# Hindi / Urdu: spelling of "vo" used as a conjunction



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

I am confused about the value (and spelling) of "vo" when used like in these verses (from "Dilbar Mere"):

_maiN aag dil meN lagaa dūNgaa *vo* ke pal mēN pighal jaaōgē_

First of all, for me, "vo" here is acting as a conjunction (=aur, "and"), therefore:
_I will light a fire in your heart, and you will melt in an instant_

However, I was corrected that the proper translation would be a consecutive construction, i.e.:
_I will light *such* a fire in your heart, *that* you will melt in an instant_
Why?

And my second question is, how should I write it in both Hindi and Urdu.
I used وو वो , according to the Platts entry for "and"

*Platts*
H وو वो _wo_ (dialec. & colloq.), 1˚ pron. = _wah_ or _wǒh_, q.v.; — 2˚ = _we_, nom. pl. of the pron. _wǒh_; — 3˚ conj. = _au_ or _o_ ( = _aur_), q.v.

but I was corrected by an educated Urdu speaker that I should have used وہ


I am thoroughly confused. Please orient me.
Thanks


----------



## Alfaaz

MonsieurGonzalito said:
			
		

> Why?
> ...
> but I was corrected by an educated Urdu speaker that I should have used وہ


The following rearrangement might be helpful:

میں آگ دل میں لگادوں گا  *وہ* ← میں *وہ آگ *دل میں لگادوں گا​
In modern Urdu, the word is written as وہ ← وہی.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Alfaaz said:


> In modern Urdu, the word is written as وہ ← وہی.


Thanks, @Alfaaz
I still don't understand 100%.

According to your explanation, and the dictionary, there is a family of equivalent words: وُہی , ووهين , وهين , وہ (वह/वो , वहीँ, वोहीं, वही), all meaning "itself, the very same"
And maybe that word acts in conjunction with the "ki" (कि / کہ, it "ki" not "ke") later in the sentence, forming some sort of consecutive construction.

So, _"*such* a fire, *that* I will melt you in an instant"_ is a correct translation?

I would have expected _jaisii ... ki, _not_ vahiN ... ki_
Does _vahiN_ also have the value of "so, such", expecting a "ki/that" afterwards?


----------



## Alfaaz

MonsieurGonzalito said:
			
		

> ... forming some sort of consecutive construction.
> 
> So, _"*such* a fire, *that* I will melt you in an instant"_ is a correct translation?


 The translation would be _"such a fire, that you will melt in an instant"_. _woh _isn't necessarily related/connected to _keh_. Please consult the following:



> وُہ
> ...
> ۲۔ ایسا ، اس قسم کا ، اس طرح کا ۔


​


			
				MonsieurGonzalito said:
			
		

> I would have expected _jaisii ..._


میں آگ دل میں لگادوں گا *وہ* ← میں *وہ آگ *دل میں لگادوں گا← میں *ایسی آگ *دل میں لگادوں گا​


----------



## Jashn

Just to reiterate what Alfaaz has said, it's not a conjunct, it's being used for emphasis. There are two clauses with 'keh' as a conjunct.

_maiN aag dil meN lagaa dūNgaa *vo* 
ke 
pal mēN pighal jaaōgē_

I guess a more standard word order would be: "main dil mein vo aag lagaa doonga/ki/pal mein pighal jaaoge" ? But I guess it loses its poetic turn of phrase like that.


----------



## littlepond

"vo" ("woh") here qualifies "aag" ("such a fire"), as you have understood it by now, it seems. In other words "maiN woh aag dil meN lagaa dooNgaa ki pal meN pighal jaaoge". The "woh" here can be substituted by the less poetic "aisii".


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Excellent! Now I understand. Thanks, @Alfaaz, @littlepond ,  @Jashn .
What would be the proper Nagari transcription, वह, वो?


----------



## desi4life

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> What would be the proper Nagari transcription, वह, वो?



The correct written usage is वह but in speech is usually pronounced वो or वोह


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Thanks, @desi4life


----------



## Qureshpor

desi4life said:


> The correct written usage is वह but in speech is usually pronounced वो or वोह


It is obvious that in both Urdu and Hindi, "yah" and "vah" were the original forms and pronunciations at some stage in history, as we have "yahaaN" and "vahaaN" still current in both the languages instead of "yihaaN" and "vuhaaN". As far as Modern Standard Hindi is concerned, this older pronunciation appears to be still current in some circles as discussed in this thread.

Hindi:  वह as /ʋɛɦə/

@desi4life Jii, @aevynn Jii, @Dib Jii and @Au101 Jii, I know this might be a difficult question to answer. Both Urdu and Hindi have the usual everyday pronunciation of these words as somethin akin to "ye(h)" and "vo(h)". Both languages as far as these Indic words are concerned would/should have developed on the same lines. My question is this. As far as Modern Standard Hindi is concerned, at what stage did the yah > ye(h) and vah > vo(h) transition take place in pronunciation? Is there any piece of earliest Hindi poetry that you are aware of where, for example "ye(h)" (for the singular) is rhymed with words like "le", "ke", "ge" "se", "de" etc and "vo(h) is rhymed with "jo", "lo", "bo", "to", "do" etc? Another possible solution to my question may be in Roman format. Is there any Hindi prose or verse literature where yah/vah are represented in Roman from the European colonial era that reflects present or near present pronunciation of these words?


----------



## littlepond

Qureshpor said:


> As far as Modern Standard Hindi is concerned, at what stage did the yah > ye(h) and vah > vo(h) transition take place in pronunciation? Is there any piece of earliest Hindi poetry that you are aware of where, for example "ye(h)" (for the singular) is rhymed with words like "le", "ke", "ge" "se", "de" etc and "vo(h) is rhymed with "jo", "lo", "bo", "to", "do" etc? Another possible solution to my question may be in Roman format. Is there any Hindi prose or verse literature where yah/vah are represented in Roman from the European colonial era that reflects present or near present pronunciation of these words?



The question is not addressed to me, but I would simply add that the Modern Standard Hindi is not so ancient as to permit such a question!


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> It is obvious that in both Urdu and Hindi, "yah" and "vah" were the original forms and pronunciations at some stage in history... at what stage did the yah > ye(h) and vah > vo(h) transition take place in pronunciation?


Qureshpor jii, this is a nice question and I would also be interested in seeing historical specimens that shed some light on the history of this transition  Are you aware of any historical specimens in the Urdu script that shed some light on this transition in pronunciation?


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> Qureshpor jii, this is a nice question and I would also be interested in seeing historical specimens that shed some light on the history of this transition  Are you aware of any historical specimens in the Urdu script that shed some light on this transition in pronunciation?


aevynn SaaHib, you have expressed an agreement with the sentiments expressed in post #11. The time span of Modern Standard Hindi is well documented and I am aware of it. As "yah" and "vah" pronunciations are not currently used in Urdu but according to Hindi speakers they are still to be found amongst some Hindi speakers, I wanted to see if Hindi literature could provide some clues on the earliest occurrence of the pronunciation shift. I thought that learned people like your good self and other friends whom I have named could provide such references from Hindi literary works, bearing in mind that unlike me, you all appear to have some form of training in linguistics. Providing Urdu sources would not necessary be helpful to support what I am requesting.

If there are literary examples that show that the yah, vah > ye(h), vo(h) shift took place a considerable while back, this would indicate that the proponents of "yah/vah" pronunciation have gone back in time, for whatever reason.


----------



## aevynn

@Qureshpor jii, I have no formal training in linguistics! I don't even have one linguistics class to my name. I've only dabbled as a layperson and an amateur, and even most of my dabbling has been in syntax rather than historical linguistics, so nothing I say should be taken seriously. I hope others who are more knowledgeable than me will chime in.

My reason for asking you the question I asked is that I think historical specimens in the Urdu script would be extremely relevant for the question(s) you have posed. Let me try to elaborate.

I think there are at least two separate (but related) questions here:
​(1) How long have the demonstratives been pronounced [jeː] and [ʋoː] in the spoken vernacular of Delhi and/or the Upper Gangetic Doab? This vernacular, as we all know, has many names. Grierson calls it "Vernacular Hindustani" in the Linguistic Survey of India. In this post, I'll call it Khari Boli.​​(2) Why did the standardizers of MSH choose to prescribe यह/ये and वह/वे in the written language?​
It seems to me that we'd need to understand the answer to (1) before we can start to hypothesize about (2). For example, if it turns out that the demonstratives began to be pronounced [jeː] and [ʋoː] in Khari Boli _after_ the standardization of MSH, the answer to (2) probably becomes very simple: the standardizers likely chose to prescribe the spellings यह/ये and वह/वे at a time when these spellings accurately described the Khari Boli pronunciation.

