# Urdu, Hindi: izafat compounds in the plural oblique -oN



## marrish

Dear friends,

While searching for the word faqat in Hindi (re. thread faqat v. sirf), I found a collection of Ghazals by Rajendra Kumar Mina titled aabshaar-e-ashk (Google books).

The Ghazals are in Devanagari script. I will quote four verses, first two opening ones and then two hemistichs from the same Ghazal:

ग़मे-ज़िन्दगी के तन्हा सफ़र में, तेरी दिलकश यादों के सहारे-सहारे चले,
ये सुलगते हुए अश्क़-ए-समंदर, दर्द-ए-पलकों के फक़त किनारे-किनारे चले।

ख़ाके-दरे-ज़नाना से कूचा-ए-गर्द, अब्रे-ख़िजां-ए-बहारों के फ़क़त कारे कारे चले।

चाहत की जुस्तजू में दम-ब-दम तेरे प्यार की राहे-मंज़िलों के फकत वारे-वारे चले।

The transliteration is as follows:

Gham-e-zindagii ke tanhaa safar meN, terii dilkash yaadoN ke sahaare-sahaare chale
ye sulagte hue ashq-e-samaNdar, *dard-e-palkoN* ke phaqat kinaare-kinaare chale.

xaak-e-dar-e-zanaanaa ke kuuchaa-e-gard, *abr-e-xizaaN-e-bahaaroN* ke faqat kaare kaare chale.

chaahat kii justajuu meN dam-ba-dam tere pyaar kii *raah-e-maNziloN* ke phakat vaare-vaare chale.


It struck me that izaafat compounds are used in the plural oblique with the suffix -oN. It is really the first time I came to see it.

Your views please. Is this feature only a licentia poetica? What would these constructions mean?
Second question, can you help me understanding what kaare kaare and vaare-vaare means?
Third question, after edit, how would you classify this language?


----------



## Qureshpor

I shall begin my answering your second question.

kaale-kaale

vaare-vaare I think means along the nearside of a river bank (from vaar opposite of paar)

Or perhaps: From vaarnaa..to sacrifice/to dedicate etc


----------



## marrish

Many thanks for taking up this thread. I can't follow why kaare kaare can map onto kaale kaale, with kaale kaale it doesn't make sense either because concerning the oblique, it is connected with _bahaaroN_. _bahaaroN ke kaare kaare chale_. Might be a Hindi word which neither I nor you are familiar with. Of course I surmise that _chale_ relates to _ham_.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ abr-i-xizaaN

It would be interesting to have mundiya Jii and Chhaatr Jii's views on this creative work.


----------



## marrish

Yes, I would also love to have other's contributions. 

abr-e-xizaaN being dark/black, that's why?


----------



## sapnachaandni

yahaaN “kaare kaare” dekh kar mujhe vo gaanaa yaad aayaa: “kajraa re, kajraa re, tere *kaare kaare* nainaa” (Film: Bunty Aur Bubli)


----------



## marrish

I didn't remember this particular song but many others which are written and sung with Purbi/Brajbhaka elements but here it is not the case. Not in a single line of any poem from this book I encounterered such a form, it's all based on KhaRi Boli.


----------



## sapnachaandni

ye Ghazal to ‘ajiib lagtii hai. is kaa ye misra’ liijiye --- “_ye sulagte hu’e ashk-e-samandar, dard-e-palkoN ke faqat kinaare kinaare chale_”--- is kaa kyaa matlab hai? is meN ek to vahii “_dard-e-palkoN_” ‘ajiib lagtaa hai, duusre “_ashk-e-samandar_”. kyoN kahaa gayaa hai “_ashk-e-samandar_”? “ashk-e-samandar” kaa matlab hai “vo ashk jo samandar kaa hai” par ‘aam taur par kahaa jaataa hai “samandar-e-ashk” = “ashk kaa samandar”, na ki “ashk-e-samandar” = “samandar kaa ashk”.
mujhe lagtaa hai agar “ashak-e-samandar” kii jagah par “ashk kaa samandar” aur “dard-e-palkoN” kii jagah par “dard kii palkoN” kahaa gayaa hotaa to is kaa kuchh matlab hotaa--- “_ye sulagte hu’e_ ashk *kaa* samandar, dard *kii* palkoN _ke faqat kinaare kinaare chale_”. (ye baat bhii hai ki yuuN hu’aa hotaa to is kaa vazn bigaR jaataa). pataa nahiiN ye Ghazal aisii kyoN hai!
aap kii raa’e kyaa hai? duusre lafz badal deN to kyaa is kaa kuchh matlab hogaa? yaa is kaa bilkul koii matlab nahiiN?!


