# Urdu to Persian: آپ اپنے دام میں صیّاد آ گیا : to fall into one's own trap



## Alfaaz

*Background:* 

It was mentioned in Urdu: Irony that the language ironically might not have a word for the concept even though it is employed and illustrated in multiple pieces of literature. One such example could probably be the following couplet, the last part of which seems to have even acquired the status of an idiom/proverb. 

الجھا ہے پاؤں یار کا زلفِ دراز میں
لو آپ اپنے دام میں صیّاد آ گیا

مؤمن

Rough translation:

_The foot of یار has become entangled in زلفِ دراز_
_Behold! The صیّاد himself has come into his own دام_ 

*Questions:* 

How would the phrase آپ اپنے دام میں صیّاد آ گیا be translated into Persian?
Could forum members suggest/quote Persian couplets or idioms with similar meaning (_falling into one's own trap_)?


----------



## Sheikh_14

So when relating to a particular individual would you say "woh tau apne daam meN saiyaad aagayaa hai/haiN + "aap tau apne daam meN saiyaad aagaayaa ho/ban gaye ho?" Having never encountered this proverb before it has piqued my interest since it is quite topical with regards to Britain's current quagmire. I would love to hear how it is actually used upon an individual.


----------



## PersoLatin

Persian: در دام خود افتادن


----------



## Stranger_

Alfaaz, could you explain the couplet a bit more?

Is it literally saying that the feet of the beloved have become entangled in her own hair? and to whom is the pronoun "آپ" referring?


----------



## Alfaaz

PersoLatin said:
			
		

> Persian: در دام خود افتادن


Thanks for the translation! 


			
				Stranger_ said:
			
		

> Alfaaz, could you explain the couplet a bit more?
> 
> Is it literally saying that the feet of the beloved have become entangled in her own hair? and to whom is the pronoun "آپ" referring?


Yes, so the تشبیہات would be between یار و صیّاد and زلفِ دراز و دام. The quote would usually be used to describe a person who becomes a victim of his/her own deceit. آپ here would be equivalent to خود - _himself_, and the line could be reworded as خود اپنے دام میں صیّاد آ گیا or صیّاد خود اپنے دام میں آ گیا.

In light of this and the suggestion by PersoLatin, could the Persian translation be صیّاد خود در دامِ خود افتادن?

(If I remember correctly, we had a discussion about usages like these - _aap, apne, xud, etc._ - in Urdu, so I was wondering how they would work in Persian.)


			
				Sheikh_14 said:
			
		

> So when relating to a particular individual would you say "woh tau apne daam meN saiyaad aagayaa hai/haiN + "aap tau apne daam meN saiyaad aagaayaa ho/ban gaye ho?" Having never encountered this proverb before it has piqued my interest ... I would love to hear how it is actually used upon an individual.


 The phrase wouldn't be altered, but something like ...یہ تو وہ حساب ہوا کہ could be used to introduce it.


----------



## Stranger_

> لو آپ اپنے دام میں صیّاد آ گیا


Would it not have been better if the poet had said "apne daam meN pakRaa gayaa/giriftaar ho gayaa/gir gayaa"? because these imply the sense of unwillingly falling into a trap but "aa jaanaa" does not have this meaning. It suggests that the "hunter" has willingly come to her trap which contradict the act of suddenly and unwillingly falling into a trap, unless I am missing something.


----------



## Alfaaz

Since آ گیا had been repeated in every couplet of the whole piece, using anything else would have disrupted that repetition.


----------



## Stranger_

> In light of this and the suggestion by PersoLatin, could the Persian translation be صیّاد خود در دامِ خود افتادن?


I would say either صیاد در دام خود افتاد or خودِ صیاد در دام افتاد or صیاد خودش در دام افتاد. You can use the word "خود" twice but that will reduce the fluency of the writing and it will sound kind of informal.
صیاد خودش تو دام خودش افتاد (colloquial)


----------



## PersoLatin

> In light of this and the suggestion by PersoLatin, could the Persian translation be صیّاد خود در دامِ خود افتادن?


