# Hindi, Urdu: mana ki doston ko nahin dosti ka paas



## gole

This is a very familiar line from "Dil cheez kya hain aap meri jaan lijiye" song from Umrao Jaan. This particular sentence construction is puzzling me no end. When I read its English translation it's supposed to mean "I admit that friends may not always hold friendship in high regard." 

Translation citation: Dil Cheez Kya Hai Lyrics and Translation: Let’s Learn Urdu-Hindi

What does "paas" mean here? Does it mean "regard" as the translator suggests? Or, could it be "availability", more like "saath"? To my ear, the translation should have been "Granted that friends do not have friends' back/availability all the time". This would make the following line more sense as follows:

"Lekin ye kya ki gair ka ehsan lijiye" meaning "But do you have to run and ask for any random stranger's help in a hurry?"


----------



## Alfaaz

مانا کہ دوستوں کو نہیں دوستی کا پاس
لیکن یہ کیا کہ غیر کا احسان لیجیے 

شہریار
​_maanaa keh dostoN ko nahiiN dostii kaa paas
lekin yeh kyaa keh Ghair kaa iHsaan liijiye_

_Shahryaar_

_...friends do not have (any) regard/consideration/observance/respect for friendship_


> P پاس _pās_ [Pehl. _śpāś_; Zend _śpaś_, rt. _śpas_ = S. _paś_], s.m. Watching, guarding, taking care (of), observing; observance, consideration, attention (to), regard, respect, sake; custody; watch or term of three hours; a guard; ...


Synonyms: لحاظ، خیال، مروّت - _liHaaz, xayaal, muruwwat_


----------



## Dib

Quoting from the website you provided the link to:

"A quick note regarding the word _paas_. Those of you familiar with its common use in the phrase _kisii ke paas_ (next to someone/something) may be confused by the line “_maana ki dosto.n ko nahii.n dostii kaa paas._” Here, a less common use of the word _paas_ is used to mean regard or consideration. So, there is no relation to proximity here; the whole line would be translated as: “I admit that that friends may not always hold friendship in high regard.”"

This seems to be an accurate explanation. Etymologically speaking, these two uses of "paas" are, however, two separate words. The one meaning "near" is a native Hindi-Urdu word from Sanskrit pārśva. The one we have here is from Persian. You may be familiar with the word "paasbaan" (sentinel) derived from this same word.


----------



## gole

Thanks for clarifying, Alfaaz and Dib. I feel silly for not looking at the glossary note in the website itself.


----------



## gole

Alfaaz said:


> مانا کہ دوستوں کو نہیں دوستی کا پاس
> لیکن یہ کیا کہ غیر کا احسان لیجیے
> 
> شہریار
> ​_maanaa keh dostoN ko nahiiN dostii kaa paas
> lekin yeh kyaa keh Ghair kaa iHsaan liijiye_
> 
> _Shahryaar_
> 
> _...friends do not have (any) regard/consideration/observance/respect for friendship_Synonyms: لحاظ، خیال، مروّت - _liHaaz, xayaal, muruwwat_


On a side note, you wrote "mana ke" and "kya ke", not "mana ki" and "kya ki" as I (and the translator) had. Are those typos? This is another aspect of Hindi/Urdu that has always eluded me. I tried to listen again. Cannot be certain whether it's "ki" or "ke".


----------



## desi4life

gole said:


> On a side note, you wrote "mana ke" and "kya ke", not "mana ki" and "kya ki" as I (and the translator) had. Are those typos? This is another aspect of Hindi/Urdu that has always eluded me. I tried to listen again. Cannot be certain whether it's "ki" or "ke".



Per Urdu convention, the word is _keh _(-eh meaning short "e"), and per Hindi convention the word is _ki _(with short "i").


