# Urdu: Use of "vaav-i-'ataf" and "kasrah-i-izaafat"



## Qureshpor

*Dear Friends:

You will no doubt know that constructions such as chiiKh-o-pukaar (Hue and cry), kamrah-i-imtiHaan (Examination Room) and jhiil-i-munjamid* (Frozen lake) are no less than a taboo in the relative modern times of Urdu prose and poetry. Basically a word of non-Persian/Arabic origins is not allowed in these types of constructions. However, this was not always the case. Below are a few examples which show that this usage was a common place in the not too distant past. For these I must offer due gratitude and acknowledgement to janaab-i-Zafar Syed Sahib from another forum (Alt.Language.Urdu.Poetry).

* *Used by Firaaq Gorakhpuri, I believe.

*From a letter by Akbar (Mughal-i-'Azam) to vaalii-i-Ambar.

iiN laaDlaa-i-man ast.

* *Shah Mubarak 'Aabroo' (vilaadat: 1683) 
*
*haath meN rakh apne to saaHib rumaal
poNchhtaa rah dam ba-dam mukhRaa-o-gaal* 

*Mirza Mazhar Jaan-i-JaaN, 1699-1771*

 *kisii ke Khuun kaa pyaasaa, kisii kii jaan kaa dushman 
nihaayat muuNh lagaayaa sajan ne biiRaa-i-paaN ko 
*
*Mir 'Soz' (1733-1799) 
*
*jhuuT-o-tazviir-o-makr-o-fan-o-fareb *
* haiN jilau meN mirii qitaar qitaar 

* *Rajab Ali Baig 'Suroor'**

* *navaadiraat-i-jahaaN se dukaan-o-koTThe bhare rehte the. *

*Muhammad Hussain 'Azad' *

*aaj mulk-e-Bangaala meN kitne hii kaalij-o-kameTiyaaN.... 
*
*....................................................................................................*

*Questions:*

*1) What harm do these kind of constructions bring to Urdu language?*

*2) Should these be allowed to be used freely?
*


----------



## Faylasoof

Again we are talking of a convention borrowed originally from Farsi. We therefore tend to stick to Persian or Arabic words compounded with either the _wao-e-3atf_ or with _kasra-e-ezaafat_. But as is clear from above this rule was also broken! 

 To my ears the above forms do sound odd (and some more odd than others). I guess I might not get used to many / most of them!

 However, as rules / conventions go, for me the sound of *wao-e-3atf* constructions above sound less odd than the *kasrah-i-izaafat* in Indic / non-Perso-Arabic words! The latter is perhaps due to amusing real-life stories I heard from my elders when they were travelling in places like Iran and Iraq. A family friend not too well-versed in Farsi apologised to a fellow Iranian traveller about noise emanating from his belongings, thus: 

_*aaghaa! ma’aazerat miixaam! in Dibba-e-man “dab dab” miikune!*
_
_Dibbaa_ * = *جعبه 

 All these (_kamra__-e-imtiHaan_* / *_jhiil__-e-munjamid_* / *_laaDla__-e-man_* / *_biiRa__-e-paaN_) fall in this same “odd” category as *Dibba**-e-man. *Moreover, _paadsha_ Akbar _Saheb’s__laaDla__-e-man_ could be considered a diplomatically or even a politically motivated bending of language rules to endear himself to the _waalii _of Amber! This kind of construct never caught on so it says something.

 For all of the above there are perfectly common and correct Indic alternatives so why do we really need to do it this way? What is the issue with *pan kaa biiRaa*? 

 In the expanded Urdu vocabulary use of other words of Persian / Arabic origin (which have been the main, _traditional source_ for our vocabulary) have been incorporated to allow construction like these:

 اتاق \ حجرہ امتحان_ utaaq-e- / Hujra-e-imtiHaan_ = examination room.

 I grant you that even for us اتاق_ utaaq_ is a bit over the top, but we do use حجرہ_ hujrah_ in our daily speech! So *حجرہ امتحان hujra-e-imtiHaan* for _exam room_ seems OK to me. Or just _*imtiHaan kaa kamraa / kamrah*_. 

 ... and instead of *jhiil-e-munjamid*(!), it is perfectly OK to say *منجمد جھیل* *munjamid jhiil* = frozen lake. This is quite standard. 