You can phrase it as در دام افتادنِ خودِ صياد although خود means 'himself', here it should be interpreted as 'his own', since there's no need to use خود, if صياد fell into a trap set by another صياد. This will avoid using more than one خود.

You can also say, در دامِ خود افتادن صياد

Depending on the intended use, you can also say صياد در دامِ خود افتاد or صياد خود در دام افتاد, again with the latter خود should interpreted as 'his own' trap.


----------



## colognial

There's this couplet, of slight literary merit, but a Persian/Iranian proverb nonetheless.
هرچه بگندد نمک اش می زنند
وای به روزی که بگندد نمک
(Har che begandad namakash mizanand
Vaay be roozi ke begandad namak)

All that is perishable with salt is cured,
Woe to the day when salt is perished.

Also, this proverb:
خیاط در کوزه افتاد
(Khayaat dar kuze oftaad)
The seamster has been cast into the jar.
Origin: the tale of a seamster who occupied himself by sitting next to a clay jar just outside his shop which happened to be situated on a common route to a graveyard and throwing a pebble into the jar for every dead person being carried on a bier and led to the graveyard by the procession. People got used to seeing the seamster keep count of the dead in this way. When he died, the pallbearers asked his neighbours what had become of the man, only to be told that 'the seamster had been cast into the jar', meaning he had become statistics himself.

These point to ironic situations, but I don't believe they contain irony as a device.


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> هرچه بگندد نمک اش می زنند
> وای به روزی که بگندد نمک


Great quote.



colognial said:


> These point to ironic situations, but I don't believe they contain irony as a device.


colognial, could you explain what 'irony as a device' is, please, I have not got to grips with that aspect of this thread.


----------



## Stranger_

بهرام که گور می‌گرفتی همه عمر
دیدی که چگونه گور بهرام گرفت


----------



## colognial

A simple example is when you say something but mean the opposite of that. This kind of verbal irony is an intended irony and its tone is usually sarcastic. Or, in the comedy by Oscar Wilde, the persona of Ernest is actually fake, so that the protagonist adopting the persona is not always acting in earnest. 

I think dramatic irony is when something is said by a character in all earnestness, with the reader knowing that the pronouncement is ironic without the person making it being aware of the fact.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks to everyone for all of the extremely comprehensive replies (and colognial and Stranger_ for the great quotes)!

A few links explaining irony and its different types: here, here and here.


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> A simple example is when you say something but mean the opposite of that. This kind of verbal irony is an intended irony and its tone is usually sarcastic. Or, in the comedy by Oscar Wilde, the persona of Ernest is actually fake, so that the protagonist adopting the persona is not always acting in earnest.
> 
> I think dramatic irony is when something is said by a character in all earnestness, with the reader knowing that the pronouncement is ironic without the person making it being aware of the fact.


Thank you colognial, I understand.

This is no reflection on your response. I find it intriguing that good old irony, needs to be explained. With some concepts, the more we explain, the less headway we make, irony is one of those. I believe everyone gets irony, but not everyone, always, gets the explanation of it.


----------



## fdb

Compare Proverbs 26,27 ("Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.") Similarly Tobit 14,10; Psalm 7,15; Ecclesiastes 10,8; Sirach 27,26.


----------



## colognial

Alfaaz said:


> Rough translation:
> 
> _The foot of یار has become entangled in زلفِ دراز_
> _Behold! The صیّاد himself has come into his own دام_



I have a question about this couplet. Is it already a 'saying', a common expression, in Urdu? And if it is, or even if it isn't, are we in these lines being asked to notice an instance of narcissism, a case where the beautiful 'yaar', the lovely person who's the object of adoration, has taken to admiring herself to the extent that she can no longer do without 'staring all day long at her own image', in the same manner as Narcissus?


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for the references fdb!


			
				colognial said:
			
		

> I have a question about this couplet. Is it already a 'saying', a common expression, in Urdu? And if it is, or even if it isn't, are we in these lines being asked to notice an instance of narcissism, a case where the beautiful 'yaar', the lovely person who's the object of adoration, has taken to admiring herself to the extent that she can no longer do without 'staring all day long at her own image', in the same manner as Narcissus?


