# Urdu/Hindi: Kitab vs Pustak



## Qureshpor

*In another thread, one of our friends  namely Greatbear made the below quoted comments regarding the  translation of "book club" into Hindi. **I  have started this thread to discuss the frequency of occurrence of both  these words and their comprehensibility amongst the Indian public. I  would like to add that this is merely an academic exercise and  whatever xjm, the initiator of that thread, chooses as its Hindi  equivalent is fine by me. Interestingly, his original query was for the  word "Club" and "Book Club" was given just by way of an example. 

*"I would still go for "book club" or "pustak club" for Hindi speakers (I  am not talking about Urdu speakers). "Pustak" has a literary  connotation; we are not talking about kids, we are talking about people  who're going to read books."

*The  implication, unless I am mistaken is that whilst "pustak" carries a  literary flavour, "kitaab' does n't and is only used by kids! I find this incredibly strange!  "kitaab" is not such a word that has been invented in the last decade.  Sibawayh [born ca 760], the "Panini" of Arabic, wrote his grammar simply called  "al-Kitaab" (The Book) and this word has been used in India for  centuries. I have no doubt that you will find its occurrence in Tulsidas  and Sant Kabir's works. In Urdu, one source gives its first use in a prose work entitled "Qutb Mustari" in 1609. There are most likely  to be earlier usages in other languages (e.g. Persian) used and spoken  in India. Of course, the Qur'an is known as "al-kitaab" too, and people  who have a divine book for guidance are known as 'ahl-al-kitaab' (or  ahl-i-kitaab) namely "People of the Book".

*In addition, the strongest argument is simply that a book is a pustakam  (and not "kitab") in Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, etc. Thus any person whose  second or third language is Hindi, and crores of them in India, will  identify with "pustak" but will look at you with a blank face if you  tell him "kitab".

*Please  correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that the Bollywood film  register is specifically chosen so that the masses, coming from all  sorts of linguistic backgrounds, can understand the language being spoken in these films. This would explain  why a Gulzar film is entitled "kitab". Here are a few Bollywood songs  with the word "kitab" in them. If people are going to display blank  faces, why on earth are "Hindi" film song writers not using the word  "pustak"?

1) dil kii kitaab korii hai (Film: Yaar Mera)

2) Kitaab-i-Husn meN to vafaa kaa naam nahiiN (Song by Kishore Kumar)

3) likh do kitaab-i-dil pih ko'ii aisii daastaaN

4) O sajnaa nah puuchh mujh se pyaar kyaa hai
     kitaab-i-dil meN paRh ke dekh le kih pyaar kyaa hai

5) man kii kitaab se tum 
     meraa naam hii miTaa denaa

If one types "pustak" on google one gets 2.75 million hits. With "kitab" there are 51.9 million hits.

*That survey if done in any of the south Indian states would've been a  lot more interesting. Overall, the national average of Hindi speakers  (as first or secondary language) would thus tilt towards, strongly  towards, "pustak". Or use "book club"!         

*I think it is fairly  clear to me that if "pustak" was the commonly understood word, it would  form part of the Bollywood film titles, dialogue and songs.  Here are a few lines from Urdu poets containing "kitaab".

ab ke ham bichhRe to shaayad kabhii KhvaaboN meN mileN
jis taraH suukhe hu'e phuul kitaaboN meN mileN

(Faraz)

mujhe shikvah hai mere bhaa'ii kih tum jaate hu'e
le ga'e saath merii 'umr-i-guzashtah kii kitaab

(Faiz, from a nazm at the death of his brother)
** 
*


----------



## souminwé

"Pustak" is indeed the more literary word, but *never *used in speech. If someone were to coin an official translation of "book club", it would likely include the word "pustak" because of its association with a higher register. "Kitaab" has no connotations, and just means book. In daily speech, someone translating "book club" on the fly would probably use the word "kitaab". Texts for children only use "kitaab" because it is the natural word to use, not because of a juvenile nuance. It's like saying canine vs. dog; no point in writing a book about "canines" when children are just going to get confused and waddle off to a simpler book. Hindi is in a rather diglottic situation, no one speaks the way they write ('cept maybe priests and fundamentalists).

As for Bollywood being a linguistic neutral ground - I would disagree. Bollywood Hindi is more or less Urdu, with a few words like "svikar" or "hinsak" thrown around. Bollywood is trying to market mainly to native Hindi speakers, Pakistanis and Punjabis (and perhaps to a minimal extent, Middle Easterners). Urdu is the de facto language of the business. Besides, Bollywood is not popular in South India.

Day-time soap operas on the other hand are much more Sanskritised (vyavahaar, bhaavna, santushTi, sadasya, sparsh - these have become common words). I'm not sure if everyone feels this way, but personally I've always found over Sanskritisation a marker of middle-class speech, so this makes total sense. But that's just me.

 South Indians learn the artificial, Sanskritised Hindi (which is more intuitive for them anyway), and I've heard a few horror stories from friends about having to re-learn Hindi after moving up North since it was nothing like what they were taught. "Pustak" is most representative of them. 
And finally, most of the other Indo-Aryan languages (save the Northerly ones likely Punjabi and Kashmiri) have a mainly Prakritic lexical inventory. Though I think "kitaab" is used in Marathi and Bengali, many other Perso-Arabic words aren't. A national register of Hindi, religious reasons aside, would likely have higher comprehensibility around India if Sanskritised. 

Hindi is unalterably Persianised. Belle-lettres and daily speech is basically Urdu with a few newly added Sanskrit words. I would ignore anything you hear about written Hindi or neologisms for words like "book-club" as reflective of spoken Hindi. It's unnatural enough that I'd say it's one of the reasons English loans are preferred. A song/poem with the word "pustak" in it would be like a Tolkien poem with the phrase "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" - it's not normal, it's not pretty. Poetic words are almost always pure Hindi or Perso-Arabic.

This is just my two cents though ><;;


EDIT: HOWEVER, if a newspaper was talking about JK Rowling's new book, they WOULD say "kitaab". Though I am sure there are some newspapers that would just say "pustak", many Sanskrit words sound affected enough that they only have uses in things like compound words, titles, neologisms, religious publications etc. I'm hoping I've helped create some intuition for you on Hindi usage haha


----------



## greatbear

I concur with everything that souminwé says.

What I am concerned is with the living language - the current Hindi - and it is inevitable that since a lot of Arabo-Persan words are used by Hindi-speaking people, synonyms from Sanskrit roots tend to be associated with a literary register in the speaker's mind. In addition, Dravidian language or Indo-Aryan language speakers are not exposed to Urdu that much: outside of their own languages most of them are either comfortable with English (esp. Brit English) or Sanskrit-derived Hindi.
Bollywood is of course not at all reflective of language in India! Not even of India!


----------



## tonyspeed

I do not feel that the Hindi language should be held in slavery to the Sanskrit content of other languages in India. It seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe, and was rationalised with the idea that such a Hindi would have a much more unifying effect on India and would be more easily accepted. But, I beleive that such attempts failed. Tamil Nadu has historically vehemently been opposed to Standardized Hindi as a language despite its heavy Sanskrit content. In fact, there is a faction of Tamils that wanted to evict the body of Sanskrit words from their language and go back to the original Dravidian words. 

The Indian government could have as easily standardised on Hindustani, and there were factions that wanted to do so. There were even factions that wanted to use the Roman alphabet as a way of unifying the religions, but that never came to fruition either. So the reason south Indians even learn such uncolloquial Hindi is the government supported Standardised Hindi. But I would say that such Hindi readers (because usually they don't actually speak Hindi much and have a very elementary level of Hindi knowledge) are not representative of the true Hindi learner, who, at the very least would pick up more general colloquial vocabulary from Hindi movies. 

There is also a pocket of Urdu speakers in the South in Hydrabad. Even Telugu Hindus that live in Hydrabad learn to speak Urdu from their friends.

At a practical level, having a seperate literary register that is so distinct from the colloquial register defeats the purpose of literacy. If one has to learn whole new set of words in order to read, then there is a barrier to being truly literate, but such has been the tradition in the Indian subcontinent from ancient times with the conflict between those who used Sanskrit and those that used the "corrupt languages", the Prakrits, from which Hindi stems. Even under the Mughals, the language of the truly "educated" was Persian. Hindi was the lingua franca which few felt was worthy of study and analysis until later on.

The question in my mind is: what would be the ramifications of choosing to say kitab club vs pustak club? 

If we are targeting the general public from North India, I do not think there would be a problem. In fact, when I use words of persian origin, which are the de facto words, in formal settings where Sanskritised Hindi would normally be used, I am told I am speeking poetic or polite speech...

