# Urdu: typing/writing an izaafat with words ending in ا ,ی ,ہ



## Alfaaz

*Background:* It seems there are a few different ways of representing such izaafats. 

*Questions:* How do you usually _type and write _izaafats with words ending in ا ,ی ,ہ? Which of the following (if any) would be considered correct for _afsaanah-e-shauq_ and could members provide the others in Urdu script?

_afsaanah-e-shauq_: افسانۂِ شوق , افسانہِ شوق , افسانہ ئے شوق , افسانہءِ شوق

_intihaa-e-shauq_, _garmi-e-xuun_, _etc._


----------



## marrish

افسانہٴ شوق، اِنتِہائے شوق، گرمیٴ خون، ماہٴ نَو
_(edit: the last one turned out to be incorrect although this confused spelling can be found even in print - not to be followed!) 
_I know of one friend who would write _intihaa-e-shauq_ in a different way.


----------



## Chhaatr

Could someone please explain to me why is there a hamza over "he" in the above post.  I understand "hamza" is used when there are two consecutive vowel sounds.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz SaaHib, I am grateful to you for starting this thread and with your and the moderators' leave, I would like to cover this subject in detail and invite Urdu speakers and those with interest in Urdu writing to chip in and offer their views.

Firstly to answer your question.
afsaanah-i-shauq = افسانہءِ شوق

However, the hamza (with an optional zer below it) should be just above the "he" but our typing conventions don't always allows this. 

Now a bit of back ground to the izaafat. This, as you would know, originally comes from the Arabic language. The boy's book would be: كتابُ ٱلوَلَدِ. You will notice the final "zer". It is this zer which actually gives the "kaa/ke/kii" meaning of Urdu "laRke kii kitaab". The Persian language expressed this idea by...کتابِ پسر.* Coincidentally, it is the zer again that imparts the kaa/ke/kii meaning. This construction in reality is kitaab [-i-pisar] and not [kitaab-i-] pisar.

Now, believe it or not, in the good old days the izaafat had the sound of "i" as in the way we pronounce "dil". You can hear this pronunciation in Tajik Persian and I can send a link to interested parties of a Tajik song which demonstrates this pronunciation. In time the pronunciation of the izaafat i became more like our baRii ye and this is why in Roman -e- is used by most people and the Iranians have gone a step further and pronounce dil as del (and gul as gol....which is not quite the same as our gol for round!). When the word ends with an alif, we use a baRii ye with a hamza on top but the Iranians just use the chhoTii ye.

Classical Persian had the sound equivalent to our baRii ye and in Modern Persian this has almost totally disappeared, except in the Persian of Afghanistan and the way it is represented by people from the subcontinent. 
kitaab (book) > kitaabe (a book) کتابے
A red book > کتابے سرخ
kitaabhaa (books) کتابہا > kitaabhaae (some books)کتابہائے
Some red books >  کتابہائے سرخ
The red book > کتاب ِ سرخ

The red books > کتابہائے سرخ

You will notice that there is no difference between "Some red books" and "The red books" in the way izaafat is often represented in the Urdu speaking world. But careful writers do use an alternative means. 

ہے کس قدر ہلاک ِ فریب ِ وفاے گل
بلبل کی کاروبار پہ ہیں خنده ہاے گل 

Ghalib

The following is a well known Ghalib shi3r

بیاورید گر اینجا بود زباندانے
غریبِ شہر سخنہائے گفتنی دارد

laa'o agar yahaaN hove ko'ii bhii zabaan jaan_ne vaalaa
shahr ke ajnabii ke paas *kuchh kahne-jogii baateN* haiN

Here, it could be سخنہاے گفتنی which means (the)  things worth saying as opposed to some things worth saying. What did Ghalib actually say?

To summarize:

tuu aur aaraa'ish-i-xam-i-kaakul
maiN aur andeshah-haa-i-duur-daraaz

Ghalib

افسانہءِ شوق
ماہِ نو
اندیشہ ہاے دور و دراز
انتہاے شوق
گرمیءِ خون

* A better example from the Urdu perspective might be "amiiru_lmu2miniin" اميرُٱلمؤمنين


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> افسانہٴ شوق، اِنتِہائے شوق، گرمیٴ خون، ماہٴ نَو
> I know of one friend who would write _intihaa-e-shauq_ in a different way.


 marrish SaaHib, I agree with the first two (افسانہٴ شوق، اِنتِہائے شوق) but in both _garmii-e-xuun_ / _garmiy-e-xuun _and _maah-e-nau_ we don't use the _hamza_: گرمی خون =  گرمی ِ خون and ماہ نو = ماہ ِ نو, where the _zer_ is used to denote the _izaafat_ as it is not a _diphthongal_ pronunciation, like the first two, _afsaan*a-e*-shauq_ and _intiha*a-e*-shaauq_, but گرمی خون _garmi*y-e*-xuun_ and ماہ نو _maa*h-e*-nau_.


