# Urdu: کنوئیں



## Gope

From shahaabnaamah, p.120
جب کچھ گدیاں میلی ہو جاتی تھیں تو میں انہیں لپٹ کر لے جاتا تھا اور گرینڈ ٹرنک روڑ کے قریب کنوئیں پر دھو کر سکھا لا تا تھا ۔
I am unable to find out the meaning and pronunciation of کنوئیں. Platts, lughat and feroze ul lughat do not give this word, neither is it found in a couple of offline dictionaries that I have, though they are fairly comprehensive. Could someone help? Thanks.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

This is simply the way _*ku'aa.n*_ or 'well' (to get water from) is spelt in Urdu (here you have the oblique from). '_*Noon*_' has to be placed before the '_*Waaw*_' otherwise the word could be read as _*kuunaa.n*_. Here you have the oblique form.

A proper transliteration is _*ku.nwaa.n*_. This differs a bit from the Hindi spelling कुआँ kuaa.n with the nasalisation on the final *aa*. 

Although the spelling differs greatly I fail to hear any difference in the way Hindi and Urdu speakers pronounce this word?

It might be, that in fact the last Hamza is actually not needed here? 

Edit: (just checked Feerozul Lughaat, and they use the Hamzah for the oblique form, although I don't really understand how is that justified) : کنوئیں

And Gope Sb., what version of Feeroz ul Lughaat do you have. It is definitely there, even in its oblique form in the last edition (5-6 years old)


----------



## Gope

Cilquiestsuens said:


> This is simply the way _*ku'aa.n*_ or 'well' (to get water from) is spelt in Urdu (here you have the oblique from). '_*Noon*_' has to be placed before the '_*Waaw*_' otherwise the word could be read as _*kuunaa.n*_. Here you have the oblique form.
> 
> A proper transliteration is _*ku.nwaa.n*_. This differs a bit from the Hindi spelling कुआँ kuaa.n with the nasalisation on the final *aa*.
> 
> Although the spelling differs greatly I fail to hear any difference in the way Hindi and Urdu speakers pronounce this word?
> 
> It might be, that in fact the last Hamza is actually not needed here?


thank you very much, Cliquiestsuens SaaHib, it had just dawned on me that this may be the oblique form of ku'aa.n, and I wanted to cancel my thread! In general a word form ending in hamza-ii-N invariably poses some problem to a learner like me : is it the nominative of a word? Plural form? Oblique form? If so what is the original word?
The last hamza: did the writer put it there when not needed, do you think?


----------



## Gope

Cilquiestsuens said:


> This is simply the way _*ku'aa.n*_ or 'well' (to get water from) is spelt in Urdu (here you have the oblique from). '_*Noon*_' has to be placed before the '_*Waaw*_' otherwise the word could be read as _*kuunaa.n*_. Here you have the oblique form.
> 
> A proper transliteration is _*ku.nwaa.n*_. This differs a bit from the Hindi spelling कुआँ kuaa.n with the nasalisation on the final *aa*.
> 
> Although the spelling differs greatly I fail to hear any difference in the way Hindi and Urdu speakers pronounce this word?
> 
> It might be, that in fact the last Hamza is actually not needed here?
> 
> Edit: (just checked Feerozul Lughaat, and they use the Hamzah for the oblique form, although I don't really understand how is that justified) : کنوئیں
> 
> And Gope Sb., what version of Feeroz ul Lughaat do you have. It is definitely there, even in its oblique form in the last edition (5-6 years old)


I have an online feroze ul lughat in which on p. 1037 the oblique form is given as کنویں but this did not conform in spelling  to my text, I could not relate it to what I was single mindedly looking for, so I put my question on the forum. This copy has no year printed on it, but says that it includes all the new words that have come into vogue during the past half century, so I would imagine it was published just after the new millennium.
the ى in your transcription seems to be _de trop_.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Gope said:


> the ى in your transcription seems to be _de trop_.



I am not sure what you mean by that?


----------



## Gope

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I am not sure what you mean by that?


Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, since your native language is French, I thought I'd practise my French a bit!
In your transcription the ى following the و is out of place, I think. Or am I wrong?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Your French is good, your 'de trop' was spot on then.

However, my 'transcription', is not mine. I copy-pasted it from your first post but you are excused: it is also the one that is given by Feeroz ul Lughaat (the paper version at least) :  کنوئیں (check again above post # 1)


The point I was trying to make in post # 2 above, was that logically speaking, the hamza (ئ) doesn't seem to be justified here, while the (ی) with two dots has to be here.

In a nutshell, I thought it should be written :  کنویں

And I think that it is also what you meant to say.

It however seems this question wasn't good enough to catch the attention of our Urdu speaking friends. They must be above these lowly and hairsplitting considerations of mine.


