# Urdu: Diacritic marks



## tarkshya

In Urdu, the word میں can be read as meN (English - in), maiN (English - I ) or meeN (There is no such word, but for the sake of argument just assume there is one). How do we distinguish these 3 words in writing with the proper use of diacritic marks?

(Please use large fonts for Urdu script as it is difficult for novice readers to clearly decipher all those tiny marks).


----------



## Qureshpor

a) میں


b) مَیں

c) ​مِیں


----------



## HZKhan

meN = میں
maiN = مَیں
miiN = مِیں


----------



## tarkshya

Thanks friends. Now let me extend the question to the the letter vao too.

کون  kaun (who) 
خون xoon (blood)
کھونا khona (to lose)

Can you please rewrite these words with full diacritical marks in Urdu too.


----------



## gagun

****کَون
خُون
کھونا


----------



## Alfaaz

Parts of your questions deal with مجہول | _majhuul_ sounds of _ye_ and _waa'o_: (_yaa-e-majhuul_ & _waa'o-e-majhuul_): 


> (in Gram.) passive (voice, or verb); an epithet of the letters و and ي, when the former has the sound of _o_ in 'bone,' and the latter that of _e_ in '_fête_';


 

> قواعد} وہ و جس سے پہلے ضمہ خالص یا ی جس سے پہلے کسرہ خالص نہ ہو، جیسے : کو میں و اور کے میں ی}


A few examples: 

لُوْ : _luu_
لَو : _lau_
لو : _lo_ 

"مجہول "و
سُوْ : _suu_
سَوْ :_ sau_
سو : _so_ 

"مجہول "و
مِیْل : _meel/miil _(می + ل)
مَیْل : _mail_
میل : _mel _(مے + ل) 

"مجہول "ی" : یعنی "ے
Posts #2 and #4 in Persian: /ow/, /oo/ might also be helpful.
Extra information:_ tashdeed_ | تشدید :


> doubling a letter by placing the mark or sign (ّ) over it; the mark or sign (ّ), used to indicate that a letter is doubled


 

> حرف سین کے سرے کی شکل کی سی علامت ( ّ) جو لفظ کے کسی حرف کو دو مرتبہ پڑھنے کے لیے اس حرف پر لکھی جاتی ہے۔


Examples:

{تَصَوُّر {تَصَوْ + وُر : _tasawwur
_
{تَغَیُّر {تَغَیْ + یُر:_ taghaiyyur_


----------



## mundiya

Are all of the diacritic marks usually left out in writing or only some of them?  Which ones?


----------



## Alfaaz

mundiya said:
			
		

> Are all of the diacritic marks usually left out in writing or only some of them?  Which ones?


Most are usually left out, but the following often appear to be included:

_tanween_ in words like فوراً - _faur_an_
_khaRii zabar_ in words like تقویٰ - _taqwaa_
_zer_ for an _izaafat_
_tashdeed _(مسکن - _maskan_ vs. مسکّن - _musakkin/musakkan_)
_Harakaat_/diacritic marks for words from other languages, for words that are not commonly used, or words that have identical spelling and would be difficult to differentiate from context alone (اِس - _is_, اُس - _us_; اِن - _in_, اُن - _un_; منتظَر - _muntazar_, منتظِر_ - muntazir_;_ etc._)


----------



## tarkshya

Thanks Alfaaz, I have further questions now.

Why do you mark a tiny circle over و in words such as سُوْ : _suu, _سَوْ :_ sau etc. _My understanding was this this tiny circle signifies an absence of vowel, such as سَخْت, saxt_hard. _I have never seen this circle over the last letter of any word. What does your usage mean?

Second question, why do you write مِیْل : _meel/miil (می + ل)
مَیْل : mail. 

_I have never seen the letter ی written in the middle of a word like this. I always thought that ی in this form appears only at the end of the words. Is your spelling correct?




Alfaaz said:


> Parts of your questions deal with مجہول | _majhuul_ sounds of _ye_ and _waa'o_: (_yaa-e-majhuul_ & _waa'o-e-majhuul_): A few examples:
> 
> لُوْ : _luu_
> لَو : _lau_
> لو : _lo_
> 
> "مجہول "و
> سُوْ : _suu_
> سَوْ :_ sau_
> سو : _so_
> 
> "مجہول "و
> مِیْل : _meel/miil _(می + ل)
> مَیْل : _mail_
> میل : _mel _(مے + ل)
> 
> "مجہول "ی" : یعنی "ے
> Posts #2 and #4 in Persian: /ow/, /oo/ might also be helpful.
> Extra information:_ tashdeed_ | تشدید :
> Examples:
> 
> {تَصَوُّر {تَصَوْ + وُر : _tasawwur
> _
> {تَغَیُّر {تَغَیْ + یُر:_ taghaiyyur_


----------



## Alfaaz

tarkshya said:
			
		

> Thanks Alfaaz, I have more further questions now.
> 
> Why do you mark a tiny circle over و in words such as سُوْ : _suu, _سَوْ :_ sau etc. _My understanding was this this tiny circle signifies an absence of vowel, such as سَخْت, saxt_hard. _I have never seen this circle over the last letter of any word. What does your usage mean?
> 
> Second question, why do you write مِیْل : _meel/miil (می + ل)
> مَیْل : mail.
> 
> _I have never seen the letter ی written in the middle of a word like this. I always thought that ی in this form appears only at the end of the words. Is your spelling correct?


