# Urdu-Hindi: The aspirate mh



## Qureshpor

When flowers begin to wither, the word for this process is "kumhlaanaa" or do you pronounce it as "kumlaanaa"? I feel as if the "mh" aspirate's usage is diminishing in Urdu. What do you think? Can you think of other "mh" words in Urdu-Hindi?

The catalyst to this thread is the exquisite poem by Akhtar Sherani entitled "ai 3ishq hameN barbaad nah kar" in which there is a line "kum(h)laa'e hu'e phuuloN kii taraH, kum(h)laa'e hu'e se rahte haiN". This poem was the subject of a conversation I was having with a dear friend, only last night. A very small section of the poem is sung by the one and only Nayyara Noor and it is available on Youtube. I like the stage version.."Ae Ishq hamein Barbaad Na kar". But if you wish to read the complete nazm, then here it is in all its glory.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt...d22?lnk=gst&q=akhtar+sherani#9dc4f1c39d84cd22


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Can you think of other "mh" words in Urdu-Hindi?



Yes, I can, and these words are everyday words: _tu*mh*eN_, _tu*mh*aaraa_, _tu*mh*aarii_ and _ku*mh*aar_ too.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Yes, I can, and these words are everyday words: _tu*mh*eN_, _tu*mh*aaraa_, _tu*mh*aarii_ and _ku*mh*aar_ too.



Yes, of course. We do have them as part of our everyday speech!! kumhaar is a good example where the "h" is definitely there. Thank you. But for kumhlaanaa it seems that kumlaanaa is more popular. On a connected note "lh" can perhaps come under the same category. "kulhaaRii" is one example.


----------



## marrish

I have looked up the word in Platts and there are three forms I have found: _kumhlaanaa_, _kumlaanaa_ and _kumhilaanaa_. The last one is dialectical.

Re. ''lh'', I don't recall any other instance.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Yes, of course. We do have them as part of our everyday speech!! kumhaar is a good example where the "h" is definitely there. Thank you. But for kumhlaanaa it seems that kumlaanaa is more popular. On a connected note "lh" can perhaps come under the same category. "kulhaaRii" is one example.


 ِI wonder if _mehNdii _has its origin in this mh, as in _mheNdii_?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> ِI wonder if _mehNdii _has its origin in this mh, as in _mheNdii_?


I don't think so UM SaaHib. Besides, is n't this word "officially" supposed to be "miNhdii"?

H منہدي मिंहदी _měṅhdī_, s.f. = مينہدي _meṅhdī_, q.v.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> I don't think so UM SaaHib. Besides, is n't this word "officially" supposed to be "miNhdii"?
> 
> H منہدي मिंहदी _měṅhdī_, s.f. = مينہدي _meṅhdī_, q.v.



This is what I found - and this form does have the ''mh'' as UM SaaHib suggested:

H 
*مہيندا म्हेंदा  *_*mheṅdā*, s.m. (dialec.) A variety of the _meṅhdī_, q.v.

_


----------



## UrduMedium

Interesting. Thanks QP and marris saahibaan. 
_
mehNdii/mihNdii_ vs _miNhdii _is an interesting question. At least the way it is written in Urdu, the h precedes the N. مہندی


----------



## greatbear

I pronounce it with the "mh": "kumhaar" is a good example of another such word by marrish. "lamhaa" is another example.


----------



## Qureshpor

Another word that comes to mind with "mh" is "saamne/saamhne". Again, in Urdu, the second form appears to be dropping out.


----------



## marrish

You are most probably right to state that the aspirated form is vanishing - I have never ever seen the aspirated version on paper, apart from in Platts, who gives this alternate pronunciation as far as I can remember. I have heard it in speech but it was mostly dialectical.


----------



## greatbear

I have never heard or seen "saamhne": didn't even know it existed!


----------



## lcfatima

I have never heard of this phenomenon, either. I always thought of mh as a consonant combination and not one phoneme. Was it ever represented in devnagri as a single phoneme?

H deletion is very common in the dialects of Urdu that I typically hear spoken around me. I will have to pay more attention to mh's. Mehndi is mendi, tumhaara is tumaara. I must say I have never heard lamhaa as lama/lamma, though. Maybe because it is from Arabic (lam7ah)?


----------



## marrish

lcfatima said:


> I must say I have never heard lamhaa as lama/lamma, though. Maybe because it is from Arabic (lam7ah)?


