# Urdu-Hindi: غنائی مصوتہ - सानुनासिक स्वर , جمع - बहुवचन



## sapnachaandni

in lafzoN ko liijiye:

maaN (ماں , माँ ), bhauN (بھوں , भौं ) juuN (جوں , जूँ ), xizaaN (خزاں , ख़िज़ाँ )

sab ekvachan (واحد) aur striiling (مؤنث) haiN.


maiN ne ek baar hindii-bhaaSHioN se ye (yih) puuchhaa ki (kih) aise lafzoN se jo bahuvachan (جمع) banaayaa jaataa hai (بنائی جاتی ہے), us kaa sahii (saHiiH) ruup kyaa hai;

hindii-bhaaSHioN ne is ke baare meN mujhse ye (yih) kahaa hai :

hindii meN ye (yih) ruup sahii (saHiiH) haiN:
maaNeN (माँएँ), bhauNeN (भौंएँ) juNeN (जुँएँ), xizaaNeN (ख़िज़ाँएँ)

maaNoN (माँओं), bhauNoN (भौंओं) juNoN (जुँओं), xizaaNoN (ख़िज़ाँओं)


aur ye (yih) haiN sahii (saHiiH) uchchaaraNR (talaffuz):
[mã:ẽ:], [bhɔ̃:ẽ:], [jũẽ:], [xizã:ẽ:]

[mã:õ:], [bhɔ̃:õ:], [jũõ:], [xizã:õ:]


lekin hindii meN ye (yih) ruup bhii milte haiN:
maa'eN (माएँ), bhau'eN (भौएँ) ju'eN (जुएँ), xizaa'eN (ख़िज़ाएँ)

maa'oN (माओं), bhau'oN (भौओं) ju'oN (जुओं), xizaa'oN (ख़िज़ाओं)​
matlab jis tarah (taraH) hindii-bhaaSHioN ne mujhse kahaa, aise lafzoN ke ekvachan ruup kaa antim svar (ایسے لفظوں کے واحد روپ کا آخری مصوتہ) jo saanunaasik (غنائی) hai, “eN” [ẽ:] / “oN” [õ:] lagaane ke baad (ba3d) saanunaasik (غنائی) rahegaa.

jahaaN tak maiN jaantii huuN *urduu* meN ye (yih) ruup milte haiN:

maa'eN (مائیں), bhau'eN (بھوئیں)i/i(بھویں) ju'eN (جوئیں), xizaa'eN (خزائیں)i

maa'oN (ماؤں), bhau'oN (بھوؤں), ju'oN (جوؤں), xizaa'oN (خزاؤں)i​

ab maiN ye (yih) jaannaa chaahtii huuN ki (kih) *urduu meN* aise lafzoN kaa *talaffuz* hameshaa (hameshah) aisaa hai:
(1)
[ma:ẽ:], [bhɔ:ẽ:], [juẽ:], [xiza:ẽ:]

[ma:õ:], [bhɔ:õ:], [juõ:], [xiza:õ:]


yaa aisaa *talaffuz* bhii *urduu meN* miltaa hai:
(2)
[mã:ẽ:], [bhɔ̃:ẽ:], [jũẽ:], [xizã:ẽ:]

[mã:õ:], [bhɔ̃:õ:], [jũõ:], [xizã:õ:]



-----------
“j” (ج , ज) ko [j] se dikhaayaa gayaa hai.
“i” (زیر , इ) ko _ se aur “u” (پیش , उ) ko  se dikhaayaa gayaa hai.

*note:* maiN [x] aur [z] ke uchchaaraNR (talaffuz) ke baare meN koii baat nahiiN karnaa chaahtii, matlab ye (yih) jo hindii meN [x] ko kabhii [kh] aur [z] ko kabhii [j] bhii bolaa jaataa hai, is viShay (موضوع) ke baare meN koii baat nahiiN karnaa chaahtii. yahaaN baat sirf saanunaasik svar (غنائی مصوتہ) hai.

