# Hindi (Urdu): jamaa, jam3



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

In Urudu, _jam3_, with a final _'ain_ like this  جَمْع  results in Hindi जमा _jamaa._

When used as an adjective, apparently it can mean something like_ "gathered, assembled, accumulated, massed, etc."._

If one goes by the Urdu spelling, that word ends with a consonant and the adjective is invariable, notning new there.
But in Hindi, that _-3_ is resolved into _"-aa"_. 

My question is (are):
- Do Hindi speakers recognize जमा  as invariable, when used as an adjective (one sees on the Internet fragments like "1400 लोग जमा थे")?
- Is there any glottal character at all in the sound of that final _-aa _in Hindi, that might help Hindi speakers determine it was a Persoarabic word, and therefore it should be treated differently, as invariable? 
Or, on the contrary, the final letter of _jamaa _sounds in Hindi like a regular _-aa_, and speakers just memorize that _jamaa _is invariable?


----------



## Happu

I think your last sentence contains the answer. A native speaker would have acquired enough 'feel' for his/her own language, that they would sense something is wrong if anything but जमा were used, without necessarily being very educated. That's my take at least.

Another invariable Urdu (Arabic-derived) adjective comes to mind, सफ़ा (clean, tidy). There should be a few more.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Another example: मौक़ा "occasion"  (موقع).  
There is nothing special about that final _-aa_ sound in Hindi?

Do Hindi speakers say दो मौक़ों पर or दो मौक़ाओं पर?


----------



## Happu

दो मौक़ों पर sounds right.

You also say इस मौक़े पर ... So it's just a regular masculine noun ending on -aa.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

OK, but, _moqa3  _seems to be also PersoArabic
موقع - Wiktionary

So it has been "Hindicized" enough as to be perceived as a normal _-aa_ ending word, unlike _safaa _or _jamaa_?


----------



## aevynn

Hindi-Urdu does not have a glottal stop in its phonemic inventory. Urdu preserves the letter 3ain in orthography, but there is no glottal stop in speech (except perhaps in the speech of those who want to hyper-Arabicize their Urdu).

(1) The noun //mɔːqaː// declines (//mɔːqeː//, //mɔːqõː//), and I think this is reflected in both orthographic systems (मौके/मौक़े, मौकों/मौक़ों as well as موقعے، موقعوں).

(2) The adjective /d͡ʒəmaː/ is indeed typically invariable. That being said, I do have a very mild objection to the phrasing you have used here:


MonsieurGonzalito said:


> speakers just memorize that _jamaa _is invariable


For a word that's as ubiquitous as /d͡ʒəmaː/, one can hardly say that that it requires "memorizing" to know that it is invariable --- or if you like, I would guess that this requires children raised in a Urdu-Hindi speaking environment approximately the same amount of "memorizing" as it might require children raised in a Spanish-speaking environment to learn to say _la mano_ instead of *_el mano_. I would guess that most children probably learn to use /d͡ʒəmaː/ correctly well before they encounter this word in writing, and I know adults with no knowledge of either orthographic system who use this word correctly in speech. The thing that could be said to require "memorizing" is rather that one needs to transcribe /d͡ʒəmaː/ as جمع to abide by Urdu orthographic conventions (and people do in fact sometimes mistakenly[?] write things like لوگ *جما تھے or بھیڑ *جما تھی).

(3) You might note that there is also the verb _jamnaa_ whose perfective participle _jamaa_ declines as usual. There are no orthographic "irregularities" for this participle. Standard Urdu orthography neatly distinguishes the adjective جمع from the participle جما (though both are the same in pronunciation, and sometimes people also mistakenly[?] write things like *جمع ہوا پانی). On the other hand, distinguishing these two words in Nagari requires knowing context.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

aevynn said:


> Urdu preserves the letter 3ain in orthography, but there is no glottal stop in speech (except perhaps in the speech of those who want to hyper-Arabicize their Urdu).


No hint of a glottal stop at all, by Urdu speakers?
Not even a little epiglottis movement, just for me , even if not as marked as in Arabic?
(Just asking because I remember reading some threads to the contary, long ago. I will search ...).

BTW, as far as I could verify, the clips in the Urdu Lughat seem to always reflect that kind of effort towards a "hinted ع".
Are you saying that even those Lughat pronunciations are really more of an "Arabic-ness wish" than a speech reality in the street?

(I ask out of complete ignorance, I have not yet an ear for everyday speech, just curated songs, always with the lyrics at hand  ).


----------



## aevynn

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> No hint of a glottal stop at all, by Urdu speakers?