But I have a suspicion that the demonstratives began to be pronounced [jeː] and [ʋoː] in Khari Boli _before_ the standardization of MSH. The beginnings of the Hindi Language Movement are just about 150 years ago, so relatively "little" time has elapsed since the standardization of MSH. I know it's not "little" time when compared against human lifetimes, but it seems like "little" time when measured on a linguistic scale...? It would be a little surprising to me if something as commonplace and as syntactically fundamental as demonstratives changed significantly in pronunciation in just this "little" time.

If this suspicion is correct, I guess we'll only find evidence of the transition in the pre-MSH period. Now as far as I understand the historical situation, Khari Boli in the pre-MSH period was written down most systematically in the Urdu script. There was some Khari Boli written down in Devanagari (and related Brahmic scripts like Kaithi) in the pre-MSH period as well, but not as systematically, since it often occurs in fragments in works that mix a variety of other vernaculars (Braj, Awadhi, etc, as in the works of Bhakti poets). This mixing of vernaculars would make it difficult to tease out information about pronunciation in any particular vernacular we may be interested in -- which is what we need to do to answer (1).

Based on all of this, my _guess_ is that our best bet for answering (1) is to look at historical specimens in the Urdu script, since those are most likely to shed light on Khari Boli pronunciation. But I don't know where to look for sufficiently old historical specimens. Also, as I said in the beginning, I have no idea what I'm talking about 

-------
PS. (1) and (2) are not really the only questions. There are also other questions hovering around us:
​(3-Braj) What is the pronunciation of the demonstratives in Braj, and how long have those pronunciations been around?​(3-Awadhi) Same question but with Awadhi.​(3-Haryanvi) Same question but with Haryanvi.​...​​(4) Why do some present speakers pronounce यह/ये and वह/वे "as spelled" when speaking Khari Boli?​
I have almost no knowledge of Braj, Awadhi, etc. The only thing I can do to even try to address the (3-X) questions is direct people to Kellogg's "Dialectic Pronominal Declension" table, which might tell us something about historical pronunciations of the demonstratives in these varieties. I think @littlepond jii and @Dib jii have both related experiences to us on this forum to us that suggest that they may have a sense of the present state of affairs in these varieties.

This leads us to (4). My suspicion is that there are two factors at play here. The first factor I have in mind is "substrate" influence from one of the neighboring varieties. For example, in this post, @littlepond jii told us that the standardized MSH spellings reflect the vernacular pronunciation in eastern UP and Bihar. This could be because the standardized MSH spellings accurately reflect the pronunciations of the Awadhi or Bhojpuri demonstratives, so speakers in eastern UP and Bihar carry over these pronunciations when speaking Khari Boli as well? But again, I don't know. The second factor I have in mind is less interesting: it probably results in part from the unconsidered narrative that @Au101 also recently pointed out to us: namely, the narrative that says that "Hindi spelling is perfectly logical and you just say what you see."


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> @Qureshpor jii, I have no formal training in linguistics! I don't even have one linguistics class to my name. I've only dabbled as a layperson and an amateur, and even most of my dabbling has been in syntax rather than historical linguistics, so nothing I say should be taken seriously. I hope others who are more knowledgeable than me will chime in.
> 
> My reason for asking you the question I asked is that I think historical specimens in the Urdu script would be extremely relevant for the question(s) you have posed. Let me try to elaborate.
> 
> I think there are at least two separate (but related) questions here:
> ​(1) How long have the demonstratives been pronounced [jeː] and [ʋoː] in the spoken vernacular of Delhi and/or the Upper Gangetic Doab? This vernacular, as we all know, has many names. Grierson calls it "Vernacular Hindustani" in the Linguistic Survey of India. In this post, I'll call it Khari Boli.​​(2) Why did the standardizers of MSH choose to prescribe यह/ये and वह/वे in the written language?​
> It seems to me that we'd need to understand the answer to (1) before we can start to hypothesize about (2). For example, if it turns out that the demonstratives began to be pronounced [jeː] and [ʋoː] in Khari Boli _after_ the standardization of MSH, the answer to (2) probably becomes very simple: the standardizers likely chose to prescribe the spellings यह/ये and वह/वे at a time when these spellings accurately described the Khari Boli pronunciation.
> 
> But I have a suspicion that the demonstratives began to be pronounced [jeː] and [ʋoː] in Khari Boli _before_ the standardization of MSH. The beginnings of the Hindi Language Movement are just about 150 years ago, so relatively "little" time has elapsed since the standardization of MSH. I know it's not "little" time when compared against human lifetimes, but it seems like "little" time when measured on a linguistic scale...? It would be a little surprising to me if something as commonplace and as syntactically fundamental as demonstratives changed significantly in pronunciation in just this "little" time.
> 
> If this suspicion is correct, I guess we'll only find evidence of the transition in the pre-MSH period. Now as far as I understand the historical situation, Khari Boli in the pre-MSH period was written down most systematically in the Urdu script. There was some Khari Boli written down in Devanagari (and related Brahmic scripts like Kaithi) in the pre-MSH period as well, but not as systematically, since it often occurs in fragments in works that mix a variety of other vernaculars (Braj, Awadhi, etc, as in the works of Bhakti poets). This mixing of vernaculars would make it difficult to tease out information about pronunciation in any particular vernacular we may be interested in -- which is what we need to do to answer (1).
> 
> Based on all of this, my _guess_ is that our best bet for answering (1) is to look at historical specimens in the Urdu script, since those are most likely to shed light on Khari Boli pronunciation. But I don't know where to look for sufficiently old historical specimens. Also, as I said in the beginning, I have no idea what I'm talking about
> 
> -------
> PS. (1) and (2) are not really the only questions. There are also other questions hovering around us:
> ​(3-Braj) What is the pronunciation of the demonstratives in Braj, and how long have those pronunciations been around?​(3-Awadhi) Same question but with Awadhi.​(3-Haryanvi) Same question but with Haryanvi.​...​​(4) Why do some present speakers pronounce यह/ये and वह/वे "as spelled" when speaking Khari Boli?​
> I have almost no knowledge of Braj, Awadhi, etc. The only thing I can do to even try to address the (3-X) questions is direct people to Kellogg's "Dialectic Pronominal Declension" table, which might tell us something about historical pronunciations of the demonstratives in these varieties. I think @littlepond jii and @Dib jii have both related experiences to us on this forum to us that suggest that they may have a sense of the present state of affairs in these varieties.
> 
> This leads us to (4). My suspicion is that there are two factors at play here. The first factor I have in mind is "substrate" influence from one of the neighboring varieties. For example, in this post, @littlepond jii told us that the standardized MSH spellings reflect the vernacular pronunciation in eastern UP and Bihar. This could be because the standardized MSH spellings accurately reflect the pronunciations of the Awadhi or Bhojpuri demonstratives, so speakers in eastern UP and Bihar carry over these pronunciations when speaking Khari Boli as well? But again, I don't know. The second factor I have in mind is less interesting: it probably results in part from the unconsidered narrative that @Au101 also recently pointed out to us: namely, the narrative that says that "Hindi spelling is perfectly logical and you just say what you see."


I too am interested in tracing the shift of pronunciation of the demonstratives, both in their singular and plural forms, not following the line of “descent” from the mother, KhaRi-Boli (I believe this is the correct term for it) but its daughters namely Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi (MSH). Having said this, my query for the time being concerns MSH in particular because in the Urdu since Ghalib’s time we have yih/vuh for both the singular and plural whilst in MSH, all four forms are in existence to the present day, in speech and in writing. So, the questions that need to be answered are these.

A) Does MSH have a written record in its earliest literatures (say the Prem Sagar by Lallu Lal onwards) of all the four demonstratives? (All these forms are documented in Urdu literature). 

B) If yes to A), are there occurrences of the everyday colloquial pronunciation yih/vuh or yeh/voh in place of yah/vah and ye/ve in MSH in the SAME period as A) or immediately following it?

C) If yes to B), when did yah/vah and ye/ve re-enter the written scene and why?


----------



## aevynn

Mir Taqi Mir (1723-1810) _sometimes_ distinguishes وہ/وے and یہ/یے, but he does not appear to do so _consistently_ (eg, "تم کو وہ ہیں لگائے گئے"). This inconsistency leads me to the hypothesis that the singular-plural distinction of the demonstratives was in its death throes in the Khari Boli vernacular in the 1700s.

Prem Sagar (1804-1810) by Lallu Lal (1763-1835) does make use of the full set यह/ये and वह/वे. I was not able to find any inconsistencies, but I also did not look through it in its entirety. In any case, since almost the entirety of Mir's life precedes the Prem Sagar, I do not think the Prem Sagar's rigid adherence to making the singular-plural distinction can be taken as evidence of some "re-appearence" of this distinction in vernacular Khari Boli. People write differently from how they talk.

