# Hindi: बवाल bavaal



## marrish

हिंदी भाषी मित्रो,

चलिए इस लड़ी में शब्द "बवाल" के विषय पर चर्चा करें जो शब्द हिंदी में सर्वत्र सुनाई और दिखाई देता है। मुझे इसकी कब से जानकारी है और मैं इसके अर्थ का भी अनुमान लगा तो लेता हूँ यद्यपि मैं गहराई तक बातों को समझने का इच्छुक जो हूँ आप सभी से प्रार्थना करना चाहूँगा कि यह कौन-से संस्कृत शब्द से व्युत्पन्न हुआ है तथा इसका सही अर्थ क्या है।

लीजिए यह रहा एक उदाहरण: क) भाई डाकिया खड़ा हुआ है, रसीद पर जल्दी हस्ताक्षर करके पत्र ले जाओ! ख) भई पहले देखना यह क्या बवाल है।


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> हिंदी भाषी मित्रो,
> 
> चलिए इस लड़ी में शब्द "बवाल" के विषय पर चर्चा करें जो शब्द हिंदी में सर्वत्र सुनाई और दिखाई देता है। मुझे इसकी कब से जानकारी है और मैं इसके अर्थ का भी अनुमान लगा तो लेता हूँ यद्यपि मैं गहराई तक बातों को समझने का इच्छुक जो हूँ आप सभी से प्रार्थना करना चाहूँगा कि यह कौन-से संस्कृत शब्द से व्युत्पन्न हुआ है तथा इसका सही अर्थ क्या है।
> 
> लीजिए यह रहा एक उदाहरण: क) भाई डाकिया खड़ा हुआ है, रसीद पर जल्दी हस्ताक्षर करके पत्र ले जाओ! ख) भई पहले देखना यह क्या बवाल है।


  मुझे नहीं पता यह शब्द कहां से निकला है (मुझे संस्कृत का ज्ञान नहीं है) . हो सकता है इस घर के ही विशेषज्ञ , अर्थात्) Dib Jii या Au101 आप की सहायता कर सकें.


----------



## Dib

हम बंगाल में मज़ाक़ से कहते हैं, कि विशेषज्ञ यानी विशेष रूप से अज्ञ। कहने का मतलब, बवाल की व्युत्पत्ति मुझे मालूम नहीं है।


----------



## mundiya

Sanskrit shabd nahii.n hai.  shaayad aap is shabd ko ek aur ruup me.n pahchaan le.nge. Chaturvedi


----------



## Dib

kyaa sahii DhuuND nikaalaa aap ne, jii! ek <LIKE> to bantaa hai.


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> Sanskrit shabd nahii.n hai.  shaayad aap is shabd ko ek aur ruup me.n pahchaan le.nge. Chaturvedi


Thank you, mundiya Jii. So, "*b*a*v*aal" is or was "*v*a*b*aal", as far as Hindi is concerned. Can you or someone else please explain how this switching of one consonant with another has taken place. We have heard in this Forum that some Hindi speakers change v to b (as demonstrated in "baavat" and "taabiij" threads) but I don't think we have this concept reproduced here. 

 Is there a precedence of this phenomenon in Hindi? What language does "vabaal" have its origins in?


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> Thank you, mundiya Jii. So, "*b*a*v*aal" is or was "*v*a*b*aal", as far as Hindi is concerned. Can you or someone else please explain how this switching of one consonant with another has taken place. We have heard in this Forum that some Hindi speakers change v to b (as demonstrated in "baavat" and "taabiij" threads) but I don't think we have this concept reproduced here. Is there a precedence of this phenomenon in Hindi?



Whether this is the correct etymology can probably be judged only based on further evidence, but I think this is quite plausible. Hindi has very few "v" in the initial position (except for "vo") within its native vocabulary*, but the b~v variation is more common when it is between vowels, as is shown by taabiij ~ taaviij and baabat ~ baavat, assuming they are not typos and represent genuine pronunciation variation. Metathesis is also generally common in loanwords, and vVbV- (V=vowel) seems like an unfamiliar word-initial sequence in Hindi, while bVvV- is quite common (as a search in Platts shows). So, there's even more "incentive" for the metathesis.

**EDIT*: What I mean is that word initial "v" is now firmly established in loanwords, but it was not so in the past (when exactly?) Given that "bavaal" is a firmly established word with no foreignness felt about it, it may have been around in Hindi for a while, maybe even since before word initial "v" established itself strongly. These are the kind of fine points, that need to be settled to arrive at a firm etymology.



Qureshpor said:


> What language does "vabaal" have its origins in?



