# Urdu, Hindi: "fodnaa"



## Qureshpor

Today I came across this word being used in this Forum. I thought I would avoid off-topic comments there and start a new thread. Context is the following phrase..

"Kahe patthar se apnaa sir fodnaa"

The word I am particularly struggling with is "fodnaa". If any Forum friends from Urdu or Hindi background are able to assist, I shall be most grateful. Is it a slang or colloquial term? I certainly don't remember ever hearing or reading this word before. Please write the word in Urdu and/or Devanagri alphabet to assist with the explanation. I appreciate that "Roman" is neither the alphabet for Hindi nor Urdu, so misunderstandings can occur.

From what I can understand someone is talking to a stone about his/her head (?)

As usual, any literary examples would be icing on the cake.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Today I came across this word being used in this Forum. I thought I would avoid off-topic comments there and start a new thread. Context is the following phrase..  "Kahe patthar se apnaa sir fodnaa"  The word I am particularly struggling with is "fodnaa". If any Forum friends from Urdu or Hindi background are able to assist, I shall be most grateful. Is it a slang or colloquial term? I certainly don't remember ever hearing or reading this word before. Please write the word in Urdu and/or Devanagri alphabet to assist with the explanation. I appreciate that "Roman" is neither the alphabet for Hindi nor Urdu, so misunderstandings can occur.  From what I can understand someone is talking to a stone about his/her head (?)  As usual, any literary examples would be icing on the cake.


   H پهوڙنا फोड़ना phoṛnā [caus. of phūṭnā;—phoṛ˚ = Prk. फोड(इ) or फोडे(इ)=S. स्फोटय(ति) caus. of rt. स्फुट्], v.t. To break, crack, split, burst open, break open, break to pieces, to shatter;


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> H *پهوڙنا फोड़ना* phoṛnā [caus. of phūṭnā;—phoṛ˚ = Prk. फोड(इ) or फोडे(इ)=S. स्फोटय(ति) caus. of rt. स्फुट्], v.t. To break, crack, split, burst open, break open, break to pieces, to shatter;


Two birds with one stone! Otherwise, 

http://dict.hinkhoj.com/words/meaning-of-FODNA-in-hindi.html
यह शब्द (FODNA) अभी हमारे डाटाबेस मे नही है । संभावित शब्द : fonda का मतलब निचे है


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Today I came across this word being used in this Forum. I thought I would avoid off-topic comments there and start a new thread. Context is the following phrase..
> 
> "Kahe patthar se apnaa sir fodnaa"
> 
> The word I am particularly struggling with is "fodnaa". If any Forum friends from Urdu or Hindi background are able to assist, I shall be most grateful. Is it a slang or colloquial term? I certainly don't remember ever hearing or reading this word before. Please write the word in Urdu and/or Devanagri alphabet to assist with the explanation. I appreciate that "Roman" is neither the alphabet for Hindi nor Urdu, so misunderstandings can occur.
> 
> From what I can understand someone is talking to a stone about his/her head (?)
> 
> As usual, any literary examples would be icing on the cake.



I have ''researched'' this topic further and I think I can answer one of your questions positively. It does indeed appear to be a slang or colloquial term. I'm sorry for not being able to provide any literary example for this, but I hope this one will do:

Reply: hahaha anda kina tauko ma fodna. http://v.mig33.com/u/sanjibkumargt/post/168508196-1364438800506

I am unable to recognize this language but it seems to be an Indic one.

Otherwise, on YouTube, you can consult this gem: BHAI BHAI KA SINA NA FODNA, at 1:23


----------



## greatbear

Post no. 2 has already explained "fodnaa", QP: any further questions?

Platts here, Caturvedi here, and Bahri here. Just because you don't know a word doesn't, unfortunately, make it slang, heh heh.

