# Urdu: hamzah omission after alif-i-mamduudah



## Qureshpor

There are a number of Urdu words of Arabic origins that (should) have a hamzah, after the long alif, e.g ashyaa2. But, it seems that there is a trend in omitting such  hamzas. What are your views about this. Should the hamzah be omitted or not?


----------



## marrish

As far as I can recollect, hamzah in those cases is at times omitted even in respectable publications but I can't produce any examples at the moment. I believe this is a continuation of Persian practices, however I prefer not to leave it out. In a recent message I read _kii binaa _which I'd always prefer to write _kii binaa2_ as it facilitates the reading.

I have to say that I'm looking forward to knowing more about it thanks to this thread.


----------



## fdb

In Qur’anic orthography, and, in general, in old Arabic manuscripts, _ʼalif mamdūda_, that is: the sequence /āʼ/, is written with the letter _ʼalif_ with the sign _madda_, e.g. علمآ , where the modern Arabic orthography has علماء . In this Persian is closer to the old spelling.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> In Qur’anic orthography, and, in general, in old Arabic manuscripts, _ʼalif mamdūda_, that is: the sequence /āʼ/, is written with the letter _ʼalif_ with the sign _madda_, e.g. علمآ , where the modern Arabic orthography has علماء . In this Persian is closer to the old spelling.


Thank you for this, fdb SaaHib. 

If the addition of a terminal hamzah is a more recent convention, what about those words where the hamzah is an integral part of the word, e.g. shaiy2 >> ashyaa2?


----------



## fdb

The glottal stop is part of the word in _šayʼ _as it is in _ʻulamāʼ_. What I am saying is merely that the hamza sign ء is not normally written in unvocalised manuscripts; the reader is expected to know when to pronounce the hamza. So what you will find in old texts is usually شى , علما and the like.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> The glottal stop is part of the word in _šayʼ _as it is in _ʻulamāʼ_. What I am saying is merely that the hamza sign ء is not normally written in unvocalised manuscripts; the reader is expected to know when to pronounce the hamza. So what you will find in old texts is usually شى , علما and the like.


Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Faylasoof

In Urdu, this _hamzah_ is routinely dropped and it is not considered improper. In fact, it is the norm.

So we regualry write شے  _shai _/  اشیا _ashyaa_ in Urdu as opposed to the respective Classical Arab spellings شيء  and اشياء , even in unvocalised Arabic texts. This is a must!

However, discussions of the _hamzah_ in Arabic can get quite wieldy because the rules concerning the _hamzah_ orthography are quite complicated. Besides, many now (esp. on the internet) seem to be dropping the _hamzah _quite often when they ought not to. But this can be discussed in the Arabic forum!

In the pre- (/ peri-) / and early Islamic period there was marked difference in the use of the _hamzah_ amongst the various tribes with the Banu Tamim using it and the Hijazi tribes, Quraish included, not bothering with the use of _hamzah_ even within words (e.g. their pronunciation of the verb as _saala_ instead of _saa’ala _/ _saa2ala_ [= he asked]).

We had a discussion regarding the use of the _hamzah_ in Classical / Quranic Arabic here.


----------



## fdb

Faylasoof said:


> the respective Classical Arab spellings شيء  and اشياء , even in unvocalised Arabic texts. This is a must!
> .



This is what I contest. I have spent my life reading mediaeval Arabic manuscripts, so I think I know what I am talking about.


----------



## Alfaaz

Interesting discussion and information. It _seems_ that at least in Urdu electronic media, there is actually a trend to write such words with the hamzah (اجزاء)...especially in names such as حناء ، ثناء etc. (in addition to the examples mentioned above).


----------



## Qureshpor

^ thank you, Faylasoof SaaHib. There does seem to be a situation in Urdu where one finds hamzah written as well as missed out. Here is an "unusual" example.

bigaR jaa'e gii mere is but kii ik din
"ilaa aslih*i* yarji3u kullu *shaiy2*-in"

Akbar Ilahabadi

So, you are saying that as far as Urdu is concerned, there is no need to write the final hamzah. Does this also apply to medial hamzas in words such as..

mu2min, itmi2naan, mutma2in, ma2man, ma2muur etc?


