# Urdu: میری جان کو رو رہے ہوں گے



## Gope

Friends, what does 'meri jaan ko ro rahe hoNge' mean here:
ایک مقام پر کرم بخش نے تیز تیز ہاتھ مار کر لمبی گھاس دَرانْتی سے کاٹنے اور چھوٹی گھاس کھرپے سے کھودنے کا گُر مجھے سکھایا اور حکم دیا۔ "جلدی جلدی گھاس کی ایک پِنڈ کھود لو۔ ڈنگر بھوکے کھڑے *میری جان کو رو رہے ہوں گے*۔"۔

Thanks.


----------



## Qureshpor

At one place Karam Baxsh moved his hands swiftly and taught me the art of cutting long grass with a scythe and digging up short grass with a scraper and then issued the command. "Quickly dig up a bundle of grass. *The cattle must be restless, starving and cursing me".*


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> At one place Karam Baxsh moved his hands swiftly and taught me the art of cutting long grass with a scythe and digging up short grass with a scraper and then issued the command. "Quickly dig up a bundle of grass. *The cattle must be restless, starving and cursing me".*



There are a couple of Punjabi words in this sentence. "panD" (a bale/large bundle) and "DaNgar" (cattle).

جلدی جلدی گھاس کی ایک پِنڈ کھود لو۔ ڈنگر بھوکے کھڑے*میری جان کو رو رہے ہوں گے۔*


----------



## Gope

Qureshpor said:


> There are a couple of Punjabi words in this sentence. "panD" (a bale/large bundle) and "DaNgar" (cattle).
> 
> جلدی جلدی گھاس کی ایک پِنڈ کھود لو۔ ڈنگر بھوکے کھڑے*میری جان کو رو رہے ہوں گے۔*


شکریہ قریشپور صاحب


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Qureshpor said:


> There are a couple of Punjabi words in this sentence. "panD" (a bale/large bundle) and "DaNgar" (cattle).
> 
> جلدی جلدی گھاس کی ایک پِنڈ کھود لو۔ ڈنگر بھوکے کھڑے*میری جان کو رو رہے ہوں گے۔*



*Dangar* at least is recognized by reliable dictionaries as a proper Urdu word.


----------



## Gope

Cilquiestsuens said:


> *Dangar* at least is recognized by reliable dictionaries as a proper Urdu word.


Maybe (far) less frequent than maveshii?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Gope said:


> Maybe (far) less frequent than maveshii?



An Urdu word is an Urdu word, whether it is frequent or not.

There are other synonyms to this word, by the way:

_*maal, chau-paayah, mavaashii, maveshii*_, *Dangar*, *Dhor* or the parallelism* maal maveshii.* I am not sure I can tell which ones of these words are frequent which ones are not. And by the way all these words are also used in Punjabi.


As for the word *Dangar* it  definitely has a different flavor when used in Punjabi, as it is one of this common and funny expressions used for 'uncouth, crude people'.


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> *Dangar* at least is recognized by reliable dictionaries as a proper Urdu word.


Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, as a Punjabi speaker, this is not the first time I've been "caught out" in my life deeming a certain word to be Punjabi when it also exists in Urdu. As you 've indicated, its infrequency is neither here nor there. However (you knew this was coming!), the two reliable dictionaries compiled by venerable Delhi gentlemen do not have "DaNgar" in them, neither does is it found in the dictionary of the equally if not more venerable gentleman from the "Green and pleasant land". I was certainly aware of Dhor-DaNgar as a compound existing in Urdu but not on it own. It could well be Urdu as well as you have indicated. I sometimes wonder if Professor Sherani in his "Punjab meN Urdu" should be taken much more seriously than he has been.