 You're welcome! I hope I haven't caused more confusion! Other forum members will hopefully comment on this in greater detail!

Answer for the first question: I was using the _sukuun/jazm _to indicate that the first letter is being joined to the second letter by the diacritic mark.

Answer for the second question: I was trying to illustrate the difference between the two sounds by using the two different letters' terminal forms (rather than the medial forms). You would know that فی is pronounced as _fee/fii_, but بے is pronounced as _be_. 

مین could represent the following English words:

مَی + ن = _man_
می + ن = _mean_
مے + ن = _main_
It would be appreciated if other forum members would comment on whether my understanding/explanation is correct!


----------



## tarkshya

In some Urdu sites, I have seen the word "buraaii" written as *برائی *(Notice the hamza ء over the letter ی ) Example link http://urdu.dawn.com/news/1011120 . On the other hand, I have seen a different kind of symbol (may be another form of hamza) to write the same word. For example, in this link (http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/AU1-6.pdf , page 205, line 1) , you will find the same word "buraaii" is written with a wavy kind of symbol over ی . 

Question: Is this wavy symbol just another form of hamza? And if not, how does it differ from hamza in usage?


----------



## Alfaaz

tarkshya said:
			
		

> Question. is this wavy symbol just another form of hamza? And if not, how does it differ from hamza in usage?


It is a _hamzah_. In _nasta3liiq_ font, you will often see it written as the "wavy symbol".


----------



## tarkshya

Another question..

Why is the word "aalaa" (meaning supreme), written in a strange way like اعلیٰ . A similar sounding word "aalam"  (meaning the whole world) is written much more intuitively as عالم.

Is there any logic behind the spelling of اعلیٰ, or is it something I just have to swallow without questioning?


----------



## eskandar

First of all اعلیٰ may be more accurately transcribed as _a'laa_. In careful Urdu speech you may hear it pronounced as such, that is with a short 'a' for the first vowel followed by a glottal stop or even an 'ayn sound. However a short 'a' followed by an 'ayn is often pronounced as a long 'a' (_aa_) in Urdu, for example معلوم _ma'luum_ as _maaluum_.

As for the ending, the yaa with a vertical line over it is called an alif maqsuura and it appears in several words of Arabic origin, eg. موسیٰ _muusaa _(Moses) or حتیٰ _hattaa _(until) and others. Any decent book that teaches Urdu should cover this.


----------



## tarkshya

I am aware of alif maqsuura. I have seen it in many places, most notably in the spelling of Allah - the islamic god. However, it is the letter ی  that is perplexing. To the best of my knowledge, there is no sound of /y/ or /e/ or /ii/ or /ai/ in اعلیٰ. So why does this letter appear in the spelling at all?




eskandar said:


> First of all اعلیٰ may be more accurately transcribed as _a'laa_. In careful Urdu speech you may hear it pronounced as such, that is with a short 'a' for the first vowel followed by a glottal stop or even an 'ayn sound. However a short 'a' followed by an 'ayn is often pronounced as a long 'a' (_aa_) in Urdu, for example معلوم _ma'luum_ as _maaluum_.
> 
> As for the ending, the yaa with a vertical line over it is called an alif maqsuura and it appears in several words of Arabic origin, eg. موسیٰ _muusaa _(Moses) or حتیٰ _hattaa _(until) and others. Any decent book that teaches Urdu should cover this.


----------



## HZKhan

tarkshya said:


> ....it is the letter ی  that is perplexing. To the best of my knowledge, there is no sound of /y/ or /e/ or /ii/ or /ai/ in اعلیٰ.So why does this letter appear in the spelling at all?



Because in Arabic, it is actually the comparative form of علی ('aliiy).


----------



## Dib

tarkshya said:


> I am aware of alif maqsuura. I have seen it in many places, most notably in the spelling of Allah - the islamic god.




Actually, that is alif xanjariyya or dagger alif (I believe khaRii alif in Urdu?). It is basically a relic of the era when vowels, including long vowels, were not consistently indicated in the consonantal Arabic spelling. For the proper alif maqsuura, you may like to refer to this thread:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2553426



> However, it is the letter





> ی  that is perplexing. To the best of my knowledge, there is no sound of /y/ or /e/ or /ii/ or /ai/ in اعلیٰ.So why does this letter appear in the spelling at all?



Note that in modern standard Arabic spelling, alif maqsuura is written as a final yaa' without the two dots below it (the dagger alif above is is an extra accompaniment, that may be dropped in unvocalised texts), and because Urdu and Persian omit those dots even in case of normal final yaa, it looks same as alif maqsuura in their orthographies. As for why this yaa' like sign was chosen, I have no real clue. But I do see that sometimes 'alif maqsuura does alternate with yaa', as here: 3aliiy ~ 'a3laa (the pattern is kabiir ~ 'akbar), or 3alaa (= on, written with an 'alif maqsuura) ~ 3alaykum (on you), etc. Maybe this sign was chosen to disambiguate from 'alif mamduuda, which was apparently written with a plain final alif in early Arabic? See for alif mamduuda:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2561328


----------



## mundiya

Qureshpor said:


> ... In summary, in normal everyday writings, the nasal is always  indicated in the final position, e.g maaN, haaN etc but not in the  non-final position. ...



