# Urdu-Persian: chand tasviir-i-butaan



## Qureshpor

Those friends who who know Persian but do not know Urdu, need only concentrate on the construction "chand tasviir-i-butaan".

There is a well known Urdu shi3r, often but wrongly attributed to Ghalib which has this construction..

chand tasviir-i-butaaN, chand HasiinoN ke xutuut
ba3d marne ke mire ghar se yih saamaaN niklaa!

This couplet in fact is the modified form of a couplet by Bazm Akbarabadi

ek tasviir kisii shox kii aur naame chand
ghar se 3aashiq ke pas-i-marg yih saamaaN niklaa!

My question is this. Is "chand tasviir-i-butaan" correct? Would "chand tasviir-haa-ye-butaan" be wrong? I am aware that the word after chand is normally in the singular but, in this case, it is being qualified by the plural "butaan".


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Those friends who who know Persian but do not know Urdu, need only concentrate on the construction "chand tasviir-i-butaan".
> 
> There is a well known Urdu shi3r, often but wrongly attributed to Ghalib which has this construction..
> 
> chand tasviir-i-butaaN, chand HasiinoN ke xutuut
> ba3d marne ke mire ghar se yih saamaaN niklaa!
> 
> This couplet in fact is the modified form of a couplet by Bazm Akbarabadi
> 
> ek tasviir kisii shox kii aur naame chand
> ghar se 3aashiq ke pas-i-marg yih saamaaN niklaa!
> 
> My question is this. Is "chand tasviir-i-butaan" correct? Would "chand tasviir-haa-ye-butaan" be wrong? I am aware that the word after chand is normally in the singular but, in this case, it is being qualified by the plural "butaan".


 QP SaaHib you are correct that after _chand _we usually use a singular, e.g. _chand roz_, _chand saal_, _chand log_. But we also seem to break this rule, e.g. _chand kitaabeN_, _chand quwwateN_ (also _chand logoN kii 3aql men yeh nahii aaya_ ...) etc.
I think here _chand tasviir-i-butaaN _as a Farsi phrase (also used in Urdu!) is not only correct but also fits rather well from the point of view of _wazn_, so it would be the preferred choice rather than the plural form you mentioned.
.


----------



## urdupoetree

Faylasoof said:


> QP SaaHib you are correct that after _chand _we usually use a singular, e.g. _chand roz_, _chand saal_, _chand log_. But we also seem to break this rule, e.g. _chand kitaabeN_, _chand quwwateN_ (also _chand logoN kii 3aql men yeh nahii aaya_ ...) etc.
> I think here _chand tasviir-i-butaaN _as a Farsi phrase (also used in Urdu!) is not only correct but also fits rather well from the point of view of _wazn_, so it would be the preferred choice rather than the plural form you mentioned.
> .




You are right Mr. Faylasoof...i agreed with your detailed reply


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> QP SaaHib you are correct that after _chand _we usually use a singular, e.g. _chand roz_, _chand saal_, _chand log_. But we also seem to break this rule, e.g. _chand kitaabeN_, _chand quwwateN_ (also _chand logoN kii 3aql men yeh nahii aaya_ ...) etc.
> I think here _chand tasviir-i-butaaN _as a Farsi phrase (also used in Urdu!) is not only correct but also fits rather well from the point of view of _wazn_, so it would be the preferred choice rather than the plural form you mentioned..[/QUOTE
> 
> This is to to do with gender of course. Masculine nouns ending in a consonant (or -ii e.g. motii, -uu as in bichchhuu) are singular after "chand" but those ending in -aa are in the plural, e.g. chand laRke. If they are feminine, as in kitaab, quvvat, laRkii etc, then they are plural after "chand". This is no different if we used any other plural adjective.


----------



## UrduMedium

^ I agree about the gender being the driver behind use of singular/plural nouns above. 

Since _tasviir _is a feminine noun, it seems to me the usage should be _chand tasaaviir-i-butaaN, _instead.

Good catch, QP saahab!


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> ^ I agree about the gender being the driver behind use of singular/plural nouns above.
> 
> Since tasviir is feminine noun, it seems to me the usage should be _chand tasaaviir-i-butaaN.
> _
> Good catch, QP saahab!



I am not sure about "good catch", UM SaaHib. I just had doubts about the construction. But, as this is a purely Persian construction, gender plays no part in it whatsoever. It seems to me that the logic is this:

chand tasviir = a few pictures

chand tasviir [-i-butaaN] = a few pictures [of beauties/beloveds]....as opposed to..

chand [tasviir-i-butaaN] = a few [picture of beloveds]..which would be wrong.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> I am not sure about "good catch", UM SaaHib. I just had doubts about the construction. But, as this is a purely Persian construction, gender plays no part in it whatsoever. It seems to me that the logic is this:
> 
> chand tasviir = a few pictures
> 
> chand tasviir [-i-butaaN] = a few pictures [of beauties/beloveds]....as opposed to..
> 
> chand [tasviir-i-butaaN] = a few [picture of beloveds]..which would be wrong.



