Urdu: Diacritic marks

tarkshya

Senior Member
Marwari
In Urdu, the word میں can be read as meN (English - in), maiN (English - I ) or meeN (There is no such word, but for the sake of argument just assume there is one). How do we distinguish these 3 words in writing with the proper use of diacritic marks?

(Please use large fonts for Urdu script as it is difficult for novice readers to clearly decipher all those tiny marks).
 
  • tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    Thanks friends. Now let me extend the question to the the letter vao too.

    کون kaun (who)
    خون xoon (blood)
    کھونا khona (to lose)

    Can you please rewrite these words with full diacritical marks in Urdu too.
     

    Alfaaz

    Senior Member
    English
    Parts of your questions deal with مجہول | majhuul sounds of ye and waa'o: (yaa-e-majhuul & waa'o-e-majhuul):
    (in Gram.) passive (voice, or verb); an epithet of the letters و and ي, when the former has the sound of o in 'bone,' and the latter that of e in 'fête';
    قواعد} وہ و جس سے پہلے ضمہ خالص یا ی جس سے پہلے کسرہ خالص نہ ہو، جیسے : کو میں و اور کے میں ی}
    A few examples:

    لُوْ : luu
    لَو : lau
    لو : lo
    • "مجہول "و
    سُوْ : suu
    سَوْ : sau
    سو : so
    • "مجہول "و
    مِیْل : meel/miil (می + ل)
    مَیْل : mail
    میل : mel (مے + ل)
    • "مجہول "ی" : یعنی "ے
    Posts #2 and #4 in Persian: /ow/, /oo/ might also be helpful.

    Extra information: tashdeed | تشدید :
    doubling a letter by placing the mark or sign (ّ) over it; the mark or sign (ّ), used to indicate that a letter is doubled
    حرف سین کے سرے کی شکل کی سی علامت ( ّ) جو لفظ کے کسی حرف کو دو مرتبہ پڑھنے کے لیے اس حرف پر لکھی جاتی ہے۔
    Examples:

    {تَصَوُّر {تَصَوْ + وُر : tasawwur

    {تَغَیُّر {تَغَیْ + یُر: taghaiyyur
     

    mundiya

    Senior Member
    Hindi, English, Punjabi
    Are all of the diacritic marks usually left out in writing or only some of them? Which ones?
     

    Alfaaz

    Senior Member
    English
    mundiya said:
    Are all of the diacritic marks usually left out in writing or only some of them? Which ones?
    Most are usually left out, but the following often appear to be included:

    • tanween in words like فوراً - faur_an
    • khaRii zabar in words like تقویٰ - taqwaa
    • zer for an izaafat
    • tashdeed (مسکن - maskan vs. مسکّن - musakkin/musakkan)
    • Harakaat/diacritic marks for words from other languages, for words that are not commonly used, or words that have identical spelling and would be difficult to differentiate from context alone (اِس - is, اُس - us; اِن - in, اُن - un; منتظَر - muntazar, منتظِر - muntazir; etc.)
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    Thanks Alfaaz, I have further questions now.

    Why do you mark a tiny circle over و in words such as سُوْ : suu, سَوْ : sau etc. My understanding was this this tiny circle signifies an absence of vowel, such as سَخْت, saxthard. I have never seen this circle over the last letter of any word. What does your usage mean?

    Second question, why do you write مِیْل : meel/miil (می + ل)
    مَیْل : mail.

    I have never seen the letter ی written in the middle of a word like this. I always thought that ی in this form appears only at the end of the words. Is your spelling correct?


    Parts of your questions deal with مجہول | majhuul sounds of ye and waa'o: (yaa-e-majhuul & waa'o-e-majhuul): A few examples:

    لُوْ : luu
    لَو : lau
    لو : lo
    • "مجہول "و
    سُوْ : suu
    سَوْ : sau
    سو : so
    • "مجہول "و
    مِیْل : meel/miil (می + ل)
    مَیْل : mail
    میل : mel (مے + ل)
    • "مجہول "ی" : یعنی "ے
    Posts #2 and #4 in Persian: /ow/, /oo/ might also be helpful.