You may be aware of a "Classic" poem known as "Jogii", written by Khushii Muhammad Naazir during pre-partition times. Here is a couplet from this poem. (By the way, he was a Punjabi)

http://www.prongs.org/jogi/index.html

vuh josh junuuN ke zor hu’e insaan bhii DaNgar-Dhor hu’e
bachhoN kaa hai qatl ravaa Jogii buuRhoN kaa hai KHuun hibaa Jogii


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Qureshpor said:


> Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, as a Punjabi speaker, this is not the first time I've been "caught out" in my life deeming a certain word to be Punjabi when it also exists in Urdu. As you 've indicated, its infrequency is neither here nor there.



You're not the first one I caught in the act  Urdu share many words with Punjabi and those words are systematically denied any Urduness. It is a big loss. 



Qureshpor said:


> However (you knew this was coming!), the two reliable dictionaries compiled by venerable Delhi gentlemen do not have "DaNgar" in them




Well, _*Fiiroz ul Lughaat*_ is much less prescriptive than the two you mentioned and it has the word. 

Moreover, the site I linked to gave the following reference for the word.



> تحریراً سب سے پہلے 1635ء کو "بیاض مراثی" میں مستعمل ملتا ہے



I couldn't find this book online, but it seems it is available from NUML's library (if you chance to go there...)

The word is also present in Hindi dictionaries but with a long aa as *Daangar* (डाँगर)

Since *Dangar*'s Urduness is no longer in question I suggest we do some research about *piND/paND* and see whether under its Punjabi *khol* this word doesn't hide more than meets the eye.


NOTE: _*Dangar*_ also appears in the _*Darsii Urduu Lughat*_ published by the _*Muqtadirah-e qaumii zubaan*_, Islamabad.


----------



## HZKhan

Cilquiestsuens said:


> You're not the first one I caught in the act  Urdu share many words with Punjabi and those words are systematically denied any Urduness. It is a big loss.



امام بخش ناسخ کے زمانے سے اردو زبان و ادب میں مقامی الفاظ کو ترک کرنے کا رجحان جاری ہے۔ 'ڈنگر' کو بھی اسی رجحان کا شکار سمجھنا چاہیے۔ اور اب فی زماننا لوگوں کو 'ڈنگر' میں اردوپن نہیں، بلکہ 'مویشی' میں اردوپن نظر آتا ہے۔
 مجھ سے میری ذاتی رائے پوچھی جائے تو مجھے اس رجحان سے مسئلہ نہیں، اور نہ ہی ڈنگر لفظ کے متروکات میں شامل ہو جانے کو میں اردو زبان و ادب کے لیے کوئی نقصان دہ چیز سمجھتا ہوں۔

ویسے میں جس جگہ رہتا ہوں، وہاں میں نے چند موقعوں پر اسے گنوار اور جاہل کے معنوں میں استعمال ہوتے سنا ہے۔​


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Pakistani Khan said:


> امام بخش ناسخ کے زمانے سے اردو زبان و ادب میں مقامی الفاظ کو ترک کرنے کا  رجحان جاری ہے۔ 'ڈنگر' کو بھی اسی رجحان کا شکار سمجھنا چاہیے۔ اور اب فی  زماننا لوگوں کو 'ڈنگر' میں اردوپن نہیں، بلکہ 'مویشی' میں اردوپن نظر آتا  ہے۔
> مجھ سے میری ذاتی رائے پوچھی جائے تو مجھے اس رجحان سے مسئلہ نہیں، اور نہ  ہی ڈنگر لفظ کے متروکات میں شامل ہو جانے کو میں اردو زبان و ادب کے لیے  کوئی نقصان دہ چیز سمجھتا ہوں۔
> 
> ویسے میں جس شہر میں رہتا ہوں، وہاں میں نے چند موقعوں پر اسے گنوار اور جاہل کے معنوں میں استعمال ہوتے سنا ہے۔​



حضرت، 
 سچ تو یہ ہے کہ لفظ 'ڈنگر' شہراورصفائی پسند اردو دانوں کے ہاتھوں شکار  بنا نہ بنتا نظر آ رہا ہے، جس کا ثبوت، اس کی اردو زبان کی ہرحالیہ لغت میں  شمولیت بھی دیتی ہے، اور آپ کی خود کی گواہی بھی۔۔۔



