# Urdu: قابلِ بھروسہ /qaabil-e bharosah



## marrish

Do you consider this expression acceptable? It occurs on a regular basis on BBC Urdu. 

Here I mean two questions: 

-employing a Prakrit-provenience word in this construction;
-spelling bharosah with a final -h in place of an alif.

Any _mustanad_ references are warmly welcomed!


----------



## Alfaaz

Sounds kind of odd, maybe because so used to hearing قابلِ اعتبار and/or بھروسے کے قابل/لائق ! As far as the employment of a non Arabic/Persian word in an izaafat is concerned, it should be avoided (سطحِ سمندر، چیخ و پکار). The h instead of an alif can be misleading...


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Do you consider this expression acceptable? It occurs on a regular basis on BBC Urdu.
> 
> Here I mean two questions:
> 
> -employing a Prakrit-provenience word in this construction;
> -spelling bharosah with a final -h in place of an alif.
> 
> Any _mustanad_ references are warmly welcomed!



I posted similar questions in the thread copied below. In a nut shell, I am all for "qaabil-i-bharosah". As for the "ah" ending in bharosah, it is a spelling convention. If someone said that from tomorrow we must all spell it as "bharosaa", I will go along with this without any impedence. You can see that I am easy going kind of guy!!

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2170492&highlight=izaafat+jhiil


----------



## marrish

Many thanks for the opinions. Alfaaz Sb. I agree the final -ah ending is a spelling convention and my second question is thus not relevant any more. I too, shall follow any eventual change with the needed elasticity.

Yes, I knew I had read that thread, but could not materialize it. Thanks, Qureshpor SaHib for it! The reason why I asked for references is that something tells me it's a recent coinage. Nice!


----------



## Faylasoof

Originally it was بهروسا भरोसा _bharos*aa* _!Due to the spelling change to بهروسہ _bharos*ah*_ it is now being treated to conform to the original rule of using an_ izaafat _between words of Arabic / Persian origins only. That rule still applies - and is valid - but to start using _izaafat_ regardless, i.e. with words derived from Prakrit and, say, English, would be quite obvioulsy and needlessly flouting a perfectly functional grammatical rule. One can say that بهروسہ _bharos*ah*_ has been "Persianized / Arabicized" (!) so an _izaafat_ is now being used to give قابل بهروسہ _qaabil-e bharosah_. We however sayقابلِ اعتبار _qaabil-e-i3tibaar_ OR بھروسے کے قابل _bharose ke qaabil_, as Alfaaz mentioned above.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> Originally it was بهروسا भरोसा _bharos*aa* _!Due to the spelling change to بهروسہ _bharos*ah*_ it is now being treated to conform to the original rule of using an_ izaafat _between words of Arabic / Persian origins only. That rule still applies - and is valid - but to start using _izaafat_ regardless, i.e. with words derived from Prakrit and, say, English, would be quite obvioulsy and needlessly flouting a perfectly functional grammatical rule. *One can say that بهروسہ bharosah has been "Persianized / Arabicized" (!) so an izaafat is now being used to give قابل بهروسہ qaabil-e bharosah.* We however sayقابلِ اعتبار _qaabil-e-i3tibaar_ OR بھروسے کے قابل _bharose ke qaabil_, as Alfaaz mentioned above.



It's exactly the point I was making in the thread kamraa v. kamrah! -word derived from Portuguese!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> It's exactly the point I was making in the thread kamraa v. kamrah! -word derived from Portuguese!



I somehow don't believe that the change "kamraa >> kamrah" and "bharosaa >> bharosah" has been carried out in order to facilitate their inclusion into the izaafat construction. "kamraa/kamrah" could easily (and does) lend itself to being taken as a Persian word but the poor "bharosaa/bharosah" sticks out like a sore thumb! No amount of -ah tagging is going to change the identity of an Indic word!

