# Urdu: retired



## HZKhan

What would be the best Urdu equivalent of 'retired'? 

Modern Persian's بازنشسته seems fine to me. Would it be OK in your opinion if I use the word? Of course, only if there already isn't a specific word in Urdu.

Edit: What about فارغِ خدمت?


----------



## marrish

فارغ خدمت ، پنشن یافتہ
faariGh-e-xidmat, pinshan-yaaftah


----------



## Alfaaz

متقاعد

Other possibilities: 

سبکدوش/فارغ (ملازمت)

فارغ البال


----------



## Qureshpor

I too would go for "pinshan yaaftah" (as per Ghalib's quest to Calcutta for his "pinshan") and "subuk-dosh" as in Colonel Muhammad Khan describing his escapades before and after his "mulaazimat se subuk-dosh honaa".


----------



## Alfaaz

پینشن would probably be more representative of the English pronunciation (although پنشن might have been the conventional/historic spelling in Urdu). 

If _pension_ is being used, then پینشنر (also listed as پنشنر) could probably be another option...!?

> جس کو نوکری سے پنشن مل جائے، پینشن یافتہ، مدت مقررہ کے بعد سبکدوش ہونے والا۔


----------



## Sheikh_14

Alfaaz said:


> پینشن would probably be more representative of the English pronunciation (although پنشن might have been the conventional/historic spelling in Urdu).
> 
> If _pension_ is being used, then پینشنر (also listed as پنشنر) could probably be another option...!?​



Fully agree with the opinions passed by all three venerated members of the Urdu Literary brigade. I too am of the opinion that pinshan has become largely antiquated being replaced with Penshan and thereby the modern day equivalent would be penshan-yafta. Secondly, the more authentic variant is indeed subuk-dosh as propounded by QP SaaHib. 

In that case would the state of retirement be penshan-yaftagi and subuk-doshii? By extension what would you call a retirement fund? Penshan-Chanda/subuk-doshii chanda? 

If we were to forge an Urdu term for pension from scratch how would waziifa E faraaghat/subuk-doshii fare?


----------



## Ali Smith

Isn’t سبک pronounced _sabuk_?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ali Smith said:


> Isn’t سبک pronounced _sabuk_?


Both sabuk and subuk appear to be current in Urdu although "sabuk" is what it is in Persian.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Ali Smith said:


> Isn’t سبک pronounced _sabuk_?


According to Platts P سبك sabuk, vulg. *subuk which suggests that the original pronunciation was indeed sabuk but the popular variant is subuk. Hope that helps.*


----------



## Alfaaz

Another mistake is _mulaaz*i*mat _(post #4), which should be _mulaaz*a*mat_.


			
				Sheikh_14 said:
			
		

> In that case would the state of retirement be penshan-yaftagi and subuk-doshii? By extension what would you call a retirement fund? Penshan-Chanda/subuk-doshii chanda?
> 
> If we were to forge an Urdu term for pension from scratch how would waziifa E faraaghat/subuk-doshii fare?


If متقاعد is used for _retired_, then the following could be potential options:

تقاعُد - _retirement_
تقاعدی فنڈ/پونجی/سرمایہ/کھاتا - _retirement fund_
تقاعدی وظیفہ - _pension_
Note: The reason for the different suggestions above is that سبک دوشی doesn't necessarily have to be from employment, it could be from other matters as well (اولاد کی شادیاں کروانے سے سبک دوش ہونا، وغیرہ، وغیرہ). Apart from that, سبک دوشی is of course one of the most commonly used expressions in this context.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Another mistake is _mulaaz*i*mat _(post #4), which should be _mulaaz*a*mat_.


I suppose by "another" you are implying "subuk" is a mistake? As I have said earlier both pronunciations are current. When Platts talks about a pronunciation being "vulgar", the implication is "colloquial" or "roz-marrah" and this is from the mouths of Urdu speakers and not from those who are non-Urdu speakers like me. (I can provide examples from the writings of Urdu speakers, if you so require).