If I understand you correctly, is "haaN" always written ھاں? Is هان also a common spelling for "haaN"? Though Platts may be more precise in his grammar book, he (incorrectly?) uses the latter for "haaN" in his dictionary.


----------



## Qureshpor

mundiya said:


> If I understand you correctly, is "haaN" always written ھاں? Is هان also a common spelling for "haaN"? Though Platts may be more precise in his grammar book, he (incorrectly?) uses the latter for "haaN" in his dictionary.


No, it is never هان for ھاں since the final nasal nuun began to be used.


----------



## tarkshya

Along the same lines, what is the correct pronunciation of the common surname "khan". Is it xaaN (nasalized) or xaan (consonant /n/).

In Urdu, I have seen both spellings, خاں     as well as خان . which one is the correct spelling? Or do the separate spellings signify separate surnames?


----------



## Alfaaz

tarkshya said:
			
		

> Along the same lines, what is the correct pronunciation of the common surname "khan". Is it xaaN (nasalized) or xaan (consonant /n/).
> 
> In Urdu, I have seen both spellings, خاں as well as خان . which one is the correct spelling? Or do the separate spellings signify separate surnames?





Alfaaz said:


> Just to add to Aryamp SaaHib's answer, _Khan_ is also a popular last name (mostly among Pashtuns) in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and even Bangladesh.
> 
> ...(quote from Wikipedia)...
> 
> As mentioned above by Aryamp SaaHib and in the quote from Wikipedia, _khaan_ is also used as a title of respect (خانم for females). Additionally (it seems in Urdu and probably even Dari), خاں - _khaaN_ (with a _nuun ghunnah_/nasalized nuun) is added to the names of singers and musicians to indicate their seniority and experience.


----------



## tarkshya

Not sure if I got this right, but are you saying that خاں (xaaN) is a different surname from خان (xaan)?


----------



## tarkshya

New question..

While watching an old Hindi movie "Juaari" (meaning gambler), I came across this spelling (جواری) in the title screen.

In the absence of any diacritic marks, a novice reader can misread it as "jawaari". Shouldn't there be a Hamza over the alif? Or is the Hamza implicit in the spelling?


----------



## marrish

If required but as you know it is not always written there can be a hamzah over the vaav, not alif.


----------



## marrish

tarkshya said:


> Not sure if I got this right, but are you saying that خاں (xaaN) is a different surname from خان (xaan)?


It's a question not directed at me still I would like to say that xaaN used to be a nobility's title while xaan a surname/what you want to call it of Pashtuns.


----------



## tarkshya

marrish said:


> If required but as you know it is not always written there can be a hamzah over the vaav, not alif.



I am sorry but you got me confused. Are you saying that a hamzah over alif can be written if required? Or are you saying that in spelling of جواری there should be a hamzah over vaav instead of alif?

Also, can somebody please write the word "juaari" with full diacritic marks wherever needed?


----------



## marrish

hamzah over vaav, not alif. جُؤارِی۔


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> tarkshya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if I got this right, but are you saying that خاں (xaaN) is a different surname from خان (xaan)?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a question not directed at me still I would like to say that xaaN used to be a nobility's title while xaan a surname/what you want to call it of Pashtuns.
Click to expand...

tarkshya: I didn't mean to ignore your question, but was hoping other forum members would also present their opinions. What I heard in a discussion in a television program about this word (if I understood and remember correctly) was that _xaan_ was/is used as a surname and title while _xaaN_ was/is used as a title of respect or distinction (similar to _ustaad_ or _SaaHib_). However, Platts gives both usages as _xaan_ here and marrish has suggested something slightly different.


----------



## tarkshya

marrish said:


> hamzah over vaav, not alif. جُؤارِی۔



Thanks marrish. That clarifies it.

I think it is logically more consistent to put the hamza over alif, but all scripts have their quirks, and nastaliq has its own. So I can live with it.


----------



## tarkshya

Alfaaz said:


> tarkshya: I didn't mean to ignore your question, but was hoping other forum members would also present their opinions. What I heard in a discussion in a television program about this word (if I understood and remember correctly) was that _xaan_ was/is used as a surname and title while _xaaN_ was/is used as a title of respect or distinction (similar to _ustaad_ or _SaaHib_). However, Platts gives both usages as _xaan_ here and marrish has suggested something slightly different.



Platts entry actually confused me even further. He seems to be tracing "xaan" from Zend Avestan and Sankrit and what not. That would make it an authenticate Indo-European word. And I always thought xaan was an Altaic word!

May be xaan and xaaN are two different words altogether, belonging to completely different language families. Possible?


----------



## mundiya

No, Platts is an old dictionary, so don't give any credence to the proposed cognates.  If you look at Oxford English dictionary or other modern sources, you will see that Khan (xaan) is of Turkish origin (or possibly Mongolian).  xaaN with nasalised vowel is just a variation.  Sometimes variations of words get compartmentalised to specific usages.