    Extra information: tashdeed | تشدید :
    Examples:

    {تَصَوُّر {تَصَوْ + وُر : tasawwur

    {تَغَیُّر {تَغَیْ + یُر: taghaiyyur
     
    Last edited:

    Alfaaz

    Senior Member
    English
    tarkshya said:
    Thanks Alfaaz, I have more further questions now.

    Why do you mark a tiny circle over و in words such as سُوْ : suu, سَوْ : sau etc. My understanding was this this tiny circle signifies an absence of vowel, such as سَخْت, saxthard. I have never seen this circle over the last letter of any word. What does your usage mean?

    Second question, why do you write مِیْل : meel/miil (می + ل)
    مَیْل : mail.

    I have never seen the letter ی written in the middle of a word like this. I always thought that ی in this form appears only at the end of the words. Is your spelling correct?
    You're welcome! I hope I haven't caused more confusion! Other forum members will hopefully comment on this in greater detail!

    Answer for the first question: I was using the sukuun/jazm to indicate that the first letter is being joined to the second letter by the diacritic mark.

    Answer for the second question: I was trying to illustrate the difference between the two sounds by using the two different letters' terminal forms (rather than the medial forms). You would know that فی is pronounced as fee/fii, but بے is pronounced as be.

    مین could represent the following English words:

    • مَی + ن = man
    • می + ن = mean
    • مے + ن = main
    It would be appreciated if other forum members would comment on whether my understanding/explanation is correct!
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    In some Urdu sites, I have seen the word "buraaii" written as برائی (Notice the hamza ء over the letter ی ) Example link http://urdu.dawn.com/news/1011120 . On the other hand, I have seen a different kind of symbol (may be another form of hamza) to write the same word. For example, in this link (http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/AU1-6.pdf , page 205, line 1) , you will find the same word "buraaii" is written with a wavy kind of symbol over ی .

    Question: Is this wavy symbol just another form of hamza? And if not, how does it differ from hamza in usage?
     

    Alfaaz

    Senior Member
    English
    tarkshya said:
    Question. is this wavy symbol just another form of hamza? And if not, how does it differ from hamza in usage?
    It is a hamzah. In nasta3liiq font, you will often see it written as the "wavy symbol".
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    Another question..

    Why is the word "aalaa" (meaning supreme), written in a strange way like اعلیٰ . A similar sounding word "aalam" (meaning the whole world) is written much more intuitively as عالم.

    Is there any logic behind the spelling of
    اعلیٰ, or is it something I just have to swallow without questioning?
     

    eskandar

    Senior Member
    English (US)
    First of all اعلیٰ may be more accurately transcribed as a'laa. In careful Urdu speech you may hear it pronounced as such, that is with a short 'a' for the first vowel followed by a glottal stop or even an 'ayn sound. However a short 'a' followed by an 'ayn is often pronounced as a long 'a' (aa) in Urdu, for example معلوم ma'luum as maaluum.

    As for the ending, the yaa with a vertical line over it is called an alif maqsuura and it appears in several words of Arabic origin, eg. موسیٰ muusaa (Moses) or حتیٰ hattaa (until) and others. Any decent book that teaches Urdu should cover this.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    I am aware of alif maqsuura. I have seen it in many places, most notably in the spelling of Allah - the islamic god. However, it is the letter ی that is perplexing. To the best of my knowledge, there is no sound of /y/ or /e/ or /ii/ or /ai/ in اعلیٰ. So why does this letter appear in the spelling at all?

    First of all اعلیٰ may be more accurately transcribed as a'laa. In careful Urdu speech you may hear it pronounced as such, that is with a short 'a' for the first vowel followed by a glottal stop or even an 'ayn sound. However a short 'a' followed by an 'ayn is often pronounced as a long 'a' (aa) in Urdu, for example معلوم ma'luum as maaluum.

    As for the ending, the yaa with a vertical line over it is called an alif maqsuura and it appears in several words of Arabic origin, eg. موسیٰ muusaa (Moses) or حتیٰ hattaa (until) and others. Any decent book that teaches Urdu should cover this.
     

