Urdu & the media – word usage and origins
By Rauf Parekh
URDU is passing through one of the strangest phases of its life these days. A section of the society, especially the new generation who doesn`t give it a damn, seems too indifferent to care for the correct usage. Both the print and electronic media don`t seem to give much importance to the sanctity of the language either and sometimes follow the trends prevalent in not-so-literate youth, without sparing a moment for thought.
Aside from the rampant and thoughtless use of English words in Urdu, another trend is to follow the crowd, even among, I am sorry to say, teachers and writers, the two kinds who we expect to respect the dictates of a language most. A good example is the use of the word `awaam` (common people). Every dictionary of Urdu says that the word `awaam` is plural and has a masculine gender (the singular form is `aam`). The standard usage would be, for example, `awaam keh rahe hain` (people are saying), though the less educated would say `awaam keh rahi hai` (singular with a feminine gender). What is shocking, however, is that most TV anchors and newscasters now follow the substandard version. Gone are the days when Z. A. Bukhari hired experts of language at Radio Pakistan to make sure that correct pronunciation and usage of Urdu is not compromised.
On the other hand, a dangerous and growing trend among some speakers and writers of Urdu these days is to stress too much on the origin of a word used in Urdu and to insist to use it in Urdu as it is used in the source language, i.e. Arabic or Persian etc. Even some scholars seem to hold the view that a word should be spelt and used according to the phonetic and grammatical rules of the language from where it has been borrowed. The correct path, I believe, lies somewhere in between, away from both the extremes.
Luckily enough, we have had in history some erudite scholars of Urdu who were equally at home in Urdu, Arabic and Persian and they knew that when a word is borrowed by another language changes generally do occur in its pronunciation and usage. One such personality was Syed Sulaiman Nadvi (1884-1953) who not only knew many languages but wrote in them. Nadvi Sahib, who also compiled a modern Arabic-Urdu dictionary, was of the view that Urdu is an independent and living language and like any other independent and living language it assimilates alien words according to its phonetic and syntactical structure. He insisted that many of the Arabic and Persian words and expressions used in Urdu with certain changes are correct even though they may not qualify as correct or standard usage when judged from the source language view point and if we started using all the foreign words in Urdu according to their original meanings there would be a linguistic anarchy in our language. Since a word entering another language becomes a `citizen` of the new territory, it has to live according to the law of the land. His book `Nuqoosh-i-Sulaimani` includes an article titled `tehneed` (meaning `Indian-isation`) on the issue. Here are some of the Arabic words and their use in Urdu that he has discussed in it:
`Mashkoor` is an Arabic word which means someone `thanked` or to whom one should acknowledge thanks. But in Urdu, `mashkoor` means thankful. Many object to this and insist on using `shakir` instead, but, says Nadvi, this word should be returned to them with thanks and they should be reminded of the word `shukriya` which, though based on Arabic root `shukr`, is not used in Arabic. We say `shukr` to Allah and `shukriya` to our fellow beings. Not only that, Urdu has invented another word `nashukra` (ungrateful) which simply does not exist in Arabic. Though based on the same Arabic root, a prefix `na` has been added.
The word `tabaadla` (exchange; transfer) is sometimes frowned upon and `tabaadul` or `mubaadla` are offered as `correct` replacements. Similarly, `tabdeeli` is considered correct without the suffix `i` and `tabdeel` is said to be enough. But Nadvi Sahib says that it is perfectly all right as there are hundreds of Urdu words that are considered `Arabic` in their origin but are not used in Arabic. For instance, calling a subordinate `maatehat` would be senseless in Arabic but in Urdu it is perfect.
Rasheed Hasan Khan, while discussing Sulaiman Nadvi`s linguistic notions, sides with him and disagrees with puritans such as Josh Maleehabadi and Niaz Fatehpuri who did not use certain words that connote differently in the source languages. Josh did not use the word `arsa`, says Rasheed Sahib, when he meant `muddat` (a period of time) because `arsa` literally means `ground` or `field` (maidaan) in Arabic. According to Rasheed Sahib, people with little knowledge of languages or linguistics would listen to such utterances of Josh with awe. Such incorrect notions have been compiled too in a number of books such as `Qaamoos-ul-aghlaat` (dictionary of errors). But it is needles to add that such notions died their natural death in due course of time and the language moved ahead with such `wrong usages` as it usually does, ignoring the puritans altogether.
Have a look at the word `juloos`, invites Nadvi Sahib. It originally means `to sit` or `sitting down to table` in Arabic. But non-Arabs used this to convey the meaning of `accession to the throne, coronation`. We in Urdu use it to say `procession, public rally`. From `juloos` we formed `ijlass` and `jalsa` and say them to mean `meeting` and `public gathering`, respectively. `Majlis`, originating from the same root, means `place of sitting` or `seat` but in Urdu it means a congregation.
`Taqreeb` literally means `bringing near`, or in Urdu `qareeb lana`, writes Nadvi Sahib. But in Urdu any formal ceremony is called taqreeb, since it brings people near each other. `Janaab` literally means `threshold`. As dignitaries were not supposed to be addressed with their names in olden days, people arriving at their house and desiring to see them would rather address their `janaab` or the threshold of their house. With the passage of time the word got currency as an honorific title to address someone, just as we say `Mr` or `sir` these days.
In Arabic `ghussa` literally means `strangulation, suffocation` but in Urdu it means `anger`, perhaps because when angry one feels like choking.
And then there is a long list of `Arabic` words used in Urdu but they are not used in similar sense in Arabic. Ending with the suffix `yet`, words like `haivaniyet` (brutality), `mehviyet` (engrossment), `khairiyet` (wellbeing), `aadmiyet` (humanity) and `roohaniyet` (spirituality) etc were formed in Persian and have been adopted by Urdu. Words like `zehniyet` (mentality) do not exist in Persian even and are the result of Urdu`s ingenuity. Perhaps the most interesting of such words is `ahliyet`. Since the final `t` is sometimes replaced with `h` in Arabic and this `h` is pronounced as `a` in Persian and Urdu, the word `ahliyet` or `ahliya` means wife in Arabic. In Urdu both are used, but `ahliya` means wife and `ahliyet` means ability or qualification.
In the end a word of caution: I do not mean to say that we have a licence to vandalise every Arabic word used in Urdu. Only scholars with a perfect eye for words and their roots are to decide whether an extension or innovation in the meanings of particular words is justified or `najaiz` (unauthorised).
Source: Dawn
Date:2/7/2011
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
