# Urdu-Persian: kaam-yaab/naa-kaam



## Qureshpor

In Urdu, "kaam-yaab" normally means "successful" and its opposite is "naa-kaam" (unsuccessful). I have seen someone write "naa-kaamyaab" in another forum. Whilst to my mind there is nothing wrong with this and it is technically quite correct, have you come across "naa-kaamyaab" in speech or writing? Can you think of more words in which the second part of the compound is dropped after the "naa" prefix?


----------



## UrduMedium

I have not heard _naa-kaam-yaab_. Although, I agree that -_yaab _is there in spirit. Should be an example of Hazf (omission).

A close parallel I can think of is between _naam-war_ and _be-naam_.


----------



## hungariansikh

used too: naakaam, asafal, birthaa, wiarth for a man: bekaar,fokaT,,


----------



## hungariansikh

its better to write some sentence


----------



## Qureshpor

Another one that comes to mind is "saaz-gaar" and "naa-saaz".


----------



## marrish

A good observation, indeed. 
All I can think of is:

سمجھ دار samajh-daar / نا سمجھ naa-samajh, تربیت یافتہ tarbiyyat-yaaftah / نا تربیت naa-tarbiyyat, _شکر گزار shukr-guzaar_ / _نا شکر naa-shukr۔_


----------



## marrish

hungariansikh said:


> used too: naakaam, asafal, birthaa, wiarth for a man: bekaar,fokaT,,



_naa-kaam_ is what is introduced in the opening post; the remaining words are not Persian or Urdu words, well with the exception of one, which is indeed a good contribution, IMHO. 

_کارآمد kaar-aamad_ / _بیکار be-kaar_. Would this pair fit into the pattern under consideration?


----------



## searcher123

QURESHPOR said:


> In Urdu, "kaam-yaab" normally means "successful" and its opposite is "naa-kaam" (unsuccessful). I have seen someone write "naa-kaamyaab" in another forum. Whilst to my mind there is nothing wrong with this and it is technically quite correct, have you come across "naa-kaamyaab" in speech or writing? Can you think of more words in which the second part of the compound is dropped after the "naa" prefix?



In modern Persian we will not use ناكامياب at at all. ناكام is correct.



QURESHPOR said:


> Another one that comes to mind is "saaz-gaar" and "naa-saaz".



In modern Persian ناسازگار or نساز are correct.



marrish said:


> A good observation, indeed.
> All I can think of is:
> 
> سمجھ دار samajh-daar / نا سمجھ naa-samajh, تربیت یافتہ tarbiyyat-yaaftah / نا تربیت naa-tarbiyyat, _شکر گزار shukr-guzaar_ / _نا شکر naa-shukr۔_



I have not heard سمجه‌دار and ناسمجه in Modern Persian to now. Also تربيت يافته is با تربيت and ناتربيت is بي‌تربيت in modern Persian. شكرگزار and ناشكر are the same in Modern Persian.


----------



## marrish

searcher123 said:


> *I have not heard سمجه‌دار and ناسمجه in Modern Persian to now*. Also تربيت يافته is با تربيت and ناتربيت is بي‌تربيت in modern Persian. شكرگزار and ناشكر are the same in Modern Persian.



No wonder you haven't heard them in Modern Persian as these words are Urdu words that are not shared with Persian.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

UrduMedium said:


> . Although, I agree that -_yaab _is there in spirit. Should be an example of Hazf (omission).



I kind of don't agree with this. There is no _7adhf_ here. 

The basic word is *kaam* (wish, desire in Persian, by the way one of those words shared by Persian and Sanskrit, i.e. _Kaama Suutra_):

1. it is used with a positive suffix: *kaam-yaab* (= having 'obtained' his wish)
2. Or with a negative prefix: *naa-kaam* (= not fulfilling his wish)

Therefore, there is no need for any other word, and _*naa-kaam-yaab*_ jaise 3ajoobah-e rozgaar makhluuqaat, would be to say the least redundant, if not contradictory. (Having / not having fulfilled his wish in the same word).

I think Urdu is really consistent in creating such compound words and it is one strength of the language, it is very efficient in this regard, as many examples have been given above. Other example:    _*3aqal-mand*_ > _*be-3aqal*_, etc... and no one would consider _*be-3aqal-mand*_ a proper word or even making sense.

Linguistic freak words such as _*naa-kaam-yaab*_ come into existence in a generation out of touch with the genius of Urdu, i.e. the Persian language and its handy mechanisms when it comes to creating compound words. 