More important for me (and I know Faylasoof SaaHib disagrees with this) is that this exclusion of Indic words from the izaafat construction is totally illogical. I don't wish to sound like a broken record but when the Persian/Farsi speakers themselves have all kinds of European language words in this construction, why are we being more catholic than the Pope?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> I somehow don't believe that the change "kamraa >> kamrah" and "bharosaa >> bharosah" has been carried out in order to facilitate their inclusion into the izaafat construction. "kamraa/kamrah" could easily (and does) lend itself to being taken as a Persian word but the poor "bharosaa/bharosah" sticks out like a sore thumb! No amount of -ah tagging is going to change the identity of an Indic word!
> 
> 
> *You hit the head of the nail!!! I don't want to make bharosa look different - I was only referring to the 'Persianized' feel the spelling may give to some. I don't imply that through such trick the words should look deceivingly Persian to make part of izaafat compounds. I don't think any amount of make-up can cover the effect an aspirated bh- has!
> *
> More important for me (and I know Faylasoof SaaHib disagrees with this) is that this exclusion of Indic words from the izaafat construction is totally illogical. I don't wish to sound like a broken record but when the Persian/Farsi speakers themselves have all kinds of European language words in this construction, why are we being more catholic than the Pope?



I refrain, again, from putting a stamp of logicalness or correctness on some to deny it to other. This is just simply as it has been: indigenous words have never formed part of the said constructions, to the most.

The ones we use are created much earlier and are used as calcified expressions, that in the course of decades have earned respect. 

What I do mean is that we the current users of the language have the right to create it further and to make it evolve. We shouldn't get constricted to the centuries-old mindset, style and usage! 

Maybe because of the fact that this construction is the everyday bread of the Persian speaker, you can't do without it! And there is no exaltedness or 'high register' thing connected with that in Persian! They just don't have any way out! whereas Urdu has the choice, hence the distinction of register! That may be the reason Urdu speakers did not want to employ everyday words of the vernacular in here.


Agree, loosening this restrictions would expand dramatically the word-forming potential of Urdu. _qaabil-e bharosah _may be a sign of change. That's why I had requested _mustanad _sources. If found in older usage, means there is nothing new under the sun. _Vagarnah..._


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> More important for me (and I know Faylasoof SaaHib disagrees with this) is that this exclusion of Indic words from the izaafat construction is totally illogical. I don't wish to sound like a broken record but when the Persian/Farsi speakers themselves have all kinds of European language words in this construction, why are we being more catholic than the Pope?


Well, there is some logic to it. Whether we should continue to adhere to it, if it is holding us back, is a different matter. For words borrowed from other languages into Persian, Persians would use izaafat with them. Similarly, for words that Urdu borrows from other languages, Urdu is free to use its own (Indic) constructions to connect them. Urdu uses izaafat, generally, for set phrases or for connecting words that are also connected that way in Persian. English does this for a number of French phrases too. Arabic is only included because the traditional path for borrowing Arabic words in Urdu was via Persian. Allowing Persian constructs with Indic words I think, in general, has been frowned upon. One such word, if I'm not mistaken, is رہائش . 

I remember reading Follett's Modern American Usage where he discusses using a Latin or Greek construction for words of native English origin (possibly the noun forming _-tion_). This probably wasn't a problem in the past because people who introduced such words into English were, for the most part, classically educated having studied Greek, Latin, and French and could identify the route that words had taken when entering English. Our case is similar, I think, because Arabic and Persian were traditionally studied by educated Urdu speaking Indians.

English has long since abandoned such scruples, though.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I refrain, again, from putting a stamp of logicalness or correctness on some to deny it to other. This is just simply as it has been: indigenous words have never formed part of the said constructions, to the most.
> 
> Well, most people were illiterate and they had better things to do (two square meals) than to worry about the izaafat! Some, who were fortune to have the literacy and the daring did do so.
> 
> What I do mean is that we the current users of the language have the right to create it further and to make it evolve. We shouldn't get constricted to the centuries-old mindset, style and usage!
> 
> Agreed! Let there be freedom of expression. If the general public like something, it will catch on. If they don't, back to the drawing board!
> 
> Maybe because of the fact that this construction is the everyday bread of the Persian speaker, you can't do without it! And there is no exaltedness or 'high register' thing connected with that in Persian! They just don't have any way out! whereas Urdu has the choice, hence the distinction of register! That may be the reason Urdu speakers did not want to employ everyday words of the vernacular in here.
> 
> You make perfect sense. But if someone wishes to write "ai man-i-man" (ai mere man), why should we stand in their way?
> 
> Agree, loosening this restrictions would expand dramatically the word-forming potential of Urdu. _qaabil-e bharosah _may be a sign of change. That's why I had requested _mustanad _sources. If found in older usage, means there is nothing new under the sun. _Vagarnah..._
> 
> I won't go as far as to say "dramatically" but it will most certainly free the language of an unnecessary constriction. Surely, the examples I provided in the link were "mustanad" enough, were n't they?