Platts says, it's Arabic:


> A وبال _wabāl_ (inf. n. of وبل 'to be heavy and unwholesome' (as air), &c.), adj. Unwholesome; burdensome;  painful, vexatious;—s.m. An unhealthy climate or atmosphere;—anything painful or distressing; bane, pest, plague;—a crime, sin, fault;—punishment (for a crime); divine vengeance; curse; misfortune; ruin:—_wabāl honā_ or _ho-janā_ (-_par_), To be or become burdensome, or a plague (to one,—as life, &c.).


----------



## Qureshpor

Dib said:


> Whether this is the correct etymology can probably be judged only based on further evidence, but I think this is quite plausible. Hindi has very few "v" in the initial position (except for "vo") within its native vocabulary*, but the b~v variation is more common when it is between vowels, as is shown by taabiij ~ taaviij and baabat ~ baavat, assuming they are not typos and represent genuine pronunciation variation. Metathesis is also generally common in loanwords, and vVbV- (V=vowel) seems like an unfamiliar word-initial sequence in Hindi, while bVvV- is quite common (as a search in Platts shows). So, there's even more "incentive" for the metathesis.
> 
> **EDIT*: What I mean is that word initial "v" is now firmly established in loanwords, but it was not so in the past (when exactly?) Given that "bavaal" is a firmly established word with no foreignness felt about it, it may have been around in Hindi for a while, maybe even since before word initial "v" established itself strongly. These are the kind of fine points, that need to be settled to arrive at a firm etymology. Platts says, it's Arabic:


Your last point first. McGregor also points to the Arabic "wabaal". So, it seems "vabaal" has had a drastic metamorphosis to "bavaal".

With regard to the rest, your hypothesis may well be corrrect. No doubt some serious research would need to be carried out to ascertain the circumstances in which words like "taaviiz" (ta3viiz) and "baabat" end up as "taabiij" and "baavat". Clearly not every "b" transforms to a "v" and a vice versa. Does "vabaa" ever end up as "bavaa"?

I personally wonder if it is lack of knowledge on the part of the writer/speaker that counts for these abberations. No one has yet come forward to talk about "*नुरो-जुलमात*" and "*फ़लक़*" threads. Also, could the ब/व visual similarity have something to do with this? I say this because I often wonder if Urdu (Persian) daraxt/diraxt is actually viraxt (د and و resemblence). Compare वृक्ष.


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> With regard to the rest, your hypothesis may  well be corrrect. No doubt some serious research would need to be  carried out to ascertain the circumstances in which words like "taaviiz"  (ta3viiz) and "baabat" end up as "taabiij" and "baavat". Clearly not  every "b" transforms to a "v" and a vice versa.



True. But  as a first observation, my guess is that b~v was variable between two  vowels in pre-modern Hindi (I don't know exactly when) - and probably  even now in "uneducated" speech. Some of the surviving popular words  from that period can be expected to still show that trend. But there are  curious exceptions though: we have biibii~biivii but only baabuu, for  example. Certainly only targeted research can clarify the details of the  phenomenon.



Qureshpor said:


> Does "vabaa" ever end up as "bavaa"?



I have never heard this word. Is it a popular word? Would uneducated people use it? Or is it more of a "learned"/"bookish" word?



Qureshpor said:


> I personally wonder if it is lack of  knowledge on the part of the writer/speaker that counts for these  abberations.



Yes, that is one possibility - that they  don't know the original form (I guess, I don't know the etymology of  most of the words I say everyday - so, not a freak accident). The other  possibility is that they don't care.

I'll like to digress here a  little bit to build on this previous statement. Actually, even the  prescribed  standards are the result of an intricate interplay of these two factors  (i.e. how much knowledge about source language is available, and how  much attention is given at using that knowledge).  Check how much "mangling" is tolerated in the Portuguese loanwords in  Hindi -  girjaa < igreja (3 syllables), kamraa < câmara (3 syllables), paav < pão  (with a nasal vowel, similar to गाँव), etc. - presumably because of the  first factor (i.e. ignorance), even though it's actually pretty easy  (phonetically speaking)  to be more faithful to the original. However, even if someone points out  the correct Portuguese pronunciations, I believe, most people in our  part of the  world wouldn't care about it when speaking Hindi, etc., and hence  that is not going to be a part of the standardization. But when it comes  to Persian  (and Persianized Arabic) words in Urdu, or Sanskrit words in Hindi, a  powerful segment  of the educated elite is pretty touchy, and would take offence at any  comparable  "distortion" creeping into them.