> ویسے میں جس شہر میں رہتا ہوں، وہاں میں نے چند موقعوں پر اسے گنوار اور جاہل کے معنوں میں استعمال ہوتے سنا ہے۔





ویسے احقر کو لگتا ہے کہ 'ڈنگر' نہیں، بلکہ  لفظ 'ڈھور' متروکات میں شامل ہو رہا ہے یا ممکن ہے ہو چکا ہو۔ بہرحال، مجھے افسوس اس لئے  ہورہا ہے کہ لفظ 'ڈھور' ہو یا 'ڈنگر' دونوں میں دیہات کی بو آ رہی ہے  ان میں دم ہے، جان ہے، طاقت ہے قرابت ہے ، ان پرانہی لوگوں کی زبان کا رنگ ہے جو  خود مال مویشی پالتے ہوتے ہیں۔ اور ہاں یہ عرض کرتا چلوں کہ اس قبیل کے  الفاظ کی بڑی خوبی میرے نزدیک یہ بھی ہے کہ ان کے تلفظ اور معنی میں مطابقت  اور موافقت پائی جاتی ہے۔
​


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> You're not the first one I caught in the act  Urdu share many words with Punjabi and those words are systematically denied any Urduness. It is a big loss.


Well, for my part there was no intention to deny this word's "Urduness" as you've put it. I genuinely thought it was a Punjabi word per se.



Cilquiestsuens said:


> Well, _*Fiiroz ul Lughaat*_ is much less prescriptive than the two you mentioned and it has the word.


Actually, I mentioned three and I regard these three more highly than Firoz-ul-Lughaat.


Cilquiestsuens said:


> Moreover, the site I linked to gave the following reference for the word.
> 
> تحریراً سب سے پہلے 1635ء کو "بیاض مراثی" میں مستعمل ملتا ہے
> 
> I couldn't find this book online, but it seems it is available from NUML's library (if you chance to go there...)The word is also present in Hindi dictionaries but with a long aa as *Daangar* (डाँगर). Since *Dangar*'s Urduness is no longer in question I suggest we do some research about *piND/paND* and see whether under its Punjabi *khol* this word doesn't hide more than meets the eye.


We don't know in what context the word "DaNgar" was used in a book written in 1635. Besides, it does seem a bit odd that we are not able to find more recent examples. So, I am not as yet convinced that "DaNgar" on its own is used in Urdu, as an Urdu word, in language of relatively more recent vintage. "DaaNgar" is found in Platts with the same meaning but here the word under discussion is "DaNgar". 


Cilquiestsuens said:


> NOTE: _*Dangar*_ also appears in the _*Darsii Urduu Lughat*_ published by the _*Muqtadirah-e qaumii zubaan*_, Islamabad.


How is the word used in this book?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Qureshpor said:


> Well, for my part there was no intention to  deny this word's "Urduness" as you've put it. I genuinely thought it was  a Punjabi word per se.





Qureshpor said:


> Actually, I mentioned three and I regard these three more highly than Firoz-ul-Lughaat.



This is not the point. You know that _*Fiiroz ul Lughaat*_  is an extremely reliable dictionary for most matters and is somehow  less prescriptive than the older dictionaries you are thinking of (I  guess, _*Noor ul Lughat*_, _*Farhang-e Asfiyah*_ and ??? _*Naseem ul lughat*_ maybe?).

In Fiiroz, the word appears under three forms. _*Daangar *_/ _*Daangraa*_ / _*Dangar*_. Its etymology is not given as Punjabi, but 'Hindi'.




Qureshpor said:


> We don't know in what context the word "DaNgar" was used in a book written in 1635.



If  you seriously are trying to dismiss the fact that an Urdu author used  this word in his writings in 1635, simply by saying that 'we don't know  in what context the word was used', I guess you'll have to try harder.  The onus of proof is still on you.  



