. [ any other verb instead ] . I could be wrong but this is my gut feeling. We might discuss whether it is the bough that is wrapping itself around the snake (as you seem to be indicating) [or the bough attracting the snake (through its scent or as you say, traditional assignation to the Sandal tree - as I think] or the snake that is coiling itself around the bough. But this is a separate issue.


----------



## greatbear

First of all, marrish, according to you, the construction is ungrammatical in Urdu (see post 33) - we were not talking about Hindi, so why now shift positions? The onus of explanation for calling a fine phrase as "ungrammatical," if any, lies on you. Posts 34 and 39 have already asked you that. Thanks in advance.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> First of all, marrish, according to you, the construction is ungrammatical in Urdu (see post 33) - we were not talking about Hindi, so why now shift positions? The onus of explanation for calling a fine phrase as "ungrammatical," if any, lies on you. Posts 34 and 39 have already asked you that. Thanks in advance.


I said it was ungrammatical in Urdu because I can be 100% sure for my language but couldn't exclude the possibility, albeit a tiny one, that the sentence might be correct in Hindi. Before I go on to search for examples justifying your sentence which is not going to be easy and I don't know any other way to present you with any references against such a usage (I think it is up to you to provide the pro-arguments) may I please have the opinion of Hindi and Urdu speakers regarding the sentence ​under discussion?


----------



## greatbear

I got the impression from post 34 that not all Urdu speakers think it as ungrammatical _in Urdu_, marrish: I would also be interested in knowing other Hindi and Urdu speakers' opinion about the grammaticality of the phrase in question.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> marrish saahab- curious why the above is "ungrammatical"?


From your question, it is not clear whether you think that the sentence below *is *"grammatical" or whether you agree with marrish SaaHib that it is "ungrammatical" but want to know his reasoning for it. Could you please elaborate. Either way, your views on the sentence would be most welcome. One would of course need to take the first line of the dohaa into consideration in order to keep everything in context of the image being portrayed.

_"naag chandan kii Daal ko apne aap se lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai."_


----------



## greatbear

I don't think if one is discussing the grammaticality of the sentence, then the original dohaa has anything to do with it. So, what's your take on the sentence's grammaticality, QP?


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> From your question, it is not clear whether you think that the sentence below *is *"grammatical" or whether you agree with marrish SaaHib that it is "ungrammatical" but want to know his reasoning for it. Could you please elaborate. Either way, your views on the sentence would be most welcome. One would of course need to take the first line of the dohaa into consideration in order to keep everything in context of the image being portrayed.
> 
> _"naag chandan kii Daal ko apne aap se lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai."_



I see no grammatical error in the sentence above. Please correct me if I missed something.

From a meaning perspective I would prefer to switch the _ko _and _se_.

_"naag chandan kii Daal se apne aap ko lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai."_


----------



## marrish

UM SaaHib, thank you for your opinion. Yes, one point of the sentence sounding awkward was the switching of ko with se.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I see no grammatical error in the sentence above. Please correct me if I missed something.
> 
> From a meaning perspective I would prefer to switch the _ko _and _se_.
> 
> _"naag chandan kii Daal se apne aap ko lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai."_


Thank you for the clarification and I agree with your suggestion. Are you aware of any examples or can you find any examples in Urdu where we have a verb in the "-e" form (oblique case) coupled with "rakh rahaa" form? Perhaps there are but I would n't mind seeing instances of such occurrences.


----------



## UrduMedium

Not able (read too lazy ) to look for examples to quote, but how about: 
_
baaGhbaan apni mihnat se phuuldaar paudoN ko saNwaare rakh rahaa hai_?

_hamle ke mustaqil xauf se maaN bacche ko apne seene se chimTaaye/lagaaye rakh rahii hai

_The verb here is not _lipTaanaa _but _lipTaaye rakhnaa_, in my view. Therefore, the obliqueness (lipTaaye rakh*e*) is not applicable here.

If not the -e form, how would you say these?


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I see the naag doing the lipTaanaa business: chandan Daal *ko* naag rahaa lipTaae, meaning the snake is tightly embracing the sandal branch, making the sandal branch tightly adhering to itself. In simpler construction, *naag chandan kii Daal ko apne aap se lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai*.