It appears that Ghalib (1797-1869) was not making singular-plural distinctions (at least for وہ).

Chandrakanta (1888) by Devaki Nandan Khatri (1861-1913) _nominally_ makes the वह/वे distinction, but it done _inconsistently_ (for example, chapter 1 contains the phrase "वह धीरे-धीरे चल-फिर सकें"). So it seems reasonable to me to conclude that the singular-plural distinction was not really part of Devaki Nandan Khatri's _vernacular_ either.

---

Anyway, I think the only conclusion that seems reasonable to draw from the above is that the singular-plural distinction of the demonstratives was already starting to disappear in the vernacular by the 1700s.

I do not know why the standardizers of MSH chose to codify the singular-plural distinction in their grammatical prescriptions, since they would have made these prescriptions well after the 1700s. (Perhaps it was just for etymological reasons.)

None of the above gives me much of a sense of how long the [jeː] and [ʋoː] pronunciations have been around.


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> Mir Taqi Mir (1723-1810) _sometimes_ distinguishes وہ/وے and یہ/یے, but he does not appear to do so _consistently_ (eg, "تم کو وہ ہیں لگائے گئے"). This inconsistency leads me to the hypothesis that the singular-plural distinction of the demonstratives was in its death throes in the Khari Boli vernacular in the 1700s.


With due respect to you aevynn Jii, I don't know why you keep insisting on the usage of "Khari Boli" when the ground reality is that we have Urdu and MSH. I don't know about you but I have no access to any KhaRi-Boli literature and by all accounts Mir and Ghalib were Urdu poets, the former with the title of "xudaa-i-suxan". If need be, in due course I shall discuss these pronouns with respect to Urdu, if and when I am able to dig out relevant material within the verse and prose of Urdu literature (including Mir, Ghalib and others).


aevynn said:


> Prem Sagar (1804-1810) by Lallu Lal (1763-1835) does make use of the full set यह/ये and वह/वे. I was not able to find any inconsistencies, but I also did not look through it in its entirety. In any case, since almost the entirety of Mir's life precedes the Prem Sagar, I do not think the Prem Sagar's rigid adherence to making the singular-plural distinction can be taken as evidence of some "re-appearence" of this distinction in vernacular Khari Boli. People write differently from how they talk.


This is widely acclaimed as the first MSH piece of literature, written at Fort William College . So, it seems logical for the author to include यह/ये and वह/वे in order to set the path and direction for MSH.



aevynn said:


> Chandrakanta (1888) by Devaki Nandan Khatri (1861-1913) _nominally_ makes the वह/वे distinction, but it done _inconsistently_ (for example, chapter 1 contains the phrase "वह धीरे-धीरे चल-फिर सकें"). So it seems reasonable to me to conclude that the singular-plural distinction was not really part of Devaki Nandan Khatri's _vernacular_ either.


Thank you for providing an actual quote from Hindi literature. Even if we assume that there also could be occurrences of ये and वे in Chandrakanta, by 1888 at least, there has been a partial shift from the full unadultrated set of Lallu Lal's Prem Sagar of 1804-1810 to Devaki Nandan Khatri's Chandrakanta of 1888. We now need to find another MSH author of repute after 1888 in whose writing one perhaps finds only यह and वह for both the singular and the plural.  With additional examples, we will hopefully then be able to draw better and more informed conclusions as to why we appear to have the full set of pronouns in both speech and writings of MSH of today. (Are you suggesting Devaki Nandan Khatri's "vernacular" was not MSH?) Have you come across any examples of yih/yeh or vuh/voh in MSH?


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> I don't know why you keep insisting on the usage of "Khari Boli" when the ground reality is that we have Urdu and MSH.


I suppose it is everyone's perogative to focus their time, attention, and energy on whatever aspects of "ground reality" they find interesting and not odious.

If someone enjoys focusing their time and attention on the narrative of the _sociocultural division_ of Hindi and Urdu, so be it. While I recognize that I cannot change historical circumstances, I find this narrative morally repugnant and linguistically ludicrous, and I refuse on principle to perpetuate this sordid narrative by contributing to it. I choose instead to focus my time, attention, and energy on a different aspect of "ground reality" that I find more interesting and less odious, namely, the _linguistic sameness_ of the language(s) in question. This aspect of "ground reality" also feels _to me_ like it more accurately describes my personal life experiences (outside of this forum) with the language(s) in question than does the narrative of division, but others' experiences can certainly differ.

I tried to define clearly what I meant by "Khari Boli" above. Here is a definition from Colin P. Masica's "The Indo-Aryan Languages" (Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 27-28:


> The ultimate anomaly in the what-is-a-language dilemma in Indo-Aryan is presented by the Hindi-Urdu situation. Counted as different languages in sociocultural sense B (and officially), Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi are not even different dialects or subdialects in linguistic sense A. They are different _literary styles_ based on the _same_ linguistically defined subdialect.
> ...
> What, then, is the subdialectal base of these two standard languages? Not surprisingly, it was that of the capital, Delhi, sometimes referred to as *Dehlavi*. It is often called *Khaṛī Bolī*...



----



Qureshpor said:


> Have you come across any examples of yih/yeh or vuh/voh in MSH?


I'm not sure what this question means.

If the question is about written works that abide by all of the prescriptions of MSH, I suppose the answer is "obviously not" --- the prescriptions of MSH explicitly forbid the number-neutral demonstratives, so this is is tautologically impossible. But this would be an extremely rigid criterion: it would also mean, for example, that Ibn-e-Safi's novel خوفناک عمارت is not "in Urdu" just because it uses spellings that are not officially sanctioned by Urdu prescriptions, such as پرواہ (instead of پروا) and سہی (instead of صحیح).

If the question is about written works that use "modernized" number-neutral spellings of demonstratives by Hindi-identifying people, such examples are not even remotely hard to find. Here are several quotes from some recent blog posts by the Hindi-speaking journalist Ravish Kumar (born 1974):

सरकार ने *वो नहीं किया* जो करना चाहिए था...
जिन देशों ने इज़रायल से पेगासस ख़रीदा है *वो* अब इसके हाथ *ब्लैकमेल हो रहे हैं*...
लेकिन *ये नहीं कहा जाएगा* कि पेगासस ख़रीदा है या नहीं...
मेरे लेख के *ये दो बिन्दु हैं*...

Alternatively, if you'd like more literary examples, here is a poem by Hindi poet Nagarjun (1911-1998) which contains lines such as the following:

और ऊँची जातियों वाली *वो समूची आबादी*...
*वो* ज़रूर कुछ न *बतलायेंगे*...

----

Let me return again to ignoring spelling and trying to chase back the neutralizing of the singular-plural distinction in the demonstratives. I will also continue assuming that the relevant Unicode transcriptions available on the internet are in fact accurate transcriptions of historical manuscripts from the lifetime of the authors (which admittedly may be a rather big and faulty assumption)...

In works by Bharatendu Harishchandra (1850--1885) (who, according to Wikipedia, "is often considered the father of Hindi literature and Hindi theatre," but who in his own works identified the vernacular of his 'caste community' as "खड़ी बोली अर्थात् उर्दू"), one finds phrases such as these:

In भारतदुर्दशा (1875): एक तो *यह सब* खुद ही…
In प्रेमजोगिनी (1874):* वह* नहाकर *आते रहते हैं*... पर *वह पुलिस के शत्रु हैं*...

I also looked again more carefully at Prem Sagar (1804-1810) and found this: *यह मन्दिर अति सुन्दर किसके हैं*. I originally found this in the Wikisource transcription, but I then checked this transcription against a Google Books scan of what appears to be an 1882 reprint of Prem Sagar:




So even Prem Sagar isn't "unadulterated," @Qureshpor jii.

Moreover, as I see it, there is not even any reason that one should even expect it to be! Prem Sagar was nothing but a deliberate exercise in excising Perso-Arabic loans from Khari Boli without changing the grammar. According to French linguist Jules Bloch (as quoted by Indian historian Tara Chand):


> Lallu Lai, sous l'inspiration du Dr. Gilchrist, changea tout cela en écrivant son célèbre *Prem Sagar, dont les parties en prose étaient en somme de l'ourdou dont les mots Persans auraient été remplacés partout par des mots Indo-aryens*...


The example of Mir already suggests that the Khari Boli vernacular ("अर्थात् उर्दू", though Mir would likely have used the word "ہندی") had started neutralizing the singular-plural distinction even in the 1700s, so there is no reason to expect that the vernacular of Lallu Lal (1763-1835) would have behaved differently.