The faction that I beleive would attack the name kitab club are those with a stake in the status quo such as teachers or those with strong ties to the idea that Sanskrit is more representative of India than is Persian.

I hate to say it, but such language debates are directly opposed to literacy and wider acceptance of a language. Why not use Persian words where they are the common and Hindi words when the use of Urdu  a persian word would seem forced?

I think there is already a trend( in my opinion a good one) on news broadcasts where they just as comfortable using the term khauf or masla as they are with saying aatankvadi.


----------



## greatbear

By and large, I agree with you, tonyspeed, but I haven't ever seen it as a debate of status quo or "purity". I love the rich vocabulary that both Persian and Sanskrit origins provide Hindi: and I would rather want that wide variety of nuances and registers to be maintained and spread, rather than kill one of them in the name of either literacy or purity. It is inevitable that words develop different nuances and do not remain pure synonyms: some word seems to us more poetic, another more literary, another even crasser, and so on. A lot also depends on sounds of a word, plus the context, the region, where one has grown, etc. Just as "beacon" and "signal" from two different origins now have different associations for our minds: and would you exclude "beacon" to propagate further literacy just because more people understand and speak and talk "signal"?

Today, Hindi is taught even in Tamil Nadu; most south Indians are very well able to speak in Hindi nowadays and they do as well. In fact, in certain circles, speaking Hindi is considered fashionable! (Just as a decade back, speaking English was considered so in certain Hindi circles.) So they do actually speak Hindi and have quite a more than elementary level of Hindi, except that they don't get the genres (masc., fem.) always right. I was simply making the point because in their own languages (I don't know if they were imposed or were always there) they've been using words since their grandfathers that are close to or same as Sanskritish Hindi words, they understand them much more easily. For example, "family" is "kutumba" in Kannada (and incidentally "kutumb" in Gujarati), "fish" is "meenu" and permission is "anumati" (not "ijazat"). A letter is "patraa" and a disease is "rog" in day-to-day Kannada, all of which would sound more Sanskrit-sounding words in Hindi. And I like that I've the choice of marz, vyaadhi, rog and bimari in my Hindi.

The language used in news broadcasts though is a language that tries to "sensationalise": it's interesting what words are considered in the "sensational" register.


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> "Pustak" is indeed the more literary word, but *never *used in speech. If someone were to coin an official translation of "book club", it would likely include the word "pustak" because of its association with a higher register. "Kitaab" has no connotations, and just means book. In daily speech, someone translating "book club" on the fly would probably use the word "kitaab". Texts for children only use "kitaab" because it is the natural word to use, not because of a juvenile nuance. It's like saying canine vs. dog; no point in writing a book about "canines" when children are just going to get confused and waddle off to a simpler book. Hindi is in a rather diglottic situation, no one speaks the way they write ('cept maybe priests and fundamentalists).
> 
> As for Bollywood being a linguistic neutral ground - I would disagree. Bollywood Hindi is more or less Urdu, with a few words like "svikar" or "hinsak" thrown around. Bollywood is trying to market mainly to native Hindi speakers, Pakistanis and Punjabis (and perhaps to a minimal extent, Middle Easterners). Urdu is the de facto language of the business. Besides, Bollywood is not popular in South India.
> 
> Day-time soap operas on the other hand are much more Sanskritised (vyavahaar, bhaavna, santushTi, sadasya, sparsh - these have become common words). I'm not sure if everyone feels this way, but personally I've always found over Sanskritisation a marker of middle-class speech, so this makes total sense. But that's just me.
> 
> South Indians learn the artificial, Sanskritised Hindi (which is more intuitive for them anyway), and I've heard a few horror stories from friends about having to re-learn Hindi after moving up North since it was nothing like what they were taught. "Pustak" is most representative of them.
> And finally, most of the other Indo-Aryan languages (save the Northerly ones likely Punjabi and Kashmiri) have a mainly Prakritic lexical inventory. Though I think "kitaab" is used in Marathi and Bengali, many other Perso-Arabic words aren't. A national register of Hindi, religious reasons aside, would likely have higher comprehensibility around India if Sanskritised.
> 
> Hindi is unalterably Persianised. Belle-lettres and daily speech is basically Urdu with a few newly added Sanskrit words. I would ignore anything you hear about written Hindi or neologisms for words like "book-club" as reflective of spoken Hindi. It's unnatural enough that I'd say it's one of the reasons English loans are preferred. A song/poem with the word "pustak" in it would be like a Tolkien poem with the phrase "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" - it's not normal, it's not pretty. Poetic words are almost always pure Hindi or Perso-Arabic.
> 
> This is just my two cents though ><;;
> 
> 
> EDIT: HOWEVER, if a newspaper was talking about JK Rowling's new book, they WOULD say "kitaab". Though I am sure there are some newspapers that would just say "pustak", many Sanskrit words sound affected enough that they only have uses in things like compound words, titles, neologisms, religious publications etc. I'm hoping I've helped create some intuition for you on Hindi usage haha



*Thank you, Souminwé* *SaaHib for your sobre thoughts. You and Tonyspeed SaaHib appear to be in agreement as far as Hindi's position in South India is concerned which is in sharp contrast to Greatbear SaaHib's take on the same subject. My own experience in speaking to South Indians has been that they were not overly keen on Hindi.**

It is good to hear from a neutral person like when you describe "Persianised" Hindi  (Belle-lettres) and daily (Hindi) speech as Urdu. Furthermore, not many Hindi speakers would say, as you have said, that Bollywood language is essentially Urdu with a sprinkling of a few Sanskrit words here and there.* *

A Telagu friend of mine tells me that there is quite substantial Persian/Arabic vocabulary in his mother tongue too. Whilst in Goa around four years back. I was pleasantly surprised to hear from the lips of a young girl (aged no more than 10), the word "farq" when I expected "antar" or something similar on these lines.

By the way, when you say "Pakistanis and Punjabis", I presume you meant to say, "Pakistanis and Indian Punjabis" because there are Pakistani Punjabis too.
*


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> The Indian government could have as easily standardised on Hindustani, and there were factions that wanted to do so. There were even factions that wanted to use the Roman alphabet as a way of unifying the religions, but that never came to fruition either.
> 
> *Sometimes I do wonder if an All India Phonetic Alphabet had been agreed upon by both the proponents of Urdu and Hindi, we might have had one Urdi/Hirdu! We could have had a continuation of the state of affairs of the type Iqbal describes..
> 
> yaa baa-ham pyaar ke jalse the, dasuur-i-muHabbat qaa'im thaa
> 
> in place of..
> 
> yaa baHs meN Urdu Hindi hai yaa qurbaanii yaa jhaTkaa hai
> 
> *At a practical level, having a seperate literary register that is so distinct from the colloquial register defeats the purpose of literacy. If one has to learn whole new set of words in order to read, then there is a barrier to being truly literate, but such has been the tradition in the Indian subcontinent from ancient times with the conflict between those who used Sanskrit and those that used the "corrupt languages", the Prakrits, from which Hindi stems. Even under the Mughals, the language of the truly "educated" was Persian. Hindi was the lingua franca which few felt was worthy of study and analysis until later on.
> *
> The language of Mughal court was certainly Persian until Urdu took its place.** I would say that Urdu and not Hindi was the lingua franca since the latter, even amongst Hindi scholars such as McGregor, is considered to be a much later development. (Please see McGregor's preface to his dictionary).*
> 
> The question in my mind is: what would be the ramifications of choosing to say kitab club vs pustak club?
> 
> If we are targeting the general public from North India, I do not think there would be a problem. In fact, when I use words of persian origin, which are the de facto words, in formal settings where Sanskritised Hindi would normally be used, I am told I am speeking poetic or polite speech...
> 
> *How nice of these people to describe your Urdu speech as "poetic" and "polite"! One could not ask for a better appreciation than this.*
> 
> The faction that I beleive would attack the name kitab club are those with a stake in the status quo such as teachers or those with strong ties to the idea that Sanskrit is more representative of India than is Persian.
> 
> *And we all know that just as human colour is only "skin deep", Persian and Sanskrit are very closely related languages. Here is the derivation of an alternate form, "pustikaa". The main reference for this article is Sir Monier Monier-Williams' A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 1898.
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/पुस्तक#Sanskrit
> 
> .............................................*
> 
> Etymology
> 
> Borrowed from some Middle Iranian language. Compare Sogdian pwst'k (“book; document; sutra”), Parthian pwstg (“book; pergament”) and Persian پوست (pust, “skin, hide”) (< *pōst < Old Persian http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=𐎱𐎠𐎺𐎿𐎫𐎠&action=edit&redlink=1


----------



## Faylasoof

*Moderator note: 
  Once more a perfectly good thread was derailed and ruined by off-topic discussions! 