----------



## Faylasoof

Chhaatr said:


> Could someone please explain to me why is there a hamza over "he" in the above post.  I understand "hamza" is used when there are two consecutive vowel sounds.


 Chhaatr SaaHib, I assume you are talking about this <افسانہٴ شوق _afsaan*a-e*-shauq_>. I just explained above why. If we didn't have this hamzah then it would be: افسانہ شوق = _afsaanah shauq_! Having said this, smart Urdu readers would know that this is a typo and would still manage to read it correctly as _afsaan*a-e*-shauq_.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> marrish SaaHib, I agree with the first two (افسانہٴ شوق، اِنتِہائے شوق) but in both _garmii-e-xuun_ / _garmiy-e-xuun _and _maah-e-nau_ we don't use the _hamza_: گرمی خون =  گرمی ِ خون and ماہ نو = ماہ ِ نو, where the _zer_ is used to denote the _izaafat_ as it is not a _diphthongal_ pronunciation, like the first two, _afsaan*a-e*-shauq_ and _intiha*a-e*-shaauq_, but گرمی خون _garmi*y-e*-xuun_ and ماہ نو _maa*h-e*-nau_.


Once I had the pleasure of reading a magazine entitled ''maah-e-nau'' and its title was written with a hamzah on top of ''he'', as far as I can remember!


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Once I had the pleasure of reading a magazine entitled ''maah-e-nau'' and its title was written with a hamzah on top of ''he'', as far as I can remember!


 That is interesting but for reasons I mention above we don't do it because it isn't a "diphthongal" pronunciation since the 'he' intervenes. Same for گرمی خون - again no diphthong present but only an extension of the ''ye / yaa'' sound.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof SaaHib and other friends, I would like to refer you to the poetry volume ''*silsilah-e-Gham*''.

p. 41 verse 4:*** مجریٴ یادِ حق ہے یا علیؑ _mujraa-ye-yaad-e-Haqq hai yaa 3Alii_
p. 68 v. 6: دیدہٴ تر _diida(h)=diida-e-tar_ (diphthong)
p. 63 last verse: بادہٴ جوش _baada(h)-e-josh_ (diphthong)
p. 57 v. 4:خوردہٴ برمن _xwurda(h)-e-bar-man_... (diphthong)

but....
p. 39 v. 6: ہر ایک ذرّہٴ راہِ وفا ہَےعرش پسند _har ek zarra(h)-e(diphthong)-raah-e (no diphthong!)-wafaa hai 3arsh pasand

_So I agree that _maah-e-nau_ should be written with a _zer __ماہِ نو_ whilst I tend to remain at my standpoint that izaafat after chhoTii ye (yaa) should be written with a hamzah _مجریٴ یاد، گرمیٴ خون.

And also p. 70 v. 11:_ کیفِ غم دے اور مَےٴ حُبّ تو لا مجھکو دے _kaif-e-Gham de aur mai-e-Hubb to laa mujh ko de

For *aa*-izaafat there is e.g. p. 84 v. 6 _رضائے حق ہو تو مرنا بھی زندگانی ہے_ rizaa-e-Haqq ho to marnaa bhii zindagaanii hai.

EDIT*** There appears to be an issue that the sign after 3alii doesn't show properly on all computers and there is a big square (I hope it is of the same size as the quotations). The sign which is there is a ligature, or perhaps better a symbol for 3alaihis-salaam._


----------



## Qureshpor

I believe in the "ii-i-x" formation, both variations are in vogue. 

shoxii-i-taHriir شوخئ تحریر and شوخی ِتحریر

My preference would be for the former because I believe we have "shoxii-i-" and not "shoxiy-i-". Hamid Ali Khan's compilation of "diivaan-i-Ghalib" has this format. There is a Ghazal with the matla3

rux-i-nigaar se hai soz-i-jaavidaanii-i-sham3
hu'ii hai aatash-i-gul aab-i-zindagaanii-i-sham3

where all the -ii-i- words are depicted by a hamzah.

We have the same representation in "kulliyaat-i-Iqbal". In the "i3tizaar" to "baaNg-i-daraa", his son Jaaved Iqbal writes.."kalaam-i-Iqbal ke ab tak jitne edition shaa'i3 hu'e vuh sab ke sab unhiiN pleToN se tab3 hote rahe haiN jinheN Hazrat 3allaamah marHuum ne xud apnii nigraanii meN taiyyaar karvaayaa thaa..".


----------



## marrish

Chhaatr said:


> Could someone please explain to me why is there a hamza over "he" in the above post.  I understand "hamza" is used when there are two consecutive vowel sounds.


