# Urdu: Script: nasta3liiq or nasx



## Illuminatus

Hi all, 
A few days ago, I started learning the Nasta'lliq script for Urdu (out of pure interest, the sheer grace and beauty of the script charmed me).

Now, I can read Urdu newspapers etc, though not fluently. As in, I am still at the stage where I see letters but not words (hope you get what I am saying).

I had some doubts:
Urdu written on the Internet is normally the straight, single base-line script (such as the one that appears on our forum), whereas in the newspaper, it is much more calligraphic, with letters not in one line. However, all the Arabic I have seen was written the first way. Is this difference academic or purely stylistic?

Also, in many words, I found a symbol similar to ~ ending a word. In those words, the sound intended was either aah, or eh. What is this symbol, and how does the pronunciation differ from the Alif-ised consonant?

These are two questions I can think of. I will post more on this thread once I get replies.

Thanks


----------



## BP.

We're more used to the Persian rounded font you've seen in some newspapers' sites. 

The one with a flat base (looking like cumulunimbus clouds) is more _répandu_ in some regions of the Arab world. Although the difference is just in the font (or script as interpreted by most), reading one while being used to the other is a formidable job. For example the straight-based font manages to defeat my reading skills so utterly that I have in my life only once been able to read a news item from the BBC Urdu site. I've given up trying.

The differences have no bearing on the content at all. Its purely stylistic. We're more used to  letters with rounded fonts that take up space both vertically and angularly (going NE, SW etc), and with free-flowing, trailing endings. This style takes from the flowing pre-Islamic Persian script, which you can mistake for the Arabic one since they have practically the same characters.

Arabic/Persian/Urdu fonts are obviously many types. Some are restricted, blockish, where every character remains in its own little space, simpler to write, less ornate and take up less paper (very valueable in the olden days). Some on the other hand are ostentatious, barouque, imposing.

The lettre that looks like a tilde (~) is the morphology of the <h> (not the throaty H but the h supposed to be pronounced as if you exhaled gently from deep down your lungs) when it appears right at the end of a word. Examples surfaced on this forum a few days ago: <Haalia>-recent, and <mukarrama>-respected.

Notice I didn't put an h at the end of the 2 words. You could, but then its so light it isn't really heard. Pronouncing the h doesn't hurt either, I guess it would be better according to the rules but in vernacular Urdu its almost mute. Exceptions do come to mind - Allah, where people try not to chop bits off the phonetics our of respect probably.

Interestingly, the word <keh> (that) is spelt and pronounced this way in Urdu. But the Hindi equivalent is <ki>, exept I've heard old-school people like Dilip Kumar and Sunil Dutt pronounce it <keh>. Interesting how words morph along time and space.

This h when preceded by <choti yay> (y minor, sounds as in scr*i*pt) *usually* makes for a <ya> sound in Urdu e.g. our famous <Haaliya>, but <ye> in Farsi. E.g. they call a certain species of flower <laale> and we <laala>. In Urdu <laale> would not be out of place but simply not the norm.


----------



## Illuminatus

Thanks, BP. 
I have uploaded an image of the poem I was reading in an Urdu Newspaper. I have highlighted a word.
As I read it, the line is _Baar baar raasta taktee thee.

_Then, as per your explanation, raasta should be pronounced with a mild aspiration instead of _aa_?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32904359@N08/3065796680/


----------



## BP.

If you go by the 'I'll-pronounce-each-lettre-in-a-word-unless-silent' rule then I don't see why not.

But if you think that your language is phonetic and the words don't sound exactly as they are written, then don't. The usual reason for this is facility of speech. In speaking we often don't care to pronounce all of a word to get it understood. Often syllables are shortened or even completely suppressed but listeners still hear the right word. Doesn't mean that the 'bookish' version of the word has ceased to exist.

An example as always: heard a Québecois linguist give an interview the other day. He cited the example of <mouchoir>, where the Québecois chop off the last r unless its supposed to be liased to the following word. The  Parisiens however  chose to go by the book. According to him the Q's manner was more natural of frank speech and followed the lines of a language evolving as of yore in the villages, while that of the Ps was through instruction, a departure from the manner languages evolved through history.

Biraader-é-man, I'm no expert on Urdu phonology. I can be totally wrong, in which case you'd have to flush out of your mind whatever you've just read^^!
But I'm more likely not wrong, so khaatir jama' rak-hiyay.

