# Urdu, Hindi, Persian: Code switching & mixed syntax



## Qureshpor

Split from *here*.

^ Sheikh SaaHib, I believe eskandar SaaHib makes a valid point. In Urdu we do have many set phrases which have Persian verbal conjugations  but these are frozen in time. In our day to day speech we don't say...

maiN ghar se niklaa aur raaste meN Sheikh SaaHib ko diidam. vuh mujhe dekh kar xushii se shuruu3 kard(and) ba-raqsiidan. un ko maiN ne gale lagaa liyaa aur un se un kaa Haal pursiidam. guft(and) kih itnaa 3arsah aap kahaaN buud (and). paasux daadam bas yahiiN aavaarah-gardii mii-kunam!!!!!!!!!

haaN ek baat zaruur hai. agar aap janaab-i-Xusrau (Khusrau) se baat kar rahe hote to..agar aap kahte

shabaan-i-hijraaN daraaz chuuN zulf-o-roz-i-vaslat cho 3umr-i-kotaah

to vuh javaab dete..

sakhii piyaa ko jo maiN nah dekhuuN to kaise kaaTuuN andherii ratiyaaN!


----------



## eskandar

Thank you QP SaaHib. Day-to-day speech aside, was there every a time when conjugated Persian verbs would be used in this manner, even in very formal literary writing? Are there any historical examples of the kind of mixed use you provided hypothetical examples for (eg. "main ghar se niklaa aur raaste meN Sheikh SaaHib ko diidam ...") ? My feeling is that there are not, except as you mentioned in set phrases which are wholly Persian. For example there is the phrase _che ma3nii daarad?_ , but to my knowledge one would never write _kyaa ma3nii daarad__? _or _mera dost Abbas ek acchii gaaRi daarad_ . In other words conjugated Persian verbs are never used in the same phrase together with Urdu. Even janaab-i Khusrau did not mix Persian verbs into Urdu sentences, and instead kept them wholly separate, with one fully Persian miSra3 followed by a fully Hindi/Urdu miSra3.


----------



## Qureshpor

eskandar said:


> Thank you QP SaaHib. Day-to-day speech aside, was there every a time when conjugated Persian verbs would be used in this manner, even in very formal literary writing? Are there any historical examples of the kind of mixed use you provided hypothetical examples for (eg. "main ghar se niklaa aur raaste meN Sheikh SaaHib ko diidam ...") ? My feeling is that there are not, except as you mentioned in set phrases which are wholly Persian. For example there is the phrase _che ma3nii daarad?_ , but to my knowledge one would never write _kyaa ma3nii daarad__? _or _mera dost Abbas ek acchii gaaRi daarad_ . In other words conjugated Persian verbs are never used in the same phrase together with Urdu. Even janaab-i Khusrau did not mix Persian verbs into Urdu sentences, and instead kept them wholly separate, with one fully Persian miSra3 followed by a fully Hindi/Urdu miSra3.


Well eskandar SaaHib, this is how the Ghazal begins.

ز حال مسکین مکن تغافل ورائے نیناں بنائے بتیاں
 کہ تا ب ہجراں ندارم اے جاں نہ لیہو کاہے لگائے چھتیاں


----------



## eskandar

I see, so each miSra3 has a Persian clause and an Urdu clause. I stand corrected. Despite this, though, we still haven't found an example of a Persian verb operating in an Urdu clause as Sheikh_14 was suggesting.


----------



## Qureshpor

eskandar said:


> I see, so each miSra3 has a Persian clause and an Urdu clause. I stand corrected. Despite this, though, we still haven't found an example of a Persian verb operating in an Urdu clause as Sheikh_14 was suggesting.


adhii raat tan biich uThii kulbulii
cho diidam kih faujaaN ju'aaN kii chalii

ju'aaN maarte maarte shab guzasht
vale ek juuN az miyaaN kam nagasht

karoroN ju'aaN aur akelaa manam
donoN haath se taa kujaa miizanam
........

rahe shaah-i-shaahaaN kih gaah-i-vaGhaa
nah hillad, nah Tallad nah junbad zi jaa

..........

kashtii-i-ummiid-i-Ja3far dar bhaNvaR uftaadah ast
DubkuuN DubkuuN miikunad az yak tavajjuh paar kun

Ja'far Zatali (ja3far zaTallii) 1658-1713


----------



## eskandar

Who can argue with such an example? Here is irrefutable proof of such mixing. It strikes me as something one could only get away with in classical poetry, not in prose, yet perhaps QP SaaHib with his encyclopedic knowledge of Urdu literature will prove me wrong on that count as well.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Yes, there are plenty of examples in prose too!


----------



## Sheikh_14

Qureshpor said:


> ^ Yes, there are plenty of examples in prose too!



Although, I wouldn't want to draw you into the debate for too long, QP sahib could you kindly share a few in prose. What can be gathered from this all is that the Urdu language isn't the rekhta zabaan for no reason for its fantastic lachak does allow one to enjoy the flavour's of different linguistic worlds'. 

In reference to post 14 I'd like to say two things. Firstly, the manner in which you have stated the episode still fails to be as odd as equating a roman language with Urdu, for although not sound from a normal Uncle Joe to Uncle Schmoe conversation it sounds like a poet wagging his linguistic wand rather than a farce. Urdu poets are known for veering into Arabic, Farsi and Hindi because it is in line with the language's rich affiliation with them all. Secondly, there is a difference between going overboard with a loan personalisation and veering into another language and on the other hand practising halqah (light) and warranted istima3l. 

Say someone shares a story you're familiar with, as a short response saying the following:
Haan bilkul, Danaam/ Haan bilkul main Danaam.        Yani, Meri danish main yeh baat punche weh hain ars3h (from عرصہ)  sain, would not be out of place.
Therefore here it is being used in place of Haan main bilkul Jaantha hoon.

Similarly, the phrase Guftan, Na/ishistaan, Barkhastaan is used even amongst more common folk. The reason being that guftagoo, Barkhast and Nishist (their root words) are present.

The Jury is still out..


----------



## Faylasoof

eskandar said:


> Thank you QP SaaHib. Day-to-day speech aside, was there every a time when conjugated Persian verbs would be used in this manner, even in very formal literary writing? Are there any historical examples of the kind of mixed use you provided hypothetical examples for (eg. "main ghar se niklaa aur raaste meN Sheikh SaaHib ko diidam ...") ? My feeling is that there are not, except as you mentioned in set phrases which are wholly Persian. For example there is the phrase _che ma3nii daarad?_ , but to my knowledge one would never write _kyaa ma3nii daarad__? _or _mera dost Abbas ek acchii gaaRi daarad_ . In other words conjugated Persian verbs are never used in the same phrase together with Urdu. Even janaab-i Khusrau did not mix Persian verbs into Urdu sentences, and instead kept them wholly separate, with one fully Persian miSra3 followed by a fully Hindi/Urdu miSra3.


