# Urdu and Hindi: rephrase/reword



## Alfaaz

*Background:* this might have been discussed previously...?

"No that's not what I meant to say! Let me / I'll (rephrase/reword) my sentence/thoughts..."

نہیں، میرے کہنے کا یہ مطلب نہیں تھا / یہ مراد نہ تھی! مجھے / میں......اپنا / اپنے....فقرہ ، خیالات
naheeN, mere kehne kaa yeh matlab naheeN tha / yeh muraad nah thi! mujhe/mein....apnaa/apne......fiqrah, khayaalat ko... 

*Question: *What would be appropriate words/phrases/expressions for "rephrase, reword"?


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> *Background:* this might have been discussed previously...?
> 
> "No that's not what I meant to say! Let me / I'll (rephrase/reword) my sentence/thoughts..."
> 
> نہیں، میرے کہنے کا یہ مطلب نہیں تھا / یہ مراد نہ تھی! مجھے / میں......اپنا / اپنے....فقرہ ، خیالات
> naheeN, mere kehne kaa yeh matlab naheeN tha / yeh muraad nah thi! mujhe/mein....apnaa/apne......fiqrah, khayaalat ko...
> 
> *Question: *What would be appropriate words/phrases/expressions for "rephrase, reword"?



_ba-alfaaz-e diigar kahnaa._


----------



## Qureshpor

vuh to "buudam be-daal" hai!

kyaa farmaayaa aap ne?

*ya3nii/duusre lafzoN meN/meraa matlab hai kih *vuh to ulluu hai!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> _ba-alfaaz-e diigar kahnaa._



Just as a matter of interest marrish SaaHib, of the following options which one/s would you go for?

بہ الفاظ دیگر
با الفاظ دیگر 
با لفاظ دیگر


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Just as a matter of interest marrish SaaHib, of the following options which one/s would you go for?
> 
> بہ الفاظ دیگر
> با الفاظ دیگر
> با لفاظ دیگر



Qureshpor SaaHib, for it is you who is raising this matter it is interesting, no doubt! I am used to the first option and that's why I wrote it that way. I thought it was proper Urdu. The second one is familiar to me from Persian and it is also correct, I'd say.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for the answers everyone!


			
				QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> vuh to "buudam be-daal" hai!
> kyaa farmaayaa aap ne?
> *ya3nii/duusre lafzoN meN/meraa matlab hai kih *vuh to ulluu hai!


وہ کون ہے جو الو ہے؟ ; could you dissect the phrase used above...(Platts gives buum for owl) ?


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Thanks for the answers everyone!
> 
> وہ کون ہے جو الو ہے؟ ; could you dissect the phrase used above...(Platts gives buum for owl) ?



No one in particular! The first sentence is an example of a sentence where the person addressed has n't quite understood what is implied. He/She asks for clarification which is consequently provided in plain language.


----------



## Alfaaz

> No one in particular! The first sentence is an example of a sentence where the person addressed has n't quite understood what is implied. He/She asks for clarification which is consequently provided in plain language.


Thanks, but I meant this phrase: 



> vuh to "buudam be-daal" hai!


Where is the owl in this?


----------



## greatbear

"Anya shabdoN meiN" would be one of the ways in Hindi.


----------



## bakshink

'alag Dha.ng se vyakt karna' can also be used in Hindi


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Qureshpor SaaHib, for it is you who is raising this matter it is interesting, no doubt! I am used to the first option and that's why I wrote it that way. I thought it was proper Urdu. The second one is familiar to me from Persian and it is also correct, I'd say.



I asked the question for a simple reason. We don't say bah al-kul. But in "alfaaz", there is no "al" of the definite article yet in Maulana Maudoodi's "tafHiimu_lqur'aan", one finds "bi_lfaaz-i-diigar", which to me is simply wrong. Except of course if the alif of alfaaz is "hamzatu_vasl" as opposed to "hamzatu_lqat3".  Perhaps our Faylasoof SaaHib might be able to answer this query.


----------



## marrish

In anticipation of Faylasoof SaaHib's answer I might add that I consider the third option, which you located in the sources, as wrong as well, but yet from a different perspective: the expression is essentially Persian so the Arabic particle appears misplaced.


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

No doubt, the arabic word *alfaaz* (_*2alfaa6'*_) is written with _*hamzatu_lqat3*_ and being a broken plural, it doesn't belong to the limited number of patterns / words that take *hamzatu_wasl*. So according to your understanding, it should be *bi-alfaaz-e-diigar*.

However, I had always thought that the first preposition used here is the Persian _*baa*_ and not the Arabic _*bi*_.

To date my reading of this word have been *ba-alfaaz-e diigar*. On the same pattern as* ba-aavaaz-e buland*. Knowing that the long *aa* of *baa* is shortened in pronunciation before another word in a compound construction (before a vowel).


----------



## Qureshpor

Cilquiestsuens said:


> No doubt, the arabic word *alfaaz* (_*2alfaa6'*_) is written with _*hamzatu_lqat3*_ and being a broken plural, it doesn't belong to the limited number of patterns / words that take *hamzatu_wasl*. So according to your understanding, it should be *bi-alfaaz-e-diigar*.
> 
> However, I had always thought that the first preposition used here is the Persian _*baa*_ and not the Arabic _*bi*_.
> 
> To date my reading of this word have been *ba-alfaaz-e diigar*. On the same pattern as* ba-aavaaz-e buland*. Knowing that the long *aa* of *baa* is shortened in pronunciation before another word in a compound construction (before a vowel).



Cilquiestsuens SaaHib, thank you for your explanation which supports my view that با الفاظ دیگر pronounced با لفاظ دیگر (and written in the "tafhiim" as such, which must be a typo) is wrong. 

With regard to "bah" and "baa", I believe they are two separate words, the former having multiple meanings (with/in/by/to etc) and the latter mainly "with of accompaniment). If, instead of roz-ba-roz, we said "roz baa roz", this would of course be incorrect.

Therefore literally "baa alfaaz-i-diigar" = duusre lafzoN ke saath

bah alfaaz-i-diigar = duusre lafzoN meN

bi on the other hand is Arabic, as in bismillaah.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for the comprehensive answers Cilquiestsuens and Qureshpor SaaHibaan! 



> Therefore literally "baa alfaaz-i-diigar" = duusre lafzoN ke saath
> bah alfaaz-i-diigar = duusre lafzoN meN


So in English: _with other words_ and _in other words_....
This wouldn't really be the same as _reword/rephrase _as used in the OP example sentence....which would be more like مکرر جملہ سازی...?


----------