----------



## Alfaaz

gole said:
			
		

> On a side note, you wrote "mana ke" and "kya ke", not "mana ki" and "kya ki" as I (and the translator) had. Are those typos? This is another aspect of Hindi/Urdu that has always eluded me. I tried to listen again. Cannot be certain whether it's "ki" or "ke".


 desi4life has already provided an explanation. I would just add that you will most likely come across the pronunciation _keh_ in numerous older Bollywood films and songs. This is because (as discussed in multiple previous threads) Urdu had and continues to have great influence in lyrics and even dialogues. As a result, most of the playback singers had some training in Urdu and could articulate all of the consonants/words properly (example: _*Gh*air_ not _gair_). Even some of the actors/actresses studied at least a little Urdu, if they did not already speak, read and write it. Now, however, many (if not most) people in the industry do not properly pronounce Urdu words. In addition, quite a few might not pronounce other consonants properly, such as _ph, _which are not even related to an Urdu and Hindi difference.


----------



## desi4life

Alfaaz said:


> Now, however, many (if not most) people in the industry do not properly pronounce Urdu words.



Well, from the perspective of Hindi there is nothing improper about polished pronunciations such as _gair _and _ki_.


----------



## gole

Thanks, desi4life and Alfaaz. I only wanted to know what this ke/ki distinction is all about and you two have sufficiently explained this. You can imagine my confusion because my own language Nepali (very much influenced by Sanskritized Hindi) lumps j/z into j (true of Sanskritized Hindi too), s/sh into s, and ki/ke/ko/ka into ko.


----------



## desi4life

gole said:


> You can imagine my confusion because my own language Nepali (very much influenced by Sanskritized Hindi) lumps j/z into j (true of Sanskritized Hindi too)...



It isn't specifically a characteristic of Sanskritized Hindi. Modification of uncut, original Persian/Arabic words into polished diamonds  has been occurring since the medieval era and isn't due to Sanskritization. Traditionally, subcontinental languages (or groups of speakers) not strongly influenced by Persian norms have sweetened the words to fit native phonology. So most speakers of Nepali, Bhojpuri, Gujarati, or Indian Punjabi, for example, don't pronounce "z". Neither do some Hindi speakers. Similar situation with English, which has adapted words borrowed from French.


----------



## littlepond

^ Completely agree with desi4life jii: the z-to-j feature, which occurs in some Hindi speakers' speech for many words, is not part of some "Sanskritization" process (whatever that may mean). People speak according to what their innate abilities, phonologies they are familiar with, and adapt borrowings into their own, thus in turn also dominating those who seek to dominate (imports such as Arabic, Persian, and English, to name a few, were all part of dominating/colonising efforts). There is nothing "wrong" or regrettable or unsophisticated about pronouncing "gair" and "ki" in Hindi.


----------



## gole

Going by how much Bollywood has transformed, Hindi certainly seems to have come a long way toward "polishing uncut Persian/Arabic words" as desi4life suggested or resisting "their domination" as littlepond suggested. But hasn't Hindi adopted (or seeking to adopt) z (written with a little dot underneath j) which is absent in the original Devanagari alphabet? I am curious to know whether or not z has found (or will find) a permanent place in the Devanagari alphabet. Also, could this adoption be stemming not from the love of Urdu but from the love of English through which many Hindi speakers have successfully learned to distinguish j/z.


----------



## littlepond

^ One did not have to go through English education for "z"-"j" distinction: in fact, with English schooling, the distinction has eroded, as people have "reverted" to their instinctive phonology. In the old days, when English-medium education was not prevalent, education was often in madrasas, and hence such distinctions were better maintained in speech (not necessarily the case with orthography, as few publishers with enough resources existed).


----------



## desi4life

gole said:


> But hasn't Hindi adopted (or seeking to adopt) z (written with a little dot underneath j) which is absent in the original Devanagari alphabet?



Yes, ज़, फ़, ग़, ख़, and क़ are all used to varying degrees. What about in Nepali?