 This is what we call _aadhaa tiitar aadhaa baTer_! So no respectable person would use such speech but in poetry Amir Khusrau was famously know to mix Braj, khaRii bolii, Persian etc. and present day _qawwaals_ do this all the time switching between Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Braj, Awadhi-Bhojpuri, Purbi etc. but keeping whole verses intact in each language

The tradition of mixed Urdu-Persian verse is still alive:

كیا  ہے  حرص  نے میعار ِ خیر و شر بر باد
بہ عیش  و نُوش   بكوشید  ہر چہ  بادا  باد

.. and here is another example:
وجود عالم اسباب كا وہی ہے سبب
حدود وسعت ادراك ميں وہ آيا كب
بہ ہيچ دام خرد كُنہ او نہ افتاد است
» ز ہر چہ رنگ تعلق پزير و آزاد است «

Both recent example - from the 20th century, but in each verse linguistic purity is maintained. However here is an exception:

جہانِ عیش چو دیدی ہیں جہان دگر

A rare one though. This one we can even use in speech but those in the know would realize that it is poetical and not normal speech. We generally don't say: *be-Hadd mushkil meN huuN, ... che kunam *! You can say it in the right company but even then it would now be regarded as an affectation.


----------



## Dib

eskandar said:


> Who can argue with such an example? Here is irrefutable proof of such mixing. It strikes me as something one could only get away with in classical poetry, not in prose...



To be frank, to my ear the piece sounds super-informal joking lingo of a perfect HU-Persian code-switching bilingual speaker. The topic and tone of the poem also seem to match. Just consider my (nonpoetic, somewhat modernised) super-informal version in the mouth of a perfect HU-English code-switching bilingual speaker:

adhii raat ... kulbulii
when I saw kih ju'oN kii total fauj chal paDii hai

ju'eN maarte maarte to idhar night gone,
but the lot wasn't less even by a single juuN

waise, ju'eN karoRoN aur _me is_ akelaa,
tell me, do haath se how much could I kill really?

(ek ek juuN) khaDii hai jaise macho of machos, like fight ke time
no hil-ing, no Dul-ing, no moving from own place.