As for "mulaazimat", see page 314 of the following link.

Lughat-e-Rozmarrah  by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi | Rekhta

As a matter of interest, how do you pronounce/write "muqaabilah"?

I shall be casting a keen eye on your spellings henceforth!


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> پینشن would probably be more representative of the English pronunciation (although پنشن might have been the conventional/historic spelling in Urdu).
> 
> If _pension_ is being used, then پینشنر (also listed as پنشنر) could probably be another option...!?
> ​


No, there is no way (that I know of) in which we can write "p*e*nsion" in Urdu and this is probably why Urdu speakers of Ghalib's time went for "pinshan".


----------



## Alfaaz

Qureshpor said:
			
		

> I suppose by "another" you are implying "subuk" is a mistake? As I have said earlier both pronunciations are current. When Platts talks about a pronunciation being "vulgar", the implication is "colloquial" or "roz-marrah" and this is from the mouths of Urdu speakers and not non-Urdu speakers like me. (I can provide examples from the writings of Urdu speakers, if you so require).


I was just pointing out the two pronunciations based on discussions (including Qureshpor, marrish, Faylasoof, etc. SaaHibaan) in this forum, which have always seemed to be in favor of the _correct pronunciations_ listed by Platts and not the _vulgar/colloquial pronunciations_.


			
				Qureshpor said:
			
		

> As matter of interest, how do you pronounce/write "muqaabilah"?
> 
> I shall be casting a keep eye on your spellings henceforth!


_muqaabalah _and _muzaaharah _(after a friend pointed it out)!


			
				Qureshpor said:
			
		

> And if I was being really pedantic "muzaaharah"!





			
				Qureshpor said:
			
		

> As for "mulaazimat", see page 314 of the following link.
> 
> Lughat-e-Rozmarrah by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi


If we go by the standard usually followed in the forum (always favoring the original/dictionary pronunciations), then it seems _sabuk _and _mulaazamat_ should be considered _correct _regardless of whether writers/speakers have used the others...? This is one of the confusing things about the book you mentioned and others like it. In certain instances, authors suggest that one set of pronunciations/usages should be followed - providing long analyses about etymology, meanings, pronunciations, etc. in the original languages, in Urdu, etc. etc. to support their opinion. In other instances, however, they switch to the opposite logic that _such and such has undergone_ تأرید_, so can be considered correct and to suggest otherwise would be inappropriate_.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> I was just pointing out the two pronunciations based on discussions (including Qureshpor, marrish, Faylasoof, etc. SaaHibaan) in this forum, which have always seemed to be in favor of the _correct pronunciations_ listed by Platts and not the _vulgar/colloquial pronunciations_.
> 
> _muqaabalah _and _muzaaharah _(after a friend pointed it out)!
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the standard usually followed in the forum (always favoring the original/dictionary pronunciations), then it seems _sabuk _and _mulaazamat_ should be considered _correct _regardless of whether writers/speakers have used the others...? This is one of the confusing things about the book you mentioned and others like it. In certain instances, authors suggest that one set of pronunciations/usages should be followed - providing long analyses about etymology, meanings, pronunciations, etc. in the original languages, in Urdu, etc. etc. to support their opinion. In other instances, however, they switch to the opposite logic that _such and such has undergone_ تأرید_, so can be considered correct and to suggest otherwise would be inappropriate_.


You pointed to #4 specifically, hence my response.

I don't know if anyone still pronounces this words as "muqaabalah", "mushaahadah", "muzaaharah" etc but we need to note that a good dictionary (like Platts) notes the pronunciation in the time that it was compiled and that was in 1884. Language does change and in the 137 years that have passed since, it certainly has changed. A classic example that I can give you is the word "sirhaanaa" (noun) which in Urdu now is also pronounced as "sarhaanaa", as noted by Urdu LuGhat. Faruqi was an urdu scholar and so his word carries some weight. If he says in Urdu this word now is "mulaazimat", then it is "mulaazimat". This logic is based on Insha's "Magna Carta" re: Urdu pronunciation contained in his Persian composition (daryaa-i-lataafat- 1808). Here is my Urdu translation of the relevant part.