----------



## fdb

mundiya said:


> No, Platts is an old dictionary, so don't give any credence to the proposed cognates.  If you look at Oxford English dictionary or other modern sources, you will see that Khan (xaan) is of Turkish origin (or possibly Mongolian).  xaaN with nasalised vowel is just a variation.  Sometimes variations of words get compartmentalised to specific usages.



That is correct. When Platts published his dictionary, Avestan (or, as Platts calls it, "Zend") was not yet properly understood. As a rule, you can disregard everything that Platts (or Steingass) says about "Zend".


----------



## tarkshya

New question.

What is the difference between "pesh" and "ulta pesh"?

I am getting contradictory answers from various Urdu websites. I would like authoritative answer only please. Since I already have plenty of confusion over this matter, please don't add to it if you are not sure yourself.


----------



## marrish

tarkshya said:


> New question.
> 
> What is the difference between "pesh" and "ulta pesh"?
> 
> I am getting contradictory answers from various Urdu websites. I would like authoritative answer only please. Since I already have plenty of confusion over this matter, please don't add to it if you are not sure yourself.


It would have been nice if you summarised these contradictory pieces of information from Urdu websites. Secondly it's a pity you perhaps didn't consult the forum here for previous discussion which can be found from this post onwards: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2864638&p=14480325#post14480325

In addition to that, I will provide you with a quotation from a book "Urdu Self-taught" by one Edward John. This book dates back to the age of the Jurassic Park and the value of the following might be perhaps greater just due to its antiquity:

Maswat-i-mamdúdah yá Nim maswat.

Long Vowels or Semi-vowels.
​و váo - when combined with other letters with (ُ ) over it (now-a-days some people use up-set pesh ( ٗ) in manuscripts for the long sound of Roman ú or English oo while others do not) it sounds as Roman ú in ’tú’ or English oo in ‘fool,’ as ب be وٗ váo pesh = bú, پ pe, وٗ váo pesh = پوٗ pú, etc. Some people use ( ُ ) on, for the sound of O a کوُ kaf vao pesh ‘ko’, اوُ alif vao pesh O while others do not. It remains understood.

The author just two pages later seems to say the opposite:

( ٗ ) ulṭá pesh - Now-a-days it is marked over و  generally in manuscripts to indicate its sound long as ….


----------



## tarkshya

I generally use this website to learn about Nastaliq script. http://taj.chass.ncsu.edu/urdu/

If you go to "The Urdu Alphabet" -> Extras -> More about vowels and Ahrab section, it states that Ulta pesh is put over vav to produce a sound of /oo/, as in moon.

However, if I go by the spelling of جُؤارِی , a normal pesh over the letter *preceding* the vav makes the /oo/ sound. So what is the correct standard?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

tarkshya said:


> I generally use this website to learn about Nastaliq script. http://taj.chass.ncsu.edu/urdu/
> 
> If you go to "The Urdu Alphabet" -> Extras -> More about vowels and Ahrab section, it states that Ulta pesh is put over vav to produce a sound of /oo/, as in moon.
> 
> However, if I go by the spelling of جُؤارِی , a normal pesh over the letter *preceding* the vav makes the /oo/ sound. So what is the correct standard?



NO.

What you say is true if:


There is a *Waaw* which is not followed by an _*alif*_ or a _*ye*_. Example:   جُو= joo 
However, if there is an alif following the _*waaw*_ it is a clear sign that the *waaw* is a semi consonant. Example: خَوا =  javaa 
AND, if, as in the present case, you have a *Hamza* above the waaw, BEWARE, it means that there is actually no *Waaw* letter in the word, but only a *Hamza*. Both _*Ye*_ and *Waaw* when topped by a _*Hamza*_ are not actual letters, but are used as 'chairs' (kursiya.n) for the *Hamza* to 'sit on'. Example: جُؤا = ju'aa. Note that there is a  _*Zabar*_  on top of the _*Hamza*_.


----------



## tarkshya

Cilquiestsuens said:


> NO.
> 
> What you say is true if:
> 
> 
> There is a *Waaw* which is not followed by an _*alif*_ or a _*ye*_. Example:   جُو= joo



This is all well and good. Even my own understanding matches with this standard, i.e. pesh over preceding letter + waaw = /oo/ vowel. But now, this begs the question,  what is the need of an "ulta pesh" then?

Is it possible that there are two different schools of thought in diacritical markings in Urdu, both being "correct"?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

tarkshya said:


> This is all well and good. Even my own understanding matches with this standard, i.e. pesh over preceding letter + waaw = /oo/ vowel. But now, this begs the question,  what is the need of an "ulta pesh" then?
> 
> Is it possible that there are two different schools of thought in diacritical markings in Urdu, both being "correct"?



There is only one school, but some websites are bothering you - for the sake of exhaustiveness? - with Quranic orthography, which appear only incidentally in Urdu.

ulTaa pesh is not meant for Urdu. It is used in the Arabic Quranic orthography, when a short ''u'' is lengthened when it occurs in some specific environments. There is no such things as _*ulTaa / ulTii pesh*_ in Urdu! In which word have you come across it?