Faarsii meN xizaaN (خزاں , ख़िज़ाँ) ka [x], “i” ( زیر , इ) ke saath nahiiN, “a” ke saath bolaa jaataa hai, aur yahaaN baat ye (yih) nahiiN hai ki (kih) xizaaN (ख़िज़ाँ) kaa aslii yaa sahii (saHiiH) talaffuz kyaa hai. yahaaN baat saanunaasik svar (غنائی مصوتہ) hai._


----------



## Qureshpor

sapanachaandi SaaHibah, you have no doubt spent a lot of time and effort composing your post. Unfortunately, my response is going to be very short. To the best of my knowledge Urdu does away with the first nasal, e.g maa2eN (2 = hamza), maa2oN etc.


----------



## sapnachaandni

^ shukriyaa Qureshpor saaHib, vo (vuh) savaal jo maiN ne kiyaa aisaa thaa ki (kih) us ke liye lambe javaab kii zaruurat hii nahiiN thii. siidhaa saa savaal thaa: "aisaa talaffuz urduu meN miltaa hai ki nahiiN".

anyway, thanks again.

(vaise utnaa vaqt nahiiN lagaa likhne meN)


----------



## marrish

sapnachaandni said:


> in lafzoN ko liijiye:
> 
> maaN (ماں , माँ ), bhauN (بھوں , भौं ) juuN (جوں , जूँ ), xizaaN (خزاں , ख़िज़ाँ )
> *[...]*
> jahaaN tak maiN jaantii huuN *urduu* meN ye (yih) ruup milte haiN:
> 
> maa'eN (مائیں), bhau'eN (بھوئیں)i/i(بھویں) ju'eN (جوئیں), xizaa'eN (خزائیں)i
> 
> maa'oN (ماؤں), bhau'oN (بھوؤں), ju'oN (جوؤں), xizaa'oN (خزاؤں)i​
> 
> ab maiN ye (yih) jaannaa chaahtii huuN ki (kih) *urduu meN* aise lafzoN kaa *talaffuz* hameshaa (hameshah) aisaa hai:
> (1)
> [ma:ẽ:], [bhɔ:ẽ:], [juẽ:], [xiza:ẽ:]
> 
> [ma:õ:], [bhɔ:õ:], [juõ:], [xiza:õ:]
> 
> 
> yaa aisaa *talaffuz* bhii *urduu meN* miltaa hai:
> (2)
> [mã:ẽ:], [bhɔ̃:ẽ:], [jũẽ:], [xizã:ẽ:]
> 
> [mã:õ:], [bhɔ̃:õ:], [jũõ:], [xizã:õ:]
> 
> 
> 
> -----------
> “j” (ج , ज) ko [j] se dikhaayaa gayaa hai.
> “i” (زیر , इ) ko _ se aur “u” (پیش , उ) ko  se dikhaayaa gayaa hai.
> 
> *note:* maiN [x] aur [z] ke uchchaaraNR (talaffuz) ke baare meN koii baat nahiiN karnaa chaahtii, matlab ye (yih) jo hindii meN [x] ko kabhii [kh] aur [z] ko kabhii [j] bhii bolaa jaataa hai, is viShay (موضوع) ke baare meN koii baat nahiiN karnaa chaahtii. yahaaN baat sirf saanunaasik svar (غنائی مصوتہ) hai.
> 
> Faarsii meN xizaaN (خزاں , ख़िज़ाँ) ka [x], “i” ( زیر , इ) ke saath nahiiN, “a” ke saath bolaa jaataa hai, aur yahaaN baat ye (yih) nahiiN hai ki (kih) xizaaN (ख़िज़ाँ) kaa aslii yaa sahii (saHiiH) talaffuz kyaa hai. yahaaN baat saanunaasik svar (غنائی مصوتہ) hai._


_
baa ijaazat bandah urduu ke muta3alliq 3arz karnaa chaahe gaa kih bandah kii raa'e bhii QP SaaHib ke irshaad ke mutaabiq hae ya3nii nuun-e-Ghunnah kii sadaa xwaah waaHid ''maaN'' ''bhauN'' vaGhairah vaGhairah lafz ke aaxirii rukn par kyoN nah ho phir bhii un kii jam3 meN yih sadaa lafz ke aaxirii hii rukn tak maHduud paa'ii jaatii hae.

saanii-an zaraa Ghaur farmaaiye gaa kih hamaarii is urduu zabaan meN nah [xizã:ẽ:] nah hii [xizã:õ:] ke wujuud kaa imkaan hae. yih bhii bayaan nahiiN ho saktaa kih yih Ghalat yaa naa-munaasib hae; inhiiN lafzoN kaa urduu meN qat3-an wujuud nahiiN hae. yih ''xizaaneN'' aur ''xizaanoN'' bolaa aur likhaa jaa'e gaa.