All earlier off-topic posts have been moved to a separate thread which is no longer accessible! It is being handled by the moderators!      

  Please stay on topic! **Discussions centred on kitab / pustak usage, etymology etc. are fine. General discussions here about Hindi and Urdu (and other Indic) languages are not!** From now on off-topic posts shall be deleted without warning!*


----------



## Faylasoof

The Monier-Williams reference (page 640) doesn’t say anything about the etymology of the Sanskrit word *पुस्तक  pustaka*, though the Sogdian *pwst'k* , the Parthian* pwstg* and Old Persian *pavastaa *are what I have come across before. 

The Old Persian *pavastaa* (or *pavasta*) means skin / animal hide and the suggestion has been that the Middle Persian *post* is derived from it. 

The Middle Persian / Pahlavi *post* (used like so in Urdu too, پوست_* post* _= *puust* in Modern Persian) to mean skin giving rise to* pustak* from _*postak*_ can make sense! 

*postak / puustakپوستك *is a diminutive of* پوست *due to the presence of the suffix* –ak *(as we discussed here)* = small piece of skin / hide. *In the absence of paper, *“books / documents” *were indeed written on animal skin *(post)*, so one can see the association.

It would be nice to have an academic paper elaborating this all the same.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Just as "beacon" and "signal" from two different origins now have different associations for our minds: and would you exclude "beacon" to propagate further literacy just because more people understand and speak and talk "signal"?




In short, yes. I think the English language, as well, is quite pretentious in this regard. English was a monster that seemed to pride itself on coming up with more and more complex forms of speech. Many English readers as so confused by the redundancy of the English language that they would not be able to tell you beacon and signal are the same. Then when learning a second language like Hindi, they would search for hours for a suitable translation for "beacon" when they already know the translation for "signal." 

I'm not exactly sure the current situation of literature in Hindi, but there was a time when I beleive even children's books would contain "pustak" instead of "kitab". I think it is that specific situation we are talking about. 
In an organisation name why do we feel it is more appropriate to use pustak over kitab when kitab is the more general word? 

I beleive the real answer to that would be to add a degree of pretentiousness or "sophistication" to the name at the expense of broader understandability.


Whether or not that is right is a personal preference.


----------



## gsmart

greatbear said:


> By and large, I agree with you, tonyspeed, but I haven't ever seen it as a debate of status quo or "purity". I love the rich vocabulary that both Persian and Sanskrit origins provide Hindi: and I would rather want that wide variety of nuances and registers to be maintained and spread, rather than kill one of them in the name of either literacy or purity. It is inevitable that words develop different nuances and do not remain pure synonyms: some word seems to us more poetic, another more literary, another even crasser, and so on. A lot also depends on sounds of a word, plus the context, the region, where one has grown, etc. Just as "beacon" and "signal" from two different origins now have different associations for our minds: and would you exclude "beacon" to propagate further literacy just because more people understand and speak and talk "signal"?
> 
> Today, Hindi is taught even in Tamil Nadu; most south Indians are very well able to speak in Hindi nowadays and they do as well. In fact, in certain circles, speaking Hindi is considered fashionable! (Just as a decade back, speaking English was considered so in certain Hindi circles.) So they do actually speak Hindi and have quite a more than elementary level of Hindi, except that they don't get the genres (masc., fem.) always right. I was simply making the point because in their own languages (I don't know if they were imposed or were always there) *they've been using words since their grandfathers that are close to or same as Sanskritish Hindi words, they understand them much more easily. For example, "family" is "kutumba" in Kannada (and incidentally "kutumb" in Gujarati), "fish" is "meenu" and permission is "anumati" (not "ijazat").* A letter is "patraa" and a disease is "rog" in day-to-day Kannada, all of which would sound more Sanskrit-sounding words in Hindi. And I like that I've the choice of marz, vyaadhi, rog and bimari in my Hindi.
> 
> The language used in news broadcasts though is a language that tries to "sensationalise": it's interesting what words are considered in the "sensational" register.




You can't say those are "Hindi" words as those words are present in other IA languages also. and Kannada contains huge amount of Sanskrit words and some of those words are very rarely used in Hindi.


----------



## greatbear

gsmart said:


> You can't say those are "Hindi" words as those words are present in other IA languages also. and Kannada contains huge amount of Sanskrit words and some of those words are very rarely used in Hindi.



Lol, we don't want another off-topic debate now!

Read carefully, though; I never claimed that they are Hindi words present in other languages.


----------



## teaboy

An interesting discussion!  I myself would come down on the side of _kitaab_ rather than the artificially high-faluting _pustak_ because for one thing, book clubs are about inclusivity, not exclusivity -- they're for getting more people to read books and discuss writing, not less.

Apparently, though, the use of the English borrowing _club_ is not an issue?...


----------



## flyinfishjoe

Err...I don't think _pustak_ is as "artificial" or as "rarely used" as some have implied on this thread. It is indeed a word used in conversation by many Hindi speakers. Of course, in Delhi you are more likely to hear _kitaab_. But _pustak_​ isn't a word that the government decided to just add in to the language. It's been around for a long time, and there are some places where it is more commonly used than _kitaab_.

@teaboy - I don't think use of the word club is an issue. Spanish too has borrowed the English word. It is an established  loan (there are examples from the 1800s) that fills a void. I can't think of a Hindi word of similar length that has the same connotations. _Sabhaa_ sort of sounds more like an assembly or legislature than a club. Besides, English is another of the many languages that have enriched Hindi. As long as English words enter organically (not through those urban hipsters who pepper their Hindi with English to sound sophisticated), I don't think there's any problem with English borrowings.


----------



## rahulbemba

> *"I would still go for "book club" or "pustak club" for Hindi speakers (I  am not talking about Urdu speakers). "Pustak" has a literary  connotation; we are not talking about kids, we are talking about people  who're going to read books."*



*I agree with this. We can't wish connotations with words to change or go away, to please us or no matter how uncomfortable it seems personally to us - that is the beauty of living languages. It is true that in Hindi "pushtak" has literary connotations while the word "Kitaab" has an "informal" (at times casual to the extent of childish) connotations. We can understand this through the following example:

**We have terms like "पुस्तक समीक्षा" while  there is almost no "किताब समीक्षा". Using some members' method of judging  popularity of words through Google searches, I have also searched Google just now and found  this:

"पुस्तक समीक्षा" gives 111,000 results, while "किताब समीक्षा" gives ONLY 149 results!!!. 

=> It tells the whole story in a way perhaps some of us would understand best. 

Searching simply "pustak" Vs "kitaab" won't help to judge how it is used in Hindi because of the simple reason that "kitaab" is an "Arabic" word whose usage would cut across many nations of this world. I think since we are evaluating the literary connotations in Hindi, we should rely on the search of "**पु**स्तक समीक्षा" Vs "किताब समीक्षा". 

The famous Hindi poet Harivansh Rai Bachchan **writes in his poem मधुशाला:

"कभी न कण-भर खाली होगा लाख पिएँ, दो लाख पिएँ!
		पाठकगण हैं पीनेवाले, पुस्तक मेरी मधुशाला।"

In his another poem पथ की पहचान, he starts his poem with:

**"पूर्व चलने के बटोही बाट की पहचान कर ले।
*
*पुस्तकों में है नहीं
छापी गई इसकी कहानी
हाल इसका ज्ञात होता
है न औरों की जबानी"
*
*
If we are speaking about "literary connotations" in Hindi, in my opinion "pushtak" has it and "kitaab" doesn't have it. I don't know Urdu and it may have reverse or different connotations - I can't say anything about it. *


----------



## rahulbemba

Faylasoof said:


> *The Monier-Williams reference (page 640) doesn’t say anything about the etymology of the Sanskrit word पुस्तक  pustaka, though the Sogdian pwst'k , the Parthian pwstg and Old Persian pavastaa are what I have come across before. *
> 
> The Old Persian *pavastaa* (or *pavasta*) means skin / animal hide and the suggestion has been that the Middle Persian *post* is derived from it.
> 
> The Middle Persian / Pahlavi *post* (used like so in Urdu too, پوست_* post* _= *puust* in Modern Persian) to mean skin giving rise to* pustak* from _*postak*_ can make sense!
> 
> *postak / puustakپوستك *is a diminutive of* پوست *due to the presence of the suffix* –ak *(as we discussed here)* = small piece of skin / hide. *In the absence of paper, *“books / documents” *were indeed written on animal skin *(post)*, so one can see the association.
> 
> It would be nice to have an academic paper elaborating this all the same.



