# Hindi/Urdu: Compound words rooted in multiple languages ...



## UrduMedium

Urdu seems to have a large number of words that are composed of parts coming from different languages. Mostly Arabic and Farsi. 

_Examples:_

3aalam-giir (globally dominant)
sifaarat-kaar (diplomat)
maal-daar (wealthy)
be-zarar (harmless)
imaam-bargaah (shia mosque)
xata-waar (guilty)
xudaa-haafiz (goodbye)
tez-taba3 (clever)
falak-pemaa (astronaut)

And there are hundreds (if not thousands) such words. Such intermixing brings a lot of variety and creativity to the language. It seems the credit for such beautiful compounds goes all to Farsi. We got them on a platter without much effort from Urdu's elders. I have not come across many words of this type (multi-language sourced) that bring Arabic and Farsi with Hindi/Urdu or Sanskrit words. There are such words present but they seem much fewer in number. Few examples I can think of: 

imaam-baaRah (corruption of imaam-baargaah)
gaddii-nashiin (head saint at a sufi-shrine, from sajjadah-nashiin)
sabzii-manDii (vegetable market)

_*Is my impression that the second group is much smaller/weaker than the first justified?*_

If you agree, _*what do you attribute as the reasons for such diversity not happening? Was it lack of creativity of Urdu elders? Is it that Farsi/Arabic naturally mix, while Farsi/Sanskrit don't (hard to believe given their shared roots)? Was this the result of early Urdu scholars disdain/lack of interest/ignorance for the local languages and Sanskrit? Is there really no need for such words?*_

I feel this was and is a great missed opportunity. Not only in terms of fusing words from Hindi and Sanskrit with Farsi and Arabic, but from a whole host of regional languages like Sindhi, Punjabi, Gujarati, and so on.


----------



## Alfaaz

(Note: The following answer is based solely on opinions and does not intend to promote or condemn any languages, cultures, religions, politics, philosophies, or styles! The opinions are based on observations of surroundings, media, pop culture, and literature! There is no intention to promote any media portrayals, represent all speakers of a language, or to be offensive!) 

Interesting question! I should say that I am not an expert, so forgive and correct any comments that might be wrong/have mistakes!


> *Is my impression that the second group is much smaller/weaker than the first justified?*


Not sure, but probably yes! 



> If you agree, _*what do you attribute as the reasons for such diversity not happening?*_



Hindi and Sanskrit (which generally are described as a bit rougher, with consonant clusters) might have sounded foreign among Urdu, Arabic, and Persian words (which generally are thought to be smoother sounding) 
The cultural, social, political, religious differences between the heritage of the two languages might play a role 
Probably don't need to explain in detail as it is pretty apparent what issues have existed

Hindi words and Urdu words (of higher register vocabulary) don't seem to go together 
this of course is a matter of opinion; maybe if words had been borrowed in the past, it wouldn't sound as odd today 
Qalb-gyaan or Hirdayaat........... for Qalbiyaat (cardiology)
khurd laihr ............................. for khurd mauj (microwave)


Sometimes too much can be over! It might have made a giant mess, whereas now there is a distinction between the two languages, each maintaining its own beauty, elegance, and special place!



> *Was it lack of creativity of Urdu elders?*



It could probably be called that to some extent, as you mention that a lot of compounds were given in a platter by Farsi; However, there are others that Urdu has also formed: roz-marrah, dehshat-gard, etc. 
The process seems to have not continued as fast and efficiently as it might have at a certain time....probably......then again things cannot be changed overnight!
We have borrowed many non-Arabic/Persian words such as tsunami, bottle, emergency, marmar, etc. 
English seems to have done the same--gradually with changing times. For example, maybe 4 or 5 decades back, people probably wouldn't have used words like sushi, masalah, tempora, etc. as they do now due to exposure to foreign cultures. 

*



			Is it that Farsi/Arabic naturally mix, while Farsi/Sanskrit don't (hard to believe given their shared roots)?
		
Click to expand...