 If we allow oddities such as the ones above then why not just have a complete free for all and start using the English terms transliterated into Urdu, e.g. اكزام روم _ikzaam ruum_ = exam room! This seems to be a treand in the younger generation and soon we'll have no Urdu left that'll be worth its name. No?

 The examples of *wao-e-3atf*  as used by Muhammad Hussain _Azad_(_kaalij-o-kameTiyaaN_)and Mir (_jhuuT-o-tazviir_)are very much like* raat o din / din o raat *(رات و دن \ دن و رات),which I’ve heard, instead of the more usual* raat-din / din-raat *(رات دن \ دن رات), which we use.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Again we are talking of a convention borrowed originally from Farsi. We therefore tend to stick to Persian or Arabic words compounded with either the _wao-e-3atf_ or with _kasra-e-ezaafat_. But as is clear from above this rule was also broken!
> 
> To my ears the above forms do sound odd (and some more odd than others). I guess I might not get used to many / most of them!
> 
> However, as rules / conventions go, for me the sound of *wao-e-3atf* constructions above sound less odd than the *kasrah-i-izaafat* in Indic / non-Perso-Arabic words! The latter is perhaps due to amusing real-life stories I heard from my elders when they were travelling in places like Iran and Iraq. A family friend not too well-versed in Farsi apologised to a fellow Iranian traveller about noise emanating from his belongings, thus:
> 
> _*aaghaa! ma’aazerat miixaam! in Dibba-e-man “dab dab” miikune!*
> _
> _Dibbaa_ * = *جعبه
> 
> All these (_kamra__-e-imtiHaan_* / *_jhiil__-e-munjamid_* / *_laaDla__-e-man_* / *_biiRa__-e-paaN_) fall in this same “odd” category as *Dibba**-e-man. *Moreover, _paadsha_ Akbar _Saheb’s__laaDla__-e-man_ could be considered a diplomatically or even a politically motivated bending of language rules to endear himself to the _waalii _of Amber! This kind of construct never caught on so it says something.
> 
> For all of the above there are perfectly common and correct Indic alternatives so why do we really need to do it this way? What is the issue with *pan kaa biiRaa*?
> 
> In the expanded Urdu vocabulary use of other words of Persian / Arabic origin (which have been the main, _traditional source_ for our vocabulary) have been incorporated to allow construction like these:
> 
> اتاق \ حجرہ امتحان_ utaaq-e- / Hujra-e-imtiHaan_ = examination room.
> 
> I grant you that even for us اتاق_ utaaq_ is a bit over the top, but we do use حجرہ_ hujrah_ in our daily speech! So *حجرہ امتحان hujra-e-imtiHaan* for _exam room_ seems OK to me. Or just _*imtiHaan kaa kamraa / kamrah*_.
> 
> ... and instead of *jhiil-e-munjamid*(!), it is perfectly OK to say *منجمد جھیل* *munjamid jhiil* = frozen lake. This is quite standard.
> 
> If we allow oddities such as the ones above then why not just have a complete free for all and start using the English terms transliterated into Urdu, e.g. اكزام روم _ikzaam ruum_ = exam room! This seems to be a treand in the younger generation and soon we'll have no Urdu left that'll be worth its name. No?
> 
> The examples of *wao-e-3atf*  as used by Muhammad Hussain _Azad_(_kaalij-o-kameTiyaaN_)and Mir (_jhuuT-o-tazviir_)are very much like* raat o din / din o raat *(رات و دن \ دن و رات),which I’ve heard, instead of the more usual* raat-din / din-raat *(رات دن \ دن رات), which we use.



*Faylasoof Sahib. Thank you for your detailed reply. 

It should be taken as "read" that anyone who has the slightest love for the Urdu language would **not only** wish it to survive but also would desire for it to thrive and prosper like all other major living languages of our world. None of us would wish its pristine beauty to be disfigured by mispronunciations, wrong grammatical constructions and unwarranted inclusion of English words when perfectly suitable words are available within its own coffers. The survival and continued growth of Urdu language is nothing short of an article of faith for us! What more can I say? The angle from which I am talking about is concerned with logic and fair treatment of words whatever their origins might be. A "step-motherly" attitude will not be beneficial to its cause. Please allow me to elucidate further.