Faylasoof SaaHib has already explained it so let me add a point. In _afsaanah-e-Gham_ the final ''-h'' remains silent and what remains for pronunciation is [_afsaana--> afsaan*a-e*-Gham_], hence _hamzah_ to indicate the two consecutive vowels. Here, unlike _maah_ (moon, month), -h is only a graphic symbol.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib and other friends, I would like to refer you to the poetry volume ''*silsilah-e-Gham*''.
> 
> p. 41 verse 4: مجریٴ یادِ حق ہے یا علیؑ _mujraa-ye-yaad-e-Haqq hai yaa 3Alii_
> p. 68 v. 6: دیدہٴ تر _diida(h)=diida-e-tar_ (diphthong)
> p. 63 last verse: بادہٴ جوش _baada(h)-e-josh_ (diphthong)
> p. 57 v. 4:خوردہٴ برمن _xwurda(h)-e-bar-man_... (diphthong)
> 
> but....
> p. 39 v. 6: ہر ایک ذرّہٴ راہِ وفا ہَےعرش پسند _har ek zarra(h)-e(diphthong)-raah-e (no diphthong!)-wafaa hai 3arsh pasand
> 
> _So I agree that _maah-e-nau_ should be written with a _zer __ماہِ نو_ whilst I tend to remain at my standpoint that izaafat after chhoTii ye (yaa) should be written with a hamzah _مجریٴ یاد، گرمیٴ خون.
> 
> And also p. 70 v. 11:_ کیفِ غم دے اور مَےٴ حُبّ تو لا مجھکو دے _kaif-e-Gham de aur mai-e-Hubb to laa mujh ko de
> 
> For *aa*-izaafat there is e.g. p. 84 v. 6 _رضائے حق ہو تو مرنا بھی زندگانی ہے_ rizaa-e-Haqq ho to marnaa bhii zindagaanii hai._


 These are very good examples and precisely what I had in mind, marrish SaaHib! The "_diphthongal_" rule becomes obvious here. _As you know I'm familiar with this work_!

It may be of interest to note that in Arabic the _hamza_ issue requires an entire chapter or two in grammar books! We are in a sense "luckier" in Urdu because often hamza is not written and these days the hamza in print gets omitted more often than not, on the net at least. This could in part be due to many software programs not catering for it (or people not being sure!). In fact, for both programs I have I can't always put a _hamza _where I need it!


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> I believe in the "ii-i-x" formation, both variations are in vogue.
> 
> shoxii-i-taHriir شوخئ تحریر and شوخی ِتحریر
> 
> My preference would be for the former because I believe we have "shoxii-i-" and not "shoxiy-i-". Hamid Ali Khan's compilation of "diivaan-i-Ghalib" has this format. There is a Ghazal with the matla3
> 
> rux-i-nigaar se hai soz-i-jaavidaanii-i-sham3
> hu'ii hai aatash-i-gul aab-i-zindagaanii-i-sham3
> 
> where all the -ii-i- words are depicted by a hamzah.
> 
> We have the same representation in "kulliyaat-i-Iqbal". In the "i3tizaar" to "baaNg-i-daraa", his son Jaaved Iqbal writes.."kalaam-i-Iqbal ke ab tak jitne edition shaa'i3 hu'e vuh sab ke sab unhiiN pleToN se tab3 hote rahe haiN jinheN Hazrat 3allaamah marHuum ne xud apnii nigraanii meN taiyyaar karvaayaa thaa..".


 QP SaaHib, I've seen this but I think it is not needed since we have the pronunciation _shoxi*y-e*-taHriir_, no diphthong. Also, the first term being  شوخی _shoxii _and not شوخئ _shoxii*'*_, i.e. no hamza (= no glottal stop), means I prefer the second (شوخی ِتحریر )form.

Edit: Just to add: In "amiiru_lmu2miniin" اميرُٱلمؤمنين we need the _hamza_ because it is a glottal stop found on the wau in the original, though most Urduphones don't bother pronouncing it and some are no longer even "printing" it on the net. They may still write by hand, of course.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> QP SaaHib, I've seen this but I think it is not needed since we have the pronunciation _shoxi*y-e*-taHriir_, no diphthong. Also, the first term being  شوخی _shoxii _and not شوخئ _shoxii*'*_, i.e. no hamza (= no glottal stop), means I prefer the second (شوخی ِتحریر )form.


I hope I have not misunderstood you Faylasoof SaaHib but I do not regard the* hamzah* as a glottal stop (in the sense it is used in amiiru_lmu2miniin). For me both depictions are valid but I prefer the izaafat in shoxii-i-taHriir to be written with a hamzah (strictly speaking with a zer underneath) instead of just the zer on its own. 