"vaaziH rahe kih har jo lafz Urdu meN mash_huur ho gayaa xvaah Urdu ho yaa faarsii, turkii, suryaanii, Panjaabii yaa puurabii, asl kii ruu se Ghalat ho yaa saHiiH, vuh lafz Urdu kaa lafz hai. agar asl ke mutaabiq isti3maal ho saHiiH hai aur agar asl ke xilaaf ho to tab bhii saHiiH hai; Urdu meN us ke saHiiH yaa Ghalat hone kaa inHisaar Urdu ke isti3maal aur paziiraa'ii par hai kyoNkih jo kuchh Urdu ke xilaaf hai Ghalat hai xvaah asl meN saHiiH ho aur jo kuchh Urdu ke mutaabiq hai saHiiH hai xvaah asl meN saHiiH nah ho."


----------



## Gop

Qureshpor said:


> I too would go for "pinshan yaaftah" (as per Ghalib's quest to Calcutta for his "pinshan") and "subuk-dosh" as in Colonel Muhammad Khan describing his escapades before and after his "mulaazimat se subuk-dosh honaa".


I imagine that “mulaazimat se subuk-dosh hona” can mean regularly retiring from service or being relieved retrenched or dismissed from service, as for example when a new CEO takes over and gets rid of an old employee whom he does not like. Am I right?


----------



## Dinraat

Qureshpor said:


> I don't know if anyone still pronounces this words as "muqaabalah", "mushaahadah", "muzaaharah" etc but we need to note that a good dictionary (like Platts) notes the pronunciation in the time that it was compiled and that was in 1884. Language does change and in the 137 years that have passed since, it certainly has changed. A classic example that I can give you is the word "sirhaanaa" (noun) which in Urdu now is also pronounced as "sarhaanaa", as noted by Urdu LuGhat. Faruqi was an urdu scholar and so his word carries some weight. If he says in Urdu this word now is "mulaazimat", then it is "mulaazimat".



I'm a native Urdu speaker and I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying muqaabilah instead of muqaabalah (مقابلہ). Regardless of which one was originally correct, there is a concept of ghalat-ul-aam in Urdu. Interestingly, many of the words we use in our daily speech were pronounced differently a century or two ago.
Muzaahiraah (مظاہرہ) and mushaahidaah (مشاہدہ) are both pronounced with a zair under the ھ though. Also it's sarhaanaa (with a zabr) and nahaanaa (نہانا), whereas, in mulaazamat (ملازمت), I'd say it's more of a sakta on ز rather than a zabr/zair.


----------



## Qureshpor

Gop said:


> I imagine that “mulaazimat se subuk-dosh hona” can mean regularly retiring from service or being relieved retrenched or dismissed from service, as for example when a new CEO takes over and gets rid of an old employee whom he does not like. Am I right?


No, just one off event, Gope SaaHib.


----------



## Qureshpor

Dinraat said:


> I'm a native Urdu speaker and I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying muqaabilah instead of muqaabalah (مقابلہ). Regardless of which one was originally correct, there is a concept of ghalat-ul-aam in Urdu. Interestingly, many of the words we use in our daily speech were pronounced differently a century or two ago.
> Muzaahiraah (مظاہرہ) and mushaahidaah (مشاہدہ) are both pronounced with a zair under the ھ though. Also it's sarhaanaa (with a zabr) and nahaanaa (نہانا), whereas, in mulaazamat (ملازمت), I'd say it's more of a sakta on ز rather than a zabr/zair.