mundarajah-e-fauq donoN aaraa2 nah sirf urduu pih balkih hiNdii par baraabar paimaane tak laaguu hoN gii aur yih bhii saath saath qaabil-e-zikr hae kih donoN zabaanoN ke adabii niiz roz-marrah lahje se munsalik haiN. chuuNkih ho saktaa hae bandah kaa tarjibah nihaayat hii juzvii aur naaqis hae isii liye hiNdii ke baare meN bandah raa'e-zanii kaa naa-ahl aur naa-qaabil ho. is ke liye mu3aafii aur mumkinah islaaH kaa talabgaar huuN._


----------



## Qureshpor

سپنا چاندنی صاحبہ، میری اِس بات کا شاید آپ کے موضوع سے تعلق نہ ہو لیکن مجھے یوں لگتا ہے کہ نئے زمانے کے اردو والوں کو دو نون غنّاؤں کا پاس پاس ہونا ایک آنکھ نہیں بھاتا۔ 

مثلاً
 یہ دو دیویاں کہاں سے* آئیں ہیں* 

 ایسا جملہ اب ایک نئی صورت اختیار کر گیا ہے۔

یہ دو دیویاں کہاں سے *آئی ہیں*


----------



## sapnachaandni

marrish saaHib, javaab dene ke liye shukriyaa.

Qureshpor saaHib, aap kaa bhii shukriyaa.



Theek hai, maiN maan ga'ii huuN ki (kih) *urduu meN* sirf aisaa talaffuz miltaa hai:

[ma:ẽ:], [bhɔ:ẽ:], [juẽ:], ...

[ma:õ:], [bhɔ:õ:], [juõ:], ...





marrish said:


> _
> saanii-an zaraa Ghaur farmaaiye gaa kih hamaarii is urduu zabaan meN nah [xizã:ẽ:] nah hii [xizã:õ:]  ke wujuud kaa imkaan hae. yih bhii bayaan nahiiN ho saktaa kih yih  Ghalat yaa naa-munaasib hae; inhiiN lafzoN kaa urduu meN qat3-an wujuud  nahiiN hae. yih ''xizaaneN'' aur ''xizaanoN'' bolaa aur likhaa jaa'e  gaa.
> _


 
maaf (mu3aaf) kiijiye marrish saaHib, ye  jo [xizã:ẽ:] aur [xizã:õ:] kaa vujuud urduu meN nahiiN hai, ye maiN  maan ga'ii huuN, lekin lagtaa hai urduu meN [xiza:ẽ:] aur [xiza:õ:] kaa vujuud  hai. 


urduu aur hindii meN ka'ii aise faarsii aur arbii (arabii) lafz milte haiN jin ke aaxir meN “nuun” (ن  , न ) maujuud hai. jahaaN tak maiN ne dekhaa aur sunaa hai aur is ke  baare meN chhaan biin kii hai, urduu shaa'erii (shaa3irii) meN ye (yih)  3aam baat hai ki vazan (vazn) kii vajah se “nuun” kii jagah par  “nuun-e-Ghunnah” lagaayaa jaa'e. misaal ke taur par
“آسمان” (आसमान) kii jagah par “آسماں” (आसमाँ)
“زمین” (ज़मीन) kii jagah par “زمیں” (ज़मीं)
“سکون” (सुकून) kii  jagah par “سکوں” (सुकूँ)
“جنون” (जुनून) kii jagah par “جنوں” (जुनूँ)
vaGhairah

aur jahaaN tak mujhe pataa hai “آسمان” likhaa jaa'e yaa “آسماں”, is se kabhii “آسماؤں” (आसमाओं) (!) banaayaa nahiiN jaa'egaa. “آسمان” ho yaa “آسماں” , hameshah “آسمانوں” (आसमानों) banaayaa jaataa hai. yaa maslan “زمین” likhaa jaa'e yaa “زمیں”, is se “زمیئیں” (ज़मीएँ) (!) aur “زمیؤں” (ज़मीओं) (!) banaa'e nahiiN jaa'eNge, hameshah “زمینیں” (ज़मीनें) aur “زمینوں” (ज़मीनों) banaa'e jaate haiN.