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> Well, there is some logic to it. Whether we should continue to adhere to it, if it is holding us back, is a different matter. For words borrowed from other languages into Persian, Persians would use izaafat with them. Similarly, for words that Urdu borrows from other languages, Urdu is free to use its own (Indic) constructions to connect them. Urdu uses izaafat, generally, for set phrases or for connecting words that are also connected that way in Persian. English does this for a number of French phrases too. Arabic is only included because the traditional path for borrowing Arabic words in Urdu was via Persian. Allowing Persian constructs with Indic words I think, in general, has been frowned upon. One such word, if I'm not mistaken, is رہائش.



I am sorry to say daee SaaHib that there is not an ounce of logic in this thinking. This is nothing more than compartmentalising of words.


----------



## marrish

Well, most people were illiterate and they had better things to do (two square meals) than to worry about the izaafat! Some, who were fortune to have the literacy and the daring did do so.

I'd opt to credit them with more creativity, in turn, and less of a concern for pondering upon the correctness. IMHO it's them who didn't think twice before mixing words, with no regard for creed, caste and colour!

Agreed! Let there be freedom of expression. If the general public like something, it will catch on. If they don't, back to the drawing board!

Yes! That's the point! (I like this drawing board thing...)

You make perfect sense. But if someone wishes to write "ai man-i-man" (ai mere man), why should we stand in their way?

Perhaps in experimental poetry? Considered the code-switching sickness, it may be even _:trans-lingual:_

I won't go as far as to say "dramatically" but it will most certainly free the language of an unnecessary constriction. Surely, the examples I provided in the link were "mustanad" enough, were n't they?

Yes, they were! But there is no _qaabil-e bharosah. _The mustanad examples are old and attested, no doubt, but the idea I am trying to investigate is that _qaabil-e bharosah _expression is a new coinage, in contrast to the _buzurg_ ones; thus it implies some current is taking place.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> I am sorry to say daee SaaHib that there is not an ounce of logic in this thinking. This is nothing more than compartmentalising of words.


Well, by logic, I didn't mean correct, but rather a thought process that made sense within a set of commonly agreed upon rules. In any case, I wish to say that even my logic may be flawed but I'll attempt to rephrase what I mean, if it will help bring my point across.

As you are no doubt aware, a certain register of Urdu is borrowing English words at, some would say, an alarming rate. Say someone uses the English phrase "house of cards" in an Urdu sentence:

_"ye mahz aik house of cards hai, kabhi bhi gir sakta hai."
_
Within that register of Urdu, this sentence would make sense and would even be "grammatically correct". If, however, one says,

_"ye mahz aik ghar of pattoN hai, ..."
_
this sentence would be "grammatically incorrect" and this would be apparent to anyone who currently speaks this register. The reason would be that "of" can only be used with words of English origin. 

Years from now, however, having seen it written آف so many times (EDIT: and when the origins of "house" and "card" become obscure), people might not be too averse to the above sentence. Who knows?


----------



## marrish

I wish not. But, indeed, who knows? Look at the 'Urdu' name of Election Commission of Pakistan الیکشن کمیشن آف پاکیستان


----------



## marrish

Sorry for the typo.


----------



## Faylasoof

I just wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to say that بهروسا भरोसा _bharos*aa *_has been "Persianized / Arabicized" toبهروسہ _bharos_*ah *just so as to allow it to be used in an izaafat construction. Perhaps I should have put it differently and what I meant was that, most likely, once this change became established, the izaafat construction was brought in to make قابلِ بھروسہ_ qaabil-e bharosah_. This appears to be OK to many who may think بھروسہ is Persian (members of this forum excluding, who all know it isn't) and don't appreciate that it is actually بهروسا भरोसा _bharos*aa - *_an Indic word _*-*_ where our Urdu rules doesn't allow this kind of construction! I know QP Saahib and I don't see eye to eye on this one but then we can always agree to disagree!


