# Hindi/Urdu: muaafakt (मुआफक्त)



## lafz_puchnevala

Hi,

This seems to have different meanings from 'maitrii/dostii' to 'baraabarii'. Would the meanings be correct and in what situations is the second meaning usually used, if at all?

Thanks!


----------



## UrduMedium

_muwaafiqat _refers to a relationship between two entities of type such as: suitability, compatibility, and so on.


----------



## JaiHind

It is not a Hindi word.


----------



## Faylasoof

mbasit said:


> _muwaafiqat _refers to a relationship between two entities of type such as: suitability, compatibility, and so on.


 Yes, this is the way we use it but the idea of 'being equal / comparable' in some way can also be given. But usually we use it like this:

_in dono ke xayaalaat meN muwaafiqat hai 

__These two have compatible ideas, i.e. the two generally agree.

_


----------



## marrish

On request of LP here a _nagarized_ version of the Urdu word in question: मुवाफ़िक़त but for some reasons I would expect it to be written as मुआफ़िक़त or मुआफ़क़त. Aren't you curious how is this word written in Urdu?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> On request of LP here a _nagarized_ version of the Urdu word in question: मुवाफ़िक़त but for some reasons I would expect it to be written as मुआफ़िक़त or मुआफ़क़त. Aren't you curious how is this word written in Urdu?



I would expect it to be written as "mu3aafaqat" (mu2aafaqat)!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> I would expect it to be written as "mu3aafaqat" (mu2aafaqat)!


"Which language" you bear in mind?


----------



## Qureshpor

zabaan-i-Urdu-i-mu3allaa of course!


----------



## marrish

Ah, I see! I'm wondering if it would be then written in Latin characters...


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

marrish said:


> On request of LP here a _nagarized_ version of the Urdu word in question: मुवाफ़िक़त but for some reasons I would expect it to be written as मुआफ़िक़त or मुआफ़क़त. Aren't you curious how is this word written in Urdu?



Kindly do explain the reason for this difference in spelling.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> I would expect it to be written as "mu*3*aafaqat" (mu2aafaqat)!


 I guess you really mean the bracketed version - mu2aafaqat = mu'aafaqat (where < 2 > or < ' > = _hamzah_), since there is no *3*= *3ain*!
Another point. Although it really is mu'aaf*a*qat / mu2aaf*a*qat, but many say mu'aaf*i*qat and mu*w*aaf*i*qat - the latter  also replacing the usually unpronounced hamzah < ء > to a waw < و>!!


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> I guess you really mean the bracketed version - mu2aafaqat = mu'aafaqat (where < 2 > or < ' > = _hamzah_), since there is no *3*= *3ain*!
> Another point. Although it really is mu'aaf*a*qat / mu2aaf*a*qat, but many say mu'aaf*i*qat and mu*w*aaf*i*qat - the latter  also replacing the usually unpronounced hamzah < ء > to a waw < و>!!



Yes, the 3 ought to have been an apostrophe!


----------



## Abu Talha

Faylasoof said:


> Another point. Although it really is mu'aaf*a*qat / mu2aaf*a*qat, but many say mu'aaf*i*qat and mu*w*aaf*i*qat - the latter  also replacing the usually unpronounced hamzah < ء > to a waw < و>!!


Faylasoof Sb, isn't mu*w*aafaqat correct, since the root is «و ف ق», not «ء ف ق»?


----------



## marrish

lafz_puchnevala said:


> Kindly do explain the reason for this difference in spelling.
> 
> 
> Faylasoof said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you really mean the bracketed version - mu2aafaqat = mu'aafaqat (where < 2 > or < ' > = _hamzah_), since there is no *3*= *3ain*!
> Another point. Although it really is mu'aaf*a*qat / mu2aaf*a*qat, but many say mu'aaf*i*qat and mu*w*aaf*i*qat - the latter also replacing the usually unpronounced hamzah < ء > to a waw < و>!!
Click to expand...

Thank you for stating it, Faylasoof SaaHib!