> I am curious to know whether or not z has found (or will find) a permanent place in the Devanagari alphabet.



ज़ and the others above have found a partial place, not a permanent place. Some pronounce these sounds and use them in writing, while others don't. It's democracy of language in action. 



> Also, could this adoption be stemming not from the love of Urdu but from the love of English through which many Hindi speakers have successfully learned to distinguish j/z.



Not sure. ज़ and फ़ are more common than the others.


----------



## gole

Nepali speakers have mostly learned to distinguish j/z and s/sh through English. Of course, I am speaking for a very small yet influential section (mostly media just like Bollywood). Nepali is the natural and uncontested lingua franca among hundreds of ethnic groups, some with their own languages (which might be in contrast to the status of Hindi in India where other state languages are just as (if not more) dominating at least within that state). After all, Nepal is much more diverse, given its size. At one point, there was this attempt to follow the masses and simplify the language by lumping the three different स/श/ष into स. A big outcry from Sanskrit-trained intellectuals eventually foiled that attempt. But the ground reality is that many Nepali speakers are only able to pronounce स.

Regarding j/z, z never caught on with Nepali speakers. Some Arabic/Persian words like najar (nazar), hajur (huzoor) have by now become completely Nepali but they are always pronounced with a j, never with a z. The written Nepali has pretty much stuck with the original Devanagari alphabet. However, with English becoming more and more popular, स/श are safe and ज़ might one day (not in the foreseeable future, though, since there are not enough English-trained intellectuals yet) make its way to our alphabet. As for फ़, ग़, ख़, and क़, they have no chance at all (Urdu-trained intellectuals, there are zero). I personally don't know what's different about them. Neither have I ever understood how ष is different from श.


----------



## gole

Alfaaz said:


> In addition, quite a few might not pronounce other consonants properly, such as _ph, _which are not even related to an Urdu and Hindi difference.



You are absolutely right. I remember watching this immensely popular Devon Ke Dev Mahadev by Life Ok channel where none other than the character playing Lord Shiva himself pronounced गनेश instead of गणेश. You would think stars who get paid big bucks would actually train themselves, at least for roles with historical importance.


----------



## desi4life

gole said:


> As for फ़, ग़, ख़, and क़, they have no chance at all



फ़ is used in English too.



gole said:


> I remember watching this immensely popular Devon Ke Dev Mahadev by Life Ok channel where none other than the character playing Lord Shiva himself pronounced गनेश instead of गणेश. You would think stars who get paid big bucks would actually train themselves, at least for roles with historical importance.



For many the only difference between न/ण and श/ष is orthographic. There really isn't a standardization of pronunciation where it's mandated that pronunciation variants must be pronounced in a certain way. Given the diversity of people and dialects across north India, I don't think there's any desire to do that.


----------



## gole

desi4life said:


> फ़ is used in English too.



Are you saying that the phonetic symbol /f/ in English is to be pronounced फ़? I don't think there are two different f sounds in English, are there? There are two different j sounds: /ʒ/ and /dʒ/. To my ears, /ʒ/ (as in measure) appears to be exactly halfway between /dʒ/ (as in badger) and /z/ (as in buzzer), and thus the perfect candidate for the Devanagari ज which lumps the other two into itself.



desi4life said:


> For many the only difference between न/ण and श/ष is orthographic.


To Nepali ears, the distinction between न/ण is resoundingly clear (I've almost never heard anybody mixing these up). The distinction between some others, for example, श/ष, छ्य/क्ष, ञ/यँ, कृ/क्री, appear merely orthographic since they are pronounced exactly the same.


----------



## desi4life

gole said:


> Are you saying that the phonetic symbol /f/ in English is to be pronounced फ़? I don't think there are two different f sounds in English, are there?



/fa/ is फ़, as in English "fun" फ़न or Hindi "fauj" फ़ौज. /pha/ is फ, which is the aspirated p in American English "pin" फिन or Hindi/Nepali "phal" फल. Is फ pronounced as फ़ in Nepali?