When the Persians had next to nothing of the Arabic element in their language, they would use constructions such as:

1) aab-o-daanah

2) bandah-i-Khudaa

3) saNg-i-siyaah

With the arrival of Arabic, these kinds of formations became:

1) aab-o-havaa

2) roz-i-qiyaamat

3) saNg-i-asvad 

And finally to:

1) maal-o-asbaab

2) Hasb-i-Haal

3) dault-i-kasiir

As you can see that in the "final" form, none of the words (apart from -i- and -o-) are Persian. Persian language of modern times would use and does use words from other languages such as Turkish, English, French and others in these places. So, if the speakers of this language allow words from other languages to form these constructions, why are we stuck in time and stubborn about this change. And this is especially so when these sorts of formations were regularly being used as I have indicated in the examples in the first post? Besides, you would no doubt be aware that Dari uses a number of Indic words in its vocabulary without any resulting ill-effects! So, why can't "chiiKh-o-pukaar", "gintii-o-shumaar" be considered at par with "aab-o-havaa"; mukhRaa-o-gaal equivalent to "maal-o-asbaab"; "surKhii-i-paan" at the same level as "roz-i-qiyaamat" and "biiRaa-i-paan" competing with "Hasb-i-Haal"? 

I am not for one moment suggesting that this allowence will take the development of Urdu language light years ahead of its current status. But, this along with other restrictions, is an unnecessary shackle. I shall come to other restrictions in a moment.

The point about sounding odd is understandable. But we do have countless Persian-Indic language composite words like be-dhaRak which have become part of the language and are no longer seen to be odd. Usage and public  (un)acceptance will sift the wheat from the chaff.

Now to these uncalled for fetters.

1) 'ataf+izaafat as above

2) Final nuun nasalisation in an izaafat construction (as discussed in another thread)

3) Arabic/Persian words can be nasalised for metrical reasons, e.g. imtiHaan>>imtiHaaN, aasmaan>> aasmaaN BUT dhyaan can not be changed to "dhyaaN"! The only word that has been granted this kind of elevated status is "paan" which we do see as "paaN".

4) Same sounding consonants are not allowed to rhyme with each other. [I need not really mention that I am aware that in Arabic, these consonats have had and still have distinct sounds].

te/ to'e
se/siin/svaad
zaal/ze/zvaad/zo'e
He/he

Again the removal of these constraints will not necessarily improve Urdu language's richness by leaps and bounds but beggers can not be choosers. Any improvement surely is a welcome addition.

Finally, I think we sometimes might be over reacting to the possible factors which would/could be detremental to the cause of Urdu. Just look at English. Has not its free development caused it to be now the world leader in practically every human endeavour? What Faani says about himself is possibly equally applicable to Urdu.

mar mar ke jii rahaa hai Faanii
Allaah re us kii saKht-jaanii


*


----------



## Abu Talha

QURESHPOR said:


> *From a letter by Akbar (Mughal-i-'Azam) to vaalii-i-Ambar.
> 
> iiN laaDlaa-i-man ast.*


In my humble opinion, I think this particular sentence does not break Urdu's rule that izaafat can only be between words of Persian and Arabic origin. Simply because it is not an Urdu sentence. Since it is a Persian sentence which has borrowed an Indic word, it is free to use it in a Persian construction.

EDIT: Now, whether it is proper to borrow _laaDlaa_ and use it in Persian is another question.


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> In my humble opinion, I think this particular sentence does not break Urdu's rule that izaafat can only be between words of Persian and Arabic origin. Simply because it is not an Urdu sentence. Since it is a Persian sentence which has borrowed an Indic word, it is free to use it in a Persian construction.
> 
> EDIT: Now, whether it is proper to borrow _laaDlaa_ and use it in Persian is another question.




Point taken, daee SaaHib.


----------



## marrish

Dear friends of the forum, whichever language you speak,


There have been numerous thread about izaafat in Urdu and I daresay that they exceed the number of the Persian ones. Therefore it was difficult to find an appropriate thread to pose my questions therein.

In Urdu, there has been a rule that you can't put words into an izaafat construction but Arabic or Persian loans.

