Urdu: old Nastaliq medial siin

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Friends,

In his book about Nastaliq script, Professor Mohammed Zakir mentions the trace

as an old alternative for the medial form of the letter siiin س. For example:

= hinduustaan

Is it fair to assume that the trace is the same of those of the be ب group, only without any characteristic nukta or sign?
And if so, then no similar trace + 3 nuktas can be used for the shiin ش , since it would be mistaken with the se, ث correct?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Alexu]

What is your opinion - is it nastaliq?

 

[Qureshpor]

Is it fair to assume that the trace is the same of those of the be ب group, only without any characteristic nukta or sign?

No it is not fair to assume this. siin and shiin written

so (the latter with three dots on top) are always elongated whereas ب، پ، ت، ،ٹ ، ث etc are seldom lengthened. Even if they were, they would have the appropriate diacritical mark to distinguish them from each other.

 

[Qureshpor]

What is your opinion - is it nastaliq?

Yes it is nasta3liiq.

 

[Alexu]

Yes it is nasta3liiq.

This is from this book... I bought it about twenty years ago in Khujand.

 

[Qureshpor]

I should add that this is not "old nast3liiq" medial siin, but it is used in 2023 too , both in print and handwriting.

 

[Alexu]

I should add that this is not "old nast3liiq" medial siin, but it is used in 2023 too , both in print and handwriting.

I gave a picture from a book published in 1989.

Spoiler: A little about this book.

As is known Cyrillic is currently used to write the Tajik language in Tajikistan. Whereas the Arabic script for a long time could be read by a few highly educated people. It was only in the late 80s that interest in the Arabic script began to grow. From this book (in approximate Romance transliteration):

" "Xat va imloi matni klassili'i tojik" baroi donishjuyoni fakultethoi gumanitari'i maktabhoi olii hamchun kitobi darsii baroi omuxtani alifboi arabi'i tojikii va imloi on muhayo shudaast. Ba ghayr az in, on baroi shaxsone, ki ba xudomûzii mashghuland, kûmaki kalon xohad rasonid."

And a little offtopic. For a long time a huge number of books have been published in Tajik Cyrillic - including the main works of classical literature. This is how one of Hafiz's gazelles looks like in modern Tajik graphics...
( اگر آن ترک شیرازی بہ دست آرد دل مارا )

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Is this readily recognized by the average reader as "qaashuq-o-changaal"? (spoon and fork)?
If so, is there any real indication (other than knowledge of the language) that the first word is قاشق and not قاثق with a ث?

 

[Qureshpor]

^ Is that from an Urdu source?

Is this readily recognized by the average reader as "qaashuq-o-changaal"? (spoon and fork)?

Yes

If so, is there any real indication (other than knowledge of the language) that the first word is قاشق and not قاثق with a ث?

How often have you seen a ث written with "w" type stroke in the beginning, like a siin or a shiin?

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

So contextual, semantic knowledge is needed, contrary to what you said in #3 about some obvious elongation of the siin trace, then?
Both things can't be true at the same time.

 

[Qureshpor]

So contextual, semantic knowledge is needed, contrary to what you said in #3 about some obvious elongation of the siin trace, then?
Both things can't be true at the same time.

No, I am not contradicting anything I've said in #3. The shape of ش and ث are not identical. Write قاشق with an elongated shiin

(with three dots above) and and write قاثق and make the ث of the same length if you wish and see if they appear idential to you.

What does قاثق mean, by the way? I haven't come across this word before. (واثق is a genuine word). Normally the ث would be written quite short.

 

[Qureshpor]

^ Is that from an Urdu source?

؟؟؟؟

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Oh, I get your point. The "elongated siin/shiin" don't have the initial arc that the be group has (at least in Nasj, and in a standard initial position). They are more like a flatter, slightly curved single horizontal trace.

What does قاثق mean, by the way?

Nothing, I just invented it, in order to provide a contrasting example.

 

[Qureshpor]

Oh, I get your point. The "elongated siin/shiin" don't have the initial arc that the be group has (at least in Nasj, and in a standard initial position). They are more like a flatter, slightly curved single horizontal trace.

nasx
The س and ش will be differentiated from the ب group as you put it, in both nasta3liiq and nasx.

^ Is that from an Urdu source?

As you have not responded to this question I can assume that you did not take your قاشق/چنگال picture from an Urdu source. I suspect it is from a Persian calligraphy page. It's good to compare like for like, bearing in mind the thread title is Urdu. In both languages the style depicted may be nasta3liiq but they may not always be identical in every circumstance.

 

[Massad]

View attachment 82388

Is this readily recognized by the average reader as "qaashuq-o-changaal"? (spoon and fork)?
If so, is there any real indication (other than knowledge of the language) that the first word is قاشق and not قاثق with a ث?

Sorry to interrupt the flow. This sample is, to my mind, in the "shekasteh", ie 'broken' or contorted, style.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

As you have not responded to this question I can assume that you did not take your قاشق/چنگال picture from an Urdu source. I suspect it is from a Persian calligraphy page. It's good to compare like for like, bearing in mind the thread title is Urdu. In both languages the style depicted may be nasta3liiq but they may not always be identical in every circumstance.

Oh, you mean the "qaashuq-o-changaal" picture itself?
It is a tatoo design. So not much textual "source" or context. But both words can be found independently in the Urdu Lughat.

 

[Qureshpor]

It is a tatoo design. So not much textual "source" or context. But both words can be found independently in the Urdu Lughat

Of course I know both words can be found in Urdu LuGhat and other dictionaries. I was wondering about the source of your image.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

Some blog about Persian callygraphy. Unfortunately it is not very useful, it is old an all the links are broken.

https://flic.kr/p/5N9tuw

Also, I cant find the font "Nastaleegh saada" they talk about.

 

[Qureshpor]

Some blog about Persian callygraphy.

This is what I thought. I am of the view if you are asking a question about Urdu nasta3lliq style of writing, then at least quote your example from an Urdu source.

Also, I cant find the font "Nastaleegh saada" they talk about.

Open up a thread under the language title "Persian". I am sure someone will be able to help you.