This Ghalib shi3r illustrates both  hamzah and zer usage for the izaafat.
کمال ِگرمیء سعی ِتلاش ِ دید نہ پوچه
بہ رنگ ِ خار مرے آئنے سےجوہرکهینچ


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> I hope I have not misunderstood you Faylasoof SaaHib but I do not regard the* hamzah* as a glottal stop (in the sense it is used in amiiru_lmu2miniin). For me both depictions are valid but I prefer the izaafat in shoxii-i-taHriir to be written with a hamzah (strictly speaking with a zer underneath) instead of just the zer on its own.
> 
> This Ghalib shi3r illustrates both  hamzah and zer usage for the izaafat.
> کمال ِگرمیء سعی ِتلاش ِ دید نہ پوچه
> بہ رنگ ِ خار مرے آئنے سےجوہرکهینچ



QP SaaHib, the original usage of _hamza_ is  of course a glottal stop but in Urdu we don't always use it this way but  sometime we do (below), apart from using it also for diphthong formation as illustrated in the above posts. 

Hamza in diphthong formation - above posts.

Hamza as a glottal stop (or at times as a substitute for 'ye'):

جز _juz_ - has a hamza in the original Arabic but in Urdu we neither write it nor pronounce it - no long vowel preceding it.

But, its derivative is of course _juz*2*ii_:
جزئی we both write the _hamza_ and pronounce it, i.e._ juz*2*ii_ and not _juzii_ ! So the _hamza_ is pronounced as a glottal stop in the middle of the word by us.

Take _irtiqaa_. This is written ارتقا in Urdu. As you know it is actually ارتقاء _irtiqaa*2*_ which is how we (myself and family) tend to pronounce it in _normal speech _because the ending_ hamza_ is preceded by a long vowel - the _alif _- in the original, and of course its derivative is ارتقا ئی _irtiqaa*2*ii - _always written with a _hamza_ and we also say so, as a glottal stop.  

Same for _jazaa_, wirtten as جزا  in Urdu but is of course جزأ _jazaa*2*_. Hence, جزائی _jazaa*2*ii_. Again we pronounce the _hamza_ in both for the same reasons as for _irtiqaa*2*_ above. However, one also sees it as جزایی _jazaii_, hence we have قوانین جزائی  and قوانین جزایی  - either with or without the hamza, the 'ye' and hamza _substituted one for the other_. Many other examples too.

But as for words like _garmii_, they are just that, i.e. گرمی is *garmii *and not *garmii2*. Therefore in compounds it is pronounced _garmi*y-e*-xuun_ and not _garmii*2-e*-xuun_, _the compound lacking any diphthong and additionally since the original word has no ending hamza, the compound doesn't need to have one either._

Which is why I feel this is the correct way to write the she3r of Ghalib:

کمال ِگرمی ِ سعی ِتلاش ِ دید نہ پوچه

I have seen this (as you presented):     
کمال ِگرمیء سعی ِتلاش ِ دید نہ پوچه

But what is the function of this _hamza_ in گرمیء and why omit it in سعی ?

One might as well write it as:

کمال ِگرمیء سعیء تلاش ِ دید نہ پوچه

IMHO, this is doubly wrong! What I mean is that the inclusion of _hamza_ in گرمیء  or سعیء cannot really be explained since neither have a _hamza_ to begin with. It certainly is not serving as a substitute for 'ye', as in جزایی _jazaaii_ instead of جزائی _jazaa2ii_.


----------



## marrish

I would like to say that izaafat has two forms: i/e and yi/ye, the latter when following a long vowel. _garmii_ is originally a Persian word and ye denotes a long vowel -ii which, to the best of my knowledge does not fall into the category of Arabic-derived words which can be divided in y+i. This appears to be the reason for which سعی's last ye can be treated as a semi-consonant yy or y+i and it does not need a hamzah but a zer, in contrary to garmii which forms izaafat in the following way (of course I may be wrong on this point but it is what I am quite convinced about and it explains the difference between _garmii_ and _sa3yy. garmii-ye-sa3yy-e-talaash_.

And I forgot to say that I myself do write irtiqaa2 with a hamzah, but I have to confess that I don't do it with jazaa2. maa2tam. mo2min I do. binaa2 I do. I think it is very inconsequent from my side but I have seen lots of times people write irtiqaa2 and binaa2, even on the net with the proper "hamzation". Needless to say I always pronounce them unless in speedy speech, so you and your elders are not alone.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> I would like to say that izaafat has two forms: i/e and yi/ye, the latter when following a long vowel. _garmii_ is originally a Persian word and ye denotes a long vowel -ii which, to the best of my knowledge does not fall into the category of Arabic-derived words which can be divided in y+i. This appears to be the reason for which سعی's last ye can be treated as a semi-consonant yy or y+i and it does not need a hamzah but a zer, in contrary to garmii which forms izaafat in the following way (of course I may be wrong on this point but it is what I am quite convinced about and it explains the difference between _garmii_ and _sa3yy. garmii-ye-sa3yy-e-talaash_.


 Sorry, marrish SaaHib I have to disagree with you because the way you are describing it suggests a level of stress of the ending 'ye' of _garmii - _or have I misunderstood you? I see no need for this _hamzah_.


