# Urdu: kamraa v. kamrah



## marrish

The word denoting a room in Urdu is spelled in two ways, kamraaکمرا or kamrah کمرہ . The latter doesn't feel correct to me and I think it follows the pattern of pardah and gurdah. In a very interesting thread: Urdu: Use of "vaav-i-'ataf" and "kasrah-i-izaafat" Faylasoof SaHib acknowledges both spellings as valid. I encountered the spelling with he many a times, even in legal forms. Your suggestions are highly appreciated!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> The word denoting a room in Urdu is spelled in two ways, kamraaکمرا or kamrah کمرہ . The latter doesn't feel correct to me and I think it follows the pattern of pardah and gurdah. In a very interesting thread: Urdu: Use of "vaav-i-'ataf" and "kasrah-i-izaafat" Faylasoof SaHib acknowledges both spellings as valid. I encountered the spelling with he many a times, even in legal forms. Your suggestions are highly appreciated!




marrish SaaHib/ah, your observation is an interesting one. You have commented on a "very interesting" thread but it attracted only one response!

Strangely enough, for me, kamrah looks more natural. There is no rhyme or reason behind my thinking. Farhang-i-Asifiya (Sayyid Ahmad Dihlavi)  gives the word as "kamraa" and so does Platts. However Nur-ul-Lughaat gives it as "kamrah". My small Kitaabistaan's 20th Century Urdu-English Dictionary has its entry as "kamrah" too.

In Urdu there are several words which perhaps ought to be spelt with an alif (aa) but more often than not they are written with the final -ah. I am not sure if this has anything to do with Persian -ah ending words or not. Some examples are raajah/raajaa, Dibbah, kalkattah, aagrah. I can't think of any more for the moment.

You would no doubt be aware that in Urdu, words that end in -ah, e.g. mazah can be rhymed with words ending in -aa. In this case the word would actually be written as "mazaa". Another such word is "gilah" going to "gilaa". I think tamaashaa is also written as "tamaashah" as well.

shor-i-pand-i-naasiH ne zaxm par namak chhiRkaa
aap se ko'ii puuchhe, tum ne kyaa mazaa paayaa!

Ghalib

aur jaate jaate...

kamraa kisii ke 'itr-i-tasavvur meN hai basaa 
 galiyaaN kisii kii zulf se haiN mushk-baar aaj 

Zafar Syed


----------



## rc2

Another take on this duality of words (alif vs. hay ending) is that the "aa" is the common ending used in Hindi -- and that the words are always write with the "aa" sound (mazaa, gilaa, etc) despite being borrowed from the Persian tradition. In "spoken" terms, obviously Urdu too does not pronounce the words differently from the "aa" sound -- the spelling variation is result of the "tug-of-war" (if you will) between the Indic and Persian cultures --- in a lot of cases, both spellings are accepted as OK. 

That being said, when used in rhyme schemes in Urdu poetry (such as Qureshpor sahab has demonstrated), it is accepted as being a "sautee qaafiya" (a rhyme by sound) -- which is not present as far as I know in Persian Ghazal. This is again, due to the lack of distinction in speech made by the native S. Asians.

I hope that makes some sense.
RC


----------



## marrish

I hope the thread with _waao&kasra_ will gain more responses - and this one is somehow related because of the etymology of kamrah/kamraa. This word I believe is of Portuguese origin and not a Persian/Arabic one. Correct me if I'm wrong ! In the کمرہ variety it does get used in 'ezafated' compounds though, as in کمرۂ جماعت kamrah-e jamaa3t or کمرۂ عدالت kamrah-e 'adaalat! It has Persian looks with ہ!

My question here extends to the examples you provided, where pata پتہ/پتا can be added.

Because I had never encountered tamaashaa written with a final -h and would condemn such manner of writing as utterly wrong, I googled it and to my amusement, it threw 50,700 results... Is this tendency to use more -h in place of -aa becoming common?

Beautiful ash'aar!


----------



## Qureshpor

rc2 said:


> Another take on this duality of words (alif vs. hay ending) is that the "aa" is the common ending used in Hindi -- and that the words are always write with the "aa" sound (mazaa, gilaa, etc) despite being borrowed from the Persian tradition. In "spoken" terms, obviously Urdu too does not pronounce the words differently from the "aa" sound -- the spelling variation is result of the "tug-of-war" (if you will) between the Indic and Persian cultures --- in a lot of cases, both spellings are accepted as OK.
> 
> That being said, when used in rhyme schemes in Urdu poetry (such as Qureshpor sahab has demonstrated), it is accepted as being a "sautee qaafiya" (a rhyme by sound) -- which is not present as far as I know in Persian Ghazal. This is again, due to the lack of distinction in speech made by the native S. Asians.
> 
> I hope that makes some sense.
> RC



RC SaaHib. I shall not waste time needlessly arguing that there is a perceptible difference (in careful Urdu speech) between mazah/gilah on the one hand and mazaa/gilaa on the other.