A last remark, I really think by the way that all the different ways of creating compound words that have originated from Farsii and Arabic (ex. the specifically Arabic compound _*jaliil-ul qadar*_), have been so easily adopted in Urdu for a very simple reason: all these types of compound words and even more were present in Sanskrit, which possesses, IMHO, the ultimate word-compounding system in known languages (a glimpse here).


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I kind of don't agree with this. There is no _7adhf_ here.
> 
> The basic word is *kaam* (wish, desire in Persian, by the way one of those words shared by Persian and Sanskrit, i.e. _Kaama Suutra_):
> 
> 1. it is used with a positive suffix: *kaam-yaab* (= having 'obtained' his wish)
> 2. Or with a negative prefix: *naa-kaam* (= not fulfilling his wish)
> 
> Therefore, there is no need for any other word, and _*naa-kaam-yaab*_ jaise 3ajoobah-e rozgaar makhluuqaat, would be to say the least redundant, if not contradictory. (Having / not having fulfilled his wish in the same word).


Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, On the whole I am in agreement with you but I do not feel that "naa-kaam" on its own unambiguously means "unsuccessful". daanaa > naa-daan is fine. The reason, I suppose is that "daan" is a verb whereas "kaam" is a noun. Having said all this, one does have "naa-ummiid", "naa-insaaf", "naa-ahl".

From "tajribah-kaar", can we have "naa-tajribah"?


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

QURESHPOR said:


> From "tajribah-kaar", can we have "naa-tajribah"?



I think we should! It totally works. If _*be-tajribah*_  makes sense (although it is not used), what would be wrong with _*naa-tajribah*_.

 As far as the word (_*naa-tajribah-kaar*_) is concerned, it's been recently coined in order to have an Urdu equivalent to the English word '_inexperienced_'. Then we got used to it and started thinking it was a well-formed word, while it is not. I think this word is still an exception and that one of its element is redundant. 

I guess most of the new words which will be created in Urdu in the future will follow the pattern of English words and not Persian anymore... if English doesn't replace Urdu altogether.


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I think we should! It totally works. If _*be-tajribah*_  makes sense (although it is not used), what would be wrong with _*naa-tajribah*_.
> 
> As far as the word (_*naa-tajribah-kaar*_) is concerned, it's been recently coined in order to have an Urdu equivalent to the English word '_inexperienced_'. Then we got used to it and started thinking it was a well-formed word, while it is not. I think this word is still an exception and that one of its element is redundant.
> 
> I guess most of the new words which will be created in Urdu in the future will follow the pattern of English words and not Persian anymore... if English doesn't replace Urdu altogether.



tajribah-kaar is found in Steingass and in Persian writings. So, I don't believe this has come about with our association with the British.


----------



## marrish

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I think we should! It totally works. If _*be-tajribah*_  makes sense (although it is not used), what would be wrong with _*naa-tajribah*_.
> 
> As far as the word (_*naa-tajribah-kaar*_) is concerned, it's been recently coined in order to have an Urdu equivalent to the English word '_inexperienced_'. Then we got used to it and started thinking it was a well-formed word, while it is not. I think this word is still an exception and that one of its element is redundant.
> 
> I guess most of the new words which will be created in Urdu in the future will follow the pattern of English words and not Persian anymore... if English doesn't replace Urdu altogether.



_be-tajribah_ definitely makes sense, but _ naa-tajribah _does even more so since it is listed by Platts. The concept of recentness is relative so one can consider the work of Platts as recent, in terms of the language, but Platts has _naa-tajribah-kaar_ as well:
_

*nā-tajriba, or **nā-tajriba-kār, adj. Inexperienced:
*
_We ought to include this piece of information as at least one instance which hints towards not being redundant of the suffixes when preceded by prefix _naa_-.


----------



## marrish

Cilquiestsuens said:


> I kind of don't agree with this. There is no _7adhf_ here.
> 
> The basic word is *kaam* (wish, desire in Persian, by the way one of those words shared by Persian and Sanskrit, i.e. _Kaama Suutra_):
> 
> 1. it is used with a positive suffix: *kaam-yaab* (= having 'obtained' his wish)
> 2. Or with a negative prefix: *naa-kaam* (= not fulfilling his wish)
> 
> Therefore, there is no need for any other word, and _*naa-kaam-yaab*_ jaise 3ajoobah-e rozgaar makhluuqaat, would be to say the least redundant, if not contradictory. (Having / not having fulfilled his wish in the same word).
> 
> I think Urdu is really consistent in creating such compound words and it is one strength of the language, it is very efficient in this regard, as many examples have been given above. Other example:    _*3aqal-mand*_ > _*be-3aqal*_, etc... and no one would consider _*be-3aqal-mand*_ a proper word or even making sense.
> 
> Linguistic freak words such as _*naa-kaam-yaab*_ come into existence in a generation out of touch with the genius of Urdu, i.e. the Persian language and its handy mechanisms when it comes to creating compound words.
> 
> A last remark, I really think by the way that all the different ways of creating compound words that have originated from Farsii and Arabic (ex. the specifically Arabic compound _*jaliil-ul qadar*_), have been so easily adopted in Urdu for a very simple reason: all these types of compound words and even more were present in Sanskrit, which possesses, IMHO, the ultimate word-compounding system in known languages (a glimpse here).



I appreciate the explanation about the word itself (_kaam_) and I agree generally with the remarks about Urdu compound words. (3aqal -> *3aql*)
I don't agree with the strong rebuttal of ''*naa-kaam-yaab*''.

_matlab  kii  justujuu  ne  kyaa  Haal  kar  diyaa
Hasrat bhii ab nahiiN *dil-e-naa-kaam-yaab* meN
*naa-kaamiyoN* se kaam rahaa 3umr-bhar hameN
piirii meN yaas hai jo  hawas thii shabaab meN
_
Momin Khan ''Momin'' (born 1801)

We see that the poet covers both _naa-kaam-yaab_ and _naa-kaam-ii_. Besides the word *naa-kaam-yaab* appears in the Persian online lexicon Dehkhoda (I'd like to have the opinion of Persian experts on this lexicon).

I'd tend to consider Momin as a person fluent in Persian and well aware of the genius of Urdu.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I appreciate the explanation about the word itself (_kaam_) and I agree generally with the remarks about Urdu compound words. (3aqal -> *3aql*)
> I don't agree with the strong rebuttal of ''*naa-kaam-yaab*''.
> 
> _matlab kii justujuu ne kyaa Haal kar diyaa
> Hasrat bhii ab nahiiN *dil-e-naa-kaam-yaab* meN
> *naa-kaamiyoN* se kaam rahaa 3umr-bhar hameN
> piirii meN yaas hai jo hawas thii shabaab meN
> _
> Momin Khan ''Momin'' (born 1801)
> 
> We see that the poet covers both _naa-kaam-yaab_ and _naa-kaam-ii_. Besides the word *naa-kaam-yaab* appears in the Persian online lexicon Dehkhoda (I'd like to have the opinion of Persian experts on this lexicon).
> 
> I'd tend to consider Momin as a person fluent in Persian and well aware of the genius of Urdu.



marrish SaaHib, thank you for finding this gem of a piece of "evidence". Platts and Dehkhoda in general and Momin in particular exonerate those people who might wish to use the "naa" prefix with the full compound. It does appear that "naa-kaamyaab" , "naa-saazgaar", "naa-tajribahkaar" and the like are all technically correct even if one is more familiar and comfortable when "naa" is added to the truncated compound. 

So, UrduMedium SaaHib, you were absolutely right all the time. "yaab" is not only present in "spirit" but also in "body". And our guide is no less than a man for whose one couplet, Ghalib was prepared to give away his whole diivaan!

tum mere paas hote ho goyaa
jab ko'ii duusraa nahiiN hotaa


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> ... And our guide is no less than a man for whose one couplet, Ghalib was prepared to give away his whole diivaan!
> 
> tum mere paas hote ho goyaa
> jab ko'ii duusraa nahiiN hotaa



I wonder if people have analyzed what may have led Ghalib to make such a statement of high praise. I mean in addition to loving the shi3r holistically. In other words, perhaps "technical" merit.

I feel it is just a superb and masterful use of the word "goyaa" with both shades of its meaning. Thoughts?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I wonder if people have analyzed what may have led Ghalib to make such a statement of high praise. I mean in addition to loving the shi3r holistically. In other words, perhaps "technical" merit.
> 
> I feel it is just a superb and masterful use of the word "goyaa" with both shades of its meaning. Thoughts?


aap kaa Hukm, sar aaNkhoN pih!

https://groups.google.com/group/alt...q=duusraa+nahiiN+hotaa+momin#6b57b2261ee1e10b


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> aap kaa Hukm, sar aaNkhoN pih!
> 
> https://groups.google.com/group/alt...q=duusraa+nahiiN+hotaa+momin#6b57b2261ee1e10b



Many thanks, QP saahab. I enjoyed reading/scanning the thread.


----------