----------



## marrish

As this thread is about the writing or typing of izaafats in those positions, hamzah is not meant to be pronounced as it is in Urdu/Arabic in certain positions the same way as one does not produce a glottal stop in ہوا where in a technical way a hamzah should be there or more pictoresque ہوئے or جائے. I'm glad we can exchange our thoughts on this subject because I can see many inconsequences or even blunders in Urdu publications, one of them being the magazine maah-e-nau.

In Persian of course the accent lies on the last syllable so garmii will be accented in this way but it is not the case of Urdu. I think that even without putting stress on ye of garmii there should be SOMETHING to denote the izaafat for those who might not be able to pronounce it promptly.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> As this thread is about the writing or typing of izaafats in those positions, hamzah is not meant to be pronounced as it is in Urdu/Arabic in certain positions the same way as one does not produce a glottal stop in ہوا where in a technical way a hamzah should be there or more pictoresque ہوئے or جائے. I'm glad we can exchange our thoughts on this subject because I can see many inconsequences or even blunders in Urdu publications, one of them being the magazine maah-e-nau.
> 
> In Persian of course the accent lies on the last syllable so garmii will be accented in this way but it is not the case of Urdu. I think that even without putting stress on ye of garmii there should be SOMETHING to denote the izaafat for those who might not be able to pronounce it promptly.


 Actually, we do pronounce the hamza when speaking normally but most wouldn't. Same as the above examples of jazaa2 and irtiqaa2 etc.  
Well, as I see it there really shouldn't be a problem in indicating an izaafat by just putting a zer after the 'ye' in _garmii_ .... and the pronunciation shouldn't be a problem either. 

I agree, this is a useful thread as we are trying to iron out our differences as best we can. Of course we shall continue to see hamza used in publications where it really doesn't need to be but at least we are getting to grips with what is going on.


----------



## marrish

I am in fact indebted for this discussion with so many prominent opinons, especially yours, but still *consuetudo altera natura est*. I can't imagine putting a *vowel* sign _zer_ with a *vowel* sign long_ ii_.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> I am in fact indebted for this discussion with so many prominent opinons, especially yours, but still *consuetudo altera natura est*. I can't imagine putting a *vowel* sign _zer_ with a *vowel* sign long_ ii_.


 marrish SaaHib, we are all humans so some might even do this ِ*  ے*  ! Errare humanum est !


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof SaaHib, I don't believe the current issue has anything remotely to do with the hamzah in words such as juz2, ajzaa2, irtiqaa2, jazaa2 and the like. In this thread, the issue raised is to do with the representation of  the izaafat after *vowels* both short [e.g as in afsaanan*a*(h), naal*a*(h)] and long [as in intih*aa*, garm*ii*, shox*ii*, taNg*ii* and b*uu*, j*uu*, m*uu*, r*uu*].With consonants, we know the purpose is fulfilled by simply adding a zer.

paika*r*-zer-tasviir 

maa*h*-zer-nau

sham*3*-zer-farozaaN

So we have a *consonant *+ zer, the end result being *r*i, *h*i and *3*i.

For an izaafat with vowels, we will end up with a vowel (short or long) + zer, i.e.

*a* +i, *aa *+i, *ii* +i, *uu* +i

Clearly, this will cause some pronunciation problems and in order to avoid this situation, a hamzah (*2*) acting as a kind of consonant is added before the vowels. (As you know, in Arabic, it is a consonant).

diid*a*(h) + *2*+i+tar (phir mujhe diidhah-2i-tar yaad aayaa)

saxt-jaanii-h*aa *+*2*+i+tanhaa2ii (kaav-kaav-i-saxt jaanii-haa-2i-tanhaa2ii nah puuchh)  

taNg*ii*-*2*+i+dil (zaxm ne daad nah dii taNgii-2i-dil kii yaa rab)

b*uu*-*2**+*i+gul (buu-2i-gul, naalah-2i-dil, duud-i-charaaGh-i-maHfil)

Thus we end up with a situation of consonant + zer with words ending in a consonant and a consonant (* 2, *hamzah)+ zer with words ending in vowels. Either way, it is consonant + zer (izaafat)

Regarding the shi3r I quoted with the word "sa3y", the fact of the matter is that this word has a fa3l pattern and the "y" (ye) at the end is a consonant. So, no hamzah is required there.

کمال ِگرمیء سعی ِتلاش ِ دید نہ پوچه
بہ رنگ ِ خار مرے آئنے سےجوہرکهینچ

kamaal-i-garmii-2i-sa3y-i-talaash-i-diid nah puuchh
yih rang-i-xaar mire aa2ine se jauhar kheNch

If we still disagree, then it is best to agree to disagree.