    HZKhan

    Senior Member
    Persian (Cultural Language)
    ....it is the letter ی that is perplexing. To the best of my knowledge, there is no sound of /y/ or /e/ or /ii/ or /ai/ in اعلیٰ.So why does this letter appear in the spelling at all?


    Because in Arabic, it is actually the comparative form of علی ('aliiy).
     

    Dib

    Senior Member
    Bengali (India)
    I am aware of alif maqsuura. I have seen it in many places, most notably in the spelling of Allah - the islamic god.


    Actually, that is alif xanjariyya or dagger alif (I believe khaRii alif in Urdu?). It is basically a relic of the era when vowels, including long vowels, were not consistently indicated in the consonantal Arabic spelling. For the proper alif maqsuura, you may like to refer to this thread:
    http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2553426

    However, it is the letter
    ی that is perplexing. To the best of my knowledge, there is no sound of /y/ or /e/ or /ii/ or /ai/ in اعلیٰ.So why does this letter appear in the spelling at all?

    Note that in modern standard Arabic spelling, alif maqsuura is written as a final yaa' without the two dots below it (the dagger alif above is is an extra accompaniment, that may be dropped in unvocalised texts), and because Urdu and Persian omit those dots even in case of normal final yaa, it looks same as alif maqsuura in their orthographies. As for why this yaa' like sign was chosen, I have no real clue. But I do see that sometimes 'alif maqsuura does alternate with yaa', as here: 3aliiy ~ 'a3laa (the pattern is kabiir ~ 'akbar), or 3alaa (= on, written with an 'alif maqsuura) ~ 3alaykum (on you), etc. Maybe this sign was chosen to disambiguate from 'alif mamduuda, which was apparently written with a plain final alif in early Arabic? See for alif mamduuda:
    http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2561328
     
    Last edited:

    mundiya

    Senior Member
    Hindi, English, Punjabi

    ... In summary, in normal everyday writings, the nasal is always indicated in the final position, e.g maaN, haaN etc but not in the non-final position. ...

    If I understand you correctly, is "haaN" always written ھاں? Is هان also a common spelling for "haaN"? Though Platts may be more precise in his grammar book, he (incorrectly?) uses the latter for "haaN" in his dictionary.
     
    Last edited:

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    If I understand you correctly, is "haaN" always written ھاں? Is هان also a common spelling for "haaN"? Though Platts may be more precise in his grammar book, he (incorrectly?) uses the latter for "haaN" in his dictionary.
    No, it is never هان for ھاں since the final nasal nuun began to be used.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    Along the same lines, what is the correct pronunciation of the common surname "khan". Is it xaaN (nasalized) or xaan (consonant /n/).

    In Urdu, I have seen both spellings, خاں as well as خان . which one is the correct spelling? Or do the separate spellings signify separate surnames?
     

    Alfaaz

    Senior Member
    English
    tarkshya said:
    Along the same lines, what is the correct pronunciation of the common surname "khan". Is it xaaN (nasalized) or xaan (consonant /n/).

    In Urdu, I have seen both spellings, خاں as well as خان . which one is the correct spelling? Or do the separate spellings signify separate surnames?
    Just to add to Aryamp SaaHib's answer, Khan is also a popular last name (mostly among Pashtuns) in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and even Bangladesh.

    ...(quote from Wikipedia)...

    As mentioned above by Aryamp SaaHib and in the quote from Wikipedia, khaan is also used as a title of respect (خانم for females). Additionally (it seems in Urdu and probably even Dari), خاں - khaaN (with a nuun ghunnah/nasalized nuun) is added to the names of singers and musicians to indicate their seniority and experience.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    Not sure if I got this right, but are you saying that خاں (xaaN) is a different surname from خان (xaan)?
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    New question..

    While watching an old Hindi movie "Juaari" (meaning gambler), I came across this spelling (جواری) in the title screen.

    In the absence of any diacritic marks, a novice reader can misread it as "jawaari". Shouldn't there be a Hamza over the alif? Or is the Hamza implicit in the spelling?
     

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    If required but as you know it is not always written there can be a hamzah over the vaav, not alif.
     