There is also, by the way the _*khaRaa / khaRii zer*_ used the same way to lengthen a zer. It is used in some Arabic words in Urdu, such as mu3tadd bihii. معتد بہ


----------



## marrish

tarkshya said:


> *I generally use this website to learn about Nastaliq script. http://taj.chass.ncsu.edu/urdu/
> 
> If you go to "The Urdu Alphabet" -> Extras -> More about vowels and Ahrab section, it states that Ulta pesh is put over vav to produce a sound of /oo/, as in moon.
> *
> However, if I go by the spelling of جُؤارِی , a normal pesh over the letter *preceding* the vav makes the /oo/ sound. So what is the correct standard?


*You are right, 'pesh' is placed on the preceding letter.

Teaching such an obscure manner of writing which is quite arcane and wrong in my opinion is tantamount to misleading students. Please use the normal 'pesh' to indicate the 'uu/oo' sound. Apart from this, the diacritical signs are called اعراب in Urdu so you can see that the authors didn't have a clue about its proper spelling and assumed ح was there.*


----------



## tarkshya

Yes, even I am coming to this conclusion that this website may not be a reliable source to learn Nastaliq. I have noticed a few more oddities too. Let me know what is your opinion on the following.

1. In the title page itself, the website writes the spelling of darwaazaa as دروَازہ , i.e, it places a zabar over waav. I don't see the point of this zabar. It looks like a mistake to me. What would you say on this?
2. In this vowel section, it mentions that to produce the /ee/ vowel sound (as in keen, seen etc), a tiny alif is placed between the two dots of   ی. Again, this look likes a non-standard practice to me.


----------



## marrish

From 'boskii kaa panchtantar" - a booklet for children by Gulzar:

بہُت ہی بڑے ایک جنگل میں اِک بار؍ بہُت ہی بڑا ایک ہی شیر تھا ؍ بہت ہی پڑی اس کی مُونچھیں بھی تھیں ؍ بہت ہی بڑی پُونچھ اُس شیر کی۔ 
کبھی پُونچھ اُوپر اُٹھاتا تھا جب ؍ تو پنچھی بھی پیڑوں پہ ڈر جاتے تھے ؍ نِکلتا تھا جب غار سے اور غُرّاتا تھا ؍ تو جنگل میں سب ڈر کے چھُپ جاتے تھے ؍ بہُت سہمے سہمے سے رہتے تھے سب۔​http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/E_Library/Flipbooks/Boski Ka Panchtantra Part - I/index.html

No such a thing as 'ultTaa pesh' here. And yes, the zabar on waav is correct. daal+zabar=da, re+sukuun=r waav+zabar+alif=wa+a=waa, ze+zabar+he=zah. Cilquiestsuens SaaHib has already anticipated and addressed the question about a tiny alif between two dots of ye - that is ''khaRaa/-ii zer'', don't bother about it. It's very strange.


----------



## tarkshya

Thanks marrish. You have been a very patient teacher to me, unlike some others in this forum. I will regard this "ulta pesh" as some archaic form. But now let's take the other point which you made.

"And yes, the zabar on waav is correct. ... waav+zabar+alif=wa+a=waa"

I thought alif alone is sufficient to produce /aa/ vowel. What is the point of zabar here? If I write this part as waav + alif, won't that also make the syllable "waa"?




marrish said:


> From 'boskii kaa panchtantar" - a booklet for children by Gulzar:
> 
> بہُت ہی بڑے ایک جنگل میں اِک بار؍ بہُت ہی بڑا ایک ہی شیر تھا ؍ بہت ہی پڑی اس کی مُونچھیں بھی تھیں ؍ بہت ہی بڑی پُونچھ اُس شیر کی۔
> کبھی پُونچھ اُوپر اُٹھایا تھا جب ؍ تو پنچھی بھی پیڑوں پہ ڈر جاتے تھے ؍ نِکلتا تھا جب غار سے اور غُرّاتا تھا ؍ تو جنگل میں سب ڈر کے چھُپ جاتے تھے ؍ بہُت سہمے سہمے سے رہتے تھے سب۔​http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/E_Library/Flipbooks/Boski Ka Panchtantra Part - I/index.html
> 
> No such a thing as 'ultTaa pesh' here. And yes, the zabar on waav is correct. daal+zabar=da, re+sukuun=r waav+zabar+alif=wa+a=waa, ze+zabar+he=zah. Cilquiestsuens SaaHib has already anticipated and addressed the question about a tiny alif between two dots of ye - that is ''khaRaa/-ii zer'', don't bother about it. It's very strange.


----------



## tarkshya

... لگے ہاتھوں ایک سوال  اور 

What is that spoon like symbol in the signature of Gulzar in first page of the book you just mentioned?


----------



## tarkshya

One more question. Also, please note that some of the questions I asked earlier in this thread are still unanswered. I will appreciate it if somebody will provide an answer to them.

This question is - I was reading some Urdu newspapers on the Internet, and I came across this paper. http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/Index.aspx?Issue=NP_LHE

In the headlines of this newspaper, you will notice lots of strange diacritical marks. Some are like birds, others like worms and so on. What do these marks mean?


----------



## HZKhan

They are decorative marks that are used in headlines. They don't mean anything.