----------



## Jashn

gole said:


> Neither have I ever understood how ष is different from श.



It's the position of the tongue that is key.

You may have noticed that ष occurs in spelling when followed by retroflex consonants ट ठ ड ढ

श occurs otherwise (the larger category)

And it is not something you ought to have to pay much attention to, because you will automatically pronounce ष when followed by other retroflex letters, because your tongue will raise to say those retroflex letters after the ष. This is why words almost never start with ष


----------



## Alfaaz

gole said:
			
		

> Thanks for clarifying, Alfaaz and Dib. ...





			
				gole said:
			
		

> Thanks, desi4life and Alfaaz. I only wanted to know what this ke/ki distinction is all about and you two have sufficiently explained this. You can imagine my confusion because my own language Nepali (very much influenced by Sanskritized Hindi) lumps j/z into j (true of Sanskritized Hindi too), s/sh into s, and ki/ke/ko/ka into ko.


 You're welcome! It is completely understandable that learners of foreign languages can face difficulty in learning, articulating, and differentiating between pronunciations (in addition to the fact that they are learning grammar and vocabulary).  


			
				desi4life said:
			
		

> Well, from the perspective of Hindi there is nothing improper about polished pronunciations such as _gair _and _ki_.





			
				desi4life said:
			
		

> Modification of uncut, original Persian/Arabic words into polished diamonds  has been occurring since the medieval era and isn't due to Sanskritization. Traditionally, subcontinental languages (or groups of speakers) not strongly influenced by Persian norms have sweetened the words to fit native phonology.


 Note: The thread did not start out with languages in the title and those were added later by moderators. The piece quoted in the opening post is from an Urdu film, based on an Urdu novel, and part of Urdu lyrics/poetry. Therefore, the comments in posts #2 and #7 were made bearing these aspects in mind. As far as Hindi is concerned, the language can employ whatever pronunciations seem "polished" and "sweetened" in comparison to "uncut, original Persian/Arabic words"/Urdu. However, it did not appear inappropriate to mention which pronunciations are considered correct in Urdu when it was an Urdu work that was being discussed. (Commenting further about the discussion/comments above would be off-topic and might lead to unnecessary debates, so I will not say anything else.)

The new/current system in the forum allows threads to be tagged with languages. In some of the recent threads, forum members have tagged their threads with both Urdu and Hindi even though only one language is listed in the title. In such cases, I have contributed extra information _from the perspective of Urdu_ in a few threads. If this is viewed unfavorably (which appears to be the case from some of the comments in this thread?!), I shall refrain from doing so in the future!


----------



## Jashn

Alfaaz said:


> The new/current system in the forum allows threads to be tagged with languages. In some of the recent threads, forum members have tagged their threads with both Urdu and Hindi even though only one language is listed in the title. In such cases, I have contributed extra information _from the perspective of Urdu_ in a few threads. If this is viewed unfavorably (which appears to be the case from some of the comments in this thread?!), I shall refrain from doing so in the future!



I hope you won't refrain from commenting, your posts are always helpful, informative, and you're always friendly. Speaking for myself, it was clear you were merely commenting on what would be normative for Urdu, without indicating that that somehow is prescriptive for Hindi.


----------



## littlepond

Alfaaz said:


> In some of the recent threads, forum members have tagged their threads with both Urdu and Hindi even though only one language is listed in the title. In such cases, I have contributed extra information _from the perspective of Urdu_ in a few threads. If this is viewed unfavorably (which appears to be the case from some of the comments in this thread?!), I shall refrain from doing so in the future!



Please don't refrain, Alfaaz jii. I always like to learn more about Urdu, you always share immense knowledge, and certainly what is passable and acceptable in one language may not be in the other, so you have every right and reason to indicate the position of Urdu. My answer above was simply to indicate that things are acceptable in Hindi, and one must not look down upon someone, as a Hindi speaker, who chooses to not make these distinctions.


