# Urdu: Austerity Program



## omlick

I got this from the culp online dictionary:  منصوبہ کفایت شعاری मंसूबा कफ़ायत शारी ?
Can someone please verify my hindi transliteration?   Thanks


----------



## marrish

omlick said:


> I got this from the culp online dictionary:  منصوبہ کفایت شعاری मंसूबा कफ़ायत शारी ?
> Can someone please verify my hindi transliteration?   Thanks


 Hi, this is better:

मन्सूबा किफ़ायत शिआरी


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Hi, this is better:
> 
> मन्सूबा किफ़ायत शिआरी



Now I am doing a bit of "muu-shigaafii"!

Should n't this be "mansuubah-i-kifaayat-shi3aarii", i.e. with an izaafat?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Now I am doing a bit of "muu-shigaafii"!
> 
> Should n't this be "mansuubah-i-kifaayat-shi3aarii", i.e. with an izaafat?


 I was considering it at that moment but gave it up since the query was constricted to transliteration. But, muu shigaafii leads often to enlightening discussions so I'd say it with izafat, although searching the net returns merely a couple of instances where a hamza is really used.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I was considering it at that moment but gave it up since the query was constricted to transliteration. But, muu shigaafii leads often to enlightening discussions so I'd say it with izafat, although searching the net returns merely a couple of instances where a hamza is really used.



You would agree with me that "mansuubah kifaayat-shi3aarii" on its own would not be deemed correct. If we had "kifaayat-shi3aarii kaa mansuubah", we would be cooking on gas!

izaafat, more often than not, is missed out in Urdu (and Persian), especially the zer but also hamzah, although this is less frequent. It is the reader who "supplies" it, so to speak. If you saw the words "jaan man", you will of course read it as "jaan-i-man". Apologies, if I am stating the obnvious.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> You would agree with me that "mansuubah kifaayat-shi3aarii" on its own would not be deemed correct. If we had "kifaayat-shi3aarii kaa mansuubah", we would be cooking on gas!
> 
> izaafat, more often than not, is missed out in Urdu (and Persian), especially the zer but also hamzah, although this is less frequent. It is the reader who "supplies" it, so to speak. If you saw the words "jaan man", you will of course read it as "jaan-i-man". Apologies, if I am stating the obnvious.


Maybe I should have put the _izaafat_ in the transliteration, I focused myself on typing the devanagari. And after typing it without, I thought putting an _izaafat_ would have to be followed by a substantial explanation... and this was certainly not the most interesting thread at that time!

Surely, _izaafat_, which takes a form of a final _zer_ or a _hamza_, as with other diacritical signs and short vowel markers, is most certainly omitted in Persian, and, to a lesser extent, Urdu writing. 

There is no need for apologies since stating the obvious is a good practice in this forum where every kind of question is asked about the language. I agree to the full extent that it is the *reader* who is supposed to read out the unwritten _izaafat_ (and many other unwritten sounds). 

Now, the matter of *correctness*. No doubt _mansuubah-e..._ is correct. Still, I feel somewhat uneasy having to put a stamp of correctness on some word of expression and condemn some other. Because I have always been convinced that languages are never as simple a phenomenon as the grammar books want them to be. Of course if some so-called 'standard' gets enthroned and made wear ceremonial clothes, we have to follow it, at least outwardly. But the spoken language of the diverse societies will not cease to evolve and adapt. I beg to say that  _kifaayat shi3aarii kaa mansuubah_ has less pretentiousness for the common ear than _mansuubah-e kifaayat-shi3aarii_ carries. The spoken language knows a different correctness than the written one does. 

So the point in direct association with what I've already said is the person of the *reader*. A reader who is not versed in literature, notoriously omits unwritten izaafats. (and does many more horrible things) A common reader of newspapers just glides over some more Persian-scented expressions and goes on reading. Unfortunately he (doesn't do the _muu-shigaafii _and) assumes in the course of time that the expression does not contain any _izaafat_ at all! I heard newspapers being read out loudly, and also on the BBC service, that there is not always 'reading with understanding', because of which, izaafat's get omitted in speech. What do you thing about [_mundarajah-zail?] [mundarjah-fauq?] [mazkuurah-baalaa?]_

Thus, given my theory of considering one's reading mistakes as the standard language, and memorizing them as such, could be true, there emerges a form of the language where some_ izaafats _don't show up where they ought to. Maybe English syntax has played a vital role in this? Consider: National Language Authority - مقتدرہ قومی زبان (I hope you will like this example, and I gave the English name first on purpose). There is definitely no _izaafat_, but I can't do without reading it out! Won't you do it? Or, maybe, Prakrit?/Hindi/Sanskrit? syntax has mingled into the fibre of Urdu, like in another witty example: नागरी प्रचारिणी सभा. Neither naag(a)rii-prachaariNRii kii sabhaa, nor _muqtadrah-e qaumii zabaan_ nor _qaumii zabaan kaa muqtadrah_ nor _muqtadrah-e zabaan-e qaumii_.