----------



## marrish

And what about maa2tam.


----------



## Faylasoof

fdb said:


> This is what I contest. I have spent my life reading mediaeval Arabic manuscripts, so I think I know what I am talking about.


 Yes, depends on which period we are talking about. When I say "Classical Arabic" I mean fuS-Haa as written now. I may not have clarified this but the Quraishi habit of dropping the_ hamzah_ was very common. In fact, the link to the Arabic forum discussion also points to this with some even suggesting that inclusion of the _hamzah_ was a non-Arab phenomenon! It of course wasn't. Depended on which Arab tribe you were from.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ thank you, Faylasoof SaaHib. There does seem to be a situation in Urdu where one finds hamzah written as well as missed out. Here is an "unusual" example.
> 
> bigaR jaa'e gii mere is but kii ik din
> "ilaa aslih*i* yarji3u kullu *shaiy2*-in"
> 
> Akbar Ilahabadi
> 
> So, you are saying that as far as Urdu is concerned, there is no need to write the final hamzah. Does this also apply to medial hamzas in words such as..
> 
> mu2min, itmi2naan, mutma2in, ma2man, ma2muur etc?


 QP SaaHib, I was really talking about the _hamzah_ in words like _ashyaa_ as written in Urdu. Wasn't saying that we never use it! Also, Akbar _ilaah-aabaadii _is sticking to the rule of writing it in his Arabic verse. This shouldn't surprise us. But Urdu dictionaries too would write_ ashyaa_, i.e. without the final _hamzah __(ashyaa2)_, and write _shae_ and not _shaii2_, as in fuS-Haa. This is what I meant. 

We also writ 3ulamaa instead of 3ulamaa2, though the latter might be creeping back in Urdu due to us Asians spending a lot of time now in the Arab countries!


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Yes, depends on which period we are talking about. When I say "Classical Arabic" I mean fuS-Haa as written now. I may not have clarified this but the Quraishi habit of dropping the_ hamzah_ was very common. In fact, the link to the Arabic forum discussion also points to this with some even suggesting that inclusion of the _hamzah_ was a non-Arab phenomenon! It of course wasn't. Depended on which Arab tribe you were from.


​I don't know about the texts themselves but I do remember reading in Professor A.S.Tritton's "Teach Yourself Arabic" where he mentions the absence of the glottal stop in Meccan Arabic. And the dialect with hamzah was considered "posher" and consequently the hamzah was a later addition.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> ​I don't know about the texts themselves but I do remember reading in Professor A.S.Tritton's "Teach Yourself Arabic" where he mentions the absence of the glottal stop in Meccan Arabic. And the dialect with hamzah was considered "posher" and consequently the hamzah was a later addition.


 Yes, Tritton did mention this but also others. Of course there are still some who say that while the Hijazi "street" language didn't have the use of the _hamzah_, when Hijazis used the fuS-Haa they did pronounce it. BTW, the oldest Quranic manuscript are in the _maai2lii _script and one notes the absence of the _hamzah _there. (But then there you have a lot of other things missing, i.e. the dots to distinguish between different consonants and all the diacritical marks that represent the short vowels).


----------



## Abu Talha

I believe this is a case where script follows pronunciation. I don't think we say 3ulamaa2 in Urdu. We say 3ulamaa.

But then you could say why do we write ض,ظ,ذ when we pronounce them all as ز. Well those letters are more basic, essential, and important (etymologically), to the Arabic script, than the hamza which, if I understand correctly, was invented later (and I think based on ع).

_Standard_ Arabic (modern and pre-modern) has somehow converged on writing the hamza in all cases, even though many of the Arab tribes did not pronounce it.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> So, you are saying that as far as Urdu is concerned, there is no need to write the final hamzah. Does this also apply to medial hamzas in words such as..
> 
> mu2min, itmi2naan, mutma2in, ma2man, ma2muur etc?


For Urdu, if the hamza is saakin, it is not written nor pronounced. Its seat instead is treated as a long vowel.