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    Not sure if I got this right, but are you saying that خاں (xaaN) is a different surname from خان (xaan)?
    It's a question not directed at me still I would like to say that xaaN used to be a nobility's title while xaan a surname/what you want to call it of Pashtuns.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    If required but as you know it is not always written there can be a hamzah over the vaav, not alif.

    I am sorry but you got me confused. Are you saying that a hamzah over alif can be written if required? Or are you saying that in spelling of جواری there should be a hamzah over vaav instead of alif?

    Also, can somebody please write the word "juaari" with full diacritic marks wherever needed?
     

    Alfaaz

    Senior Member
    English
    marrish said:
    tarkshya said:
    Not sure if I got this right, but are you saying that خاں (xaaN) is a different surname from خان (xaan)?
    It's a question not directed at me still I would like to say that xaaN used to be a nobility's title while xaan a surname/what you want to call it of Pashtuns.
    tarkshya: I didn't mean to ignore your question, but was hoping other forum members would also present their opinions. What I heard in a discussion in a television program about this word (if I understood and remember correctly) was that xaan was/is used as a surname and title while xaaN was/is used as a title of respect or distinction (similar to ustaad or SaaHib). However, Platts gives both usages as xaan here and marrish has suggested something slightly different.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    hamzah over vaav, not alif. جُؤارِی۔

    Thanks marrish. That clarifies it.

    I think it is logically more consistent to put the hamza over alif, but all scripts have their quirks, and nastaliq has its own. So I can live with it.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    tarkshya: I didn't mean to ignore your question, but was hoping other forum members would also present their opinions. What I heard in a discussion in a television program about this word (if I understood and remember correctly) was that xaan was/is used as a surname and title while xaaN was/is used as a title of respect or distinction (similar to ustaad or SaaHib). However, Platts gives both usages as xaan here and marrish has suggested something slightly different.

    Platts entry actually confused me even further. He seems to be tracing "xaan" from Zend Avestan and Sankrit and what not. That would make it an authenticate Indo-European word. And I always thought xaan was an Altaic word!

    May be xaan and xaaN are two different words altogether, belonging to completely different language families. Possible?
     

    mundiya

    Senior Member
    Hindi, English, Punjabi
    No, Platts is an old dictionary, so don't give any credence to the proposed cognates. If you look at Oxford English dictionary or other modern sources, you will see that Khan (xaan) is of Turkish origin (or possibly Mongolian). xaaN with nasalised vowel is just a variation. Sometimes variations of words get compartmentalised to specific usages.
     

    fdb

    Senior Member
    French (France)
    No, Platts is an old dictionary, so don't give any credence to the proposed cognates. If you look at Oxford English dictionary or other modern sources, you will see that Khan (xaan) is of Turkish origin (or possibly Mongolian). xaaN with nasalised vowel is just a variation. Sometimes variations of words get compartmentalised to specific usages.

    That is correct. When Platts published his dictionary, Avestan (or, as Platts calls it, "Zend") was not yet properly understood. As a rule, you can disregard everything that Platts (or Steingass) says about "Zend".
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    New question.

    What is the difference between "pesh" and "ulta pesh"?

    I am getting contradictory answers from various Urdu websites. I would like authoritative answer only please. Since I already have plenty of confusion over this matter, please don't add to it if you are not sure yourself. :)
     

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    New question.

    What is the difference between "pesh" and "ulta pesh"?

    I am getting contradictory answers from various Urdu websites. I would like authoritative answer only please. Since I already have plenty of confusion over this matter, please don't add to it if you are not sure yourself. :)
    It would have been nice if you summarised these contradictory pieces of information from Urdu websites. Secondly it's a pity you perhaps didn't consult the forum here for previous discussion which can be found from this post onwards: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2864638&p=14480325#post14480325

    In addition to that, I will provide you with a quotation from a book "Urdu Self-taught" by one Edward John. This book dates back to the age of the Jurassic Park and the value of the following might be perhaps greater just due to its antiquity:

    Maswat-i-mamdúdah yá Nim maswat.