Excuse me for loose thoughts.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Now, the matter of *correctness*. No doubt _mansuubah-e..._  is correct. Still, I feel somewhat uneasy having to put a stamp of  correctness on some word of expression and condemn some other. Because I  have always been convinced that languages are never as simple a  phenomenon as the grammar books want them to be. Of course if some  so-called 'standard' gets enthroned and made wear ceremonial clothes, we  have to follow it, at least outwardly. But the spoken language of the  diverse societies will not cease to evolve and adapt. I beg to say that   _kifaayat shi3aarii kaa mansuubah_ has less pretentiousness for the common ear than _mansuubah-e kifaayat-shi3aarii_ carries. The spoken language knows a different correctness than the written one does.



I  had not envisaged such a "serious" reply, marrish SaaHib. I agree with  what you are saying about the natural evolutionary process of any  language and that it is the general public's speech, incorporated into  the literature of the language which provides the ultimate standard of  correctness. But, until "meraa kitaab" becomes the acceptable norm, we  have no choice but to say that the correct form is "merii kitaab". Now, if  this means that a "stamp of correctness" is being given to "merii  kitaab" and "meraa kitaab" is being condemned, then so be it!

izaafat  has been part of the Urdu language since time immemorial. If you think  that "mansuubah-i-kifaayat-shi3aarii" smells of pretentiousness, then  you are free to hold such a view. But there is a place for "paak sarzamiin  kaa nizaam" just as there is also a place for "kishvar-i-Hasiin shaad  baad". Variety is the spice of life and Urdu has plenty of spice and  shiiriinii!



> What do you thing about [_mundarajah-zail?] [mundarjah-fauq?] [mazkuurah-baalaa?]_



mundarajah-i-zail  and mundarajah-i-baalaa are fine. I know the izaafat is often missed  and I have no problem with that either. This is because we end up with  the equivalents of "listed below" and "listed above" instead of "llisted  of below" and "listed of above". We already have "shaah-jahaan" in  place of "shaah-i-jahaan", don't we? There are plenty more such  examples.



> Thus, given my theory of considering one's reading mistakes as  the standard language, and memorizing them as such, could be true, there  emerges a form of the language where some_ izaafats _don't show  up where they ought to. Maybe English syntax has played a vital role in  this? Consider: National Language Authority - مقتدرہ قومی زبان (I hope  you will like this example, and I gave the English name first on  purpose). There is definitely no _izaafat_, but I can't do  without reading it out! Won't you do it? Or, maybe,  Prakrit?/Hindi/Sanskrit? syntax has mingled into the fibre of Urdu, like  in another witty example: नागरी प्रचारिणी सभा. Neither naag(a)rii-prachaariNRii kii sabhaa, nor _muqtadrah-e qaumii zabaan_ nor _qaumii zabaan kaa muqtadrah_ nor _muqtadrah-e zabaan-e qaumii_.




I don't think you can say with certainty that there is no izaafat in "muqtadirah-i[qaumii]-zabaan"*.  Let's remove the adjective and just deal with the two nouns. You will  agree that "muqtadirah-i-zabaan" (authority of language/language  authority) makes more sense as far as Urdu is concerned than  "muqtadirah-zabaan" (authority language). Now, I feel "zabaan  muqtadirah" is much more acceptable if we are planning on removing the  izaafat. qaumii zabaan muqtadirah would then be perfectly acceptable.

 I  would love the compound fomation of Sanskrit to be part of Urdu. It  would be nice if compounds are formed that fit in with the genius of the  language and its ultimate source, Sanskrit. I would have no problem  with "sindh-daryaa-vaadii" in place of "vaadii-i-daryaa-i-sindh" (Indus  River Valley).

