# Hindi, Urdu: bilkul بالكل



## tarkshya

What is the correct pronunciation of word بالكل in Urdu?

The reason I ask is because the word is written as बिल्कुल in Hindi, and pronounced exactly as written, i.e. "bilkul". Its strange spelling in Urdu roused my curiosity. Apparently the word is Arabic in origin, and Arabic pronunciation is same as Hindi version.


----------



## Dib

The Urdu pronunciation is also bilkul. The spelling has to do with the Arabic convention of retaining the alif of the definite article al- (the) after the preposition bi- (with/at/...), which is joined in writing to the following word, and the fact that al- loses its "a-" in pronunciation when it follows a vowel. So, it may be transcribed from Arabic as bi-'l-kull (I used the ' here simply to denote the omitted a, no glottal stop or any other sound), where kull = total/whole, so "bilkul" is essentially something like "in the whole".


----------



## Alfaaz

Dib SaaHib has already provided a very comprehensive reply, but here are a few relevant posts and threads on this topic: 

Urdu: اگر اُنہیں تمہاری ضرورت ہوتی تو وہ ضرور تم سے رابطے کی کوشیش کرتے۔


			
				Alfaaz said:
			
		

> Chhaatr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could someone please explain why is there an "alif" after "be" of bilkul? Is this how bilkul is written in Urdu or am I reading it incorrectly?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> This is how _bilkul _is written in Urdu. You will find such spelling of many words which have been directly taken from Arabic and the original spelling is retained. Another example can be _filHaal_ - فی الحال , discussed in this thread along with _bilkul_.
> ...
Click to expand...

 Urdu: Filhaal فی الحال


			
				omlick said:
			
		

> Thanks for taking time to explain the reason why the "al" sort of disappears when you say it. In Hindi, the spelling of course would not take into account that "al" at all, so most Hindi speakers do not even know of its existence. The very common word "bilkuul" also is another example of this. Now I know why it is not spelled the same way in Hindi as in Urdu.


----------



## tarkshya

Thanks Dib and Alfaaz for great explanation. I was curious about the spelling of proper name "zulfiqar" ذو الفقار too, but I guess now it is covered under the same explanation.


----------



## Khaanabadosh

Yes, ذو الفقار or ذوالجلال they all fit the above explanation.


----------



## Simple1234

People use "bilkul" to mean "absolutely" like this: "yeh vakya bilkul sahi hai" - This sentence is *absolutely *correct.
However, why does it sound *incorrect *to my native ears when someone says "mai bilkul dara huwa hu". - I am *absolutely *terrified.
I'd rather say " mai *bahut *dara huwa hu".  Bahut sounds correct here.
Can anyone please explain me the grammatical aspect of this, as in why "bahut" doesn't work in the second sentence even though the English substitute "absolutely" works fine in both the sentences?


----------



## desi4life

Simple1234 said:


> People use "bilkul" to mean "absolutely" like this: "yeh vakya bilkul sahi hai" - This sentence is *absolutely *correct.
> However, why does it sound *incorrect *to my native ears when someone says "mai bilkul dara huwa hu". - I am *absolutely *terrified.
> I'd rather say " mai *bahut *dara huwa hu".  Bahut sounds correct here.
> Can anyone please explain me the grammatical aspect of this, as in why "bahut" doesn't work in the second sentence even though the English substitute "absolutely" works fine in both the sentences?



Actually, "maiN bahut Daraa huaa huuN" is a perfectly fine sentence and is more common than saying "maiN bilkul Daraa huaa huuN". The two phrases convey slightly different meanings though. The first phrase I wrote means "I am very/extremely terrified (or scared, afraid, frightened, etc.)" while the second means "I am quite/completely/absolutely/totally terrified (or scared, afraid, frightened, etc.)".