----------



## marrish

Cilquiestsuens said:


> It however seems this question wasn't good enough to catch the attention of our Urdu speaking friends. They must be above these lowly and hairsplitting considerations of mine.


ٰIt was, it was. One of them were yourself so at least I didn't think it proper to interrupt you. 

It is a question that I don't have a ready answer for and I hope too for others to chime in. 

My hypothesis is that 'a well'  in Urdu can be both _kuN'aaN_ and _ku'aaN _that is to say with both nasal vowels and with the final one.

I think the most current is the former but really, I can't make my mind when I pronounce it whether it is nasal in the beginning.

Anyhow, I haven't or I don't remember having read it in the oblique without hamzah.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

^Thank you marrish Sb. for this feedback.

I must confess I have always been puzzled by the spelling of this word in Urdu. 

I can't really tell whether the first *u* is nasal or not.

What actually is beyond my understanding is why do we write a '*waaw*' since there is neither a long '*uu*' nor a semi-vowel'*w*'. (I wrote 'w' in my transcription to account for this 'waw', not because it is actually pronounced?)

The '*waaw*' doesn't seem to be a seat for a hamza in its singular non oblique form. If it were there should be a 'madd' on top of the alif, as per the standard writing rules based on the Arabic (i.e. ma'aab).


----------



## Qureshpor

In my humble estimation the words should be spelt ku2aaN where the hamzah sits on a vaa'o. The plural and oblique is ku2eN. Sorry I don't have access to Urdu keyboard at the moment.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Qureshpor said:


> In my humble estimation the words should be spelt ku2aaN where the hamzah sits on a vaa'o. The plural and oblique is ku2eN. Sorry I don't have access to Urdu keyboard at the moment.



This is the only plausible explanation. However, the problem with this is that it should ultimately be spelt like this: 

کنوآں 

Because without the madd (which is actually a hamza sign for a long vowel), then it is has to be either a long *u* or a *w*.


----------



## Qureshpor

No, I would spell the word as kaaf pesh ku ,hamzah zabar alif 2aa, nuun Ghunnah, ku2aaN.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

I see. So you'd just drop the first 'Noon'  Of course I am sure you will agree with me your hamzah has to be sitting on a waaw.  I quite don't see however how you can have a waaw with a hamza on top of it with an alif following it. As the word su2aal in Arabic. Never came across such spelling in Urdu though...


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> No, I would spell the word as kaaf pesh ku ,hamzah zabar alif 2aa, nuun Ghunnah, ku2aaN.


QP SaaHib, do you mean this?

کُئَاں
Just to complicate things View attachment 13339 is the spelling of one of Mir Taqi Mir's shi3rs (edition 1941, Lakhnau, Munshi Nawal Kishor, Maulana Abdul Bari Asi). کوئیں

Edited because of the issue with the attachment. I hope it will work now.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Please see my post 10. In both the singular and the plural/oblique the hamzah has vaa'o as the seat.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

marrish said:


> QP SaaHib, do you mean this?
> 
> کُئَاں
> Just to complicate things here  View attachment 13335  is the spelling of one of Mir Taqi Mir's shi3rs (edition 1941, Lakhnau, Munshi Nawal Kishor, Maulana Abdul Bari Asi). کوئیں



marrish Sb., it says your attachment isn't valid. Could you upload it again?

Qureshpor Sb. means to say, I guess: کُ‏ؤاں

کُئَاں is a technically impossible in Arabic for sure and I am pretty sure in Urdu too.

And I concur with him. The کُ‏ؤاں spelling, is the only one possible according to the the rules of hamza. The one I suggested above with madd, I think is wrong too, since I recall now that madd can only be preceded by a sukoon or a zabar.

کُ‏ؤاں (ku2aa.n) therefore is consistent with the spelling of words like سُؤال (su2aal) which interestingly enough is written سوال  in Urdu.


The best guess I can make is that Urdu waale aren't used at all to using the  ء sign on top of the waaw in this kind of specific context (before an alif). 

This is by the way consistent with the spelling rules of the _maSaaHif_ printed in the Indo-Pak subcontinent; which never have  ء  on top of alifs of before them: what is written ءا   in the maSaaHif written in khaTT-e 3uthmaanii (prevalent writing style and spelling rules in the Arabic word), is written *آ *(alif madd) in the Indo-Pak style.


----------



## marrish

Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, I'm sorry for the inconvenience but managing a successful uploading is not so obvious on this platform.

Here is the attachment elsewhere.

I agree with what you said (and what QP SaaHib said and I carelessly didn't notice it in his post #10) about waaw being the seat for hamza. It is indeed unusual to write hamza in such a context. I didn't realise it was also an issue in _masaaHif_ (!)

Apart from کُنْؤاں ,  کُؤاں is also a valid option, perhaps even more common than the former.

