# Urdu: کذا



## Gope

Friends, what is the significance of کذا in the following text(Manto short story inquilab pasand):

مجھے یاد ہے کہ اس کے بعد اس نے ایسی گفتگو شروع کی تھی۔ مگر ہم دونوں کسی اور موضوع پر اظہارِ خیالات کرنے لگ گئے تھے 
]کذا
[—- یہ سلیم کی عادت ہے کہ وہ بہت سی باتوں کو دلچسپ گفتگو کے پردے میں چھپا لیا کرتا ہے۔
Is it pointing to an apparent anomaly of some kind?


----------



## marrish

marrish said:


> It's been a while that we discussed it but I could remember it and it caught my attention when I read in a qualitative book the word for (sic). It is originally Arabic I suppose but I don't know about it's usage in that language. In the Urdu book from India it was (کذا). _kazaa or kaazaa_?


 and the other posts in that thread.


----------



## Gope

marrish said:


> and the other posts in that thread.


marrish SaaHib, It is کذا, and here is another instance of it further down in the story:

وہ جن کی نبضِ حیات دوسروں کے خون کی مرہونِ منّت ہے، وہ جن کا فردوس غربا کے جہنم کی مستعار اینٹوں سے استوار کیا گیا ہے، 
کذا
، وہ جن سے سازِ عشرت کے ہر تار کے ساتھ بیوائوں کی آہیں، یتیموں کی عریانی، لاوارث بچوں کی صدائے گر یہ لپٹی ہوئی ہے - - کہیں، مگر ایک زمانہ آنے والا ہے جب یہی پروردئہ غربت اپنے دلوں کے مشترکہ لہو میں انگلیاں ڈبوڈبوکر  ان لوگوں کی پیشانیوں پر اپنی لعنتیں لکھیں گے — وہ وقت نزدیک ہے جب ارضی جنّت کے دروازے ہر شخص کے لیے وا ہوں گے۔


----------



## Qureshpor

کذا, from Arabic, is made up from کَ (like) and ذا (this). From the context it seems to be a prelude to a quote.


----------



## Gope

Qureshpor said:


> کذا, from Arabic, is made up from کَ (like) and ذا (this). From the context it seems to be a prelude to a quote.


I have difficulty following your meaning: what are the quotes here?


----------



## Qureshpor

Whatever follows کذا is a further elucidation of what came before it.


----------



## cherine

I the second context given in post # 3, I don't think it has the same usage of preceding a quote. I don't know if the Arabic meaning of كذا (like this, like such) works in this context.
Another usage of كذا in Arabic is "such and such" كذا وكذا (like using فُلان for unnamed persons/someone). But I also don't know if it works in your contexts, Gope.


----------



## Qureshpor

Gope SaaHib, please see this link Urdu Lughat

The best equivalents that I can think for this word are "like" or "i.e".


----------



## Gope

Qureshpor said:


> Whatever follows کذا is a further elucidation of what came before it.


This text, published by the National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language, was edited by Prof. Shamsul Haq Usmani, and I presumed that this parenthetical word کذا  was inserted by him. Especially as another edition of this story put on the web by Bihar Youth Forum does not have this word کذا. So is it the author or the editor who inserted this word? It looks to me like the editor inserted it. Could you throw more light on this?


Qureshpor said:


> Gope SaaHib, please see this link Urdu Lughat
> 
> The best equivalents that I can think for this word are "like" or "i.e".


‘Such’ may be what is meant here, I feel, or ‘sic’. I wonder why Manto would say کذا within brackets. I am pretty sure it was the editor who inserted it to draw the reader’s attention that the preceding sentence, or phrase, or word, is given exactly as Manto wrote it.
QP SaaHib, is there something wrong from the standpoint of grammar or usage in the sentences that immediately precede کذا in the two instances cited?


----------



## Gope

cherine said:


> I the second context given in post # 3, I don't think it has the same usage of preceding a quote. I don't know if the Arabic meaning of كذا (like this, like such) works in this context.
> Another usage of كذا in Arabic is "such and such" كذا وكذا (like using فُلان for unnamed persons/someone). But I also don't know if it works in your contexts, Gope.