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> Faylasoof SaaHib, I don't believe the current issue has anything remotely to do with the hamzah in words such as juz2, ajzaa2, irtiqaa2, jazaa2 and the like. In this thread, the issue raised is to do with the representation of  the izaafat after *vowels* both short [e.g as in afsaanan*a*(h), naal*a*(h)] and long [as in intih*aa*, garm*ii*, shox*ii*, taNg*ii* and b*uu*, j*uu*, m*uu*, r*uu*].With consonants, we know the purpose is fulfilled by simply adding a zer.
> 
> .....
> کمال ِگرمیء سعی ِتلاش ِ دید نہ پوچه
> 
> ...
> kamaal-i-garmii-2i-sa3y-i-talaash-i-diid nah puuchh
> 
> ...
> If we still disagree, then it is best to agree to disagree.


 QP SaaHib, I've made my postion very clear - hamza has no place in گرمیء (!) - quite meaningless, as I see it and the literary tradition we follow. So yes, let us leave it at that.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks to everyone for the detailed explanations and relevant references!


----------



## marrish

Since this discussion has not come to any sort of agreement  or the relevant references seem sufficient I thought I would carry out a small (re)search in order to find manuscript samples by a few of our masters. This has given me the opportunity to reconnect with hundreds of pages of Urdu literature and I am glad to introduce all of you to some specimens of it, making use of this opportunity. It seems that Mirza Ghalib either didn't feel like indicating _izaafat_ except after _alif_ or _waaw_, or perhaps that was the norm in his days but Allamah Iqbal and Amir Minai did and the following few examples illustrate their choice of representing the _izaafat_ after the long [-ii] vowel. Moreover there are several handwritten collections of Mirza Ghalib's prose and poetry, the excerpts from prose having been taken from the collection named '_Urdu-e-mu3allaa_' which I think is familiar to some of us. 

Herewith I am attaching a series of small pictures, mostly representing one or two verses. Because of the restriction of maximum 5 files per post I will continue uploading in the next one. In the final post I will try to retype the contents and ascribe particular pieces to their authors.
​View attachment 12025 Manuscript by Iqbal:


زندگی از *گرمیٴ ذکر* است و بس _zindagii az *garmii2-e-zikr* ast-o-bas
_حُرّیت از عِفت فکر است و بس             _Hurriyyat az 3iffat-e-fikr ast-o-bas_
********​View attachment 12026 Manuscript by Amir Minai:

گُل کھِلاتی ہوئی آئی کسی دامن کی ہوا _gul khilaatii hu'ii aa'ii kisii daaman kii hawaa_
لے اڑی بلبل ِ ناشاد کو گلشن کی ہوا_ le uRii bulbul-e-naashaad ko gulshan kii hawaa
_غیرتِ باد صبا بن گئی ھے بن کی ہوا _Ghairat-e-baad-e-Sabaa ban ga'ii hai ban kii hawaa_
        کہتی ھے مل کے گلے *وادیٴ ایمن* کی ہوا _ kahtii hai mil ke gale *waadii2-e-ayman* kii hawaa_
********

View attachment 12027  Handwritten couplet of Ghalib by Sayyid Nafees Raqm (_diiwaan-e-Ghaalib _Hamid Ali Khan, Lahore 1969):​

ہوں مَیں بھی *تما شــا ئــئ **نَیرنگِ *تمــــنّـا
مطلب نہیں کچھ اِس سے  کہ مطلب ہی بر آوے
_huuN maiN bhii *tamaashaa'ii2-e-nairang*-e-tamannaa
__matlab nahiiN kuchh is se kih matlab hii bar aawe_
********


View attachment 12028  Handwritten passage of Ghalib's letter from "Urduu-e-mu3allaa", Dehli, 1908​
اب نہ فارسی کی فکر نہ اُردو کا ذکر نہ دُنیا میں توقع نہ عقبیٰ کی اُمّید ۔ مَیں ہُوں اور اندوہ *ناکامئ جاوید* جیسا کہ خود ایک قصیدہ نعت کی تشبیب میں کہتا ہُوں؎۔
​چشم کشودہ اند بکردار ہائے من    ۔۔۔۔    زآیندہ نااُمیدم وازرفتہ شرمسار

_ab nah faarsii kii fikr nah urduu kaa zikr nah dunyaa meN tawaqqu3 nah 3uqbaa kii ummiid. 
maiN huuN aur andoh-e-*naa-kaamii2-e-jaawiid* jaisaa kih xwud ek qaSiidah na3t kii tashbiib meN kahtaa huuN:
​_​_chashm kushuudah-and ba-kirdaar-haa-ye-man   ...  zi-aayandah naa-umiidam va az raftah sharmsaar​_​
*Edit:* due to some technical reasons please bear with me. I promise I will fix it by tomorrow.​*Edit2:* main issues fixed and contents added. Don't hesitate to create new threads about words or phenomena you find interesting! The next part will arrive in some other format.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Since this discussion has not come to any sort of agreement  or the relevant references seem sufficient I thought I would carry out a small (re)search in order to find manuscript samples by a few of our masters. This has given me the opportunity to reconnect with hundreds of pages of Urdu literature and I am glad to introduce all of you to some specimens of it, making use of this opportunity. It seems that Mirza Ghalib either didn't feel like indicating _izaafat_ except after _alif_ or _waaw_, or perhaps that was the norm in his days but Allamah Iqbal and Amir Minai did and the following few examples illustrate their choice of representing the _izaafat_ after the long [-ii] vowel. Moreover there are several handwritten collections of Mirza Ghalib's prose and poetry, the excerpts from prose having been taken from the collection named '_Urdu-e-mu3allaa_' which I think is familiar to some of us.
> 
> Herewith I am attaching a series of small pictures, mostly representing one or two verses. Because of the restriction of maximum 5 files per post I will continue uploading in the next one. In the final post I will try to retype the contents and ascribe particular pieces to their authors.
> 
> View attachment 12025View attachment 12026View attachment 12027View attachment 12028AView attachment 12029
> 
> Edit: due to some technical reasons please bear with me. I promise I will fix it by tomorrow.


