# Urdu: How does one write "shove"?



## Qureshpor

In Urdu system of writing the short vowel "zabar" (a) combined with a semi-vowel "v/w" and "y" results in "*au*" and "*ai*" sounds respectively as in "m*au*lavii" and "sh*ai*taan". The same semi-vowels combined with a "zer" (i) result is "iv" and "ii" as in "Shiv" and "jii".

Supposing we wished to keep the full consonant value of "v/w" and "y" following a zabar and a zer. We would get "mav" (rhyming  with "shove"), "shay" and "jiy". Leaving aside the "unbecoming" "shay" and "jiy", how would you write a word like "shove" in Urdu, so that it is not read as "sho" or "shau"?


----------



## UrduMedium

This is a shortcoming in the Urdu script. I don't think one can unambiguously write "shove". I wish the powers that be adopt a three-dotted Arabic _fe _for the proper _v _sound, and leave the _vaao _for the rest of its usage. That will allow us to distinguish between _advoket _and _aduuket _(ایڈووکیٹ, English advocate) in Urdu as well. 

For example of the Arabic three-dotted _fe _see image attached from famous brand name Nivea.


----------



## Alfaaz

I would write it as follows. How it is written would also depend on the person's English pronunciation of the word. 
شَوّ


----------



## Alfaaz

> That will allow us to distinguish between _advoket _and _aduuket _(ایڈووکیٹ, English advocate) in Urdu as well.


I would write these as: ایڈوُّکٹ or ایڈوُّکیٹ again depending on how one pronounces the word...(the pesh on the shad might not be visible)


----------



## Qureshpor

^ UM SaaHib, I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this but has some sort of inferiority complex got a stranglehold over you? No natural script is perfect, as far as I am aware. It is possible that either I did not make my query clear enough or you did n't follow my train of thought. I am not concerned with v/w difference and neither am I too impressed with some of the innovations into Arabic script within the Arab world. I have travelled quite extensively and have seen for myself a number of additions to the consonants.

To differentiate between aDvokeT and aDuukeT (whatever the latter might be) is no big deal. For the latter add a pesh over the first vaa'o and leave the other as it is. Now, can we move onto "shav" please?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> In Urdu system of writing the short vowel "zabar" (a) combined with a semi-vowel "v/w" and "y" results in "*au*" and "*ai*" sounds respectively as in "m*au*lavii" and "sh*ai*taan". The same semi-vowels combined with a "zer" (i) result is "iv" and "ii" as in "Shiv" and "jii".
> 
> Supposing we wished to keep the full consonant value of "v/w" and "y" following a zabar and a zer. *We would get "mav" (rhyming  with "shove")*, "shay" and "jiy". Leaving aside the "unbecoming" "shay" and "jiy", how would you write a word like "shove" in Urdu, so that it is not read as "sho" or "shau"?



May I please have some more explanation on the rhyme with ''shove''? I'd like to know what kind of vowel is meant here.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> May I please have some more explanation on the rhyme with ''shove''? I'd like to know what kind of vowel is meant here.



All I am asking is this, marrish SaaHib.

How does one write "miim zabar vaa'o" and get "mav" and NOT "mau"?


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ UM SaaHib, I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this but has some sort of inferiority complex got a stranglehold over you? No natural script is perfect, as far as I am aware. It is possible that either I did not make my query clear enough or you did n't follow my train of thought. I am not concerned with v/w difference and neither am I too impressed with some of the innovations into Arabic script within the Arab world. I have travelled quite extensively and have seen for myself a number of additions to the consonants.
> 
> To differentiate between aDvokeT and aDuukeT (whatever the latter might be) is no big deal. For the latter add a pesh over the first vaa'o and leave the other as it is. Now, can we move onto "shav" please?



Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about. Inferiority complex?

Please refrain from personal comments directed toward me from now on, and just state your views on the topic, like everyone else. I do not find such comments cute or funny. I have a lot of respect for your talent. However, that talent is no excuse for personal attacks.


----------



## UrduMedium

^ Now back on the topic. To me there is nothing sacred about any script, including Urdu. Script exists to support expression of a language on paper. Languages exist as sounds. If a particular script is missing a sound or two, there's nothing wrong in extending and improving it. That's what our ancestors did by extending the Arabic script to add Persian-specific sounds, and then Indic-specific sounds. I am glad they did. Same thing happened when Arabic script was used for a variety of languages such as Sindhi, Pashto and so on. There was nothing sacrilegious about enhancing it. If modern Arabs added a three-dot _fe _for v, good for them.

