# Urdu-Hindi: Use of iDhaafat / izaafat



## Qureshpor

*Moderator note:*

We have a number of threads discussing various aspects of _iDhaafat / izaafat_ but not one on its origin and usage. This thread is from here.



Faylasoof said:


> This is exactly how we would write it in Hindi because Hindi doesn't have the _izaafah_ system, unlike Urdu and Farsi. Having said this, the more common way to say (and write) in Urdu is also without the izaafah! So you'll hear _takyah-kalaam_ much more than _takya-e-kalaam_ even by Urduphones, including those who have had a good grounding in Persian!




Faylasoof SaaHib, aap yih kaise kah sakte haiN kih Hindi meN Urdu kii  izaafat nahiiN hai! yaqiin-an aap ne ka'ii baar Hindi filmoN ke gaanoN  meN is tarkiib kaa baar-haa isti3maal sunaa ho gaa. misaal ke taur pih..

terii pyaarii pyaarii suurat ko kisii kii nazar nah lage ..chashm-i-bad duur! (Film Sasural: 1960)
O sanam maiN teraa 3aashiq-i-jaavidaaN (from the song "ai merii zuhraa-jabiiN", Film Waqt 1965)
yuuN hii ko'ii mil gayaa thaa, sar-i-raah chlate chalte (from the song "chalte chalte", Film Pakeeza 1972)

mumkin  hai kih log kaheN kih in filmoN ko aur in gaanoN ko kaun Hindi kaa naam  de saktaa hai!? achchhaa chaliye, filmoN kaa qissah chhoR dete haiN. janaab,  izaafat to Hindustan ke qaanuun ke saaNche meN is tarH Dhalii aur  ghulii hu'ii hai jis tarH duudh meN shakkar! ta3ziiraat-i-Hind  (The Indian Penal Code) kii tarkiib to aap ne zaruur sunii ho gii. is  se baRii misaal aur kyaa dii jaa saktii hai kih 3adaalt meN jab kisii  mulzim ko sazaa dii jaatii hai to judge use qaid-i-baa mashaqqat kaa zahr pilaane se  pahle us ke kaanoN meN izaafat kaa ras gholtaa hai!

sone pih suhaagah yih hai kih greatbear SaaHib farmaate haiN kih Hindi meN bhii "takyah-i-kalaam" bartaa jaataa hai.

Huzuur, izaafat to ek chhooooTii sii chiiz hai. aap ko puure ke puure Farsi jumle Hindi meN mileN ge!

jo mere pyaar par ho shak
to kar lo saaf dil be-shak
tumhiiN se pyaar karte haiN
dariiN chih shak, dariiN chih shak*

har jalvaa teraa jalvaa terii yih dunyaa saarii
kyaa masjid kyaa but-xaanah, dil kaa mazhab dildaarii
O mii-raqsam, O mii-raqsam, O mii-raqsam!**

(Film: Harjaa'ii,1981)

maiN ne tujh se kiyaa hai pyaar
tan man mii-raqsam!**

(Film Waqt-2005)

* is meN shak kyaa hai?
** maiN naach rahaa huuN


----------



## Faylasoof

janaab QP SaaHib,

There is no _iDhaafat / izaafat_ system in Prakrit-Hindi grammar, which, as you know, exists in Persian-Urdu and that is the point I made above. I see you seem to be only confirming this:


QURESHPOR said:


> Huzuur, izaafat to ek chhooooTii sii chiiz hai. aap ko puure ke puure Farsi jumle Hindi meN mileN ge!


 I think you have just stated the obvious!

جس بات كی وضاحت میں كر رہا تھا اس كی تصدیق آپ نے خود ہی فرما دی. اضافت فارسی \ اردو كی نحوی تركیب ہے جو نہ تو پراكرت اور نہ ہندی كے قواعد میں موجود ہے. اردو\ ہندی بول چال میں یہ ضرور مستعمل ہے مگر اس كا منبع و مصدر فارسی \ اردو ہے. 

_jis baat kii waDhaaHat main kar rahaa thaa us kii taSdiiq aap ne xud hii farmaa dii. iDhaafat (izaafat)  faarsii/ urdu kii naHwii tarkiib hai jo nah to praakrit aur nah hindii ke qawaa3id meiN maujuud hai. urdu/hindii bol chaal meiN yeh Dharuur musta3mal hai magar is kaa mamba3-o-maSdar faarsii/urdu hai_.