----------



## marrish

tarkshya said:


> One more question. Also, please note that some of the questions I asked earlier in this thread are still unanswered. I will appreciate it if somebody will provide an answer to them.
> 
> This question is - I was reading some Urdu newspapers on the Internet, and I came across this paper. http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/Index.aspx?Issue=NP_LHE
> 
> In the headlines of this newspaper, you will notice lots of strange diacritical marks. Some are like birds, others like worms and so on. What do these marks mean?


This question is actually not clear to me because there are different headlines and different signs used in them in that newspaper. All of them are indeed decorative 'space fillers' without any meaning or phonetic value - as already explained above, while some of them are a miniaturised indications of the proper character written below or above. You can find there a superscript miim or subscript siin and shiin. All they mean is to indicate the proper letter lest someone had trouble with deciphering calligraphic kerning of words, and, more importantly and totally analogous to the use of those birds etc. they are ornamental and are not meant to bear any phonetic value. 





> Thanks marrish. You have been a very patient teacher to me, unlike some others in this forum. I will regard this "ulta pesh" as some archaic form. But now let's take the other point which you made.
> 
> "And yes, the zabar on waav is correct. ... waav+zabar+alif=wa+a=waa"
> 
> *I thought alif alone is sufficient to produce /aa/ vowel. What is the point of zabar here? If I write this part as waav + alif, won't that also make the syllable "waa"?*


It is a kind of mental shortcut to imagine alif as if it stands for a long /aa/ but it is not so in reality. Long /aa/ is written in the beginning of a word with 'alif mamduudah' - that is the alif with a madd on top of it (آ). Secondly, the fact is that a bare alif does not represent any sound whatsoever and has no meaning on its own. It serves, just as waav and ye sometimes do, as a seat for a hamzah, zer, zabar or pesh. Redundant to repeat that those diacritics are rarely used in actual texts. In this case, in the middle of the word 'darwaazah', it is the waav which carries a short /a/ sound which is then lengthened by alif. The same alif, if written in the beginning of a word where it is not possible for it to be preceded by a zabar, will stand for a short vowel only as in اڈا (اَڈَّا)۔.


> ... لگے ہاتھوں ایک سوال اور
> 
> What is that spoon like symbol in the signature of Gulzar in first page of the book you just mentioned?


There was an answer to this question but it appears deleted. Patience which even is appreciated may be tried by this kind of words of gratitude. This is used to indicate the nome de plume or pen name in Urdu literature and texts which is called _taxallus_. Here the poet, Sampooran Singh Kalra used his autograph and nome de plume 'Gulzar' and marked it as such. گلزارؔ


----------



## tarkshya

Thanks marrish. It is clear now. I just didn't understand following line from you reply.

Patience which even is appreciated may be tried by this kind of words of gratitude. 

However, I guess this line is not really important in the context of the reply.


----------



## tarkshya

I have a quick question so I though I will use this old thread of mine instead of opening too many threads.

In my daily reading of Urdu newspaper I came across this headline.

'دپشت گردی کیخلاف جنگ پاکستان کی جنگ ہے'


At this link
http://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1013891/war-against-terrorism-is-our-war-only-pm-nawaz

I suspect there are typos in the headline. *دپشت گردی *does not seem right to me. It has to be دہشتگردی. Similarly, *کیخلاف *should be written as کے خلاف, isn't it? But can a major newspaper like Dawn has this kind of typos? Or am I missing something?


----------



## marrish

Yes, you are right. There is one typo. It should be دہشت گردی. The second word is correct. It can be written both ways, especially in news headlines "*surxiyaaN*". Just as ۔ کیساتھ = کے ساتھ؛ کیطرح = کی طرح؛ کیطرف = کی طرف؛ کیلئے= کے لئے


----------



## tarkshya

marrish said:


> .. The second word is correct. It can be written both ways, especially in news headlines "*surxiyaaN*". Just as ۔ کیساتھ = کے ساتھ؛ کیطرح = کی طرح؛ کیطرف = کی طرف؛ کیلئے= کے لئے



Thanks marrish. This is an interesting tidbit to remember. In Hindi, "ke" (के ) is never attached to following word. It can be attached to preceding word, but only if the preceding word is a pronoun, like जिसके (jiske), किसके (kiske) etc.. It is never attached to nouns.


----------



## marrish

Normally though it is not used, but for the headlines. In written texts it is sometimes used as a device to write quicker and to save space, it was also at times employed by calligraphers in manuscripts. Also in order to save space, sometimes, in very old publications, the postpositions could be joined with the preceding word (کتابمیں، کہانسے، اسمیں etc.) but it is very antiquated and obsolete convention. It was also not used consequently, mostly at the end of a line of text so that the postposition could stay in the same line when the room at the ending was scarce. It is absolutely not to be followed for reasons as above.


----------



## tarkshya

Urdu's tradition of dropping the marks for short vowels can be a real headache or the new comers. Recently, in this forum I came across the words سول سروس. It took me many minutes (literally!) to grasp the fact that "civil service" is meant. (I mentally read it as "sol saroos, sool saros etc, and just could not figure out what in the world the words mean. 

May be I am just slow, but the words set me thinking; is Urdu script completely phonetic? Are there common English words which simply cannot be written in Urdu?