PSt: at least you don't pronounce it 'ghaasta' like I sometimes do in bay dhayaani. <- 'Zut! J'ai oublié le ghaasta encore. Jsuis vraiment pas doué/e en sens d'orientation.'!


----------



## panjabigator

That tilda looking letter often replaces the "aa ka maatra/Dan.Daa" in Hindi.  For example: राजा would be written "re, alif, jiim, chhoTii hai."  It's a fun letter, but often confusing because it comes in three very different looking forms.  

I'll post a site on here which renders ghazals in both Devanagari and Nastaliq so that you may get some practice.


----------



## BP.

The interestin thing is that when <h> is used in the beginning or the middle of a word its entire shape is used (which comes in two flavours actually), but when it ends a word its body gets the chop and the little tail (~) remains.


----------



## Faylasoof

Rafeeqaan-e-giraamee,    The issue of Urdu-Persio-Arabic vs Nagri script will always make for an interesting debate! Texts in Arabic script don’t normally show the short vowels, as we all know – a property shared with scripts for other Semitic languages. Only in primary school textbooks are the short vowels demonstrated. Once learnt, we have no real need for vowels in order to know how a word is to be correctly pronounced. In case an author feels that a new / foreign word requires vowelling, then it can be included.  There is actually no formal rule against producing a fully vowelled Urdu text for adults, as here:   كِسِی بِھِی زَبَان كِی تَحْرِیرْ كو ٱسْكِی نِشَانِی قَرَارْ دِیَا جَا سَكْتَا ہَے اَوْر ھَرْ تَحْرِیرْ كِی اَپْنِی  اَپْنِی  خُوبِیَاں ظَاھِرْ ہَیْں   [kisee bhee zabaan kee taHreer ko oskee nishaanee qaraar diyaa jaa saktaa hai aur har taHreer kee apnee apnee khoobiyaaN zaahir heiN]


----------



## panjabigator

Seeing all those diacritics is mind boggling indeed.  I don't even think I know how to use some of them.


----------



## lcfatima

No, don't aspirate the final -h in rasta or any other word. Almost all of the words words should still be pronounced as you would in Hindi, but be sure to preserve the -kh- (say khud, not kud), -gh-(gham, not gam), qareeb, not kareeb, etc. which are always pronounced in Urdu but approximated to -k- and g- /k-these days in Hindi, but marked with that little bindu in devnagri. This is important for good diction. I notice in older Hindi films it used to be important to say these Urdu sounds right in Hindi, too. But it seems in films these days anything goes.

There are some words which I think due to the difference the way they are written in devanaagri and nastaliq, Pakistani Urdu speakers do say differently than Hindi speakers. If you say them the Indian way, it won't impede communication, it will just sound like a Hindi speaker's accent:

Like Indians say dhyaan, Pakistanis say dayhaan for attention
Indians say bowjood, Pakistanis say ba-va-jood for inspite




I have a hard time reading Urdu, especially people's writing. It is very squiggly for me unless it is written Arabic style in a straight line. My husband who is English medium educated in Pakistan also sometimes comes across words which are hard to decipher because of the slanty squiggly shape. He is probably just out of practice with reading. It is difficult for people who have read Urdu fluently from childhood to understand, but Urdu _is_ hard to read for people who have learned as adults because of the slantiness and the placement of/absence of the diacritics.


----------



## Faylasoof

Hello,   You are right about practice in Urdu reading. This is also true of other languages. When I started learning Ancient Greek, I was quite slow at first as it uses its own alphabet and, for traditional reasons, always written with a tiny, slanting font that included aspiration marks, accents and even some squiggly letters – not as many as in Urdu though.            I’ve helped many people read faster and better by the following simple advise. Once you are past the stage of reading (and understanding) individual words and are reasonably happy about reading connected prose (even poetry), then get hold of a book in Urdu that interests you – possibly an issue these days with younger people as they would rather read novels, history etc. in English, and I don’t really blame them as the quality of current literature in vernacular languages has much to be desired. But once you have selected a book then read several times! The first reading, depending on your starting competence may be hard, but after the third reading you’ll find that your speed picks up.   Not sure what kind of literature you’d be happy with but amongst current Urdu novel writers, Intizar Hussein is a good one. His style is clear and language fairly simple. If you need more info, then I can help.    .... I know many people who prefer reading Urdu written in the ‘Arabic format’. This is called Naskh and I too find it clearer than the Nasta’leeq, most commonly used for Urdu.