I think all these words telling about "animal skin" have nothing to do with the Sanskrit/Hindi word "Pushtak / पुस्तक". Thanks for making it clear in the beginning, otherwise it may give a wrong impression.


----------



## Faylasoof

rahulbemba said:


> I think all these words telling about "animal skin" have nothing to do with the Sanskrit/Hindi word "Pushtak / पुस्तक". Thanks for making it clear in the beginning, otherwise it may give a wrong impression.


 Before you come out with your dismissive statements would you care to give us your reasons! 

I refer of course to your claim above: "_I think all these words telling about "animal skin" have nothing to do with the Sanskrit/Hindi word "Pushtak / पुस्तक_....."! Saying "I think ...." is just expressing an opinion! You are perfectly entitled to have an opinion but that doesn't enlighten us as to your reasons for taking such a stance. So please do go ahead and give us your reasons. 

Also, just because Monier-Williams doesn't give the etymology of _*pustak*_ *पुस्तक*  doesn't mean much since his work though of immense importance and significance ( I in fact have both his Sanskrit-English and English-Sanskrit lexicons and value them very much!), was published in 1899. Since then others have looked at the link between Sanskrit's use of _*pustak*_ *पुस्तक*  and the Iranian languages Sogdian, Parthian etc. Here is something worth looking at:

*पुस्तक* (pustak) _n_

*Sanskrit
*

*Alternative forms*



पुस्तिका (pustikā)
*Etymology*

Borrowed from some Middle Iranian language. Compare Sogdian _pwst'k_ (“book; document; sutra”), Parthian _pwstg_ (“book; pergament”) and Persian پوست (pust, “skin, hide”) (< *pōst < Old Persian  (pavastā); compare पवस्त (pavásta)).
*Noun*

*पुस्तक* (pustaka) _m_ _and_ _n_


a manuscript
book
booklet


----------



## Qureshpor

I have taken the liberty of replying to your post contrary to the order of points raised by you.

We have terms like "_पुस्तक_ समीक्षा" while  there is almost no "किताब समीक्षा". Using some members' method of judging  popularity of words through Google searches, I have also searched Google just now and found  this:

"_पुस्तक_ समीक्षा" gives 111,000 results, while "किताब समीक्षा" gives ONLY 149 results!!!. 
=> It tells the whole story in a way perhaps some of us would understand best. 
Searching simply "pustak" Vs "kitaab" won't help to judge how it is used in Hindi because of the simple reason that "kitaab" is an "Arabic" word whose usage would cut across many nations of this world. I think since we are evaluating the _literary connotations in Hindi, _we should rely on the search of "_पु__स्तक_ समीक्षा" Vs "किताब समीक्षा". 

One of the main aims of the "Hindi Movement" of the mid nineteenth century was to remove Urdu words which had their origins in Arabic and Persian and replace them with terms from Sanskrit. There is no dispute over this and this is clearly illustrated in samples of Hindi literature provide by Shackle and Snell in their"Hindi and Urdu since 1800- a Common Reader".

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/index.html

A term such as "_पु__स्तक_ समीक्षा" is a compund formation that is typical of the new language that was being invented. It would therefore be of no surprise to any fair-minded person to find that the frequency of occurrence of this compound would be a lot greater than "किताब समीक्षा". The very concept of including an Urdu word in this type of formation is likely to go against the original aim. 

In other threads, it has been indicated by one or two people that Hindi has a fantastic absorption quality. Once a word enters it, it matters not what its origins are. Please try to stick to one thing or the other. *Now* "kitaab" ia "Arabic" but "ziyaadaa", "saal" , "da3vaa" "ma3naa" (Arabic) "josh" "aatish-baazii", "sarkaar" (persian) are Hindi. These are just a few examples from recent posts although there are many many more such examples. You are probably not even aware but the poems you are quoting below, even in the short pieces available, "Haal" and "Khaalii" are Arabic whilst "zabaanii" is Persian.

We can't  wish connotations with words to change or go away, to please us or no  matter how uncomfortable it seems personally to us - that is the beauty  of living languages. It is true that in Hindi "pushtak" has literary  connotations while the word "Kitaab" has an "informal" (at times casual  to the extent of childish) connotations. 

 The famous Hindi poet Harivansh Rai Bachchan writes in his poem मधुशाला:

"कभी न कण-भर खाली होगा लाख पिएँ, दो लाख पिएँ!
  पाठकगण हैं पीनेवाले, पुस्तक मेरी मधुशाला।"

In his another poem पथ की पहचान, he starts his poem with:

"पूर्व चलने के बटोही बाट की पहचान कर ले।

पुस्तकों में है नहीं
छापी गई इसकी कहानी
हाल इसका ज्ञात होता
है न औरों की जबानी"

If we are speaking about "literary connotations" in Hindi, in my opinion "pushtak" has it and "kitaab" doesn't have it. I don't know Urdu and it may have reverse or different connotations - I can't say anything about it*.

*I would like to make a suggestion to you. Try reading a bit more of Hindi literature and you will find many many examples of "literary" occurrences of "kitaab" and hundreds of other such words. You will see that neither the usage is "childish" nor are the writers employing this word childish. Please read Rajendra Prasad's short piece below. He was a man of letters and became the first President of the Indian republic. Even in the very short piece quoted by Shackle and Snell, "kitaab" is used several times. There is no need for me to give page numbers. You will soon find the occurrences.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/319prasad.pdf

If this is not literary enough and you have no time for this author, then let me quote from "Ramvilas Sharma, Nirala ki Sahitya Sadhana" .

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/323sharma.pdf

"Bangla meN ek Raviindra Naath haiN. Hindi meN Tulsidaas, Sur, Kabir tiin haiN".

 And here is a quote from Kabir (1398-1448).

http://forum.spiritualindia.org/संत-कबीर-मस्तमौला-फकीर-t24098.0.html


'साधो देखो जग बौराना।
साँची कहूँ तो मारन धावे,
झूठे जग पतियाना।

हिंदू कहे मोहि राम पियारा,
मुसलमान रहमाना,
आपस में दोऊ लड़ी मरत है,
मरम न काहु जाना।

बहुतक देखे नेमी धरमी
प्रातः करे असनाना,
आतम छाड़ि पाषाणै पूजे,
इनका थोथा ज्ञाना।

बहुतक देखे पीर औलिया,
पढ़ै *किताब* कुराना,
करै मुरीद कबर दिखलावै,
इनहु खुदा नहीं जाना।

कहे कबीर सुनो भाई साधो,
इनमें कोउ न दीवाना॥'

[/QUOTE]


----------



## greatbear

I don't think that "pustak" is any more literary than "kitaab": both are synonyms; besides, "kitaab" is used a lot more than "pustak". That being said, for me both the Hindi movement and Harivansh Rai arguments don't hold water as far as this discussion is concerned: I am concerned with today's language, how it came to be about might be a matter for historians, but right now we are discussing the appropriateness of a coinage for the present generations. As regarding H. Rai, Qureshpor is right: there are many (more) authors who use "kitaab", why not to quote them then?

The simple thing that I had been trying to say is that many Hindi speakers have that _perception_ that "pustak" is a more refined or literary kind of word, because they are using the word "kitaab" all the time; and that is why a "pustak klub" might appeal to them more. If I were to disregard such hypocrisies, then I would rather go for "book klub" in Hindi as well, rather than "pustak klub" or "kitaab klub".


----------



## flyinfishjoe

I agree with your last point. Just borrowing the English "book club" sounds the most natural to me.


----------



## rahulbemba

@Faylasoof: You have given example from Wikipedia. Please provide some more credible references. I referred to Monier-Williams and here is what is written there:



> *पुस्त Pusta, m.n. working in clay, modelling, Kathaas.; a manuscript, book, Var. (cf. below); Hcat.; mfn. covered, filled, W. - karman, n. plastering, painting, W. - maya, mf(i)n. formed of metal or wood, wrought in clay, modelled, Susr. - vaartta, m. one who loves by books or makes books, VarBrS.
> 
> पुस्तक  Pustaka, m. or n. a protuberant ornament, boss (see below); mf(ikaa)n. a manuscript, book, booklet, Hariv.; Kaav.; Var.&c. - kara, m. an embosser, VarBrS., Sch. Pustakagara,n. 'book-room', a library, MW. Pustakastarana,n. the wrapper of a manuscript,Hcat.*
> 
> *[Sir Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English dictionary etymologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898, page 0640]*
> 
> http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koe...=/scans/MWScan/MWScanjpg/mw0640-puSparasa.jpg



Please let me know what you think about this. Also please let me know of your reference of the claim that Sanskrit word pusktak has anything to do with animal skin.


