# Urdu-Hindi: "Consonant+y with/without an intervening i vowel



## Qureshpor

The catalyst for this thread is the recent thread entitled "Gotya" (goTiyaa गोटिया). In Urdu-Hindi words (and no doubt in other languages of the subcontinent too) whenever one has a consonat + y combination (e.g. न्य) coming together, there is invariably an "i" inserted between them., e.g. dhaniyaa धनिया(corriander), puRiyaa पुड़िया (a small packet) etc. My question is this. Is there really an "i" in these situations or does it appear that there is one because of the y interacting with a consonant? Can forum member think of any Urdu-Hindi words where one does not have this i between the two consonants?

I can think of at least one. The word "dunyaa" (the world) is always written as "duniyaa" दुनिया in Devanagri but in reality, the word is "dunyaa". For those who know Arabic will know that it is formed on the pattern of "fu3laa". Another word on this pattern is "kubraa", a girl's name, the masculine counterpart being "kabiir".


----------



## greatbear

I don't know if there was originally an 'i' or not in the Hindi word for merchant, 'banya'/'baniya', but it is pronounced both ways by sizeable numbers.


----------



## marrish

It is very interesting to note that iaccompanies y sound when in such position but it seems there are many words, though, when one can easily do without this i in between. In Urdu what comes to my mind is bunyad, and hardly any other but Hindi uses more, take kanya punya nyay for n+y, dhanyavaad, for r+y there coms Maryam and a few more. But this likes to me not so common while mostly it gets easier to avoid clusters of consonants. In between, when you are just about to split it into two syllables i fits naturally to be pronounced before y sound.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> It is very interesting to note that iaccompanies y sound when in such position but it seems there are many words, though, when one can easily do without this i in between. In Urdu what comes to my mind is bunyad, and hardly any other but Hindi uses more, take kanya punya nyay for n+y, dhanyavaad, for r+y there coms Maryam and a few more. But this likes to me not so common while mostly it gets easier to avoid clusters of consonants. In between, when you are just about to split it into two syllables i fits naturally to be pronounced before y sound.



In the order of your citations..

bun-yaad, kanya, puNRya, dhanyavaad, Mar-yam..

The question is this. Is kanya, kan-ya or ka-nya? That is to say, is there a ny conjunct? Similarly for others..

Is it puNR-ya or pu_Nrya?

dhan-yavaad or dha-nya-vaad?

I don't know if it makes any difference if these words are looked at one way or the other.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I don't know if there was originally an 'i' or not in the Hindi word for merchant, 'banya'/'baniya', but it is pronounced both ways by sizeable numbers.




Thank you greatbear. Platts gives both "baniyaa" and "banyaa". But, interestingly, he spells the latter as बनया ! If this is correct, then we have an "a" here instead of an "i" between the two consonants.


----------



## marrish

Hi, you are right, with the exception of nyay there is no syllable containing ny and it points to the scarcity of this occurence. The other examples which you are referring to are supposed to show there are (I'm sure many more) words where a consonant (e.g. n, r) is directly followed by y, without i getting in between them. 

If you take a look at the examples you mentioned for the opposite, where i does precede y I think the syllabic structure can give us an answer to this phenomenon, which prevails, to this extent that they write buniyad and fariyad in Hindi (sorry for no font).


----------



## Faylasoof

I think there is ambiguity about this issue and Platts shows this for a number of words. For brevity only two examples are given:

H بنيا बणिया, बनिया _ba*niy*ā_, बनया _ba*ny*ā_ [S. बणिक्], s.m. Merchant, trader, shopkeeper, corn-chandler, grain-seller, vender of provisions (syn. _baqqāl_);—(_met_.) petty-minded man; niggard; timid man


H گڙيا गुड़िया _gu*ṛiy*ā_, or _gu*ṛy*ā_ [prob. S. गुड+इका; cf. _guḍḍā_], s.f. A doll, a puppet;—(_fig._) a humble or poor bride:—_gu*ṛy*oṅ-kā ālā_, s.m. A doll's house:—_gu*ṛy*oṅ-kā b*iy*āh_, s.m. A doll's marriage;—a poor man's wedding:—_gu*ṛy*oṅ-kā khel_, s.m. Playing with dolls;—an easy matter


So one can say / write it (in Nagri, most obviously) both ways, it seems.


----------



## lcfatima

Was looking at a menu yesterday and realized that biryaani is one of these words, too.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> Was looking at a menu yesterday and realized that biryaani is one of these words, too.