You have hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> I have never heard of this phenomenon, either. I always thought of mh as a consonant combination and not one phoneme. Was it ever represented in devnagri as a single phoneme?
> 
> H deletion is very common in the dialects of Urdu that I typically hear spoken around me. I will have to pay more attention to mh's. Mehndi is mendi, tumhaara is tumaara. I must say I have never heard lamhaa as lama/lamma, though. Maybe because it is from Arabic (lam7ah)?



lamHah has nothing to do with the mh consonant being discussed in this thread. We have two separate syllables lam (miim is saakin) and Hah. As far as I know, there have not been seperate lh or mh phonemes in the Devanagri system. They are written "half l" and "half m" (without the a) followed by a ma. I had also thought on the same lines that if lh and mh are seperate phonemes, then they ought to have seperate characters to represent them (at least in Devanagri). But, I have been told by someone in the know that this is not necessarily accurate way of thinking about this phenomenon.


----------



## marrish

If one wishes to take the argument of the script (Nagari) to ascertain whether these combinations (mh, nh, lh) are or were treated as one phoneme, then the fact that there are no separate signs for them in the syllabary would seemingly lead us to the conclusion that they were not considered this way. Still, if one notes the fact that the script was originally meant for depicting Sanskrit, in which there are probably no ''mh-like'' sounds, the above conclusion is not valid.

It is perhaps important to note, additionally, that the words which are mentioned in this thread are written in Hindi with the help of ligatures:

तुम्हें _tu-mheN _
तुम्हारा_ tu-mhaa-raa_ 
कुम्हार _ku-mhaa-r__a_
कुम्हलाना _ku-mha-laa-naa_ 
चूल्हा _chuu-lhaa_
कुल्हाड़ी _ku-lhaa-Rii _
कुल्हड़ _ku-lha-R__a_

and NOT:
तुमहें _tu-m__a__-heN_
तुमहारा _tu-m__a__-haa-raa_
कुमहार _ku-m__a__-haa-r_
कुमहलाना _ku-m__a__-h__a__-laa-naa_
चूलहा _chuu-l__a__-haa_
कुलहाड़ी _ku-l__a__-haa-Rii_
कुलहड़ _ku-l__a__-ha-R

EDIT: just saw QP's mention the ligatures!_


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> If one wishes to take the argument of the script (Nagari) to ascertain whether these combinations (mh, nh, lh) are or were treated as one phoneme, then the fact that there are no separate signs for them in the syllabary would seemingly lead us to the conclusion that they were not considered this way. Still, if one notes the fact that the script was originally meant for depicting Sanskrit, in which there are probably no ''mh-like'' sounds, the above conclusion is not valid.
> 
> It is perhaps important to note, additionally, that the words which are mentioned in this thread are written in Hindi with the help of ligatures:
> 
> तुम्हें _tu-mheN _
> तुम्हारा_ tu-mhaa-raa_
> कुम्हार _ku-mhaa-r__a_
> कुम्हलाना _ku-mha-laa-naa_
> चूल्हा _chuu-lhaa_
> कुल्हाड़ी _ku-lhaa-Rii _
> कुल्हड़ _ku-lha-R__a_
> 
> and NOT:
> तुमहें _tu-m__a__-heN_
> तुमहारा _tu-m__a__-haa-raa_
> कुमहार _ku-m__a__-haa-r_
> कुमहलाना _ku-m__a__-h__a__-laa-naa_
> चूलहा _chuu-l__a__-haa_
> कुलहाड़ी _ku-l__a__-haa-Rii_
> कुलहड़ _ku-l__a__-ha-R
> 
> EDIT: just saw QP's mention the ligatures!_


marrish SaaHib, I can not comment on Sanskrit but your two tables are an admirable way to explain this phenomenon. People may think that the word is "tum-haaraa" but as you have quite rightly indicated, it is tu-mhaaraa. And same principle applies to your other examples. Thanks.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> marrish SaaHib, I can not comment on Sanskrit but your two tables are an admirable way to explain this phenomenon. People may think that the word is "tum-haaraa" but as you have quite rightly indicated, it is tu-mhaaraa. And same principle applies to your other examples. Thanks.


You are most welcome, it is just that I had given it a bit of thought when I was supposed to be in bed!


----------



## marrish

QP SaaHib, it reminded me of another one: 

*H **مهارا म्हारा *_*mhārā, pron. (dialec.)=**merā, 'my, mine,' q.v.
*
_Look how beautifully the _du-chashmii_ _he_ follows the _miim_.