lekin ye “خزاں” (ख़िज़ाँ) kuchh alag saa lafz lagtaa hai. is meN to koii shak nahiiN ki is kaa aslii ruup “خزان” hai aur isii liye is se “خزانیں” (xizaaneN) aur “خزانوں” (xizaanoN) banaa'e jaate haiN, lekin baat ye hai ki duusre lafzoN ke bar 3aks, “خزان” yaa “خزاں” se “خزائیں” (xizaa'eN) aur “خزاؤں” (xizaa'oN) bhii banaa'e ga'e haiN. aur mujhe lagtaa hai zyaadah tar “خزائیں” (xizaa'eN) aur “خزاؤں” (xizaa'oN) dikhaa'ii dete haiN. 

ek aur lafz bhii hai jo “خزاں” jaisaa hai: “کہکشاں” (कहकशाँ). is meN bhii koii shak nahiiN ki aslii ruup “کہکشان” hai, lekin “کہکشان” yaa “کہکشاں” se “کہکشانوں” (kahkashaanoN) aur “کہکشاؤں” (kahkashaa'oN) donoN banaae ga'e haiN.

maiN is kii vajah samajh nahiiN saktii ki kyoN ye “خزاں”i (خزان) aur “کہکشاں”i (کہکشان) duusre lafzoN kii tarah nahiiN haiN. “آسمان” yaa “آسماں” se “آسماؤں” nahiiN banaayaa jaataa, “زمین” yaa “زمیں” se “زمیئیں” aur “زمیؤں” banaa'e nahiiN jaate, lekin “خزان” yaa “خزاں” se “خزائیں” aur “خزاؤں” banaa'e jaate haiN,  aur “کہکشان” yaa “کہکشاں” se “کہکشاؤں” banaayaa jaataa hai. agar ye Ghalat haiN to shaayad ye Ghaltii (Ghalatii) Had se zyaadah 3aam ho ga'ii hai, xaas kar ke “خزائیں” aur “خزاؤں” ke baare meN.

kisi ko pataa hai ki kis liye ye “خزاں”i (خزان) aur “کہکشاں”i (کہکشان) alag haiN? aur kis liye ye Ghaltii sirf in ke baare meN hu'ii hai?


----------



## Qureshpor

sapnachaandni said:


> [...]kisi ko pataa hai ki kis liye ye “خزاں”i (خزان) aur “کہکشاں”i (کہکشان) alag haiN? aur kis liye ye Ghaltii sirf in ke baare meN hu'ii hai?


bahut hii dil-chasp or Ghaur-talab savaal hai aap kaa!

kahkashaanoN kaa vujuud hai lekin xizaanoN kaa nahiiN. vuh shaayad is liye kih xizaanoN aur xazaanoN kaa aapas meN jhagRaa nah ho jaa'e!

jaate jaate ek 3arz.

Urdu meN lafz "ziyaadah" aur "masal-an" hai. maiN aap kii tavajjuh is taraf is liye markuuz kar rahaa huuN kyoNkih aap apnii taHriir likhte vaqt Urdu aur Hindi ke talaffuz kaa xaas-taur par xayaal rakhtii haiN.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Please open another thread and I shall be there to answer your question!


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor said:


> Urdu meN lafz "ziyaadah" aur "masal-an" hai.


shukriyaa (shukriyah) Qureshpor saaHib, ye (yih) pataa (patah) thaa ki (kih) "maslan" nahiiN "masal-an" hai, lekin ye pataa nahiiN thaa ki *urduu meN* "zyaadah" nahiiN "ziyaadah" hotaa hai.


----------



## sapnachaandni

ab baat ek na (nah) rahii:

(1)


marrish said:


> _
> [...] yih ''xizaaneN'' aur ''*xizaanoN*'' *bolaa aur likhaa jaa'e gaa*.
> _



(2)


Qureshpor said:


> kahkashaanoN kaa vujuud hai *lekin xizaanoN kaa nahiiN*.



maiN samjhii nahiiN, urduu meN "*xizaanoN*" hai ki (kih) nahiiN?


----------



## Qureshpor

^ jahaaN tak mujhe 3ilm hai xizaanoN vujuud nadaarad. 

ek dostaanah mashvarah, agar aap buraa nah maaneN. aap kyoN nahiiN Urdu yaa Hindi meN se ek ko apnaa letiiN? is se har baat ko duhraane kii zaruurat nahiiN paRe gii.