And in fact, maybe we can push that 1700s date back even further. 

In a ghazal by Shah Mubarak Abroo (1683-1733), one finds "رہا ہوں سن کہ *یہ* بھی خدا کی باتیں *ہیں*." Assuming that the syntactic structure of Abroo's idiolect did not change in adulthood (and again, also assuming that Rekhta's Unicode transcription matches historical manuscripts dating back to Abroo's lifetime), this seems to push back the neutralization of the singular-plural distinction of the Khari Boli demonstratives even further, at least into the late 1600s...


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> I suppose it is everyone's perogative to focus their time, attention, and energy on whatever aspects of "ground reality" they find interesting and not odious.
> 
> If someone enjoys focusing their time and attention on the narrative of the _sociocultural division_ of Hindi and Urdu, so be it. While I recognize that I cannot change historical circumstances, I find this narrative morally repugnant and linguistically ludicrous, and I refuse on principle to perpetuate this sordid narrative by contributing to it. I choose instead to focus my time, attention, and energy on a different aspect of "ground reality" that I find more interesting and less odious, namely, the _linguistic sameness_ of the language(s) in question. This aspect of "ground reality" also feels _to me_ like it more accurately describes my personal life experiences (outside of this forum) with the language(s) in question than does the narrative of division, but others' experiences can certainly differ.


My original question was purely an academic one. I am sorry if you think I have other reason or reasons. Your reaction was a bit harsh though!



aevynn said:


> I tried to define clearly what I meant by "Khari Boli" above. Here is a definition from Colin P. Masica's "The Indo-Aryan Languages" (Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 27-28:





aevynn said:


> The ultimate anomaly in the what-is-a-language dilemma in Indo-Aryan is presented by the Hindi-Urdu situation. Counted as different languages in sociocultural sense B (and officially), Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi are not even different dialects or subdialects in linguistic sense A. They are different _literary styles_ based on the _same_ linguistically defined subdialect.
> ...
> What, then, is the subdialectal base of these two standard languages? Not surprisingly, it was that of the capital, Delhi, sometimes referred to as *Dehlavi*. It is often called *Khaṛī Bolī*...
> -


This is how I too see KhaRii-Bolii but this was the state of affairs in the beginning. The end result is that there is no longer any KhaRii-Bolii remaining but we have Urdu and MSH. I hope you follow my perspective.


aevynn said:


> If the question is about written works that use "modernized" number-neutral spellings of demonstratives by Hindi-identifying people, such examples are not even remotely hard to find. Here are several quotes from some recent blog posts by the Hindi-speaking journalist Ravish Kumar (born 1974):
> 
> सरकार ने *वो नहीं किया* जो करना चाहिए था...
> जिन देशों ने इज़रायल से पेगासस ख़रीदा है *वो* अब इसके हाथ *ब्लैकमेल हो रहे हैं*...
> लेकिन *ये नहीं कहा जाएगा* कि पेगासस ख़रीदा है या नहीं...
> मेरे लेख के *ये दो बिन्दु हैं*...
> 
> Alternatively, if you'd like more literary examples, here is a poem by Hindi poet Nagarjun (1911-1998) which contains lines such as the following:
> 
> और ऊँची जातियों वाली *वो समूची आबादी*...
> *वो* ज़रूर कुछ न *बतलायेंगे*...


This is exactly what I meant and not the former. So, it seems yah/vah and ye/ve does have the Urdu equivalent of یہ / وہ for both the singular and plural in both the spoken and written forms of MSH.



aevynn said:


> In works by Bharatendu Harishchandra (1850--1885) (who, according to Wikipedia, "is often considered the father of Hindi literature and Hindi theatre," but who in his own works identified the vernacular of his 'caste community' as "खड़ी बोली अर्थात् उर्दू"), one finds phrases such as these:
> 
> In भारतदुर्दशा (1875): एक तो *यह सब* खुद ही…
> In प्रेमजोगिनी (1874):* वह* नहाकर *आते रहते हैं*... पर *वह पुलिस के शत्रु हैं*...


Thank you for providing these examples from the work of Bharatendu Harishchandra. I too have found examples from Hindi writers of repute, which I shall post in a later post. Thank you also for finding an example from Prem Sagar (yah with plural verb). I shall check its accuracy further with any material that I can find.



aevynn said:


> The example of Mir already suggests that the Khari Boli vernacular ("अर्थात् उर्दू", though Mir would likely have used the word "ہندی") had started neutralizing the singular-plural distinction even in the 1700s, so there is no reason to expect that the vernacular of Lallu Lal (1763-1835) would have behaved differently.
> 
> And in fact, maybe we can push that 1700s date back even further.
> 
> In a ghazal by Shah Mubarak Abroo (1683-1733), one finds "رہا ہوں سن کہ *یہ* بھی خدا کی باتیں *ہیں*." Assuming that the syntactic structure of Abroo's idiolect did not change in adulthood (and again, also assuming that Rekhta's Unicode transcription matches historical manuscripts dating back to Abroo's lifetime), this seems to push back the neutralization of the singular-plural distinction of the Khari Boli demonstratives even further, at least into the late 1600s...


I shall comment on this in a future post as these comments are not quite accurate. Besides, although Rekhta.org is doing a great job with regard to Urdu, one does often find inaccuracies. I shall comment on Mir and Abroo later.

Edit. This Ghazal is found on page 138 of دیوانِ آبرو and has the word ye یے and not yih یہ


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> I'm sorry. I did not intend it to be harsh, only unequivocal. I find the constant interposition of the Urdu vs MSH jhagRaa exhausting. I also almost always find it to be irrelevant when it comes to understanding non-superficial aspects of linguistics. I thought your original question was interesting and not superficial and I clearly said as much in #12. I also believe I tried to answer it in a non-superficial way. The insistence that some of my examples were linguistically irrelevant seemed (and seems) to me to be unfair.





Qureshpor said:


> My question is this. As far as Modern Standard Hindi is concerned, at what stage did the yah > ye(h) and vah > vo(h) transition take place in pronunciation? Is there any piece of earliest Hindi poetry that you are aware of where, for example "ye(h)" (for the singular) is rhymed with words like "le", "ke", "ge" "se", "de" etc and "vo(h) is rhymed with "jo", "lo", "bo", "to", "do" etc?


You can see my question did not concern Urdu but purely MSH. So, when you were bringing in "Kharii-Bolii" and Urdu, I had to steer you in the direction of my original question. It was not that your examples were irrelevant but they were not relevant to my question. 



aevynn said:


> I follow your perspective, but I also disagree. Khari Boli is alive and flourishing, as I see it -- just not under that name. "That which we call a rose..."


Well, I am afraid this "rose" is past history. Hopefully, the air will clear when I post a response.


----------



## desi4life

aevynn said:


> In works by Bharatendu Harishchandra (1850--1885) (who, according to Wikipedia, "is often considered the father of Hindi literature and Hindi theatre," but who in his own works identified the vernacular of his 'caste community' as "खड़ी बोली अर्थात् उर्दू"), one finds phrases such as these:
> 
> In भारतदुर्दशा (1875): एक तो *यह सब* खुद ही…
> In प्रेमजोगिनी (1874):* वह* नहाकर *आते रहते हैं*... पर *वह पुलिस के शत्रु हैं*...


I agree for the most part with the points you’ve made in your posts @aevynn jii, but I wanted to comment on a few things. Bharatendu made the statement about his community’s vernacular in “Agarwalon ki Utpatti” (1871). In Bharatendu’s time, the term “Khari Boli” was used as a synonym of modern Hindi, and thus a bit different than how it’s defined today. So at that point in his life, Bharatendu considered Khari Boli (modern Hindi) and Urdu to be one and the same language, and claimed it to be the language of his community. A few years later his views unfortunately changed and he began to view Khari Boli (modern Hindi) and Urdu as different languages that belonged to different religious communities.



aevynn said:


> If this suspicion is correct, I guess we'll only find evidence of the transition in the pre-MSH period. Now as far as I understand the historical situation, Khari Boli in the pre-MSH period was written down most systematically in the Urdu script. There was some Khari Boli written down in Devanagari (and related Brahmic scripts like Kaithi) in the pre-MSH period as well, but not as systematically, since it often occurs in fragments in works that mix a variety of other vernaculars (Braj, Awadhi, etc, as in the works of Bhakti poets). This mixing of vernaculars would make it difficult to tease out information about pronunciation in any particular vernacular we may be interested in -- which is what we need to do to answer (1).


