Post by Roshan Kamath...
Post by B.G.M.The general proposition seems to be that there doesn't really exist any
such thing as "standard" Hindi/Urdu phonology (and, therefore,
"everything goes" -- or should be allowed to go).
...
Post by B.G.M.I agree with UVR saahab`s position.
...
And I don't disagree with the gist of his position either! In fact, I'm
100% in agreement (save the characterisation of the 'general proposition'
which wasn't *my* point at all).
My very first post in this thread (which UVR Sb thought was "ire"-laden!)
sought to contend the basic notion that one cannot legislate evolutionary
trends in any language/standard. If there occurs a mutation in a
particular pronunciation/idiom/mode/grammar, even on the fringes of the
language's extant geography, that shouldn't be considered "unfortunate".
In fact, that is a sign of a *living* language. Name it whatever you
wish, if terming it 'urdU' ruffles some feathers.
roshan
I hope all participants in this thread will excuse me for
intervening in this debate.
I think the discussion in this new direction began when
Naseer Saheb tried to point out to Shri Sachin that "fir"
and "zharnaa" etc.were wrong.
Shri Kamath then commented as under :
"In my observation, saying 'fir' for 'pHir' is becoming
more-n-more commonplace. It's definitely been so among
maharashtrians forever, which I can vouch for."
If a group keep on pronouncing a word in a different form
than the form prevalent in the original language (Urdu here),
it doesn't mean that the other language (i.e. Urdu) should
adopt this different pronunciation or that the practitioners
of that language should accept that different form as an
acceptable alternative pronunciation. That is all Naseer
Saheb seemed to have been saying.
Even Shri Kamath accepted that situation, as revealed by the
Post by Roshan KamathEven Hydarabadis, I assume, would say that
"aap ho" and "fir" is wrong in Urdu/Hindi.
Post by B.G.M.No debate with the two examples there. However, the general
idea behind what you were trying to drive at can be debated.
for e.g., Hyderabadis commonly conjugate some irregular verbs
in a regular way: "maE.n nE voh kAm karA". I'm sure someone
from Dehli will throw a fit, but this is acceptable on the
streets of Hyderabad. Linguistically, we can't deem it as
'incorrect' or 'wrong'. Socially/Politically, one could try.>>
In one of his later posts, Shri Kamath seemed to support Naseer
Saheb when the latter had pointed out the corrections to Shri
Sachin. In that post Shri Kamath admitted :
"My intention is not to discourage al_Hindi Sahib away from
'learning' the idiomatic forms by spending more time on ALUP. In
fact, I wish him good luck in learning from ALUP and on
surrounding himself with 'fasIh' literature as much as he can."
In the circumstances, there was little point in Shri Kamath trying
in an oblique way to justify "incorrect" pronunciations like
"fir", "zharnaa" etc.
Let us now consider the debate on the theories and principles
espoused by Shri Kamath.
He had commented (and I quote again) :
"My very first post in this thread (which UVR Sb thought was
"ire"-laden!) sought to contend the basic notion that one cannot
legislate evolutionary trends in any language/standard. If there
occurs a mutation in a particular
pronunciation/idiom/mode/grammar, even on the fringes of the
language's extant geography, that shouldn't be considered
"unfortunate". In fact, that is a sign of a *living* language.
Name it whatever you wish, if terming it 'urdU' ruffles some
feathers."
"Eventually, IMO, it is not given to us or indeed anyone else
(including the self-proclaimed maulvis of the language) to assert
a particular usage/pronunciation as 'absolutely correct' or 'in
error'. At best one could only *insist* on something as idiomatic
or not. Reminds me of the phrase I read one time: "There is no
correctness apart from usage."
"(However, idiom, by its very nature, is fraught with evolutionary
baggage. The Deccan idiom/pronunciation may well fly in the face
of Dehli idiom/pronunciation. And both would be 'correct'. Thus,
if someone were to proclaim that Hyderabadi urdU is somehow
'incorrect' or 'corrupt' I'd fight them tooth and nail! Well not
really, but you get the idea ...)
Of course, one could insist that there be such a thing as
'standard' hindI/urdU pronunciation. But that is opening a whole
new can of worms! ... Platts notwithstanding ;)....."
In this context, it has to be recognized that "evolution" is a
natural process, so the question of "legislating" or imposing
"evolution" does not arise. It isn't as if someone issues a
decree or fiat that "henceforward, a particular word is to be
pronounced as, say, 'jharna' and, therefore, all other "variants"
are automatically outlawed".
I must also record my sense of disappointment at Shri Kamath's
use of the expression "self-proclaimed maulvis of the language".
This gives a totally unnecessary twist to the nature of the
current controversy and some may even consider it as malicious.
Shri Kamath has also tried to make a distinction between
"correct" and "idiomatic" --- he feels the latter can perhaps be
justified, but the former cannot. If some usage is "idiomatic",
does it not follow that it is also "correct" ? Conversely, how
can some other usage be deemed to be "correct" or "acceptable"
if it is "not idiomatic" ? Such a distinction, IMHO, is quite
fallacious.
Nothing much can be gained by raising the question of "Hyderabadi
Urdu". During the days of the Asaf Jaah dynasty, Hyderabad was
always in the forefront of the Urdu movement. It patronized men
of letters and promoted the Urdu language at a time when Delhi and
Lucknow did not have it in their power to do so effectively.
Thousands of books on all imaginable subjects were publishe from
there and all of them were written in a language that nobody could
find fault with. I myself had scores (maybe a couple of hundred)
Urdu books (published from Hyderabad) in my personal library back in
India. Any proposition that Hyderabadi Urdu is somehow "unchaste"
or "GHair~faseeh" is mendacious.
Yes, it is true that the common Hyderabadi does seem to speak the
language in a somewhat different style. But that is dialect.
If you read Hyderabad's Urdu newspapers and magazines (even today),
they do not reflect the influence of this "slang" or dialect,
except in very few instances. And everybody recognizes that such
exceptional cases do not constitute "faseeh" or "standard" usage.
It is a bit like people from Maharashtra saying "fir" instead of
"phir". Do Urdu-wallahs write "fir" in their books or newspapers ?
I am also a bit surprised that people still give the example of
"Delhi" as the arbiter of "standard" or "faseeh" Urdu usage.
This might have been the situation during the days of the Briti-
shers. But Delhi, in my view, has become a sort of second Punjab
these days. Hindi too flourishes there of course. But, all in
all, I don't think we can refer to the present-day Delhi in the
same way as we could in the first 4-5 decades of the previous
century (i.e. in the context of Urdu). This is just my opinion.
I too would like to encourage Shri Sachin to keep on learning the
finer points of this beautiful language. And all of us, particular-
ly people like Naseer Saheb, UVR Saheb, would be more than willing
to assist him to the best of our ability.
Afzal