Thanks!With the "a"s as in maulavii/Ghalatii.
معزز UM SaaHib,
I'll briefly say that I would agree with some of your points, but would disagree with others. If a million people are saying juruurat, jindagi, and mojij, but only 220,000 are saying zaruurat, zindagi, mu'azziz, does that mean we all should start "blindly" following the majority...?
Also, I am talking about native Urdu speakers. They are not saying juruurat, jindagii, or mojij. Have you ever run in to such people?
Curious how you picked 220,000. Have you been keeping count?
I don't know of any Punjabi who would say "iskuul". In fact it would be "skuul". For "strii" it is more likely to be "istarii" in the Indian Punjab. For Pakistani Punjabis, this word would mean "iron" only!
xabar-i-taHayyur-i-3ishq sun, nah junuuN rahaa nah parii rahii
nah to tuu rahaa nah to maiN rahaa, jo rahii so be-xabarii rahii
And here is Hasrat Mohani
saath un ke jo aa'e the ham Beirut se Hasrat
yih rog natiijah hai usii ham-safarii kaa
Just a curiosity. Do you pronounce such words minus the "a" under Punjabi influence as has been suggested by someone in another thread?
Last edited by Qureshpor; 10th May 2012 at 12:29 AM.
Last edited by Qureshpor; 10th May 2012 at 12:25 AM.
It has nothing at all to do with Hindi/Urdu in and of itself. When Perso-Arabic script was the de-facto standard people did not worry about schwa deletion after every consonant.
There are other completely different issues inherent to Perso-Arabic script like "is the vowel an i or an a"?
Sanskrit has schwa (or some other vowel sound) after all consonants and consonant clusters. Hindi doesn't. There is no relation here.
Hindi has only used the the Sanskrit syllabary since the 1800s, which is when schwa deletion came into play. It is not an inherent part of the language before the adoption of the Sanskrit syllabary.
Last edited by tonyspeed; 10th May 2012 at 1:00 AM.
I think I might also qualify to gain a place in this distinguished list ; I've heard khush-khabari and will try to locate specific examples and episodes of programs on YT (if and when time permits)...I am quite willing to meet your (or anyone else's) challenge but it is not easy to search for pieces of recorded speech that is likely to have words like 'qalamii' and 'xush-xabarii". At least three persons (excluding me) namely Faylasoof, marrish and BP SaaHibaan pronounce the word as "maulavii" and BP SaaHib has indicated that for him it is "xush-xabarii". If I get the opportunity I shall try to find instances where the "a" is preserved.
You're welcome, but I thought we were speaking of Urdu convention here. If I'm not mistaken, Urdu proper wouldn't differentiate between all the z's as you have stated, but a'yin is pronounced (obviously not to the extent as would be in Arabic), as would shadds and separate zabars or zairs...?Thanks Alfaaz. Your example is interesting. If Arabic pronunciation is sacrosanct, then clearly zaruurat and mu'azziz are also wrong. As duaad != z and proper 3ain is almost never pronounced in mu3azziz in urdu. I hope you will agree.
Rarely, but I think there was an episode of Loose Talk in which such an accent was used...(and the people identify as Urdu speakers, not as any other language speakers). When you correct them, they say that is how they've been speaking all their life, so its hard to change. This is why in the other thread in response to QP, I said that environmental influences might have an effect. An interesting thing that I noticed is that these people have the right pronunciation when singing a song or reciting Quranic verses.Also, I am talking about native Urdu speakers. They are not saying juruurat, jindagii, or mojij. Have you ever run in to such people?
An oft-quoted example (at least it seems from seeing Indian media) is Lata M. While speaking she makes mistakes here and there, but while singing she has perfect pronunciation (almost always, not always of course--no one's perfect).
Curious how you picked 220,000. Have you been keeping count?
I'm still searching for the answer and will reply when I have one....(it was just a random number, but might have some significance)
H استري इस्त्री istrī [S. स्त्री], s.f. Woman; wife:—istrī-barg, istrī-jāt, s.f. Woman-kind:—istrī-dhan, s.m. Settlement made on a wife by her father; jointure; wife's property or paraphernalia:—istrī karnā, v.t. To take a wife, to marry:—istrī - gāmī, s.m. One who goes after women, an adulterer:—istrī-ling, (in Gram.) the feminine gender.
