# Hindi/Urdu: [komihr] کمبهير कुम्भीर kumbhīr



## David Garamatz

“Ganges är upfyld af krokodiler, som på landsens språk kallas _komihr_”. (Bengal, 147) 
“The Ganges is full of crocodiles that in the language of the country are called _komihr_.”
            This excerpt is from the account of Bengal that Stockholm-born Christopher Henric Braad (1728-81) made in manuscript of his seven-week visit to Bengal in 1755. As there are two species of crocodile in the Ganges, which does the word in italics in the Swedish signify: a gharial, _Gavialis gangeticus, _(with a long narrow snout), or a mugger, _Crocodylus palustris_ (with a broad one)? Or does it signify any sort of crocodile?
            The language in question may be Bengali but even in 1755 there must have been few parts of the Indian sub-continent where the inhabitants spoke only a single language. As far as I know Braad spoke no Indian language but half a dozen modern European ones, as well as Latin and, probably, some classical Greek.


----------



## souminwé

'_kumbhiir_' is indeed a Hindi word for the Ganges crocodile - I'm not sure if '_komihr_' is a dialectal variant, Bengali or a mistake on the writer's part.


EDIT: the Bengali cognate seems to be _kumir_


----------



## panjabigator

I've never heard this word before. Is it different from the "magar machh?"


----------



## David Garamatz

Braad was shaky in spelling even his native Swedish, so he might well have got _komihr _wrong, too. But does _kumbhiir _signify either or both of the sorts of crocodile to be found in the Ganges?


----------



## David Garamatz

Thanks for your comment, Panjabigator, but what does _maga machh _signify?


----------



## greatbear

Magar machh is the commonly used word today for mugger (that's why the "magar" of "magar machh"); a gharial is called a gharial in Hindi. I have no idea of what a komihr is, though judging by post no. 2, it did or does exist: I think it might be a mugger rather than a gharial, since gharials have always been called gharials as far as I know. That's just a guess, though.


----------



## David Garamatz

Many thanks, Great Bear, for your distinction between mugger and gharial. Perhaps _komihr _signifies 'a monster' or something of the sort?


----------



## greatbear

David Garamatz said:


> Perhaps _komihr _signifies 'a monster' or something of the sort?


  You can find your k-starting crocodile here: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.6:1:3610.platts  Considering that the definition says it's long-nosed and it's found in the Ganges (which reaffirms your Swedish writer's observation), I would take back my original assumption and would say that this kumbhir is very much a gharial: magars don't have long noses, neither like rivers as a rule. I have never heard the word before, but it might very well exist: it's just that I've not talked a lot to people about crocodiles or alligators. Lay persons don't even make much of a difference between a gharial and a magar, and these two are the common words used (magar also called as magarmachh). In expressions it is often magar that is more popular, for example, "magarmachh ke aaNsuu" (literally "crocodile's tears", meaning false tears).  Interestingly, there is a monster related to the crocodile: see http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.8:1:1484.platts   Hope this answers all your queries.


----------



## drkpp

In Sanskrit, कुंभिन् = crocodile while कुंभीर = shark


----------



## David Garamatz

Thanks for this, drkpp! From what you write, I can _see _there's a difference between these two Sanskrit words but the first of them signifies, if I've understood you and others correctly, both mugger/magar and gharial. When transliterated, would this word give, or come near to giving, _komihr?_


----------



## greatbear

When transliterated, it is in fact the second word of drkpp, that for shark, which would come close to give "komihr"!


----------



## Faylasoof

David Garamatz said:


> “Ganges är upfyld af krokodiler, som på landsens språk kallas _komihr_”. (Bengal, 147)
> “The Ganges is full of crocodiles that in the language of the country are called _komihr_.”
> This excerpt is from the account of Bengal that Stockholm-born Christopher Henric Braad (1728-81) made in manuscript of his seven-week visit to Bengal in 1755. As there are two species of crocodile in the Ganges, which does the word in italics in the Swedish signify: a gharial, _Gavialis gangeticus, _(with a long narrow snout), or a mugger, _Crocodylus palustris_ (with a broad one)? Or does it signify any sort of crocodile?
> The language in question may be Bengali but even in 1755 there must have been few parts of the Indian sub-continent where the inhabitants spoke only a single language. As far as I know Braad spoke no Indian language but half a dozen modern European ones, as well as Latin and, probably, some classical Greek.