----------



## Faylasoof

What do I feel about it! The same as before when I said …


Faylasoof said:


> _The Monier-Williams reference (page 640) doesn’t say anything about the etymology of the Sanskrit_ _word _*पुस्तक* _pustaka__,_ though the Sogdian _*pwst'k*_ , the Parthian _*pwstg*_ and Old Persian _*pavastaa*_ are what I have come across before.
> ………….


… and 


Faylasoof said:


> …..
> _Also, just because Monier-Williams doesn't give the etymology of *pustak* __*पुस्तक*__ doesn't mean much since his work though of immense importance and significance_ ( I in fact have both his Sanskrit-English and English-Sanskrit lexicons and value them very much!), _was published in 1899_. Since then others have looked at the link between Sanskrit's use of *pustak* _*पुस्तक*_ and the Iranian languages Sogdian, Parthian etc. Here is something worth looking at …..
> 
> ….


 In the link I give above you get the same reference (page #640) that you are now mentioning. Nothing new! We seem to be going round in circles! 

All I said was “_Here is something worth looking at ….._” Unlike some, I’m not making any sweeping statements! Only pointing to what seems worth looking at. Perhaps you can provide us with academic references to support your original sweeping statement! I mean this …  


rahulbemba said:


> _I think all these words telling about "animal skin" have nothing to do with the Sanskrit/Hindi word "Pushtak / __पुस्तक"._ Thanks for making it clear in the beginning, otherwise it may give a wrong impression.


 Firstly, I assume you mean *pustak* and _not_ *pushtak *because you wrote पुस्तक! Secondly, going back to Monier-Williams to “support” your remark doesn’t help for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. His work, though a very thorough listing, doesn’t indicate when a foreign word may have entered the language!  

The work dealing with etymologies within and word borrowings between different Indo-Iranian languages now includes scholars and academics from Iran’s Persian Academy, like Hassan Rezae Baghbidi. There are others too. His work has been published in peer reviewed journals like Journal of Persianate Studies. Unfortunately these are not freely available on the net though there is one paper which seems to be illegally displayed on the net that discusses the Old Persian _*pavastaa*_ (which has the cognate पवस्त *pavasta = *covering, in Sanskrit) to mean clay covering (“skin” if you like) that was used protect clay tablets - the main method of documentation in great antiquity throughout the Near East. 

This _*pavastaa*_ eventually gave us the Middle Persian _post_ (skin) with _postak _(small piece of skin) as its standard diminutive form by the addition of the suffix –ak. This is what the Wiki entry is referring to. 

To repeat, I didn’t say this is proves that the Persian _postak_ is the same as the Sanskrit _pustak_. However it remains a possibility. Perhaps you should at least consider it, unless of course you happen to be one of those who believes that Sanskrit is the mother of all languages and therefore no foreign words ever entered it! I sincerely hope not!


…. and your suggestion that “_It is true that in Hindi "pushtak" has literary connotations while the word "Kitaab" has an "informal" (at times casual to the extent of childish) connotations_” is, I’m afraid, totally baseless and only shows your personal bias against anything that you perceive being non-Indic.


----------



## greatbear

It is not a question of bias! The word "pustak" does carry literary connotations as against "kitaab" in Hindi! Just like the word "swift" has literary connotations but not the word "fast" even though both mean the same thing.


----------



## Faylasoof

greatbear said:


> It is not a question of bias! The word "pustak" does carry literary connotations as against "kitaab" in Hindi! …..


 You really mean _pustak_ carries literary connotations as opposed to _kitaab _or is it just a matter of *perception*?  This is what you said earlier:



greatbear said:


> I don't think that "pustak" is any more literary than "kitaab": both are synonyms; besides, "kitaab" is used a lot more than "pustak".
> .....
> The simple thing that I had been trying to say is that many Hindi speakers have that _*perception*_ that "pustak" is a more refined or literary kind of word, because they are using the word "kitaab" all the time_;_ and that is why a "pustak klub" might appeal to them more. If I were to disregard such hypocrisies, then I would rather go for "book klub" in Hindi as well, rather than "pustak klub" or "kitaab klub".


  (Emphasis added)

Sorry, but don't we have a contradiction here? Either _pustak_ really does have literary connotations as opposed to _kitaab_ (your latest post) or it is just a matter of _*perception*_ (stated by you earlier), in which case _pustak_ does not have any real literary connotations!  ..... Though people are of course free to _imagine_ that it does!


----------



## greatbear

I am not contradicting myself; if you are bent on trying to make me sound so or someone else biased, then so be it. I do not know what you understood till now from "connotations" but the word comes into being because of perceptions!

Here is one of the definitions from the Merriam-Webster's along with an example:

--

1a: the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes
1b: something suggested by a word or thing

Examples:
a word with negative _connotations_
For many people, the word "fat" has negative _connotations_.
The word "childlike" has _connotations_ of innocence.

--

Similarly the word "pustak" has erudite connotations in Hindi. What do you find contradictory in that with what I said earlier? Unless people have perceptions, words will only have meanings, not connotations: more sadly, they won't have a ring and a feel around them. There is no need to establish some of the members as biased and some others as contradictory if they are giving an input to this discussion that is not perhaps so appetizing; languages are realities, not the wished-for heavens of purists, litterateurs or fundamentalists.


----------



## rahulbemba

Faylasoof said:


> What do I feel about it! The same as before when I said …
> 
> ...
> 
> To repeat, I didn’t say this is proves that the Persian _postak_ is the same as the Sanskrit _pustak_. However it remains a possibility. Perhaps you should at least consider it, unless of course you happen to be one of those who believes that Sanskrit is the mother of all languages and therefore no foreign words ever entered it! I sincerely hope not!
> 
> …. and your suggestion that “_It is true that in Hindi "pushtak" has literary connotations while the word "Kitaab" has an "informal" (at times casual to the extent of childish) connotations_” is, I’m afraid, totally baseless and only shows your personal bias against anything that you perceive being non-Indic.



It is amazing that such a serious member should make claims without any credible references! I see that still what all you have as a reference is that Wikipedia article which is openly editable! And in that Wikipedia article too, there is no reference which tells that Sanskrit word Pustak has anything to do with "animal skin"! 

For connotations, well, Hindi is my mother tongue and I said that after living for decades in this language. As you can see, even our fellow member greatbear supports that. Still if you feel what I said is "baseless", you have to check your base  I have not even relied on the firsthand feel of connotations but also gave example of how "book review" is mostly translated as "pustak samiksha" and seldom as "kitab samiksha" - citing google search results/count. What can be more literary than the term "book review"? Anyways the issue now is not about subjectivity but about objectivity - of credible references. 

Your comment on Sanskrit being mother of all languages, is too off the topic and I won't comment on that. Also, accusing me of having a "personal bias" is again, too offline. I won't accuse you in return, because it brings down the level for all. I have always avoided any such personal accusations in public threads and would appreciate if you can do it, too. 

I still ask for any reference which can seriously make me not conclude that "Sanskrit word Pustak has nothing to do with animal skin in those Persian/Arab words!". Since you had challenged this conclusion, *the burden of proof is with you*. Please don't mind.


----------



## greatbear

I wouldn't even go so far as googling for book review, though that is a very good pointer. What is a library called in India in Hindi? Invariably "pustakalaya", not a "kitaab-khana"! So why would you make such huge exceptions for a book club, which is not that far from a library?

Unfortunately, I don't have _references_ for that: come to India and visit every library!


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I am not contradicting myself; if you are bent on trying to make me sound so or someone else biased, then so be it. I do not know what you understood till now from "connotations" but the word comes into being because of perceptions!
> 
> Here is one of the definitions from the Merriam-Webster's along with an example:
> 
> --
> 
> 1a: the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes
> 1b: something suggested by a word or thing
> 
> Examples:
> a word with negative _connotations_
> For many people, the word "fat" has negative _connotations_.
> The word "childlike" has _connotations_ of innocence.
> 
> --
> 
> Similarly the word "pustak" has erudite connotations in Hindi. What do you find contradictory in that with what I said earlier? Unless people have perceptions, words will only have meanings, not connotations: more sadly, they won't have a ring and a feel around them. There is no need to establish some of the members as biased and some others as contradictory if they are giving an input to this discussion that is not perhaps so appetizing; languages are realities, not the wished-for heavens of purists, litterateurs or fundamentalists.




