Re: Sound of 'j' and 'z' in Hindi films and songs

sancho wrote:


I have over the last ten days or so been following this thread and it
has been quite interesting to read the various comments. I am not an
expert on linguistics but I do have some views which I thought I might
share on this forum. It’s turned out to be pretty long, so apologies
for that upfront...but just sharing my views. Not all directly
relevant to a music group...but the discussion has already widened.

I think a lot of issues have arisen in the debate over the “correct”
pronunciation of words (and since these are phonetic languages, the
impact is often on spelling as well) taken from one language (say
Urdu) into another language (say Hindi) . The fundamental question, I
think is that when a word moves from one language to another, why must
the pronunciation remain the same as the original language? Why should
it not change to reflect the structure of the borrowing language
rather than the borrowed language? I think by and large, anecdotal
evidence would suggest that the change in pronunciation and spelling
does happen. In fact, I think Hindi has given a unique place to Urdu
by accepting that words borrowed from Urdu should be identified by the
use of the “nukta” (and I use the words “Hindi” and “Urdu” as
abstracts here with no pointer towards users of the language)
indicating that the sound is different. This is not true in many
languages for words borrowed from other languages.

Consider for example, Hindi and Bengali, both of which owe a lot to
Sanskrit. Hindi words with “v” have a corresponding “b” sound in
Bengali because Bengali does not have the “v” sound . I don’t know
which the older language is...but if both have derived from Sanskrit,
then in many cases the Sanskrit version would be “v”. But the use of
“b” in Bengali cannot be surely imputed to anything but the structure
of the language.

Consider words borrowed into Hindi from English- take a word like
“phone” (I realize some people might insist that it is not a hindi
word...that being “door dhvani” , but for practical purposes, I think
it is today a hindi word). While, one might put a nukta on the first
letter to indicate the “f” sound, there is no way, to my knowledge to
put anything on the matra to show that the “o” sound is different in
English from Hindi. Similarly consider a word like “train” (again for
practical purposes, i think one could say that this is a Hindi word
today). The vowel sound in “train” is different in English from Hindi.
There is no indication of this either. In fact, so all pervading is
the influence of the Indian forms of these vowels, that most Indians,
even while speaking English would use the “wrong” vowels in words like
“phone” and “train”. Wrong in English, that is...it would be perfectly
fine in an Indian language.

This is also true when we consider words borrowed into English from
other languages...specifically Hindi and Urdu. Consider the word
“kismat”. The English pronunciation of this word is “kiz-met” though
it is spelt as kismet. The word comes into English from Persian and I
am guessing that it is the same origin for the Urdu (and Hindi???)
word which is pronounced very different from English. Consider
“jungle” which is derived from the Hindi but pronounced differently in
the 2 languages (the first vowel in the word in English is like the
second vowel of “above” while in hindi the first vowel of the word is
more like the first vowel of “above”)

There are also many cases of words in European languages deriving from
English, where the spelling remains the same (since they use the same
alphabet) but the pronunciation changes.

While all this is of course, anecdotal evidence, to me it is strong
enough to show that when a language borrows from another, it changes
the word (either orthographically or phonetically or both) to fit the
structure of its language. The case of Hindi and Urdu is possibly
unique...and that too, apparently only in one direction.

Why would something like this have happened? And what, in this
context, is “correct”?

I am guessing (and I hope there are people here who know more and
throw some further light on this) that earlier people spoke the
“Hindustani” dialect which grew out of Hindi and Urdu. People knew
that “zindagi” and “jeevan” both meant life...and while everyone may
not have been aware of the roots of the words, they knew (perhaps
because both languages were also in vogue as independent ones) that
the first was pronounced with a “z” and the second with a
“j” (phonetically “dz”). Over time, there were more and more words
from Urdu, which became used in day to day speech and there had to be
a way to write it in Devnagri. 2 choices now arose – either figure out
a way to write the “z” sound in devnagri, or else start pronouncing
the “z” sound as a “j” (the closest phonetically). Since the upper
classes (who really would had the means to influence the choice) would
have considered “jindagi” incorrect or even “uneducated” or “rustic”
and were used to saying “zindagi”, the language would have evolved a
form to have the Urdu sounds in writing in Devnagri (but never a form
for the English sounds, which had close phonetic equivalents in Hindi
– indeed i would say much closer)

And so, it is “zindagi” and not “jindagi”....”ziyaada” and not
“jyaada”

Does that mean “jindagi” is incorrect. That one is more difficult. To
me, it is wrong, because I grew up being taught that “z” is different
from “j” in Hindi by means of the nukta. But a language is by no means
static. Finally, correctness or incorrectness is a factor of usage. If
enough people start saying “jindagi” then it is, at least an
acceptable variant and if more than enough start saying it, then
“zindagi” is incorrect. I have no way to check what is happening but
if one were to accept newspapers as a barometer, maybe it is
happening. Consider for example Afzal saab saying that in the 20’s and
30’s street urchins in Delhi would say “ziyaada” (i don’t say
correctly or otherwise) but in some years time when UVR saab was in
Delhi, it had changed. Clearly language does change. And perhaps for
many of us who grew up in earlier times and (for some of us) who do
not live in India anymore, that change is not so visible.

Is that change good or bad? Prescriptiveness for a language is always
difficult. Can we say that if enough people say “jindagi”, then that’s
the word? It’s difficult to set the limits. For example, more and more
I see people in India, whose first language is, for practical
purposes, English, say “ph” incorrectly as “f”. I had a colleague from
Delhi who would say “fool” instead of “phool” and refused to accept
that it was “phool” (“how do you know? You are, in any case from Tamil
Nadu”) -clearly an influence from English. If enough Indians start
saying “f”, would the sound change? I should hope not.