I can vaguely remember a thread in which a phrase written by a King was "_laaDlaa-e-man_" but it turned out to be a Persian text and Persian doesn't discriminate words on the ground of their origins because izaafat is the core business of this language. 

In Urdu, izaafat is also inherent, but we are richer in possibilities of expression in this regard (cf. kaa, kii, ke), however, this freedom of speech has been limited by grammarians who used to warn against employing other words than Persian and Arabic loans (to be honest, most of them were incorporated into Urdu via Persian).

My presumption is that this rule, by force of change, usage and necessities of the times fails to be efficient.

Is there an izaafat in سیکریٹری دفاع?
Is there an izaafat in وزارت پانی و بجلی

Or is it what they call in linguistics tatpurusa (Skt. _tatpuruSha_) compound?


----------



## Qureshpor

The thread that you have in mind, marrish SaaHib is this one. (xxx) In it you will find the construction "biiRaa-i-paaN" where "paan" (the only Indic word that I am aware of) has been given the license to carry a nasal ending.

Looking your two examples, one would expect an izaafat. But the first one seems to sound OK even without it. The second one still sounds sort of alright but not as much as the first one.


----------



## Abu Talha

Do you think there is a (possibly subconscious) tendency to avoid kaa/kii in formal names, titles, and other official texts?* A carryover from when Persian was the written language of the court.

It might be similar to preferring "of" in English. "University of Oxford" sounds more formal than "Oxford University".

Anyway, I too have an example to contribute: My passport has _nishaan-e anguuThaa_ printed in it.

*EDIT: After thinking about this some more the izaafat could be used to signify a compound word. Otherwise kaa/kii within the compound word would be parsed grammatically and the compound word may no longer be interpreted as one unit.

_Haamil-e haazaa kaa nishaan-e anguuThaa_ = Passport-bearer's thumbprint 
_is ke Haamil ke anguuThe kaa nishaan_ = Passport's bearer's thumb's print. (thumbprint is broken up and is no longer one unit).


----------



## marrish

@ QP: That was the thread I remembered but I hope this one can remain in its own right because the title is clear (it could be more clear but there is not enough space and one has to do haiku) and this thread has only izaafat but not "waaw-e3atf" - becuase that issue has been settled in other thread.

You say an izaafat is expected. I second your view. You say "secretary difaa3" might sound OK than why not "difaa3 secretary"? Then there is no issue of izaafat at all and everybody is happy.

@Abu Talha: thanks for your contribution! Indeed, this example is very good! I am most thankful for your edit because you have formulated a thought which I can now recognize as my own.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Qureshpor said:


> *As you can see that in the "final" form, none of the words (apart from -i- and -o-) are Persian. Persian language of modern times would use and does use words from other languages such as Turkish, English, French and others in these places. So, if the speakers of this language allow words from other languages to form these constructions, why are we stuck in time and stubborn about this change.
> 
> I am not for one moment suggesting that this allowence will take the development of Urdu language light years ahead of its current status. But, this along with other restrictions, is an unnecessary shackle. I shall come to other restrictions in a moment.
> 
> Now to these uncalled for fetters.
> 
> 1) 'ataf+izaafat as above
> 
> 2) Final nuun nasalisation in an izaafat construction (as discussed in another thread)
> 
> 3) Arabic/Persian words can be nasalised for metrical reasons, e.g. imtiHaan>>imtiHaaN, aasmaan>> aasmaaN BUT dhyaan can not be changed to "dhyaaN"! The only word that has been granted this kind of elevated status is "paan" which we do see as "paaN".
> 
> 4) Same sounding consonants are not allowed to rhyme with each other. [I need not really mention that I am aware that in Arabic, these consonats have had and still have distinct sounds].
> 
> te/ to'e
> se/siin/svaad
> zaal
> 
> Again the removal of these constraints will not necessarily improve Urdu language's richness by leaps and bounds but beggers can not be choosers. Any improvement surely is a welcome addition.
> 
> *



Couldn't agree with you more here! Everytime I have made a case for such I have been told I am going against Urdu 'idiom', whatever on earth that means. Nevertheless its a great and poignant thread.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Funny this thread was revived today. Just saw this written today = 

*DaakTar Fulaa.N - maahir - i amraaz - i niind aur .... ......