S ستري स्त्री strī, s.f. A woman; a wife:—strī-bodhak, adj. (in Gram.) Of the feminine gender, feminine
Notice how it labels istrii as Hindi and strii as Sanskrit? That's because North Indians did not like the word-initial consonant-clusters beginning with 's'. We did not start using strii until whole-sale Sanskritisation ensued, wiping out the native forms.
If one wants a thorough examination of this issue please see "Aspects of Hindi Phonology" - Ohala, 1983.
It addressed many of the concerns I had regarding this issue and painted it as a "complicated matter". (p.139)
Proving this is the fact that not all the test subjects responded similarly and some test subjects even varied between responses.
This would eliminate the idea that non-schwa deletion is a non-native trait. It is more complicated than that.
Mentioned repetatively as a factor is whether or not a speaker is familiar with the resulting consonant cluster. So it seems
prior familiarity with the resulting sound is a factor that will also determine whether or not a speaker schwa-deletes.
My main concerns was whether we are dealing with a merely script issue or not. On page 127 she says
"Of course this assumes the schwa-deletion rule used by Hindi speakers for reading the Devanagari orthography
is the same as the schwa-deletion rule they have internalized for spoken Hindi. I think this assumption is justified,
since the environments in which the schwa is deleted are the same." (p.127)
On the matter of Urdu words it says:
"If the word is a Sanskrit or Urdu loan, speakers aspiring to the most pretigious pronunciation will render these words as they were
rendered in the original language" (p.138) and also "In the case of the PA loans of Table 6.2, Urdu speakers retain the /schwa/ - at least
in formal style; I am not sure if they retain the /schwa/ in casual styles of speaking. However, all non-Urdu speakers delete the /schwa/".
Said PA loans in Table 6.2 were bagal, daulat, nazar, naukar, biraadar, Xabar, suurat, xushaamad, ghalat, guzar, zaxam, jigar, zewar, zaram, muugal, resham, rogan, wazan, sharaarat, shaayar, safar, adaalat, arab, aadam, kaagaz.
Other guidelines given on 138 and 139 are:
- schwas tend to be deleted in casual style of speaking and retained in formal style
- schwas tend to be deleted in a faster tempo of speaking
-whether the speaker has posited a morpheme boundary in the environment preceding schwa and "the (psychological) reality of the morpheme boundary for the average native speaker" p.122
- whether the resulting cluster violates the constraints of the language
-whether or not the suffix providing the environment is a blocking suffix, i.e. a suffix marked
Finally, Ohala mentions that "In the case of forms derived from verbs, e.g., [nikal]...,[niklaa], etc., the schwa seems to be lost without question for all speakers I know of. These forms have been in the language for a long time. Also, almost all the verbs of Hindi are native words, and therefore the question of 'status' involved in retaining the schwa does not arise."
Last edited by tonyspeed; 10th May 2012 at 4:12 AM.
My questions should have sounded less excited, as it serves no one to engage in an endless back and forth references where we may lose the forest for the trees. I am not suggesting to prove you or anyone wrong. However, I do like to suggest what I speak and hear is representative of an overwhelming number of native speakers. These two statements need not be contradictory. If you do like to look for examples, please do count both maulvii and maulavii, not only the latter. I'll be curious to see the results.
I assume you are referring to the word maraz? I do use it just like that at times, but at other times just marz. Not sure how this dynamic works. From my family I learned maraz.
Last edited by UrduMedium; 10th May 2012 at 5:25 AM. Reason: typo
I did not suggest xush-xabarii is wrong (please go back and check). All I said is that based on my hearing majority of native speakers, I do not hear it. I do not know what vulgar means in lexical context, but good to see it is there. I sent a dictionary link earlier too that lists several variations of qalmii. Ferozul-Lughaat lists qalam all the way but switches to qalmeN (sideburns). Would you call qalameN instead? Do you pronounce badlah as badalah also, since badal is Arabic? How about calling xarch xarj/xaraj since it is also rooted in Arabic?