    Long Vowels or Semi-vowels.
    و váo - when combined with other letters with (ُ ) over it (now-a-days some people use up-set pesh ( ٗ) in manuscripts for the long sound of Roman ú or English oo while others do not) it sounds as Roman ú in ’tú’ or English oo in ‘fool,’ as ب be وٗ váo pesh = bú, پ pe, وٗ váo pesh = پوٗ pú, etc. Some people use ( ُ ) on, for the sound of O a کوُ kaf vao pesh ‘ko’, اوُ alif vao pesh O while others do not. It remains understood.

    The author just two pages later seems to say the opposite:

    ( ٗ ) ulṭá pesh - Now-a-days it is marked over و generally in manuscripts to indicate its sound long as ….
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    I generally use this website to learn about Nastaliq script. http://taj.chass.ncsu.edu/urdu/

    If you go to "The Urdu Alphabet" -> Extras -> More about vowels and Ahrab section, it states that Ulta pesh is put over vav to produce a sound of /oo/, as in moon.

    However, if I go by the spelling of جُؤارِی , a normal pesh over the letter *preceding* the vav makes the /oo/ sound. So what is the correct standard?
     

    Cilquiestsuens

    Senior Member
    French
    I generally use this website to learn about Nastaliq script. http://taj.chass.ncsu.edu/urdu/

    If you go to "The Urdu Alphabet" -> Extras -> More about vowels and Ahrab section, it states that Ulta pesh is put over vav to produce a sound of /oo/, as in moon.

    However, if I go by the spelling of جُؤارِی , a normal pesh over the letter *preceding* the vav makes the /oo/ sound. So what is the correct standard?

    NO.

    What you say is true if:

    • There is a Waaw which is not followed by an alif or a ye. Example: جُو= joo
    • However, if there is an alif following the waaw it is a clear sign that the waaw is a semi consonant. Example: خَوا = javaa
    • AND, if, as in the present case, you have a Hamza above the waaw, BEWARE, it means that there is actually no Waaw letter in the word, but only a Hamza. Both Ye and Waaw when topped by a Hamza are not actual letters, but are used as 'chairs' (kursiya.n) for the Hamza to 'sit on'. Example: جُؤا = ju'aa. Note that there is a Zabar on top of the Hamza.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    NO.

    What you say is true if:

    • There is a Waaw which is not followed by an alif or a ye. Example: جُو= joo

    This is all well and good. Even my own understanding matches with this standard, i.e. pesh over preceding letter + waaw = /oo/ vowel. But now, this begs the question, what is the need of an "ulta pesh" then?

    Is it possible that there are two different schools of thought in diacritical markings in Urdu, both being "correct"?
     

    Cilquiestsuens

    Senior Member
    French
    This is all well and good. Even my own understanding matches with this standard, i.e. pesh over preceding letter + waaw = /oo/ vowel. But now, this begs the question, what is the need of an "ulta pesh" then?

    Is it possible that there are two different schools of thought in diacritical markings in Urdu, both being "correct"?

    There is only one school, but some websites are bothering you - for the sake of exhaustiveness? - with Quranic orthography, which appear only incidentally in Urdu.

    ulTaa pesh is not meant for Urdu. It is used in the Arabic Quranic orthography, when a short ''u'' is lengthened when it occurs in some specific environments. There is no such things as ulTaa / ulTii pesh in Urdu! In which word have you come across it?

    There is also, by the way the khaRaa / khaRii zer used the same way to lengthen a zer. It is used in some Arabic words in Urdu, such as mu3tadd bihii. معتد بہ
     
    Last edited:

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    I generally use this website to learn about Nastaliq script. http://taj.chass.ncsu.edu/urdu/

    If you go to "The Urdu Alphabet" -> Extras -> More about vowels and Ahrab section, it states that Ulta pesh is put over vav to produce a sound of /oo/, as in moon.

    However, if I go by the spelling of جُؤارِی , a normal pesh over the letter *preceding* the vav makes the /oo/ sound. So what is the correct standard?
    You are right, 'pesh' is placed on the preceding letter.

    Teaching such an obscure manner of writing which is quite arcane and wrong in my opinion is tantamount to misleading students. Please use the normal 'pesh' to indicate the 'uu/oo' sound. Apart from this, the diacritical signs are called اعراب in Urdu so you can see that the authors didn't have a clue about its proper spelling and assumed ح was there.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    Yes, even I am coming to this conclusion that this website may not be a reliable source to learn Nastaliq. I have noticed a few more oddities too. Let me know what is your opinion on the following.