 ...faalij - o  paTTho.n kaa khi.nchaa'o*


----------



## HZKhan

Interestingly, *vaziir e khel* is the word that is normally used for sports minister. If this is somehow unidiomatic, then what should be the better alternative?


----------



## Alfaaz

Pakistani Khan said:
			
		

> Interestingly, *vaziir e khel* is the word that is normally used for sports minister. If this is somehow unidiomatic, then what should be the better alternative?


وزیر لہو و لعب - _wazeer-e-lahw-o-la3b _could probably be an option. 
وزیر پانی و بجلی - _wazeer-e-paani wa bijlii _is another incorrect (according to conventions discussed above) construction which is often used. وزیرِ آب و برق - _wazeer-e-aab-o-barq _could be used instead. 


			
				Qureshpor said:
			
		

> *The angle from which I am talking about is concerned with logic and fair treatment of words whatever their origins might be.
> ...
> The point about sounding odd is understandable. ... Usage and public (un)acceptance will sift the wheat from the chaff.
> ...
> Finally, I think we sometimes might be over reacting to the possible factors which would/could be detremental to the cause of Urdu. Just look at English. Has not its free development caused it to be now the world leader in practically every human endeavour?*


 Based on this logic, would you accept _I am good! _for _I am well! _in English? Reference to the following post from Urdu, Hindi: aisaa vs aise: 





			
				Qureshpor said:
			
		

> مجھہ جیسے معیاری انگریزی بولنے والے کہیں گے
> 
> I am well.
> 
> لیکن آج کل آپ کو ایسے بھی لوگوں سے واسظہ پڑے گا جو کہیں گے
> 
> I am good!


 Would _gooder, betterer/betterest, _and _bester/bestest_ be acceptable to you in English? Would something like _question et answer session _be appropriate? It seems every language has its own conventions...! 

Please note that I am not trying to have an argument! The only reason for presenting the quote and asking these questions is to see what your opinion is while looking at the matter from a different perspective.

On the other hand, your logic/opinion also makes sense in some cases, for example, if we look at Latin derived words. English plural forms of many of them have been accepted along with _conventional_/Latin plurals (Examples: syllabi/syllabuses; formulae/formulas, etc.).


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I am at a loss to connect my logic with your logic Alfaaz SaaHib. agar mere kund-zihn ne saath diyaa to aap ko garmaa-garm javaab mil jaa'e gaa.


----------



## HZKhan

مولانا ابوالکلام آزاد نے اپنی کتاب غبارِ خاطر میں 'تمباکوئے آتش زدہ' کی ترکیب استعمال کی ہے۔
​


----------



## eskandar

pakistani khan said:


> مولانا ابوالکلام آزاد نے اپنی کتاب غبارِ خاطر میں 'تمباکوئے آتش زدہ' کی ترکیب استعمال کی ہے۔
> ​



آپ نے ضرور اس جملہ کو آج "اردو نثر" کے فیس بوک پیج میں دیکھا ہے، ہے نہ؟ 
شاید آزاد اس استمعال کو مناسب جانتے تھے کیونکے "تمباکو" فارسی کا بھی ایک لفظ ہے، باوجود اسکے کہ کسی فرنگی زبان سے ماخذ ہے.
​


----------



## HZKhan

eskandar said:


> آپ نے ضرور اس جملہ کو آج "اردو نثر" کے فیس بوک پیج میں دیکھا ہے، ہے نہ؟
> ​


جی، میں نے اِسے اُسی فیس بُک صفحے پر دیکھا تھا۔ ​


----------



## HZKhan

ویسے میری نظر میں اردو میں غیر فارسی و عربی الفاظ کے درمیان چند موارد میں اضافت کی اجازت دے دینی چاہیے۔ مثلاً وزیرِ کھیل کی ترکیب وزیرِ لہو و لعب کے مقابلے میں زیادہ رواں اور بامعنی ہے، نیز لہو و لعب عموماً منفی مفہوم بھی رکھتا ہے۔ لہٰذا وزیرِ کھیل جیسی تراکیب کو قبولیت کی سند عطا کی جا سکتی ہے۔
قریشپور صاحب کی اس بات میں بھی وزن ہے کہ اضافت کے قوانین ڈھیلے کرنے سے اردو کی الفاظ سازی کی صلاحیت میں اضافہ ہو سکتا ہے۔
​