I have already provided an authority on the pronunciation of the word "mulaazimat", the authority being the late Shamsur Rahman Faruqi whose works you will no doubt be aware of.

You have indicated that the words muzaahirah, mushaahidah are with a zer but muqaabilah is muqaabalah with a zabar. Here is a mother-tongue Urdu poet (Sarwar Alam Raz-from India), writing it as muqaabilah.

"(b) asaatiza ke yahaaN :hazaar: aur isee qabeel ke alfaaz ke aise
istai'maal kee misaaleN miltee haiN jahaaN in kaa itlaaq aik hee sha'e
per hotaa hai. albatta in ash'aar kee bunat aap ke she'r se yaksar
muKhtalif hotee hai. maiN aik misaal de rahaa hooN. aap chaaheN to
talaash ke ba'd meree baat kee mazeed tasdeeq kar leN:

safar hai shart musaafir.navaaz bohtairey
hazaar'haa shajar.e.saayadaar raah meiN hai! (Mir Dard?)

iss kaa apne duaa'iya she'r se *muqaabila* kar leN. farq zaahir ho jaaye
gaa! :iss se ziyaadah Haajat.e.sharH.o.bayaaN naheeN:"


----------



## Alfaaz

Qureshpor said:
			
		

> You pointed to #4 specifically, hence my response.
> 
> I don't know if anyone still pronounces this words as "muqaabalah", "mushaahadah", "muzaaharah" etc but we need to note that a good dictionary (like Platts) notes the pronunciation in the time that it was compiled and that was in 1884. Language does change and in the 137 years that have passed since, it certainly has changed. A classic example that I can give you is the word "sirhaanaa" (noun) which in Urdu now is also pronounced as "sarhaanaa", as noted by Urdu LuGhat. Faruqi was an urdu scholar and so his word carries some weight. If he says in Urdu this word now is "mulaazimat", then it is "mulaazimat". This logic is based on Insha's "Magna Carta" re: Urdu pronunciation contained in his Persian composition (daryaa-i-lataafat- 1808). Here is my Urdu translation of the relevant part.


There was no intention of singling you out and I hope my comments above were not seen in a negative light. You might or might not remember, I had once created a thread about this topic, but it was deleted due to _being outside of the scope of the forum_. (That was completely understandable, as the topic is quite broad and not necessarily about the specific usage of a word or phrase.) I had then created one or two threads quoting Dr. Faruqi's entries in _Lughat-e-Rozmarrah_ for specific usages. However, those threads unfortunately did not go far due to either forum members not being active at that time and/or a potential lack of interest.

In our discussion about بات کو لے کے، وغیرہ, all three of us (Qureshpor, marrish, Alfaaz) were of the opinion that this usage is _odd_. Further, marrish SaaHib quoted Dr. Faruqi calling this usage غلط اور قبیح. On the other hand, Fayalsoof SaaHib had expressed that there was nothing wrong with such usage and _ahl-e-lakhnau_ have been using it (so it would/should be considered correct). In such a case (where _authorities/scholars_ differ in opinion), which opinion or view is to be considered مقدم? If the logic you presented from _Insha _is to be followed, then should constructions like آپ ہو also be considered acceptable just on the basis of being مروج? In certain cases, scholars suggest that such and such has become مروج, so _it should be accepted now_. In other cases, however, it is suggested by the same scholars that a usage (despite being مروج) is "بھونڈی، بھدی، قبیح" and "اسے فوری طور پر ترک کر دینا چاہیے". Why is one logic/standard used in certain cases, while another logic/standard used in other cases?

Once again, the comments above are not meant to be against or in favor or various pronunciations of ملازمت، مقابلہ، وغیرہ. Rather, they are to learn about the broader/general concept and process of determining of what is صحیح یا غلط in لسانیات. This thread is also probably not the correct place for this discussion, but it seemed like a good idea to ask these questions here since many forum members are actively participating in the forum now.


----------