Qureshpor said:


> Besides,  it does seem a bit odd that we are not able to find more recent  examples. So, I am not as yet convinced that "DaNgar" on its own is used  in Urdu, as an Urdu word, in language of relatively more recent  vintage. "DaaNgar" is found in Platts with the same meaning but here the  word under discussion is "DaNgar".



You will agree with  me that since the word is not the most commonly used in Urdu for cattle,  finding a few instances should be enough. But seeing that you've  already dismissed the _*bayaaz-e marasii*_ reference without even trying to find any convincing proof, it does not bode well.

Saying that Daangar and Dangar are two different words is again fallacious. Would you even dare to say that _*rah *_and _*raah*_, or again that _*rastaa*_ and _*raastaa*_ are different words?

Here again you're alone in thinking so. The Urdu encyclopaedia clearly states that it is a shortened form of _*Daangar*_. And it just takes a bit of common sense to admit this.




Qureshpor said:


> How is the word used in this book?



Well, as we'd expect it I guess.


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> This is not the point. You know that *Fiiroz ul Lughaat* is an extremely reliable dictionary for most matters and is somehow less prescriptive than the older dictionaries you are thinking of (I guess, *Noor ul Lughat*, *Farhang-e Asfiyah* and ??? *Naseem ul lughat* maybe?).
> 
> In Fiiroz, the word appears under three forms. *Daangar* / *Daangraa* / *Dangar*. Its etymology is not given as Punjabi, but 'Hindi'.


I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick not only here but in your other statements too. My point is that the absence of "DaNgar" in Platts, the Farhang and Nur-ul-LuGhaat should tell us something. I presume, Firoz-ul-Lughaat is a more recent compilation. For this reason it is quite possible that it has included a Punjabi usage. I don't believe there is anything at all wrong with this. I merely thought it was a Punjabi word. If it turns out to be an Urdu word of khaRii-Bolii origins, it does not matter to me one tiny bit.


Cilquiestsuens said:


> If you seriously are trying to dismiss the fact that an Urdu author used this word in his writings in 1635, simply by saying that 'we don't know in what context the word was used', I guess you'll have to try harder. The onus of proof is still on you. You will agree with me that since the word is not the most commonly used in Urdu for cattle, finding a few instances should be enough. But seeing that you've already dismissed the *bayaaz-e marasii* reference without even trying to find any convincing proof, it does not bode well.


I am sorry I am simply bewildered at your conclusion. All I am suggesting is that I (we) don't know for certain if the actual usage was for "Dhor-DaNgar" or "DaNgar" alone. It would have been nice for the reference provider in the encyclopaedia to quote a small piece from there. As for onus of proof being on me, if you suggest there is water on the moon and I indicate doubt, is it up to me to go to the moon and negate your statement?


Cilquiestsuens said:


> Saying that Daangar and Dangar are two different words is again fallacious. Would you even dare to say that *rah* and *raah*, or again that *rastaa* and *raastaa* are different words? Here again you're alone in thinking so. The Urdu encyclopaedia clearly states that it is a shortened form of *Daangar*. And it just takes a bit of common sense to admit this.


This is not a fair comparison. rah is shortened to raah for reasons of prosody. I believe rastah/raastah are also possibly Persian. Is “kal” (yesterday/tomorrow) the same as “kaal” (time/famine)? Again, I did not say that “DaaNger” was not a shortened form of “DaNgar”. It may or may not be. What is true is that in the original sentence quoted, the word is “DaNgar”. As I have said earlier “DaaNgar” is found in Platts. Why is DaNgar missed out in the three main Urdu dictionaries? That is what I find surprising. Regarding the attachment you have kindly included, is it possible that this new ultra-comprehensive dictionary has decided to include this word even if it is of Punjabi background? This is just a thought. In any case, as I have said before, if DaNgar is Urdu as well, that's fine. No disagreement on this.