Ja3far kii to lifeboat fallen among bhaNvar-s (bees? wasps?),
going Dubkuun Dubkuun. bhai, koii paar-ofy from their view (?)!

~~~

It sounds somewhat unnatural as a discourse because I am not a great translator, but if you look at individual sentences, I think they are quite natural in many kinds of code-switching varieties... This is grammatically and syntactically (though not quite lexically) quite similar to what we sometimes used during college days as a medium to informal joking way of speaking. Especially, the following two constructions are very evocative:
1) nah hillad, nah Tallad => no hil-ing, no Dul-ing
2) paar kun => paar-ofy (verbify native nouns)

------

Of course, my analysis may be completely out of line. I have no experience in the tradition of Urdu poetic language. I know some modern Persian, and I have spoken quite a bit of Hinglish and English to have a feeling of how the code-switching works in some varieties of Hinglish. I am seeing the same patterns here, but that may simply be due to the bias of my background.
My Hinglish language engine seems to impose a constraint that pronouns and the verbs they govern are always from the same language, I wouldn't say "*I jaataa huuN" or "*maiN go". Is it possible to check if what I am seeing as HU-Persian code-switching also imposes the same constraint? It is satisfied in this small piece, but what happens beyond?


----------



## Qureshpor

Failasoof SaaHib, thank you for splitting the thread. 

^ Dib SaaHib, you are of course aware that what I quoted from Ja'far Zatalli was in response to eskandar SaaHib's query in # post 4. I had already expressed my views to Sheikh SaaHib in my # post 1 above.

Ja3far Zatalli is known for his poetry which was satirical and meant to shock his readers. The butt of his scorn were people mainly connected with the ruling [Mughal] class. A lot of his poetry would be described as obscene and as a consequence I had great difficulty in trying to find something which the censors would let through! I should add that it is believed he was murdered for his troubles.

By the way, I am not sure I would totally go along with your English renderings of the Persian.


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> Failasoof SaaHib, thank you for splitting the thread.
> 
> ^ Dib SaaHib, you are of course aware that what I quoted from Ja'far Zatalli was in response to eskandar SaaHib's query in # post 4. I had already expressed my views to Sheikh SaaHib in my # post 1 above.
> 
> Ja3far Zatalli is known for his poetry which was satirical and meant to shock his readers. The butt of his scorn were people mainly connected with the ruling [Mughal] class. A lot of his poetry would be described as obscene and as a consequence I had great difficulty in trying to find something which the censors would let through! I should add that it is believed he was murdered for his troubles.
> 
> By the way, I am not sure I would totally go along with your English renderings of the Persian.


 Welcome QP SaaHib!
Yes, Zatalli was known for his shocking poetry and the above can be shocking from a linguistic point of view. Had it been an unknown / lesser known poet, then it would appear as if he / she is experimenting - and there was a (long) period of experimental Urdu poetry but even then most that I have seen tend to keep the verses syntactically intact. The first poet to write recognizable Urdu poetry was Wali Daccani  -who was never from the _dakkan - _and although one finds mixed vocabulary, the syntax is still unadulterated.


----------



## eskandar

Sheikh_14 said:


> In reference to post 14 I'd like to say two things. Firstly, the manner in which you have stated the episode still fails to be as odd as equating a roman language with Urdu, for although not sound from a normal Uncle Joe to Uncle Schmoe conversation it sounds like a poet wagging his linguistic wand rather than a farce. Urdu poets are known for veering into Arabic, Farsi and Hindi because it is in line with the language's rich affiliation with them all.


The post numbers have changed now that the thread was split, but if this was directed at me, I would wonder what a "roman" language is, and whether you are aware that Urdu speakers are quite known for veering into English as well. I would venture to say that more Urdu speakers in India and Pakistan understand what "I said" means than "guftam".



Faylasoof said:


> So no respectable person would use such speech  but in poetry Amir Khusrau was famously know to mix Braj, khaRii bolii,  Persian etc. and present day _qawwaals_ do this all the time  switching between Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Braj, Awadhi-Bhojpuri, Purbi  etc. but keeping whole verses intact in each language
> 
> ...
> 
> Both recent example - from the 20th century, but in each verse linguistic purity is maintained.


I quite agree with this point. It stills seems to me - despite a few examples to the contrary that Faylasoof SaaHib and Qureshpor SaaHib have provided - that the dominant trend throughout Urdu literary history was to borrow only Persian nouns and adjectives, and that when a Persian clause with a Persian verb was used, it remained separate from the Urdu clauses that surrounded it, even if appearing in the same poem. This is the way it should be in my opinion.



Dib said:


> My Hinglish language engine seems to impose a  constraint that pronouns and the verbs they govern are always from the  same language, I wouldn't say "*I jaataa huuN" or "*maiN go". Is it  possible to check if what I am seeing as HU-Persian code-switching also  imposes the same constraint?


This is more or less the feeling I have about what you are calling HU-Persian code-switching. I'm not sure how I feel about the terminology though. To me (and maybe I'm wrong), code-switching relates specifically to speech, not to the written language (with the exception of forms of writing that attempt to imitate speech, eg. text messages, Facebook posts, and the like). Among both Persian and Spanish-speakers in the US, it is quite common to code-switch with English, yet in my experience when composing a written text both of those linguistic communities would see English code-switching as inappropriate to the medium and write in Persian or Spanish only, respectively. Similarly I have rarely (if ever) seen the kind of English code-switching that seems to be part and parcel of educated (and often even uneducated) Hindi/Urdu speech in India take place in written Urdu, with the rare exception of a bit of dialogue mimicking that register of speech. So if you accept the dichotomy between speaking (which allows for code-switching) and writing (which frowns upon it), then we must clarify which register we are discussing. I would maintain that Persian code-switching in such a manner (ie. with fully conjugated verbs and so on) would sound excessively pretentious in Urdu speech and may not even be comprehensible to Urdu speakers who had not studied Persian. In Urdu writing it is largely a question of taste, and I will simply restate my opinion (which is just that, an opinion) that it appears crass and distasteful when mixed with Urdu syntax. And I say that as someone who loves Khusrau's reKhta poetry.


----------



## Sheikh_14

eskandar said:


> The post numbers have changed now that the thread was split, but if this was directed at me, I would wonder what a "roman" language is, and whether you are aware that Urdu speakers are quite known for veering into English as well. I would venture to say that more Urdu speakers in India and Pakistan understand what "I said" means than "guftam"Firs
> 
> Firstly, no post 14 is apparently post 1 here; Therefore, I was responding to QP sahib. Secondly, the fact that English is a language which is in vogue doesn't mean that since the educated middle and upper classes of today are far more likely to be well versed in English than say there own mother or adopted national languages equates to them being related. Therefore, once again your point is void. There is no fundamental connection between I said and Urdu vocabulary. On the other hand the root words from which the likes of say diidaam are derived i.e. Deedah are.
> 
> Therefore as I have previously stated in post 8 :
> Haan bilkul, Danaam/ Haan bilkul main Danaam.        Yani, Meri danish  main yeh baat punche weh hain ars3h (from عرصہ)  sain, would not be out  of place.
> Therefore here it is being used in place of Haan main bilkul Jaantha hoon.
> 
> Here the usage of a Persian personalization suffix is valid and seems natural.
> 
> Had our purpose been to not discuss esotericism than this entire forum would lose its charm. A lot that is discussed is not known by the common man and hence it is brought to this forum in the first place. Therefore, a paucity of linguistic knowledge is not commensurate to what is right or wrong. Had that been the case than every sentence in English should end and begin with the phrase 'at the end of the dayyy" since that is how a common Joe/Schmoe would do it in England.