*

As mentioned above, that could certainly be a reason! 
Of course (as also mentioned above) had younger generations been used to hearing such mixing, they probably wouldn't have found it weird....... 
Kind of like in modern day India, where a lot of times you can hear poets, filmstars, politicians mixing the two languages; either for social/political reasons or because they were just raised with that mixture of Hindi and Urdu in their households


*



			Was this the result of early Urdu scholars disdain/lack of interest/ignorance for the local languages and Sanskrit?
		
Click to expand...

*

Yes this could have been a reason! They could have found all the words needed for Urdu in Arabic and Persian, so they might not have paid attention/felt the need to incorporate other languages...
As times change (and there is a need/demand), we seem to make additions to Urdu whenever necessary, from all languages!

*



			Is there really no need for such words?
		
Click to expand...

*

Again, as mentioned above, this could have been if not the sole.....at least on major reason/factor for such words not developing! 



> I feel this was and is a great missed opportunity. Not only in terms of fusing words from Hindi and Sanskrit with Farsi and Arabic, but from a whole host of regional languages like Sindhi, Punjabi, Gujarati, and so on.



There is still time! CharaaghoN mein abhi dum/raushni baqi hai! As stated above, as a need develops, words seem to be formed/coined/borrowed/incorporated into Urdu. 
(not sure, but) possible examples: parandah (Punjabi), qaari (Sindh), etc. 
Maybe the list is kind of short, in comparison to other lists...


----------



## UrduMedium

Thanks, Alfaaz saahiba (noticing from others' comments, please correct if I'm wrong), for your detailed and most insightful comments. I agree with you that there are vast number of Hindi, Sanskrit, Punjabi, Sindhi, and other regional languages that will mix well with Arabic and Farsi, and would not feel awkward at all. Adding to your examples (which I like), I think _jaanch-kaarii_ could be an acceptable word for auditing. We are living in an age that is dominated with English as the language of learning, culture, and media. Many of the English words are absorbed into Urdu very easily (machine, gate, flat, commission, etc), but others seem bulky, unwieldy, and unfit when used as is in Urdu. For example, things like "air conditioned", "talibanization" (as discussed in another thread), parliamentarian, DNA, and many more. Such words take away from the beauty and flow of the language as they do not fit well into Urdu. In such situations, a creative mixing of the languages of the region and languages with significant learning heritage (Arabic, Sanskrit, Farsi) can yield very interesting words/terms that flow well and add to the beauty of the language.


----------



## BP.

It would seem that Urdu hasn't had enough time to absorb more local vocabulary as compound words. The Arabic you see was there when the Farsi compounds were carried over to Urdu, and they sufficed the society for that period. Now since it's arguably a dead language, new compound words aren't being formed except in limited applications e.g. reporting news, or in obscure literary circles.


----------



## UrduMedium

> 3aalam-giir (globally dominant)
> sifaarat-kaar (diplomat)
> maal-daar (wealthy)
> be-zarar (harmless)
> imaam-bargaah (shia mosque)
> xata-waar (guilty)
> xudaa-haafiz (goodbye)
> tez-taba3 (clever)
> falak-pemaa (astronaut)
> 
> And there are hundreds (if not thousands) such words. Such intermixing brings a lot of variety and creativity to the language. It seems the credit for such beautiful compounds goes all to Farsi. We got them on a platter without much effort from Urdu's elders. I have not come across many words of this type (multi-language sourced) that bring Arabic and Farsi with Hindi/Urdu or Sanskrit words. There are such words present but they seem much fewer in number. Few examples I can think of:
> 
> imaam-baaRah (corruption of imaam-baargaah)
> gaddii-nashiin (head saint at a sufi-shrine, from sajjadah-nashiin)
> sabzii-manDii (vegetable market)



Thought of some other locally flavored compounds:

lok-virsah (folk heritage)
rab-raakhaa (goodbye, panjaabi)

also tried to translate some from the original list:

jagat-giir for 3aalam-giir
dhan-daar for maal-daar
siyaanaa-taba3 (or siyaan-taba3 for short) for tez-taba3

Don't sound too awkward for my ears


----------



## Qureshpor

Firstly a few corrections.

bezaar is NOT be+zaar and it does not mean "harmless". It means more "annoyed" than anything else.

falak-p*ai*maa

tez-tab3

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



mbasit said:


> _*Is my impression that the second group is much smaller/weaker than the first justified?
> 
> No, it is not justified. My advice is that you read some quality Urdu literature. Read Sauda or Nazeer Aknbarabadi, just a couple of examples. It might take years for you to read everything they have written but "3ishq par zor nahiiN.."!
> *_
> If you agree, _*what do you attribute as the reasons for such diversity not happening? Was it lack of creativity of Urdu elders? Is it that Farsi/Arabic naturally mix, while Farsi/Sanskrit don't (hard to believe given their shared roots)? Was this the result of early Urdu scholars disdain/lack of interest/ignorance for the local languages and Sanskrit? Is there really no need for such words?
> *_
> I feel this was and is a great missed opportunity. Not only in terms of fusing words from Hindi and Sanskrit with Farsi and Arabic, but from a whole host of regional languages like Sindhi, Punjabi, Gujarati, and so on.



*I have already disagreed but I shall go in a bit more detail here. One of the first Muslims to study Sanskrit was Al-Beruni and two of the latest in this long line of Muslim scholars were Shanulhaq Haqqi (1917-2005) and Muhammad Ajmal Khan (both Pakistanis) who have translated Bhagwad Gita from the original Sanskrit into Urdu. You know your hero, Iqbal, was well versed in Sanskrit and translated portions of it into Urdu.

Words of Sanskrit origin like "baras" have taken time to be transformed from their original Sanskrit "varsh" to Prakrit (khaRii-bolii) "baras". The same goes for thousands of other words in Urdu and Urdu does not feel the need to go back to Sanskrit to return back to "varsh" like words once again. One way in which Hindi forms some of its newly formed words (since its birth in 1805) is from Sanskrit. 
*
_*Persian and Sanskrit of course are linked but the New Persian (from 10th century onwards) is a long way from its older forms which (I don't know for sure) would have been closer to Sanskrit than the modern language. I don't think our scholars in the past have missed any opportunities but there is no reason why the modern scholars should not consider Sanskrit as a treasure trove for further word coinages along with other sources.

As an addition. I do believe Urdu is lagging behind in its ability to form compounds. As you know this is one of the unique features of Sanskrit and Hindi makes full use of this. Urdu linguists need to take a leaf out of Sanskit's (and Hind's) book for this if nothing else.

*_


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Firstly a few corrections.
> 
> bezaar is NOT be+zaar and it does not mean "harmless". It means more "annoyed" than anything else.
> 
> falak-p*ai*maa
> 
> tez-tab3
> 
> ........................
> 
> 
> 
> *I have already disagreed but I shall go in a bit more detail here. One of the first Muslims to study Sanskrit was Al-Beruni and two of the latest in this long line of Muslim scholars were Shanulhaq Haqqi (1917-2005) and Muhammad Ajmal Khan (both Pakistanis) who have translated Bhagwad Gita from the original Sanskrit into Urdu. You know your hero, Iqbal, was well versed in Sanskrit and translated portions of it into Urdu.
> 
> Words of Sanskrit origin like "baras" have taken time to be transformed from their original Sanskrit "varsh" to Prakrit (khaRii-bolii) "baras". The same goes for thousands of other words in Urdu and Urdu does not feel the need to go back to Sanskrit to return back to "varsh" like words once again. One way in which Hindi forms some of its newly formed words (since its birth in 1805) is from Sanskrit.
> *
> _*Persian and Sanskrit of course are linked but the New Persian (from 10th century onwards) is a long way from its older forms which (I don't know for sure) would have been closer to Sanskrit than the modern language. I don't think our scholars in the past have missed any opportunities but there is no reason why the modern scholars should not consider Sanskrit as a treasure trove for further word coinages along with other sources.
> *_



Quick clarification. I wrote be-zarar not bezaar (Freudian slip ... may be my typos are making you bezaar ). Also the thread is about compounds not words like baras/varsh. Also not sure if Sauda and Nazeer were involved in the creative compound word making of the type I gave examples from Farsi-Arabic. But thanks so much for your valuable recommendation. I had already marked Nazeer Akbarabadi down after your last reference in another thread. My focus was not solely sanskrit but also other regional languages. Your comment on sanskrit is understandable.