UrduMedium said:


> Not able (read too lazy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) to look for examples to quote, but how about:
> 
> _baaGhbaan apni mihnat se phuuldaar paudoN ko saNwaare rakh rahaa hai_?
> 
> _hamle ke mustaqil xauf se maaN bacche ko apne seene se chimTaaye/lagaaye rakh rahii hai_
> 
> The verb here is not _lipTaanaa_ but _lipTaaye rakhnaa_, in my view. Therefore, the obliqueness (lipTaaye rakh*e*) is not applicable here.
> 
> If not the -e form, how would you say these?





marrish said:


> I said it was ungrammatical in Urdu because I can be 100% sure for my language but couldn't exclude the possibility, albeit a tiny one, that the sentence might be correct in Hindi. Before I go on to search for examples justifying your sentence which is not going to be easy and I don't know any other way to present you with any references against such a usage (I think it is up to you to provide the pro-arguments) *may I please have the opinion of Hindi and Urdu speakers regarding the sentence ​under discussion?*



Returning to the original dohaa posted by marrish SaaHib.

_gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e 
maano chandan Daar naag raho lipTaa'e
_
This is how I perceive this dohaa, even by leaving aside the unsolved mystery of the word rahu/raho

gorii gorii kalaa’ii meN chuuRii bahut hii bhaa’e
jaise naag chandan kii Daar se xud ko lipTaa’e

We accept that it is not one chuuRii and these bangles could even be adorning both the wrists/forearms of our fair lady.

The “bhaa’e” in the first line is in the aorist tense, which for Urdu and Hindi is a Godsend. Because it conveys both indicative and subjunctive moods (present and future tense), one can say that it imparts ambiguity which is a tool employed regularly in poetry. How can we interpret the first line then in terms of tense? Because of the second line we can safely discard the subjunctive mood and concentrate on the indicative.

1)    gorii gorii kalaa’ii meN chuuRii bahut hii bhaa’e (hai).
2)    gorii gorii kalaa’ii meN chuuRii bahut hii bhaa’e gii.
3)    gorii gorii kalaa’ii meN chuuRii bahut hii bhaatii hai.
4)    gorii gorii kalaa’ii meN chuuRii bahut hii bhaa rahii hai.

Now let’s take a look at the second line. “lipTaa’e” could also be taken in the aorist sense, as explained above.

1)    jaise naag chandan kii Daar se xud ko lipTaa’e (hai).
2)    jaise naag chandan kii Daar se xud ko lipTaa’e gaa.
3)    jaise naag chandan kii Daar se xud ko lipTaataa hai.
4)    jaise naag chandan kii Daar se xud ko lipTaa rahaa hai.

So far so good (perhaps?). But “lipTaa’e” can also be taken as the past participle of the verb “lipTaanaa” in the oblique (adverbial) case. Let’s substitute this possibility.

jaise naag chandan kii Daar se xud ko lipTaa’e (hu’e) hai.

You may agree or disagree with me on this but the best combination that I can see, without being in possession of full context of the dohaa (i.e. what came before and after it, if there was any such thing) is:

gorii gorii kalaa’ii meN chuuRii bahut hii bhaa’e (hai)...or

gorii gorii kalaa’ii meN chuuRii bahut hii bhaa rahii hai

jaise naag chandan kii Daar se xud ko lipTaa’e hu’e hai

My final choice, from a poetic perspective would be..

gorii gorii kalaa’ii meN chuuRii bahut hii bhaa’e 
jaise naag chandan kii Daar se xud ko lipTaa’e 

This “lipTaa’e hu’e” is a “state” and “hu’e” gives continuity to the state. I believe that the verb “rakhnaa” with the verb “rahnaa” as in “naag chandan kii Daal ko apne aap se* lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai*” to impart a continuous process is neither grammatically or idiomatically correct nor necessary in the context of this dohaa, which after all is what we are discussing. I do not find UM SaaHib’s examples convincing either. What I have said is my perception and understanding. I could be utterly wrong. So, no hard feelings please.