I don't recall ever hearing this "hint of a glottal stop" in the speech of any Urdu speaker I've interacted with in person, nor in any of the Pakistani TV dramas I've watched, nor in any Coke Studio song, nor in any Bollywood movie or song (not even older ones with "more Urdu cred"), ...



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> the clips in the Urdu Lughat seem to always reflect that kind of effort towards a "hinted ع".
> Are you saying that even those Lughat pronunciations are really more of an "Arabic-ness wish" than a speech reality in the street?


I do hear this "effort towards a hinted 3ain" in the Urdu Lughat clips as well, and I find it very artificial. I at least would indeed call it an "Arabic-ness wish," as you say.


----------



## Happu

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> OK, but, _moqa3  _seems to be also PersoArabic
> موقع - Wiktionary
> 
> So it has been "Hindicized" enough as to be perceived as a normal _-aa_ ending word, unlike _safaa _or _jamaa_?


Yes, I guess you could say it that way. It's the most commonly used word for 'opportunity', 'occasion' in Hindi. It's from Arabic. If you want to speak Sanskrit-based Hindi, or sound more formal, you could use अवसर instead.

It's interesting, how when choosing between an Urdu or Sanskrit derived synonym, sometimes the Urdu word will sound more formal or elegant, sometimes the one from Sanskrit. Maybe it's psychology and the lesser used synonym sounds more 'hi-brow'?

Regionally the preference to use one synonym over the other will also differ.


----------



## littlepond

Happu said:


> Maybe it's psychology and the lesser used synonym sounds more 'hi-brow'?



Yes. Usually, the lesser-used word often ends up being the literary or formal one, regardless of whether it comes from Persian or Sanskrit.



Happu said:


> Regionally the preference to use one synonym over the other will also differ.



Of course, in the big, diverse region that Hindiphones inhabit. A Rajasthan speaker's Hindi, for example, will have much, much fewer Persian-derived words.


----------



## Pokeflute

aevynn said:


> (3) You might note that there is also the verb _jamnaa_ whose perfective participle _jamaa_ declines as usual. There are no orthographic "irregularities" for this participle. Standard Urdu orthography neatly distinguishes the adjective جمع from the participle جما (though both are the same in pronunciation, and sometimes people also mistakenly[?] write things like *جمع ہوا پانی). On the other hand, distinguishing these two words in Nagari requires knowing context.



I'd always assumed "jamaa" (the invariable adjective) and "jamnaa" (to solidify) were related. Do they truly come from different origins?


----------



## Happu

One interesting word in this context is मुद्दआ (alternative, simplified spelling मुद्दा).

The somewhat unusual spelling is owed to its Arabic pronunciation _mudda'a._ Yet I usually see it in its simplified form, such as इन मुद्दों पर etc. But the version मुद्दाओं also crops up. To me it looks a bit dubious.

If मुद्दाओं exists, what would its singular oblique be? Logically it should be मुद्दए, but I have never seen it. Maybe मुद्दआ only *really* exists in nominative singular and the variant मुद्दा serves as a way out of the dilemma?

What do the native speakers say?


----------



## Happu

Pokeflute said:


> I'd always assumed "jamaa" (the invariable adjective) and "jamnaa" (to solidify) were related. Do they truly come from different origins?



At first sight it appears there would be no connection, as जमना (jamnaa) is from Sanskrit. But considering जमा (jamaa) is also Persian, there could be a connection. We know about the relation between Vedic Sanskrit and Old Persian (Avestan).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

jamaa جمع is Arabic actually, borrowed by Persian


----------



## aevynn

Pokeflute said:


> I'd always assumed "jamaa" (the invariable adjective) and "jamnaa" (to solidify) were related. Do they truly come from different origins?


They do seem somewhat semantically similar!

Short answer: Probably they have different origins (former from Arabic _jam3_, latter from Sanskrit _yam_), but I don't know for sure.

Long answer: Trawling through some dictionaries, here's what I see:

(1) Platts lists roughly two circles of meanings for _jamnaa_: one circle around "solidify" and another around "germinate." It attributes them both to Sanskrit _janma_.


			
				Platts said:
			
		

> H جمنا जमना _jamnā_ [_jam˚_ = Prk. जम्म(इ) or जम्मे(इ), fr. S. जन्म;+_nā_ = Prk. अणअं = S. अनीयं], v.n. To germinate; ... to become set; to become firm or fixed; ...



(2) Urdu Lughat also combines all of the meanings in one entry, attributing them to Sanskrit _janma_.