----------



## Qureshpor

^ ....kii vazn, sapnachaandi SaaHibah? haaN, aap ne yih nahiiN farmaayaa kih is zabaan ko aap kis naam se pukaareN gii?

ba-qaul Iqbal, thoRii sii tarmiim ke saath..

anokhii vaz3 hai saare zamaane se niraale haiN
yih "shaa3ir"kaun sii bastii ke yaa rab rahne vaale haiN!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Dear friends,
> 
> While searching for the word faqat in Hindi (re. thread faqat v. sirf), I found a collection of Ghazals by Rajendra Kumar Mina titled aabshaar-e-ashk (Google books).
> 
> The Ghazals are in Devanagari script. I will quote four verses, first two opening ones and then two hemistichs from the same Ghazal:
> 
> ग़मे-ज़िन्दगी के तन्हा सफ़र में, तेरी दिलकश यादों के सहारे-सहारे चले,
> ये सुलगते हुए अश्क़-ए-समंदर, दर्द-ए-पलकों के फक़त किनारे-किनारे चले।
> 
> ख़ाके-दरे-ज़नाना से कूचा-ए-गर्द, अब्रे-ख़िजां-ए-बहारों के फ़क़त कारे कारे चले।
> 
> चाहत की जुस्तजू में दम-ब-दम तेरे प्यार की राहे-मंज़िलों के फकत वारे-वारे चले।
> 
> The transliteration is as follows:
> 
> Gham-e-zindagii ke tanhaa safar meN, terii dilkash yaadoN ke sahaare-sahaare chale
> ye sulagte hue ashq-e-samaNdar, *dard-e-palkoN* ke phaqat kinaare-kinaare chale.
> 
> xaak-e-dar-e-zanaanaa ke kuuchaa-e-gard, *abr-e-xizaaN-e-bahaaroN* ke faqat kaare kaare chale.
> 
> chaahat kii justajuu meN dam-ba-dam tere pyaar kii *raah-e-maNziloN* ke phakat vaare-vaare chale.
> 
> 
> It struck me that izaafat compounds are used in the plural oblique with the suffix -oN. It is really the first time I came to see it.
> 
> Your views please. Is this feature only a licentia poetica? What would these constructions mean?
> Second question, can you help me understanding what kaare kaare and vaare-vaare means?
> Third question, after edit, how would you classify this language?


1) First of all, a comment on the placement of subscript dots. Urdu speakers will know that it is...

ashk NOT ashq

faqat Not phaqat (although the correct faqat is printed in the next line but then we have phakat!)

One could say that these are just printer's typos that have crept in. However, skimming through the pages of the book one comes across numerous such examples and some quite ludicrous ones too.

niGhaahoN in place of nigaahoN

zashn in place of jashn

kaazal in place of kaajal

zaaduu in place of jaaduu

zism in place of jism

qam-sin in place of kam-sin

intajaar in place of intizaar 

I am sure everyone will be aware of the reason for this "mix-up".

2) If one looked at the vocabulary, one would say it belongs to Urdu.

3) The izaafat construction is a good indication that the language is Urdu. However, the kind of izaafat with Indic words is not a norm. I personally have no problem with this but here the writer has gone another two steps further. One, he has used plural Indic words and two, in the oblique case. I too have not come across this novelty. Moreover, the nuun (n) before an izaafat is always a full nuun, never a nasal one. But Rajendra Kumar Mina SaaHib has "xizaaN-i-bahaaraaN"! Yet another innovation.

4) From a grammar prospective, I am not aware of "sahaare-sahaare chalnaa". I don't know if anyone else has. In the book, I found..

e husn-i-be-xabar. Urdu has "ai..........".

5) If one was to write the Ghazal in prose, I don't think we'll get a meaningful result.

To answer your questions:

a) A famous modern Urdu poet Ragupati Sahai "Firaaq" Gorakhpuri has used this construction, the example being "jhiil-i-munjamad" (frozen lake). The difference is that jhiil is in the singular...and there is no oblique case. 

b) This has already been answered.

c) In another forum an Urdu poet, namely Raj Kumar "Qais" when commenting on the song "kaarvaaN guzar gayaa" and the poet Neeraj's use of the word "umar" for "umr/3umr) said that just for this one word, the song can not be counted as Urdu. Applying his logic, this Ghazal would most certainly would not pass his test, with not only the content of the izaafats but their oblique forms. I don't know if the Ghazal is even in meter. So, not Urdu. What is it? I have no idea!