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> Faylasoof Sb, isn't mu*w*aafaqat correct, since the root is «و ف ق», not «ء ف ق»?



You are absolutely right, daee SaaHib.


----------



## Faylasoof

lafz_puchnevala said:


> l said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *marrish*
> On request of LP here a _nagarized_  version of the Urdu word in question: मुवाफ़िक़त but for some reasons I  would expect it to be written as मुआफ़िक़त or मुआफ़क़त. Aren't you  curious how is this word written in Urdu?
> 
> 
> 
> Kindly do explain the reason for this difference in spelling.
Click to expand...

 There is only one correct spelling and in it is: مؤافَقَت mu'aafaqat / mu2aafaqat - where, as I mention above, < ' > or < 2 > represent  hamzah < ء >, the glottal stop! According to strict pronunciation rules we ought to be including this glottal stop on the waw <ؤ> as shown herre. Meaning, when we speak we should, in a sense, break the word with a _very short glottal pause_ between the first and the second syllables! However, in common speech this is often omitted and the glottal stop is dropped resulting in the varied pronunciation of either saying <mu*'*aa...> or  <mu*w*aa...> - the latter is where the _hamzah_ has been dropped!

The other point I also explained above. The correct Urdu pronunciaiton is mu*'*aaf*a*qat but many end up saying mu*'*aaf*i*qat / mu*w*aaf*i*qat. 

 These are the reasons for the spelling differences reflected in nagri that marrish SaaHib kindly indicated above. 

मुवाफ़िक़त  muvaafiqat
मुआफ़िक़त  mu-aafiqat
 मुआफ़क़त  mu-aafaqat --this is the closest representation of the only correct Urdu spelling مؤافَقَت mu'aafaqat / mu2aafaqat . (Hindi doesn't have a glottal stop, as I understand it)


----------



## Faylasoof

daee said:


> Faylasoof Sb, isn't mu*w*aafaqat correct, since the root is «و ف ق», not «ء ف ق»?


 daee SaaHib, the root is indeed «و ف ق» (and not «ء ف ق») and _theoratically it should be mu*w*aaf*a*qat_! But in speech, and don't ask me why, we've ended up with _mu*'*aaf*a*qat_, _mu*'*aaf*i*qat_, _mu*w*aaf*i*qat _and _mu*w*aaf*a*qat_!! I've heard all these! 

Many modern Urdu dictionaries also give _mu'aaf*a*qat!! _We all should switch back to _*muwaafaqa**t*_ though!!

.…and for LP’s benefit this in Nagri would be: मुवाफ़क़त muvaafaqat!


----------



## Abu Talha

Faylasoof said:


> daee SaaHib, the root is indeed «و ف ق» (and not «ء ف ق») and _theoratically it should be mu*w*aaf*a*qat_! But in speech, and don't ask me why, we've ended up with _mu*'*aaf*a*qat_, _mu*'*aaf*i*qat_, _mu*w*aaf*i*qat _and _mu*w*aaf*a*qat_!! I've heard all these!


I see. Thanks Qureshpor, Faylasoof Sbs.


Faylasoof said:


> There is only one correct spelling and in it is: مؤافَقَت mu'aafaqat / mu2aafaqat - where, as I mention above, < ' > or < 2 > represent hamzah < ء >, the glottal stop! According to strict pronunciation rules we ought to be including this glottal stop on the waw <ؤ> as shown herre. Meaning, when we speak we should, in a sense, break the word with a _very short glottal pause_ between the first and the second syllables! However, in common speech this is often omitted and the glottal stop is dropped resulting in the varied pronunciation of either saying <mu*'*aa...> or <mu*w*aa...> - the latter is where the _hamzah_ has been dropped!


It seems in this case that the common pronunciation مؤافقت is a corruption of the original موافقت. But the hamza is an approximation of the common pronunciation, not a reflection of the original Arabic pronunciation. So introducing a glottal stop would perhaps be incorrect? What do you think?