Gentlemen, let us discuss the issues at hand in an adult and civilised manner. (Saying things like "There is no need to establish some of the members as biased and some others as contradictory if they are giving an input to this discussion that is not perhaps so appetizing; languages are realities, not the wished-for heavens of purists, litterateurs or fundamentalists" is neither called for nor necessary).

There are three issues at hand.

1. "Pustak" is a literary word.

I quote:

a) "Pustak" has a *literary connotation*; we are not talking about kids, we are talking about people who're going to read books." (greatbear)


b) *I don't think that "pustak" is any more literary than "kitaab"*: *both are synonyms; besides, "kitaab" is used a lot more than "pustak". *(greatbear)


c) The simple thing that I had been trying to say is that many Hindi speakers have that *perception that "pustak" is a more refined or literary kind of word, because they are using the word "kitaab" all the time *(greatbear)


d) It is true that in Hindi "pushtak" has* literary connotations* while the word "Kitaab" has an "informal" (at times casual to the extent of childish) connotations. (rahulbemba)


2) "Kitaab" has associations with children and it has casual and childish connotations.

I quote:


a) "Pustak" has a literary connotation; *we are not talking about kids, we are talking about people who're going to read books.*" greatbear


b) It is true that in Hindi "pushtak" has literary connotations while the word "Kitaab" has an *"informa*l" (at times casual to the extent of *childish*) connotations. (rahulbemba)


3) The etymology of "Pustak"


Now let us return to all these one by one.

1) In order to illustrate the "literary" nature of a word, one quotes examples. RB has quoted Harivansh Rai Bachchan (Madhushala 20th century) and I in turn quoted an example from a Hindi writer (India's first president, also 20th century) and kabir (14-15th Century) using "kitaab". I shall not dwell on the fact that before the advent of Modern Hindi in the late nineteenth century, the so called Hindi writers were writing in distinct prakrits such as Avadhi, Braj etc and this included Kabir.

greatbear agrees that both "kitaab" and "pustak" are equally literary. However the Hindi speaking masse *perceive* "pustak" to be a literary word and kitaab not to be so. Let us agree that this is a *perception* and no more. Agreed?

2) The association of "kitaab" with "children" because of its commonness and familiarity is understandable. However there is a difference between "child like" (innocent) and "childish" (immature). Let us agree that *the choice of this word was an unfortunate one.* Agreed?

3) The Montier-Williams link was originally posted by me, in post 7. Faylasoof rightly indicated that this dictionary did not point to the etymology of the word. I had also produced the Wikionary reference which linked "pustak" and "iranian" "postak" to skin. Faylasoof indicated that there was a possibility of their connection. He has also stated that scholarly reference from Iranian researchers are not freely availanble on the net. If there is no connection between the two sources, so be it. I don't believe Faylasoof would loose any sleep over this matter. RB's bringing back the same Monier-Williams reference was unnessary since that ground had already been covered and this repetition did not add anymore information for discussion.

One must not loose sight of one fact. As far as the most recent research indicates, Sanskrit is the "daughter" (along with Classical/Homeric Greek, Classical Latin and Old Persian) of Hittite language, the Hittites being the ultimate ancestors of the Aryan peoples. So, if a connection is there between Old Persian's postak and Sanskrit's pustak, let us not worry about it. *So can we agree that there may or may not be a connection between "postak" and "pustak"? *Agreed?

If the answer is in the affirmative regarding all three points, we have nothing further to argue about.

Finally, let us accept diversity in our beings. We are all homosapiens. None of us are from Mars!


----------



## rahulbemba

greatbear said:


> I wouldn't even go so far as googling for book review, though that is a very good pointer. What is a library called in India in Hindi? Invariably "pustakalaya", not a "kitaab-khana"! So why would you make such huge exceptions for a book club, which is not that far from a library?



Library is called "Pustakalaya" पुस्तकालय most often, but it also has the name "Kitabghar" किताबघर which uses the word "kitab". *किताबघर has 19500 google results, while पुस्तकालय has 1640000*. Since किताबघर has so many results, it proves that the word is widely in use as such. But because of the same reasons with pustak-samiksha Vs kitab-samiksha it is not as popular as पुस्तकालय. 

Both "library" and "book-review" are "literary" words per se. Even I don't rely much on google results but that is the way many members of our forum understand it and hence I used it to prove my point. As you said, these results are good pointers. If we put those in learned contexts. 

If we want to translate "club" into Hindi, most appropriate in my opinion would be "sangh" संघ. Now पुस्तक-संघ would still look natural to the eyes of Hindi speakers but I am not sure about किताब-संघ how natural it looks. But we can have पुस्तक क्लब without any issues, as has been pointed by others before.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> greatbear agrees that both "kitaab" and "pustak" are equally literary. However the Hindi speaking masse *perceive* "pustak" to be a literary word and kitaab not to be so. Let us agree that this is a perception and nothing else. Agreed?



Perception is everything! We are talking living languages, not dead ones neither etymology (I don't know why are we discussing the etymology of "pustak" in a thread meant for kitaab club vs. pustak club!).

Nothing can better illustrate the importance of perception than the word "gay": would anyone say "I am gay" to mean "I am happy" these days? I don't at all understand what does your "nothing else" mean; if someone is going to establish a book club, people need to get a better idea what it is all about, they need to "perceive" it properly.


----------



## Faylasoof

greatbear said:


> I am not contradicting myself; if you are bent on trying to make me sound so ....


 I’m sorry you feel this way! It is just that earlier (post# 19) you said one thing and then later (post # 23) something else! Anyway, that is how I felt! But never mind! Let us move on and continue with our interesting discussion!


----------



## rahulbemba

While there are no credible references cited by members here indicating towards the claim that Sanskrit word Pustak has anything to do with "animal skin", I google searched to find the meanings of the word "kitab" किताब . Here is what I find: 

The word _kitab_ means to collect and its root is _Katb_. Words like _kitabat_ and _kitab_ are derived from the same root. Raghib Isfahani, the renowned scholar of Isfahan of the fifth century Hijra and the author of Mufradiitu Alfaz al-Qur’an writes “*katb means to stitch two pieces of skins or bring those two pieces together*.” [Ref]

More: 

*Al-Jafr is a mystical Shia holy book [**Link]. The material of al-Jafr is parchment for writing made from animals skin [Link**] 
*
In the same connection here comes this verse [Link]:

Abu al- 'AlA' (a poet) pointed to this jafr (divination) and said:
"Verily, they became astonished at the family of
Mohammed when their knowledge came to them
*written on the skin of a full grown he- goat.*"

It seems the connection of "kitab" किताब with "animal skin", or to be specific "skin of a full grown he-goat" is more evident by numerous references! 

If this is an eye-opener to you, please share your views!


----------



## greatbear

I propose to move the etymology posts to a new discussion thread; I don't understand having it here, this is way off topic.

By the way, I think "pustak" might be referring indeed to animal skin, as the Sanskrit word "pust" means something scraped from bark, skin, etc., and Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-Iranian branch of languages. It could be argued that the leaves on which ancient Hindu scriptures are written are again scrapings, but prior to that, where the Aryans came from, I believe that animal skins were used for writing. I am not an etymology expert, so for me it is just a hunch, based on similar words existing across languages (now I even wonder if the Greek papyrus is somehow related?).


----------



## rahulbemba

I had posted the meaning of पुस्त as below. It talks about wood and clay but never "animal skin". 

पुस्त Pusta, m.n. working in clay, modelling, Kathaas.; a manuscript, book, Var. (cf. below); Hcat.; mfn. covered, filled, W. - karman, n. plastering, painting, W. - maya, mf(i)n. formed of metal or wood, wrought in clay, modelled, Susr. - vaartta, m. one who loves by books or makes books, VarBrS.

पुस्तक Pustaka, m. or n. a protuberant ornament, boss (see below); mf(ikaa)n. a manuscript, book, booklet, Hariv.; Kaav.; Var.&c. - kara, m. an embosser, VarBrS., Sch. Pustakagara,n. 'book-room', a library, MW. Pustakastarana,n. the wrapper of a manuscript,Hcat.

[Sir Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English dictionary etymologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898, page 0640]

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koel...-puSparasa.jpg


----------



## greatbear

Refer to this, where animal skin ("chamdaa") is clearly mentioned:
पुस्त १ संज्ञा पुं० [सं०] १. गीली मिट्टी, लकड़ी, कपडे़, चमडे़, लोहे, या रत्नों आदि से गढ़, काट या छील छालकर बनाई जानेवाली वस्तु । सामान । २. बनावट । कारी- गरी । ३. [स्त्री० पुस्ती] पोथी । पुस्तक । किताब । हस्तलेख ।

From Hindi Shabdasagara by Shyamasundara Dasa.
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.11:1:1515.dasahindi


----------



## kullu

Kitab is a plebian word and Pustak is a word quite different socially.In spoken Hindi people may use Kitab but whebever any one is penning his thought he uses the word Pustak. A few authors coming from particular belts may had used Kitab as it must had been more popular a word in their local region.But treating it as a linguist question,Pustak is more appropriate.