I'm unqualified to comment on the Persian angle. 

However, in Urdu, _chand tasviir_ does not sound correct, just like _chand kitaab_ will be wrong. Or am I missing something? After all the shi3r is in Urdu, not Persian.

_chand tasaaviir_ or _chand tasviireN_ seem to make much more sense.


----------



## marrish

QP SaaHib, your remarks about it being a Persian construction, as Faylasoof SaaHib also suggested, where the grammatical gender plays no part are unrejectable. The meaning being plural is also confirmed by analogy with the second part, _chand xutuut_.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I'm unqualified to comment on the Persian angle.
> 
> However, in Urdu, _chand tasviir_ does not sound correct. Or am I missing something? After all the shi3r is in Urdu, not Persian.
> 
> _chand tasaaviir_ or _chand tasviireN_ seem to make much more sense.



Indeed the shi3r is in Urdu! Our Persian speaking friends would not be able to decipher its meaning without knowing Urdu. However, the phrase "chand tasviir-i-butaaN" is a Persian izaafat construction. And according to Persian rules, a noun in the singular follows chand but this known has a plural meaning.* If it was just "chand tasviir", then as you have rightly pointed out, it should be "chand tasviireN" (or chand tasaaviir).

* In Persian "yak kitaab" a/one book, "do kitaab" (two books)


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> QP SaaHib, your remarks about it being a Persian construction, as Faylasoof SaaHib also suggested, where the grammatical gender plays no part are unrejectable. The meaning being plural is also confirmed by analogy with the second part, _chand xutuut_.



But "chand xat" would also be correct, as far as Urdu is concerned.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> But "chand xat" would also be correct, as far as Urdu is concerned.


I agree with you again, but even then, the plural number of _xatt_ would be still indicated by the postposition _ke_.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I agree with you again, but even then, the plural number of _xatt_ would be still indicated by the postposition _ke_.



I actually meant "chand xat" on its own. This would mean " some letters" would n't it, just like "kuchh xat"?


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Faylasoof said:
> 
> 
> 
> QP SaaHib you are correct that after _chand _we usually use a singular, e.g. _chand roz_, _chand saal_, _chand log_. But we also seem to break this rule, e.g. _chand kitaabeN_, _chand quwwateN_ (also _chand logoN kii 3aql men yeh nahii aaya_ ...) etc.
> I think here _chand tasviir-i-butaaN _as a Farsi phrase (also used in Urdu!) is not only correct but also fits rather well from the point of view of _wazn_, so it would be the preferred choice rather than the plural form you mentioned..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is to to do with gender of course. Masculine nouns ending in a consonant (or -ii e.g. motii, -uu as in bichchhuu) are singular after "chand" but those ending in -aa are in the plural, e.g. chand laRke. If they are feminine, as in kitaab, quvvat, laRkii etc, then they are plural after "chand". This is no different if we used any other plural adjective.
Click to expand...

 I do realize this! What I meant was that early on this Farsi chand + singular rule may have applied for Urdu constructions too all over.  But later modified where we seem to break it though of course this is how we use it for the given examples. 

.. and yes this is a Farsi construct used in Urdu, as I mention above, and that too in Urdu poetry. Therefore it is perfectly OK! We don’t speak like this though!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> I actually meant "chand xat" on its own. This would mean " some letters" would n't it, just like "kuchh xat"?


Yes, it would, the same as _kuchh xatt_. I was referring to the shi3r in question, even if there was ''xatt'', the meaning would be obvious. After all, even if there were no posposition ''ke'', it would be obvious to understand it as plural, since I can't imagine a singular thing in meaning together with _chand_. _chand_ implies that there are several objects. The plural ending seems to be redundant.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Yes, it would, the same as _kuchh xatt_. I was referring to the shi3r in question, even if there was ''xatt'', the meaning would be obvious. After all, even if there were no posposition ''ke'', it would be obvious to understand it as plural, since I can't imagine a singular thing in meaning together with _chand_. _chand_ implies that there are several objects. The plural ending seems to be redundant.



That is exactly the logic behind "yak anjuman", "do anjuman", "chand anjuman" but this is of course for Persian constructions only. Unless of course we are talking about masculine Urdu nouns e.g ek motii, do motii, ek mard, do mard.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> That is exactly the logic behind "yak anjuman", "do anjuman", "chand anjuman" but this is of course for Persian constructions only. Unless of course we are talking about masculine Urdu nouns e.g ek motii, do motii, ek mard, do mard.


Yes, for Urdu, the masculine plural form is not necessary for the meaning to be obvious. My point is that the presence of _chand_ logically imparts the meaning of more than one. With feminine nouns the usage of plural forms is necessary in Urdu however without the plural form the meaning could not be by any means singular. Even if we dropped the plural form, there would be no ambiguity, as even with the feminine noun _baar: chand baar, ek baar, do baar, _not_ *do baareN._


----------