    1. In the title page itself, the website writes the spelling of darwaazaa as دروَازہ , i.e, it places a zabar over waav. I don't see the point of this zabar. It looks like a mistake to me. What would you say on this?
    2. In this vowel section, it mentions that to produce the /ee/ vowel sound (as in keen, seen etc), a tiny alif is placed between the two dots of ی. Again, this look likes a non-standard practice to me.
     

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    From 'boskii kaa panchtantar" - a booklet for children by Gulzar:

    بہُت ہی بڑے ایک جنگل میں اِک بار؍ بہُت ہی بڑا ایک ہی شیر تھا ؍ بہت ہی پڑی اس کی مُونچھیں بھی تھیں ؍ بہت ہی بڑی پُونچھ اُس شیر کی۔
    کبھی پُونچھ اُوپر اُٹھاتا تھا جب ؍ تو پنچھی بھی پیڑوں پہ ڈر جاتے تھے ؍ نِکلتا تھا جب غار سے اور غُرّاتا تھا ؍ تو جنگل میں سب ڈر کے چھُپ جاتے تھے ؍ بہُت سہمے سہمے سے رہتے تھے سب۔​
    http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/E_Library/Flipbooks/Boski Ka Panchtantra Part - I/index.html

    No such a thing as 'ultTaa pesh' here. And yes, the zabar on waav is correct. daal+zabar=da, re+sukuun=r waav+zabar+alif=wa+a=waa, ze+zabar+he=zah. Cilquiestsuens SaaHib has already anticipated and addressed the question about a tiny alif between two dots of ye - that is ''khaRaa/-ii zer'', don't bother about it. It's very strange.
     
    Last edited:

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    Thanks marrish. You have been a very patient teacher to me, unlike some others in this forum. I will regard this "ulta pesh" as some archaic form. But now let's take the other point which you made.

    "And yes, the zabar on waav is correct. ... waav+zabar+alif=wa+a=waa"

    I thought alif alone is sufficient to produce /aa/ vowel. What is the point of zabar here? If I write this part as waav + alif, won't that also make the syllable "waa"?


    From 'boskii kaa panchtantar" - a booklet for children by Gulzar:

    بہُت ہی بڑے ایک جنگل میں اِک بار؍ بہُت ہی بڑا ایک ہی شیر تھا ؍ بہت ہی پڑی اس کی مُونچھیں بھی تھیں ؍ بہت ہی بڑی پُونچھ اُس شیر کی۔
    کبھی پُونچھ اُوپر اُٹھایا تھا جب ؍ تو پنچھی بھی پیڑوں پہ ڈر جاتے تھے ؍ نِکلتا تھا جب غار سے اور غُرّاتا تھا ؍ تو جنگل میں سب ڈر کے چھُپ جاتے تھے ؍ بہُت سہمے سہمے سے رہتے تھے سب۔​
    http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/E_Library/Flipbooks/Boski Ka Panchtantra Part - I/index.html

    No such a thing as 'ultTaa pesh' here. And yes, the zabar on waav is correct. daal+zabar=da, re+sukuun=r waav+zabar+alif=wa+a=waa, ze+zabar+he=zah. Cilquiestsuens SaaHib has already anticipated and addressed the question about a tiny alif between two dots of ye - that is ''khaRaa/-ii zer'', don't bother about it. It's very strange.
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    ... لگے ہاتھوں ایک سوال اور

    What is that spoon like symbol in the signature of Gulzar in first page of the book you just mentioned?
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    One more question. Also, please note that some of the questions I asked earlier in this thread are still unanswered. I will appreciate it if somebody will provide an answer to them.

    This question is - I was reading some Urdu newspapers on the Internet, and I came across this paper. http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/Index.aspx?Issue=NP_LHE

    In the headlines of this newspaper, you will notice lots of strange diacritical marks. Some are like birds, others like worms and so on. What do these marks mean?
     