To make it clear: I am not  really asking these "elites" (I also belong to this "educated elite", I think) to give up their opinions about linguistic  acceptability as far as their own speech is concerned; everybody has  their opinion on acceptability (I too have my opinions, when it comes to  Bengali usage), and they are entitled to them. All I am saying is that  these opinions are basically just a matter of  arbitrary cultural and personal norms (and I am neither anti-culture nor  anti-individual); let's just be aware of this arbitrariness, and be  careful that we don't end up discriminating against people who do not  care for _our_ concept of the standard(s). Unfortunately, this  discrimination is a reality, and many negative stereotypes are attached  to speaking/writing in a non-standard way.



Qureshpor said:


> No one has yet come forward to talk about "*नुरो-जुलमात*" and "*फ़लक़*" threads.



Aren't  they just non-standard spellings (and maybe pronunciations) of some  well-known(?) borrowings? Well, I had to look up "zul(u)maat" (ظلمات),  but I suppose (educated) Urdu speakers would know it?



Qureshpor said:


> Also,  could the ब/व visual similarity have something to do with this? I say  this because I often wonder if Urdu (Persian) daraxt/diraxt is actually  viraxt (د and و resemblence). Compare वृक्ष.



As far as one's native language is concerned, spelling has minimal  (but not "zero") effect on the speech, even less so before the days of  wide-spread  schooling, when most people were illiterate anyway. As for  "daraxt", the word (draxt) had existed in Middle Persian written in  Pahlavi script, where glyphs for d and w were rather different (as I  checked on the internet, I don't know Pahlavi). The word is  probably connected to Sanskrit daaru- (wood, tree - English "tree" is  also related), rather than vrikSHa-, but I don't know the exact etymology.

 Actually, Middle Persian language  written in Pahlavi script is a very good example of how little a bad  script can mess up a language. Quoting a few sentences from Wikipedia  about "Book Pahlavi" (one common variant of Pahlavi script): "_Book  Pahlavi is a smoother script in which letters are joined to each other  and often form complicated ligatures. Book Pahlavi was the most common  form of the script, with only 12 or 13 graphemes (13 when including  aleph) representing 24 sounds.  The formal coalescence of originally different letters caused  ambiguity, and the letters became even less distinct when they formed  part of a ligature._" Even after this horrible phase, the modern Persian language doesn't  seem to show many traces of any such confusions. (Actually it would be  interesting to find out what traces exist, if any. I'll start a thread in the  Etymology forum.)


----------



## marrish

आप सभी का धन्यवाद। लड़ी के आरम्भ में प्रस्तुत किए गए प्रश्न का अधिकांश समाधित हो चुका है और इसका निष्कर्ष आश्चर्यजनक है। आप ने जब अरबी की ओर संकेत किया था तो मैं इस कारण विस्मित हुआ था कि यह प्रश्न करने से पूर्व मेरे मन में भी विचार आया था कि यह शब्द संभवतः संस्कृत से नहीं किसी अन्य भाषा से व्युत्पन्न होकर हिंदी में प्रविष्ट हुआ होगा। तत्पश्चात् हिंदी शब्दसागर में देखा तो यह पाया कि यह शब्द अरबी के शब्द बवाल का वही का वही रूप है परंतु अरबी में मझे ऐसा शब्द नहीं मिल पाया। टर्नर के कोश में भी इसका कोई उल्लेख नहीं इसलिए अनुमान लगाया कि यह कदाचित् संस्कृत की ही शब्दावली का अंश होगा।

अब शेष रहा है प्रश्न का दूसरा भाग: इस शब्द का सही अर्थ और प्रयोग क्या है।


----------



## Qureshpor

Post 9. Dib Jii I am grateful for your detailed reply.

Regarding "biibii" and "biivii", at least in Urdu these two words are not mixed up.  Also, they are not synonymous.

I was n't aware paaNv/paa'oN (foot) was from Portuguese. The difference between these words you have quoted and words like "zabt" is that Portuguese is a "distant" memory whereas Urdu exists in the present time. Therefore the connection with it is bound to be stronger than Portuguese.

Finally, the Hindi examples that marrish SaaHib has quoted have not been uttered by an uneducated person from a remote rural background. On the contrary, I am assuming the writers are educated people, hence why it is doubly despicable. They can't all be typos. I am not taking about "bavaal" here, by the way, which it seems is how it is in Hindi.

"vabaa" (plague) I would suggest is of the same register level as "vabaal". It is found in McGregor. 

*फ़लक़ *is hardly "non-standard" spelling. And ever sence when has "nur" become non-standard spelling for "nuur"?