If not saakin, it ought to be pronounced but is often softened in casual speech. So we will say

muumin, itmiinaan, mutma2inn, maaman, maamuur.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> For Urdu, if the hamza is saakin, it is not written nor pronounced. Its seat instead is treated as a long vowel.
> 
> If not saakin, it ought to be pronounced but is often softened in casual speech. So we will say
> 
> muumin, itmiinaan, mutma2inn, maaman, maamuur.


Thank you for your contributions. For these, the usual pronunciation is momin and itmenaan, I believe. The former, is the name of a well-known poet of the...

vuh jo ham meN tum meN qaraar thaa, tumheN yaad ho kih nah yaad ho

fame.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Indeed, ma2tam is yet another such word. But, I don't believe I have have ever seen it written as "ma3tam" in Urdu. It has always been maatam.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> I believe this is a case where script follows pronunciation. I don't think we say 3ulamaa2 in Urdu. We say 3ulamaa....


Would you say then "inshaa2 allaah" and maashaa2 allaah are exceptions?

zaahir meN to aise haiN kih maashaa2 allaah
sab yih kahte haiN ziyaadah hoN ge inshaa2 allaah
baatin meN jo dekhaa unheN itne haiN puuch
laa Haula wa laa quvvata illaa billaah


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you for your contributions. For these, the usual pronunciation is momin and itmenaan, I believe.


I myself say, and I think I also hear _itmiinaan_, or at least _itminaan_. But, yes the common pronunciation of مومن is momin. However, Platts calls this the vulgar pronunciation:

A مومن mūmin, vulg. momin (prop. muʼmin, act. part. of آمن 'to render secure or safe (from)...
Source: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.8:1:2766.platts


QURESHPOR said:


> Would you say then "inshaa2 allaah" and maashaa2 allaah are exceptions?


The hamza is not saakin, and is therefore pronounced. In any case. those are complete Arabic phrases, so they are pronounced as close as possible to the Arabic original.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> The hamza is not saakin, and is therefore pronounced. In any case. those are complete Arabic phrases, so they are pronounced as close as possible to the Arabic original.


Abu Talha SaaHib, I would say that as far as Urdu is concerned, the hamzah might as well be saakin. in-shaa2 allaah and not in-shaa2a_llaah.

Our discussion is mainly focused on whether hamzah in these situations is written, should be written or left out and not really on the pronunciation aspect.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> Our discussion is mainly focused on whether hamzah in these situations is written, should be written or left out and not really on the pronunciation aspect.


Ah... I see what you're saying.





QURESHPOR said:


> Abu Talha SaaHib, I would say that as far as Urdu is concerned, the hamzah might as well be saakin. in-shaa2 allaah and not in-shaa2a_llaah.


Why do you say that? For أستغفر الله we say astaGhfir*u*_llaah. So maintaining the همزة الوصل in الله doesn't seem to be an issue, right?


----------



## Faylasoof

Abu Talha said:


> Ah... I see what you're saying.Why do you say that? For أستغفر الله we say astaGhfir*u*_llaah. So maintaining the همزة الوصل in الله doesn't seem to be an issue, right?


 Precisely! The همزة الوصل hamzat-ul-waSl is not an issue since we don't write or hear it, but the hamzah in words like maa2tam and mo2min are also not heard. Some however do seem to inlcude it in the latter but not the former. Other examples too. The topic specifically is hamzah following alif mamduudah and there we always drop it in Urdu.


----------



## Qureshpor

Although like marrish and Alfaaz SaaHibaan I am in favour of the use of a written hamzah after alif-i-mamduudah, Faruqi in his Lughat-e-Rozmarrah writes, "3arabii ke sad-haa lafzoN ke aaxir meN alif aur hamzah hai masal-an Hukamaa2, inshaa2, binaa2, istid3aa2, balaa2, davaa2 vaGhairah. Urdu-Farsi ne aise tamaam lafzoN se hamzah Hazaf kar diyaa hai Hattaa kih shi3r meN bhii aise lafzoN ke hamzah kaa liHaaz nahiiN rakhte....."


----------

