# Punjabi: saNR vs san



## Qureshpor

In another thread I suggested to Alfaaz that for the verb "to be" in the 3rd person plural, the Punjabi verb is "saNR" and not "san" in the past tense. marrish SaaHib indicated that "san" is correct. A couple of questions for friends on this forum who know Punjabi..

Do you say "saNR" or "san"? Whichever happens to be your norm, can you produce any "documentary evidence" to back your manner of speech at all? I know it is not easy to provide examples but if anything can be produced from Punjabi literature so much the better. Shahmukhi, for this particular point, may not necessarily be a reliable source unless of course we know that a word like "maNR" (chaalii ser) is being rhymed with "saNR" and both are being written as "man" and "san".


----------



## ihaveacomputer

In Standard Punjabi as it is written in India, the word is written with ਨ (n), a dental nasal. "saNR" carries a different meaning. To quote from Punjabi University's Punjabi-English Dictionary....


ਸਣ (saNR)- prefix - Denoting with or including.
Ex: ਸਣ ਦੇਹੀ (saNR dehii) - Embodied, with body, alive


ਸਣ (saNR) - Noun, feminine - Hemp, brown hemp, Crotolaria Junica


Now, Standard Indian Punjabi is based upon the Majhi used in both Amritsar and Lahore. These days, it is under increasing influence from Malwai due to demographics and the literary material being produced in that dialect. "san" is definitely standard in Majhi, however.


----------



## Qureshpor

ihaveacomputer said:


> In Standard Punjabi as it is written in India, the word is written with ਨ (n), a dental nasal. "saNR" carries a different meaning. To quote from Punjabi University's Punjabi-English Dictionary....
> 
> 
> ਸਣ (saNR)- prefix - Denoting with or including.
> Ex: ਸਣ ਦੇਹੀ (saNR dehii) - Embodied, with body, alive
> 
> 
> ਸਣ (saNR) - Noun, feminine - Hemp, brown hemp, Crotolaria Junica
> 
> 
> Now, Standard Indian Punjabi is based upon the Majhi used in both Amritsar and Lahore. These days, it is under increasing influence from Malwai due to demographics and the literary material being produced in that dialect. "san" is definitely standard in Majhi, however.



Thank you for this. I am not aware of the prefix saNR but I am certainly aware of saNR (jute?) which in Urdu is called paT-san.


----------



## marrish

As you already know, I pronounce the 3rd person plural of the verb ''to be'' as _san_ - dental n. 

I don't believe that it can be called ''Urdu style''. 


While Shahmukhi is not always representative for NR - there reigns an overwhelming carelessness and sloppiness in this regard - let us look into three other scripts: Gurmukhi, Nagari and Latin:


1) To illustrate my usage, let us have a look into an excerpt from yesterday's article from Punjabi Tribune, describing the olden days harvest customs, where both forms come together:

“ਕਾਲੀ ਤਿੱਤਰੀ ਕਮਾਦੋਂ ਨਿਕਲੀ, ਉਡਦੀ ਨੂੰ ਬਾਜ ਪੈ ਗਿਆ”” ਵੀ ਗਾਇਆ ਕਰਦੇ *ਸਨ*। ਬਾਜਰਾ, ਮੱਕੀ, *ਸਣ*, ਗੁਆਰਾ, ਚਰ੍ਹੀ, ਸਰ੍ਹੋਂ, ਤਾਰਾਮੀਰਾ, ਮੂੰਗੀ ਆਦਿ ਫ਼ਸਲਾਂ ਦਾ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਸੀ। (Punjabi Tribune)
_
"kaalii tittrii kamaadoN niklii, uDdii nuuN baaj pai giaa" vii gaaiaa karde *san*. baajraa, makkii, *saNR*, guaaraa, charhii, sarhoN, taaraamiiraa, muuNgii aadi faslaaN daa zor huNdaa sii._

_"A black partridge came out of the sugarcane, a hawk got it while it was flying" used to be sung as well (lit.: 'they used to sing' - __past __3 pers. pl.). The harvest of millet, maize, jute, clusterbeans, sorghum, mustard greens, rocket, mung gram etc. used to be in full swing.
_
We see that _saNR_ means here jute, sunn hemp _(Urdu: سنئی، پٹ سن، سن sana'ii, paT san, san)_, while the auxilliary verb is _san_.