			
				اردو لغت said:
			
		

> [ س : جنم + انی ین जनम + आनाेयं ]



(3) Turner's entry for janma does include Hindi _jamnaa_, with the clarification that it means "germinate."


			
				Turner said:
			
		

> jánman n. ʻ birth, creature ʼ RV. [→ Wkh. zamån, Psht. zāˊmən, &c. EVP 104. -- √jan]
> ... H. jāmnā ʻ to germinate, sprout ʼ ...



(4) Shabdsaagar separates the entry for _jamnaa_ as in "solidify" from the entry for _jamnaa_ as in "germinate." The former is traced back to either the Sanskrit root _yam_ and Arabic _jam3 _(cf. below, noting that मि॰ is Shabdsaagar's abbreviation for "मिलाइए"). The latter is traced back to Sanskrit _janma_.


			
				शब्दसागर said:
			
		

> जमना jamanā१ क्रि॰ अ॰ [सं॰ यमन(=जकड़ना), मि॰ अ॰ जमा] १. किसी द्रव पदार्थ का ठंढक के कारण समय पाकर अथवा और किसी प्रकार गाढ़ा होना।...
> जमना jamanā२ क्रि॰ अ॰ [सं॰ जन्म, प्रा॰ जम्म > जम + हिं॰ ना (प्रत्य॰)] उगना । उपजना । उत्पन्न होना । फूटना । जैसे, पौधा जमना, बाल जमना ।



(5) Wiktionary only has entry for _jamnaa_ as in "solidify," and traces it back to Sanskrit _yam_.


			
				Wiktionary said:
			
		

> Inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit *𑀚𑀫𑁆𑀫𑀤𑀺 (*jammadi), from Sanskrit यम्यते (yamyáte). Cognate with Gujarati જામવું (jāmvũ), Marathi जमणे (jamṇe), Bengali জমা (jôma), Assamese জমা (zoma).



(6) Monier-Williams include the following in their entry for _yam_.


			
				Monier-Williams said:
			
		

> to fix, establish,  ib. ;
> (Ā.) to be firm, not budge, RV. ;



(7) Turner's entry relevant to _yam_ is the following:


			
				Turner said:
			
		

> yamyátē ʻ *is fixed ʼ (ʻ is proffered ʼ KauṣUp.). 2. yamáyati ʻ controls ʼ ŚBr. 3. yāmáyati AV. 4. *yāmana -- ʻ fixing ʼ. [√yam]
> ... H. jāmnā, jam˚ intr. ʻ to collect, coagulate, freeze, be set up ʼ;


----------



## aevynn

Happu said:


> One interesting word in this context is मुद्दआ (alternative, simplified spelling मुद्दा).


The pronunciations I've always heard are /mʊdːaː/, /mʊdːeː/, /mʊdːõː/. Urdu orthography seems relatively standardized on this word and reflects the declension (مدعا، مدعے، مدعوں). You're right that Devanagari spelling is not so standardized. I don't really care too much for making orthographic prescriptions and people can write how they like. If I write something myself, I'd just use मुद्दा, मुद्दे, मुद्दों. [If someone were to write the direct singular form as मुद्दआ, I suppose the "logical" thing to do for the other declensions would be मुद्दए, मुद्दओं...]


----------



## Alfaaz

aevynn said:
			
		

> I don't recall ever hearing this "hint of a glottal stop" in the speech of any Urdu speaker I've interacted with in person, nor in any of the Pakistani TV dramas I've watched, nor in any Coke Studio song, nor in any Bollywood movie or song (not even older ones with "more Urdu cred"), ...


I'll send a few audio examples via PM that you can analyze, including popular ones of _mudda3aa_. Of course, as has been said in previous threads, _3ayn _is nowhere as pronounced in Urdu as in Arabic! It usually shows up _slightly _in certain positions. 


			
				Pokeflute said:
			
		

> I'd always assumed "jamaa" (the invariable adjective) and "jamnaa" (to solidify) were related. Do they truly come from different origins?


_jam3_ is from Arabic, while _jamaa _seems to be from Sanskrit - as aevynn has quoted above from various dictionaries. 

From the Arabic root _j-m-d_, there are the following: منجمد - _munjamid _- _frozen, congealed, etc._; انجماد - _injimaad - freezing, congealing, concretion, etc. _; تجمید، تجمّد، جامد، جمود، متجمد، وغیرہ_ - tajmiid, tajammud, jaamid, jumuud (inertia), mutajammid, waGhairah_

Etymology experts could shed light on whether it is mere coincidence that these words and _jamnaa _have _j_-_m_ in common.


----------

