# Urdu: آم and عام



## xjm

In Hindi, /am/ "mango" and /am/ "common" are spelled the same way: आम

In Urdu they are different because Urdu preserves the original spelling of the latter:
"mango": آم  /am/
"common": عام   /ʔam/

Do you personally pronounce a glottal stop at the beginning of عام?  Do you distinguish between the two words at all, or are they homonyms homophones to you?

Do you pronounce ع in general, or is always silent or a "short a" /ə/ for you?

I am interested mostly in the perception of people who consider Urdu to be their mother tongue (though I would be really interested to learn that speakers of other languages preserve the glottal stop that seems to be indicated by the written form in Urdu).


----------



## Faylasoof

xjm said:


> In Hindi, /am/ "mango" and /am/ "common" are spelled the same way: आम
> 
> In Urdu they are different because Urdu preserves the original spelling of the latter:
> "mango": آم  /am/
> "common": عام   /ʔam/
> 
> Do you personally pronounce a glottal stop at the beginning of عام?  Do you distinguish between the two words at all, or are they homonyms homophones to you?
> 
> Do you pronounce ع in general, or is always silent or a "short a" /ə/ for you?
> 
> I am interested mostly in the perception of people who consider Urdu to be their mother tongue (though I would be really interested to learn that speakers of other languages preserve the glottal stop that seems to be indicated by the written form in Urdu).



We do distinguish between the two and for عام we do pronounce the ع but less deeply than in Arabic - still different from a _hamzah_.


----------



## BP.

xjm said:


> ...
> 
> Do you personally pronounce a glottal stop at the beginning of عام? ...
> 
> I am interested mostly in the perception of people who consider Urdu to be their mother tongue ...



To both your questions: I do pronounce the _ayn_-ع- and I'm an Urduphone.


----------



## Illuminatus

Thanks, xjm. I didn't even know they had different sounds!

Most Hindi speakers aren't even aware of the existence of the _aayn_


----------



## lcfatima

I don't think the vast majority of Urdu speakers make any distinct glottal 3ain like sound or distinguish between 3aam and aam in pronunciation.


----------



## Faylasoof

lcfatima said:


> I don't think the vast majority of Urdu speakers make any distinct glottal 3ain like sound or distinguish between 3aam and aam in pronunciation.


That is true, but then the vast majoriy of Urdu speakers don't / can't distinguish between ق (_qaaf_) and ک (_kaaf_) when they are supposed to, just like between _3ayn (_ع) and _hamzah (_ ء_)_.


----------



## lcfatima

Qaaf I hear articulated often. I do know what you mean though, that many don't say it. I must say I have never ever noticed even a slight 3ain on any word beginning with the spelling. Are native speaking Urdu students taught to pronounce the 3ain in Urdu class in school...I mean, is this prescriptive?  How do you (personally) pronounce words in which 3ain is present but in other positions in the word?


----------



## panjabigator

When I studied Urdu at Lucknow, the Urdudaan at the academy really didn't distinguish.  And many text books make no mention of a glottal stop in Urdu.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

lcfatima said:


> Qaaf I hear articulated often. I do know what you mean though, that many don't say it. I must say I have never ever noticed even a slight 3ain on any word beginning with the spelling.


 
I couldn't agree more with you. 

The only people I have ever heard pronouncing the *3ayn* in Urdu are those who have learned Arabic in a religious seminar (madrasah / jaami3ah). Check it out on any of the multiple PK religious channels offering religious bayaan or discussing masa'il etc...

Individual exceptions can't make the rule here.


----------



## Faylasoof

Given that nearly all established Urdu grammars were written _by_ 18th / 19th Europeans (!) and not natives, it is hardly surprising that little emphasis was placed on certain sounds in Urdu, esp. the gutturals. Later books by natives were different.

Besides, many of these grammars were _for_ Europeans who learnt a dialect that was to cater for both Urdu and Hindi speakers, otherwise called Hindustani. Consequently, some of the gutturals were diluted for ease of leaning. 

BWT, most of these books don’t even bother teaching pronunciation in any detail if at all. 

No one is making up rules. The correct pronunciation of ع being a guttural is mentioned in this book. 

_Ataliq--i-Urdu Laiq Ahmad , Maulavi* (1899)___


Pg. 12 

“The letters ع and غ are sounded from the throat and are guttural. In Roman characters they are represented by …”

Pg. 13

“… Also he should have acquired a fair knowledge of the primary vowel sounds, always excepting the Arabic letter ع which cannot be taught by any English equivalent. The place of utterance of the letters ع and غ is in the lower muscles of the throat.”  