 As I mentioned above, it depends on which tradition one is following.


----------



## marrish

Here is the following part of quotations from handwritten sources, as promised, with regard to the way of writing _izaafat_ after ی:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marrish/with/9287875526/

In the next installment I will provide the texts in the same way as in post 24, with retyped Urdu text plus transliteration. Most of the couplets there are Ghalib's.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for the references marrish SaaHib.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish SaaHib, thank you for your painstaking work demonstrating the use of hamza after -ii by well known literary figures.


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> Thanks for the references marrish SaaHib.





Qureshpor said:


> marrish SaaHib, thank you for your painstaking work demonstrating the use of hamza after -ii by well known literary figures.


Thanks for the appreciation, I have a feeling that it hasn't been in vain all of this!

I am going to transliterate the other part of excerpts but I don't know the first word in the first _shi3r_ (from the right side). Can somebody help me?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Thanks for the appreciation, I have a feeling that it hasn't been in vain all of this!
> 
> I am going to transliterate the other part of excerpts but I don't know the first word in the first _shi3r_ (from the right side). Can somebody help me?



Do you mean..

hu'ii hai kis qadar arzaanii-i-mai jalvah
kih mast hai tire kuuche meN hr ar-o-diivaar


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> Do you mean..
> 
> hu'ii hai kis qadar arzaanii-i-mai jalvah
> kih mast hai tire kuuche meN hr ar-o-diivaar


Absolutely no, from the right side. This one can be good for Cilq.. SaaHib's thread.


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> I am going to transliterate the other part of excerpts but I don't know the first word in the first _shi3r_ (from the right side). Can somebody help me?


 marrish SaaHib, the word is آبگینہ _- __aabgeenah tundi-e-Sahbaa' se pighlaa jaa'e hai _

Since you commented in another thread that you like dramatic examples, here is one from a television drama (the name of which is not coming to mind): 
_ذرا آبگینہ تو ادھر دینا 
 معاشرے میں شہرت وعزت کا مقام پانا تو شاید آسان ہو، لیکن برقرار رکھنا کافی مشکل ہو سکتا ہے چونکہ یہ اس آبگینے کی طرح نازک ہوتا ہے_
​


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> marrish SaaHib, the word is آبگینہ _- __aabgeenah tundi-e-Sahbaa' se pighlaa jaa'e hai _
> 
> Since you commented in another thread that you like dramatic examples, here is one from a television drama (the name of which is not coming to mind):
> _ذرا آبگینہ تو ادھر دینا
> معاشرے میں شہرت وعزت کا مقام پانا تو شاید آسان ہو، لیکن برقرار رکھنا کافی مشکل ہو سکتا ہے چونکہ یہ اس آبگینے کی طرح نازک ہوتا ہے_
> ​


Perfect, thank you. I made a thread about it and Faylasoof SaaHib answered as well. Thanks for the example!!


----------



## Qureshpor

Interesting, C.M.Naim in his grammar book, in section 8.11 covering the script, has
بیماریءِ عشق


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> Interesting, C.M.Naim in his grammar book, in section 8.11 covering the script, has
> بیماریءِ عشق


I think it is because they couldn't type it above _ye_. بیمارئِ عشق it should have been.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I think it is because they couldn't type it above _ye_. بیمارئِ عشق it should have been.


Sorry, my focus was n't on the precise location of the hamzah but the mere presence of the hamzah, instead of just the zer.


----------



## marrish

You know it happens that I skip the obvious things and go on quest of ''fault-finding'' - so what I didn't say is that _hamzah_ is necessary otherwise _zer_ hasn't got a place to ''hang'' on. C.M. Naim's example is perhaps the most precise one because the _hamzah_ on its own would have no value and it needs _zer -  _but as the practice generally goes, one does not use_ zer, zabar and pesh_ in writing, resulting in _hamzah_ only.

More interestingly, Ruth Laila Schmidt writes in her well praised grammar that it is only _zer_!