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor said:


> aap ne yih nahiiN farmaayaa kih is zabaan ko aap kis naam se pukaareN gii?


vo zabaan jis kaa matlab samajh nahiiN aataa, use kis naam se pukaaruuN?!
is ke lafz duur se urduu lagte haiN, rang-ruup bhii duur se urduu ke lagte haiN, par jab nazdiik jaate haiN, ya’nii is kaa matlab samajhne kii koshish karte haiN, to samajh nahiiN aataa! pataa nahiiN is zabaan ko kis naam se pukaarnaa chaahiye!

agar kisii ko is Ghazal kaa matlab pataa hai to baRii merbaanii hogii agar yahaaN is ke baare meN vazaahat/vyaakhyaa kare.



Qureshpor said:


> ba-qaul Iqbal, thoRii sii tarmiim ke saath..
> 
> anokhii vaz3 hai saare zamaane se niraale haiN
> yih "shaa3ir"kaun sii bastii ke yaa rab rahne vaale haiN!


jii bilkul.


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor said:


> ^ ....kii vazn, sapnachaandi SaaHibah?


mujhe bhii 'ajiib lagaa ki kyoN achaanak "vazn" "مؤنث" lagaa thaa! kal raat likhte vaqt niind aatii thii! (shaayad is liye  , yaa shaayad is liye ki is kaa vazn bhaarii nahiiN thaa! ).

ba-qaul aap ke...


Qureshpor said:


> آخر بندہ بشر ہے۔


----------



## marrish

I can't grasp the meaning either. Here is another example of an izaafat construction, this time not in the oblique but in the direct case, in plural:

रूह की सरज़मीं पर इक चांदनी खिली है अभी-अभी,
हज़ारों तुख्म-ए-*ख़्वाहिशें* *सरज़मीं-ए-दिल* में *मिली है* अभी-अभी।

नुरो-जुलमात तक छाई है हरसू, हर शै पर वो महाज़बीं,
फ़लक़ से सितारों की बारात क़ायनात में चली है अभी-अभी। It's on p. 45 of the attached book.

_ruuh kii sarzamiiN par ik chaandnii khilii hai abhii-abhii,
hazaaroN tukhm-e-*xvaahisheN* *sarzamiiN-e*-dil meN *milii hai* abhii-abhii.

nuro-julmaat tak chhaaii hai harsuu, har shai par vo mahaajabiiN,
falaq se sitaaroN kii baaraat qaayanaat meN chalii hai abhii-abhii.
_
These verses remain as obscure as the previous ones. I wish I could understand them.

There is also _sarzamiiN-e-dil_ which should be a full "n" instead of nasalisation - at least in Urdu.

Another question: is it normal to write the verbal form in the singular for a plural subject (here _xvaahisheN_)? or perhaps the presence of izaafat makes the word singular notwithstanding that a part of this construction is in plural; in other words, perhaps _tukhm_ is the word acting as the subject? If not, is it usual or if not, at least probable that the second part of an izaafat construction defines the grammar of the verb? I think these questions are in the scope of this thread and I will have to make new threads for separate words which I don't understand.


----------



## littlepond

marrish said:


> There is also _sarzamiiN-e-dil_ which should be a full "n" instead of nasalisation - at least in Urdu.



Please note that I know many Urdu speakers personally who say this with the nasalisation (and I've seen many TV programs with the same), so what you say is only your _nazariyaa_, not some fact.


----------



## marrish

littlepond said:


> Please note that I know many Urdu speakers personally who say this with the nasalisation (and I've seen many TV programs with the same), so what you say is only your _nazariyaa_, not some fact.


Thank you for your first contribution to this thread. What I said I am quite certain about - _sarzamii*N*-e-dil_ should be _sarzamii*n*-e-dil_ otherwise I would not know how to pronounce it, the passage between *iiN* and *e* is quite difficult to pronounce. I have never heard it.


