Urdu: chhunaa past participle

MonsieurGonzalito

Senior Member
Castellano de Argentina
Friends,

How are the past participles of chhuunaa (to touch) written (especially the -uee forms)?

- masculine singular: چھوا
- all other cases and plural: چھوئے چھوے چھوۓ (hamza on its own seat, hamza on e chhoTii yeh, or no hamza at all)?
- feminine singular and non-nasalized plural: چھوئی
- feminine plural nasalized: چھوئیں

And more generally, the vaa'o in all these forms, stands for a short -u- or for a semivowel?

The underlying concept that I am failing to grasp, is that it seems tha Urdu also shortens the -uu- into -u-, but the vaa'o is more like a semivowel, as in:
- chhuvaa
- chhuve
- chhuvii

Is that reasoning correct?

Perhaps it is only valid for the -ue sound, but not for -uaa, -uii?

Or should I think this in terms of "Urdu has the following idiosyncratic ways to represent the two-vowels-together sounds"

uaaوا
ueوے
uiiوئی

... and stop trying to find any logic in terms of letters considered individually?
 
  • aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    I think the spelling variation in the participles of chhuunaa (chhuaa/e/ii) also happens for the participles of honaa (huaa/e/ii).

    For the masculine non-(singular direct), it seems like چھوئے and ہوئے are the most common spellings.

    Mohammed Zakir, on p. 61 of his Lessons on Urdu Script, suggests writing the hamzah directly on the baRii ye. That being said, it's probably worth noting that a seated hamzah followed immediately by a baRii ye and a hamzah directly on top of a baRii ye are probably usually almost indistinguishable in nasta3liiq.

    Or should I think this in terms of "Urdu has the following idiosyncratic ways to represent the two-vowels-together sounds ... and stop trying to find any logic in terms of letters considered individually?
    Probably yes, and probably also embrace not-completely-standardized orthography :)
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    1. I think the spelling variation in the participles of chhuunaa (chhuaa/e/ii) also happens for the participles of honaa (huaa/e/ii).

    2.For the masculine non-(singular direct), it seems like چھوئے and ہوئے are the most common spellings.

    3.Mohammed Zakir, on p. 61 of his Lessons on Urdu Script, suggests writing the hamzah directly on the baRii ye. That being said, it's probably worth noting that a seated hamzah followed immediately by a baRii ye and a hamzah directly on top of a baRii ye are probably usually almost indistinguishable in nasta3liiq.


    4. Probably yes, and probably also embrace not-completely-standardized orthography :)
    1. & 2. If I had my way, I would write these words as چھؤے and ہؤے from چھؤا and ہؤا

    3۔ could you please clarify your second sentence please. Are you saying چھؤے and چھوئے are difficult to distinguish in nasta3liiq. If yes, can you point to any printed work where they are "almost indistinguishable"?

    4. It is standardised but there is some flexibility as there is in Hindi orthography.
     

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina

    aevynn

    Senior Member
    USA
    English, Hindustani
    could you please clarify your second sentence please. Are you saying چھؤے and چھوئے are difficult to distinguish in nasta3liiq. If yes, can you point to any printed work where they are "almost indistinguishable"?
    I believe @aevynn was saying that چھوئے and چھوۓ are practically identical.
    Yes, as @MonsieurGonzalito says, I was saying that ۓ and ئ+ے are almost indistinguishable. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say that they can be almost indistinguishable. For example, Mohammed Zakir in that book I linked above has the following way of writing ے and ۓ:
    Screenshot_2021-05-29 txt_script_zakir1973 pdf.png

    His baRii ye in isolation begins with a slight downwards stroke before veering off to the left. So then, when he puts a hamzah directly over that downstroke of the baRii ye, that downstroke could easily be interpreted as the "seat" of the seated hamzah in the sequence ئ+ے.

    For the sake of comparison, here is how Zakir writes the sequence ت+ے:
    Screenshot_2021-05-29 txt_script_zakir1973 pdf(1).png

    There's definitely more of a downstroke here for the seat of the te, but... Well, I did say "almost" indistinguishable!

    If Zakir hadn't explicitly explained in his book that the following is how he writes ر+و+ۓ, I at least would likely have just assumed he was writing ر+و+ئ+ے:
    Screenshot_2021-05-29 txt_script_zakir1973 pdf(2).png


    It is standardised but there is some flexibility as there is in Hindi orthography.
    I would also have said that Hindi orthography is "not-completely-standardized." I didn't mean it as a bad thing; on the contrary, if anything, it just means that the language(s) are somehow more democratic --- there's no equivalent of a Académie Française prescribing their usage from above (or rather, there may be such institutions, but their prescriptions are rarely followed to a T). So sure, perhaps it is better to use a more positive word like "flexible" instead :)
     
    • Agree
    Reactions: Dib

    MonsieurGonzalito

    Senior Member
    Castellano de Argentina
    Many of my perplexed questions come from the fact that we Spanish speakers have the Real Academia Española, which presides over this kind of issues.
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Yes, as @MonsieurGonzalito says, I was saying that ۓ and ئ+ے are almost indistinguishable. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say that they can be almost indistinguishable. For example, Mohammed Zakir in that book I linked above has the following way of writing ے and ۓ:
    View attachment 57768
    His baRii ye in isolation begins with a slight downwards stroke before veering off to the left. So then, when he puts a hamzah directly over that downstroke of the baRii ye, that downstroke could easily be interpreted as the "seat" of the seated hamzah in the sequence ئ+ے.

    For the sake of comparison, here is how Zakir writes the sequence ت+ے:
    View attachment 57769
    There's definitely more of a downstroke here for the seat of the te, but... Well, I did say "almost" indistinguishable!

    If Zakir hadn't explicitly explained in his book that the following is how he writes ر+و+ۓ, I at least would likely have just assumed he was writing ر+و+ئ+ے:
    View attachment 57770


    I would also have said that Hindi orthography is "not-completely-standardized." I didn't mean it as a bad thing; on the contrary, if anything, it just means that the language(s) are somehow more democratic --- there's no equivalent of a Académie Française prescribing their usage from above (or rather, there may be such institutions, but their prescriptions are rarely followed to a T). So sure, perhaps it is better to use a more positive word like "flexible" instead :)
    I hope I have understood you correctly and hopefully my reply will clarify if this is the case or not.

    ے on its own does not bear any value apart from saying that this symbol is known as "baRii ye" in Urdu. If you wanted to write "e" in Urdu, it is the former if it is a word on its own and the latter, if it forms part of a word to which it is not joined.

    انگریزی کا پہلا حرف اے ہے اور دوسرا بی۔ The first letter of English is A and the second B.

    دور کوئی گائے Someone is singing from far away

    ئے is infact ئ+ے. Therefore ئے and ئ+ے are identical, the former is the end product and the latter are the constituent parts.

    The "shoshah" for ب، پ، ت، ٹ، ث and ی is theoratically speaking identical, the only difference being that when the ی acts as a seat, the two dots below the shoshah are missed out. However, as you have shown, the shoshah is more obvious and upright in ب، پ، ت، ٹ and ث than the hamzah seat-providing ی as you have shown in the words روتے and روئے in nasta3liiq.
     
    Top