----------



## aevynn

chalo @marrish saahab, aap ne tajassus bhaRkaa diyaa 

What other conventions have you seen for indicating an _izaafat_ after _chhoTii ye_, besides (1) a small _hamza_ on top of the _chhoTii ye_ (possibly also with a _zer_ underneath, but this would usually be omitted anyway) and (2) a _zer_ underneath (which would usually be omitted, thus leaving behind a bare _chhoTii ye_)?


----------



## marrish

You summed up two possibilities in the other thread but doesn't your analysis itself enumerate four conventions instead of two?

1) bare _chhoTii ye_
2) _hamza_
3) _zer_
4) [_hamza+zer_]

I thought it'd be sufficient to mention, along with the information that the last one, is, in my opinion, what I'd call the "dictionary spelling".

But I do have  something up my sleeve that has not yet been mentioned:

5.a) chhoTii ye + [tashdiid + zer underneath chhoTii ye] ( ّسعیِ ) and 5.b) chhoTii ye + [tashdiid + zer underneath the tashdiid sign]. ( سعیِّ تلاش )

6) a *preceding* _zer_ + [_hamza _with base + *baRii* _ye_]: 
میرے ہونے سے تو کچھ *گرمِئے* بازار نہیں
ہوں میں وہ شے کہ کوئی جس کا خریدار نہیں
(جرأت)​7) _*chhoTii* ye_ + [_hamza_ + _*baRii* ye_]  گرمیئے 


Has anyone seen these before?


----------



## Qureshpor

I think it perhaps ought to be written as گرمِیئے. What one can deduce from this kind of spelling is the acception that the izaafat has come to be pronounced as a majhuul ye in Urdu.

I have come across this kind of spelling in Masnavii-i-Maulavii-i-Ma3navii printed in India where a certain Persian verb that ends in -ii has a yaa-i-majhuul added to it, e.g.

دیدیئے diidii-e

I hope this has been of some help.


----------



## marrish

Depending on metric requirements: gar-mii -'ee (long long long), gar-mi -'ee (long short long), gar-mii-ě (long long short) etc...
Thanks QP SaaHib for the example.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I was under the impression that the sign of "baRii yeh with hamzah *without* seating" was somehow recommended specifically for the izafats, reserving the "hamza with seating" for everything else.

For example:

اِنتِہائے شوق 
اِنتِہاۓ شوق


خدائے لم یزل
خداۓ لم یزل 

Does this rule exist only in my mind, or there is some substance to it?


----------



## PersoLatin

Alfaaz said:


> *Background:* It seems there are a few different ways of representing such izaafats.
> 
> *Questions:* How do you usually _type and write _izaafats with words ending in ا ,ی ,ہ? Which of the following (if any) would be considered correct for _afsaanah-e-shauq_ and could members provide the others in Urdu script?
> 
> _afsaanah-e-shauq_: افسانۂِ شوق , افسانہِ شوق , افسانہ ئے شوق , افسانہءِ شوق
> 
> _intihaa-e-shauq_, _garmi-e-xuun_, _etc._


Excuse my interjection in this thread.

From Persian point of view it seems that development of words ending in silent h, e.g. from _afsâna _to _afsâné_, at least in modern central Iranian accents, is due to merging of /a/ and e/é of ezâfé/izaafat. I don't know the Urdu pronunciation of e.g. _afsaanah-e-shauq_ but in regions of Iran where افسانه  is pronounced afsaanah, combined with ezâfé, it is pronounced _afsâna-ya-shauq_, so the ezâfé is in keeping with the /a/ sound of the word before.

That may be the reason the addition of various signs for ezâfé/izaafat is falling out of favour e.g. افسانه شوق/_afsâné ŝôq_, of course the use of old signs has not disappeared.


----------



## Alfaaz

PersoLatin said:
			
		

> Excuse my interjection in this thread.
> 
> From Persian point of view it seems that development of words ending in silent h, e.g. from _afsâna _to _afsâné_, at least in modern central Iranian accents, is due to merging of /a/ and e/é of ezâfé/izaafat. I don't know the Urdu pronunciation of e.g. _afsaanah-e-shauq_ but in regions of Iran where افسانه is pronounced afsaanah, combined with ezâfé, it is pronounced _afsâna-ya-shauq_, so the ezâfé is in keeping with the /a/ sound of the word before.
> 
> That may be the reason the addition of various signs for ezâfé/izaafat is falling out of favour e.g. افسانه شوق/_afsâné ŝôq_, of course the use of old signs has not disappeared


Thank you for your contribution to the thread. 

(Here is an example of pronunciation - پروانۂ راہ داری.)

The traditional method ۂ appears to be retained in books, newspapers, formal documents, etc. However, various representations can be seen online. It seems this could  be in part due to factors such as lack of the symbol ۂ on some keyboards, users being unaware of how to actually insert the symbol, and/or (in certain cases) perhaps just being unaware of the writing convention.


----------