Thank you. In Urdu,it is as you have written it, "biryaanii". I wonder if in Devanagri an "i" is added or not. I know that greatbear spelt "daryaa" as "dariyaa" in one of his recent posts. Is it possible that Devanagri tends more towards the inclusion of "i" in these situations?


----------



## greatbear

No, an 'i' is not added in Devanagari, too, for biryaani; however, in general, Devanagari does tend more towards the inclusion of 'i', two notable examples being 'duniyaa' and the above-cited 'dariyaa'.


----------



## Faylasoof

There is indeed a tendency to add the ‘i’ in Devanagari for many of the words under discussion. The reason why we write these for Urdu transliteration and pronounce them as _bi*ry*aanii_, _da*ry*aa,_ _du*ny*aa_ etc. is because respectively the ‘r’and ‘n’ have a _sukuun _(i.e. they are without a vowel = _baghayr_ /_ bilaa harakat_) on them in the original spellings in Persian and Arabic: 

A دنيا du*ny*ā (fem. of ادني adnā, 'nearer,' &c.; rt. دنو 'to be or become near'), s.f. (lit. 'Nearer, nearest, former'); the present world, the present life or state of existence; the people of this world, people; a whole world, a multitude;—worldly enjoyments or blessings, worldly goods, the good things of this life, wealth, riches:— …..


P دريا da*ry*ā [old P. daraya, daryāw; Pehl. zraē; Zend zrayaṅh, rt. zri = S. jrayas, rt. jri], s.m. The sea; the waters; a large river .....


P برياني bi*ry*ānī, s.f. Name of a dish made of meat and rice.

..... and we stick to these.


----------



## tonyspeed

I'm confused. I can think of two additional Hindi words that have no 'i' sound between a consonant and a 'y': raajya (राज्य)
 and vaakya (वाक्य).
Although, I have heard people insert a vowel between the 'n' and 'y' in nyaay even thought it does not exist.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I'm confused. I can think of two additional Hindi words that have no 'i' sound between a consonant and a 'y': raajya (राज्य)
> and vaakya (वाक्य).
> Although, I have heard people insert a vowel between the 'n' and 'y' in nyaay even thought it does not exist.



I don't think that raajya and vaakya qualify as the examples discussed here, simply because after the 'y' there is no long 'a': in other words they are not raajyaa or vaakyaa (though there does exist a 'vakyaa'/'vaakiyaa', which means an incident).
Never heard an 'i' inserted in nyaaya!


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> I don't think that raajya and vaakya qualify as the examples discussed here, simply because after the 'y' there is no long 'a': in other words they are not raajyaa or vaakyaa (though there does exist a 'vakyaa'/'vaakiyaa', which means an incident).
> Never heard an 'i' inserted in nyaaya!




In that case, I did a search in Platts and came up with a long list of nyaa containing words. So I am still a bit perplexed.


----------



## Faylasoof

I think we should see it from the point of view that there may be a tendency to put the "i" even when it shouldn't be there! Hence its inclusion by many in words like _dunyaa_, _daryaa_ etc. which don't have it. Now _guRyaa_ is interesting because according to Platts, it can be with or without the intervening "i". Both seem acceptable. For the former two I already mentioned why the middle "i' is not there in Urdu, viz. due to the presence of _sukuun_.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I'm confused. I can think of two additional Hindi words that have no 'i' sound between a consonant and a 'y': raajya (राज्य)
> and vaakya (वाक्य).
> Although, I have heard people insert a vowel between the 'n' and 'y' in nyaay even thought it does not exist.





Tony, in the first word (raajya), the jy is a conjunct and there is no "i" between it. For the second one, do you mean the word "vaaqi3ah" (incident) or do you mean "vaakya" (Hindi for "sentence")? If it is the latter, then once again we have a ky as a compound consonant.

What I had in mind (and Faylasoof SaaHib has already pointed to this) was the type of words as "baniyaa" "guRiyaa", "Dibiyaa" etc about which I was wondering if they really have an "i" between the consonant and the y. It appears that as far as "baniyaa" and "guRiyaa" are concerned, the "i" is optional. Perhaps the same applies for "Dibiyaa" (small box) and other such like words.