I think while this couplet could point to narcissism, it is probably more about مکافاتِ عمل. On the other hand, the following couplet might be a better representation of narcissism (in the sense that Person A is so busy looking at herself/himself in the mirror that she/he doesn't even realize Person B's feelings/emotions.)

تماشا! کہ اے محوِ آئینہ داری
تجھے کس تمنّا سے ہم دیکھتے ہیں

غالب​
English translations from this thread:


			
				Qureshpor said:
			
		

> Thou who is deeply engrossed in gazing at some mirror
> A sight to behold! This longing with which I look at thee
> 
> Thou who is deeply engrossed in gazing into some mirror
> The longing with which I look at thee, turn around and see!


----------



## colognial

Thank you, Alfaaz, I can quite see what you mean. Could you please explain what the actual nature of the punishment is? Given that 'entanglement in one's own long hair' is only a metaphor, the question now is, for what is it a metaphor? Is it that the 'yaar' has fallen for a third person who happens to treat her badly or neglect her, is it that she now reciprocates the love she has been ignoring up to now, only to find that she is no longer desired by her old lover, has she been trapped or captured, or is it altogether something else? How is the lady being punished? Thanks for being patient, Alfaaz!


----------



## Alfaaz

colognial said:
			
		

> Thank you, Alfaaz, I can quite see what you mean. Could you please explain what the actual nature of the punishment is? Given that 'entanglement in one's own long hair' is only a metaphor, the question now is, for what is it a metaphor? Is it that the 'yaar' has fallen for a third person who happens to treat her badly or neglect her, is it that she now reciprocates the love she has been ignoring up to now, only to find that she is no longer desired by her old lover, has she been trapped or captured, or is it altogether something else? How is the lady being punished? Thanks for being patient, Alfaaz!


That is a really good and detailed question and there could be different interpretations, but your first suggestion (_falling for a third person_) or the third suggestion (_being trapped/captured_) probably would not be applicable here. The second suggestion could be possible. 

_Person A was planning to (figuratively) entangle (= make فریفتہ/enamored/lovestruck) Person B using her/his long locks. _

Result (literal): _Person A's foot became entangled in her/his own hair with which she/he was planning to attract the attention of Person B._
Result (figurative): 
Your suggestion: _Person A herself/himself unknowingly fell in love with Person B._
_If there was malicious intent involved, the plan was exposed!_
_etc._

Forum members with greater knowledge of such themes in Persian and Urdu poetry will hopefully provide their opinions as well!


----------



## colognial

Alfaaz said:


> Result (figurative):
> Your suggestion: _Person A herself/himself unknowingly fell in love with Person B._
> _If there was malicious intent involved, the plan was exposed!_







Well, if love is the cause of such "malicious intent", then the culprit is simultaneously severely punished and absolved, I should imagine. Your idea of Person A laying a trap in which ultimately she herself falls is one that I could understand and accept as the age-old story retold in the couplet. Thank you very much, Alfaaz.


----------



## PersoLatin

I don't think this metaphor (hair as a trap) has been thought through properly. Let's assume a woman with long, beautiful hair, tries to entrap/attract a suiter. Surely, it will be the beauty of the hair, rather than the net/rope like qualities of it, that will be the entrapping device.

If we accept the former quality (beauty of hair) is at play, then it follows that the women can never fall into her own trap, because the 'beauty' of her own hair can not physically entrap her.

Somehow this example mixes the two possibilities, which is odd,  i.e. the suiter can be trapped by the beauty of her hair but the she herself trips up by the physicality of her hair.


----------



## colognial

PersoLatin, I quite understand what you are saying. However, please bear in mind that in the tradition of romance, being affected by the beauty of long hair and being entrapped in that same hair's many 'chainlike' curls are one and the same thing. Hafez comes up with one of the best metaphors when he suggests that the long hair of the beloved resembles a chain that is used to restrain and tranquilize the lunatic: ای که با سلسله ی زلف دراز آمده ای، فرصت ات باد که دیوانه نواز آمده ای.