----------



## marrish

Turner's etymological dictionary treats this word as a Punjabi one and gives the long nasalised *ã̄ *version for Hindi*: 

"ḍaṅgara5526 *ḍaṅgara1 ʻ cattle ʼ. 2. *daṅgara -- . [Same as ḍaṅ- gara -- 2 s.v. *ḍagga -- 2 as a pejorative term for cattle]

1. K. ḍangur m. ʻ bullock ʼ, L. ḍaṅgur, (Ju.) ḍ̠ãgar m. ʻ horned cattle ʼ; *P. ḍaṅgar m. ʻ cattle ʼ*, Or. ḍaṅgara; Bi. ḍã̄gar ʻ old worn -- out beast, dead cattle ʼ, dhūr ḍã̄gar ʻ cattle in general ʼ; Bhoj.ḍāṅgar ʻ cattle ʼ; *H. ḍã̄gar, ḍã̄grā m. ʻ horned cattle ʼ.
2. H. dã̄gar m. = prec.*"  *H. matches U. obviously on most counts.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Qureshpor said:


> I am sorry I am simply bewildered at your conclusion. All I am  suggesting is that I (we) don't know for certain if the actual usage was  for "Dhor-DaNgar" or "DaNgar" alone. It would have been nice for the  reference provider in the encyclopaedia to quote a small piece from  there. As for onus of proof being on me, if you suggest there is water  on the moon and I indicate doubt, is it up to me to go to the moon and  negate your statement?



We don't ask you to go to the moon but simply to come back down to  earth. You can't brush off someone's arguments simply because they don't  go your way. You did not present any proof, logical argument or  personal research to dismiss this source. 
You might be right and they might be wrong, but to prove this, the jade's trick won't do it.




Qureshpor said:


> This is not a fair comparison. rah is  shortened to raah for reasons of prosody. I believe rastah/raastah are  also possibly Persian. Is “kal” (yesterday/tomorrow) the same as “kaal”  (time/famine)? Again, I did not say that “DaaNger” was not a shortened  form of “DaNgar”. *It may or may not be*. What is true is  that in the original sentence quoted, the word is “DaNgar”. As I have  said earlier “DaaNgar” is found in Platts.



Yes it is a fair comparison and comparing *Kal* and *Kaal*  is not. Everybody know that shortening or lengthening of vowels carry a  semantic value in Urdu - but as you see, not always; and  *kal*  and *kaal* are two distinct words: their meaning and etymology differ, while for _*rah/raah*_, *miraa/meraa*, *rastaa, raastaa*, *Dangar/Daan gar*,  we have one meaning and one etymology and just two alternate and  accepted forms of the same word. The fact that the shortening of *raah*  might have been dictated by poetic meter doesn't make a difference. On  the contrary, it only proves that when there is no possible confusion  vowels can be shortened as long as it doesn't impair understanding,  regardless of the fact that might happen in poetry or daily speech.



Qureshpor said:


> Why is DaNgar missed out in the three main  Urdu dictionaries? That is what I find surprising. Regarding the  attachment you have kindly included, is it possible that this new  ultra-comprehensive dictionary has decided to include this word even if  it is of Punjabi background? This is just a thought. In any case, as I  have said before, if DaNgar is Urdu as well, that's fine. No  disagreement on this.



Again, with all respect due, Qureshpor Sb., I'll repeat myself. The  dictionaries you quote are old and very prescriptive. They would  definitely agree with you on refusing to include words they deem  'doubtful', whether their judgement is correct or not. 

It reminds me of Ghalib's attack on *Burhaan-e Qaati3*  and all other Persian dictionaries made in the Sub Continent: they had  all been compiled from the same source; therefore the fact that you had  five dictionary telling the same thing was not making the many mistakes  they contained right. It was just giving those mistakes the appearance  of a majority opinion. It also by the way proved that even scholars were  more concerned with  *taqleed*  than *haqeeqat* or *tahqeeq*.

As for *Dangar*, if the word is included in most  modern dictionaries, I guess it is simply because it is used in Urdu,  mostly in spoken and that most modern dictionaries are less prescriptive  and slightly more descriptive than the oldies you quote.