Regarding your point in the second paragraph, I have to add a disclaimer. I am no expert in Persian language or literature. But here is an example from our very own Amir Khusrau. I am transcribing in the Classical mode.

ba-dast uftaad baa piil-o-xazaanah
jahaane pur shud az raanii-o-raanah


----------



## rc2

Qureshpor and marrish saahebaan:

I think my point did not get through as I intended them . Let me try again: 

a) gila(h), maza(h) etc are not native to the Indic system. These came from the Middle East to India, and incorporated into what we call Hindi today. 

b) Even if there is a "proper" and "perceptible" difference in pronunciation between "gilah" and "gilaa" (etc), for all "practical purposes," this spoken difference is pretty much "matrook" or abandoned. I believe this is the reason that the Urdu folk deemed the word spelling ending with alif as "acceptable" now. 

c) Thank you, Qureshpor sahab for the Khusrau example. This perhaps only adds some(?) credence to my theory. Khusrau's language, as we all know is definitely influenced by the local Indic trends and culture. For him to use "sautee qavaafi" would not be too far of a stretch, would it [Persian in Hindustan did differ from that in Iran]? I would be curious to know if the poets from Iran themselves indulged in the use of "sautee qavaafi" and if so, how often in the classical tradition.

--
I hope I have been able to address my earlier lack of conveying what I wanted to say.
Regards,
RC


----------



## marrish

rc2 said:


> Another take on this duality of words (alif vs. hay ending) is that the "aa" is the common ending used in Hindi -- and that the words are always write with the "aa" sound (mazaa, gilaa, etc) despite being borrowed from the Persian tradition. In "spoken" terms, obviously Urdu too does not pronounce the words differently from the "aa" sound -- the spelling variation is result of the "tug-of-war" (if you will) between the Indic and Persian cultures --- in a lot of cases, both spellings are accepted as OK.
> 
> That being said, when used in rhyme schemes in Urdu poetry (such as Qureshpor sahab has demonstrated), it is accepted as being a "sautee qaafiya" (a rhyme by sound) -- which is not present as far as I know in Persian Ghazal. This is again, due to the lack of distinction in speech made by the native S. Asians.
> 
> I hope that makes some sense.
> RC


There is no doubt as to the *common *pronunciation - only the graphic is dual. You are right that the -aa ending is a common feature of many indigenous words common to Hindi and Urdu, but I prefer not to comment further on whether the cultures gained more from the path of war or love ( not to add oil to the fire of everlasting controversy). I think that in Urdu, the spelling of words quoted by Qureshpor SaHib got under influence of others of Persian provenience. Personally I've always written Dibbah although I am aware it's an indigenous word.


----------



## Qureshpor

rc2 said:


> Qureshpor and marrish saahebaan:
> 
> I think my point did not get through as I intended them . Let me try again:
> 
> a) gila(h), maza(h) etc are not native to the Indic system. These came from the Middle East to India, and incorporated into what we call Hindi today.
> 
> And Urdu today and before today!
> 
> b) Even if there is a "proper" and "perceptible" difference in pronunciation between "gilah" and "gilaa" (etc), for all "practical purposes," this spoken difference is pretty much "matrook" or abandoned. I believe this is the reason that the Urdu folk deemed the word spelling ending with alif as "acceptable" now.
> 
> Perhaps, but I shall leave it at this.
> 
> c) Thank you, Qureshpor sahab for the Khusrau example. This perhaps only adds some(?) credence to my theory. Khusrau's language, as we all know is definitely influenced by the local Indic trends and culture. For him to use "sautee qavaafi" would not be too far of a stretch, would it [Persian in Hindustan did differ from that in Iran]? I would be curious to know if the poets from Iran themselves indulged in the use of "sautee qavaafi" and if so, how often in the classical tradition.
> 
> kahte haiN, "ghar kii murGhii daal baraabar"! It is distressing to see people not having much faith in non-"ahl-i-zabaan"'s proficiency over language compared with the "ahl-i-zabaan". No matter....
> 
> Would you regard ze/zvaad, be/pe, He/3ain, he/hamzah, siin/svaad, He/he, daal/zaal rhymes as "sautii qavaafii"? If yes, then the people who are your "qiblah-o-ka3bah" have used them. Let me know if you wish to have proof!
> --
> I hope I have been able to address my earlier lack of conveying what I wanted to say.
> Regards,
> RC


----------



## rc2

I am still trying to learn how to use this forum, so unable to elegantly insert "quotes" - please bear with me. 