On a final note. Just a thougt. Could there be a typo in the dictionary and the dohaa in reality is:

_gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e _
_maano chandan Daar *se* naag *ho* lipTaa'e_


----------



## greatbear

Then, they are only your thoughts; I don't see anything wrong grammatically or idiomatically. If we forget the "apne aap se" part, not needed to analyze the "lipTaaye rakhnaa" part, then we have "naag chandan kii Daal ko lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai" - let's consider an imaginary dialogue.

A: "Are, jaane mat denaa use!"
B: "*Dabaaye to rakh rahaa hooN* use, par us meiN baRii taakat hai, kya karooN! Aur nahiN hotaa."
A: "Kambakht, tujhse hogaa bhi kyaa!"

You might think the above construction (in bold font) ungrammatical or unidiomatic, but to me it is neither of them: and it's very natural Hindi _and_ Urdu.


----------



## hindiurdu

^But GB isn't this actually consistent with what QP Sahib is saying? "Nag (xud) ko lipTaae" corresponds to "(Main use) dabaaye to rakh rahaa hooN par usmeN baRi taaqat hai." No? This actually leads to another possibility:

_gore-gore haath meN chuuRi yooN suhaae,
jaise chandan Daar se (koi) naag raho lipTaae._

Maybe 'raho' is a variant of 'rakho'. In Rajasthani lehja, people say "Main bolyo" for "Maine bola." Might be similar. 

Possible?


----------



## greatbear

If you mean to say, HU, that "naag khud ko lipTaaye" is fine, then I never thought otherwise. For me, "naag khud ko lipTaaye hai" ~ "naag khud ko lipTaaye rakh rahaa hai" - in the first, the emphasis is on what the snake is doing, and in the second in the state that the snake is keeping himself in. Finally, the snake's still doing the embracing business, so the difference is merely subtle. But I (and UM) don't see any absence of grammaticality in the "rakh rahaa" phrase - which is what marrish and QP have been proposing.


----------



## Qureshpor

I have been giving considerable thought to this dohaa and would like to present to forum members my current thought process. 

_gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e 
maano chandan Daar naag raho lipTaa'e__

_In post 50 of this thread I have indicated that "suhaa'e" is in the aorist tense whilst "lipTaa'e" is the past participle used adverbially. Let us take a look at the conjugation of the verb rahnaa in the aorist tense.

1st Person: maiN rahuuN/ham raheN

2nd Person: tuu rahe/*tum raho*/aap raheN

3rd Person: vuh rahe/vuh raheN

I believe, in this dohaa, the poet is addressing a beautiful young woman. Supposing he was addressing her with the "tuu" pronoun...

he kaaminii!

(tere) gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e

*maane* chandan Daar (par) naag (ko) (*tuu*) *rahe* *lipTaa'e
*
But, he is not addressing her with the "tuu" pronoun. He, in fact, is using the "tum" pronoun, hence the use of "maano" and not "maane". I am of course fully aware that “maano” has become fixed and the grammatical person of other subsequent verbs is not relevant. However, here my contention is that the word is definitely second person plural “raho” because “maano” is grammatically second person plural.

(tumhaare) gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e
*maano *chandan Daar (par) naag (ko) (*tum*) *raho lipTaa'e
*
Please note that "raho" is not in the imperative tense but in the subjunctive. 

In an Urdu grammar book published in 1899 in Delhi, I found the following sentence which may be of interest to forum friends.

"rikaab *thaanbe raho* jab maiN savaar huuN."

You will agree that the "huuN" in reality is "ho'uuN". Anyway, the translation given is..

"Hold the stirrup while I get up", which is clearly wrong. I would translate it as:

Keep hold of the stirrup while I mount (the horse).

In this sentence, the word "raho" is being used in exactly the same way as our sentence under discussion, that is to say, an adverbial past participle with “raho”. More important, “raho” implies “rakho” and I submit that in our sentence “raho” also has the very same significance. Replacing "raho" with "rakho"...

gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e hai
maano chandan Daar (par) naag (ko) (tum) rakho lipTaa'e.

In order to gain a fuller insight into the dohaa, we need to bring in the following.

When we want to emphasise that the aorist tense is being used in the indicative mood, we add the appropriate part of the auxiliary verb "honaa" to all the grammatical persons.