Specifically, my difficulty arises from the following question. Is there any way to differential a consonental waav (و) from a vowel waav. For example, what is the right way to write the words "civil service" (pronounced sivəl sər-vis ) using all the diacritical marks?


----------



## marrish

Please have a try yourself first


----------



## tarkshya

marrish said:


> Please have a try yourself first



OK. Here you go...

سِوَل  سَرَوِس

So, in my hypothetical scheme, diacritical marks over waav will differentiate a consonant vs vowel waav. Is this how it is done in practice too?


----------



## marrish

Yes, you are right. The pronunciation in Urdu is _siv*i*l_ though so it will be written سِوِلْ سَرْوِسْ


----------



## HZKhan

If someone is wondering, civil service can be substituted with 'xidmat e 3aamma/خدمتِ عامہ' in Urdu, which of course I personally prefer.


----------



## marrish

^ Me too! But the phrase "Civil Service" used to be a name in English and I think this is the reason for Shihaab having used it.


----------



## Gope

tarkshya said:


> Urdu's tradition of dropping the marks for short vowels can be a real headache or the new comers. Recently, in this forum I came across the words سول سروس. It took me many minutes (literally!) to grasp the fact that "civil service" is meant. (I mentally read it as "sol saroos, sool saros etc, and just could not figure out what in the world the words mean.
> 
> May be I am just slow, but the words set me thinking; is Urdu script completely phonetic? Are there common English words which simply cannot be written in Urdu?
> 
> Specifically, my difficulty arises from the following question. Is there any way to differential a consonental waav (و) from a vowel waav. For example, what is the right way to write the words "civil service" (pronounced sivəl sər-vis ) using all the diacritical marks?


When an English word such as "plasticity" is written in Urdu text in Urdu script, the difficulty is one hundred times more than in deciphering "civil service". But if you can identify the word as an English word then you can with some practice decipher it. That was my experience.
You might have noticed marrish SaaHib saying "Shihaab" while this author's name generally figures as "Shahaab". If Shihaab or Shahaab marHoom had used a zer or zabar then you could only call him either Shihaab or Shahaab!


----------



## tarkshya

I know what you mean. With increasing globalization, more and more English words are entering other languages. Words like Internet, twitter, youtube, computer etc have entered almost every living language. In this regard Urdu's shortage of vowels can be really frustrating for both readers and writers. I believe Urdu authorities - whoever those might be - must make diacritical marks mandatory to make the script more phonetic.



Gope said:


> When an English word such as "plasticity" is written in Urdu text in Urdu script, the difficulty is one hundred times more than in deciphering "civil service". But if you can identify the word as an English word then you can with some practice decipher it. That was my experience.
> You might have noticed marrish SaaHib saying "Shihaab" while this author's name generally figures as "Shahaab". If Shihaab or Shahaab marHoom had used a zer or zabar then you could only call him either Shihaab or Shahaab!


----------



## tarkshya

marrish said:


> hamzah over vaav, not alif. جُؤارِی۔



Marrish, I know that hamzah is employed to separate two consecutive vowels. However, recently in some of the Urdu teaching websites I found the assertion that hamzah is not used when the second vowel is an alif. First question, is this assertion correct?

Second question - If this assertion is correct, than can we call the spelling of جُؤارِی correct? (So the first question is a trick question )


----------



## marrish

^ Please quote the source if it is not too much to ask.


----------



## tarkshya

marrish said:


> ^ Please quote the source if it is not too much to ask.



1. http://www.columbia.edu/~mk2580/urdu_section/handouts/hamza.pdf

Please find the line 
"We need to use hamza whenever we have a vowel glide (a pair of two vowels gliding into oneanother) *that does not end in alif*..."

2. http://pages.wustl.edu/urdu/urdu-script

Last line in the above link reads 
"hamza ( ء ) is also not indicated in the environment, /u/ + /ā/, e.g., "

3. Book "Let's Study Urdu: An Introduction to the Script"

https://books.google.com/booksid=Ol...wS344CoBA&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 34.


----------



## marrish

I couldn't access the third book however on basis of what I read from the two other passages I can safely conclude that there is nowhere a prohibition to place _hamza_ when it is followed by _alif_. In other words, it is mandatory to write it in other combinations of vowels but optional or perhaps mostly not applied (if something is optional, you can expect most people to be going on the minimum line of difficulty and skip it). This doesn't mean _hamza_ is not there... 

If you check Qureshpor SaaHib's posts you will discover that he writes "_hu'aa_" as ہُؤا, WITH hamza thus.

It would be better to hear from him and others so  that you are not bored with this dialogue.

There is an expression in Urdu "_wuh hawaa hu'aa_" and it is written: وُہ ہَوا ہُؤا
To sum up, I believe the example with ju'aarii is correct but you need to get it confirmed as I suggested above.


----------



## tarkshya

Ok, so I will wait for others to express their opinion on the rules of the correct use of hamzah. Meanwhile, here is another question.

How do you indicate mid-word nasalization in Urdu? Meaning, how do I know that مُنہ (mouth) is supposed to be spoken as muNh (nasalized), and not as munh (consonant n)?