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> Well, by logic, I didn't mean correct, but rather a thought process that made sense within a set of commonly agreed upon rules. In any case, I wish to say that even my logic may be flawed but I'll attempt to rephrase what I mean, if it will help bring my point across.
> 
> As you are no doubt aware, a certain register of Urdu is borrowing English words at, some would say, an alarming rate. Say someone uses the English phrase "house of cards" in an Urdu sentence:
> 
> _"ye mahz aik house of cards hai, kabhi bhi gir sakta hai."
> _
> Within that register of Urdu, this sentence would make sense and would even be "grammatically correct". If, however, one says,
> 
> _"ye mahz aik ghar of pattoN hai, ..."
> _
> this sentence would be "grammatically incorrect" and this would be apparent to anyone who currently speaks this register. The reason would be that "of" can only be used with words of English origin.
> 
> Years from now, however, having seen it written آف so many times (EDIT: and when the origins of "house" and "card" become obscure), people might not be too averse to the above sentence. Who knows?




By your logic, the English "house of cards" would be equivalent to, say "xaanah-i-barghaa" in Persian.

Similarly.......... the Urdu "ghar of pattoN" would be equivalent to ......."bait-i-auraaq" using Arabic connecting words, So, just as the Persian izaafat is given a place between two Arabic words, I can not see why the English "of" can not be accorded the same respect between two Urdu words. Continuing with this logic, if the "i" can be a connector of two Arabic words (and in Modern Persian, words of European origins), why can't ghar and "pattaa" be granted the same privilege?

Something else in the lines of "iin laaDlaa-i-man ast".

gandum agar ba-ham nah rasad "bhus" Ghaniimat ast!


----------



## Alfaaz

I would partially agree with the logic presented by QP but also say that there have to be certain limits. With such a logic you would start getting sentences like "mujhe my gaRi fix karvane and change-e-tail ke liye so much paise spend karna pare" or "pekher agle! main to sharm de marre garden garden ho gai thi, te meine te kisi nun naheen dassa about this, you maloom" (these are of course very exaggerated examples...)
Similarly, just because English uses lots of Latin, Greek, etc. derivatives doesn't mean that you would allow sentences like "Mihi screen nomen est words et ego replying to a thread"


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> By your logic, the English "house of cards" would be equivalent to, say "xaanah-i-barghaa" in Persian.
> 
> Similarly.......... the Urdu "ghar of pattoN" would be equivalent to ......."bait-i-auraaq" using Arabic connecting words, So, just as the Persian izaafat is given a place between two Arabic words, I can not see why the English "of" can not be accorded the same respect between two Urdu words. Continuing with this logic, if the "i" can be a connector of two Arabic words (and in Modern Persian, words of European origins), why can't ghar and "pattaa" be granted the same privilege?


 Well certainly, the privilege may be granted by those who wish to! I merely intended to show why it might not sound correct to some. And I only wish to go on with this theory while it holds up, if it doesn't I'll abandon it. 

Now as to why it might be fine to say "bait-i-auraaq" in Persian, I think it is because those Arabic words were directly borrowed by Persian so Persian used its izaafat connector to connect them. Just like one could say al-SiraaT ul-mustaqeem or Siraat-e mustaqeem. The former uses the Arabic phrase as a whole, the latter uses two Arabic words in a Persian construction. In Urdu, if the meanings of SiraaT and mustaqeem are known, one could say mustaqeem SiraaT.

Continuing with the English in Urdu analogy, we could say "maiN ne cards kaa (yaa se) house banaayaa" in Engdu/Urdlish/whatever and it would be fine. Here, instead of taking "house of cards" as a whole, we took each word separately and joined them using Urdu's connector.

To put it differently, what I'm trying to say that each language is free to use its own constructions between foreign words that it borrowed directly, or use the foreign construction between the foreign words as a complete phrase. If Persian borrows words from European languages and uses them outside set phrases, it has no choice but to use a Persian construction to connect them.