Please see my post #9 above. I need more light on this.


----------



## cherine

Oh! So it's the كذا that in parenthesis. The formatting in your first post doesn't make it clear, and I thought it's the following sentence. In this case, you are right, كذا here means "sic", meaning: this is exactly how the words were mentioned by the author I'm quoting. And it is a very common usage in formal and scholarly writing in Arabic.


----------



## Qureshpor

I have read the short story and did not find كذا in it. No, there is nothing wrong in the preceding sentences and I can't imagine why this word has been interposed. Also, I am not aware of this kind of "editing" taking place. It would n't be allowed. But I can't workout why this has been done. I would n't worry about it.


----------



## Gope

cherine said:


> Oh! So it's the كذا that in parenthesis. The formatting in your first post doesn't make it clear, and I thought it's the following sentence. In this case, you are right, كذا here means "sic", meaning: this is exactly how the words were mentioned by the author I'm quoting. And it is a very common usage in formal and scholarly writing in Arabic.


Yes, it was کذا which is in brackets, but I was unable to reproduce it exactly as in the text. The editor has written a long introduction in which he says that everything in square brackets is his annotation of Manto after collating all the published editions available.


----------



## Gope

Qureshpor said:


> I have read the short story and did not find كذا in it. No, there is nothing wrong in the preceding sentences and I can't imagine why this word has been interposed. Also, I am not aware of this kind of "editing" taking place. It would n't be allowed. But I can't workout why this has been done. I would n't worry about it.


[sic] is a well-accepted standard editorial practice, as stated by cherine. I agree with QP SaaHib that we shdn’t overly worry about its puzzling presence here, especially as the compiler himself hasn’t explained it in his introduction. However, if I manage to get his address, I propose to address the question to him!


----------



## Gope

Qureshpor SaaHib, I have come across, in the same edition cited in my post #9, one more instance of کذا within square brackets in another story by Manto, titled: شہ نشین پر, here it is:

اس کے ہونٹ مجھے پیارے لگتے تھے۔ شائد اس لیے کہ وہ ہر وقت نم آلود رہتے 
تھے۔ یہ نمی ان میں سنگترے کی لڑیوں 
]کذا[ 
کی مانند چمک پیدا کر دیتی تھی۔
(After لڑیوں, the word کذا is in square brackets, followed by کی مانند etc. I am not able to type them all in one line.)

Could you examine this sentence for any apparent anomaly which necessitated the editor to insert کذا?


----------



## Qureshpor

No anomaly and as far as I can tell, it's a mystery! However, as I have said earlier, please ignore it and don't waste your precious time. If I do find out anything about this mysterious addition, I shall come back and let you know.

PS: شاید and not شائد

PS 2: If you remember I said Manto was prosecuted for some of the stuff he wrote but nothing came of it in the end apart from the author being subjected to stressful times. Now, this is just a guess. Perhaps the publisher/editor is trying to say, "Look, this is exactly how the wording is. I/we have n't added anything ourselves." You can see the sentence you have quoted, could be construed as "mildly erotic" but remember he was writing in the 40s and 50s.


----------



## Gope

Qureshpor said:


> No anomaly and as far as I can tell, it's a mystery! However, as I have said earlier, please ignore it and don't waste your precious time. If I do find out anything about this mysterious addition, I shall come back and let you know.


Fair enough. And thank you for pointing out the mistake in writing شاید!


----------



## marrish

@Gope SaaHib, I've taken the freedom to adjust the editing for the quotations from Manto SaaHib's texts so that the picture is at least clear how the _*kazaa*_ is used in your edition.