1st Person: maiN rahuuN huuN/ham raheN haiN

2nd Person: tuu rahe hai/*tum raho ho*/aap raheN haiN

3rd Person: vuh rahe hai/vuh raheN haiN

So, the dohaa can be re-written as:

gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e hai
maano chandan Daar (par) naag (ko) (tum) *raho ho* lipTaa'e

And substituting “rakho” for “raho”.

gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e hai
maano chandan Daar (par) naag (ko) (tum) *rakho ho* lipTaa'e

In other words..

he kaaminii! tumhaare gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e hai, maano chandan kii Daal par tum kisii naag ko *lipTaa'e rakhe (hu'e) ho*.

The poet, while comparing “chandan Daar” to her “gore gore haath” and the “chuuRii” to a “naag”, is saying to the beautiful fair lady that the encircling bangles are so becoming your silken smooth forearms that their affinity to them can be likened to the affinity of a snake wrapped to a Sandalwood tree bough.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> __But, he is not addressing her with the "tuu" pronoun. He, in fact, is using the "tum" pronoun, hence the use of "maano" and not "maane".



No, you are completely wrong. And hence all the rewritings you have worked out. There is no indication in the quoted couplet that the poet is addressing her as tuu or tum. "maano" is addressed to the reader, and the word is often used in a sentence to mean "let's assume, imagine, even if it were" and the like. Here, "maano" means "maano ki".

An example with "tuu" and "maano": "Tuu soye jaa rahaa hai aur yahaaN itnaa kaam bachaa hai maano tujhe to koii paRii hii nahiN hai".
Another: "Tu yahaaN khel rahaa hai maano pariikshaa khatam ho chukii ho".


----------



## marrish

^It is a very categorical statement above and I don't agree with it to the full extent. Although QP SaaHib has acknowledged that _maano _should be considered a fixed expression and the grammatical forms that come along with it should not necessarily be linked to its person (tum), he goes on with the thesis of ''_tum_'' and I don't see any reason why this possiblility should be denied as completely wrong. There is another verb _raho_ that provides much more ground for the analysis he made, which is very plausible in my opinion.


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Although QP SaaHib has acknowledged that _maano _should be considered a fixed expression and the grammatical forms that come along with it should not necessarily be linked to its person (tum), he goes on with the thesis of ''_tum_'' and I don't see any reason why this possiblility should be denied as completely wrong. There is another verb _raho_ that provides much more ground for the analysis he made, which is very plausible in my opinion.



I see quite a rephrasing of QP's words in your statement. To quote QP himself, "He, in fact, is using the "tum" pronoun, hence the use of "maano" and not "maane"." And only after saying that, he says, as a side-note, that he is aware that "maano" is used as person-independent expression. However, I see this as work of far-fetched imagination, especially if I consider what he writes subsequently. This is particularly true IMO as what he finally arrives at does not make any sense.

QP's reconstruction is:
gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e hai
maano chandan Daar (par) naag (ko) (tum) *rakho ho* lipTaa'e

And QP says this is as good as "The poet ... is saying to the beautiful fair lady that the encircling  bangles are so becoming your silken smooth forearms that their affinity  to them can be likened to the affinity of a snake wrapped to a  Sandalwood tree bough."

But, and a very important but, this is not at all what QP's reconstructed verse's translation would mean! Rather, this now unwieldy reconstruction would mean that the woman is keeping (as if forcibly!) the snakes wrapped to a sandalwood branch: yikes!


----------



## Qureshpor

Short of having an Urdu/Hindi language scholar who could act as an independent arbitrator, it   would be nice to have views of other Urdu and Hindi speakers on the forum. Views on not only what I have suggested as an explanation for "raho" but also opinions on how the poet's usage of "raho" can be reconciled in today's language.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Short of having an Urdu/Hindi language scholar who could act as an independent arbitrator, it   would be nice to have views of other Urdu and Hindi speakers on the forum.



While I am always welcome to have more views of other Urdu-Hindi speakers (esp. since there is a severe paucity of them), we do not need an "arbitrator", QP: my opinions wouldn't change. Meanwhile, you or marrish haven't yet come up with the ungrammatical elements of something said earlier in the thread: maybe, that's too difficult?