Meanwhile, the first word in the sentence you have taken should be "kaahe", not "kahe": "kaahe" meaning "kyoN". "sir" is also spoken like "sar", in case you don't know this word as well.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> H پهوڙنا फोड़ना phoṛnā [caus. of phūṭnā;—phoṛ˚ = Prk. फोड(इ) or फोडे(इ)=S. स्फोटय(ति) caus. of rt. स्फुट्], v.t. To break, crack, split, burst open, break open, break to pieces, to shatter;


Thank you for this TS. It looks as if "khodaa pahaaR niklaa chuuhaa"! But how can this reference be given any semblance of authority when the source of the quote "Kahe patthar se apnaa sir fodnaa" has no faith in this dictionary? Surely, you must remember when he addressed you in the following words..


greatbear said:


> If Platts says so, that becomes reality? Laughable, indeed. You are welcome to live in your Platts-defined world, but I prefer to live in the actual world. [...]


Same sentiment is being expressed here but nevertheless on this occasion (and not the only occasion) it suits our source to put the same old Platts to good use!


greatbear said:


> The often-quoted Platts, which to some here is _the _authority whenever it suits them and which is an Urdu-Hindi dictionary and not an Arabic one, says "garden" also as the meaning of "jannat", not just paradise. Here: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:736.platts ..[...]



And how can one equate "fodnaa" with "phoRnaa"?! "F" for "ph" is understandable due to the source's manner of speech but how can a dental "d" be equivalent to a retroflex "R" as in pahaaR? Even if one came across "foDnaa"(where D is for "Duubnaa"), that would be closer to "phoRnaa". "fodnaa" takes a huge leap of faith on the part of the reader to interpret it as "phoRnaa". None of the sources quoted (including Platts for the second time!!) have "fodnaa" as their entry.

It would be interesting to hear from other Hindi speakers how they would pronounce and write "phoRnaa" in Roman. Would you write and pronounce it as "fodnaa"?

What has become clear is that we are not likely to find "fodnaa" in any piece of literature. Oh yes, one more thing is clear. The first word is "kaahe" and not "kahe". I did follow "sir" because in my opening post I said, "From what I can understand someone is talking to a stone about his/her *head* (?)"


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I have ''researched'' this topic further and I think I can answer one of your questions positively. It does indeed appear to be a slang or colloquial term. I'm sorry for not being able to provide any literary example for this, but I hope this one will do:
> 
> Reply: hahaha anda kina tauko ma fodna. http://v.mig33.com/u/sanjibkumargt/post/168508196-1364438800506
> 
> I am unable to recognize this language but it seems to be an Indic one.
> 
> Otherwise, on YouTube, you can consult this gem: BHAI BHAI KA SINA NA FODNA, at 1:23


Thank marrish SaaHib. I too have no idea what the language is. But "fodnaa" is certainly there. Thank you for the video reference too. At least in the video link we have a "D" and not a "d" in the title piece.


----------



## greatbear

^ No, it is still "R": but I do not venerate transliteration as you do. Just as Chhatr wrote "kii" some days back and you pounced on him even though you knew he meant "ki"/"keh" - you don't get it into your head that transliteration is not the objective of most members' joining this thread, and most of us can understand each other without that. I guess you can also; but you only like to create mischief: otherwise, what is the point of quoting my very old posts regarding Platts, both of them taken out of context?
You will probably lead to another thread's closure: this one will be ok, as you yourself started it with maybe not too innocent a motive.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank marrish SaaHib. I too have no idea what the language is. But "fodnaa" is certainly there. Thank you for the video reference too. At least in the video link we have a "D" and not a "d" in the title piece.


Another interesting fact is that the person sings ´phoRnaa´, not ´fodnaa´.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> ^ No, it is still "R": but I do not venerate transliteration as you do. Just as Chhatr wrote "kii" some days back and you pounced on him even though you knew he meant "ki"/"keh" [..]