----------



## marrish

Re. paaoN, paaNv. I assume and if my assumption is right, it's a word used chiefly in Bombay Hindi for a bun (bread).



Qureshpor said:


> Finally, the Hindi examples that marrish SaaHib has quoted have not been uttered by an uneducated person from a remote rural background. On the contrary, I am assuming the writers are educated people, hence why it is doubly despicable. They can't all be typos. I am not taking about "bavaal" here, by the way, which it seems is how it is in Hindi.


आप मेरी आजकल आरम्भ की गई लड़ियों की बात कर रहे हैं या इसी लड़ी की? सच पूछिए तो इस लड़ी का संवाद जो मैंने उदाहरण हेतु दिया था मेरा स्वयं का लिखा हुआ है। इसी कारण अधिक उदाहरणों की विनती की है मेरी दसवीं पोस्ट में। हाँ आपकी बात ठीक है मैं अंततः अनपढ़ तो नहीं हूँ। दूसरी आजकल की लड़ियाँ जो हैं उनमें अधिकतर गद्य, दैनिकों या सरकारी सूचनाओं से ले कर प्रस्तुत किए हैं ये उदाहरण।


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> I was n't aware paaNv/paa'oN (foot) was from Portuguese.



No, no, not paaNv, but paav = bread. The Portuguese word itself sounds more like paaNv, but the nasalization has not been retained in Hindi. (Bengali, on the other hand, retains the nasalization: pa~u)

EDIT: Yes, marrish jii has already pointed out the right word.


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> Finally, the Hindi examples that marrish SaaHib has quoted have not been uttered by an uneducated person from a remote rural background. On the contrary, I am assuming the writers are educated people, hence why it is doubly despicable. They can't all be typos. I am not taking about "bavaal" here, by the way, which it seems is how it is in Hindi.



From what I can tell *नुरो-जुलमात* and the rest are in a Urdu Devanagari book and not a Hindi book.  Words like zulmaat or julmaat (I didn't see either in Chaturvedi) are uncommon in Hindi and unlikely to be used in Hindi education.


----------



## marrish

Indebted for your opinion mundiya. The problem is that irregardlessregardless the script, there are of course many publications in Roman or Nagari for Urdu poems and prose ( I like to read the Urdu prose in Nagari because some words are translated in the footnote so I can figure out what is not intelligible and what it is in Hindi) The problem here as in all the separate threads on these two lines is that Urdu speakers hadn't recognised it as Urdu (including one native Persian speaker who is quite versatile in our languages).

Perhaps the author was attempting to emulate the previous poetical language without the proper knowledge of it. 

But then, he's been promoted by someone who is an acclaimed Hindi poet and writer with padma bhushan medal.


----------



## mundiya

I can't comment on behalf of this Urdu book or on the competence of its author, but I've viewed books online that have not been edited properly and contain mistakes while their print editions don't.


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> Regarding "biibii" and "biivii", at least in  Urdu these two words are not mixed up.  Also, they are not synonymous.



Thanks  for the clarification, though I still suspect they are etymologically  the same word. It is not unheard of for the etymologically same word to  acquire two different shapes (often due to dialect mixing) and meanings,  e.g. English chattel~cattle, Bengali loha (metallic iron) ~ noa (iron  bangle worn by married Bengali Hindu women).



Qureshpor said:


> The difference between these words you have  quoted and words like "zabt" is that Portuguese is a "distant" memory  whereas Urdu exists in the present time. Therefore the connection with  it is bound to be stronger than Portuguese.



If by  "distant memory" you imply a temporal distance, then at least in Urdu  words like "3arabii", etc., it should be acceptable to drop the middle  a. It is done by a large proportion of the population (as is compliant  with Urdu's own native phonotactics), and it is a Persian loanword (in  its turn from Arabic). There has been no Persian speaking community  (except for some Afghan immigrants) in the subcontinent for much longer  than Portuguese speakers (who had possessions here till 1961). So, I  guess it is not a matter of "temporal distance". It is a matter of  "cultural" distance - exactly my point. Culture is by definition  arbitrary.



Qureshpor said:


> Finally, the Hindi examples that marrish  SaaHib has quoted have not been uttered by an uneducated person from a  remote rural background. On the contrary, I am assuming the writers are  educated people, hence why it is doubly despicable.



Unless  getting educated means losing one's right to using one's natural  language, I don't see your point. Our difference in point of view is  probably just again culturally motivated - Bengali is a relatively  weakly standardized language, and having rural background, I grew up  with a lot of additional language variations around me - including among  educated people. So, I just don't see your point. I am sorry.



Qureshpor said:


> *फ़लक़ *is hardly "non-standard" spelling. And ever sence when has "nur" become non-standard spelling for "nuur"?