----------



## Qureshpor

mbasit said:


> Quick clarification. I wrote be-zarar not bezaar (Freudian slip ... may be my typos are making you bezaar ). Also the thread is about compounds not words like baras/varsh. Also not sure if Sauda and Nazeer were involved in the creative compound word making of the type I gave examples from Farsi-Arabic. But thanks so much for your valuable recommendation. I had already marked Nazeer Akbarabadi down after your last reference in another thread. My focus was not solely sanskrit but also other regional languages. Your comment on sanskrit is understandable.



I am not aware of "be-zaar".

How can you be sure if they were creative in their works if you have not delved into their works? You seem to have missed the point regarding "baras vs varsh" which was that Urdu does not borrow "wholesale" Sanskrit words, one reason being that it already has their "metamorphosized" forms. Perhaps the Sanskrit type compounds go against the grain of what Urdu sounds like. Just try replacing one or two Urdu constructions with their Sanskrit ones and speak it aloud. 

I believe in due course Urdu will have more and more words absorbed into its system from regional languages too.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> I am not aware of "be-zaar".





> Urdu seems to have a large number of words that are composed of parts coming from different languages. Mostly Arabic and Farsi.
> 
> _Examples:
> 
> 3aalam-giir (globally dominant)
> sifaarat-kaar (diplomat)
> maal-daar (wealthy)
> *be-zarar (harmless)*
> imaam-bargaah (shia mosque)
> xata-waar (guilty)_



janaab zaraa ghaur se dekhiye


----------



## flyinfishjoe

What about सजिल्द _sajild, _meaning bound (as in a bound book)?


----------



## UrduMedium

flyinfishjoe said:


> What about सजिल्द _sajild, _meaning bound (as in a bound book)?



Is this a compound word? I'm familiar with _jild _in Urdu that means a _volume _when used in a book context.


----------



## Faylasoof

I feel the main reason for a larger preponderance of Arabic-Persian compound words, and this does seem to be so, is incidental to the Persian language becoming the “official” language of administration and the Mughal court at the time of Akbar. BTW, it was Raja Todar Mal who was one of the biggest enthusiast of making Persian the official language of court proceedings and record keeping.

It was inevitable that many of the compound words we use were carried over into Urdu as it developed from a more basic _khaRii bolii_ vocabulary. I don’t think it was lack of creativity of our ancestors, many of them (my ancestors certainly had Persian as their mother tongue!) spoke and used the Persian language. So it was natural for them to rely on its vocabulary and incorporate it when the gradual switch to Urdu took place. This switch was first seen in poetry and only later (19th century really) in prose.

Poets like Mir wrote the bulk of their poetry in Urdu, very little in fact in Persian. On the other hand, his prose is mostly, if not almost entirely, in Persian. The Persian language continued to exercise a huge influence on Urdu even after it ceased to be the official court language. But in the works of our early poets like Wali Daccani, Mirza Rafi Sauda (as mentioned above), Mir, Mushafi and many more, you find a good deal of Prakrit and even Sanskrit words. If, however, one senses that there is a lack of Sanskrit / Prakrit-derived compounds in there vocabulary, then I’m not sure if you should assign this to lack of creativity given that they and their ancestors were very much reliant on the Persian language esp. and its large stock of compound words when it came to poetry which is where one sees the best early Urdu works, and I’m sure their speech too was affected in a similar manner.


----------



## UrduMedium

Faylasoof said:


> I feel the main reason for a larger preponderance of Arabic-Persian compound words, and this does seem to be so, is incidental to the Persian language becoming the “official” language of administration and the Mughal court at the time of Akbar. BTW, it was Raja Todar Mal who was one of the biggest enthusiast of making Persian the official language of court proceedings and record keeping.
> 
> It was inevitable that many of the compound words we use were carried over into Urdu as it developed from a more basic _khaRii bolii_ vocabulary. I don’t think it was lack of creativity of our ancestors, many of them (my ancestors certainly had Persian as their mother tongue!) spoke and used the Persian language. So it was natural for them to rely on its vocabulary and incorporate it when the gradual switch to Urdu took place. This switch was first seen in poetry and only later (19th century really) in prose.
> 
> Poets like Mir wrote the bulk of their poetry in Urdu, very little in fact in Persian. On the other hand, his prose is mostly, if not almost entirely, in Persian. The Persian language continued to exercise a huge influence on Urdu even after it ceased to be the official court language. But in the works of our early poets like Wali Daccani, Mirza Rafi Sauda (as mentioned above), Mir, Mushafi and many more, you find a good deal of Prakrit and even Sanskrit words. If, however, one senses that there is a lack of Sanskrit / Prakrit-derived compounds in there vocabulary, then I’m not sure if you should assign this to lack of creativity given that they and their ancestors were very much reliant on the Persian language esp. and its large stock of compound words when it came to poetry which is where one sees the best early Urdu works, and I’m sure their speech too was affected in a similar manner.