* This is equivalent to "kitaab-i-surx-rang" in case you think "muqtadirah-i-qaumii-zabaan" is wrong.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> I  had not envisaged such a "serious" reply, marrish SaaHib. I agree with  what you are saying about the natural evolutionary process of any  language and that it is the general public's speech, incorporated into  the literature of the language which provides the ultimate standard of  correctness. But, until "meraa kitaab" becomes the acceptable norm, we  have no choice but to say that the correct form is "merii kitaab". Now, if  this means that a "stamp of correctness" is being given to "merii  kitaab" and "meraa kitaab" is being condemned, then so be it!
> 
> 3aalaa', 3aalaa'! Qureshpor SaHib, first of all, let me state a simple fact. Just as is the case with the replies on merit from your side, it's a relish to read your response, zabaan koii bhii ho! And then, I follow what you said above, just as you and me,and, I hope, many many others will do. So be it! I'm not only referring to your example, of course.
> 
> izaafat  has been part of the Urdu language since time immemorial. If you think  that "mansuubah-i-kifaayat-shi3aarii" smells of pretentiousness, then  you are free to hold such a view. But there is a place for "paak sarzamiin  kaa nizaam" just as there is also a place for "kishvar-i-Hasiin shaad  baad". Variety is the spice of life and Urdu has plenty of spice and  shiiriinii!
> 
> Just as the dear members of this forum, including you, I'm sure, had discussed once, to the enrichment of my knowledge, zabaan-e Urduu-ye mu3alla' refers to the moving baazaar, fragrant with scents and spices. Which combined, result in multi-faceted shiiriinii, of which, you are a connoisseur. The point is, some readers may say, 'itr kii mahak kaa baawarchii xaane meN kyaa kaam.
> 
> mundarajah-i-zail  and mundarajah-i-baalaa are fine. I know the izaafat is often missed  and I have no problem with that either. This is because we end up with  the equivalents of "listed below" and "listed above" instead of "llisted  of below" and "listed of above". We already have "shaah-jahaan" in  place of "shaah-i-jahaan", don't we? There are plenty more such  examples.
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
> 
> I don't think you can say with certainty that there is no izaafat in "muqtadirah-i[qaumii]-zabaan"*.  Let's remove the adjective and just deal with the two nouns. You will  agree that "muqtadirah-i-zabaan" (authority of language/language  authority) makes more sense as far as Urdu is concerned than  "muqtadirah-zabaan" (authority language). Now, I feel "zabaan  muqtadirah" is much more acceptable if we are planning on removing the  izaafat. qaumii zabaan muqtadirah would then be perfectly acceptable.
> 
> What was my intention to state was that I definitely employ _izaafat_ here, but it may be stamped by someone as purist approach. All of your analysis is perfect, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no _izaafat_ in this proper noun, which designates an institution. In the meantime I have come across a reference I hope will be good in all aspects, and, not the least, enjoyable to listen to. Please look up youtube iftikhar arif, urdu poet, scholar 02 post by... and listen at 08:07. As the chairperson of the concerned institution, and a poet, and a native ahl-e zabaan, lakhnavii...
> 
> I  would love the compound fomation of Sanskrit to be part of Urdu. It  would be nice if compounds are formed that fit in with the genius of the  language and its ultimate source, Sanskrit. I would have no problem  with "sindh-daryaa-vaadii" in place of "vaadii-i-daryaa-i-sindh" (Indus  River Valley).
> 
> Frankly speaking, I share your aspirations. And I think this common reader I mentioned, puts it into practice.
> 
> * This is equivalent to "kitaab-i-surx-rang" in case you think "muqtadirah-i-qaumii-zabaan" is wrong.


----------



## Qureshpor

> What was my intention to state was that I definitely employ _izaafat_  here, but it may be stamped by someone as purist approach. All of your  analysis is perfect, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no _izaafat_  in this proper noun, which designates an institution. In the meantime I  have come across a reference I hope will be good in all aspects, and,  not the least, enjoyable to listen to. Please look up youtube iftikhar  arif, urdu poet, scholar 02 post by... and listen at 08:07. As the  chairperson of the concerned institution, and a poet, and a native ahl-e  zabaan, lakhnavii...




marrish SaaHib, I would suggest that the izaafat has been gobbled up but it *is* there, just as it is there in "shah jahaan". I would still say that without the understanding that there *is* an izaafat after "muqtadirah", the construction would not make sense. I might be wrong. If it is not there, then IMHO, "jahaan-shaah" and "qaumii-zabaan--muqtadirah" would be more appropriate.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor SaHib, I'm really not convinced whether it *is* there or can be supposed to be there. Logically, it *could be* there, and I asserted you in the previous posts that I would sleep better, were it really there. Still, I will be very happy with an irrefutable proof that *it's not* there, as it fits my theory... Consider listening to the first two words of the following youtube muqtadra qaumi zaban urdu d.anwar books... Wikipedia (of course not a reliable source), some advertisements and articles transcribe it *without*.