2) Punjabi article on Waris Shah's Punjabi poetry, written in Nagari, a script in which the distinction between dental and retroflex nasal can be made with ease, says (explanation of difficult words):

मौदूद: ख़ुआजा कुतब उद्दीन चिशती जिहनां दा मज़ार चशत विच है। उह हज़रत मुईन उद्दीन चिशती अज्मेरि दे दादा पीर सन ते बाबा फ़रीद उन्हां दे मुरीद बख़तिआर काकी दे मुरीद सन (Hir Waris Shah)
_
mauduud: Xuaajaa Qutab uddin Chishtii jihnaaN daa mazaar chasht vich hai. uh hazrat Mu'iin uddiin Chishtii Ajmeri de daadaa piir san te baabaa Fariid unhaaN de muriid baxtiaar kaakii de muriid san._

3) According to one of the best grammar books, using Roman transcription, the conjugation of the verb 'to be' results in _san_ in the past tense, not in _saNR, _page 384. Tej K. Bhatia - Punjabi: A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar

Edit: while working on this post I didn't notice the contributions which came there in the meantime, so some information might be redundant.


----------



## Qureshpor

It would be interesting to hear other Punjabi speakers' experience of usage of this word including Alfaaz, panjabigator SaaHib and bakshink Jii.


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> It would be interesting to hear other Punjabi speakers' experience of usage of this word including Alfaaz, panjabigator SaaHib and bakshink Jii.



OK, marrish SaaHib, lagtaa hai kih "ab yahaaN ko'ii nahiiN aa'e gaa"!

Thank you for your detailed reply and I take everything on board apart from one thing. I don't rate Mr. Bhatia too highly because he seems to have forgotten that a long long time before Gurmukhi came into the realm, Shahmukhi was being used by our Classic Punjabi poets. I do accept that a number of Grammar books give "san" as the word for "They were".

Here is the other side to the coin.

1) Please type 3) Kurtar Singh on Youtube and start listening from 02:15 onwards. You will hear two instances of this word being pronounced, both times by Zareef. 

a) akhkhaaN taras ga'iyaaN saNR (I have to admit, the pronunciation is not sharp, therefore this is not decisive)

b) bande kauNR saNR? (It is quite clear here)

2) See page 197, examples 17, 18, 19 and 20 of T.Grahame Baile/T.Cummings 's Punjabi Grammar book (1912). You will notice the retroflex in the word.*

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...GYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=panjabi grammar&f=false

3) In the Punjabi Bible (published in 1913), please see Chapter 2, verses 13 and 16. You will again notice that the word in question is not "san"*. As you know, in Shahmukhi, the NR is rarely indicated.

http://archive.org/details/newtestamentpers00brit

* In the Youtube link, I believe the word is being pronounced as "saNR", In the two books, it is written as "saaNR" and "saan". I think, we ought to take the Bible version as "saaNR" too. Now, is it possible that in speech (of one variety of Punjabi) the word is "saNR" but in writing it is "saaNR"?


----------



## Alfaaz

> It would be interesting to hear other Punjabi speakers' experience of usage of this word including Alfaaz, panjabigator SaaHib and bakshink Jii.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, marrish SaaHib, lagtaa hai kih "ab yahaaN ko'ii nahiiN aa'e gaa"!
Click to expand...

Just saw this; I have heard both pronunciations from native speakers, which is why I was confused in the other thread and the same in this thread! 

I guess it can be concluded that both forms are valid (and that it isn't Urdu style/influence) as marrish SaaHib has explained in the detailed post above and you have given examples/links in your post.....!

Note: I was hesitating to comment as I would consider my Punjabi experience weak, which is why I was asking the Punjabi expert questions about Punjabi!


----------



## marrish

Just today I heard someone uttering '_saNR_' in Punjabi, but it was not so strictly majhi speech.
As per the link in Kartar Singh, I'm even not so sure about the second occurence - my lay ears are confused. bande _kauNR saNR_ or _bande kauNR san_ - the NR of kauNR is so crisp that it seems to resound a bit longer, so that it mixes with the following word. If there is NR in saNR (or san) there, it is definitely not so crisp as the former one, IMO.

Actually I think the pronunciation of saNR may be resulting from the place of the word in the sentence or in other words, the vicinity of any NR so that the speech apparatus is readily tempted to utter NR.

Acting the devil's advocate, let me share what I read on a website under the auspices of Patiala University, which deals with another way of expressing the past tense, which, is also very common and with NR:



> Various forms of past tense auxiliary verb ਸੀ sī are – ਸੀ sī (applicable for all three persons and both the numbers), ਸਾਂ sāṃ (singular and plural numbers for first person), *ਸਨ san* (plural third person), ਸੋ sō (plural second person), ਸੈਂ saiṃ (singular second person). Some less frequently used forms of ਸੀ sī are – ਸਓ saō, ਸਾਓ sāō, and ਸਉ sau. These three forms are used with second person plural subjects in sentences. ਹੈਸੀ haisī and *ਹੈਸਣ haisaṇ* are two past tense auxiliary verbs used respectively with singular and plural forms of third persons. These forms, like the forms of ਹੈ hai and ਸੀ sī, can be used with both the genders.  http://www.learnpunjabi.org/Verb.html


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I am surprised that you do not feel that Kirtar Singh's second example was not so conclusive. Your reference above confirms the existence of "saaNR" as found in Bailey's book and the Bible.