As for the one I quoted (_*Urdu Darsi Lughat*_,  which has been since then reprinted under a different name), it is not  comprehensive at all. It is supposed to contain around 10.000 words, the  most basic ones and it is meant for school pupils.

Last of all. The phrase _Punjabi usage_ doesn't make sense to me.  Once a word is adopted - if ever this one came from Punjabi, which  remains to be proven, it is part of the language. When you use the word _*cliché*_ in English, there is no such thing as a French usage going on here, but quite the opposite, it is an English one. *Cliché* is an English word.


----------



## marrish

Cilquiestsuens said:


> Last of all. The phrase _Punjabi usage_ doesn't make sense to me.  Once a word is adopted - if ever this one came from Punjabi, which  remains to be proven, it is part of the language.


1. The entry from Turner's etymological dictionary is a sufficient proof that this word is a Punjabi word. Additionally, the entry provides the same form: *ḍ̠ãgar* m. ʻ horned cattle ʼ for Ju. which stands for "Ju. (or Jukes) A. Jukes, Dictionary of the Jatki or Western Panjábi Language. Lahore, 1900." and a similar one L. _*ḍaṅgur*_ for "Lahnda" which used to be the container name of the North-Western Punjabi dialects. Subsequently one can go on and produce entries from Punjabi dictionaries and keep on assessing them by personal knowledge. *DaNgar* being a Punjabi word is in my opinion proven beyond any doubt.

2. Whether the word in this form, when used in Urdu, has come into Urdu usage under Punjabi influence. In the case of this thread which discusses Shahabnama's language, it is also beyond doubt that the language uses many words of the Punjabi in order to add a peculiar taste to the author's descriptions of events or persons in the Punjab. On this forum there have been several threads based on this book when Punjabi (but also Kashmiri) words or phrases have been indicated. It is therefore plausible and acceptable to conclude that the Punjabi character used a word or two of Punjabi, not of Bhojpuri or Awadhi.

3. All the accessible dictionaries of Urdu and Punjabi from the period of roughly 1850-1947 have *DaaNgar* but no *DaNgar*.
4. To the contrary, the entry on Urduencyclopedia references four instances of *DaNgar* usage in Urdu:


 ( 1986 ء، جانگلوس، 21 ) 'jis DaNgar par haath pher diyaa samajh le apnaa ho gayaa'. (Shauqat Siddiqui, b. Lucknow).
 ( 1937 ء، نغمہ فردوس،  33:1 ) 'vuh josh junuuN ne (sic) _*ke*_ zor hu’e insaan bhii DaNgar-Dhor hu’e' (Khushi Muhammad Nazir)
( 1982 ء، میری داستانِ حیات، 38 ) 'tum ek DaNgar se bhii ziyaadah bewuquuf ho' (?)
and the one from "bayaaz-e-maraasii" dated 1635: The 36 Mars̤iyahs in this Ms. (elegies on the death of Imām Ḥusain, the grand-son of Prophet Muḥammad), varying in length and in metre, were written by *fourteen different poets of Lucknow during the 18th and 19th centuries.* This Bayāẓ contains 14 Mars̤iyahs by Afsurdah, 5 by Nāz̤im, 4 by Ḵẖalīq and 3 by Ḥaidarī. Also Taqī, Eḥsān, Gadā, ʿĀlam, Faṣīḥ and Qais have each contributed one Mars̤iyah and the remaining 4 are by unknown authors. Most of these elegies contain 30 to 40 stanzas, each of six lines. The first two foll were very badly damaged and are restored with tissue paper.
The first work is situated in the Punjab; the second uses 'DaNgar-Dhor' as a compound; the third one I couldn't find; the fourth one appears to be written in the 18th and 19th centuries, not in 1635...

5. On basis of these, one can conclude that the word has been used sparingly in Urdu however it cannot be ruled out that it was meant to give a Punjabi flavour to the texts.