Edit: In my Hindi dictionary I have even found *''tumh'' pron. (desii) = 'tum'*


----------



## greatbear

lcfatima said:


> H deletion is very common in the dialects of Urdu that I typically hear spoken around me. I will have to pay more attention to mh's. Mehndi is mendi, tumhaara is tumaara. I must say I have never heard lamhaa as lama/lamma, though. Maybe because it is from Arabic (lam7ah)?



Strange; I've never heard "mendi" or "tumaara"! Is it common among Urdu dialects? What I have heard is "tumhraa" (तुम्हरा) as well as "mhaar" (म्हार) (the latter esp. in Rajasthan) - both are of course not standard Hindi, but regionalisms. "Lamhaa" is meanwhile written as "लम्हा" in Hindi.


----------



## JaiHind

QURESHPOR said:


> When flowers begin to wither, the word for this process is "kumhlaanaa" or do you pronounce it as "kumlaanaa"?



I can speak for Hindi and it is always "kumhlaanaa". हिंदी में मैंने तो यह हमेशा "कुम्हलाना" ही सुना है. "कुम्लाना" तो कभी नहीं सुना. 

यह काव्य में अक्सर प्रयुक्त हुआ है, विशेषकर प्रेम कविताओं में


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> "Lamhaa" is meanwhile written as "लम्हा" in Hindi.



I'm attaching a tiny scan from my authoritative Hindi dictionary. View attachment 10602


----------



## JaiHind

How about: 

संभालना
संभलना


----------



## marrish

JaiHind said:


> How about:
> 
> संभालना
> संभलना


I don't see ''mh'' there?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I don't see ''mh'' there?



marrish SaaHib, this is a good example. I could be wrong but my understanding is that these words did exist in the samhalnaa/samhaalnaa form!


----------



## marrish

^This was my point when I sent this question. The same applies for example to none less than _bhaiNs_. Platts suggests that there is also a dialectical form _''mhaiNs''_. Also our _kumhaar_ has as meaning _kumbh-kaar_.


----------



## JaiHind

Good that you pointed out 

Here are the variations of the same words which have it in them 

सम्हालना 
सम्हलना


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Interesting. Thanks QP and marris saahibaan.
> _
> mehNdii/mihNdii_ vs _miNhdii _is an interesting question. At least the way it is written in Urdu, the h precedes the N. مہندی


I agree with your second point. Rasheed Ahmed Khan in his "Urdu kaise likhii jaa'e" suggests that this word ought to be written as "miNhdii". He is a UP-vaalaa. It is obvious that no one has paid any heed to him with regard to any of his suggestions which is a pity! It is a very interesting book and he makes a lot of sense.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Strange; I've never heard "mendi" or "tumaara"!


I hear often _meNd*h*ii_! ''tumaara'' can be influenced by Bengali background, perhaps?


----------



## Qureshpor

Interesting observation, marrish SaaHib. For the benefit of those friends who are not acquainted with this script, the word is written as "lam*a*haa".


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Interesting observation, marrish SaaHib. For the benefit of those friends who are not acquainted with this script, the word is written as "lam*a*haa".


I think you are relating to post #23, aren't you?

Edit: No, you weren't. It was post 22, I'm sorry.


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> Another word that comes to mind with "mh" is "saamne/saamhne". Again, in Urdu, the second form appears to be dropping out.


On the net both in Urdu and Hindi, saamne is the much more frequent form even though saamhne is in existence.


----------



## Qureshpor

Going back to the bible (no not Platts!), please see "saa*mh*ne" in chapter v verse 16

"isii tarah tumhaarii roshnii aadmiyoN ke saa*mh*ne chamke taa ki vuh tumhaare nek kaamoN ko dekheN aur tumhaare baap kii, jo aasmaan par hai, ta'riif kareN."


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> For the benefit of those friends who are not acquainted with this script, the word is written as "lam*a*haa".



Utterly misleading statement. Even if you were to write as per marrish's dictionary, the word would still be pronounced "lamhaa", not "lam*a*haa": Nagari script often gives no indication where there is a schwa and where not. Let's take another example, and why to go far since we have one in this thread itself: the word संभलना: it's pronounced "sambhalnaa", not "sambhal*a*naa"!
Meanwhile, लम्हा gives me more than 100,000 results on Google: mmm, not bad for something that is supposed to be not existing!


----------