Alfaaz said:


> Not necessarily. It would depend on the speaker and context. "baat aise hai keh" could probably also be added to your list. Just to clarify, it is کہ _keh_ in all of these examples and not کی _kii_.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Post no. 2 has already explained "fodnaa", QP: any further questions?  Platts here, Caturvedi here, and Bahri here. Just because you don't know a word doesn't, unfortunately, make it slang, heh heh.  Meanwhile, the first word in the sentence you have taken should be "kaahe", not "kahe": "kaahe" meaning "kyoN". "sir" is also spoken like "sar", in case you don't know this word as well.


  GB ji. kaahe is braj bhaashaa is it not?


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> "F" for "ph" is understandable due to the source's manner of speech but how can a dental "d" be equivalent to a retroflex "R" as in pahaaR? Even if one came across "foDnaa"(where D is for "Duubnaa"), that would be closer to "phoRnaa". "fodnaa" takes a huge leap of faith on the part of the reader to interpret it as "phoRnaa". None of the sources quoted (including Platts for the second time!!) have "fodnaa" as their entry.  It would be interesting to hear from other Hindi speakers how they would pronounce and write "phoRnaa" in Roman. Would you write and pronounce it as "fodnaa"?




 I'm surpised you don't know that in aam Romanised Hindi, d is often used to represent R.  Hence, laRkii is written ladki. joRii is written jodi.  

I'm sure you are aware of this fact. Writing it as 'r' will confuse some  into thinking it is an r sound. The capitalisation scheme is only used  on this forum as far as I can tell.

Some words in Hindi will even be pronounced both as R and as D. One such word is DhooNDhnaa / DhooRhnaa. Another such word is aRiyal, which I have heard as aDiyal.
There has been a history of jumping between this two it seems.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I'm surpised you don't know that in aam Romanised Hindi, d is often used to represent R.  Hence, laRkii is written ladki. joRii is written jodi.
> 
> I'm sure you are aware of this fact. Writing it as 'r' will confuse some  into thinking it is an r sound. The capitalisation scheme is only used  on this forum as far as I can tell.
> 
> Some words in Hindi will even be pronounced both as R and as D. One such word is DhooNDhnaa / DhooRhnaa. Another such word is aRiyal, which I have heard as aDiyal.
> There has been a history of jumping between this two it seems.


How does one write in "aam Romanised Hindi", the word for a donkey and the word for a ditch? Just as you have shown concerns in another thread over the word "*chhuut*" being taken for "*chuut*" when correct consonants are not written, are you not also anxious if the well known opening sentence of a beautiful song is written as "abhii nah jaa'o *chod* kar kih dil abhii bharaa bahiiN"?!

Who is asking anyone to write with an "r"? Capital letters for retroflexes are most certainly  used out this Forum*. But, this discussion is taking place here within this Forum, where, as you have rightly pointed out, capital letters are used for this purpose. 

So? What if a very few words can be both with a D for Dol and R in pakoRaa? I don't know how common the examples you have provided are in Hindi but in Urdu the first one is DhuuNDnaa and the second, aRiyal.

* Please read post 7 of this thread by Raj Kumar "Qais".

https://groups.google.com/group/alt...ead/23ec10ed0d68f353?tvc=1&q=Raj+Kumar+D+or+R

Nita ji: 

maiN aap ke muKhtasar se savaal ka javaab mufassil taur se de rahaa hooN. is liye, aap mera javaab zaraa khulaa vaqt nikaal kar paRhiye ga!   ) 

There are, in fact, two reasons why I called the "coming together of these two sounds in a single word "unfortunate” (!). 

The first reason is precisely the way you have written the two examples I had quoted. In each of these, you have used the same letter “D” to depict two sounds that are pretty different. If one considers the distinction between these two sounds as insignificant, then the matter finishes right here; we don't even have to discuss it any further. On the other hand, if this difference is significant (which, to me, is quite obvious) then we are indeed obliged to discuss it further. 