6. Whether both forms _DaaNgar_ and _DaNgar_ have existed in Urdu? If we accept the references, we have to concede but the issue of local character of the utterances by the characters still remains. The "shortened" form might be indeed a parallel formation of KhB or other dialects, as is the case with many other words (eg. paalaa v. pallaa). For comparison, along with *DaaNgar*, it is also attested for Hindi: डंगर: पुं० [देश०] चौपाया। पशु। वि० पशुओं की तरह निर्बुद्धि या मूर्ख। _'*DaNgar*: m. [deshii] chaupaayaa. pashu. adj. pashuoN kii tarah nirbuddhi yaa muurkh.'_


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

marrish said:


> 1. The entry from Turner's etymological dictionary is a sufficient proof that this word is a Punjabi word. Additionally, the entry provides the same form: *ḍ̠ãgar* m. ʻ horned cattle ʼ for Ju. which stands for "Ju. (or Jukes) A. Jukes, Dictionary of the Jatki or Western Panjábi Language. Lahore, 1900." and a similar one L. _*ḍaṅgur*_ for "Lahnda" which used to be the container name of the North-Western Punjabi dialects. Subsequently one can go on and produce entries from Punjabi dictionaries and keep on assessing them by personal knowledge. *DaNgar* being a Punjabi word is in my opinion proven beyond any doubt.
> 
> 2. Whether the word in this form, when used in Urdu, has come into Urdu usage under Punjabi influence. In the case of this thread which discusses Shahabnama's language, it is also beyond doubt that the language uses many words of the Punjabi in order to add a peculiar taste to the author's descriptions of events or persons in the Punjab. On this forum there have been several threads based on this book when Punjabi (but also Kashmiri) words or phrases have been indicated. It is therefore plausible and acceptable to conclude that the Punjabi character used a word or two of Punjabi, not of Bhojpuri or Awadhi.
> 
> 3. All the accessible dictionaries of Urdu and Punjabi from the period of roughly 1850-1947 have *DaaNgar* but no *DaNgar*.
> 4. To the contrary, the entry on Urduencyclopedia references four instances of *DaNgar* usage in Urdu:
> 
> 
> ( 1986 ء، جانگلوس، 21 ) 'jis DaNgar par haath pher diyaa samajh le apnaa ho gayaa'. (Shauqat Siddiqui, b. Lucknow).
> ( 1937 ء، نغمہ فردوس،  33:1 ) 'vuh josh junuuN ne (sic) _*ke*_ zor hu’e insaan bhii DaNgar-Dhor hu’e' (Khushi Muhammad Nazir)
> ( 1982 ء، میری داستانِ حیات، 38 ) 'tum ek DaNgar se bhii ziyaadah bewuquuf ho' (?)
> and the one from "bayaaz-e-maraasii" dated 1635: The 36 Mars̤iyahs in this Ms. (elegies on the death of Imām Ḥusain, the grand-son of Prophet Muḥammad), varying in length and in metre, were written by *fourteen different poets of Lucknow during the 18th and 19th centuries.* This Bayāẓ contains 14 Mars̤iyahs by Afsurdah, 5 by Nāz̤im, 4 by Ḵẖalīq and 3 by Ḥaidarī. Also Taqī, Eḥsān, Gadā, ʿĀlam, Faṣīḥ and Qais have each contributed one Mars̤iyah and the remaining 4 are by unknown authors. Most of these elegies contain 30 to 40 stanzas, each of six lines. The first two foll were very badly damaged and are restored with tissue paper.
> The first work is situated in the Punjab; the second uses 'DaNgar-Dhor' as a compound; the third one I couldn't find; the fourth one appears to be written in the 18th and 19th centuries, not in 1635...
> 
> 5. On basis of these, one can conclude that the word has been used sparingly in Urdu however it cannot be ruled out that it was meant to give a Punjabi flavour to the texts.
> 
> 6. Whether both forms _DaaNgar_ and _DaNgar_ have existed in Urdu? If we accept the references, we have to concede but the issue of local character of the utterances by the characters still remains. The "shortened" form might be indeed a parallel formation of KhB or other dialects, as is the case with many other words (eg. paalaa v. pallaa). For comparison, along with *DaaNgar*, it is also attested for Hindi: डंगर: पुं० [देश०] चौपाया। पशु। वि० पशुओं की तरह निर्बुद्धि या मूर्ख। _'*DaNgar*: m. [deshii] chaupaayaa. pashu. adj. pashuoN kii tarah nirbuddhi yaa muurkh.'_





Thank you very much marrish Sb!