The question now raised regarding "ze/zvaad, be/pe, He/3ain, he/hamzah, siin/svaad, He/he, daal/zaal rhymes as "sautii qavaafii" is interesting. I am quite familiar with how these are used in Urdu poetry (both classically and in "jadeed" ways) -- and I have seen a much wider use of "aa/ah" used than these others (seen/svaad and the rest). I personally would not use "seen/svaad" sounds in ham-qaafiya alfaaz myself . I don't think anyone here is questioning that the native Hindustanis pretty much did(do?) not take effort to distinguish the "sounds" of "gilah/gilaa" and such words, save those who have exposure to the root etymology and take special effort. 

As for examples, yes, please do - (although this may not be of interest to the language enthuasiasts), since I am interested in the poetry as well. It is always an educational experience. If you are proving a "point" with the examples, please do not forget to include the exact point being made alongside with the examples, so I can follow as best as I can. 

As for the matter of "ghar kee murGhee" (a proverb I have a lot of disdain for, personally speaking, reasons for which are not important here), I am not saying that Amir Khusrau's language skills/usage is frowned upon -- no, not by any means! I am simply saying that the sabk-i-Hind is not the same as the Persian that was spoken in Iran, even in his day.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I hope the thread with _waao&kasra_ will gain more responses - and this one is somehow related because of the etymology of kamrah/kamraa. This word I believe is of Portuguese origin and not a Persian/Arabic one.Correct me if I'm wrong !
> 
> I believe you are right about "kamraa/kamrah" 's origins.
> 
> In the کمرہ variety it does get used in 'ezafated' compounds though, as in کمرۂ جماعت kamrah-e jamaa3t or کمرۂ عدالت kamrah-e 'adaalat! It has Persian looks with ہ!
> 
> One could write kamraa with an izaafat. Just like balaa-i-jaan.
> 
> My question here extends to the examples you provided, where pata پتہ/پتا can be added.
> 
> Do you mean "patah/pataa" for address or "pattah/pattaa" for leaf?
> 
> Because I had never encountered tamaashaa written with a final -h and would condemn such manner of writing as utterly wrong, I googled it and to my amusement, it threw 50,700 results... Is this tendency to use more -h in place of -aa becoming common?
> 
> I think "tamaashah" is not common in good Urdu. What about "tolah/tolaa", as in "ghaRii tolah ghaRii maashah"
> 
> Beautiful ash'aar!
> 
> Thank you, but the credit goes to the respective shaa3ir!


----------



## marrish

You are right that one could technically write kamraa with izaafat but I'm suspecting کمرہ got somehow deemed worthy of getting into an izaafat construction. Maybe کمرا looks less 'Persian' than کمرہ!!! 

I mean patah/pataa for address. There is another thread where more examples of this variation can be found related to ziyaadah.


----------



## tonyspeed

This thread is a bit disturbing because is it not the case that in careful pronunciation one can HEAR the final "H" sound (though usually omitted in typical speech). In fact, _Spoken Urdu_ claims that in certain words
it is ALWAYS pronounced (Although I am not sure how true this is); For example, maiN ne kah diya. He claims the 'h' in kah is always pronounced. I will double check this once I get my hands on the book to make sure
this is indeed one of the cases he cited.

My point being, adding an 'h' to words ad-hoc seems blasphemous for those of us that are sticklers for careful pronunciation. It's even worse for singing songs because one can now sing "kamaraaha" ....or "kam-raaha!"
But when there is no 'h' one can only sing "kamaraa" or "kam-raa".


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> This thread is a bit disturbing because is it not the case that in careful pronunciation one can HEAR the final "H" sound (though usually omitted in typical speech). In fact, _Spoken Urdu_ claims that in certain words
> it is ALWAYS pronounced (Although I am not sure how true this is); For example, maiN ne kah diya. He claims the 'h' in kah is always pronounced. I will double check this once I get my hands on the book to make sure
> this is indeed one of the cases he cited.
> 
> My point being, adding an 'h' to words ad-hoc seems blasphemous for those of us that are sticklers for careful pronunciation. It's even worse for singing songs because one can now sing "kamaraaha" ....or "kam-raaha!"
> But when there is no 'h' one can only sing "kamaraa" or "kam-raa".