This is my considered personal view. I will not go in a frenzy if everyone else does not subscribe to it. So please feel free to disagree.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ But in both of your last posts you have n't tackled the topic in question. Or is post no. 2 your final answer?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> All I am asking is this, marrish SaaHib.
> 
> How does one write "miim zabar vaa'o" and get "mav" and NOT "mau"?



I was just not sure of the English pronunciation.

One would have to write ''miim zabar vaa'o jazm'' to get mav and not ''mau''.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ But in both of your last posts you have n't tackled the topic in question. Or is post no. 2 your final answer?


That's correct. _This is a shortcoming in the Urdu script. I don't think one can unambiguously write "shove"._


----------



## Alfaaz

> One would have to write ''miim zabar vaa'o jazm'' to get mav and not ''mau''.


Could you perhaps write this in Urdu script? Thanks!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I was just not sure of the English pronunciation.
> 
> One would have to write ''miim zabar vaa'o jazm'' to get mav and not ''mau''.



Thank you, marrish SaaHib. This is what I had in mind too and using the tools at one's disposal it seems it is possible to write "-av" unambiguously, differentiating words like "sho" (show), "shuu" (either shoe or scaring away a cat or something), "shau" (as in the imperative of the Persian verb "shudan") and "shav".


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> I was just not sure of the English pronunciation.
> 
> One would have to write ''miim zabar vaa'o jazm'' to get mav and not ''mau''.



marrish saahab- I think it will still be read as _mau_. The jazm is there on vaa'o even if you do not write it. It's only omitted because it is obvious.


----------



## marrish

I'm sorry I'm not able to type it at the moment.

UM SaaHib, I think it is worth looking into another possibility that it will not be read as mau because a vaa'o on its own is not pronounced u at most times and if we take a standing alone vaa'o it reads as ''va'' or ''o''. What about jazm making a consonant out of this _vaa'o_?


----------



## UrduMedium

For whatever it's worth, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics#Sukun

Quote: 
"The sukūn may also be used to help represent a diphthong. A _fatḥah followed by the letter ⟨ﻱ⟩ (yāʾ) with a sukūn over it indicates the diphthong ay (IPA /aj/). A fatḥah followed by the letter ⟨ﻭ⟩ (wāw) with a sukūn indicates /aw/."

_To make a consonant sound of the vaa'o, it should have a zer, zabar, or a pesh_. _


----------



## Qureshpor

^ There is nothing to prevent from starting a convention.

shiin + vaa'o = sho (vaav-i-majhuul)

shiin pesh + vaa'o = shuu (vaav-i-ma3ruuf)

shiin zabar + vaa'o = shau

shiin zabar +vaa'o + jazm = shav


----------



## marrish

Let's consider that it has always been the convention to pronounce waaw/vaa'o as "v" in Urdu.


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> For whatever it's worth, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics#Sukun
> 
> Quote:
> "The sukūn may also be used to help represent a diphthong. A _fatḥah followed by the letter ⟨ﻱ⟩ (yāʾ) with a sukūn over it indicates the diphthong ay (IPA /aj/). A fatḥah followed by the letter ⟨ﻭ⟩ (wāw) with a sukūn indicates /aw/."
> 
> _To make a consonant sound of the vaa'o, it should have a zer, zabar, or a pesh_. _



In Urdu it has been the convention which we know is different in Arabic according to which waaw/vaa'o is used to represent the 'v' sound preceeded by a zabar, like in names Khusrav, Yaadav.


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> In Urdu it has been the convention which we know is different in Arabic according to which waaw/vaa'o is used to represent the 'v' sound preceeded by a zabar, like in names Khusrav, Yaadav.


I thought the correct Urdu pronunciation was _xusrau_, as recently used here, here, and here. And how are you proposing to write Yaadav in Urdu?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I thought the correct Urdu pronunciation was _xusrau_, as recently used here, here, and here. And how are you proposing to write Yaadav in Urdu?



On its own, I believe the word is xusrau, although we all know that lots of people seem to pronounce it as "xusro". Perhaps their pronunciation is unnecessarily too "subtle"! When "xusrau" has an "attachment", it changes to "xusrav" as in "xusravii".

I would wite Yaadav as "ye zabar alif maddah daal zabar vaa'o with a sukuun/jazm. This is the convention I would adopt.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> On its own, I believe the word is xusrau, although we all know that lots of people seem to pronounce it as "xusro". Perhaps their pronunciation is unnecessarily too "subtle"! When "xusrau" has an "attachment", it changes to "xusrav" as in "xusravii".
> 
> I would wite Yaadav as "ye zabar alif maddah daal zabar vaa'o with a sukuun/jazm. This is the convention I would adopt.


