# Urdu: How to write 3aadatan?



## Abu Talha

Hello,

In Urdu the Arabic عادة is written as عادت. If we want to write _3aadatan _with tanwiin, will we write it as عادةً or عادتً or عادتًا?

Thanks.


----------



## marrish

I'm not sure if my answer is representative but I write it like your first suggestion.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> Hello,
> 
> In Urdu the Arabic عادة is written as عادت. If we want to write _3aadatan _with tanwiin, will we write it as عادةً or عادتً or عادتًا? Thanks.


As you are well aware, the first form is correct and is used in Urdu. However, as the base form in Urdu is  عادَت ,​your third form is also used and I do not consider it wrong. Your second form is not used.


----------



## UrduMedium

عادتًا for me

Similar to faur-an, masal-an, and so on.

Edit: More relevant examples would be حقیقتاً and مصلحتاً


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks everyone.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> [عادتًا]... your third form is also used and I do not consider it wrong.


Neither Shan-ul-Haq Haqqi does, in fact he advocates its use in the last paragraph:
تنوین اصل میں تو عربی الفاظ کے ساتھ آتی ہے، لیکن بعض دوسرے الفاظ کے ساتھ بھی لگا دی جاتی ہے، یہ اسم کو متعلقِ فعل بناتی ہے جیسے لازم سے *لازمًا* بمعنی لازمی طور سے: *اندازاً*، اندازے سے، لیکن اندازہ فارسی کا لفظ ہے جو عربی کی تنوین قبول کر رہا ہے یا *نژاداً* بمعنی نسلًا، *نمونۃً* (فارسی لفظ "نمونہ" کی تعریب "نمونَج" ہے)۔ "*تحریراً*" میں بھی "تحریر" کے عربی میں یہ معنی نہیں (لکھائی)، بلکہ آزاد کرنا ہیں:

رسم است کہ کاتبان تحریر
آزاد کنند بندۂ پیر

(آزادی کا پروانہ لکھنے والے بوڑھے غلاموں کو آزاد کر دیتے ہیں)۔

آجکل عام رجحان یہ ہے کہ تنوین بالفتحہ کو بلا تخصیص الف کے ساتھ لکھا جائے جیسے: *روایۃً* کی جگہ *روایتاً*، *فطرۃً* کی جگہ *فطرتاً*، کیونکہ عام طور پر لوگوں کے لیے یہ شناخت کرنا مشکل ہو گا کہ کہاں "ۃ" جزوِ کلمہ ہے اور کہاں حرفِ زائد۔ ۔


----------



## Qureshpor

Shan-ul-Haq Haqqi has a point because languages take their own direction into unknown territories. Logically speaking, from the Arabic perspective only  عادةً would be correct. But, if Urdu goes for the option عادت then the way forward would be  عادتًا. Writing عادةً would be a step back in time.


----------



## marrish

... but such a uniformisation would not work with ابتدا


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> ... but such a uniformisation would not work with ابتدا


ابتدا should be written as ابتداء and this results in ابتداءً


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> ابتدا should be written as ابتداء and this results in ابتداءً


That much I know but the convention has been contrary to that, to drop all final hamzah's in Urdu.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> That much I know but the convention has been contrary to that, to drop all final hamzah's in Urdu.


Then how does one write  ابتداءً  in the new convention?


----------



## marrish

^ Well that's my point, I don't have a slightest idea how this rule could be all-encompassing. Perhaps ابتدااً ? It is suddenly beginning to make some sense to me.


----------



## cherine

Why add another alif? Can't you just add the tanween? ابتدًا.
And, while I don't speak Urdu, I agree with the opinion that if the word is written with a taa2 maftu7a ت, then it doesn't make sense to change it to follow the way it's written in Arabic only when it's مُنَوَّنة (nunated?). So, if the words are written عادت، مصلحت، حقيقت then when they take tanween they should be written عادتًا، مصلحتًا، حقيقتًا, regardless the fact that this is incorrect in Arabic, because here's we're not talking about writing in Arabic but in Urdu.