Now to the crunch! In my speech for "They were there", I would say, "O othe saNR". If I wished to make this emphatic:

"They *were* there!" I would say  "O othe *haisaNR*!"

So, I believe my "saNR" has been vindicated!


----------



## marrish

Perhaps it is my mind not wanting to accept it !
My reference confirms _saNR_ but not _saaNR_, and I've never heard it spoken like this, with a long vowel. It depends possibly on the underlying dialect substratum.

janaab-e vaalaa, in my speech it would be the same with the only difference that I'd say _ó otthe san_ - without NR, but surely _ó otthe haisaNR_! Finally some agreement here!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Perhaps it is my mind not wanting to accept it !
> My reference confirms _saNR_ but not _saaNR_, and I've never heard it spoken like this, with a long vowel. It depends possibly on the underlying dialect substratum.
> 
> janaab-e vaalaa, in my speech it would be the same with the only difference that I'd say _ó otthe san_ - without NR, but surely _ó otthe haisaNR_! Finally some agreement here!



Well, Bailey and the Bible confirm its existence!
Very strange! You reject saNR, one moment and accept it the next! Why not haisan?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Well, Bailey and the Bible confirm its existence!
> Very strange! You reject saNR, one moment and accept it the next! Why not haisan?


I agree, the existence of saaNR is confirmed (we don't really know if it is retroflex in the Bible, but I think it is), but I don't know which dialects were considered as standard by the translators around that time.

Why not _haisan_? I don't know. I just don't say it this way!


----------



## Qureshpor

Please type on Youtube "03 of 10 Mirza Sultan Baig" and listen from 06:20-06:25

lok hasde honde saNR, xush honde saNR..

In 4 at 08:12 do f_hiimii sutte saNR

In 6 at 00:15 o aaNdhe saNR

In 9 at 04:17 kahNR laggaa noN saNR


----------



## marrish

There remains no doubt the _saNR_ form exist alongwith _san_, thank you for the evidence. Point taken! The discussion has completed its circle to come back to the point of origin, being the instance from Alfaaz jii's thread. As an audio evidence of san, let me offer the following YT reference (type: munir niazi: schemes of fate: reading منیر نیازی: ہونی دے حیلے). For him it is _san_.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> There remains no doubt the _saNR_ form exist alongwith _san_, thank you for the evidence. Point taken! The discussion has completed its circle to come back to the point of origin, being the instance from Alfaaz jii's thread. As an audio evidence of san, let me offer the following YT reference (type: munir niazi: schemes of fate: reading منیر نیازی: ہونی دے حیلے). For him it is _san_.



I am not sure if this was the poet himself. Either way, it does n't matter. We are in agreement that both saNR and san exist. Here is my dahlaa upon your nahlaa! Go to bottom of page 2.

http://www.veengle.com/s/muneer niazi.html


----------



## panjabigator

Great question, Qureshpor Sahib. I've never heard "saNR," or perhaps it could be that I never gave it much thought. I almost never hear "saNR" from Indian Punjabi speakers, though I mainly interact with Malvai speakers. I have heard "san" for the 3rd person plural and that from a Majhi speaker from Delhi (roots in Lahore). ਸਣੇ for me means نال, though a much more bookish sounding word. Never heard it in speech...yet.

I haven't heard "haisaNR," but have heard "hai si" and "haigaa siigaa."


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> Great question, Qureshpor Sahib. I've never heard "saNR," or perhaps it could be that I never gave it much thought. I almost never hear "saNR" from Indian Punjabi speakers, though I mainly interact with Malvai speakers. I have heard "san" for the 3rd person plural and that from a Majhi speaker from Delhi (roots in Lahore). ਸਣੇ for me means نال, though a much more bookish sounding word. Never heard it in speech...yet.
> 
> I haven't heard "haisaNR," but have heard "hai si" and "haigaa siigaa."



Yes, we do use ਸਣੇ for "samet".


----------



## panjabigator

Really? Is ਸਣੇ spoken Punjabi for you? As I've said, I've only read it. Never heard it.


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> Really? Is ਸਣੇ spoken Punjabi for you? As I've said, I've only read it. Never heard it.



Well, PB SaaHib, I am a bit of a "fake" Punjabi compared with the "real" ones. As I have mentioned in the past, my mother's side of the family speak what I would describe as "unadulterated" or "uninfluenced" Punjabi. So, they most certainly use "saNRe" but I have grown up to use "samet" because of my schooling, location etc.


----------