For this, let me start with another example. There are two words in Urdu-Hindi that are commonly used to refer to an 'old man'. One is 'buDDha' --- please don't think for a moment that I am injecting my mother-tongue here, for you well know that famous Hindi song "maiN kya karooN raam, mujhe ...... mil gayaa". 

Now please concentrate on the sound depicted by the letter 'D' in the word above..........and go over to the other word, which you'll write as 'booDha' but I'll write as 'booRha'. Why? Because, by all means, the sound here is NOT the same as the one there; this sound, in fact, screams for the use of a different letter to depict it. So much so that, in the Urdu alphabet itself, these two sounds are represented by two different letters. Let me reproduce for you the relevant portion of that alphabet: 
-------- 
daal, Daal, zaal 
re, Re, ze, zhe 
-------- 
From the very way these letter appear in the Urdu alphabet, it seems natural to me that we use 'D' for one of these sounds and 'R' for the other. Even in the Hindi alphabet, they distinguish between these two sounds by writing a plain 'Da' for the former and sticking a 'biNdi' underneath it to depict the latter. Then, why shouldn't we honour this distinction while using Roman script? And, luckily, the choice is there! 

In any case, you are not the first one to use the letter “D” for this dual purpose. English newspapers in India have been doing it for a long time. My hunch is that the people who started this usage were either ignorant of the Urdu/Hindi alphabets or were not so concerned about the subtleties of the sounds that appear in words such as 'aDambar' on one hand and 'aRaNga' on the other or were simply too anglicized to care! Luckily, I don't belong to any of those classes.   ) 

The second reason why I used the word 'unfortunate' in my note has nothing to do with transliteration. It is related to the question of 'lataafat' that makes Urdu one of the most pleasing languages in the world. My thesis is that this 'lataafat' in the 'lab-o-laihja' of the Urdu language comes from a small number of 'silky-soft' sounds in its 
alphabet --- and definitely 'Daal' and 'Re' are NOT in that list!!!I would like to dwell on this question in some detail but the present letter has already become too long. So, may be, I'll come back to this question some other time. 

In the meantime, I hope you'll consider my reasoning dispassionately and will see through the point I have tried to make. You may still continue to use 'D' for depicting these two sounds; I assure you I'll never hold it against you!   ) 

In any case, even in my original letter to Abida Saahiba, I never stressed that she must use 'R' instead of 'D' to write 'bigaRta'. All I said was that this is the way I prefer to do and why. I am glad that your query gave me a chance to put forward my point at even a greater length. 

Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> From the very way these letter appear in the Urdu alphabet, it seems  natural to me that we use 'D' for one of these sounds and 'R' for the  other. Even in the Hindi alphabet, they distinguish between these two  sounds by writing a plain 'Da' for the former and sticking a 'biNdi'  underneath it to depict the latter. Then, why shouldn't we honour this  distinction while using Roman script? And, luckily, the choice is there!
> 
> In any case, you are not the first one to use the letter “D” for this  dual purpose. English newspapers in India have been doing it for a long  time. My hunch is that the people who started this usage were either  ignorant of the Urdu/Hindi alphabets or were not so concerned about the  subtleties of the sounds that appear in words such as 'aDambar' on one  hand and 'aRaNga' on the other or were simply too anglicized to care!  Luckily, I don't belong to any of those classes.   )



there are two d's in Hindi.
There is the 'r' sound.
Then there are the flaps. There is no good way to represent Hindi with standard roman letters easily.

Maybe, they should have used 'r', but it is the opinion of many Indians that the flaps are closer to D in sound than to r.

As far as this capitalisation scheme we are using, it is convenient for this forum where correctness is a concern, but
in reality it also breaks the standard rules of English which already reserves capitals for certain nouns and the first letter
in a sentence. In the real world, where communication is interpreted, I don't think it makes much of a difference. If you already know Hindi,
you will understand what is written. It only helps those who don't know Hindi.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> GB ji. kaahe is braj bhaashaa is it not?



It is, TS.