----------



## gole

Alfaaz said:


> If this is viewed unfavorably (which appears to be the case from some of the comments in this thread?!), I shall refrain from doing so in the future!



I am sure many here would agree that your comments are very insightful and are far from being something that should be viewed unfavorably. I think the comment from desi4life suggesting that the original Arabic/Persian words are "uncut" and are "being polished" through modification in Hindi could be a debatable one. But it's a healthy debate. 

Please do not refrain from commenting whenever you think you can provide some insight into the discussion. We have gone sort of off-topic, though, as you have pointed out. I wish the moderator would be able to separate some of the comments here into a new thread under Hindi/Devanagari category. The discussion is getting so interesting that I don't wish to leave now.


----------



## gole

Jashn said:


> It's the position of the tongue that is key.
> 
> You may have noticed that ष occurs in spelling when followed by retroflex consonants ट ठ ड ढ
> 
> श occurs otherwise (the larger category)
> 
> And it is not something you ought to have to pay much attention to, because you will automatically pronounce ष when followed by other retroflex letters, because your tongue will raise to say those retroflex letters after the ष. This is why words almost never start with ष



Thanks Jashn, this is great insight you have provided here. Never thought about it from that perspective. I guess when we articulate words like आषाढ पुष्टि जेष्ठ षड्यन्त्र the tongue is automatically guided by the succeeding sounds. Incidentally, ष is often spoken (and even written) as ख in Nepali when it's at the beginning of the word as in खड्यन्त्र. Likewise, I have heard य pronounced (but not spelled in this case) जे as in जेमराज instead of यमराज. They do not teach it like that in school anymore but it was very much in practice until a few decades ago when I was learning बाह्रखरी. I wonder if this is only a Nepali peculiarity or if it has (or used to have) some currency among Hindi speakers as well.


----------



## gole

desi4life said:


> /fa/ is फ़, as in English "fun" फ़न or Hindi "fauj" फ़ौज. /pha/ is फ, which is the aspirated p in American English "pin" फिन or Hindi/Nepali "phal" फल. Is फ pronounced as फ़ in Nepali?



"pin" still has to be पिन because "fin" needs to be फिन. The aspiration could be due to the short /I/ vowel sound (non-existent in Hindi or Nepali) rather than the consonant p/f. Nonetheless, there seems to be a subtle distinction between फ/फ़. It seems to be one of those things that Jashn pointed out in post #20 and I acknowledged in post #25 where the tongue is automatically guided by the preceding/succeeding sounds. Still, I cannot discern any palpable distinction between the /f/ sounds in फौज and फल as pronounced in Nepali or between fin and fun as pronounced in English.

फौजी is a very common word and refers mostly to mercenary Nepali soldiers in many parts of the world, including in the Indian army, and the way it is pronounced in Hindi is very foreign to Nepali ears, as if coming from Urdu, is it? In Nepali, the औ is pronounced like a pure concatenation of अ and उ (almost rhyming with बाबुजी that I keep hearing in Bollywood productions (but not quite since it concatenates आ and उ)). By contrast, in Hindi, the औ in फ़ौजी is more like a long ओ, is it not? The same phenomenon seems to be happening with ऐ. In Nepali, it is a pure concatenation of अ and इ whereas in Hindi it has become more like a long ए. That's how I have heard पैसा being pronounced in Bollywood. I have heard पैसा being pronounced just like in Nepali by Rajesh Khanna in one Hindi movie (cannot remember which one, though, but it was quite a surprise for me). Apparently, both enunciations are in practice but one is more common than the other. Another one is अ itself. Why does शहर in Hindi sounds more like शेहर? Is Urdu influence at play here?