----------



## Qureshpor

I did listen to this video yesterday. Let us agree to disagree. As a parting thought, let me provide you with a place name in District Gujarat of Pakistan. "shaah-jahaaniyaaN". You will no doubt know what the word means (King of Earth-dwellers, i.e God). Now, at one point this must have been "shaah-i-jahaaniyaaN". I know that the construction you are talking about is in its infancy compared with "shaah-jahaan" but is it not possible that the pro- "muqtadirah qaumii-zabaan" people are merely following the "shaah-jahaan" pattern?


----------



## marrish

I'm really guessing and am open to anything, it's a really nice example you provided! I have one more: first without _izaafats_: انجمن ترقی اردو _anjuman taraqqii urduu_, then, _anjuman taraqqi-yi urduu_ (second common on the net) and then, which I would say it;s most strictly following the rules _anjuman-e taraqqii-yi urduu (exactly how I'd say it in Farsi style)_ (almost non-existent on the net). See: http://www.anjumantaraqqiurduhind.org/. I'm gaining certainty that provided _izaafat_ would be there _(anjuman-e)_ it would surely be transcribed in the upper left corner, where we find the romanized and the _nagarized_ transliteration.


----------



## Qureshpor

I think you are hinting that you are observing an evolutionary process whereby the izaafat is heading towards "goristaan"! I would take anything from the net with a huge pinch of salt unless of course you know the author to be a reliable authority. I would guess and hopefully an intelligent guess that what you are seeing has its basis in:

1) Urdu font computer technology probably still leaves a lot to be desired. This includes the provision for the izaaat. I have just answerd a query from a Persian perspective. I typed biimaarii muhlik in Urdu/Persian but did n't know (and don't know) how to type an izaafat. But to make amends, I typed in Roman along side to indicate the izaafat.

2) People are too lazy to include the izaafat , both in Urdu and Roman and perhaps some might even be ignorant of it.

3) May be there is a "school of thought", that this is totally unnecessary.


----------



## marrish

You have expressed very aptly the point I'm thinking about. I'm merely noticing a process but I'm really walking in the darkness! Chashm-e bad duur, I don't wish such fate for our productive izaafat. 
4) I risk saying izaafat in longer-than-two-word-compounds drops out;
5) especially in proper names;
6) under kharii bolii way of thinking?
7) or English?

So interesting scenarios!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> 1) Urdu font computer technology probably still leaves a lot to be desired. This includes the provision for the izaaat. I have just answerd a query from a Persian perspective. *I typed biimaarii muhlik in Urdu/Persian but did n't know (and don't know) how to type an izaafat.* But to make amends, I typed in Roman along side to indicate the izaafat.



Here you are: بیمارئ مھلک


----------



## marrish

Please take this expression under consideration. Is there an izaafat construction (I am writing consciously 'construction' because normally when referring to an -e (-i) sound following a word in a nominal - nominal- adjectival compound, I would use the term _zer for Urdu.
here I mean the zer after the second word.

وزیرِ اعضم پاکیستان_


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Please take this expression under consideration. Is there an izaafat construction (I am writing consciously 'construction' because normally when referring to an -e (-i) sound following a word in a nominal - nominal- adjectival compound, I would use the term _zer for Urdu.
> here I mean the zer after the second word.
> 
> وزیرِ اعضم پاکیستان_



Firstly, if I was marking your "paper", I would award you only 33.33% of the marks as you have got the spellings of two out of the three words completely wrong!!

I would write it as وزیر اعظم پاکستان and have a zer below both vaziir and a3zam!


----------



## marrish

The purpose of posting to this forum is to take and to give. 
Now, obviously in the hasted reply I misspelled ظ for ض. I'm going to edit it. And, thanks.
As the main theme of this thread is _zer _I have definitely typed it, although it's not visible. You can copy and paste the text in a text editor and make the size of the font bigger to be convinced that I did it.


----------



## marrish

I'm refraining from editing as you have already corrected what was to be corrected.

Edit: for the rest, I have purposedly not typed a zer below (or after) a3zam. This was my point to be commented.


----------



## omlick

I am impressed that my simple inquiry of how to transliterate the CRULP online dictionary translation of "Austerity Program" has caused such a deep conversation relating to the izaafat.  As a learner I find the izaafat to be a big problem because sometimes even though it is not detectable visually in CRULP definitions I wonder if I should put it in there for the Hndi transliteration.  

Thanks for giving me the correct Hindi spelliing Marrish and thanks for the reminder about the use of the izaafat for the expression Qureshpor.  I will pay more attention to the izaafat issue in the CRULP dictionary output.


----------



## marrish

Your welcome, Omlick! I believe the issue of izaafat hasn't been finally decided yet, and there is still much to be discussed about. So the thread you opened is still alive and kicking.


----------