 This is a very good piece of research and it answers in a comprehensive manner most of the questions raised before.  

I just wonder how you have found all the references on Urduencyclopaedia. I wasn't aware it was there!


----------



## marrish

You are welcome and I hope this DaNgar discussion is slowly coming to an end  For the references on UE you should just scroll down to the bottom of the page... Now let me share something which I have come across today. Not only it strongly emphasises the Punjabi usage but also confirms what I as an Urdu speaker can say about this word. It is not an original Urdu literary word. I have asked some friends who don't know Punjabi but they said it was Punjabi, not Urdu. A funny thing was that one of them when repeating the word said 'D*aa*Ngar' involuntary which was the final proof for me of the normal Urdu form.

 اجہی کیڑی گل ہے جو گذرے باٹھ ورہےیاں توں دکھنی پنجاب وچ بندہ تے ڈنگر اک چھپڑ توں پانی پی رہے نیں ۔
_ajehii keRii gall he jo guzre baaTh varheyaaN toN dakkhnii paNjaab vich *bandah te Dangar* ik chhappaR toN paaNii pii rahe neN.

_It is a typical Punjabi usage of this word that is in the sense of 'animal', not exactly 'cattle', as juxtaposed with 'humans'. In Urdu it is not the case. You'll rather go for _insaan-o-Haiwaan_ or like this.

Another quite deep going description is a legal commentary on "Cattle-tresspassing Act" in Eastern Punjabi (only transliteration since I can't copy it in the original script). Well, DaNgar or even DaaNgar won't belong there in an Urdu legal text.

aNgrezii dii DikshanriiyaaN mutaabak DaNgar daa arath hai pashuudhan ate naal paaltuu gokaa maal, jis vich shaamal han gauuuaaN, balad, saahan vahiRkaa. vachhiaaN ate vachhiiyaaN nuuN is shabad vich shaanal nahiiN kiitaa jaaNdaa. jadoN vidhaan maNDal kise aikT vich Dangar shabad dii vartoN kardaa hai taaN us laii zaruurii nahiiN ki gauu shabad us vich zaruur rakhe. gujraat raaj banaam bhaarvaaR vajaa dhaaraa (1972, 13 gujraat aikT R 792 vich gujraat uchch adaalat anusaar pravidhaanak arath nirNRe daa ih jaaNRiaaN pachhaaNRiyaaN sidhaant hai ki paribhaasha duaaraa guNRaae arath kise shabad nuuN aam bol chaal vich lae jaaNde us de arthaaN toN vaNchit nahiiN karde is laii kise shabad nuuN jadoN paribhaashaa duaaraa vistrit arath de vii ditte jaaNR tad vii us de aam bol chaal de arath kaaim rahiNde han.


*paNjaabii vich DaNgar daa arath mukaablatan vishaal hai. is vich gokaa, maajhaa ate bhaar DhoNR vaale pashuu vii aa jaaNde han. jaanvar jaaN haivaan moTe arthaaN vich vartiaaN jaaNdaa shabad hai jis vich saare pashuu aa jaaNde han. DaNgar Dhor us de mukaable vich siimit arthaaN vaalaa shabad hai.* kaanuuNnii paribhaashaa nuuN chhaD ke sadhaaran bol chaal vich haathii dii giNRtii DaNgar vich nahiiN kiitaa jaa sakdii.


----------



## Gope

marrish SaaHib, your painstaking research can serve as a model that bases its conclusion on painstaking collection of data. I, standing on the sidelines, am enormously benefited. Thank you very much.


----------