As for words like "dunyaa", "bunyaad" and "biryaanii" etc, they are definitely "dun-yaa", "bun-yaad", biryaanii"...."dar-yaa", "far-yaad"......By this dash I am implying a lack of a vowel between the consonat and y.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> As for words like "dunyaa", "bunyaad" and "biryaanii" etc,



So does this statement imply that people generally don't pronounce them as duniyaa and buniyaad in India and Pakistan? Or simply that such words are not spelt as such in Urdu?


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> So does this statement imply that people generally don't pronounce them as duniyaa and buniyaad in India and Pakistan? Or simply that such words are not spelt as such in Urdu?


I pronounce bunyaad and faryaad with a slight i before starting the articulation of yaa, it seems an easier position for the y sound. On the other hand I don't feel the need to pronounce i in words like daryaa or guRyaa. Can somebody share my experience?
The last syllable -yaa is an open syllable, which ends in a long vocal aa whereas bunyaad and faryaad have a close one at the end of the word. It is probably the mystery behind this pronunciation trick. Eager to know your opinion.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> So does this statement imply that people generally don't pronounce them as duniyaa and buniyaad in India and Pakistan? Or simply that such words are not spelt as such in Urdu?




I would say that Urdu speakers who speak the language with due care would pronounce them as "bunyaad", "dunyaa", "daryaa", "faryaad" etc because this is the correct way these words are spelt . However, I do think that the "y" does induce an "i" to some extent.


----------



## aprctr

Regional Flavours! 

There is no place for i between both consonants in all those cases, which are of Arabic or Persian origin. 
All other cases are contingent upon region where such combination is used as in Pakistan, India, etc. 
For instance: Dun------Yaa (Arabic) there is no reason or question of using i in between. 
On the other hand, India origin examle is Gur-i-yaa where i usage is a regional practice. 

NOW, Qureshpur! Think before you do!. There was no need to start this discussion as i or without i are regional flavours (as elaborated above) and you should have sorted out the answer by yourself! If you still argue, I can give you your own example! 

Were you Char-i-ya (India origin) enough to start this unnecessary discussion? (i vowel needed) 
Were you Deevan-ya (Persian origin) enough to start this unnecessary discussion? (need not use i) 
Were you Majnoon-ya (Arabic origin) enough to start this unnecessary discussion? (need not use i) 

So please think before you do!


----------



## greatbear

aprctr said:


> Regional Flavours!
> 
> There is no place for i between both consonants in all those cases, which originated in Arabia and Persia.
> All other cases are contingent upon region where such combination is used as in Pakistan, India, etc.
> For instance: Dun------Yaa (Arabic) there is no reason or question of using i in between.
> On the other hand, India origin examle is Gur-i-yaa where i usage is a regional practice.
> 
> NOW, Qureshpur! Think before you do!. There was no need to start this discussion as i or without i are regional flavours (as elaborated above) and you should have sorted out the answer by yourself! If you still argue, I can give you your own example!
> 
> Were you Char-i-ya (India origin) to start this unnecessary discussion? (i vowel needed)
> Were you Deevan-ya (Persian origin) to start this unnecessary discussion? (need not use i)
> Were you Majnoon-ya (Arabic origin) to start this unnecessary discussion? (need not use i)
> 
> So please think before you do!



And from where do you come up with this blanket rule? You probably missed the banya/baniya discussion.

Also, the discussion has only helped some of us in gaining a little more knowledge; if you find it unnecessary, then you may not participate yourself.


----------



## aprctr

Thanx for reply, bear!

First of all your example above is WRONG (thats the reason for blanket rule?)
Secondly, I can start hundreds of such useless topics and dont let others reach resolution while in this case it was apparent that the topic was simply the matter of Two Separate Cultures. I wouldn't have participated after weeks of discussion, if someone had declared apparent solution.
Now go back to my First point above. Even after query been resolved, you didnt get it yet and even challenged my participation. Whats WRONG with your example above?  Go back to my previous reply & try to find out! (Hint: Two different cultures need two different examples!) Goodluck.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> The word "dunyaa" (the world) is always written as "duniyaa" दुनिया in Devanagri but in reality, the word is "dunyaa".



I would like to you your take on the song
Mohammed Rafi -Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaaye - Pyaasa [1957]  
In this song Rafi clearly says dun-i-yaa.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I would like to you your take on the song
> *Mohammed Rafi -Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaaye - Pyaasa [1957] *
> 
> In this song Rafi clearly says dun-i-yaa.



He also sings "tere Husan kii kyaa ta3riif karuuN" but the word still remains "Husn" in the standard language. People don't always pronounce words correctly and when it comes to singing, there are certain factors that come into play. 