I would say that the metaphor under discussion here is not one that immediately puts us in touch with the reality of the situation, which may be a sign that the poet is not in possession of a, or not yet ready to unravel his, world view.


----------



## PersoLatin

^ I agree with what you say, the tradition of a lover getting trapped by, first, the beauty, then the physicality of long heir of the beloved, is a well understood concept & has been exploited by our poets. And there is irony in that.



Alfaaz said:


> الجھا ہے پاؤں یار کا زلفِ دراز میں
> لو آپ اپنے دام میں صیّاد آ گیا
> مؤمن
> 
> Rough translation:
> 
> _The foot of یار has become entangled in زلفِ دراز_
> _Behold! The صیّاد himself has come into his own دام_
> 
> *Questions:*


I couldn't read the Urdu version, and initially, in the translation of it, I assumed يار refered to the 3rd party (& not the person with long hair) which is more in line with the Persian poetic tradition.

I then realised يار was herself, so it became clear: she is entrapped (such that she trips & falls) by her own hair, whilst showing it off to entice the lover, therefore falling into her own 'trap', and this indeed is very ironic.

But bear in mind that she has fallen into or entrapped by, the incidental aspect of the her own trap, i.e. the rope & net like qualities and not its beauty. So the irony maybe be watered down a bit, as her hair has two entrapping qualities, but then again, maybe this is even more ironic.


----------



## colognial

PersoLatin said:


> ^ I agree with what you say, the tradition of a lover getting trapped, by first, the beauty, then by physicality of long heir of the beloved, is well understood concept & has been exploited by our poets. And there is irony in that.
> 
> 
> I couldn't read the Urdu version, and initially, in the translation of it, I assumed يار refered to the 3rd party (& not the person with long hair) which is more in line with the Persian poetic tradition.
> 
> I then realised يار was herself, so it became clear: she is entrapped (such that she trips & falls) by her own hair, whilst showing it off to entice the lover, therefore falling into her own 'trap', and this indeed is very ironic.
> 
> But bear in mind that she has fallen into or entrapped by, the incidental aspect of the her own trap, i.e. the rope & net like qualities and not its beauty. So the irony maybe be watered down a bit, as her hair has two entrapping qualities, but then again, maybe this is even more ironic.



You do talk about fine(er than hair) points, PersoLatin!   I think we are all agreed that if a metaphor does not immediately or after some reasonable amount of use of the imagination point us in the right direction as to what situation is being alluded to, it can't be conducive to eloquence.

But I have to disagree with you where you claim that beauty of the hair and its entangled quality are two different aspects. They are not, I am afraid, and that's that! In old times the possessors of poetic imagination did not think of long soft hair as beautiful; it had to have many curls and tangles!  The irony remains strong enough and is based on this particular aesthetic. 

Really, if you ask me, the ironic thing is that we, all of us, always suffer or meet our end through what we are most good at. The true failure is that which comes about through being successful.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Stranger_ said:


> Would it not have been better if the poet had said "apne daam meN pakRaa gayaa/giriftaar ho gayaa/gir gayaa"? because these imply the sense of unwillingly falling into a trap but "aa jaanaa" does not have this meaning. It suggests that the "hunter" has willingly come to her trap which contradict the act of suddenly and unwillingly falling into a trap, unless I am missing something.



Not necessarily stranger, "darwaaze meiN haath aa jaanaa" is another example where aa jaanaa is not a question of choice but unlucky happenstance. The ordering of the sentence isn't exactly the best, he could have quite easily opted for "Lo apne daam aap meiN saiyaad aa gayaa." Or "lo xud apne daam meiN saiyaad aa gayaa." The aa gayaa bit is pitch perfect since it suggests that the individual has become entrapped by his/her own ruse unwittingly. There's a subtlety and stealth to this expression that the other suggestions wouldnt have had since they involve greater physical force.


----------