----------



## sapnachaandni

marrish said:


> I can't grasp the meaning either. Here is  another example of an izaafat construction, this time not in the oblique  but in the direct case, in plural:
> 
> रूह की सरज़मीं पर इक चांदनी खिली है अभी-अभी,
> हज़ारों तुख्म-ए-*ख़्वाहिशें* *सरज़मीं-ए-दिल* में *मिली है* अभी-अभी।
> 
> नुरो-जुलमात तक छाई है हरसू, हर शै पर वो महाज़बीं,
> फ़लक़ से सितारों की बारात क़ायनात में चली है अभी-अभी। It's on p. 45 of the attached book.[...]
> Another question: is it normal to write the verbal form in the singular for a plural subject (here _xvaahisheN_)?  or perhaps the presence of izaafat makes the word singular  notwithstanding that a part of this construction is in plural; in other  words, perhaps _tukhm_ is the word acting as the subject? If not,  is it usual or if not, at least probable that the second part of an  izaafat construction defines the grammar of the verb? [...]


faarsii ke hisaab se: misaal ke taur par “تخمِ هزاران خواهش در سرزمین دل پیدا شده است.”* meN “تخم”(faarsii:/_toxm_/, urduu:/tuxm/) subject hai. is faarsii jumle meN “تخم” singular hai, isii liye verb singular hii aataa hai.

* according to modern Iranian Persian pronunciation: /_toxm-e hezaaraan xaahesh dar sarzamiin-e del peydaa shode ast._/   


agar “tuxm” feminine bhii ho saktaa hai to lagtaa hai ki “हज़ारों तुख्म-ए-ख़्वाहिशें सरज़मीं-ए-दिल में *मिली है* अभी-अभी।” meN bhii qaa’idah vahii faarsii kaa qaa’idah hai aur “milii hai” Thiik hai.
kyaa “tuxm” feminine bhii ho saktaa hai?

vaise kyaa aise jumle urduu meN faarsii qaa'ide ke mutaabiq banaa'e jaate haiN? misaal ke taur par urduu meN is jumle kaa fi'l kaisaa hogaa?---
"hazaaroN tuxm-e-xwaahisheN sarzamiin-e-dil meN ----." (milnaa)



marrish said:


> There is also _sarzamiiN-e-dil_ which should be a full "n" instead of nasalisation - at least in Urdu.





marrish said:


> What I said I am quite certain about - _sarzamii*N*-e-dil_ should be _sarzamii*n*-e-dil_ otherwise I would not know how to pronounce it, the passage between *iiN* and *e* is quite difficult to pronounce. I have never heard it.


mujhe bhii aisaa hii lagtaa hai. "iiN" ke ba'd "e" bolnaa mushkil hai.


----------



## Qureshpor

sapnachaandni said:


> faarsii ke hisaab se: misaal ke taur par “تخمِ هزاران خواهش در سرزمین دل پیدا شده است.”* meN “تخم”(faarsii:/_toxm_/, urduu:/tuxm/) subject hai. is faarsii jumle meN “تخم” singular hai, isii liye verb singular hii aataa hai.
> 
> * according to modern Iranian Persian pronunciation: /_toxm-e hezaaraan xaahesh dar sarzamiin-e del peydaa shode ast._/
> 
> agar “tuxm” feminine bhii ho saktaa hai to lagtaa hai ki “हज़ारों तुख्म-ए-ख़्वाहिशें सरज़मीं-ए-दिल में *मिली है* अभी-अभी।” meN bhii qaa’idah vahii faarsii kaa qaa’idah hai aur “milii hai” Thiik hai.
> kyaa “tuxm” feminine bhii ho saktaa hai?
> 
> vaise kyaa aise jumle urduu meN faarsii qaa'ide ke mutaabiq banaa'e jaate haiN?
> 
> mujhe bhii aisaa hii lagtaa hai. "iiN" ke ba'd "e" bolnaa mushkil hai.


lekin faarsii meN yih qaa3idah Thiik ho nah ho, Urdu meN fi3l jam3 hii aa'e gaa. Hindi ke baare meN aap bihtar jaantii haiN.

hazaaroN xvaahishoN ke tuxm dil kii sar-zamiin meN *khile *hai*N*abhii abhii!

jii nahiiN Urdu meN tuxm muzakkar hii hai.

agar bi_lfarz tuxm mu2annas hai, to yahii jumlah kuchh yuuN nah ho gaa?

hazaaroN xvaahishoN *kii* tuxm*eN* dil kii sar-zamiin meN *khilii *hai*N* abhii abhii!

iiN ke ba3d -e- xvaah mushkil ho yaa aasaan, Urdu meN ise Ghalat hii maaneN ge.


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor said:


> Urdu meN tuxm muzakkar hii hai.


jii haaN, "tuxm" muzakkar hii hai, isii liye maiN ne kahaa "agar".