----------



## Faylasoof

Forgot this. Just a remark about your comments about pronunciation. I wouldn’t say this: ‘Like Indians say dhyaan, Pakistanis say dayhaan for attention’ and “Indians say bowjood, Pakistanis say ba-va-jood for inspite”. Actually it all depends on your training. I still have many relations in Luckhnow, all Indians, who pronounce Urdu correctly and know many Pakistanis who do not. Secondly, in both the (Old) Delhi and Luckhnow schools of Urdu, the word is ‘dhyaan / dheyaan’ (hard to reproduce in Roman script) but like this when fully vocalized:   دِھیان .  If it is pronounced as ‘dayhaan’ (=دِیھان),  then it is not standard but a dialectal variation.  Also, the other word is pronounced as “baa vujood” (=باوُجود ) . It’s a Persio-Arabic hybrid - the “baa” (= with) from Farsi and “vujood” (= existence) from Arabic- and means just as you say i.e. inspite (of) / despite.


----------



## lcfatima

faylasoof: Thanks for the advice. I try to read women's interest magazines in Urdu. Novels would surely improve my knowledge of those "parhe likhe" type words, too.

I should say the "Indians say..." and "Pakistanis say..." are generalizations.


----------



## panjabigator

Illuminatus, please keep us informed with your Urdu script queries. It's tough in the beginning, so don't be discouraged.

As promised, here is a nice site to aid with your Urdu ta'liim/shikshaa. (As a side note, would a Hindi speaker understand the word <ta'liim> for education?)

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/index.html

*Moderator note:*
*The "side note" about the word for "education" now has its own thread. Please everyone, don't forget the one topic per thread rule.*
*Thanks *


----------



## Illuminatus

Sure, Punjabigator.
I can now read Newspapers etc, but I am shaky on technical points.

It's just that Hindi speakers have a sufficiently big Urdu vocabulary _by default, _so I can understand what I am reading.


----------



## Qureshpor

In an old thread, the use of various script styles/fonts came under discussion. As we all know, nasta3liiq is the preferred form in the Subcontinent whereas all other Arabic script based languages use nasx. Faylasoof SaaHib expressed his preference for nasx and BP SaaHib thought it looked too "Arabic". teaboy Jii suggested going for "Nafees Nastaleeq". I, like Faylasoof SaaHib, prefer nasx, purely from the point of ease of readability. Even though nasta3liiq script in Urdu is practically all that I have known in my life, I do find the quality of most of the printed material a lot to be desired. Unless the publishers have gone out of their way to produce a good quality product, the quality of average printed output is not pleasing or soothing to the eyes. In fact, quite painful at times!

Why do you think nasta3liiq is the preferred option amongst people from Pakistan and India? What will be the loss if all books began to be printed in nasx from now on? What are your preferences?


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Why do you think nasta3liiq is the preferred option amongst people from Pakistan and India? What will be the loss if all books began to be printed in nasx from now on? What are your preferences?



I think because _nasta3liiq _is more pleasing (beautiful) to the eye (for most people). Also with it available on the computer and electronic composing, you get a pretty consistent output each time. _nasx _is harder on the eyes to read. Of course, our mileage may vary.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I think because _nasta3liiq _is more pleasing (beautiful) to the eye (for most people). Also with it available on the computer and electronic composing, you get a pretty consistent output each time. _nasx _is harder on the eyes to read. Of course, our mileage may vary.



Yes, I know that the general view is that _nasta3liiq_ is aesthetically more pleasing. And it is if some care has been taken in printing the book and the paper used to print on does n't crumble away at the flicking of every page. With nasx, the letters are clearly set out. But, as you have said, it is a matter of personal preference.


----------



## marrish

I prefer the nasta3liiq style and I find Urdu written in nasx harder to read. I also don't agree that all other Arabic script based languages use nasx - not true about Punjabi and Kashmiri.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I prefer the nasta3liiq style and I find Urdu written in nasx harder to read. I also don't agree that all other Arabic script based languages use nasx - not true about Punjabi and Kashmiri.


Outside the Subcontinent.


----------



## marrish

Agreed, but the case of Persian is different. It is the historical preference for _nasta3liiq _in Persian that has bound Urdu to the ''Persian cursive'' style.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Agreed, but the case of Persian is different. It is the historical preference for _nasta3liiq _in Persian that has bound Urdu to the ''Persian cursive'' style.