----------



## rahulbemba

greatbear said:


> Refer to this, where animal skin ("chamdaa") is clearly mentioned:
> पुस्त १ संज्ञा पुं० [सं०]
> 
> १. गीली मिट्टी, लकड़ी, कपडे़, चमडे़, लोहे, या रत्नों आदि से गढ़, काट या छील छालकर बनाई जानेवाली वस्तु । सामान ।
> २. बनावट । कारी- गरी ।
> ३. [स्त्री० पुस्ती] पोथी । पुस्तक । किताब । हस्तलेख ।
> 
> From Hindi Shabdasagara by Shyamasundara Dasa.
> http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.11:1:1515.dasahindi



So पुस्त has three meanings, as listed above. Doesn't mean all three meanings are one and the same, or even we can't say for sure that the three meanings are all interrelated because at times a same word has two distinct meanings, is not it so? 

Even Monier-William gave the same meaning, only at this page which you referred, they have included "leather" in the list of articles out of which things are "formed". Obviously this list won't be an exclusive and exhaustive list too, and they have not cared to tell from where they have assembled this list. 

Anyways *this doesn't tell that the word "pustak" has come from meaning#1, because पुस्त itself means पुस्तक - meaning#3! If the word "पुस्त" itself didn't have a meaning as "book", in that case I would think that the word "पुस्तक" came from पुस्त "formed articles or its art": meaning#1! *

The quoted webpage tells that the word "पुस्त" has three meanings, one of those means "the art of forming something", the second means the article formed itself, and this has also "leather" in the list of materials from which the articles are formed. The third in the list, *a "distinct" meaning of "pust" is "a book". If we don't agree with my conclusion then by the same opposing logic we should also have each articled formed with clay/wood/metal/cloth/leather as meaning#4, 5, 6, and so on! Since all materials formed are not the meaning of the word पुस्त, it appears that "book"/पुस्तक is a "distinct" third meaning. *

You also appear to be not commenting anything on *Faylasoof's assertion without credible reference that the Sanskrit word "pust" came from some old Persian word meaning skin itself (and not made from skin). Faylasoof said, *"_This pavastaa eventually gave us the Middle Persian post (skin) with postak (small piece of skin) as its standard diminutive form by the addition of the suffix –ak._ _(without reference)_"* Persian word "post" itself means "skin" (as he says) and is so different from the Sanskrit word "pust" which means something made out of a lot of things including leather.
*
*So my initial objection that Sanskrit word is related to these Persian/etc words meaning "animal skin" is still valid. *I would wait for Faylasoof to produce any credible reference to his claim, if it is possible to find. 

On the other hand I found many references to indicate that the word "kitab" has actually come from "katb" and there books were written on animal skin. Post #32.


----------



## rahulbemba

kullu said:


> Kitab is a plebian word and Pustak is a word quite different socially.In spoken Hindi people may use Kitab but whebever any one is penning his thought he uses the word Pustak. A few authors coming from particular belts may had used Kitab as it must had been more popular a word in their local region.But treating it as a linguist question,Pustak is more appropriate.



I agree with this...


----------



## Qureshpor

kullu said:


> Kitab is a plebian word and Pustak is a word quite different socially.In spoken Hindi people may use Kitab but whebever any one is penning his thought he uses the word Pustak. A few authors coming from particular belts may had used Kitab as it must had been more popular a word in their local region.But treating it as a linguist question,Pustak is more appropriate.



Two sweeping statements:

1) Kitab is a plebeian word.

2) Pustak is a word quite different socially. In spoken Hindi people may use  Kitab but whenever any one is penning his thought he uses the word  Pustak.

Regarding 1), could you offer some explanation for your conclusion.

Regarding 2), are you suggesting that:

a) No Hindi writer would ever use "kitaab" in his/her Hindi composition or

b) If they do, they can only be "plebeians"?

In this thread I have already quoted the former president of India, Rajendra Prasad, who, in his "Atamkatha", published in 1947 but composed before this period, uses "kitaab" on a number of occasions just on one page! I have no doubt that people who read Hindi literature will come across numerous examples of usage of the word "kitaab". Do "Rajendra Prasad" and other writers using "kitaab" fall into the category of being "plebeian"?


----------



## greatbear

My goodness! "Kitaab" is not at all a plebeian word; I need not go further than Gulzar himself. There exists a movie called "Kitaab" directed by the master lyricist himself, and has there been a better lyricist in India (or rather, a better poet)? The only thing I was saying that for many people there's a _perception _that "pustak" is more literary, and that simply exists because they use the word "kitaab" in their day-to-day life as well: human beings have often the tendency to assign preciousness to rarer things, whether those things deserve it or not. Besides, I would any day use "book club" in Hindi as well.

@rahulbemba: As for the three meanings of "pust" that you quote, yes you are right that those three are shown by the dictionary, but you forget how the mechanics of a language work (or you are unaware of it). I would give you a simple example rather than using words like "synecdoche". Indians often say "write something on paper" when they actually mean "write something on a sheet of paper": you are never writing on the material "paper", but on something (a sheet, a folio, etc.) made of paper: the same thing is happening with "pust" there in all probability, that is why it is also showing the meaning of "book", even though it maybe started out as the original material on which something would be written. You could always quibble about my words "in all probability", but if you are wanting 100% sureties, then languages are never the deal. One has to make intuitive connections to make sense of disjointed histories.

Aryans came from Central Asia, where animal skins were a basic necessity against the climate; animal skins have been used to write upon; Sanskrit is an Indo-Iranian language; and the dictionary mentions "animal skin" (chamdaa) among the meanings. What more do you need to make the inevitable connection? And if Old Persian indeed had "pavastaa" (since I don't know Persian, I would like some Persian expert to confirm it, if he's reading this thread by any chance), then I don't need further proof or references.


----------



## rahulbemba

_"dictionary mentions "animal skin" (chamdaa) among the meanings"_

Dictionary doesn't mention "animal skin" among "the meanings". The webpage you mentioned only mentioned "the object" that is made/ by carving/molding/etc out of many things like clay, wood, leather, etc, which has nothing to do with "book", because "a book" is a separate and different meaning of the Sanskrit word "pust". In any case as you would also know, "skin" is not "leather". And let me also ask you to read Faylasoof claim again where he says Persian word "postak" means "small piece of skin". Does one or did anyone write books on "small piece of skin"??? Of course no, unless in imagination. 

And the theory that Aryans came from outside are refuted by many researchers. I have not commented on this even though some habitual members have dragged Aryans in this debate. This is not a history forum, so we can't discuss it. 

After all, there is no reference available so far that Sanskrit word "pustak" has anything to do with Persian/etc words which mean "animal skin".


----------



## greatbear

"chamdaa" does mean animal skin; it is English that also has a different word, "leather," when you wear it. For a thick-skinned person, a common Hindi proverb is "us aadmi ki chamdi bahut moti hai" - reflect before making assertions.
And yes, people did write on animal skins. Watch BBC's excellent documentary "The Story of India" if you want to learn about Aryans; learn any European language otherwise, and you will find yourself wondering why do Latin, Persian and Sanskrit so resemble each other (and also many times with Greek)? That is common sense, not history lessons.


----------



## Qureshpor

Chand Bardai in his "Prithviraj Raso", a work considered by Hindi historians as one of the oldest examples of "Hindi" literature, has employed the word "kitaab". The source of this piece of information is Dr. Hardev Bahri's book "Persian influence on Hindi". I think this should  also count as a literary usage of the word "kitaab", in adition to the other examples that I have already provided from Kabir and Dr. Rajendra Prasad. 

 As a side note, the same author mentions Tulsidas's use of around 250 Arabic/Persian words in his works including Śrīrāmacaritamānasa. From another source I have learnt that Śrīrāmacaritamānasa has words like "Ghanii (rich), "Ghariib" (stranger/poor) and "muHtaaj" (needy). If anyone has access to this book, it would be interesting to see if "Ghariib" is being used in its original meaning "strange/stranger" or in the acquired meaning "poor".


----------



## rahulbemba

We are talking about connotations with the word "kitaab" in the "present time", not in the history. It is futile to prove in this context that at some point of time in the past the word "kitaab" carried a certain literary connotation even in Hindi. At present it doesn't; in the opinion of many and I think we should live with the fact.