----------



## sapnachaandni

^ achchhaa mashvarah hai (javaab kaa baaqii Hissaa PM ke zariye bataa duungii, kyoN ki yahaaN baat kuchh aur hai).


----------



## Qureshpor

Just to confirm the existence of "xizaa'oN"/"xizaa'eN". There are plenty of examples on the net. I was trying to find something from a well known personality whose quote could be termed "authoritative". Well, here is a couplet from Ahmed Faraz

خزاؤں میں ہوتا ہے امتحاں وفاؤں کا فراز
جو ہوں شجر کو پیارے وہ پتے نہیں گرتے


----------



## marrish

It's great to have learned something new. I have to admit I wasn't aware of this form for the reason of which I made a 'categorical statement' about it's non-existence. Now that I've seen here and on the net that this form is OK I'd like to extend my disclaimer from Hindi to Urdu too. 

The shi3r is very important for me, thank you for your research and for quoting it. It confirms what 'urduencyclopedia' says about these forms. I've found ''_xizaaneN_'' on the net too but not '_xizaanoN_'. Logical as far as the examples that were given by sapnachaandnii SaaHibah as food for thought. It fits in the logic of the deletion of nasality when the grammatical suffix with a nasal follows.


----------



## Faylasoof

sapnachaandni said:


> ab baat ek na (nah) rahii:
> ....
> 
> maiN samjhii nahiiN, urduu meN "*xizaanoN*" hai ki (kih) nahiiN?


 janaab sapnachaandni SaaHibah, urduuu meN lafZ-e-"خزانوں _xizaanoN_" maujuud hae! yeh lafZ-e- "خزانہ _xizaanah"_ kii _Ghair nidaa'ii jam3_ (oblique plural) hae! 

خزانہ   (جمع)  خزانے ;  (جمع غیر ندائی)   خزانوں  

_aur lafZ-e-waaHid mutaGhayyaraat (_متغیّرات_) meN se hae_! _donoN, x*i*zaanah aur x*a*zaanah durust samjhe jaate haiN!

magar yahaaN xizaanah / xazaanah se baHth nahiiN balkeh x*a*zaaN / x*i*zaaN aur is kii jam3 se hae (aur yeh bhii __mutaGhayyaraat meN se hae). is kii bhii jam3 isii TarH bantii hae:

_خَزاؤں (جمع غیر ندائی)   خَزائیں (جمع)  خَزاں

_yeh sab alfaaZ roz-marrah kii bolii meN iste3maal hote haiN _!


----------



## sapnachaandni

Qureshpor saahib, marrish saahib, aur Faylasoof saahib, javaab dene ke liye aap sab kaa be-had shukriyaa.


----------



## sapnachaandni

marrish said:


> [...] It fits in the logic of the deletion of  nasality when the grammatical suffix with a nasal follows.


marrish  jii, ho sake to is ke baare meN aur vazaahat karenge aur bataa'enge ki  ye jo aap ne kahaa hai, kyaa is ko urdu grammar meN usuul ke taur par  manaa jaataa hai?


----------



## marrish

jii haaN, yih ek qaa3idah hai. chuuNkih qaa3ide bolne aur likhne ko dekh kar bante haiN mujhe yih baat qubuul karnaa ho gaa. baaqii jaise maiN ne 3arz kiyaa thaa mi3aarii Hindi meN bhii yahii baat laaguu ho gii, sapnachaandni jii.


----------



## Qureshpor

I don't know about any "rules" about nasals but I do know that in Urdu poetry, the nuun-i-Ghunnah is not counted metrically. If we take the couplet I quoted earlier..even if xizaa'oN was pronounced as xizaaN'oN, it would still remain in metre.

خزاؤں میں ہوتا ہے امتحاں وفاؤں کا فراز
جو ہوں شجر کو پیارے وہ پتے نہیں گرتے

In this shi3r, the vazn is counted as if the couplet was..

xizaa'o me hotaa hai imtiHaa vafaa'o kaa Faraaz
jo ho shajar ko pyaare vuh patte nahii girte

pyaare would be scanned as "paare"

"raahoN meN" would be of the same "weight" as"baaNhoN meN".


----------