Thanks, Faylasoof saahib. I agree that the elite of the time who influenced the development of Urdu were certainly well-versed in Persian. Although, I would imagine the vast majority of the ancestors of eventual Urdu speakers (aside from the elite) never spoke Persian as their first language. However, this majority probably has little or no influence on the written language of the day. I suspect the elite may not have been very eager to elevate the languages of the conquered people to include in the literary discourse. Not something unique to the subcontinent, but it's the normal psyche of the conquerors. So it makes sense that Urdu started out as a way to interact and transact with the commoners (speaking khaRii bolii and other tongues), and gradually it acquired a more literary flavor.


----------



## Faylasoof

mbasit said:


> Thanks, Faylasoof saahib. I agree that the elite of the time who influenced the development of Urdu were certainly well-versed in Persian. Although, I would imagine the vast majority of the ancestors of eventual Urdu speakers (aside from the elite) never spoke Persian as their first language. However, this majority probably has little or no influence on the written language of the day. I suspect the elite may not have been very eager to elevate the languages of the conquered people to include in the literary discourse. Not something unique to the subcontinent, but it's the normal psyche of the conquerors. So it makes sense that Urdu started out as a way to interact and transact with the commoners (speaking khaRii bolii and other tongues), and gradually it acquired a more literary flavor.


 Well, I kind of agree with what you are saying in the sense that literary Urdu, as it evolved, was very much influenced by the educated elite though the vernacular language(s) continued to develope in their own way and they in turn influenced the former, just as eventually the nernacular dialects acquired words and expressions of Persian-Arabic origin. The situation for Urdu I think is no different from, say, English. Norman French had a huge impact on Old (highly Germanic) English. Modern Standard English bears a heavy stamp of Norman French (vocabulary and even some grammar) and hence also vocabulary of Latin origin, said to be about 60% of words used in English! Yet there are local dialects of English that have a distinct, non-Norman French / non-Latin vocabulary.

BTW, the "elite" didn't belong to just one relligious / social group but encompassed a quite a spread and intitially _hindavi_ / _riixtah_, and only later called _urduu_, was looked down upon by all the "elite". However, let us not forget that our base language and a very large stock of everyday vocabulary is still _khaRii Bolii_, a descendent of _Apabhramsa-__Sauraseni __Prakrit_! We could do more to make even more compound words with our Indic languages.


----------



## UrduMedium

Faylasoof said:


> Well, I kind of agree with what you are saying in the sense that literary Urdu, as it evolved, was very much influenced by the educated elite though the vernacular language(s) continued to develope in their own way and they in turn influenced the former, just as eventually the nernacular dialects acquired words and expressions of Persian-Arabic origin. The situation for Urdu I think is no different from, say, English. Norman French had a huge impact on Old (highly Germanic) English. Modern Standard English bears a heavy stamp of Norman French (vocabulary and even some grammar) and hence also vocabulary of Latin origin, said to be about 60% of words used in English! Yet there are local dialects of English that have a distinct, non-Norman French / non-Latin vocabulary.
> 
> BTW, the "elite" didn't belong to just one relligious / social group but encompassed a quite a spread and intitially _hindavi_ / _riixtah_, and only later called _urduu_, was looked down upon by all the "elite". However, let us not forget that our base language and a very large stock of everyday vocabulary is still _khaRii Bolii_, a descendent of _Apabhramsa-__Sauraseni __Prakrit_! We could do more to make even more compound words with our Indic languages.