The way I see it, Urdu has two kinds of hamzas. 
a) Glottal stops (or what should be glottal stops) in Arabic words like سؤال su'aal, مؤنث mu'annas, etc., and 
b) A hamza in the Urdu script to approximate Indic diphthongs and the like, in words like آئیں , آئی , گئے , etc. , where there is, correctly, no glottal stop.

(I'm not familiar with Persian phonology so I'm not sure if it would fall in either of the above.)

So words like مؤافقت would fall under category b), not a) so I'm thinking, if one does say مؤافقت instead of موافقت there should be no glottal stop.


----------



## Faylasoof

daee said:


> I see. Thanks Qureshpor, Faylasoof Sbs.
> It seems in this case that the common pronunciation مؤافقت is a corruption of the original موافقت. But the hamza is an approximation of the common pronunciation, not a reflection of the original Arabic pronunciation. So introducing a glottal stop would perhaps be incorrect? What do you think?


 It is incorrect but ended up in modern Urdu lexicons too! 


daee said:


> The way I see it, Urdu has two kinds of hamzas.
> a) Glottal stops (or what should be glottal stops) in Arabic words like سؤال su'aal, مؤنث mu'annas, etc., and
> b) A hamza in the Urdu script to approximate Indic diphthongs and the like, in words like آئیں , آئی , گئے , etc. , where there is, correctly, no glottal stop.
> 
> (I'm not familiar with Persian phonology so I'm not sure if it would fall in either of the above.)
> 
> So words like مؤافقت would fall under category b), not a) so I'm thinking, if one does say مؤافقت instead of موافقت there should be no glottal stop.


 _Most people don't bother uttering any hamzah in Urdu words regardless, but *we can discuss all this in the this thread, that QP Sb has started*_*.*

But, as I said above for موافَقَت: 


Faylasoof said:


> Many modern Urdu dictionaries also give _mu'aaf*a*qat!! _We all should switch back to _*muwaafaqa**t*_ though!!


 The glottal stop here would be a corruption of the original!


----------



## lafz_puchnevala

Faylasoof said:


> daee SaaHib, the root is indeed «و ف ق» (and not «ء ف ق») and _theoratically it should be mu*w*aaf*a*qat_! But in speech, and don't ask me why, we've ended up with _mu*'*aaf*a*qat_, _mu*'*aaf*i*qat_, _mu*w*aaf*i*qat _and _mu*w*aaf*a*qat_!! I've heard all these!
> 
> Many modern Urdu dictionaries also give _mu'aaf*a*qat!! _We all should switch back to _*muwaafaqa**t*_ though!!
> 
> .…and for LP’s benefit this in Nagri would be: मुवाफ़क़त muvaafaqat!



So, it seems that the way I wrote it is still wrong, there is no half 'qa' but rather it is a full sound. Wondering if 'faqat' could have been a root word for this...


----------



## Abu Talha

lafz_puchnevala said:


> Wondering if 'faqat' could have been a root word for this...


I do not think so. _faqaT_ فقط meaning "only" has ط instead of ت for the "t" sound, and the ف (f) may be an addition to the basic word _qaTT_.
Besides, the form of the word _muwaafaqat_, on the pattern _mufaa3alat _(root: f3l),  should indicate that the _w_ is integral to the root.


----------



## Faylasoof

Abu Talha said:


> Originally Posted by *lafz_puchnevala*                                                       Wondering if 'faqat' could have been a root word for this...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think so. _faqaT_ فقط meaning "only" has ط instead of ت for the "t" sound, and the ف (f) may be an addition to the basic word _qaTT_.
> Besides, the form of the word _muwaafaqat_, on the pattern _mufaa3alat _(root: f3l),  should indicate that the _w_ is integral to the root.
Click to expand...

 Quite right! _*muwaafaqat*_ is in no way related to _*faqaT*_! The root of _*muwaafaqat*_, as was mentioned above, is < و ف ق > and the words that are most obviously related would be _*wifaaq*_ (=concord, federation) and _*wafq*_ as in _*bar wafq*_ (= in accordance [with])!


----------