----------



## marrish

cherine said:


> Why add another alif? Can't you just add the tanween? ابتدًا.


It's just a one-off idea because if you add the tanween only, would the pronunciation not become ابتدَن ? I agree with the rest of your suggestions and other preceding comments.


cherine said:


> And, while I don't speak Urdu, I agree with the opinion
> 
> 
> marrish said:
> 
> 
> 
> تنوین اصل میں تو عربی الفاظ کے ساتھ آتی ہے، لیکن بعض دوسرے الفاظ کے ساتھ بھی لگا دی جاتی ہے، یہ اسم کو متعلقِ فعل بناتی ہے جیسے لازم سے *لازمًا* بمعنی لازمی طور سے: *اندازاً*، اندازے سے، لیکن اندازہ فارسی کا لفظ ہے جو عربی کی تنوین قبول کر رہا ہے یا *نژاداً* بمعنی نسلًا، *نمونۃً* (فارسی لفظ "نمونہ" کی تعریب "نمونَج" ہے)۔ "*تحریراً*" میں بھی "تحریر" کے عربی میں یہ معنی نہیں (لکھائی)، بلکہ آزاد کرنا ہیں:
> 
> رسم است کہ کاتبان تحریر
> آزاد کنند بندۂ پیر
> 
> (آزادی کا پروانہ لکھنے والے بوڑھے غلاموں کو آزاد کر دیتے ہیں)۔
> 
> آجکل عام رجحان یہ ہے کہ تنوین بالفتحہ کو بلا تخصیص الف کے ساتھ لکھا جائے جیسے: *روایۃً* کی جگہ *روایتاً*، *فطرۃً* کی جگہ *فطرتاً*، کیونکہ عام طور پر لوگوں کے لیے یہ شناخت کرنا مشکل ہو گا کہ کہاں "ۃ" جزوِ کلمہ ہے اور کہاں حرفِ زائد۔ ۔
Click to expand...

[Translation:]
The _tanween_ originally accompanies Arabic words, but is added to some other too; it makes a noun into an adverb (_muta3alliq-e-fi3l_), such as لازمًا _obligatorily_, from لازم and  اندازاً '_approximately, by guess_' from اندازہ '_guess, estimate_' [=تخمینًا ], but اندازہ is a Persian word which accepts here the _tanween_ of the Arabic; or نژاداً in the sense '_per descent, as of origin_' [=نسلًا], from [P.]' نژاد ' '_origin, descent_'; or نمونۃً '_by way of a specimen_' (from the Persian word نمونه - the Arabic[ised?] one (_ta3riib_) is نمونج.) Even " تحریر " in " تحریراً " , '_in writing (in written form)' _does not have such a meaning (of "writing") in Arabic, but of "setting free":​​_(from Persian, approximate interpretation)_​*"* Custom has it that those who write out liberation orders (_kaatibaan-e-taHriir_)​Set free the slave(-s) of age. *"*​​Nowadays the common tendency is to write an _alif_ for the _tanween bi'l-fatHah_, without discrimination, like in روایتاً instead of روایۃً؛ and فطرتًًا instead of فطرۃً, because it will be difficult for people in general to identify where "ۃ" is a part of the word and where it's an additional letter.​


----------



## Qureshpor

You can not just add a tanveen after removing the hamzah because the resultant word after removing the hamzah is ibtidaa and not ibtidaa2. When we add a tanviin on the final alif, we get ibtida2an if we place a hamza at the top of the alif. Without the hamzah, as far as Urdu is concerned, we would get ibtida-an. Either way, we do not get ibtidaa-an, but ibtidan as marrish SaaHib has indicated.


----------



## cherine

Thank you for providing the translation of the quote, Marrish. 


marrish said:


> It's just a one-off idea because if you add the tanween only, would the pronunciation not become ابتدَن ?