Gope said:


> مجھے یاد ہے کہ اس کے بعد اس نے ایسی گفتگو شروع کی تھی۔ مگر ہم دونوں کسی اور موضوع پر اظہارِ خیالات کرنے لگ گئے تھے [کذا] — یہ سلیم کی عادت ہے کہ وہ بہت سی باتوں کو دلچسپ گفتگو کے پردے میں چھپا لیا کرتا ہے


ham donoN kisii aur mauzuu3 par iz_haar-e-xayaalaat *karne lag ga'e the* *[sic]*. –> perhaps "_karne lage the_" is a better choice of form.



Gope said:


> وہ جن کی نبضِ حیات دوسروں کے خون کی مرہونِ منّت ہے، وہ جن کا فردوس غربا کے جہنم کی مستعار اینٹوں سے استوار کیا گیا ہے [کذا]، وہ جن سے سازِ عشرت کے ہر تار کے ساتھ بیواؤں کی آہیں، یتیموں کی عریانی، لاوارث بچوں کی صدائے گریہ لپٹی ہوئی ہے –– کہیں، مگر ایک زمانہ آنے والا ہے جب یہی پروردۂ غربت اپنے دلوں کے مشترکہ لہو میں انگلیاں ڈبو ڈبو کر ان لوگوں کی پیشانیوں پر اپنی لعنتیں لکھیں گے — وہ وقت نزدیک ہے جب ارضی جنّت کے دروازے ہر شخص کے لیے وا ہوں گے۔


wuh jin kii nabz-e-Hayaat duusroN ke xuun kii marhuun-e-minnat hae, wuh jin kaa firdaus Ghurabaa ke jahannam kii musta3aar iiNToN se ustuwaar* kiyaa gayaa hae* *[sic]*, wuh jin se saaz-e-3ishrat ke har taar ke saath bewaa'oN kii aaheN, yatiimoN kii 3uryaanii, laawaaris bachchoN kii Sadaa-e-giryah lipTii hu'ii hae – kah*e*N*, magar ek zamaanah aane waalaa hae jab yihii parwarda-e-Ghurbat apne diloN ke mushtarakah lahuu meN uNgliiyaaN Dubo Dubo kar un logoN kii peshaaniyoN par apnii la3nateN likheN ge – wuh waqt nazdiik hae jab arzii jannat ke darwaaze har shaxs ke liye waa hoN ge.
* (or kah*ii*N. If there is a dialogue taking place, then kah*e*N, said as a way to ask attention while speaking).

I can't find a way to look at this text which could embolden me to engage in nit-picking on any single point, I've only edited the spelling of some words in the quote. It's a compelling sample of powerful language; thanks, Gope SaaHib, for the indirect reading recommendation.

فرسوس اِینٹوں سے استخوار کیا گیا ہے –> استوار کیا جانا ۔ استوار کرنا _firdaus iiNToN se ustuwaar kiyaa gayaa hae. <– ustuwaar kiyaa jaanaa _(pass. of استوار کرنا_ ustuwaar karnaa _'to strenghten, make firm'). This is all correct.

*استوار ہونا *_ustuwaar honaa_ = *استوار کیا جان *_ustuwaar kiyaa jaanaa_. Perhaps the editor preferred 'استوار ہوا ہے _ustuwaar hu'aa hae_' to 'استوار کیا گیا ہے _ustuwaar kiyaa gayaa hae_'. It's true that passive voice plays a much lesser role in Urdu than in English, but this is a non-issue here in my view. What's more, all tenses are in harmony as everyone can see and there is no confusion of any kind in grammar ... It can be that other editions differed.



Gope said:


> اس کے ہونٹ مجھے پیارے لگتے تھے۔ شاید اس لیے کہ وہ ہر وقت نم آلود رہتے تھے۔ یہ نمی ان میں *سنگترے کی لڑیوں[کذا]* کی مانند چمک پیدا کر دیتی تھی۔


us ke hooNT mujhe pyaare lagte the. shaayad is liye kih wuh har waqt nam~aaluud rahte the. yih namii un meN *saNgtare kii laRiyoN* *[sic]* kii maanind chamak paidaa kar detii thii.

Here, I think the editor had a valid point by marking the preceding words with [sic]. I don't know what these words are supposed to mean.


----------