Very insightful, Faylasoof saahib. Also thanks for the additional angle on the nature/composition of the "elite".


----------



## Qureshpor

I think this thread may also be of interest to you in connection with the topic at hand.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2191652&highlight=word+formation


----------



## UrduMedium

^ Thank you so very much for sharing this thread. I am very interested in the topic. I just quickly scanned though it. It deserves a more careful read before comment.


----------



## UrduMedium

Thought this may be of interest to this thread readers/contributors ...

Shan-ul-Haq Haqqi in his essay "Urdu alfaaz meN chhuut chhaat" (only paper copy, don't have online link) makes it a main topic of discussion that while Arabic, Persian and Turkish words have been considered OK to mix and match, Indic words have suffered this "chhoot chhaat" atttitude and have generally been not allowed to freely intermingle with foreign words. This he deems unfortunate as it limits the language's expressive power and renders large chunk of its vocabulary off-limits for new word/term creation that time demands. He makes a special point of talking about the vaav-i-3atf (as in rang-o-buu), and kasrah-i-izaafat (as in qaa'id-i-aazam), as these are widely used in Urdu. Here also he argues that the old poets felt free to intermix the words using these constructs but the later scholars of language put up barriers between Arabic/Farsi and Indic words. 

Quotes several classical poets and writers with usages like:

biiRaa-i-paaN (Sauda)
mukhRaa-o-gaal (masnavi-i-aabruu)
zan-o-bacchoN (Zahooruddin Hatim)
jhoot-o-tazveer (Mir Soz)
dukaan-o-koThe (Rajab Ali Baig Suroor)
mulk-i-bangaalah (maqalaat-i-Azaad)
kaalij-o-kameTiyaaN (maqalaat-i-Azaad)
waqt-o-masaala (Mir Nasir Ali)
gintii-o-shumaar (Mir Nasir Ali)
lab-i-taalaab (Molvi Abdul Haq, talaab not Persian)

Uses other examples from Risaala-i-Urdu vol 1934)
DeoRhi-i-mu3alla
navaaRhaa-i-Thekedaaraan
raaqim-i-chiTThii
saahib-i-chiTThii
bar'aamadah-i-baiThak-i-kalaaN
bar sabiil-i-Daak
chiTThiaat
toRaa-daar
saakh-daar
kaaNpii-naviis (copywriter)
chhaapah khaanah
khaatah-o-gavaah (in jaa'iza-i-zabaan-i-Urdu)

He argues that these examples show that such compound are not only feasible but do not sound strange/unfamiliar to an Urduphone's ears. And argues why can we not have usages such as:

lab-i-saRak
zer-i-jharokaa-i-darshan
lab-i-chabuutraa
zer-i-chhat
zer-i-laaTh

Also references some compounds of the type that survived into today's lexicons, such as

fauq-ul-bhaRak
khaTke-daar
chatxaare-daar
ugaal-daan
piik-daan
gaaRii-baan
mal-xoraa
juute-khor
dhaRe-bandii
muNh-dar-muNh
haathaa-paa'ii
dhiiNgaa-mushtii

also quotes from old Urdu, and Mughal era ..

baxshaa nahaaraa
marGholnaa
aas-mand
chabuutra-i-chuunaa
biiRaa-i-paan
gul-i-champaa
waqfa-i-yak-ghaRii
chhapar-bandii-i-durust
guR-i-xushk
akhaaRaa-i-sanyaasaan
tarkaari-i-karelaa

And quotes emperor Akbar writing in one of his letters, "iiN laaDlaa-i-man ast"

All in all, a very interesting and insightful read.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ UM SaaHib, this topic has been brought to the attention of Forum members. Please see..

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2170492&highlight=iiN+laaDlaa


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ UM SaaHib, this topic has been brought to the attention of Forum members. Please see..
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2170492&highlight=iiN+laaDlaa


 Thank you QP saahab, for the link. I wholeheartedly agree with your positions in post #3.


----------



## UrduMedium

Another example is the use of the term _galiyaat _to collectively refer to the various hilly (and beautiful) areas in Northern Pakistan, such as nathiyaa galii, ghoRaa galii, Dungaa galii, and so on.


----------