Precisely. This is what I also said before (see here), for vaa'o to have a v sound it must have a zer, zabar, or pesh. Sukoon will not make it v. In your example (_xusravii_), it does not change to _xusrav_, but to _xusravii, _because the vaa'o has a zer under it, not sukoon on top. Same predicament applies to Yadav when written in Urdu script.


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> I thought the correct Urdu pronunciation was _xusrau_, as recently used here, here, and here. And how are you proposing to write Yaadav in Urdu?


There is a variety of pronunciations for this name but maybe we should start a new Persian-Urdu thread for this, I was perceiving a ''v'' at the end but I might have been biased.

Let us take *سـَــرْوْ* unto consideration. Although no vowel preceedes the waaw/vaa'o, there is also no vowel or pesh, zabar, zer on the final waaw. Still it results in the pronunciation _sar*v*_.

Yaadav is یادو، یـــَادَوْ in Urdu.


----------



## UrduMedium

^ marrish saahab- _sarv _is a great example. It indeed carries the v sound. So the vaa'o v sound rule needs to be modified: either the vaa'o has zer/zabar/pesh, or follows another letter that has sukuun on it. 

Clearly, this does not apply to "_shove_" which is our topic for the thread. Shove has a shiin-zabar preceding the vaa'o with sukuun, which is the typical scenario for a diphthong leading to _shau_.


----------



## marrish

Why should we complicate the matters while it is clear that waaw has the sound of "v" in Urdu in different positions, amongst which the final one is relevant. There are examples like the above which show that waaw is used also as the last letter of words, meaning that no vowel sound follows the "v" sound, irrespectively of whether the preceding is a consonant or a vowel.

Edit: I'm eagerly awaiting our great absent Faylasoof SaaHib who if I'm not mistaken, has a big deal of passion regarding accurate spelling.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> .
> 
> I would wite Yaadav as "ye zabar alif maddah daal zabar vaa'o with a sukuun/jazm. This is the convention I would adopt.


The name is spelled as یادو. Would the use of maddah be a more accurate spelling?


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> Why should we complicate the matters while it is clear that waaw has the sound of "v" in Urdu in different positions, amongst which the final one is relevant. There are examples like the above which show that waaw is used also as the last letter of words, meaning that no vowel sound follows the "v" sound, irrespectively of whether the preceding is a consonant or a vowel.
> 
> Edit: I'm eagerly awaiting our great absent Faylasoof SaaHib who if I'm not mistaken, has a big deal of passion regarding accurate spelling.


Not complicating, but asking for a representative case. I think another _sarv _kind of example that matches the _shove _pattern (letter w/zabar followed by vaa'o saakin) will be sufficient. "_shove" _is not an Urdu word so it cannot be used as the proof. In support for my claim that shiin-zabar vaa'o saakin is read as _shau_, I present the following examples that fit the template to a tee ...

jau (barley), not jav
sau (hundred), not sav
rau (flow), not rav
pau (dawn), no pav
zau (with zuaad, glow), not zav 
lau (flame), not lav
nau (new), not nav

All of the above match perfectly with your proposed spelling for "shove", shiin-zabar, vaa'o-saakin. Just replacing the shiin with jiim, siin, re, pe, zuaad, laam, and nuun. The examples above derive from Arabic, Persian, and Indic origin, to leave no doubt that the spelling convention is consistent for this type of sound/word. 

I think it is obvious from the above that your proposed spelling would be unambiguously read as _shau _and not _shav_.


----------



## souminwé

I would suggest adopting the Israeli Hebrew convention of doubling _waaw_, but that would probably be read "ov" or "vo". Perhaps it would be a better convention to explicitly place a _shadda_ over the final _waaw_. How would you be tempted to read شوّ ?


----------



## Alfaaz

souminwé said:
			
		

> I would suggest adopting the Israeli Hebrew convention of doubling _waaw_, but that would probably be read "ov" or "vo". Perhaps it would be a better convention to explicitly place a _shadda_ over the final _waaw_. How would you be tempted to read شوّ ?


Thanks for asking this! This is what I had in mind when answering this question (posts 3 and 4), but nobody replied...which made me think that maybe the suggestion is wrong....
(*Edit:* Reasoning: Arabic/Urdu words like حَوّا , شَوّال )



			
				Alfaaz said:
			
		

> I would write it as follows. How it is written would also depend on the person's English pronunciation of the word.
> شَوّ





			
				Alfaaz said:
			
		

> UrduMedium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will allow us to distinguish between _advoket _and _aduuket _(ایڈووکیٹ, English advocate) in Urdu as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I would write these as: ایڈوُّکٹ or ایڈوُّکیٹ again depending on how one pronounces the word...(the pesh on the shad might not be visible)
Click to expand...