----------



## PersoLatin

Isn’t _bilkul_ the Arabic بالکل? It is also used in Persian, pronounced _belkol_ (colloquially _bekol_ even _benkol_) ‘all of’, ‘completely’ ‘entirely’’


----------



## desi4life

PersoLatin said:


> Isn’t _bilkul_ the Arabic بالکل? It is also used in Persian, pronounced _belkol_ (colloquially _bekol_ even _benkol_) ‘all of’, ‘completely’ ‘entirely’



Yes, it's the same word.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> ....also used in Persian, pronounced _belkol_ (colloquially _bekol_ even _benkol_) ‘all of’, ‘completely’ ‘entirely’’


Correction, _belkol_ is ‘all of’ & entirety, bekoli/بکلی means completely, entirely.


----------



## cherine

It's from Arabic (Arabic preposition bi- and the word كل) but not used in Arabic. We have كلِّيًا - كُلِّيتًا - بالكليِّة kulliyyan, kulliyyatan, bilkulliya, but to my knowledge, the last one isn't very commonly used.


----------



## PersoLatin

cherine said:


> It's from Arabic (Arabic preposition bi- and the word كل) but not used in Arabic.


Hi cherine, if بالکل, in this form, is not used in Arabic couldn't the be/bi have come from Persian?


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Hi cherine, if بالکل, in this form, is not used in Arabic couldn't the be/bi have come from Persian?


بالکل certainly is cited in Arabic, for example Wehr.

As for whether بِ is Persian in بالکل, I would say no for two reasons.

1) All words with  بِ preceding the Arabic definite article have the Arabic preposition بِ.

2) In Persian بِ is used with Persian verbs, as بِکُن، بِکرد etc while بَ is used with non-verbs etc, e.g روز بَروز، بَخانہ رفتم، بَاین، بآن، بَدین، بَدان and so forth. In the Modern Persian language, I don't believe this distinction is preserved.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> 1) All words with بِ preceding the Arabic definite article have the Arabic preposition بِ.


I can accept this.



Qureshpor said:


> 2) In Persian بِ is used with Persian verbs, as بِکُن، بِکرد etc while بَ is used with non-verbs etc, e.g روز بَروز، بَخانہ رفتم، بَاین، بآن، بَدین، بَدان and so forth. In the Modern Persian language, I don't believe this distinction is preserved.


Is this a rule, is there any references for this? 

Modern Persian aside, a few regional accents within present Iran use 'ba' for verbs.

بدان, بدین are from padi-in and padi-ān (pati-),  you'd expect the short vowel /a/ to have been the original pronunciation.


----------



## cherine

Qureshpor said:


> بالکل certainly is cited in Arabic, for example Wehr.


Thank you, I didn't know this. Wehr (Arabic-English dictionary) does indeed give:
بالكل on the whole, in the aggregate, taken altogether, in bulk.

But I still believe it isn't used, at least not commonly, in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA).



PersoLatin said:


> Hi cherine, if بالکل, in this form, is not used in Arabic couldn't the be/bi have come from Persian?


Putting aside the fact that بالكل is/was used in Arabic, and to add to Qureshpor's reply, I don't see a reason why the word would be formed like this when the Arabic preposition already gives the appropriate meaning.


----------



## PersoLatin

cherine said:


> Putting aside the fact that بالكل is/was used in Arabic, and to add to Qureshpor's reply, I don't see a reason why the word would be formed like this when the Arabic preposition already gives the appropriate meaning.


I accept what you are saying and had accepted Qureshpor's reply, especially for this word as it is a wholesale borrowing, including ال.

Some Arabic borrowed words do take on Persian prepositions/suffixes: بقدری, بوقت etc., unless these are from Arabic too.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Some Arabic borrowed words do take on Persian prepositions/suffixes: بقدری, بوقت etc., unless these are from Arabic too.


No, the بَ here is not Arabic but Persian and is still pronounced in some quarters as ba- as ba-vaqt, ba-qadrii etc as in the examples I gave in my previous post. In Iran it may be pronounced as bi- now. fdb is of the view that there has possibly been some contamination between the Persian pa- and the Arabic bi-.
Persian: prefix-be


----------