[* As the title _maulavi_ was used rather loosely in the 19th century, and included those who had nothing to do with theology but had completed the required courses in Persian and Arabic while pursuing Urdu as well, it is not clear whether the author really was one or this title was just an honorific, as many the 19th were addressed thus. I mention this in case my colleagues here accuse me of quoting from a _maulavi_, who they think have a penchant for guttural sounds! One of my ancestor’s name too _at time_ appears with the attached title _maulavi_ though he was by profession a lawyer and by passion a writer, a poet, a linguist and a literary critic]. 

All of my family members make this distinction between an _3ayn_ (ع) on the one hand and either an _alif madda_ (آ) or a _hamzah_ (ء) on the other. Hence we distinguish between *aam (*آم*)* and *3aam (*عام*)* as we do between *‘alam (*ألم*)* and *3alam (*علم*)*.._And we are not maulavis! _

Since we are talking of gutturals, I can also say here with confidence something about ق. It is not pronounced correctly by many / most Urdu speakers. By Urdu speakers I mean all those who speak Urdu fluently even if it happens not to be their mother tongue. This is commonly observed in Pakistan where ~ 10% of the population claims Urdu as its mother tongue. 

I lived in South Asia long enough to know that ق is widely mispronounced as a ك. The same is true for the Urdu speaking Diaspora that I keep in touch with.

The fact that even in present-day Lucknow people are not bothered with this distinction between _3ayn_ (ع),  an _alif madda_ (آ) or a _hamzah_ (ء) also doesn't mean that the rule never existed.


----------



## lcfatima

Does anyone know if native speaking Urdu students are taught to pronounce the 3ain in Urdu class in school? If this was once prescriptive, is it still taught to youngsters today?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

According to my *first hand* knowledge of present day schools in Pakistan, it is not taught at all....

Now what Faylasoof mentions is the pronounciation of the Muslim elite of old times, which has survived to some extent in Lucknow and which he is part of.

As you know now, nowadays' Muslim 'elite' speaks English 'thanks' to the (first physical, then cultural) genocide of the Muslim elite carried out by the British from 1857 on....

So Faylasoof, I wholeheartedly agree that things should be the way you say, but nowadays, unfortunately, our elite is more concerned by how to pronounce properlly English words... They barely speak and write Urdu.


----------



## Faylasoof

Glad you agree, Cilqui! Yes, these days our Urdu speakers (elite or otherwise) are not that interested in proper Urdu (pronunciation or grammar) that is why I lay stress on it. 

... and Fatima, as Cilqui says there is no teaching of _3ayn_ in Urdu in Pakistan -I know this from my own experience too - as there is none for teaching the other guttural, _qaaf_.


----------



## xjm

So it sounds like the ع is a feature that is being lost in everyday speech, and mostly it's only people who have made formal study of Arabic or perhaps Persian that use it?


----------



## Qureshpor

*XJM has posted an interesting question. My mother tongue is not Urdu but this is the only language I have been taught to read and write (as well as speak of course) from my childhood days. Punjabi has been my spoken language only. I know for certain that we were never taught to pronounce 'ain at school. It goes without saying that when I was learning to read the Holy Qur'an, all the consonants were taught "religiously"!.

I partially agree with Faylasoof Sahib. I do believe that there are Urdu speakers who, in their natural every day speech still distinguish the letter 'an. But this distinction is rather subtle and no where near as obvious as say a Qaarii uttering an 'ain. Neither should one expect them to speak with the full 'ain because they are after all speaking Urdu and not Arabic.

I do believe that even the "worst" Urdu speakers, of whatever background, do at least distinguish the letter 'ain in some positions. An initial 'ain may require mega amounts of energy to articulate but the medial 'ain (and perhaps even the final 'ain) is differentiated. A good example would be the word "ba'd (after) vs "baad" (wind). Whether this difference is in the intonation or actual articulation is another matter. Poets do not rhyme ba'd with baad (to the best of my knowledge). This is not necessarily proof that Urdu speakers  distinguish 'ain to some extent but it is certainly a useful guide.*


----------



## Faylasoof

xjm said:


> So it sounds like the ع is a feature that is being lost in everyday speech, and mostly it's only people who have made formal study of Arabic or perhaps Persian that use it?



Generally speaking, I think this disticntion got lost a long while ago. However, some people are keepng it alive!  ... formal study of Arabic helps  but is not necessary as I know those who make this distinction but have not studied Arabic!