----------



## eskandar

Sheikh_14 said:


> Secondly, the fact that English is a language which is in vogue doesn't mean that since the educated middle and upper classes of today are far more likely to be well versed in English than say there own mother or adopted national languages equates to them being related. Therefore, once again your point is void.


At this point I'm not sure what you're even talking about, so I'll drop it.



> Haan bilkul, Danaam/ Haan bilkul main Danaam.        Yani, Meri danish  main yeh baat punche weh hain ars3h (from عرصہ)  sain, *would not be out  of place*.


(emphasis added) And as I said before, they would be no less out of place than saying "haaN bilkul, I know." The difference is that I have heard people do this kind of Urdu/English codeswitching quite frequently (including by educated Lakhnavis) whereas I have never heard anyone do it with Urdu/Persian in the particular way you suggest.



> Therefore here it is being used in place of Haan main bilkul Jaantha hoon.


I think you mean jaan*ta* (jaantaa), as it's not aspirated.



> Here the usage of a Persian personalization suffix is valid and seems natural.


It's not a personalization suffix. It's a verb ending. That's one of the (several) reasons why I find this usage distasteful. Throughout its history Urdu has borrowed _nouns_ and _adjectives_ from other languages (Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and English among them) but not verbs. Hence to my ears there's nothing wrong with a sentence like "_police_ ne Ali ko rok liyaa" (borrowing a foreign noun according to the established pattern for which there is historical precedent) but "unhoN ne usko _interrogated_" simply sounds wrong. If one wanted to use an English word here, they could say something like "unhoN ne usko _interrogate _kiyaa" but not _interrogated_. As a non-native, non-fluent learner I wouldn't ordinarily be so insistent, but the fact is the kind of usage I am talking about is well-documented (you can even find examples of '_interrogate_ karnaa' being used in this way on Google) whereas the kind of usage Sheikh_14 suggests does not exist.



> Had our purpose been to not discuss esotericism than this entire forum would lose its charm. A lot that is discussed is not known by the common man and hence it is brought to this forum in the first place. Therefore, a paucity of linguistic knowledge is not commensurate to what is right or wrong.


By the same token not all that is obscure is correct but poorly-known; sometimes something might not be understood because it makes no sense. The common man would be ignorant to the esoteric meaning of the sentence "maiN renang rahaa huuN", and the reason for their ignorance is because the word 'renang' means swimming in Indonesian and has no customary use in Urdu, not because it is a charmingly esoteric use that is lost on them.


----------



## Sheikh_14

_"(emphasis added) And as I said before, they would be no less out of place than saying "haaN bilkul, I know." The difference is that I have heard people do this kind of Urdu/English codeswitching quite frequently (including by educated Lakhnavis) whereas I have never heard anyone do it with Urdu/Persian in the particular way you suggest.

It's not a personalization suffix. It's a verb ending. That's one of the (several) reasons why I find this usage distasteful. Throughout its history Urdu has borrowed nouns and adjectives from other languages (Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and English among them) but not verbs. Hence to my ears there's nothing wrong with a sentence like "police ne Ali ko rok liyaa" (borrowing a foreign noun according to the established pattern for which there is historical precedent) but "unhoN ne usko interrogated" simply sounds wrong. If one wanted to use an English word here, they could say something like "unhoN ne usko interrogate kiyaa" but not interrogated. As a non-native, non-fluent learner I wouldn't ordinarily be so insistent, but the fact is the kind of usage I am talking about is well-documented (you can even find examples of 'interrogate karnaa' being used in this way on Google) whereas the kind of usage Sheikh_14 suggests does not exist."_

As I have already stated just because a language is in vogue  (English) and is used in conjunction does not mean it has a legitimate  bond with it. The Russian aristocracy spoke French and hence French was  for long the de facto language of the elites in Russia just as one would  say English has come to become in both Pakistan and India. However,  just because that is the case does not mean that English and Urdu like  French and Russian are inextricably linked for there current linkages  are an unforeseen accident of the glocalisation of the English language.  Interrogation is not an Urdu word and wouldn't qualify as one. Is it  used colloquially, well of course but you are well aware that so is  Spanish with English due to the Latino influx in California etc. Thus  the colloquial mixing of languages doesn't immediately add it to  accepted language. Apparently chiiz is now part of English slang derived  from the Urdu chiiz for thing and it has come to mean someone who is a  big shot, yet you will come to know that it is only dialectically  acceptable and not a member of the English language. 

English and  Urdu are not part of an Ikhwaan. Comparing the two is remniscent of  comparing Chicken with beans simply because they serve the same purpose,  that of being language and of communication (in the case of the former  containing protein). Despite their many differences. On the other hand,  comparing Indo-Aryan languages is more akin to comparing a Cucumber with  a Gherkin. 

As far as borrowings are concerned than well they  are the absolute core of the language for it is after largely derivative  and indicative of its conciliatory impressiveness.


*By the same token not all that is obscure is correct but poorly-known;  sometimes something might not be understood because it makes no sense.  The common man would be ignorant to the esoteric meaning of the sentence  "maiN renang rahaa huuN", and the reason for their ignorance is because  the word 'renang' means swimming in Indonesian and has no customary use  in Urdu, not because it is a charmingly esoteric use that is lost on  them.[/QUOTE]*

For the following only one word truly encompasses  its worth- Irrelevant. Reason being that the point is not that whatever  is esoteric is gold for Indonesian to a common Urdu speaking man/woman  is as relevant to their daily lives as Klingon. On the other hand, all  of the verbs mentioned are well and truly alive in Urdu vocabulary. Now  what is hard to understand is if you disagree with the use of -am as a  suffix or only from the perspective of verbs. It seems  that you are quite ok with the likes of Jaanam and Aziizam but not  Raqsaam or Deedam?

However, Deed and raqs are both derived verbs  well and truly present hence the adoption of am would only serve to  personalise them. In other words you are not creating words carte  blanche as what you seem to be doing with your English and Indonesian  examples you are simply personalisng them. Raqs equates to dance. Yes  they alone are nouns but badalna is an example whereby an Arabic verb is  Urduized, and therefore for the good of a developing language would do  it good as long as its not used ad nauseaum. Now from a poetic or  literary standpoint I don't think either Raqstha for Raqs kartha or  Raqso! in place of Dance as a command would be wrong. Bearing all that  in mind, the am simply suggests that an individual is him/herself doing  it.

Main Raqsam = I dance. Main dancing= weird, because dance is  not an urdu word nor is the ing- suffix for defining an active verb.
Yet  Main dancing would not be unheard of due to again the reasons mentioned  above. Now why people do that is beyong me but it is done.


An example of the following was provided by Alfaaz sahib god bless his soul !


خدا جانے کہ تیرے ہجر میں دلدار می رقصم
سرِ خانہ ، سرِ محفل، سرِ بازار می رقصم

صابر ظفر 


What I have been arguing from get-go is not that it is commonly used but that it could be.


----------



## eskandar

Sheikh_14 said:


> As I have already stated just because a language is in vogue  (English) and is used in conjunction does not mean it has a legitimate  bond with it. The Russian aristocracy spoke French and hence French was  for long the de facto language of the elites in Russia just as one would  say English has come to become in both Pakistan and India. However,  just because that is the case does not mean that English and Urdu like  French and Russian are inextricably linked for there current linkages  are an unforeseen accident of the glocalisation of the English language.