Okay. Call them spelling mistakes (which is by definition judged  against a particular standard), if you so wish. But as long as they do  not occur in the instruction materials for learners trying to learn the  standard language, it is just a minor distraction - as far as I am  concerned.



marrish said:


> The problem is that  irregardless the script, ... The problem here as in all the separate  threads on these two lines is that Urdu speakers hadn't recognised it as  Urdu (including one native Persian speaker who is quite versatile in  our languages).
> 
> Perhaps the author was attempting to emulate the previous poetical language without the proper knowledge of it.
> 
> But then, he's been promoted by someone who is an acclaimed Hindi poet and writer with padma bhushan medal.



I guess the padma bhushan-winning poet was not promoting the writer  as a standard-setter of Urdu or Hindi language. My guess is s/he is more  concerned with the content and artistry. It's just my guess, of course.
Btw.  I couldn't overlook the fact that you used the "controversial" word,  "irregardless", in your English. Non-standard solidarity, my friend!


----------



## marrish

दीब जी ग़लती मेरी है कि मैंने हिंदी में लिखना छोड़कर अंग्रेज़ी में लिखकर पोस्ट किया था।

क्या बवाल का अर्थ उदाहरणों द्वारा वर्णन किया जा सकता है?


----------



## Dib

जी, बिलकुल किया जा सकता है; और उमीद है कि कोई और इसका हल करेगा। I am not so confident about Hindi idioms. Sorry.


----------



## Qureshpor

Dib said:


> [...] If by  "distant memory" you imply a temporal distance, then at least in Urdu  words like "3arabii", etc., it should be acceptable to drop the middle  a. It is done by a large proportion of the population (as is compliant  with Urdu's own native phonotactics), and it is a Persian loanword (in  its turn from Arabic). There has been no Persian speaking community  (except for some Afghan immigrants) in the subcontinent for much longer  than Portuguese speakers (who had possessions here till 1961). So, I  guess it is not a matter of "temporal distance". It is a matter of  "cultural" distance - exactly my point. Culture is by definition  arbitrary.


Apologies for the late reply, Dib Jii. Other matters got in the way!

I don't think this would be the place for comparing the influence of Persian on Urdu and consequently on Hindi in this thread. The point I had in mind was that Portuguese words such as "girjaa", "kamraa" and others are much much fewer in number than words of much older Persian vintage that came into Urdu and consequently into Hindi. Anyone interested in reading more about Persian speaking communities can refer to the works of Abdul Ghani, Muzaffar Alam and Sunil Sherma. The first Persian dictionary was compiled in 1406, fifty six years before the birth of Vasco De Gama and Sa'd Salman (1046-1121), a Lahore born Persian speaking poet was the first to compose a diivan in his native Persian. Words of Persian origins are much more alive and relevant today to both Urdu and Hindi as well as other Subcontinental languages than Portuguese origin words.


> Unless  getting educated means losing one's right to using one's natural  language, I don't see your point. Our difference in point of view is  probably just again culturally motivated - Bengali is a relatively  weakly standardized language, and having rural background, I grew up  with a lot of additional language variations around me - including among  educated people. So, I just don't see your point. I am sorry.





> Okay. Call them spelling mistakes (which is by definition judged   against a particular standard), if you so wish. But as long as they do   not occur in the instruction materials for learners trying to learn the   standard language, it is just a minor distraction - as far as I am   concerned.


Now, it is my turn to say, "I am sorry". I don't know why you have had difficulty in comprehending my statement written in plain English. Let me put it another way. Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Firaq Gorakhpuri were amongst the most renowned Urdu poets of the 20th century after Iqbal. If either of them wrote "falaq" in place of "falak", their days would have been numbered as Urdu poets. 

As human beings we are all susceptible to making errors. However, if a person publishes his/her work as a piece of poetry,  literary prose or journalese style of writing, s/he should not need to be defended using euphemisms and justifications shrouded in linguistics. At least this is my view.


----------



## gagun

i understand that change of v to b or b to v is for only easy pronunciation.like विना=बिना,विनाश=बिनास वर्ष=बरस्,वासी=बासी etc aur yahan dhyan/gour karne ki baat hai ki ye alfaaz sanskrut se thaa. yisi tarah kosi baat/shabd bhe anya/g.air baat/bhasha se hinustani mein aayin huwe tho un ke lahjah aur hijje badal sake honge na? aur ye tho sirf meri raay hai aur ma’n maanta hun ki aap ko mera vichaar se koyi aapatti/azurdagii nah hogi.


----------

