Hindi-Urdu: plant-- paudha vs pauda

amiramir

Senior Member
English-USA
Hello,

I've recently noticed Hindi tends to prefer paudhaa whereas Urdu tends to prefer paudaa, for a plant. Does this seem to be a hard and fast rule for you in your respective language? Would the reverse seem strange or unidiomatic?

DSAL etc have पौद for example, but I've never seen it before (it looks like that was the orig. Sanskrit as well? But could be mistaken).

Thanks,
Nikhil
 
  • desi4life

    Senior Member
    English
    paudhaa is more common in Hindi, while paudaa is more common in Urdu. There is nothing strange or unidiomatic about the reverse. It’s just a matter of more common usage vs. less common usage. In casual speech, you may not even notice a difference between paudhaa and paudaa. Hence, the difference is mainly in spelling.

    paudh or paud means young plant, seedling, offspring, child, generation.

    Both of these words are tadbhava words. The etymology for both, per Turner, is právr̥ddha.
     

    littlepond

    Senior Member
    Hindi
    As a Hindi speaker, both "paudhaa" (very common in Hindi) and "paudh" are what I am used to. In fact, I've never heard "paudaa" in my circle.
     

    littlepond

    Senior Member
    Hindi
    Urdu-Hindi: Urdu/Hindi spelling conventions (See post 14 for few more of these examples)

    In writing, what @Qureshpor jii says does apply, but it doesn't that much in speaking.

    That is, from the below:

    >>>jhuuTh >> jhuuT
    dhokhaa >> dhokaa
    bhuukh >> bhuuk
    bhiikh >> bhiik

    One could add khambhaa >> khambaa
    paudhaa >> paudaa
    hoNTh >> hoNT <<<

    only paudhaa retains the aspiration so frequently, whereas for others, in Hindi speech, the aspiration is often dropped (thus, "jhuuT," "dhokaa," "bhuuk," "bhiik," "khambaa," and "hoNT" being the much more frequent pronunciations). (In fact, "dh" in any word is usually retained, even if at the end, as in "paudh," "gandh," "kundh," etc. [though both "dhundh" and "dhund" are quite common]; retaining "Th" and "kh" at the end of a word requires more effort, hence easily dropped.)
     

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    Various languages are known to have restrictions which prevent "nearby" sounds of the same type. A restriction in Japanese (which goes by the name of "Lyman's law") is that a morpheme cannot have two voiced consonants. A restriction in Bantu languages (which goes by the name of "Meeussen's rule") is that a word cannot have to adjacent high tones.

    There's likely a restriction of this sort in many dialects of HU (including the one I grew up with) which prevents two "nearby" aspirated consonants. I don't know what "nearby" means precisely (same morpheme? consecutive consonants?), but there should be something like this. This restriction likely wasn't present in HU's ancestral Indo-Aryan languages (things of the Sanskrit, Pali variety). For example, jhuuT(h) derives from Sanskrit jhuuTTha. The Devanagari orthographic convention is somewhat beholden to Indo-Aryan etymological considerations, so it preserves the aspiration and writes झूठ even though many people pronounce it without aspiration on the second consonant (ie, as [d͡ʒʱuːʈ]). The Urdu orthographic convention is not as beholden to Indo-Aryan etymological considerations (it is instead more beholden to Perso-Arabic etymological considerations), so it is more free to reflect pronunciation more accurately as جھُوٹ. It seems like something similar is happening with hoNT(h), bhiik(h), dhok(h)aa, and bhuuk(h) (links are to Turner's comparative etymological dictionary).

    Another one I remember noticing is that the word that is usually rendered भाभी in Devanagari, I've usually heard pronounced without a second aspiration (as [bʱaːbiː]). Interestingly, in Urdu too, Google returns more hits for بھابھی than for بھابی, though the latter does occur reasonably frequently.

    ---

    It seems like paud(h)aa is something different from the above: here, it seems like probably some dialects of HU have aspiration and others don't, and the loss of aspiration is evidently not the result of a preceding aspiration. Another similar word is gob(h)ii --- it seems like it's usually spelled with aspiration in both Nagari and Urdu (गोभी / گوبھی), but I grew up saying it without aspiration (as [goːbiː]), and the loss of aspiration is evidently unrelated to a preceding aspiration.
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    ^ bhaabhii and gobhii are with aspiration in Urdu. In Punjabi, the latter is "gobii". If you read some of the Urdu literature from older days, you will come across words such as jhuuT written with double aspiration as "jhuuTh". This is the case, to some extent at least, even in Platts of 1874 vintage. So, it seems, your script angle may not be accurate for Urdu. It is the pronununciation that could be the underlying factor.
     

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    ^ bhaabhii and gobhii are with aspiration in Urdu.

    Ismat Chughtai, a self-identifying Urdu writer of some renown, wrote a short story titled bhaabii.

    In Punjabi, the latter is "gobii".

    Thanks for this! I suppose I am never too surprised to learn that the variety of UH I grew up with has Punjabi influences :)

    If you read some of the Urdu literature from older days, you will come across words such as jhuuT written with double aspiration as "jhuuTh". This is the case, to some extent at least, even in Platts of 1874 vintage.

    Thanks for this observation as well. It may then be the case that the no-repeated-aspiration constraint is a rather recent (post-Platts) development in UH phonology. In any case, whenever it is that this phonological constraint developed, it appears to be something that exists among both some who self-identify with Urdu and some who self-identify with Hindi (even though contemporary orthographic conventions of the latter tend not indicate this phenomenon in orthography).
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Ismat Chughtai, a self-identifying Urdu writer of some renown, wrote a short story titled bhaabii.
    My mistake. In Urdu both bhaabhii and bhaabii are in vogue. Ismat Chughtai no doubt "self-identifies" herself as an Urdu writer. All Urdu speakers throughout the Subcontinet know her as an Urdu writer and nothing but an Urdu writer!:)
     
    Last edited:
    Top