English has had a majorly important relationship with Urdu for centuries now. English and Urdu are linked in precisely the same way French and Russian are, with one exception: English _continues _to exert influence over Urdu and is still a productive part of the language, whereas French ceased to wield such influence over Russian long ago.



> Interrogation is not an Urdu word and wouldn't qualify as one. Is it  used colloquially, well of course but you are well aware that so is  Spanish with English due to the Latino influx in California etc.


You missed my point entirely, which was about grammatical usage and not vocabulary. I am talking about what types of words are acceptable to use, and how they are to be used, not about which words are commonly used and which aren't.



> Apparently chiiz is now part of English slang derived  from the Urdu chiiz for thing and it has come to mean someone who is a  big shot, yet you will come to know that it is only dialectically  acceptable and not a member of the English language.


This is aside the point, but again you are mistaken as the word/usage you're referring to is in fact a bonafide member of the English language, cf. the Oxford English Dictionary. And what does "dialectically acceptable" even mean? 



> English and  Urdu are not part of an Ikhwaan. Comparing the two is remniscent of  comparing Chicken with beans simply because they serve the same purpose,  that of being language and of communication (in the case of the former  containing protein). Despite their many differences. On the other hand,  comparing Indo-Aryan languages is more akin to comparing a Cucumber with  a Gherkin.


This attitude fundamentally misunderstands how language interaction works. By your logic, you should prefer English loanwords in Urdu over Arabic ones since English and Urdu are both Indo-European languages, whereas Arabic belongs to the utterly unrelated Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) family.



> On the other hand, all  of the verbs mentioned are well and truly alive in Urdu vocabulary. Now  what is hard to understand is if you disagree with the use of -am as a  suffix or only from the perspective of verbs. It seems  that you are quite ok with the likes of Jaanam and Aziizam but not  Raqsaam or Deedam?


As I have been quite clear about in my posts, I have been objecting to your suggestion that Persian verbs be used in Urdu. Nowhere did I object to _jaanam_, _3aziizam_, etc., though I would note that _-am_ does not seem to be a productive suffix in Urdu today. The verbs are *not* in fact "well and truly alive" in Urdu vocabulary. Nouns and adjectives derived from these verbs are present in Urdu vocabulary, but as I have been trying to make you understand, that is an entirely different thing. The Arabic noun _raqS _"dance" is used in Urdu, but not the Arabic verb _raqaSa_. You can say something like "us ka raqS deKhne-laa'iq thaa" but imagine how ridiculous it would sound to say "mere vaalid SaaHib yarquSu lekin ammii jaan nahiiN tarquSu" !! Yet this is precisely what you are preposing with using conjugated Persian verbs in Urdu.



> What I have been arguing from get-go is not that it is commonly used but that it could be.


I understand that. I, in turn, have been arguing from the get-go that it should not be.


----------



## Sheikh_14

eskandar said:


> English has had a majorly important  relationship with Urdu for centuries now. English and Urdu are linked in  precisely the same way French and Russian are, with one exception:  English _continues _to exert influence over Urdu and is still a  productive part of the language, whereas French ceased to wield such  influence over Russian long ago.





eskandar said:


> Excluding, the fascination towards the language that prevails to this day among the Russian elite; yes majorly so.
> 
> This is aside the point, but again you are mistaken as the word/usage  you're referring to is in fact a bonafide member of the English  language, cf. the Oxford English Dictionary. And what does "dialectically acceptable" even mean?
> 
> Whats  difficult in understanding dialects and vernaculars. In Britain due to  the asian influence on the local dialects chiiz may be understood,  whereas in the US it is unlikely. Just as Yiddish words don't have the  same currency in British English as they do in the States. Its very  common hearing L'Chaim and Oh ve in the US but not in England.
> 
> This attitude fundamentally misunderstands how language interaction  works. By your logic, you should prefer English loanwords in Urdu over  Arabic ones since English and Urdu are both Indo-European languages,  whereas Arabic belongs to the utterly unrelated Semitic (Afro-Asiatic)  family.
> 
> Whilst the roots of Arabic may well be different there is  an instrinsic relationship that the language has with both Farsi and  Urdu excluding the obvious in relation to the Scripts adopted by each.  As far as Urdu's intimate bond with Arabic is concerned than it falls in  line with the Two Nation Theory and the Islamic element in the  language. Its no wonder that Imaan has been chosen as the Urdu word for Faith  in the Phrase Unity, Faith and Discipline. On the other hand, the  inclusion of the English language is more unnatural. If you write down a  sentence in Urdu Farsi and Arabic youll come to see significant  similarities just as you would if you read a Spanish sentence along with  an Italian one; ignoring pronunciation. Arabic happens to be an  exception in this case despite being from another family it has an  inextricable bond for various reasons in the formative years of both  languages. Whereas the sheer influence of English is merely a case of  its glocalisation and the accident which is English pre-eminence.
> 
> Therefore Arabic rivals Latin in the other end of the world.
> 
> Besides  what is being argued here is not some idea of a Huntingdon's clash of  civilisations' but moreso a one based upon existing vocabulary and  working your way around that. One minute you bring in English verbs with  only modern day colloquail connections rather than an instrinsic bond  the next you are mentioning Indonesian. Later on youll bring on Tagalag.  Said, know, statement- irregardles of whether they are in their noun or  verb forms are not part of the language.
> 
> As I have been quite clear about in my posts, I have been objecting to  your suggestion that Persian verbs be used in Urdu. Nowhere did I object  to _jaanam_, _3aziizam_, etc., though I would note that _-am_ does not seem to be a productive suffix in Urdu today. The verbs are *not*  in fact "well and truly alive" in Urdu vocabulary. Nouns and adjectives  derived from these verbs are present in Urdu vocabulary, but as I have  been trying to make you understand, that is an entirely different thing.  The Arabic noun _raqS _"dance" is used in Urdu, but not the Arabic verb _raqaSa_.  You can say something like "us ka raqS deKhne-laa'iq thaa" but imagine  how ridiculous it would sound to say "mere vaalid SaaHib yarquSu lekin  ammii jaan nahiiN tarquSu" !! Yet this is precisely what you are  preposing with using conjugated Persian verbs in Urdu.
> 
> Well the example that I used above from Sabir Zafar illustrates that  native speakers would beg to differ in that matter not seeing the two  in the same light. On the other hand, Raqasaa would simply come to mean a  female dancer in Urdu thus by using it as a verb you would just be  instilling confusion. As far as Danaam is concerned than based upon  talks with fluent speakers, Nami danaam for I don't know was quite  common amongst the educated elderly in the 80s. Thus simply Urdu-izing  that with Nahin Danaam, or as a compound possibly Na-Danaam i.e. Jho  baat thi Na-Danaam= Something that was not known by me etc.
> Similarly  the arabic example of what I have been arguing would be Raqsii not the  verbs you have mentioned. In Urdu when Arabic personalisations' are used  in the form of "ii" you are usually referring to a technical aspect of  the noun.
> 
> mahnoor baloch nain aik baar pir key Raqsii karwaii.
> 
> Raqsii khidmaat key liye doh dobaiyeh !


----------



## Qureshpor

Sheikh_14 said:


> [...] An example of the following was provided by Alfaaz sahib god bless his soul !
> 
> خدا جانے کہ تیرے ہجر میں دلدار می رقصم
> سرِ خانہ ، سرِ محفل، سرِ بازار می رقصم
> 
> صابر ظفر
> 
> *What I have been arguing from get-go is not that it is commonly used but that it could be*.