The prevailing view until quite recently of written Khariboli/Hindustani in pre-colonial times was as you have just stated. However, research over the last 15 years has shown that Khariboli/Hindustani was also often systematically written in the Devanagari script. Most of this material remains unpublished and is available in manuscripts found in the archives of organizations such as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and Nagari Pracharini Sabha. For examples and details, please see the following: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/workshop2012/bangha_rekhta.pdf



aevynn said:


> I do not know why the standardizers of MSH chose to codify the singular-plural distinction in their grammatical prescriptions, since they would have made these prescriptions well after the 1700s. (Perhaps it was just for etymological reasons.)



I agree etymological reasons may have played a part. I also strongly suspect the influence of literary Braj Bhasha was a major reason for the adoption of yah/ye and vah/ve as standard. Nearly all writers of Hindustani in Devanagari script and of 19th century modern Hindi were also Braj Bhasha writers, and yah/ye and vah/ve were often used in literary Braj Bhasha.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Is it Khari Boli or KhaRi Boli @desi4life Jii?


----------



## desi4life

Qureshpor said:


> ^ Is it Khari Boli or KhaRi Boli @desi4life Jii?



In Hindi and Urdu it would be “khaRiibolii” or “khaRii bolii”, but I Romanize it as Khariboli or Khari Boli. Given that we generally don’t Romanize language names such as Hindi, Urdu, or Braj Bhasha on this forum as “hindii”, “urduu”, or “braj bhaaSHaa”, I apply the same principle to Khari Boli.


----------



## Qureshpor

desi4life said:


> In Hindi and Urdu it would be “khaRiibolii” or “khaRii bolii”, but I Romanize it as Khariboli or Khari Boli. Given that we generally don’t Romanize language names such as Hindi, Urdu, or Braj Bhasha on this forum as “hindii”, “urduu”, or “braj bhaaSHaa”, I apply the same principle to Khari Boli.


That's fair. It's just that Khari Boli for me gives the meaning of "Pure Speech" and KhaRi-Boli as "Upright Speech". That's what my confusion was about.


----------



## aevynn

After spending some time skimming through this 1959 publication of the Divan of Shah Mubarak Abroo (1683-1733), I now feel mostly pretty confident in asserting that the number-neutral /jeː/ and /ʋoː/ demonstratives of the modern Hindi-Urdu vernacular have at least existed since the late 1600s, though likely they were less common in the vernacular back then than they are today (or at least, than they are today in the variety that I'm familiar with). Here are some relevant excerpts. I have tried to accompany screenshots with transliterations, but some of the words are archaic and unfamiliar and I had to make some guesses. Please correct me if I've gone wrong anywhere.

*Regarding the proximal demonstrative:* Abroo mostly uses "yah"/"yih" (یہ) for the singular and "ye" (یے) for the plural. However, there is at least one instance of "ye" (یے) being used for the singular as well.

Plural "ye" (one of many, but mostly just to confirm that the Rekhta transcription cited in #18 above does not appear to be correct):
butaaN seN(=se?) mujh koN(=ko) tuu kartaa hai mana3(=manaa) ai zaahid
rahaa huuN sun kih(=ki) ye bhii xudaa kii baateN haiN




Singular "ye" (harder to find):
ye jo sajtii hai kaTaarii-daar mashruu3 kii izaar
maarne ke waqt 3aashiq ke nangii tarwaar haiN




*Regarding the plural distal demonstrative:* Abroo mostly uses "vah"/"vuh" (وہ) for the singular and "ve" (وے) for the plural. However, there is the following intriguing occurrence of "vo" (وو) used for the plural (or at least, I hope it's "vo" and I'm not misreading دو... ):

azal seN(=se?) kyuuN ye abad kii taraf koN(=ko?) dauReN haiN
vo zulf dil-e-talab kii magar baraateN haiN




I was not able to find a "vo" (وو) used for the singular, though it would be a little surprising to me if /ʋoː/ existed only as a plural, just because "vo" seems closer in pronunciation to "vah"/"vuh" than it does to "ve." (Also, for what it's worth, according to maps of territorial ranges of various languages that can be found in the LSI, the territorial range of "Vernacular Hindostani" shares its western border with the territorial range of Punjabi, and Punjabi's distal demonstrative "o" is number-neutral.)

It would be very cool  if someone who reads the Urdu script faster than me is able to find a singular "vo" (وو) in Abroo's work (or perhaps that of his close contemporary, Mir)!


----------



## marrish

aevynn said:


> After spending some time skimming through this 1959 publication of the Divan of Shah Mubarak Abroo (1683-1733), I now feel mostly pretty confident in asserting that the number-neutral /jeː/ and /ʋoː/ demonstratives of the modern Hindi-Urdu vernacular have at least existed since the late 1600s, though likely they were less common in the vernacular back then than they are today (or at least, than they are today in the variety that I'm familiar with). Here are some relevant excerpts. I have tried to accompany screenshots with transliterations, but some of the words are archaic and unfamiliar and I had to make some guesses. Please correct me if I've gone wrong anywhere.
> 
> *Regarding the proximal demonstrative:* Abroo mostly uses "yah"/"yih" (یہ) for the singular and "ye" (یے) for the plural. However, there is at least one instance of "ye" (یے) being used for the singular as well.
> 
> Plural "ye" (one of many, but mostly just to confirm that the Rekhta transcription cited in #18 above does not appear to be correct):
> butaaN seN(=se?) mujh koN(=ko) tuu kartaa hai mana3(=manaa) ai zaahid
> rahaa huuN sun kih(=ki) ye bhii xudaa kii baateN haiN
> View attachment 68065
> 
> Singular "ye" (harder to find):
> ye jo sajtii hai kaTaarii-daar mashruu3 kii izaar
> maarne ke waqt 3aashiq ke nangii tarwaar haiN
> View attachment 68064
> 
> *Regarding the plural distal demonstrative:* Abroo mostly uses "vah"/"vuh" (وہ) for the singular and "ve" (وے) for the plural. However, there is the following intriguing occurrence of "vo" (وو) used for the plural (or at least, I hope it's "vo" and I'm not misreading دو... ):
> 
> azal seN(=se?) kyuuN ye abad kii taraf koN(=ko?) dauReN haiN
> vo zulf dil-e-talab kii magar baraateN haiN
> View attachment 68061
> 
> I was not able to find a "vo" (وو) used for the singular, though it would be a little surprising to me if /ʋoː/ existed only as a plural, just because "vo" seems closer in pronunciation to "vah"/"vuh" than it does to "ve." (Also, for what it's worth, according to maps of territorial ranges of various languages that can be found in the LSI, the territorial range of "Vernacular Hindostani" shares its western border with the territorial range of Punjabi, and Punjabi's distal demonstrative "o" is number-neutral.)
> 
> It would be very cool  if someone who reads the Urdu script faster than me is able to find a singular "vo" (وو) in Abroo's work (or perhaps that of his close contemporary, Mir)!


امید کرتا ہوں کہ مندرجۂ ذیل عبارت آپ کے پیغام میں مذکورہ نکات پر مزید وضاحت کا کام دے گی۔

_____________________________________________

(۱) [نے] جگہ جگہ حذف کر دیا گیا ہے مثلاً جن نے تجھ کو سنوارا ہے کی جگہ جن تجھ کو سنوارا ہے


(۲) [کر] حذف کر دیا گیا مثلاً بجھ بجھ کر کے بجاے بجھ بجھ


(۳) [و] کا اضافہ مختلف الفاظ میں موجود ہے مثلاً لہو کی جگہ لوہو۔ گھی کی جگہ گھیو۔ آزمانا کی جگہ آزماؤ، سونا کی جگہ سوونا جینا کی جگہ جیونا


(۴) [ی] کا اضافہ بھی جگہ جگہ کیا گیا ہے۔ مثلا پھر کی جگہ پھیر ۔ دکھاؤ کی جگہ دیکھاؤ۔


*(۵) کئی الفاظ میں [ی] یا [ے] کو حذف بھی کیا گیا ہے* مثلاً لےجانا کی جگہ لجانا


(۶) [ئیں] کی جگہ صرف [ن] لکھا گیا ہے مثلاً کدھر جائیں کی جگہ کدھر جان۔ یا مر جائیں کی جگہ مر جاں۔


(۷) آخر میں الف کی آواز دبائی گئی ہے اور کبھی کبھی اس کو حذف کر دیا گیا ہے مثلاً چاہیئے کی چہئے۔


(۸) [ن] کا اضافہ بھی جگہ جگہ کیا گیا ہے مثلاً کرنا کو کرناں لکھا گیا ہے جیسے کو جیسیں لکھا گیا ہے۔