----------



## marrish

tarkshya said:


> Ok, so I will wait for others to express their opinion on the rules of the correct use of hamzah. Meanwhile, here is another question.
> 
> How do you indicate mid-word nasalization in Urdu? Meaning, how do I know that مُنہ (mouth) is supposed to be spoken as muNh (nasalized), and not as munh (consonant n)?


YES, we do indicate it so unwarranted claims as if Urdu didn't cherish nasals is to be taken as comically  unwarranted. Knowing what is nasal and what is not is part of URDU poetry (metric quality) so you can draw the conclusion that they mean their business.

IT IS AND DOES have a representation, mostly in dictionaries.*Thread: Hindi, Urdu: spelling of hans. There is a special character (diacritic mark) to do it:  *مُن٘ہ آن٘کھ


----------



## tarkshya

Thanks Marrish. Got it.


----------



## marrish

You are welcome! Unicode has also finally got to include this diacritic sign so it is a good thing. They must had been urged by Urdu writers to include it. In the other thread, I didn't know how to produce this effect on screen but I got to know it by now. In the publications written by hand and offsetted (before 1980) there are lots of usages of this diacritic sign.


----------



## tarkshya

Attached is the screen grab of the title screen of movie "Sholay".

What is the diacritical mark over the letter ع ? (it looks like an inverted "C").


----------



## Gope

tarkshya said:


> View attachment 15152
> 
> Attached is the screen grab of the title screen of movie "Sholay".
> 
> What is the diacritical mark over the letter ع ? (it looks like an inverted "C").


It is called 'jazm' and indicates that a short vowel is not pronounced with a character, here with ع.


----------



## eskandar

^ It is also called a 'sukuun'.


----------



## tarkshya

This is a curious spelling. Can somebody deconstruct the spelling and explain how the word شعلے 
 is supposed be pronounced in its original Arabic form. If I can get a voice file with Arabic pronunciation, absolutely great.

The reason I am asking is because in Urdu sukuun/jazm is typically used to indicate an absence of vowel. But this is also true that ع in Urdu itself turns a vowel. (In Arabic it is a glottal stop). So having a sukuun over Ain kind of means, having a vowel and not having it too. This sounds very contradictory to me.


----------



## eskandar

The original Arabic word is spelled شعلة . You can hear it pronounced in Arabic here (listen to the second recording, from Egypt) or in Persian here. The Urdu word is شعلہ , plural شعلے .

It is not true that ع in Urdu turns into a vowel; you must think of it as a consonant, even in Urdu, and perhaps that may eliminate some of your confusion. Some careful Urdu speakers will pronounce it as it is pronounced in Arabic. (By the way, ع is not pronounced as a glottal stop in Arabic but a voiced pharyngeal fricative. It is, however, pronounced as a glottal stop in Persian). Whether it is pronounced or not, it typically changes the quality of the vowel that precedes it. In this case we have a pesh on the ش of شعلہ , thus we would expect _shu3la _for its pronunciation, but the ع modifies the preceding vowel, giving us ِ_sho3la_ (or _sho'la_ or _shola_ depending on the speaker). Don't forget that the pesh was seated on the ش and not the ع as you can see:
 شُعْلَہ 
Thus in the above, the sukuun or jazm indicates that there is no vowel in between the ع and the ل . Compare this with something like the name Umar عمار which does indeed have a vowel on the ع :
عُمار
I hope that clears things up for you!


----------



## Qureshpor

eskandar said:


> The original Arabic word is spelled شعلة . You can hear it pronounced in Arabic here (listen to the second recording, from Egypt) or in Persian here. The Urdu word is شعلہ , plural شعلے .
> 
> It is not true that ع in Urdu turns into a vowel; you must think of it as a consonant, even in Urdu, and perhaps that may eliminate some of your confusion. Some careful Urdu speakers will pronounce it as it is pronounced in Arabic. (By the way, ع is not pronounced as a glottal stop in Arabic but a voiced pharyngeal fricative. It is, however, pronounced as a glottal stop in Persian). Whether it is pronounced or not, it typically changes the quality of the vowel that precedes it. In this case we have a pesh on the ش of شعلہ , thus we would expect _shu3la _for its pronunciation, but the ع modifies the preceding vowel, giving us ِ_sho3la_ (or _sho'la_ or _shola_ depending on the speaker). Don't forget that the pesh was seated on the ش and not the ع as you can see:
> شُعْلَہ
> Thus in the above, the sukuun or jazm indicates that there is no vowel in between the ع and the ل . Compare this with something like the name Umar عمار which does indeed have a vowel on the ع :
> عُمار
> I hope that clears things up for you!


Excellent explanation all round. In addition to the 3ain consonant, H and h also have this effect, hence moHabbat, mohr (also of course muHabbat, muhr depending on the speaker).


----------



## tarkshya

Thanks eskandar for the detailed reply.


----------



## tarkshya

Qureshpor said:


> Excellent explanation all round. In addition to the 3ain consonant, H and h also have this effect, hence moHabbat, mohr (also of course muHabbat, muhr depending on the speaker).



Thanks Qureshpor. muHabbat vs moHabbat was a question waiting to be asked, and you already answered it.

But this begs another question. Is shu'le an acceptable pronunciation for شعلے ?


----------