----------



## desi4life

littlepond said:


> Please don't refrain, Alfaaz jii. I always like to learn more about Urdu, you always share immense knowledge, and certainly what is passable and acceptable in one language may not be in the other, so you have every right and reason to indicate the position of Urdu. My answer above was simply to indicate that things are acceptable in Hindi, and one must not look down upon someone, as a Hindi speaker, who chooses to not make these distinctions.



I second that.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for everyone's kind words!


			
				gole said:
			
		

> The discussion is getting so interesting that I don't wish to leave now.


It is actually very interesting to read the discussion above and especially your posts with information about Nepali! There has primarily been representation from three or four languages in the IIL Forum, so to read/learn about a new language is intriguing! (*Either there haven't been any forum members who speak many of the other languages, or most of them do not visit the IIL Forum often.)


----------



## desi4life

gole said:


> "pin" still has to be पिन because "fin" needs to be फिन. The aspiration could be due to the short /I/ vowel sound (non-existent in Hindi or Nepali) rather than the consonant p/f. Nonetheless, there seems to be a subtle distinction between फ/फ़. It seems to be one of those things that Jashn pointed out in post #20 and I acknowledged in post #25 where the tongue is automatically guided by the preceding/succeeding sounds. Still, I cannot discern any palpable distinction between the /f/ sounds in फौज and फल as pronounced in Nepali or between fin and fun as pronounced in English.



Well, "pin" has an aspirated p (i.e. /ph/) in American English, so it's pronounced फिन, while "fin" is pronounced फ़िन. In the subcontinent, "pin" has an unaspirated p (i.e. /p/), so it's pronounced पिन. In Hindi, the vowel is a short /i/ sound, but it might be different in Nepali. The फ़ sound is originally only in Persian, Arabic, and English words. It could be that among many Nepali speakers, the pronunciation of फ has changed to फ़. This is a common sound change and isn't necessarily due to exposure to those languages.



> फौजी is a very common word and refers mostly to mercenary Nepali soldiers in many parts of the world, including in the Indian army, and the way it is pronounced in Hindi is very foreign to Nepali ears, as if coming from Urdu, is it? In Nepali, the औ is pronounced like a pure concatenation of अ and उ (almost rhyming with बाबुजी that I keep hearing in Bollywood productions (but not quite since it concatenates आ and उ)). By contrast, in Hindi, the औ in फ़ौजी is more like a long ओ, is it not? The same phenomenon seems to be happening with ऐ. In Nepali, it is a pure concatenation of अ and इ whereas in Hindi it has become more like a long ए. That's how I have heard पैसा being pronounced in Bollywood. I have heard पैसा being pronounced just like in Nepali by Rajesh Khanna in one Hindi movie (cannot remember which one, though, but it was quite a surprise for me). Apparently, both enunciations are in practice but one is more common than the other. Another one is अ itself. Why does शहर in Hindi sounds more like शेहर? Is Urdu influence at play here?



फ़ौज is an Arabic word, and फ़ौजी is the Persian extended form. The औ and ऐ pronunciations don't have to do with Urdu or Hindi. They vary by region. In western parts of the Hindi belt, it's similar to the manner you described for Hindi. In eastern parts of the Hindi belt, it's similar to your description for Nepali. The pronunciation of शहर also doesn't have to do with Urdu or Hindi. It occurs in words of various origins, such as पहला and ग्रहण. As a general rule, if ह is preceded and followed by अ, the pronunciation of the अ changes. For additional questions it may be a good idea to start a new thread.


----------



## cherine

desi4life said:


> For additional questions it may be a good idea to start a new thread.


Exactly. 
The discussion is so developped that I don't even know from where to start splitting the off-topic posts to give them their own threads. If someone can use the report function to suggest the posts to be split, that would be very kind of you. I'll close this thread now to avoid further off-topic posts, and will re-open it as soon as I get some help, from any of the kind contributors, to do the split and renaming of the new thread.

Thank you all for your understanding,
Cherine


----------