(۹) کیجئے کی بجاے کرہئے اور جئے کی جیہئے استعمال ہوا ہے


(۱۰) [کھیلتے تھے] کےبجائے [کھیلن تے] بھی استعمال ہوا ہے مگر اس کی مثالیں کم ہیں


(۱۱) [ہوتے ہیں] یا [ہوتا ہے] کی جگہ [ہوہے] استعمال کیا گیا ہے۔


(۱۲) کئی جگہ الف کا اضافہ کر دیا گیا ہے۔ کہیں کہیں پیار کے لئے، کبھی ضرورت شعری کے لئے کبھی ایہام کی ضرورت سے الف کا اضافہ کیا گیا ہے مثلاً میت کی میتا، وار کی وارا۔


(۱۲) فارسی محاورات کا ترجمہ کرکے نئے افعال تراشے گئے ہیں۔ مثلاً خوش انا ۔ زاری کرنا ۔ یاری کرنا ۔ زور پکڑنا ۔ سربر ہونا ۔ حرف لا ۔ حال آنا بمعنی جلد آنا ۔ خوش نہ آنا ۔ گرم ملنا ۔ دریاکشی کرنا۔


(۱۴) فارسی اور ہندی الفاظ کو ملا کر متعدد تراکیب آبروؔ کے ہاں ملتی ہیں وہ ہیندی اور فارسی الفاظ کے درمیان اضافت کا استعمال بھی کرتے ہیں۔ مثلاً کحل نیں ۔ خوش نیں  وغیرہ


(۱۵) بعض اسما اور افعال صفات وغیرہ سے آبروؔ نے خود بنا لئے ہیں مثلاً نازک سے نازک پنا۔ منکر سے منکرپنا۔ غرور سے غروری کرنا۔ کافر سے کافری کرنا۔


۲۔ تلفظ


۱۔ جنگل کو ہرجگہ نون غنہ کے ساتھ باندھا ہے۔ غزل کا ہم قافیہ ہو گیا ہہے۔ اسی طرح انگارا میں بھی اعلان نون کے بجاے اخفائے نون ہے اسی طرح خنجر، ننگی میں ہے۔


۲۔ انکھیاں ہرجگہ گو اسی طرح لکھا ہے مگر شعر میں بعض جگہ اس کا تلفظ [ے] کےبغیر کیاگیاہے۔ اور [ے] کو حذف نہ کیا جاے تو شعر ساقط الوزن ہو جاتا ہے۔


۳۔ اول میں تشدید حذف کر دی


۴۔ نہیں کو نیں بحذف [ہ] تلفظ کیا گیا ہے


۵۔ ترک کو تُرکُ باندھا گیا ہے


۶۔ الف ممدودہ کے مد کو ساکت کر دیا گیا ہے مثلا آزمانا کی ازمانا


*۳۔ ہندی اثرات*


۱۔ ہندو تلمیحات اور اصطلاحات کثرت سے ملتی ہیں۔ مثلا کشن جی، کبجا (؟)، کنھیا، سیاما، گیتا


۲۔ ٹھیٹھ ہندی جو ہندی شاعری میں رائج تھے استعمال ہوئے ہیں مثلاً مرم، سنمکھ، برن، جوت، درسن پنتھ، پرگھٹ، دیہ، آسن، برہ، بیورا، برکھا، گیان، اگن، تیتھا، یتھین، لٹکا، سوہا، برہن، بس، سادھنا، سبدھی، بِدھ، سگھڑ، دھمال، سالنا، بجرسل، ادھوت، رکت چندن


۳۔ ان کے اضافہ سے بہت سی منفی صفات بنائی گئی ہیں۔ مثلاً انمنا۔ ان ملا


۴۔ [ل] کو [ر] سے بدل دیا گیا ہے مثلا پہن کو پہر، جل کو جر لکھا ہے۔


۵۔ یہ کو [یو] اور وہ کو [وو] لکھا ہے۔


۶۔ کھیلتے تھے کی جگہ [کھیلن تھے] بھی استعمال ہوا ہے


۷۔ تم نے کی [تمنا] استعمال کیا ہے۔





۴۔ پنجابی مماثلت:


    ۱۔ زیادہ [ڑ] کو [ڈ] سے بدل دیا گیا ہے۔ بڑھا کو بڈھا، کاڑھا کو کاڈھا۔


۲۔ جمع بنانے میں [اں] کا استعمال کرتے ہیں مثلا یار سے یاراں بھوں سے بھواں لیکن [وں] کے اضافے سے بھی جمع بنائی گئی ہے مثلاً فلک کی جمع الجمع افلاکوں بنائی ہے۔


۳۔ [ھ] کا استعمال زیادہ ہے مثلاً جھوٹ کو جھوٹھ، آپ ہی کو اپھی، تڑپنا کو تڑپھنا، اور کئی الفاظ میں [ھ] بعد میں آنے کی بجائے پہلے کر دی گئی ہے۔ مثلا پڑھنا کی بجائے پھڑنا، یا کھائیے کی جگہ کھئے (بہ حذف الف) اس کے برعکس مثلاً پہچانا کے بجائے۔ پچھانا۔


(۴) نال کا لفظ بمعنی ساتھ استعمال ہوا ہے۔



۵۔ دکنی اثرات



۱۔ سے کی جگہ سیں۔ سیتی کا استعمال ملتا ہے۔


۲۔ میں کی جگہ منے۔ منیں کا استعمال کیاگیا ہے۔ دو ایک جگہ [مے] بھی لکھا ہے


۳۔ اتنا کی جگہ ایتا۔ ادھر ادھر کی جگہ ایدھر اُودھر موجود ہے


۴۔ [کے تئیں]کا استعمال [کو ] کی جگہ پر ہوا ہے۔


۵۔ حرف تشبیہ کے طور پر [کے جوں] کے الفاظ ہوئے ہیں۔


۶۔ اب تک کی جگہ اب لگ، لیکن کی جگہ لیک۔ جی کی جگہ جیو۔ محبوب کے لئے بالم، سجن، سری جن، پیا، من ہرن کے الفاظ استعمال ہوئے ہیں۔


۷۔ آنسو کی جگہ انجھو، ذرا کی جگہ نپٹ، ہر دن کی نس دن استعمال ہوا ہے۔


(۸) [کو] کی جگہ کوں اور سے کی جگہ بعض بعض مقامات سوں بھی استعمال کیا ہے۔


۹۔ افعال میں بھی وہی انداز کہیں کہیں مل جاتا ہے مثلا بکا کی جگہ بکیا، پکا کی جگہ پکیا


۱۰۔ جگہ کی جگہ جاگہ استعمال ہوا ہے۔


۱۱۔ وہی کی جگہ [سوئی] اور [ووئی] (سوہی اور وہی) استعمال ہوئے ہیں۔


۶۔ بعض دیگر خصوصیات:



۱۔ گو آبروؔ کی زندگی کا کوئی حصّہ پورب میں نہیں گذرا مگر پوربی کا لفظ [بورنا] بمعنی ڈبونا انہوں نے استعمال کیا ہے۔ اسی طرح پیکن کا لفظ بھی استعمال ہوا ہے۔


۲۔ متعدد الفاظ ایسے ملتے ہیں جو آج بھی مغربی یو۔پی کے اضلاع میں صرف بول چال کی زبان ہی میں مثلاً اٹم بمعنی انبار۔ نخصمیں (جو کسی شوہر کی ہو کر نہ رہ سکتی ہو)۔ لہنا۔ تڑپھڑانا۔ جھکجھورے جھیلنا کھک ہونا


۳۔ سوداؔ کی طرح آبروؔ نے [یت] کے اضافے سے بنائے ہوئے بہت سے اسما اور صفات استعمال کئے ہیں مثلاً بانکپن سے بانکیت پٹنا سے پٹنیت


۴۔ آبروؔ نے غنڈہ کو ہرجگہ غندہ، رزالے کو رجالا لکھا ہے اور شیدبازی کا لفظ مکروفریب کے لئے استعمال کیا ہے


۵۔ بعض حرف کا املا تلفظ کے مطابق تھا۔ مثلا تسبیح کو تسبی لکھتے تھے۔ وہی شکل آبرؔو کے کلام میں بھی موجود ہے



    اس مختصر سے جائزے سے اندازہ ہو گا کہ آبرؔو کے زمانہ میں اردو زبردست لسانی انقلاب سے گذر رہی تھی۔ آبرو کے دیکھتے دیکھتے زبان کی شکل کچھ کی کچھ ہو گئی۔ ان تبدیلیوں کی تیزرفتاری کا اندازہ خود ان کے کلام سے کیا جا سکتا ہے۔


،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،،


کچھ املا کےمتعلق


(۶) جہاں [پے] اور [یے] کا املا برقرار رکھنا ضروری نہ تھا وہاں [پہ] اور [یہ] کر دیا گیا ہے۔