----------



## tonyspeed

rahulbemba said:


> I think we should live with the fact.



Being that the members of this forum are quite opinionated, I don't think we can use the word "fact"  at all without some actual evidence.
Unless one is willing to turn his own viewpoint into facts.



			
				rahulbemba said:
			
		

> And the theory that Aryans came from outside are refuted by many researchers.


Most of which are blinded by religio-political arguments. So we can't trust them either...


----------



## Qureshpor

rahulbemba said:


> We are talking about connotations with the word "kitaab" in the "present time", not in the history. It is futile to prove in this context that at some point of time in the past the word "kitaab" carried a certain literary connotation even in Hindi. At present it doesn't; in the opinion of many and I think we should live with the fact.




Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know the starting point of literary Hindi and I shall try to put forward evidence of the usage of "kitaab" in that "present time" period.


----------



## rahulbemba

QURESHPOR said:


> Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know the starting point of literary Hindi and I shall try to put forward evidence of the usage of "kitaab" in that "present time" period.



Please spend some time to go through this thread first  No one is asking for "evidence of the usage of _kitaab_ in that present time period"  Of course there are usages - plenty of them. But we are talking about connotations of the words kitaab and pustak here and for that only Hindi speakers can tell the "fact"; which, to the discomfort of some maybe, has already happened in this thread. There is no need of further search-google-and-copy-paste kind of debates here, unless we have some new Hindi members joining in who want to express their opinion on this topic.

Also, I see our member qureshpor has this habit of re-editing his post after a reply has been made to the former.  It is alright if done to correct a mistake in the former post, but he does it to add new points, perhaps after seeing the reply. No objections as such 

Anyways, I would welcome some new Hindi members to share their opinion on this thread, because on topics like connotations of words in Hindi, only they can tell.


----------



## panjabigator

> But we are talking about connotations of the words kitaab and pustak  here and for that only Hindi speakers can tell the "fact"; which, to the  discomfort of some maybe, has already happened in this thread.



You have a very dictatorial style of argumentation, Rahulbemba. Your authority is incontrovertible "fact," which I find highly problematic. 



> Anyways, I would welcome some new Hindi members to share their opinion  on this thread, because on topics like connotations of words in Hindi,  only they can tell.



I guess we should all bow out quietly from the forum, tails tucked between our legs, as non "Hindi" speakers haven't any say here. 

No one has yet really specified what "literary" really means here, by the way. This is not really the place or fora to discuss literature, but we might at least agree that their are different definitions of "literature" (perhaps with a capital "L" at times), and therefore different "literary" words.


----------



## rahulbemba

panjabigator said:


> I guess we should all bow out quietly from the forum, tails tucked between our legs, as non "Hindi" speakers haven't any say here.



I said that the "fact" about what kind of connotation a Hindi word contains, is to be told only by Hindi people. And I said this, has already happened in this forum - from existing members. I don't know how is this dictatorial. 

I don't understand how can non-Hindi members tell what is connotation of a Hindi word, in Hindi language. (just like I don't know Urdu, I know a few words but that is not called knowing a language, I can't judge what kind of connotation an Urdu word has). 

If you can make me understand that, I will accept that what I said was dictatorial and I will apologize. Please go ahead.


----------



## Qureshpor

rahulbemba said:


> Please spend some time to go through this thread first  No one is asking for "evidence of the usage of _kitaab_ in that present time period"  Of course there are usages - plenty of them. But we are talking about connotations of the words kitaab and pustak here and for that only Hindi speakers can tell the "fact"; which, to the discomfort of some maybe, has already happened in this thread. There is no need of further search-google-and-copy-paste kind of debates here, unless we have some new Hindi members joining in who want to express their opinion on this topic.




As a matter of interest, I not only read the whole of this thread but also the connected thread too.

A few quotes.....

...................................

  "I would still go for "book club" or "pustak club" for Hindi speakers (I am not talking about Urdu speakers). "Pustak" has a literary connotation; we are not talking about kids, we are talking about people who're going to read books."
  "Pustak" is indeed the more literary word, but *never *used in speech”.


*“It is true that in Hindi "pushtak" has literary connotations while the word "Kitaab" has an "informal" (at times casual to the extent of childish) connotations.”

*

  “I don't think that "pustak" is any more literary than "kitaab": both are synonyms; besides, "kitaab" is used a lot more than "pustak".


  “Kitab is a plebian word and Pustak is a word quite different socially.”


  “My goodness! "Kitaab" is not at all a plebeian word; I need not go further than Gulzar himself. There exists a movie called "Kitaab" directed by the master lyricist himself, and has there been a better lyricist in India (or rather, a better poet)?”


  “We are talking about connotations with the word "kitaab" in the "present time", not in the history.”
  “No one is asking for "evidence of the usage of _kitaab_ in that present time period"

....................................

I have provided examples from Rajendra Prasad, Kabir and Chand Bardai. I would like you to point out, in clear unabiguous language (in light of the quotes), what is it that you require from someone like me who is informing you that "kitaab" is being used and has been used in Hindi literature.

As for copy pasting, you can talk!!!


----------



## rahulbemba

QURESHPOR said:


> As a matter of interest, I not only read the whole of this thread but also the connected thread too. A few quotes.....



As a matter of fact, I asked *tonyspeed* to read the whole thread. I don't know why you took my reply to him, personally. I hope your two profile-names are of two different persons, right?. 



QURESHPOR said:


> I have provided examples from Rajendra Prasad, Kabir and Chand Bardai. I would like you to point out, in clear unabiguous language (in light of the quotes), what is it that you require from someone like me who is informing you that "kitaab" is being used and has been used in Hindi literature.



Now, please reread my Post #44 which was reply to this. 

Thanks for the obvious (to Hindi people) information that "kitaab" has been used in Hindi literature; but it doesn't change the fact about its connotations. For connotations in a particular language, you should trust the people who speak the language naturally. This is why I requested others to respect and consider what the Hindi members of this thread have said. And they are not me alone. If you reread the whole thread, you would notice how many Hindi members have said that "pustak" has literary connotations while "kitab" doesn't have. If you don't want to believe it for some I-don't-know-what reason, you have every right to do so. But then, there is no point in re-starting this thread after every some days, to make the same point!


----------



## panjabigator

> For connotations in a particular language, you should trust the people who speak the language naturally.


 Eh? I don't know what it means to speak a "language naturally."

To return back to the topic at hand, I thought I might add that "pustak" is not synonymous w/ "kitaab" in my house and my father uses both in speech.


----------



## rahulbemba

panjabigator said:


> Eh? I don't know what it means to speak a "language naturally."



Rule# 18 of our forum rules helps: [Link]

Hint: When we post something in the threads, the right hand side bar tells about our Native Language. 



panjabigator said:


> To return back to the topic at hand, I thought I might add that "pustak"  is not synonymous w/ "kitaab" in my house and my father uses both in  speech.



Do you mean to say that he uses "pustak" and "kitaab" as two words with different meanings? (as you say the words are not synonymous"? Then please share what are the respective meanings... It is a new aspect to me...


----------



## tonyspeed

Rb, I think we all understand your connotation here. You are really saying that mainly illiterate people and children use the term kitaab. Since pustak is the  term used to refer to a book in 
standard government Hindi (the language of most books) you feel that it is somehow superior and more educated (sophisticated) to say pustak than kitab. Well, I suggest that such a viewpoint is a viewpoint and not accepted universally
by all Hindi speakers unless you can speak for the entire Indian subcontinent. Like PG alluded to, for many pustak has religious or formal connotations. I'm sure even other families use the
terms differently from even that.

Here I think we should really get to the bottom of this argument that when you say your native language is "Hindi", you are not talking about the common man's Hindi, you are
talking about the literary Hindi invented at Fort William and propagated by the Indian government through the school system and official documents. So I suggest that you change 
your native language to "Standard Modern Hindi" or "literary Hindi" so that confusion does not spread. When most people on this board say Hindi, they are referring to Rekhta which 
is a mixed language that does not have such dogmatic distinctions between using pustak and kitaab; we are generally not talking about the Standard Modern Hindi unless made clear 
by the context (aas-paas ke shabd).


----------



## panjabigator

No need to get snarky, Rahulnemba. Two things: 1) I made a mistake. I meant to say that my father says both "pustak" and "kitab," but leans towards the latter. 2) Speaking "natively" and "naturally" are two different things. I don't necessarily trust "natives" more than "non-natives," and I don't see why I should. But, let's not continue this on this board.

Closing this thread temporarily for moderation.


----------