Yes, it indeed it could be. It has been used in the past as demonstrated by examples from Ja'far Zatalli and it is being used in the modern times as the example quoted by Alfaaz SaaHib. Regarding the former, to the best of my knowledge, he was one off and therefore unique. He did it for a particular reason and his audience or more precisely his targets were people who would have been quite familiar with the Persian language. His style of mixing Urdu with Persian and that too containing Persian verbs is neither the norm nor proper. For this reason, eskandar SaaHib is absolutely right in what he is saying.

In our time, if you stand in an Urdu speaking city...I mean a city in which Urdu is spoken, say Karachi and stop the first 100 persons and ask them this question. "kyaa aap mujhe bataa sakte haiN kih "mii-raqsam" ke kyaa ma3ne haiN". mujhe yaqiin hai kih bahut hii kam log aise hoN ge jo aap ko durust javaab deN ge! Why? Because, Persian is no longer a language that is part of most people's cultural life. In fact, Urdu itself is not going to be at the forefront of their priorities.

Now, if this is the case, why is Sabir Zafar showing off his prowess in the Persian language? Well, the fact is "mii-raqsam" has something special about it. It is linked to the thought of "I am dancing [because I am in a state of ecstacy]". This is to do with God and love as envisaged in Sufi thought....

yak dast jaam-i-baadah-o-yak dast zulf-i-yaar
raqse chuniiN miyaanah-i-maidaam-am aarzuust

Maulana Jalalu_ddiin Rumi (1207-1273)

ek haath meN sharaab kaa piyaalah aur ek haath yaar kii zulf
aisaa naach (naachuuN) sab ke saamne, yahii hai merii aarzuu

But even earlier than him, Shahbaaz Qalandar (1177-1274) in Sind said

na-miidaanam kih aaxir chuuN dam-i-diidaar mii-raqsam
magar naazam ba-iiN zauqe kih pesh-i-yaar mii-raqsam

maraa ta3nah ma-zan ai mudda3ii tarz-i-adaa'ii-am biiN
man-am rind-i-xaraabaatii sar-i-baazaar mii-raqsam

You will no doubt have heard of Amir Khusrau's Ghazal beginning with the line.. 

na-miidaanam chih manzil buud shab jaa'e kih man buudam

Urdu speakers will have heard many a Qavvaal reciting these lines with "mii-raqsam" and "mii-daanam". These again are "frozen in time", as I have indicated before and are not therefore part of normal Urdu prose (speech) or poetry.


eskandar said:


> [...]As I have been quite clear about in my posts, I have been objecting to your suggestion that Persian verbs be used in Urdu. Nowhere did I object to _jaanam_, _3aziizam_, etc., though I would note that _-am_ does not seem to be a productive suffix in Urdu today. The verbs are *not* in fact "well and truly alive" in Urdu vocabulary. Nouns and adjectives derived from these verbs are present in Urdu vocabulary, but as I have been trying to make you understand, that is an entirely different thing. The Arabic noun _raqS_ "dance" is used in Urdu, but not the Arabic verb _raqaSa_. You can say something like "us ka raqS deKhne-laa'iq thaa" but imagine how ridiculous it would sound to say "mere vaalid SaaHib yarquSu lekin ammii jaan nahiiN tarquSu" !! Yet this is precisely what you are preposing with using conjugated Persian verbs in Urdu.[...]


eskandar SaaHib, I concur with you wholeheartedly. But, it seems Ja'far Zatallii is not alone!

خبر ہے ،والہانہ رقص میں سب گُم ہیں لیکن مَیں
کبھی سر باز می رقصم ،کبھی خوں بار می رقصم

جب اُس سے انگ لاگا ہے تو مُجھ کو رنگ لاگا ہے
وہ میرے سنگ جاگا ہے جو خوشبودار،می رقصم

کہا مِیرا نے گردھر لال سے پگ باندھ کر گھنگھرو
شریر استھان بھیتر، ہر نفس کے پار می رقصم

The above lines have been taken from Sabir Zafar's Collection of Ghazals entitled...wait for it..sar-i-baazaar mii-raqsam! You can no doubt see Sufi and Bhakti thought, as the Rajasthani poet Mira Bai is dancing with "ghuNgruu" on her ankles.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Qureshpor said:


> Yes, it indeed it could be. It has been used in the past as demonstrated by examples from Ja'far Zatalli and it is being used in the modern times as the example quoted by Alfaaz SaaHib.
> 
> These again are "frozen in time", as I have indicated before and are not therefore part of normal Urdu prose (speech) or poetry.





Qureshpor said:


> "Frozen in time" being the operative phrase here. Thereby suggesting not the invalidation of the point put across but an earlier precedent simply requiring rejuvenation for a moribund tradition. The Japanese economy suffers from the same fate which doesn't mean it ceases to exist it needs a kick-start.
> 
> On the other hand, firstly I'd like to thank you for taking your time to post the examples above. Earlier you had stated that in prose you have encountered a few examples, if any comes to mind; please do tell.


----------



## Qureshpor

^
ہر چند گرۂ دل کشودم و اونچ نیچ نمودم ، دُم سگ راست نہ شد۔ مثل است کُتا ٹیڑھی پونچھ ہے، کبھی نہ سیدھی ہو۔گفت پھُرت کن ، زر بیار و حیلہ بگذار وگرنہ گھُسم گھُسا و تھُکم تھُکا شدن حلاوت ندارد۔ دانستم کہ ہمون مثل است کہ سارا دن پیسہ اور چپنی بھر اُٹھایا۔

حضرت سلامت گھڑ گھڑاہٹ الرعد فی الغمام و کڑکڑاہٹ البرق عن البہرام قریب رسید و ہنگامۂ گھٹا گھنگھور صبح و شام و آواز مور بردوام سربر کشید و آوان لرزۃ العمارات علم الیقین گشت۔۔۔۔

اگر در این موسم بوند باند و موسلا دھار و تواترالجھڑ والبوچھار فیض حضرت بانہہ بَل و مددگار شود، بندہ کود پھاند پُل پار گردد۔۔


----------



## Sheikh_14

Moving on from the Mutanaza verbs, what would be the most productive personalization suffix in the Urdu langauge that could supplant the rather long Mera Tumhara. Farsi obviously has "am" as discussed thoroughly above and arabic has "ii" for mine and ukh for yours.

So simply from the perspective of nouns, what if any suffix would be most suitable to avoid the cumbersome rut; i.e. a quick and easy fix.


----------



## marrish

There is no suffix like this to be applied generally and my opinion is that it is not needed. We can use the Persian as it suits us but only in expressions which have become Urdu as in mukarramii. Persian grammar has no direct implementation in Urdu and Arabic, I can't even imagine. Urdu is an Indic language and its grammar is just enough for it. Remember we can speAk really fast so two syllables as in meraa aap kaa dont make any difference and secondly it is not like in English that one has to use it as in "I brushed "my" teeth" Urdu: maiN ne daaNt saaf kiye. If and only if the need raises to tell whose teeth you brushed you will use "own" not "my" - apne daaNt Saaf kiye.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> There is no suffix like this to be applied generally and my opinion is that it is not needed. We can use the Persian as it suits us but only in expressions which have become Urdu as in mukarramii. Persian grammar has no direct implementation in Urdu and Arabic, I can't even imagine. Urdu is an Indic language and its grammar is just enough for it. Remember we can speAk really fast so two syllables as in meraa aap kaa dont make any difference and secondly it is not like in English that one has to use it as in "I brushed "my" teeth" Urdu: maiN ne daaNt saaf kiye. If and only if the need raises to tell whose teeth you brushed you will use "own" not "my" - apne daaNt Saaf kiye.


 I agree with you marrish SaaHib. We have no need for such suffixes! 
Just a small point. The term _mukarramii _is Arabic ( _mukarram_ + _ii_ --> first person possessive = my honoured [sir]).


----------



## marrish

^Thanks for expressing your agreement, dear F. SaaHib. I agree this was the most important to the topic and I am also grateful for the correction, you have spared me editing.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Faylasoof said:


> I agree with you marrish SaaHib. We have no need for such suffixes!
> Just a small point. The term _mukarramii _is Arabic ( _mukarram_ + _ii_ --> first person possessive = my honoured [sir]).



Precisely, but as indicated above the arabic "ii" that I have mentioned is quite endemic even in colloquial Urdu. 

And there are plenty of times when it does become important. Therefore, in that regard, I beg to differ. For instance my home is simply Baitii and your home is Baituk in arabic. Whereas, in characteristic Urdu although Baith is a valid word with Ghar being the most often used there isn't a quick-fix solution to such. Instead Mera tumhara has to be recoursed.


----------



## Qureshpor

Sheikh SaaHib, what other friends have said is this. Each language has its own grammar and methods of word formation. Even if we use the "-ii" suffix from Arabic in the odd words such as "3aziizii" (my dear), "giraamii" (my dear) etc, one can not and should not add it willy-nilly to every word to make a possessive. Just imagine if you added it to the word "haath"! Same goes for the Arabic "ka" and any other possessive suffixes, be they Arabic or Persian. Don't forget that if we were to employ these suffixes, they should not just be restricted to one person but we should use all the available suffixes for all the persons. Also, one should be able to add them to any Urdu word, irrespective of its origins.

rab kaa shukr adaa kar *bhaa'ii*
jis ne *hamaarii* gaa'e *banaa'ii*