(۷) باقی تمام حروف کا املا اصل مخطوطے کے مطابق قرار رکھنے کی کوشش کی گئی ہے، مثلاً سیں، نیں، کوں، سوں، کرناں (بمعنی کرنا) کی اصل شکل قایم رکھی ہے۔ اسی طرح وہ تمام الفاظ جن کو آج کل [ہ] سے لکھا جاتا ہے مگر اصل مخطوطے میں [ ا ] سے لکھے گئے تھے، قدیم املے کے مطابق لکھے گئے ہیں۔


۸۔ اصل نسخے کے املے کی دوسری خصوصیات باقی رکھی گئی ہیں۔

یہ  رہی آپ کی بندگی میں یہ ادنی سی کاوش،  جواب میں ہمارے مدعا سے تعلق رکھنے والے کون کون سے نمبر آپ کی رائے میں قابلِ ذکر ہوں گے؟


----------



## marrish

Continuing, in Ghazal No. 11 the maqta3 is adorned with  yō. Have a look:

 ؎ مبارک نام تیرا آبؔرو  کا کیوں نہ ہو جگ میں ..  اثر ہے یو ترے دیدار کی فرخندہ فالی کا
i.e.
_Mubaarak naam teraa Aabruu kaa kyuuN nah ho jag meN
asar hae *yō* tìre diidaar kii farxundah·faalii kaa _(Shah Mubarak Abroo)


----------



## aevynn

Thank you, @marrish SaaHib!!   You are simply amazing and "adnii sii kaavish" is not even remotely appropriate for how helpful that was!! I think it will be very helpful having this list in mind the next time I decide to consult this divan for historical specimens. Actually, reading through that list made me think that we can probably go back through a very large number of the Urdu-Hindi threads on this forum and look for quotes from Abroo that are relevant to their topics...! For example, apparently the "regularization" of kiiji'e into kar(h)i'e has also been around since Abroo's time, which seems relevant to the discussion we had in this thread...!!

These two points are obviously relevant to our discussion here:


marrish said:


> وہی کی جگہ [سوئی] اور [ووئی] (سوہی اور وہی) استعمال ہوئے ہیں۔





marrish said:


> یہ کو [یو] اور وہ کو [وو] لکھا ہے۔


I am glad that I was not misreading دو as وو!  I guess this doesn't really clearly state that "vo" was in fact used for the singular, but it does make it seem more plausible. It is also very cool that "yo" also existed at the time! I wonder if "yo" still acts as a proximal demonstrative in any of the neighboring languages/dialects.

This is obviously also relevant, but in an unfortunate way:


marrish said:


> جہاں [پے] اور [یے] کا املا برقرار رکھنا ضروری نہ تھا وہاں [پہ] اور [یہ] کر دیا گیا ہے۔


It's annoying that the publishers decided to change یے into یہ when they felt it didn't matter. It clearly matters to us here!  I wonder if there's a publication of the divan that avoids this. (Otherwise, someone might have to request access to some archives for us...)

Are there other points that I missed that have some relevance to our discussion in this thread...?


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> After spending some time skimming through this 1959 publication of the Divan of Shah Mubarak Abroo (1683-1733), I now feel mostly pretty confident in asserting that the number-neutral /jeː/ and /ʋoː/ demonstratives of the modern Hindi-Urdu vernacular have at least existed since the late 1600s, though likely they were less common in the vernacular back then than they are today (or at least, than they are today in the variety that I'm familiar with)


Do you mean یہ and وہ being used for the singular and plural ? If yes, there are plenty of examples of their usage for the singular. A few for the plural that I could see after a quick scan are.

P58 تیغِ مصری ہیں کیا یہ تیرے  لب
Page 75 قدم کوں مرد کے زنجیر میں یہ بھائی بند
Page 117 اِس کے چشموں اوپر رکھے یہ قدم

P18 Ghazal 35 وہ کاکل اِس طرح کے ہیں 

Having said this, the author does say in the beginning of the book under "کچھ املا کے متعلق"..

جہاں پے اور یے کا املا رکھنا ضروری نہ تھا وہاں پہ اور یہ کر دیا گیا ہے

So, we don't know for sure where Mubarak Shah Abroo wrote یہ ، وہ ، یے ، وے . There are apparently 5 manuscripts for his diivaan and the compiler of this book has had access to only the Patna copy. 


aevynn said:


> *Regarding the proximal demonstrative:* Abroo mostly uses "yah"/"yih" (یہ) for the singular and "ye" (یے) for the plural. *However, there is at least one instance of "ye" (یے) being used for the singular as well.*


We know it is unlikely to have been "yih" and "vuh" since on page 144, radiif qaafiyah includes the words such as "shah" (short for "shaah") and "ablah" (be-vuquuf). This implies that یہ and وہ were implied as "yah" and "vah" in Abroo's time. So, wherever we have یہ and وہ (including as qavaafii for this Ghazal), they were pronounced as "yah" and "vah".

*Yes, I saw this example too. *Urdu Lughat under وے has this comment.

اشارۂ بعید: عموماً بطور جمع مستعمل

If "ve" is "generally" used as a plural the remote promimate, then it implies that sometimes it is also used for the singular. The same I suppose would imply for یے.


aevynn said:


> *Regarding the plural distal demonstrative:* Abroo mostly uses "vah"/"vuh" (وہ) for the singular and "ve" (وے) for the plural. However, there is the following intriguing occurrence of "vo" (وو) used for the plural (or at least, I hope it's "vo" and I'm not misreading دو... ):





aevynn said:


> azal seN(=se?) kyuuN ye abad kii taraf koN(=ko?) dauReN haiN
> vo zulf dil-*e*-talab kii magar baraateN haiN





aevynn said:


> I was not able to find a "vo" (وو) used for the singular, though it would be a little surprising to me if /ʋoː/ existed only as a plural, just because "vo" seems closer in pronunciation to "vah"/"vuh" than it does to "ve." (Also, for what it's worth, according to maps of territorial ranges of various languages that can be found in the LSI, the territorial range of "Vernacular Hindostani" shares its western border with the territorial range of Punjabi, and Punjabi's distal demonstrative "o" is number-neutral.)
> 
> It would be very cool  if someone who reads the Urdu script faster than me is able to find a singular "vo" (وو) in Abroo's work (or perhaps that of his close contemporary, Mir)!



vo zulf dil *ke* talab kii magar baraateN haiN

When you quoted this example, I thought it was a typo. But then I found another one on page 173.

وو ظالم آ کے رہے ہاتھ کے خنجر سیں کاٹے
بر آوے آبرو کی جان کا مطلب الٰہی یہ

Amongst all the occurrences of وہ for the singular, it does seem odd to find the وو used for the singular and plural. Does it imply that along with "vah" pronunication, "vo" also existed side by side? But then how did "yah" end up as "yo" (in the sole? examaple)?

*I shall finish by this quote from page 167:

nazar kar Aabruu mazmuun kaa Haal
liye jaate haiN sab [۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔.]rexte ko*

The missing word I presume was undecipherable in the manuscript.

(Just realised marrish SaaHib has typed out half the book! I started my post yesterday and didn't see his response.)


----------



## aevynn

Qureshpor said:


> vo zulf dil *ke* talab kii magar baraateN haiN


 Thanks for the correction!



Qureshpor said:


> on page 144, radiif qaafiyah includes the words such as "shah" (short for "shaah") and "ablah" (be-vuquuf). This implies that یہ and وہ were implied as "yah" and "vah" in Abroo's time.


 Thanks for pointing this out!



marrish said:


> جہاں [پے] اور [یے] کا املا برقرار رکھنا ضروری نہ تھا وہاں [پہ] اور [یہ] کر دیا گیا ہے۔





Qureshpor said:


> جہاں پے اور یے کا املا رکھنا ضروری نہ تھا وہاں پہ اور یہ کر دیا گیا ہے


I guess one thing to note about this comment from the book is that they only say that they replace یے with یہ and not the other way around. Moreover, they do also say:


marrish said:


> باقی تمام حروف کا املا اصل مخطوطے کے مطابق قرار رکھنے کی کوشش کی گئی ہے


I presume this means that any singular usages of یے ("ye") that one finds in this publication should be accurate transcriptions from the manuscripts. In particular, I guess the singular "ye" that I cited in #25 ("ye jo sajtii hai...") should still be legitimate example...?



marrish said:


> یہ کو [یو] اور وہ کو [وو] لکھا ہے۔





marrish said:


> Continuing, in Ghazal No. 11 the maqta3 is adorned with  yō. Have a look:
> 
> ؎ مبارک نام تیرا آبؔرو کا کیوں نہ ہو جگ میں .. اثر ہے یو ترے دیدار کی فرخندہ فالی کا
> i.e.
> _Mubaarak naam teraa Aabruu kaa kyuuN nah ho jag meN
> asar hae *yō* tìre diidaar kii farxundah·faalii kaa _(Shah Mubarak Abroo)





Qureshpor said:


> But then how did "yah" end up as "yo" (in the sole? examaple)?





aevynn said:


> I wonder if "yo" still acts as a proximal demonstrative in any of the neighboring languages/dialects.