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    One more question. Also, please note that some of the questions I asked earlier in this thread are still unanswered. I will appreciate it if somebody will provide an answer to them.

    This question is - I was reading some Urdu newspapers on the Internet, and I came across this paper. http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/Index.aspx?Issue=NP_LHE

    In the headlines of this newspaper, you will notice lots of strange diacritical marks. Some are like birds, others like worms and so on. What do these marks mean?
    This question is actually not clear to me because there are different headlines and different signs used in them in that newspaper. All of them are indeed decorative 'space fillers' without any meaning or phonetic value - as already explained above, while some of them are a miniaturised indications of the proper character written below or above. You can find there a superscript miim or subscript siin and shiin. All they mean is to indicate the proper letter lest someone had trouble with deciphering calligraphic kerning of words, and, more importantly and totally analogous to the use of those birds etc. they are ornamental and are not meant to bear any phonetic value.
    Thanks marrish. You have been a very patient teacher to me, unlike some others in this forum. I will regard this "ulta pesh" as some archaic form. But now let's take the other point which you made.

    "And yes, the zabar on waav is correct. ... waav+zabar+alif=wa+a=waa"

    I thought alif alone is sufficient to produce /aa/ vowel. What is the point of zabar here? If I write this part as waav + alif, won't that also make the syllable "waa"?
    It is a kind of mental shortcut to imagine alif as if it stands for a long /aa/ but it is not so in reality. Long /aa/ is written in the beginning of a word with 'alif mamduudah' - that is the alif with a madd on top of it (آ). Secondly, the fact is that a bare alif does not represent any sound whatsoever and has no meaning on its own. It serves, just as waav and ye sometimes do, as a seat for a hamzah, zer, zabar or pesh. Redundant to repeat that those diacritics are rarely used in actual texts. In this case, in the middle of the word 'darwaazah', it is the waav which carries a short /a/ sound which is then lengthened by alif. The same alif, if written in the beginning of a word where it is not possible for it to be preceded by a zabar, will stand for a short vowel only as in اڈا (اَڈَّا)۔.
    ... لگے ہاتھوں ایک سوال اور

    What is that spoon like symbol in the signature of Gulzar in first page of the book you just mentioned?
    There was an answer to this question but it appears deleted. Patience which even is appreciated may be tried by this kind of words of gratitude. This is used to indicate the nome de plume or pen name in Urdu literature and texts which is called taxallus. Here the poet, Sampooran Singh Kalra used his autograph and nome de plume 'Gulzar' and marked it as such. گلزارؔ
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    Thanks marrish. It is clear now. I just didn't understand following line from you reply.

    Patience which even is appreciated may be tried by this kind of words of gratitude.

    However, I guess this line is not really important in the context of the reply.

     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    I have a quick question so I though I will use this old thread of mine instead of opening too many threads.

    In my daily reading of Urdu newspaper I came across this headline.

    'دپشت گردی کیخلاف جنگ پاکستان کی جنگ ہے'


    At this link
    http://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1013891/war-against-terrorism-is-our-war-only-pm-nawaz

    I suspect there are typos in the headline. دپشت گردی does not seem right to me. It has to be دہشتگردی. Similarly, کیخلاف should be written as کے خلاف, isn't it? But can a major newspaper like Dawn has this kind of typos? Or am I missing something?
     

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    Yes, you are right. There is one typo. It should be دہشت گردی. The second word is correct. It can be written both ways, especially in news headlines "surxiyaaN". Just as ۔ کیساتھ = کے ساتھ؛ کیطرح = کی طرح؛ کیطرف = کی طرف؛ کیلئے= کے لئے
     

    tarkshya

    Senior Member
    Marwari
    .. The second word is correct. It can be written both ways, especially in news headlines "surxiyaaN". Just as ۔ کیساتھ = کے ساتھ؛ کیطرح = کی طرح؛ کیطرف = کی طرف؛ کیلئے= کے لئے

    Thanks marrish. This is an interesting tidbit to remember. In Hindi, "ke" (के ) is never attached to following word. It can be attached to preceding word, but only if the preceding word is a pronoun, like जिसके (jiske), किसके (kiske) etc.. It is never attached to nouns.
     
    Top