 Just to add a bit more. I asked my Bengali friend and she confirmed that in her language it is কুমির _kumir_ =  alligator , but also crocodile ! However, the long snout definitely means the ganges alligator, called gavial / Indian gavial in English - _Gavialis gangeticus _(in Latin) according to the Linnaean nomenclature and taxonomy- and what we call a _ghaRyaal_ گھڑیال घऱियाल in Urdu and Hindi. ... and as mentioned above, we distinguish between a _magar-machh_ ( = crocodile here and here) and the gavial here.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> Just to add a bit more. I asked my Bengali friend and she confirmed that in her language it is কুমির _kumir_ =  alligator , but also crocodile ! However, the long snout definitely means the ganges alligator, called gavial / Indian gavial in English - _Gavialis gangeticus _(in Latin) according to the Linnaean nomenclature and taxonomy- and what we call a _ghaRyaal_ گھڑیال घऱियाल in Urdu and Hindi. ... and as mentioned above, we distinguish between a _magar-machh_ ( = crocodile here and here) and the gavial here.


May I ask which kind of orthography is this? It looks very attractive!


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> May I ask which kind of orthography is this? It looks very attractive!



It looks also wrong! The word is written as घड़ियाल in Hindi.
From Platts, H گهڙيال घड़ियाल _ghaṛiyāl_ [S. घण्टिका+आलः or  आलु], s.m. A crocodile; the Gangetic alligator, _Lacerta gangetica_ (cf. _magar_).

Also the worldwide famous name for a gharial in English is gharial; Indian gavial is an alternative name and is not as known as gharial.


----------



## BP.

Faylasoof said:


> ...and the gavial here.


God that snout looks thin and fragile. He should come with a muzzle guard so it doesn't snap off on impact with the riverbed or the neighbour's tail. Unbelievable! 

Now I understand why he's got this rather odd name.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> May I ask which kind of orthography is this? It looks very attractive!


 _You mean you didn't notice the source I gave above_?! I too found it "*wonderfully beautiful*"!! Thought you all might like it! Here it is again! 



greatbear said:


> ...
> Also the worldwide famous name for a gharial in English is gharial; _Indian gavial is an alternative name and is not __as __known as gharial_.


 _Really_! _Since when? It is also called gavial in English_! I'm fairly sure Platts got it wrong! _Gavialis gangeticus (_Linnaean nomenclature in_ Latin) -> Gavial (=Gharial) in English. _More *here* and *here.

*I still remember my zoology!


----------



## Faylasoof

BelligerentPacifist said:


> God that snout looks thin and fragile. He should come with a muzzle guard so it doesn't snap off on impact with the riverbed or the neighbour's tail. Unbelievable!
> 
> Now I understand why he's got this rather odd name.


 BP SaaHib, it is, as you know a fish eater and most of its victims are a good deal smaller and _even more fragile _than that snout! Not too sure about it being able to withstand a whiplash from its neighbor’s tail though!


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> _You mean you didn't notice the source I gave above_?! I too found it "*wonderfully beautiful*"!! Thought you all might like it! Here it is again!



It looks *most deliciously*!
_(I hadn't opened the source, though!)_


----------



## greatbear

Faylasoof said:


> _Really_! _Since when? It is also called gavial in English_! I'm fairly sure Platts got it wrong! _Gavialis gangeticus (_Linnaean nomenclature in_ Latin) -> Gavial (=Gharial) in English. _More *here* and *here.
> 
> *I still remember my zoology!



Indeed? Check http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheets/gharial/gharial.htm


----------



## David Garamatz

thanks for all these data and comments. The Concise Oxford Dictionary calls the beast in question both gharial _and _gavial. Hedging their bets, perhaps.


----------



## greatbear

David Garamatz said:


> thanks for all these data and comments. The Concise Oxford Dictionary calls the beast in question both gharial _and _gavial. Hedging their bets, perhaps.



They are indeed called both, though etymologically "gharial" (see link in previous post) is the correct term.


----------



## Faylasoof

greatbear said:


> Indeed? Check http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheets/gharial/gharial.htm


 Just confirms what I suspected! Platts is outdated! 

It is now _Gavialis gangeticus (_Linnaean nomenclature in_ Latin) -> Gavial (=Gharial) in English. 

_My zoology is more up to date than Platts'! That may not be saying much given that he lived well over a century ago, but all the same it is now called _Gavialis gangeticus _-> _gavial_ (gharial from the original ghaRiyaal). The name _Lacerta gangetica _is obsolete!


----------



## Faylasoof

David Garamatz said:


> thanks for all these data and comments. The Concise Oxford Dictionary calls the beast in question both gharial _and _gavial. Hedging their bets, perhaps.


 There is no problem in either terms! One (gharial) is derived from the native source and the other (gavial) from the scientific name in Latin: _Gavialis gangeticus. _

As you may well know, by tradition all Linnaean nomenclature is in_ Latin_! We still use Latin for this!

_I see no issue!_


----------