Anyway, considering that the _hamzah_ sits on _waaw_, what is your opinion (and of others) about how this word should be written in plural direct and singular indirect case?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

marrish said:


> Apart from کُنْؤاں ,  کُؤاں is also a valid option, perhaps even more common than the former.
> 
> Anyway, considering that the _hamzah_ sits on _waaw_, what is your opinion (and of others) about how this word should be written in plural direct and singular indirect case?



marrish Sb., there is no doubt that کُنْؤاں  is the most common way - if not the only way - this word is usually spelt in Urdu. Without the hamza, of course, although we all kind of agreed it is implied.

As for the plural form, wohii to dukhtii rag hai, janaab-e 3aalii !

To be honest, I am not sure, but again, I'd try and guess: logically it should be written: كُؤیں however, since Urdu speakers / writers are not used to hamza on top of a waaw seat in this context, they have decided to push it further back on a yaa, as it is spelt usually (as shown in your attachment): کُوئیں

I am not sure though why the hamza is written in the plural while it is not in the singular. Do we have similar words in Urdu?


----------



## Faylasoof

We spell it as كنواں and كنویں ! No _hamza_ in sight but people do use the variant spelling with a _hamza_.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Faylasoof said:


> We spell it as كنواں and كنویں ! No _hamza_ in sight but people do use the variant spelling with a _hamza_.



I am quite relieved to hear that the spelling of the oblique / plural without hamza exists. I am quite not used to it.


----------



## Faylasoof

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I am quite relieved to hear that the spelling of the oblique / plural without hamza exists. I am quite not used to it.


 Neither am I used to the hamza. Besides, in both Feroz ul Lughat and my Standard 21st Century Urdu lexicons, I see this _mathal_:
*كنواں* بیچا ہے *كنویں* كا پانی نہیں بیچا


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

Thank you for this useful information. Without hamza seems more logical to me.


----------



## Faylasoof

^ I think so too!


----------



## marrish

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I am not sure though why the hamza is written in the plural while it is not in the singular. Do we have similar words in Urdu?


Yes, we do, the most obvious being ہوا, چھوا which in plural become ہوئے and چھوئے.


----------



## Qureshpor

I believe ku2aaN is a valid spelling. In the word hu2aa, there should be hamzah above the vaa2o. Same applies for other similar words. I may add more to this thread later.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

marrish said:


> Yes, we do, the most obvious being ہوا, چھوا which in plural become ہوئے and چھوئے.





Qureshpor said:


> I believe ku2aaN is a valid spelling. In the  word hu2aa, there should be hamzah above the vaa2o. Same applies for  other similar words. I may add more to this thread later.



What is a bit disconcerting here is the lack of consistency.

havaa   ہَوَا and hu2aa ہُوَا  are both spelt the same, while hamza is undoubtedly needed for _*hu2aa*_ and it is even used in the plural. What I meant above is that it is more logical to be consistent. If you don't use hamza in the singular, why would you use it in the plural? Then, it just occurred to me that this distinction does exists between: javaa جَوَا and ju2aa جُؤا : 

And I think it would be better to use hamza for both singular forms and plural.


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> I believe ku2aaN is a valid spelling. In the word hu2aa, there should be hamzah above the vaa2o. Same applies for other similar words. I may add more to this thread later.


Interestingly, Platts gives the following three variations.

1) kuu2aaN کُوآں......e.g کُوؤں میں بانس ڈالنا

2) kuvaaN کُوَاں

3) kuu2aa..............e.g.کُوئے جھانکنا، کوئے میں بولنا

In Urdu writings, it seems the most common version is:

kuNvaaN کُنواں

In Devanagri script, in reputable sources the form given is:

ku2aaN कुआँ کُؤَاں

It seems in my post 25, I had this variation in mind. so, lagtaa hai kih jitne muNh utne kuu2eN/kuveN/kuu2e/kuNveN/ku3eN!


----------



## marrish

It is a fine listing. I found that in 'Urdu: An Essential Grammar' by R. L. Schmidt this word is invariably spelt

کنواں and کنوئیں (p. 6) and کنوؤں (p. 10)

however, what a surprise, they are transcribed *kūāṁ*, *kūēṁ* and *kūōṁ *respectively.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> It is a fine listing. I found that in 'Urdu: An Essential Grammar' by R. L. Schmidt this word is invariably spelt
> 
> کنواں and کنوئیں (p. 6) and کنوؤں (p. 10)
> 
> however, what a surprise, they are transcribed *kūāṁ*, *kūēṁ* and *kūōṁ *respectively.


Thank you, marrish SaaHib.

I would suggest that both the oblique singular and oblique plural spellings are incorrect. They ought to be:

کنویں and کنووں


----------