All your examples of _iDhaafat /izaafat_ (and many more), are indeed used in the common language (the Urdu--Colloquial Hindi daily speech) and even in some written documents - mostly relics when Urdu had become the lingua franca in many parts of India, and mostly the northern regions - but they are indeed of Persian-Urdu grammatical origin!


----------



## flyinfishjoe

In Hindi, I think its mostly used in set phrases like _maidaan-e-jang, sher-e-hind, sazaa-e-maut, taziiraat-e-hind, _etc. There are many different ways that the construction is rendered:
सज़ाए मौत (this is the one I prefer),
सज़ा-ए-मौत,
सज़ा-ए मौत, and
सज़ाएमौत.


----------



## Qureshpor

flyinfishjoe said:


> In Hindi, I think its mostly used in set phrases like _maidaan-e-jang, sher-e-hind, sazaa-e-maut, taziiraat-e-hind, _etc. There are many different ways that the construction is rendered:
> सज़ाए मौत (this is the one I prefer),
> सज़ा-ए-मौत,
> सज़ा-ए मौत, and
> सज़ाएमौत.




Thank you, flyinfishjoe. If you are able to find any literary examples from a reputable author, it would be much appreciated. It would be even better if the this reputable author has employed "kitaab" or "aaindaa" in the izaafat construction!


----------



## Abu Talha

By the way, if one did not want to use the izaafat in Urdu or Hindi, wouldn't one have to switch the order of the words and use the possessive construction? That is, it can either be _sazaa-e maut_ or _maut ki sazaa_. Wouldn't _sazaa-maut _be incorrect grammatically, or do compound nouns such as this one exist in Hindi/Urdu grammar?


----------



## Faylasoof

daee said:


> By the way, if one did not want to use the izaafat in Urdu or Hindi, wouldn't one have to switch the order of the words and use the possessive construction? That is, it can either be _sazaa-e maut_ or _maut ki sazaa_. Wouldn't _sazaa-maut _be incorrect grammatically, or do compound nouns such as this one exist in Hindi/Urdu grammar?


 Yes! Without the _izaafat / iDhaafat_ we do switch the construction around, e.g. _dard-e-sar _= _sar kaa dard_, but also _sar dard_; _garaaN kitaab_ = _kitaab-e-garaaN_ (- the latter is not you'd normally use in speech or prose, but you would in poetry). Similarly, _Dharb / zarb-e-Haidarii_ = _Haidarii Dharb/ zarb_. etc. ... and yes _sazaa-maut _is incorrect!


----------



## Qureshpor

flyinfishjoe said:


> In Hindi, I think its mostly used in set phrases like _maidaan-e-jang, sher-e-hind, sazaa-e-maut, taziiraat-e-hind, _etc. There are many different ways that the construction is rendered:
> सज़ाए मौत (this is the one I prefer),
> सज़ा-ए-मौत,
> सज़ा-ए मौत, and
> सज़ाएमौत.



So, flyinfishjoe, it appears that whilst the Urdu/Persian "va/o" is present in literary Hindi, the izaafat is fossilized. Just like "juute va kapRe", I was expecting "pustak-i-bhavishya" in place of "kitaab-i-aa'indah"!


----------



## marrish

According to my rather limited readings from Hindi literature there occur many a fossilised expressions with izafat as a result of ages long cohabitation of both of the languages. To cut the story short, it is not prodUctive in Hindi anymore although it exists.


----------



## flyinfishjoe

@Qureshpor -

I think the reason why one hears constructions such as _juute va kapRe_ in Hindi is that most people are unaware of the Persian origin of the word _va_. In fact, I have met many people who, for whatever reason, think it's a contraction of the Sanskrit word _evam. _By the way, it is interesting to note that in Hindi _va_ is used even with English words and also it seems that it can represent the Roman script's ampersand (&), especially for the purposes of brevity in signs and such.


----------



## Qureshpor

In a recent thread tonyspeed SaaHib mentioned that he found Shuddh Hindi easier to understand than izaafat constructions. Unfortunately, that thread is no longer there due to the recent "crash".

....
Regarding izaafat, it is very easy tonyspeed SaaHib. There are two types of izaafat. noun-izaafat-adjective and noun-izaafat-noun

*dil-i-naadaaN* tujhe hu'aa kyaa hai (*muurakh jii...)*
aaxir is maraz kii davaa kyaa hai

Ghalib

*dil-i-paakiizah* (*pavitr man*)

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

naGhmah-*i*-firaaq (birhaa *kaa* giit)

bhar aa’e phuul ke aaNsuu payaam-*i*-shabnam se (os *ke* sandesh se)
kalii kaa nannhaa saa dil xuun ho gayaa Gham se 

Iqbal

ahl-*i*-hind (Bhaarat *ke* log)

anjuman-*i*-Urdu (Urdu *kii* sabhaa)

So, you see! It's just kaa, ke and kii!