For what it's worth, in the quote cited in this old post by tonyspeed jii, it appears یو was transliterated as "yuu"...? However, in my attempt to make a cross-linguistic comparison, I found that यो is still a proximal demonstrative in Nepali  According the LSI maps, the territorial range of "Vernacular Hindostani" does extend up towards Nepal...



Qureshpor said:


> But then I found another one on page 173.


 Thanks!! This does in fact appear to be a singular usage of "vo." Here's the screenshot, for easy future reference:

vo zaalim aa ke apne haath ke xanjar seN sar kaaTe
bar aave 'aabruu' kii jaan kaa matlab ilaahii yah




Also, note that the same old post by @tonyspeed jii does mention "vo" for both singular and plural.



Qureshpor said:


> Does it imply that along with "vah" pronunication, "vo" also existed side by side?


 Yes, I think so! The conclusion I was also led to draw was that "vo" existed alongside "vah" and "ve" in Abroo's time ---


aevynn said:


> I now feel mostly pretty confident in asserting that the number-neutral /jeː/ and /ʋoː/ demonstratives of the modern Hindi-Urdu vernacular have at least existed since the late 1600s, though likely they were less common in the vernacular back then than they are today (or at least, than they are today in the variety that I'm familiar with).





Qureshpor said:


> Just realised marrish SaaHib has typed out half the book!


I know, right!


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> However, in my attempt to make a cross-linguistic comparison, I found that यो is still a proximal demonstrative in Nepali  According the LSI maps, the territorial range of "Vernacular Hindostani" does extend up towards Nepal...


One doesn't need to go as far as Nepal, by the way, though Nepal is not far for many Uttar Pradesh residents. I am used to the word "yo" in spoken Hindi from the western UP region that part of my family belongs to: for example, "yo diyo" ("yeh denaa"). Middle Doab region, though I have heard it in Rohilkhand, too. ("yo kyaa/kaa kar r(h)yaa hai/hae?" is a very common question in these regions.)


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> it would also mean, for example, that Ibn-e-Safi's novel خوفناک عمارت is not "in Urdu" just because it uses spellings that are not officially sanctioned by Urdu prescriptions, such as پرواہ (instead of پروا) and سہی (instead of صحیح).


I can't imagine Ibn-i-Safi confusing سہی with صحیح as they are two distinct words in Urdu with distinct meanings even if the forerunner of سہی was صحیح. If a student taking an Urdu exam (for example) wrote, جو کچھ میں نے لکھا ہے وہ بالکل سہی ہے۔ , it would be marked as wrong. As for پرواہ......

جنھیں شعور ہے کہ صحیح لفظ پروا ہے وہ پرواہ نہ لکھتے ہیں اور نہ ہی بولتے ہیں، چاہے جتنے لا پروا ہی سہی۔

There is no "official sanctioning" as you put it. The inclusion of two spelling errors in خوفناک عمارت would not remove it from the Urdu fold!


----------



## Qureshpor

aevynn said:


> For what it's worth, in the quote cited in this old post by tonyspeed jii, it appears یو was transliterated as "yuu"...? However, in my attempt to make a cross-linguistic comparison, I found that यो is still a proximal demonstrative in Nepali  According the LSI maps, the territorial range of "Vernacular Hindostani" does extend up towards Nepal...


Mubarak Shah Abroo was from Gwalior and from what I can gather, his Urdu was influenced by the local language Bundeli.


----------



## aevynn

littlepond said:


> One doesn't need to go as far as Nepal, by the way, though Nepal is not far for many Uttar Pradesh residents. I am used to the word "yo" in spoken Hindi from the western UP region that part of my family belongs to: for example, "yo diyo" ("yeh denaa"). Middle Doab region, though I have heard it in Rohilkhand, too. ("yo kyaa/kaa kar r(h)yaa hai/hae?" is a very common question in these regions.)


 Thanks! This is good to know. Just to add some historical notes to this, Kellogg's relevant table from 1876 records यो being used in Garhwal (bordering Nepal and also close to Rohilkhand). Incidentally, it also records usage in Rajasthan (Marwari and Mewari), which is kind of the opposite direction!



Qureshpor said:


> Mubarak Shah Abroo was from Gwalior and from what I can gather, his Urdu was influenced by the local language Bundeli.


Certainly possible. Here's an excerpt from a Bundeli grammar:



------------
Anyway... Two relevant quotes: 

Like urban speech everywhere, and especially that of the capitals, the language of Delhi was not based on one dialect in any case, but on a dialectal composite. (Masica, ""The Indo-Aryan Languages," p. 28)​​[M]any local forms of speech... have gone to make [Old Hindi] what it is for the very simple reason that the givers (the various Hindi dialects) and the taker (Old Hindi) were all in their initial, formative stage, when their identities were not sharply defined – and therefore mixing was easy… Any attempt to divide them or to contrapose them one to the other is likely to confuse the linguistic picture of the times altogether and get the researcher tied up in a whole lot of quite intractable problems. (Rai, "A House Divided," p. 123)​
Note that, for Rai, the term "Old Hindi" is used to refer to an embryonic stage in the development of the Delhi dialect, soon after the Śaurasenī Apabhraṃśa time period.


----------



## littlepond

aevynn said:


> [M]any local forms of speech... have gone to make [Old Hindi] what it is for the very simple reason that the givers (the various Hindi dialects) and the taker (Old Hindi) were all in their initial, formative stage, when their identities were not sharply defined – and therefore mixing was easy… Any attempt to divide them or to contrapose them one to the other is likely to confuse the linguistic picture of the times altogether and get the researcher tied up in a whole lot of quite intractable problems. (Rai, "A House Divided," p. 123)


----------



## Dinraat

aevynn said:


> Thank you, @marrish SaaHib!!   You are simply amazing and "adnii sii kaavish" is not even remotely appropriate for how helpful that was!!


Haha it's pronounced *adnaa* sir. Baqii aap logon ki itni educated guftgoo for the most part mere sir ke uper se hi guzar rahi hai (plus waqt ki qillat ke baais skimming per hi iktfa karna par raha hai). Keep up the good work all of you.


----------



## Pokeflute

littlepond said:


> One doesn't need to go as far as Nepal, by the way, though Nepal is not far for many Uttar Pradesh residents. I am used to the word "yo" in spoken Hindi from the western UP region that part of my family belongs to: for example, "yo diyo" ("yeh denaa"). Middle Doab region, though I have heard it in Rohilkhand, too. ("yo kyaa/kaa kar r(h)yaa hai/hae?" is a very common question in these regions.)



If others are curious the movie Saand ki Aankh (set in UP) features “yo” (just rewatched the trailer to confirm).

Speaking of dialects - aren’t ii and uu used as well? (At least I remember them being used by characters in Hindi serials). I wonder if these are number invariant as well (eg “ii choraa” and “ii chore”) - which might lend support to an early loss of the standard/plural distinction in Hindi.


----------



## marrish

An 1882 grammar remarks as follows,


> _wah hai_, he is, _*we haiṅ*_, they are *
> 
> ** वह wah may also be used in the 3rd pers. plur. of all verbs. *





> The plural and singular forms of pronouns are, at times, used indiscriminately ; but the verb always shows the number.  Thus,
> 
> Who is this?—*Ye* kaun *hai*?    ये कौन है
> This affair is not new.—*Ye* bât na,î nahîṅ *hai*. ये बात नई नहीं है
> The one wears a necklace of flowers, the other a necklace of skulls.—*Ye* dhar*e* banmâl, _*we* _dhar*e* muṅṛmâl_.  _ये धरे बनमाल वे धरे मुंड़माल


As for the alternate forms of the 3rd person dem./personal, the forms are listed as in the attached snaps (1882)


----------



## littlepond

Pokeflute said:


> Speaking of dialects - aren’t ii and uu used as well? (At least I remember them being used by characters in Hindi serials). I wonder if these are number invariant as well (eg “ii choraa” and “ii chore”) - which might lend support to an early loss of the standard/plural distinction in Hindi.



Yes, and they are used for both singular and plural. (Note, it's "chhoraa/chhore," not "choraa/chore.")


----------