Qureshpor said:


> hazaaroN xvaahishoN ke tuxm dil kii sar-zamiin meN *khile *hai*N*abhii abhii!
> 
> agar bi_lfarz tuxm mu2annas hai, to yahii jumlah kuchh yuuN nah ho gaa?
> 
> hazaaroN xvaahishoN *kii* tuxm*eN* dil kii sar-zamiin meN *khilii *hai*N* abhii abhii!


janaab, mujhe lagtaa hai ki jab "kaa/ke/kii" kaa isti'maal kiyaa jaa'e  to sab ko pataa hai ki verb kis tarah hogaa. savaal ye hai ki <agar  izaafii haalat meN lafzoN ko "-e-" se joR deN to urduu meN verb kis  tarah aa'egaa?>
misaal ke taur par urduu meN is jumle meN ---"hazaaroN tuxm-e-xwaahisheN sarzamiin-e-dil meN ____."--- kaun saa fi'l aa'egaa?---
"milaa hai"
"mile haiN"
"milii hai"
"milii haiN"


----------



## Qureshpor

^ mile haiN

It is clear that the author is matching "xvaahish" with milii hai. But even then, as it is xvaahisheN, the verb ought to be "milii haiN". But that would mess up his radiif!


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor said:


> ^ mile haiN
> 
> It is clear that the author is matching "xvaahish" with milii hai. But even then, as it is xvaahisheN, the verb ought to be "milii haiN". But that would mess up his radiif!


bahut shukriyah Qureshpor saahib.

vaise ek aur savaal: urduu meN is jumle meN ---"hazaaroN tuxm-e-xwaahisheN sarzamiin-e-dil meN mile haiN."--- "*hazaaroN*" "tuxm" kii sifat hai yaa "xwaahisheN" kii?


----------



## Qureshpor

*hazaaroN* [tuxm-i-*xvaahisheN*] > *hazaaroN* [*xvaahishoN* ke tuxm]

abhii abhii hazaaroN xvaahishoN ke biij dil kii sar-zamiin meN mile haiN

Our poet has probably Miir Taqi Miir and Ghalib in mind/

ibtidaa-i-3ishq hai, rotaa hai kyaa
aage aage dekhiye hotaa hai kyaa

sabz hotii hii nahiiN yih sar-zamiiN
tuxm-i-xvaahish dil meN tuu botaa hai kyaa
......................

hazaaroN xvaahisheN aisii kih har xvaahish pih dam nikle
bahut nikle mire armaan, lekin phir bhii kam nikle


----------



## sapnachaandni

^ achchhaa, shukriyah QP saahib.

to phir “hazaaroN”, “xwaahisheN/xwaahishoN” kii sifat hii hai.


ek aur savaal: kyaa “hazaaroN tuxm-e-xwaahisheN sarzamiin-e-dil meN *mile haiN*.” ke ‘alaavah, “hazaaroN tuxm-e-xwaahisheN sarzamiin-e-dil meN *milaa hai*.” bhii durust maanaa jaa saktaa hai?

"tuxm-e-xwaahisheN" se is baat kaa pataa kaise chalegaa ki "tuxm" kaa isti'maal plural ke ruup meN hii kiyaa gayaa hai?

matlab, kyaa yuuN nahiiN ho saktaa: "hazaaroN tuxm-e-xwaahisheN" ---> "hazaaroN xwaahishoN *kaa* tuxm"?


----------



## Qureshpor

^ پھرہزاروں خواہشوں کےاُس ایک تخم سے دل کی زمین میں ہندوانہ ہی اُگے تو شاعر کا کام بنےگا۔


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor said:


> ^ پھرہزاروں خواہشوں کےاُس ایک تخم سے دل کی زمین میں ہندوانہ ہی اُگے تو شاعر کا کام بنےگا۔


LOL

par “logoN kaa dil” aur “logoN ke dil” donoN kahe jaa sakte haiN.
yaa “logoN ke dil meN” aur “logoN ke diloN meN” donoN kahe jaa sakte haiN.
jab kahaa jaataa hai “logoN kaa dil” yaa “logoN ke dil meN”, to kyaa matlab ye hogaa ki sirf ek dil hai aur ek se ziyaadah log?! yaa is kaa matlab ye hai ki har ek ke liye ek dil hai?

isii tarah "hazaaroN xwaahishoN *kaa* tuxm" aur "hazaaroN xwaahishoN *ke* tuxm" donoN bole nahiiN jaa sakte?


----------



## Aryamp

Moderator note : 

Unfortunately I had to close this thread as it is multi-topic and the answers are mixed up. Please open separate threads for separate questions and refrain from answering multi-topic threads; thanks.


----------