*Tonyspeed SaHib, this thread deals with a spelling convention/written Urdu, not with spoken Urdu! I hope this explanation can lower the level of disturbance you stated to have been experiencing while reading this thread.*


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> This thread is a bit disturbing because is it not the case that in careful pronunciation one can HEAR the final "H" sound (though usually omitted in typical speech). In fact, _Spoken Urdu_ claims that in certain words
> it is ALWAYS pronounced (Although I am not sure how true this is); For example, maiN ne kah diya. He claims the 'h' in kah is always pronounced. I will double check this once I get my hands on the book to make sure
> this is indeed one of the cases he cited.
> 
> I always pronounce the "h" in "kah".
> 
> My point being, adding an 'h' to words ad-hoc seems blasphemous for those of us that are sticklers for careful pronunciation. It's even worse for singing songs because one can now sing "kamaraaha" ....or "kam-raaha!"
> But when there is no 'h' one can only sing "kamaraa" or "kam-raa".
> 
> I am not sure if the "h"s are being added willy-nilly. For singing one would be pronounced "kam-rah" and the other "kam-raa".


----------



## tonyspeed

I think I misunderstood this thread at first. This reminds me of a certain book Colloquial Hindi by Bhatia where he suggests that words in Hindi ending in a "ah" be pronounced as "aa".
Such words would include tarah, vajah, subah etc... I believe this idea must come from the phenomenon you are describing even though these same words may not be spelt as such
in Urdu.


----------



## marrish

I'm in agreement that the spelling conventions differ between U and H (as we can learn from the growing compilation under another thread) and that it may seem somewhat confusing, indeed! But in the case of the author's suggestion cited above... if you write words of P/A origin without being aware of their phonetic value in the original languages, then what emerges is a very poor and extremely colloquial Hindi, by my taste. Where would you find such a pronunciation? Sure it exists but to recommend it in a book?


----------



## Faylasoof

Yes, the word is originally borrowed from Portuguese - not Persian / Arabic!

کَمْرا _kamraa_ is the usual way we spell and pronounce it but کَمْرَہ _kamrah_ is not wrong - just an alternative spelling. The first is more common though.

BTW, the current standard Urdu pronunciation has a _sukuun_ (no vowel) on ‘_meem_’, hence _kamraa_ / _kamrah_ and not _kam*a*raa_ / _kam*a*rah_. Platts says _kamraa_ / _kamrah_ is vulgar! But this might have been more than a 100 years ago but not since then.

A _possible_ explanation for the ‘ah’ version (کَمْرَہ _kamrah_) _might_ be that the alternative to this word we use in Urdu is حُجْرَہ    _Hujrah_ = room = کَمْرَہ _kamrah_. Please note the _sukuun_ at the same position in the two words. Sometimes spelling / vowelling conventions are maintained between words and here the _sukuun_ and the 'ah' ending is common.

For some words the 'ah' ending is a must but we needn't discuss every 'ah' versus 'aa' ending in this thread!


----------



## marrish

Many thanks for confirming the etymology. It fits to my 'theory', which I mentioned earlier in this thread. I think it has more Persian looks with -ہ and that's why it functions successfully in expressions with izaafat.

Faylasoof SaHib, you say کمرا is usual and I can but agree with you. The fact that it's usually spelt with alif - and has been written so (see Platts!) would mean that at some stage this noun began to be perceived differently. If it was purposedly or not, I wouldn't say, but the awareness regarding its etymology would prevent it functioning in given expressions.

I feel convinced by your explanation, that it possibly has followed the pattern of hujrah - its synonim - and I think the association with this word helped some to think of it as a Persian-derived word.

Let's stick to the pair of words from the title of this thread as Faylasoof SaHib rightly suggests.

I'm obliged to all of you for your valuable input!


----------



## Sheikh_14

Clearly a lot to take in, but to get back to the Kamraa and kamra dilemma, does this suggest that not only are there two seperate ways to spell the word but also to pronounce it to suit one's poetical metre or sentence structure? Since if Hujrah rhymes with kamrah that would suggest that it is pronounced differently to kamraa?

Platts recognises both of the above as correct variations with the caveat that originally these were pronounced in line with the Latin pronunciations. Over the years this has changed of course as suggested by Faylasoof SaaHiB. I wonder if Urduphones would still deem the original pronunciations as correct in Urdu I.e. Kamara and kamaraa. In Italian the cognate term would be transliterated as Kameraa in Roman Urdu. The Portuguese variant from which we derive Kamraa is in fact Kamaraa.


----------