QURESHPOR said:


> *
> XJM has posted an interesting question. My mother tongue is not Urdu but  this is the only language I have been taught to read and write (as well  as speak of course) from my childhood days. Punjabi has been my spoken  language only. I know for certain that we were never taught to pronounce  'ain at school. It goes without saying that when I was learning to read  the Holy Qur'an, all the consonants were taught "religiously"!.
> 
> I partially agree with Faylasoof Sahib. I do believe that there are Urdu  speakers who, in their natural every day speech still distinguish the  letter 'an. But this distinction is rather subtle and no where near as  obvious as say a Qaarii uttering an 'ain. Neither should one expect them  to speak with the full 'ain because they are after all speaking Urdu  and not Arabic.
> 
> I do believe that even the "worst" Urdu speakers, of whatever  background, do at least distinguish the letter 'ain in some positions.  An initial 'ain may require mega amounts of energy to articulate but the  medial 'ain (and perhaps even the final 'ain) is differentiated. A good  example would be the word "ba'd (after) vs "baad" (wind). Whether this  difference is in the intonation or actual articulation is another  matter. Poets do not rhyme ba'd with baad (to the best of my knowledge).  This is not necessarily proof that Urdu speakers  distinguish 'ain to  some extent but it is certainly a useful guide.
> *


  There is an old thread where we did discuss how these gutturals are pronounced / supposed to be pronounced by Urdu speakers where I mentioned that our gutturals are less deep than _bona fide_ Arabic gutturals! Also, the speed of delivery can make a difference as to how much effort one gives to a particular guttural like _3ayn_ or _He_. Having said this, for a reason I can't explain well, we _always_ pronounce _qaaf_ as it should be and never as _kaaf_. 
 
I partly agree with you on this! In normal speech I've heard many turn _3ayn_ (guttural) into a _hamza_ (glottal stop), and even into an _alif_. So for them _ba3d_ becomes just _baad_!

... true poets don't rhyme _ba3d_ with _baad_ but speech is different and many I hear are increasingly not bothering with _3ayn _anymore! We still do.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Generally speaking, I think this disticntion got lost a long while ago. However, some people are keepng it alive!  ... formal study of Arabic helps  but is not necessary as I know those who make this distinction but have not studied Arabic!
> 
> There is an old thread where we did discuss how these gutturals are pronounced / supposed to be pronounced by Urdu speakers where I mentioned that our gutturals are less deep than _bona fide_ Arabic gutturals! Also, the speed of delivery can make a difference as to how much effort one gives to a particular guttural like _3ayn_ or _He_. Having said this, for a reason I can't explain well, we _always_ pronounce _qaaf_ as it should be and never as _kaaf_.
> 
> I partly agree with you on this! In normal speech I've heard many turn _3ayn_ (guttural) into a _hamza_ (glottal stop), and even into an _alif_. So for them _ba3d_ becomes just _baad_!
> 
> ... true poets don't rhyme _ba3d_ with _baad_ but speech is different and many I hear are increasingly not bothering with _3ayn _anymore! We still do.



*I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of Urdu speakers (of whatever background and leaving aside the clergy) do not pronounce the 'ain with no where near the same crispiness with which some of the Urdu speakers pronounce the letter qaaf. Nevertheless, there still remains a subtle hint of the letter 'ain and this is more obvious in a word like ba'd. A careful  Urdu speaker would distinguish between ba'd and baad, shi'r and sher etc whereas a Hindi speaker/writer would not.

I too find it rather strange that there appears to be so much emphasis placed on the correct pronunciation of "qaaf" whilst no special attention is to paid to other letters particular to Arabic . Moreover people seem to forget that even within some Urdu speech communities, Hyderabadis for example, the qaaf is not pronounced correctly.    *


----------



## panjabigator

Just to keep this thread steered on track, may I recommend that we continue the kaaf/qaaf conversation elsewhere? We have several threads on the matter, of this I'm sure. At the moment I only remember the one I started last year (cheap plug?): Punjabi and kaaf.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> *
> I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of Urdu speakers (of whatever background and leaving aside the clergy) do not pronounce the 'ain with no where near the same crispiness with which some of the Urdu speakers pronounce the letter qaaf. Nevertheless, there still remains a subtle hint of the letter 'ain and this is more obvious in a word like ba'd. A careful  Urdu speaker would distinguish between ba'd and baad, shi'r and sher etc whereas a Hindi speaker/writer would not.
> ....
> *


 A careful Urdu speaker would distinguish between _ba3d_ and baad, _she3r_ and _sher_ but most people don't bother, I regret to say.


----------