I am pleased to note that you've got good taste. What better way to listen to Urdu than through Mohammed Rafi's songs!!


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> I would like to you your take on the song
> *Mohammed Rafi -Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaaye - Pyaasa [1957] *
> 
> 
> In this song Rafi clearly says dun-i-yaa.


Please have a listen to this song on YT (Ustad Amanat Ali Khan (Live on PTV) - Aye Watan Pyare Watan Ustad Amanat Ali Khan (Live on PTV) - Aye Watan Pyare Watan) at 1:15. It will give you a good touch of Urdu as well!


----------



## hindiurdu

Like schwa deletion, I am pretty sure that *ya > *iya is a Neo Indo Aryan innovation. I will try to find a reference for it. Kanya is in fact pronounced as kaniya and nyaay as niyaay by lots of people. In these cases a spelling convention exists so they are actually spelled differently than they are naturally pronounced by most Hindi natives. So are proper names like Maurya > Mauriya. Similarly, rupya > rupiya. In fact a further deterioration is to just do away with the y altogether. Dunia, rupia, kania. This, like schwa deletion, violates Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic rules and is specific to Modern Indo Aryan. I suspect Pashto and Dari do it too, but need to review some samples to be sure.

I also suspect that for people trying to sound educated, something interesting might happen. Hindi speakers may try to pronounce Sanskrit origin words with ya and Urdu speakers will do the same with Persian/Arabic words. They will allow the others to lapse into what their actual natural pattern is. So, ironically Urdu speakers may be pronouncing the Sanskrit origin words in a way that is more "natural" and vice versa.

Other examples - kaariaalay, mukhiaa, miaad (nagri spelling dictates miyaad). Come to think of it, HU does something similar to the other glide w also. Jwaalaa > juaalaa, xawaatiin > xuaatiin (illiterate speech), swaad > suaad, dwaar > duaar.


----------



## tonyspeed

hindiurdu said:


> Dunia, rupia, kania.



Try as you may, it is impossible to get rid of the 'y' sound while saying these words. Try it. The only way to do so, is to insert a very looong pause in-between the 'i' and the 'aa'. The combination of 'i' and 'aa' in close proximity automatically produce a 'y' sound.

In any case, my suspision is that consonant + y counjucts just did not exist in Prakrit. Therefore, it was hard to pronounce for Prakrit speakers without inserting a vowel in-between. Similarly, we have Panjabis who say putar rather than putra, yet another carry-over from Prakrit pronunciation. We also have iskool and istrii, more Prakrit style insertion to compensate for not being able to pronounce strange consonant clusters.


----------



## hindiurdu

tonyspeed said:


> Try as you may, it is impossible to get rid of the 'y' sound while saying these words. Try it. The only way to do so, is to insert a very looong pause in-between the 'i' and the 'aa'. The combination of 'i' and 'aa' in close proximity automatically produce a 'y' sound.



Actually, you can. Just try saying, dun+yaa and duni+aa to yourself. There is a difference in the nature of the pronunciation. Often the first one will feel faintly geminated (dunn-yaa). I also found a reference for the -yaa > -iaa/-iyaa phenomenon after seeing it quoted elsewhere -_A grammar of the Hindi language (1876)_. I also found a Pashto song on YT ("dunia by fay khan best pashto song (imad khan)") that inserts the "-i-" in there. I also found a Hazargi (Afghan Bamiyan Farsi) song "Sayed Anwar Azad - Dunya Ra Sarma Qiyamat Mukoni" with "-iyaa". The "y" glide in modern colloquial Indo Aryan appears to be optional, but the insertion of the "-i-" seems to come from the flow of the language itself. This is why I compared it to schwa deletion. You can defy it through education but there appears to be something about the music of these languages that makes untrained speakers lapse into it in a way that is incorrect for Skt/Pers/Arb. I was thinking about the word रुपये/rup(a)ye which is virtually never pronounced like this. It often becomes rupa'e and the glide "consonant" is killed. Punjabis colloquially take it forward to "rap(p)e" or when combined with a vowel preceding it, "do rup(a)ye" becomes "dor'pae" or even "dor'pe". Something similar happens with 'w'. The rarely used word "avkaash" (holiday) becomes "awkaash" then "aukaash". "Hawaalaat" becomes "hau'aalaat" when spoken at speed. 

My perceptions, yours could vary.


----------