Having said that, these distinctions get blurred as time passes and as languages realize the power of the foreign construct. Thus we see Persian, and perhaps even Urdu using the Arabic nisba -iyyat* and the Arabic feminine sound plural -aat in words that are not of Arabic origin.
* I read this somewhere but can't find the source anymore.


> Something else in the lines of "iin laaDlaa-i-man ast".
> 
> gandum agar ba-ham nah rasad "bhus" Ghaniimat ast!


Umm.., my Persian is really bad, but I think this would still be an example of a Persian sentence which uses Persian constructions?
----
EDIT:





QURESHPOR said:


> By your logic, the English "house of cards" would be equivalent to, say "xaanah-i-barghaa" in Persian.
> 
> Similarly.......... the Urdu "ghar of pattoN" would be equivalent to ......."bait-i-auraaq" using Arabic connecting words,...


Unless I'm not understanding something, I think the equivalent of "ghar of patton" is "khaanat-ulbarghaa" or "khaanatu barghaa" or however you choose to connect two Persian words in an Arabic iDaafa.

Now, as opposed to the relationship between Urdu and Persian, Arabic has a history of borrowing Persian words. khaana might be one of those, I know kutubkhaana is/was. So an Arabic iDaafa between Persian words _in Arabic_ may be acceptable. But an Arabic iDaafa between Persian words in Persian would not be.


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> EDIT:Unless I'm not understanding something, I think the equivalent of "ghar of patton" is "khaanat-ulbarghaa" or "khaanatu barghaa" or however you choose to connect two Persian words in an Arabic iDaafa.
> 
> Now, as opposed to the relationship between Urdu and Persian, Arabic has a history of borrowing Persian words. khaana might be one of those, I know kutubkhaana is/was. So an Arabic iDaafa between Persian words _in Arabic_ may be acceptable. But an Arabic iDaafa between Persian words in Persian would not be.




daee SaaHib. You seem to have added much more to your post since I last read your reply! I will have to give the first part of your reply some thought later.

Regarding above, if this is your line of logic, then how do the following sound to you?
1) dastuuru_l3amali (As you know, dastuur is Persian). For this, you might say..well, this is only 50/50

2) dastuuru_lustaazi (Both dastuur and ustaaz are Persian). For ustaaz, one reference which I hope is "mustanad" is Wright's Arabic Grammar. I can provide page reference if you require it.

The first is used in Urdu and Persian. The second you will find in Arabic. Just try searching on the net.


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> daee SaaHib. You seem to have added much more to your post since I last read your reply! I will have to give the first part of your reply some thought later.


 Heh.. Yes, that edit button is quite tempting!



> Regarding above, if this is your line of logic, then how do the following sound to you?
> 1) dastuuru_l3amali (As you know, dastuur is Persian). For this, you might say..well, this is only 50/50
> 
> 2) dastuuru_lustaazi (Both dastuur and ustaaz are Persian). For ustaaz, one reference which I hope is "mustanad" is Wright's Arabic Grammar. I can provide page reference if you require it.
> 
> The first is used in Urdu and Persian. The second you will find in Arabic. Just try searching on the net.


OK. So now I'm venturing outside my comfort zone since I know next to nothing about Persian usage but here's what I think is happening:

_dastuur_ is originally Persian but Arabic borrowed it and commonly uses it. In Arabic, the word is Arabized as _d*u*stuur_. So _dustuur ul-3amali_ is an Arabic phrase that has been borrowed back into Persian and Urdu. Since d*a*stuur is already established in these languages, and because the haraakaat are rarely marked anyway, they would probably skip the Arabization and say d*a*stuur. This borrowing back is not unknown and there are other examples of Persian words being borrowed by Arabic and then back into Persian, e.g., _gohar_ and _jauhar_, and even _faarsi_ (_faarisiyy_).

Also, as _dustuur_ and _ustaadh_ are firmly established معرب فصيح words in Arabic, there is no problem using an Arabic iDaafa to connect them. This goes back to what I said earlier that languages connect borrowed words using their native connectors/constructions.

This is what I think is going on والله أعلم.


----------