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> marrish said:
> 
> 
> 
> UM SaaHib, thank you for your opinion. *Yes, one point of the sentence sounding awkward was the switching of ko with se.*
> 
> 
> 
> While I am always welcome to have more views of other Urdu-Hindi speakers (esp. since there is a severe paucity of them), we do not need an "arbitrator", QP: my opinions wouldn't change. Meanwhile, you or *marrish haven't yet come up with the ungrammatical elements of something said earlier in the thread:* maybe, that's too difficult?
Click to expand...


Thank you for remembering me; I did point out to one element, another one being the combination of inflected past participle form with Present Continuous of ''rakhnaa''. The only shortcoming from my side is not being able to dig up anything from a third party which would contradict that sentence. Anyway, I expressed my opinion which is clear. Others are welcome to bring their insights.


----------



## Qureshpor

I wonder if newcomers to the forum from Hindi background could cast their eyes on this thread and see if they can help to resolve the construction and meaning of the dohaa which forms the subject of this thread.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> I wonder if newcomers to the forum from Hindi background could cast their eyes on this thread and see if they can help to resolve the construction and meaning of the dohaa which forms the subject of this thread.


For those who might be wishing to do it I'm reposting the Hindi and transcription so that the subject of this thread is clear!


marrish said:


> Thank you, F. SaaHib for splitting the threads.
> 
> For the sake of people unfamiliar with the Urdu script, here is the Romanization (I hope it is right, do correct it if needed, otherwise do express your opinions) and Nagarization:
> 
> gore gore haath meN chuuRii adhik suhaa'e --- maano chandan Daar naag rahuu lipTaa'e
> गोरे गोरे हाथ में चूड़ी अधिक सुहाए --- मानो चन्दन डार नाग रहू लिपटाए
> 
> * can be also "raho"


----------



## marrish

This mystery, since 1900's will remain I am afraid. We have contributors who know different Hindis but till now there is no answer. I hope there will be.

What about a writing mistake by the copyist of the Urdu dictionary at hand? Is it possible there is some mistake?

I would like to hear from people who know Hindi.


----------



## Sheikh_14

marrish said:


> This mystery, since 1900's will remain I am afraid. We have contributors who know different Hindis but till now there is no answer. I hope there will be.
> 
> What about a writing mistake by the copyist of the Urdu dictionary at hand? Is it possible there is some mistake?
> 
> I would like to hear from people who know Hindi.




My heart goes out to the both of you since one member was adament on  thunderous rants rather than purveying any effective translation on the  subject matter; which was rather strange and uncharacteristic of the  forum.

However, rather than getting bogged down on grammatical issues what is  more important here is interpreting the gist of what is being said or  expressed. In this regard Faylasoof's comment "*chuuRiyaaN, bangles and bracelets on fair complexioned haath (forearms / wrists) are comely, as if a snake (naag) is wound around sandalwood*!"  is quite constructive. It seems that the last words of the two fikray  (phrases) are deliberately made to ryhme. Nevertheless that may not  necessarily be the case as the suffix ai is quite constructive in hindi  origin words seeking to morph a verb into a noun as is the case for  Charhai= ascent. Similarly though the correct form of descent besides  utar is perhaps girao when collated with charhai is referred on  occassions as charhaii girai i.e. ascent and descent for greater affect.  Thus to a pedantic perhaps it may be gramaticaly incorrect but to  ordinary speakers and even the discerning it is part and parcel of  colloquial and, even literary practise. 

Nevertheless being unfamiliar with some of the words mentoned could someone kindly translate the words: 
_adhik suhaa'e 
and 
Daar since Daar here isnt conforming to its traditional meaning of holder, or is it?

_especially bearing in mind the context.


----------



## Qureshpor

Sheikh_14 said:


> Nevertheless being unfamiliar with some of the words mentoned could someone kindly translate the words: _adhik suhaa'e and Daar since Daar here isnt conforming to its traditional meaning of holder, or is it?
> _especially bearing in mind the context.


Sheikh SaaHib, the meanings have already been given in post 8 but I shall repeat them for your benefit.

adhik/ziyaadah
suhaa'e/saje
Daar/Daal/Daalii/shaax


----------