----------



## eskandar

حقیر اس بات پر موافق ہوں کہ غیر فارسی یا عربی الفاظ کے ساتھ اضافت کا استعمال مفید ہو سکتا ہے اور اس استعمال کو ماننا چاہیے، لیکن اگر بات بس یہ ہے کہ وزیرِ لہو و لعب مناسب نہیں ہے تو وزیرِ کھیل کی کیا ضرورت؟ بالفاظ دیگر "وزیرِ کھیل" کے بجا  "کھیل \ کھیلوں کا وزیر" کیوں نہیں استعمال کر سکتے ہیں؟​


----------



## HZKhan

eskandar said:


> حقیر اس بات سے موافق ہے کہ غیر فارسی یا عربی الفاظ کے ساتھ اضافت کا استعمال مفید ہو سکتا ہے اور اس استعمال کو ماننا چاہیے، لیکن اگر بات بس یہ ہے کہ وزیرِ لہو و لعب مناسب نہیں ہے تو وزیرِ کھیل کی کیا ضرورت؟ بالفاظ دیگر "وزیرِ کھیل" کے بجائے  "کھیل \ کھیلوں کا وزیر" کیوں نہیں استعمال کر سکتے ہیں؟​



'کھیل/کھیلوں کا وزیر' تین الفاظ کا مجموعہ ہے جبکہ 'وزیرِ کھیل' ایک ترکیب ہے جسے مفرد لفظ کی طرح تصور کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ، اردو میں تمام وزارتی مناصب کے لیے اضافی تراکیب ہی استعمال ہوتی ہیں مثلاً وزیرِ داخلہ، وزیرِ خارجہ، وزیرِ دفاع وغیرہ۔۔۔ دریں صورت، اگر 'اسپورٹس منسٹر' کے لیے ویسی ہی کوئی اضافی ترکیب استعمال کرنے کے بجائے 'کھیل کا وزیر' اصطلاح استعمال کی جائے تو یہ ذرا عجیب لگے گی۔

ہندی میں 'اسپورٹس منسٹر' کو 'کھیل منتری' کہا جاتا ہے۔ اسی پر قیاس کرتے ہوئے اگر ہم اردو میں 'کھیل وزیر' ترکیب وضع کرنے کی کوشش کریں تو یہ بھی عجیب لگے گی، کیونکہ اردو میں اس طرح کی ترکیبوں کا عام رواج نہیں ہے۔​


----------



## Qureshpor

pakistani khan said:


> 'کھیل/کھیلوں کا وزیر' تین الفاظ کا مجموعہ ہے جبکہ 'وزیرِ کھیل' ایک ترکیب ہے جسے مفرد لفظ کی طرح تصور کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ، اردو میں تمام وزارتی مناصب کے لیے اضافی تراکیب ہی استعمال ہوتی ہیں مثلاً وزیرِ داخلہ، وزیرِ خارجہ، وزیرِ دفاع وغیرہ۔۔۔ دریں صورت، اگر 'اسپورٹس منسٹر' کے لیے ویسی ہی کوئی اضافی ترکیب استعمال کرنے کے بجائے 'کھیل کا وزیر' اصطلاح استعمال کی جائے تو یہ ذرا عجیب لگے گی۔
> ​



آپ کی بات میں جان ہے اور مجھے اِس سے اتفاق ہے۔
​


pakistani khan said:


> ہندی میں 'اسپورٹس منسٹر' کو 'کھیل منتری' کہا جاتا ہے۔ اسی پر قیاس کرتے ہوئے اگر ہم اردو میں 'کھیل وزیر' ترکیب وضع کرنے کی کوشش کریں تو یہ بھی عجیب لگے گی، کیونکہ اردو میں اس طرح کی ترکیبوں کا عام رواج نہیں ہے۔​


آپ بجا فرما رہے ہیں لیکن الفاظ کے ایسے مرکبات اردو میں بھی رائج ہونا چاہئیں۔ ہندی کی ایسی اور دیگر تراکیب کو استعمال میں لانے سے اُردو کا دامن مزید مالامال ہو سکتا ہے۔


----------