----------



## UrduMedium

Alfaaz said:


> Thanks for asking this! This is what I had in mind when answering this question (posts 3 and 4), but nobody replied...which made me think that maybe the suggestion is wrong....
> (*Edit:* Reasoning: Arabic/Urdu words like حَوّا , شَوّال )


 I agree, this is much better than shiin-zabar vaao-saakin solution.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Not complicating, but asking for a representative case. I think another _sarv _kind of example that matches the _shove _pattern (letter w/zabar followed by vaa'o saakin) will be sufficient. "_shove" _is not an Urdu word so it cannot be used as the proof. In support for my claim that shiin-zabar vaa'o saakin is read as _shau_, I present the following examples that fit the template to a tee ...
> 
> jau (barley), not jav
> sau (hundred), not sav
> rau (flow), not rav
> pau (dawn), no pav
> zau (with zuaad, glow), not zav
> lau (flame), not lav
> nau (new), not nav
> 
> All of the above match perfectly with your proposed spelling for "shove", shiin-zabar, vaa'o-saakin. Just replacing the shiin with jiim, siin, re, pe, zuaad, laam, and nuun. The examples above derive from Arabic, Persian, and Indic origin, to leave no doubt that the spelling convention is consistent for this type of sound/word.
> 
> I think it is obvious from the above that your proposed spelling would be unambiguously read as _shau _and not _shav_.



We appear to be going round in circles. I think it is fair to say that we all know what a consonant + zabar + vaa'o ends up as; one of the words in your list. All that is being suggested is that since one does not normally see a jazm/sukuun sign placed above the vaa'o, let us (innovatively) start a convention in which this jazm in such situations implies a "v", as in "yaadav". I hope this is clear.


----------



## UrduMedium

^ I'm afraid most people with still read _shau _with the "innovative" convention you describe (ref post 17). The approach by Alfaaz of putting a tashdiid on the vaa'o sounds more reliable.

I agree it is time to _shove _this thread to a close. I'm signing off from it.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> ^ I'm afraid most people with still read _shau _with the "innovative" convention you describe (ref post 17). The approach by Alfaaz of putting a tashdiid on the vaa'o sounds more reliable.
> 
> I agree it is time to _shove _this thread to a close. I'm signing off from it.



I don't think anyone has rejected the tashdiid suggestion. Your post 17 does not allow anything but a zabar, zer or pesh and for this reason a tashdiid or a jazm are out of the question. So, we need to get out of this restriction.

Placing a tashdiid on top of the vaa'o is good suggestion but I have reservations about it.

Supposing we wanted to write the Islamic month "shav-vaal"

This would be spelt shiin zabar vaa'o saakin (majzuum) vaa'o zabar alif laam mauquuf.

Clearly a shadd is used for the two vaa'os. Now, if we just deal with the first syllable only, we have shiin zabar vaa'o saakin (majzuum) which relates well to the "av" in "yaadav". I hope this makes sense.


----------



## marrish

I hope it is not too late to make one point in favour of jazm:
- if _a fatḥah followed by the letter ⟨ﻭ⟩ (wāw) with a sukūn indicates /aw/ then it fits this solution very well since the letter vaa'o indicating a consonant is pronounced mostly as 'v' while it is 'w' in Arabic; 
- if the Yaadav/Jaadav example which in Urdu is well-established (I remember reading this name in books) is not considered representative for some reason, then there are other words which may serve: جَلَوْ، رَوْ، دَوْ. The reason for the paucity of examples is that those word endings are not common at all in Urdu. There are Sanskrit words which were written in the Urdu script, and the final -av have been put as zabar waaw jazm (well, jazm wasn't specifically indicated). Platts contains thousands of such words like ابھنو abhinav and تانڑو taaNRav. Many of them have been written in Urdu with a final ب instead.

I'd favour the continuation of attested usage and the instruments we have at the hand; the trick with tashdiid is also an interesting option but I think brings out gemination of w unnecessarily. 

Of course all this is only important whether one is willing to use any diacritics at all. The rest depends on the readers' perspicacity._


----------



## Abu Talha

How about using ۋ to unambiguously represent this sound?
یَادَۋْ
شَۋْ
See Waw (letter) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Incidentally, this page also gives ۉ‎ which can solve representing majhuul و . But that's probably a topic for another thread.


----------