This is true marrish SaaHib. But, you pick any book or newspaper printed in Iran, it will invariably be in the nasx style.


----------



## marrish

I have several poetry books from Iran, all in_ nasta3liiq_. I think technology is to blame for _nasx_ in newspapers and books. The Persian handwriting is _nasta3liiq_. Can you write Urdu in _nasx_?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I have several poetry books from Iran, all in_ nasta3liiq_. I think technology is to blame for _nasx_ in newspapers and books. The Persian handwriting is _nasta3liiq_. Can you write Urdu in _nasx_?


I would n't go as far as to use the word "blame". Remember, I am for nasx and therefore I would have used the word "credit"!

You will be surprised to learn the range of things I am capable of doing, marrish SaaHib! But, on a serious note, you know the answer to your question. We all write in a style which is more nasta3liiq than nasx but I could write in nasx if I had the inclination!


----------



## panjabigator

When I was taught Persian, we were told to write in something called خط شکستہ, which I think is not as cursive/slanted as Nasta3līq.


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> When I was taught Persian, we were told to write in something called خط شکستہ, which I think is not as cursive/slanted as Nasta3līq.


xatt-i-shikastah, PG SaaHib, is an art in itself! And for an untrained person to decipher it, would require plenty of "mashaqqat"!

http://calligraphyqalam.com/index.html


----------



## Qureshpor

I thought about starting a new thread and then found this thread which will serve my purpose as it is all about the Urdu script. 

Supposing you were a member of a committee set up to "modernise" or "improve" the existing script and the committee is asking its constituent members to come up with innovative ideas. What kind of improvements can you think of that would take the Urdu script forward in a positive direction? 

I am not asking you to suggest a new writing system (e.g Roman) at all. Why? Because that might have been a good suggestion a couple of hundred years ago to merge Urdu and Hindi through a common alphabet. But not any more. Besides...

tiin bal khaataa hai qalam, kamar likhne ke liye!!


----------



## UrduMedium

1. I suggest ending the double role that _vaa'o _plays as the vowel o/uu sound and for v/w. Leave the current vaao for the vowel o/uu sound. Add three dots on the _vaa'o _and introduce it as the new v/w letter.
2. Differentiate between e/ii medial sounds. Use current horizontal two dots for e, vertical two dots for ii.
3. Do the same for separating o/uu/au medial/ending sounds. Use current way for o, two horizontal dots above for uu, and two vertical dots above for au.


----------



## Alfaaz

UrduMedium said:
			
		

> 2. Differentiate between e/ii medial sounds. Use current horizontal two dots for e, vertical two dots for ii.
> 3. Do the same for separating o/uu/au medial/ending sounds. Use current way for o, two horizontal dots for uu, and two vertical dots for au.


Could you perhaps give examples of words with the different sounds you speak of?


----------



## UrduMedium

Alfaaz said:


> Could you perhaps give examples of words with the different sounds you speak of?



e as in den (as in len den)
ii as in diin (religion)
o as in bol
uu as in bhuul
au as in jauhar


----------



## Alfaaz

UrduMedium said:
			
		

> e as in den (as in len den)
> ii as in diin (religion)
> o as in bol
> uu as in bhuul
> au as in jauhar
> 
> Urdu.jpg


Wow, thanks! (This is the third time you have included a graphic)
Hope you or others won't mind, but doesn't every language or script have factors like these...that people seem to naturally get used to? For example, in English: put is پُٹ but cut is کَٹ ; foot is فُٹ but hoot is ہُوٹ ; site and cite are both سائٹ ; cracker and calendar are کریکر / کیلینڈر , while cellular is سیلیولر.
For bhuul and jauhar, couldn't we just write the pesh and zabar with jazm as is done in children's books, qa'idah, dictionaries, and sometimes poetry/calligraphy (for decoration)?


----------



## UrduMedium

Alfaaz said:


> For bhuul and jauhar, couldn't we just write the pesh and zabar with jazm as is done in children's books, qa'idah, dictionaries, and sometimes poetry/calligraphy (for decoration)?



True but that exists today. I assume QP saahab was looking for script changes of the kind that added do-chashmii he, Ghunna, to'e superscript and so on. Diacritical marks tend to be optional while script changes more permanent and required.


----------