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> In a recent thread tonyspeed SaaHib mentioned that he found Shuddh Hindi easier to understand than izaafat constructions. Unfortunately, that thread is no longer there due to the recent "crash".
> .....
> 
> Regarding izaafat, it is very easy tonyspeed SaaHib. There are two types of izaafat. noun-izaafat-adjective and noun-izaafat-noun
> 
> *dil-i-naadaaN* tujhe hu'aa kyaa hai (*muurakh jii...)*
> aaxir is maraz kii davaa kyaa hai
> 
> Ghalib
> 
> *dil-i-paakiizah* (*pavitr man*)
> 
> ............................
> 
> naGhmah-*i*-firaaq (birhaa *kaa* giit)
> 
> bhar aa’e phuul ke aaNsuu payaam-*i*-shabnam se (os *ke* sandesh se)
> kalii kaa nannhaa saa dil xuun ho gayaa Gham se
> 
> Iqbal
> 
> ahl-*i*-hind (Bhaarat *ke* log)
> 
> anjuman-*i*-Urdu (Urdu *kii* sabhaa)
> 
> So, you see! It's just kaa, ke and kii!



Although the sounds are very similar, is it more often pronounced -i- or -e-?


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> Although the sounds are very similar, is it more often pronounced -i- or -e-?


The sound is indeed "e" but the izaafat in writing (when it is written) is represented by a "zer" as in dil. I try to follow the Urdu writing system as far as I can. One could say (amongst many other examples) that we ought really write "steshan" and not "station" but English speakers also follow the written style and not the spoken one. I of course accept that writing Urdu in Roman (Latin) alphabet is not the norm but I do it so that even those unfamiliar with the Urdu script are able to follow it.


----------



## Wolverine9

That's true.  The "zer" explains why it should be -i- and dil.  It's consistent with (Iranian) Persian representing it as -e- and del.


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> That's true.  The "zer" explains why it should be -i- and dil.  It's consistent with (Iranian) Persian representing it as -e- and del.


I'm used to show izaafat by -e- and old habits die hard! As an excuse, and also for the sake of completeness let me add that izaafat is not only written as "zer" but also as "baRii ye" like in the discussed above "sazaa-e-maut". In this case -e- is compatible with both writing and speech.


----------



## marrish

......

I believe that the argument of ''ruchi'' has been used just to bring in the statement where it was asserted that izaafat were to be more difficult than Shuddh Hindi - because the other post got deleted due to the recent crash. Making use of this opportunity, let me reproduce it below so that everybody has a clear view of the situation:



			
				lambdakneit said:
			
		

> "due to the differences between our time zones, it will be hard for us to meet regularly"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alfaaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2013-03-04 00:28:20)Attempt for Urdu: بوجہ تفاوت منطقه وقت ، باقاعدگی سے ہمارا ملنا مشکل ہوگا _bawajh-e-tafaawut-e-mintaqah-e-waqt, baaqaa'idigi se humaaraa milnaa mushkil hogaa_
Click to expand...

 


			
				tonyspeed said:
			
		

> (2013-03-04 09:08:43)
> There are times when one can over use izaafat. This is harder to understand than shuddh Hindi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alfaaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to make it concise, but see how it could sound complicated. Maybe this would be better/simpler: _mintaqah-e-waqt mein tafaawut/farq ke baa'is..._
Click to expand...

 
This thread is devoted to ''IZAAFAT'' and since it was no longer possible to continue the discussion in that thread I find QP has done justly to use this place to explain the logic behind izaafat. The ''ruchi'' sentence, as far as I am concerned, was used solely to serve the comparison of the difficulty of Shudhh Hindi vs. izaafat, nothing more than that (see the first sentence of that post). To me it seems obvious that the purpose of that post was to explain izaafat in very clear terms by means of Hindi equivalents (90% of the post) and to indicate that it is in fact very easy to understand and learn, as opposed to (Shuddh) Hindi, which, even after years of study is likely to surprise one. By the way, I understand very well that an emotional reaction is justified when one is made face one's statements (Shuddh Hindi easier to understand than izaafat/I don't read Shuddh Hindi), while the relative ease of izaafat has been demonstrated (one ''word'' -e- instead of three: kaa, kii, ke).

....


----------