Isma'il Merathi

You know that the "-ii" in "bhaa'ii", "hamaarii" and "banaa'ii" are not possessive suffixes. In the first one, as far as I know, it is not a suffix at all. In the other two, the "-ii" merely indicates feminine gender.

If you were to add the suffixes you have in mind, this shi3r could end up something like this, using Persian suffixes.

rab kaa shukr adaa kar bhaa'iy*aa
*jis ne gaa'e-*amaan *banaa'ii 

(*-aa *is the vocative suffix in Persian and *-amaan* is the possessive suffix for hamaaraa/hamaarii in Persian)

or, using the corresponding Arabic ones..

rab kaa shukr adaa kar *yaa*-bhaa'ii 
jis ne gaa'e*unaa* banaa'ii 

(*yaa *is the Arabic particle for the vocative and -*naa* is the Arabic suffix for hamaaraa/hamaarii)

One could of course mix them up but you can see that this will result in confusion and total mess. I am sure you would go for the original shi3r. There is nothing to gain by employing these suffixes.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Qureshpor said:


> Sheikh SaaHib, what other friends have said is this. Each language has its own grammar and methods of word formation. Even if we use the "-ii" suffix from Arabic in the odd words such as "3aziizii" (my dear), "giraamii" (my dear) etc, one can not and should not add it willy-nilly to every word to make a possessive. Just imagine if you added it to the word "haath"! Same goes for the Arabic "ka" and any other possessive suffixes, be they Arabic or Persian. Don't forget that if we were to employ these suffixes, they should not just be restricted to one person but we should use all the available suffixes for all the persons. Also, one should be able to add them to any Urdu word, irrespective of its origins.
> 
> rab kaa shukr adaa kar *bhaa'ii*
> jis ne *hamaarii* gaa'e *banaa'ii*
> 
> Isma'il Merathi
> 
> You know that the "-ii" in "bhaa'ii", "hamaarii" and "banaa'ii" are not possessive suffixes. In the first one, as far as I know, it is not a suffix at all. In the other two, the "-ii" merely indicates feminine gender.
> 
> If you were to add the suffixes you have in mind, this shi3r could end up something like this, using Persian suffixes.
> 
> rab kaa shukr adaa kar bhaa'iy*aa
> *jis ne gaa'e-*amaan *banaa'ii
> 
> (*-aa *is the vocative suffix in Persian and *-amaan* is the possessive suffix for hamaaraa/hamaarii in Persian)
> 
> or, using the corresponding Arabic ones..
> 
> rab kaa shukr adaa kar *yaa*-bhaa'ii
> jis ne gaa'e*unaa* banaa'ii
> 
> (*yaa *is the Arabic particle for the vocative and -*naa* is the Arabic suffix for hamaaraa/hamaarii)
> 
> One could of course mix them up but you can see that this will result in confusion and total mess. I am sure you would go for the original shi3r. There is nothing to gain by employing these suffixes.



Well there is never a one-size fits all philosophy in any language: an example of such is the use of an before words starting with vowels. However you wouldn't say Ludovica is an European as you would say an apple, an earnest man etc. Instead you would say is a European. Such abberations exist in all languages thus to say linguistic purity of uniformity must prevail is a farce. Never the less absolutely right on them not being transferrable in all cases. For my hand Haati would sound ridiculous because it sounds too close to elephant. Yadii on the other hand would not. Nor would dastii which is used, but as I have earlier said the ii suffix is mainly used in Urdu for technical purposes to go into length in other words. 

  Similarlybait for home is a valid word in Urdu therefore, baitii for mera ghar would not be out of place. Yes Gharii would!! Never the less strangely Ghaaram sounds warm. If diversity troubles you than the rekhta zabaan is already quite a motley yet lovely arrangement.

As for the final part 3ariif Mu'alim Qureshpor, Atakalam al lughat ar Arabiya,,,


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Actually Sheikh SaaHib, diversity is something I revel in and it's good to know that you speak Arabic. Also, I am not a "mu3allim" but do have an interest in language matters. Let's just agree to disagree on our standpoints.

haath > haathii is not "too close" to a haathii, an elephant but an identical fit.

dastii, already can mean "by hand".

I am not sure what you mean by "yadii". Did you mean my hand? But I fail to understand why we need to have "gharam" for my house when the grammar of the language dictates "meraa ghar". Try using some of these suffixes in your conversation with a friend and see what s/he makes of it. Even better, see if some of the Urdu suffixes can be added to Arabic and then attempt to hold a conversation with someone who is an Arabic speaker.

Here are few:

laa, as in retlaa (sandy)

iilaa, as in raNgiilaa

haT as in muskuraa-haT

ondaa as in gharondaa

-aas, as in piyaas

Edit: I should have mentioned that in "European", the "Eu" effectively gives the consonant "y" sound as in "yet". This is the reason for no an in front of it. And I have n't mentioned anything about linguistic purity.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Qureshpor said:


> ^ Actually Sheikh SaaHib, diversity is something I revel in and it's good to know that you speak Arabic. Also, I am not a "mu3allim" but do have an interest in language matters. Let's just agree to disagree on our standpoints.
> 
> haath > haathii is not "too close" to a haathii, an elephant but an identical fit.
> 
> dastii, already can mean "by hand".
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by "yadii". Did you mean my hand? But I fail to understand why we need to have "gharam" for my house when the grammar of the language dictates "meraa ghar". Try using some of these suffixes in your conversation with a friend and see what s/he makes of it. Even better, see if some of the Urdu suffixes can be added to Arabic and then attempt to hold a conversation with someone who is an Arabic speaker.
> 
> Here are few:
> 
> laa, as in retlaa (sandy)
> 
> iilaa, as in raNgiilaa
> 
> haT as in muskuraa-haT
> 
> ondaa as in gharondaa
> 
> -aas, as in piyaas
> 
> Edit: I should have mentioned that in "European", the "Eu" effectively gives the consonant "y" sound as in "yet". This is the reason for no an in front of it. And I have n't mentioned anything about linguistic purity.




*As far as the transposition of Urdu trends into Arabic is concerned than it simply cannot be done because Arabic lacks the flexibility of Urdu because it was never devised to be accomadative to other linguistic traditions. 

Yes yad= hand, thus yadii being my hand etc. 

A يد yad, s.m. (but f. in A.), The hand;—a handle;—assis  tance, aid, succour; protection, benefit, favour, service;—power, vigour, strength:—yad-ě-baiẓā, s.m. 'A white hand'; a miracle (in allusion to the white hand of

As far as discussions are concerned than I have without much trouble, but than my circle is quite literate. 


Whilst with regards to Baitii and gharam than yes I have talked about that in length it is far more convenient to have a quick-fix like Farsi and arabic do rather than have to say Mera tumhara in order to connote yours and mine etc. 

One of the great things about Arabic and Italian in particular in contrast to English is the fact that you immediately know if a female or male item is being discussed. In Italian a= female o= male etc. and Arabic has a similar pattern,

Similarly, this is a correction that Urdu can afford due to its accomadative nature.

*


----------



## marrish

^ Earlier in this thread I expressed my opinion and that has been validated by none other than Faylasoof SaaHib but it appears to be insufficient. Why not attach Sanskrit suffixes then? Urdu was not devised in any way but it was naturally born, it is not true that it can eat up everything. Arabic nor Persian are its prestige colleagues nowadays, it is rather English but English does not have such suffixes. If centuries of writers speakers and creative masters of this language who most of the time happened to be mother tongue speakers of Persian or Arabic or were well educated in them didn't venture this way, I don't understand the urge and rationale behind these endeavours. After all, Urdu is not agglutinative but on the contrary, its way of development departs from agglutinative ways and tends towards analytic approach. Take the example of several verbs: qubuulnaa, aaraashnaa, daaGhnaa: do you or your company use them? If yes, it's certainly okay but if not it testifies to the trend in the development of this language. There are many books about it and I could go on arguing but these examples are enough. Urdu is Urdu, it does not accomodate weird ideas.

The contrast between English and Italian or Arabic does not exist and is not relevant even if it existed: English does not have grammatical gender. There are many words in Italian that are masculine and end in -a. In Arabic, there is not such a thing but, it's not relevant. 