Yes, that is what I thought -but forgot to write, sorry- that adding a tanween only, without an extra alif, will result in shortening the vowel. Is this un unacceptable thing in Urdu? I'm asking because ابتداًا not only looks strange to my eyes trained to reading Arabic, but also I can't guess how it would be read. Especially that the word in Arabic ends with a hamza and when nunated it's written ابتداءً and is read ibtidaa2an.


Qureshpor said:


> When we add a tanviin on the final alif, we get ibtida2an if we please a hamza at the top of the alif. Without the hamzah, as far as Urdu is concerned, we would get ibtida-an. Either way, we do not get ibtidaa-an, but ibtidan as marrish SaaHib has indicated.


How would you get ibtida-an without a hamza  But I agree that the resulting word without the extra alef is ibtidan, and as I said above it's only a matten of shortening the vowel, which doesn't change the meaning while marking the tanwin/tanvin. 
Still, it's your language, guys, and you certainly know its rules better than I. I'm just commenting from an Arabic perspective.


----------



## Qureshpor

cherine said:


> Thank you for providing the translation of the quote, Marrish.
> 
> Yes, that is what I thought -but forgot to write, sorry- that adding a tanween only, without an extra alif, will result in shortening the vowel. Is this un unacceptable thing in Urdu? I'm asking because ابتداًا not only looks strange to my eyes trained to reading Arabic, but also I can't guess how it would be read. Especially that the word in Arabic ends with a hamza and when nunated it's written ابتداءً and is read ibtidaa2an.
> 
> How would you get ibtida-an without a hamza  But I agree that the resulting word without the extra alef is ibtidan, and as I said above it's only a matten of shortening the vowel, which doesn't change the meaning while marking the tanwin/tanvin.
> Still, it's your language, guys, and you certainly know its rules better than I. I'm just commenting from an Arabic perspective.


Hi cherine. In Urdu  ابتدااً  (and not ابتداًا as you have quoted) would look very strange indeed. In fact both will but your option would be well and truly wrong.

Regaring your question and surprise about ibtida-an without a hamza. In Urdu if we wanted to write the Arabic word 2in (if) for example, we would just write it with an alif with a kasrah at the bottom. Similarly for 2an, we would have an alif with a fatHah at the top. Thekasrah and fatHah would only be written if we had to distinguish them clearly. Otherwise, just like in Arabic, we don't write short vowels in the Urdu script. Of course, when Arabic is being taught, both hamzahs (al-qat3 and al-wasl) would be indicated.


----------



## cherine

Qureshpor said:


> Hi cherine. In Urdu  ابتدااً  (and not ابتداًا as you have quoted) would look very strange indeed. In fact both will but your option would be well and truly wrong.


Regarding the placement of the فتحتين, there's no concensus on the right place to put it, whether on the letter being nunated or on the alif of the tanwin. Again, I'm talking about Arabic, but if there's a settled rule about it in Urdu, then it's good to know.


> Regaring your question and surprise about ibtida-an without a hamza...


I wasn't talking about the hamza starting a word. Yes, dropping it would rarely cause confusion in reading, I was talking about how you'd make that pause in ibtida-an (that would be read ibtida2an, no?) without having a hamza in the word. Again, if this is possible in Urdu, then I have nothing to say about it.


----------



## Qureshpor

cherine said:


> ...I wasn't talking about the hamza starting a word. Yes, dropping it would rarely cause confusion in reading, I was talking about how you'd make that pause in ibtida-an (that would be read ibtida2an, no?) without having a hamza in the word. Again, if this is possible in Urdu, then I have nothing to say about it.


The pause in ibtida-an would be written as  ابتداً with a fatHa on the daal.


----------



## cherine

I'm really not able to imagine how the word is supposed to be pronounced. 
ابتدا - ان to me looks/sounds like there's a hamza before that last nuun, cause precisely by that pause you mention. Am I wrong in my understanding?


----------