Aside from this forum, I'm curious if you are commonly hearing things like qalami dost and xush-xabarii in everyday conversations? It sounds so alien to me that I could not have missed it, if I heard it even 20% of the time.
So to summarize, I am not calling maulavii or qalamii wrong (who am I to talk like that any way!). What I am questioning this unwavering allegiance to inviolability of Arabic pronunciation as long as the Urdu compond has any Arabic stem. I have given several examples where actually it is not so above. And I am very thankful it is not so.
In poetic context I am not surprised to see xabarii, as obviously it is not wrong. In fact, allow me to quote Faraz ...
xalq kii be xabarii hai kih mirii ruswaa'ii
log mujhko hii sunate haiN fasane mere
And no, I do not think this is Punjabi influence on my speech. I have heard it the same way from a wide spectrum of native Urdu speakers. Thanks for throwing me that lifeline, though. I appreciate it.
Last edited by UrduMedium; 10th May 2012 at 4:52 AM.
(a) people who want prestige comply with non-native pronunciation. AGREED. This is always true in any language.
(b) schwa deletion rules have exceptions. AGREED. This is also true of most linguistic rules.
(c) there is variation among speakers of the language. AGREED. This is also true in any language spoken in scale.
I am not sure if I missed something here. On inherent schwas in lettering, yes this is dependent on script. Schwa deletion refers to this as well as the deletion as words change form (nazar → nazrana). Do we know that schwas were pronounced in Vedic Sanskrit? No idea. Although, as you may know, Vedic Sanskrit and Avestan Persian were very close languages and I have seen some transforms between them, e.g. look at http://books.google.com/books?id=lZxGAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA323 -
yō yaθā puθrəm taurunəm, haoməm vanadaēta mašyō, frā ābyō tanubyō, haomō visāite baēšazai (in Avestan)
yō yáthā putráṃ táruṇaṃ, sōmáṃ vandēta mártyaḥ, prá ābhyas tanubhyaḥ, sōmō viśatē bhēṩajāya (in Vedic Sanskrit)
Two things. First, if Northern India and Iran were speaking such close languages, how could they possibly be artificial. They, or close forms of them, must have been natural at some point - so I am not sure I agree with your contention there. Second, I don't really see any more schwas in Vedic Sanskrit compared to Avestan Persian. I am no expert and could be wrong on this, but schwa deletion in IA seems like a post-Sanskrit phenomenon. Also, remember we can compare the bazillion cognates in Sanskrit and Avestan/Persian for this too for medial schwas present in one but not the other - buland/brihat, jaan (life)/jana (person/being), doxtar/duhitr (daughter), biradar/bhratr (brother), pidar/pitr (father), asp-asb/ashv (horse), dast/hast (hand), dand/dant (tooth), xshathra/kshetra (area). The list is endless and I have trouble finding very many where Sanskrit has an extra schwa in the middle that Avestan or Persian don't. So, I have trouble agreeing with what seems to be your contention, though maybe I misunderstood you. BTW interesting and disconnected aside here is that xshathra → sheher in Persian where kshetra → khet in Hindi. Interesting that those two words should have a common root.
I guess here is the part where we might be thinking differently. According to your post, it is preservation of Arabic pronunciation. According to me, it was preservation of Urdu pronunciation....as (probably most) of our ancestors speaking proper Urdu would have said maulawi and frowned upon something like molvi (mole-vii)...or maybe not ? Maybe that was too stereotypic of a thought as Urdu has many varieties...;Sorry I did that because the reason given to preserve the short a-vowel in maulavii was to preserve Arabic pronunciation at any cost. I took it to its logical ridiculous extreme by suggesting we should learn to say suaad, zuaad, the, He, zaal, zu'e also, like we learned qaaf. After all if Arabic pronunciation is sacred then why stop half way?
Ever heard baba-i-Urdu maulavii abdul haq? I haven't, as of yet. Search YT for "maulvi abdul haq" and you'll find a couple of good starting points.
Also would Urdu plural of maulavii be maulaviyoN or maulviyoN? I have never heard the former from anyone. The latter is ubiquitous.
Last edited by UrduMedium; 10th May 2012 at 5:40 AM.