You can always say dast-e-man or dastam: my hand: but in the first case the number of syllables is the same as in meraa haath and in the second not but it can have another meaning. 

yad is not a word that is commonly used in Urdu, only it is accepted in expressions or in poetry if it suits the poet but Urdu is not a language not to have a common word for ''hand''. My hand: meraa haath (two words in Urdu, two in English).

I would never ever call my home ''bait'' - in fact it is more used in literature in other meaning than ''house or home''! No way! The mere fact that a word is there in a dictionary doesn't impose the freedom of its usage, to the contrary one has to know the language and its idiom to be careful and discerning when one can use a word and when it is a total flop.


----------



## Sheikh_14

marrish said:


> ^ Earlier in this thread I expressed my opinion and that has been validated by none other than Faylasoof SaaHib but it appears to be insufficient. Why not attach Sanskrit suffixes then? Urdu was not devised in any way but it was naturally born, it is not true that it can eat up everything. Arabic nor Persian are its prestige colleagues nowadays, it is rather English but English does not have such suffixes. If centuries of writers speakers and creative masters of this language who most of the time happened to be mother tongue speakers of Persian or Arabic or were well educated in them didn't venture this way, I don't understand the urge and rationale behind these endeavours. After all, Urdu is not agglutinative but on the contrary, its way of development departs from agglutinative ways and tends towards analytic approach. Take the example of several verbs: qubuulnaa, aaraashnaa, daaGhnaa: do you or your company use them? If yes, it's certainly okay but if not it testifies to the trend in the development of this language. There are many books about it and I could go on arguing but these examples are enough. Urdu is Urdu, it does not accomodate weird ideas.
> 
> The contrast between English and Italian or Arabic does not exist and is not relevant even if it existed: English does not have grammatical gender. There are many words in Italian that are masculine and end in -a. In Arabic, there is not such a thing but, it's not relevant.
> 
> You can always say dast-e-man or dastam: my hand: but in the first case the number of syllables is the same as in meraa haath and in the second not but it can have another meaning.
> 
> yad is not a word that is commonly used in Urdu, only it is accepted in expressions or in poetry if it suits the poet but Urdu is not a language not to have a common word for ''hand''. My hand: meraa haath (two words in Urdu, two in English).
> 
> I would never ever call my home ''bait'' - in fact it is more used in literature in other meaning than ''house or home''! No way! The mere fact that a word is there in a dictionary doesn't impose the freedom of its usage, to the contrary one has to know the language and its idiom to be careful and discerning when one can use a word and when it is a total flop.




1. There's a huge difference between claiming that an entire language can be transposed into another, which no one has claimed nor is making a case for, and asserting that there are some patterns that it could normatively afford. As far as English, Italian and Arabic are concerned it is hard to decipher what you are rambling about. Both Italian and Arabic are fairly genderised languages whilst English is not, that is all what has been said previously. Nowhere have I said that simply because the two are English should be too for that would do it no good. As far as adaptibility is concerned than yes Arabic for one has not had to be as adaptive as it had a differing purpose. Urdu is and has been more accomadative, it is less stringent. Those who call it either rekhta or the lashkari zubaan are accepting of that. Its actually quite endearing when you chat with an Arab and he/she immediately believes that the language has been divided into three, ofcourse that is not true, not only because of the unrealistic numerical division it imparts but also because the language was not merely a case of knit/cherry-picking; with this regard I most certainly agree with you.

2. Some subtle additions are acceptable others are not, the fact that nouns are and can be affixed with the suffix show latitude in that manner. The growth in English literature which is far more vast than its Urdu counterpart has co-erced huge changes into the language. A rather quaint one derives from political science which tends to bring the suffix -isation quite a lot  like hegomonisation, due to which some have gained universal and others fraternal acceptance. Some isation words are considered to be a farce from grammarians but scholars couldn't care less because it fulfills a specific purpose.
That purpose being convenience sending a message across quickly and succinctly. Similarly writers want to be innovative and have a bit of pedantic fun whilst they undergo their profession.

3. Whether you would or would not call your home  "bait" is irrelevant, for heavens sake no one is claiming to be the harf e akhir here with regards to linguistic kawaneen. The average person would rather use appointment any day over mo'id which is its Urdu equivalent so does that mean we should scrap it because of that. The argument over esoteric words not being acceptable despite being present in a venerable dictionary is rather odd. Had the argument been on wajood and documentation than perhaps a case could be made. Its merely case of normal speech and high register. Besides that it is rather odd that your religious scruples seem so severe that you feel that bait can have no connotation than Bait al Haram etc, there are plenty of words in English that simultaneously have both religious and non religious significance. The Urdu and Arabic word for mission is Ri/rasaala/h/t that is not to say that anyone who says they are on a mission are having delusions of grandeur for what they are asserting is much lighter than a man like you it seems would perceive it to be.

4. The Urdu adaptations of verbs you have mentioned along with the likes of badalna, talashna are convenient and are used colloquially. Some may seem odd in comparison to others but that is not something which would be peculiar to Urdu, you do get the odd usages which may not tickle your fancy but have come to become established practise. Similarly on other occasions you come across the vice versa where what could/should be encounters the ugly face of the ranting opionated.

5. As far as English influence is concerned than that has already been discussed sufficiently prior to this. The contemporary influence of English in Urdu along with all other languages is an inorganic but inevitable by product of the accident which is the International per-eminence of the English language. 
Gend ko stop karo (something you would hear a wicket-keeper say is odd at best but it is done and is not at all unsusual), Gend ko rokho, waqf karo would be far more apt but the average man is not going to be concerned with what is most mellifluous but what gets the job done. Typically English is far more at odds with the likes of Urdu, Farsi and Arabic yet as has been mentioned by everyone it has greater influence on contemporary colloquial patterns. Never the less English does not have the formative role others such as Hindi, Arabic and Persian have on Urdu. With English more often than not its merely a case of throwing a few words here and there especially those deemed scientific and technical like immigration, Exports, Finances, Banking etc. 

6. Yad is not commonly used, most certainly but unlike Manus in English it is not as archaic or technical. Even than you wouldn't think of discarding manus.


----------



## littlepond

Don't you think Sheikh jii that this ongoing "argument" is rather ... bizarre? A language evolves naturally: not in a coutroom where they decide, ok let's arabicize it, let's have some "-ii" suffixes. Oh no, Sheikh jii, I don't think so. And the Indian subcontinent is and has been the natural theatre of Urdu and Hindi languages, and so shall they evolve of their own accord: not as per Persian and Arabic whims.

As for Italian endings showing gender in general (though there are many exceptions), I don't see at all why that is a "great point." Tomorrow you will say having no gender like in English is a "great point" and then day after tomorrow you will say that having three genders as in German is a "great point" - I don't see anything inherent in genders or in endings giving clues of genders that implies some "great point." In summary, every language of this world has its "great points."


----------