----------



## greatbear

This forum doesn't dictate how to transliterate: when I write to my friends outside this forum in romanised Hindi, I invariably use "d" for all "d", "D" and "R" - because those friends know Hindi and they will know what to read. When I use this forum, I try to use distinct letters to transliterate, just so that a Hindi learner is not confused - that does not mean that I or any other member is under some compulsion to represent these sounds by only these letters. Hence, I sometimes write using the usual roman conventions, not this forum-specific ones: but when certain people don't have much to say otherwise on this forum, they try to attack people's transliteration choices. That's very unfortunate; thankfully, all Hindi and most Urdu speakers will be able to see right through the intentions of such people.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> there are two d's in Hindi. There is the 'r' sound. Then there are the flaps. There is no good way to represent Hindi with standard roman letters easily.


There may not be a perfect way to represent Hindi and Urdu sounds in normal abc but it is still possible to employ them to achieve least amount of ambiguity. We can still write "gadhaa" for a donkey "Dhaal" for a shield and "gaRhaa" for a ditch.


tonyspeed said:


> Maybe, they should have used 'r', but it is the opinion of many Indians that the flaps are closer to D in sound than to r.


"r" is certainly no good for the flap because it will cause confusion whether to read it as an "r" in "koraa" (plain) or a flap as in "koraa" (whip). Here "koRaa" would remove the ambiguity.


tonyspeed said:


> As far as this capitalisation scheme we are using, it is convenient for this forum where correctness is a concern, but in reality it also breaks the standard rules of English which already reserves capitals for certain nouns and the first letter in a sentence. In the real world, where communication is interpreted, I don't think it makes much of a difference. If you already know Hindi, you will understand what is written. It only helps those who don't know Hindi.


It seems that this logic about English language’s use of capital letters does not apply to “chhuut” which you prefer to use “CH” and offer a lengthy explanation for its utterance. You have done the same in the “contagion” thread. One thing worth noting is that the discussion is not about how English is written but why “fodnaa” should be read as “phoRnaa”. In the quotes given below, the emphasis is mine.


tonyspeed said:


> By extension, what if they pronounce *CHuut* as chuut?
> 
> Then "chuut kii biimaarii" takes on a completely different connotation.





tonyspeed said:


> tch will not help you to say *CH* vs ch. *CH* is aspirated, meaning a gust of air comes out of the mouth, and ch is non-aspirated, meaning no gust of air comes out the mouth. This has to be learnt by controlling your lungs and muscles. (And for non-Desis this usually means holding something over your mouth as well to measure the flow of air) No script will help you whether it's tsh, ch, xch. This concept is completely foreign to English and most other non-South Asian languages.
> 
> *CHuut* with strong aspiration means contagion or something that makes impure. chuut is a vulgar word for the female reproductive organ. [...]


But it’s not as if the retroflexes “T” “D” and “R” have not been employed constructively.


greatbear said:


> [...] After all, even though "gaan*D*" is a word vulgar to the extreme..[...]





greatbear said:


> Except in the nurse example, "pichhvaa*R*aa" would be a perfectly fine word, and not just making it up: it's a very common word for "bottom/ass". I can't see what can one use in the nurse example: she would just say "apne aap ko zaraa u*Th*aaiye" according to me rather than "lift your bottom up ...".





greatbear said:


> For me, "udhar se pa*Rh*naa shuruu karo" is also fine; that is, if someone were to say it, I wouldn't even notice it.


But we are often told that this forum is to help learners of the language. How on Earth is a newcomer to Hindi going to know that by "fodnaa", the writer really means "phoRnaa"?

Last but not least, here is a classic quote, albeit the *Dh *for *Dh*uuNDnaa, is being used for *Rh*. It’s another matter that English convention for employing capital letters in particular cases is not been adhered to.


tonyspeed said:


> pakistani log devanagari nahiiN pa*Dh* sakte jaise seb laal hote haiN. [..]


----------