But in the case we have been discussing, where the borrowing has
happened under counter-intuitive means (at least that is what I have
argued above), there could be merit in saying that in Hindi, one
should say “jindagi” and not “zindagi”. Many of us who have grown up
having being taught “zindagi” (including me) would consider it
incorrect and never use it...but over a period of time, if that starts
being used by enough people, i see no reason to view it as wrong.

May i add that this is only with reference to the Hindi word “zindagi”
being said (and written) as “jindagi” and not the Urdu word “zindagi”.
The Urdu word would always remain “zindagi”. And that would not change
irrespective of how it is written in Devnagri. So you would have 2
words –zindagi in Urdu and jindagi in Hindi- similar to having say,
jungle and 'jangal' or bungalow and 'bangla' in English and Hindi.
That, to my mind, may be an eventual end point.

regards
Sancho



My dear Sancho Saheb,

1. I know next to nothing about linguistics. I am merely a humble
practitioner of the Urdu language. Maybe, one other person, a
true gentleman by the name of Mr. Naseer Qureshi, is your man.
He is most interested in the above subject and can perhaps
carry on a very meaningful discussion in regard to the various
issues you have raised. I hope he too has read your post and,
time permitting, would choose to respond to it. But I would
suggest to both of you to start a new thread, either on RMIM or
(preferably) on ALUP for further discussion --- either you can
slightly modify your post and send it to ALUP or Naseer Saheb
can copy it there and send his response.

2. I must also express my appreciation for your valuable input and
the thoughtful manner in which you have presented your views.

3. I am positive "Sancho" is an alias and it is quite on the cards
that you know something about me and also UVR Saheb --- the two
persons who have had a prolonged "exchange" in this thread.
For all practical purposes, we should treat this thread as over
(particularly after UVR Saheb's last post). It is, therefore,
requested that any further discussion should be carried on
through a different thread, and preferably on ALUP.

4. With the preliminary points out of the way, let me try to
present before you some thoughts on this topic.

5. To my mind, the issue here was very simple ---> how to write,
in Roman, certain Urdu words and sounds, particularly with
reference to Indian films and their music/lyrics. Asif's post
specifically concerned RMIMers. The Urdu words he had in mind
were (e.g.) "zindagi", "zid", "zaroorat, "zamaana", "zeenat"
and also "raaz", "naaz" etc.

6. It had been noted in the thread (and nobody disputed it) that,
for a long time, there was a certain scheme in place that used
to be followed quite rigorously ---> the so-called "j-dot"
scheme. It has now been given up.

Having discussed the fundamentals of the background, let me deal
with some of your points. You have used the expression "when a
word moves from one language to another". This process does NOT
take place at the volition of that word itself. Someone or some
people has/have to "move" that word. And, usually, there is a
background to such movement. Also, it does NOT happen that
the word simply vanishes from its original language. It continues
to be a part of that language. Let us now assume that the two
languages are Urdu and hindi. Normally, an Urdu-wallah would not
care about the new 'avatar' of the Urdu word in the other language.
For example, "zindagi" can become "jindagi" and the latter may be
used like that in hindi newspapers and magazines. But an Urdu -
wallah may not even be aware of such a change, because he does not
(and does not have to) read hindi newspapers or magazines. And
even if he did, he may not be overly bothered about it. The
problem arises (for the limited purpose of our RMIM-related
discussions), when people start using the Roman spelling "jindagi"
routinely (in RMIM or ALUP) for this word. The same thing can (and
does)happen with other words of this nature. And it is this
practice that tends to upset Urdu-wallahs. They cannot subscribe
to this theory that these are two different words, one with a 'z'
(that is meant to be used in Urdu), and the other with a 'j' (that
is meant to be used in Roman). For them, it is (essentially) the
same word. And when there is a convenient system (the j-dot) that
had already been in use for a very long time), they cannot quite
understand why the same cannot be continued as before. They only
seek a revival of that system on RMIM. As it is, some RMIMers
still use these words on RMIM with a 'z'. So, it is no big deal if
others can also do so. Clearly, U-wallahs cannot 'reform' the
entire hindi press, and they don't seek to do so.

To make this relevant to RMIM, please consider the following lines
from Indian films :

Zindagi, kaisi hai paheli haaye
Zindagi dene waale sun
Zindagi hai zinda ('Munimji')
Zaahid sharaab peene de, masjid men baiTh kar
Zaalim tiri aaNkhon ne, kya cheez pilaa di hai
Zamaane ka dastoor hai yeh puraana
ZameeN chal rahi aasmaaN chal raha hai
Zara nazroN se keh do ji, nishaana chook na jaaye
Zara sa jhoom looN maiN
Zaroorat hai, zaroorat hai, zaroorat hai
Zulm ki nagri men kisi ka kaun sahaara hai

One can add many more songs to such a list, where only one Urdu
sound "Z" is involved. Also, I have chosen only those examples
where the "Z" word occurs right at the beginning. How is it going
to look if we start writing all these lines (in Roman) with a 'J' ?
And since it is perfectly possible to write them with a 'Z', why not
simply follow (or, if necessary, revive) that practice ? Is such a
plea so unreasonable ?

In paragraph 2 of your post under reply, you state (and I quote) :

"Why should it not change to reflect the structure of the
borrowing language rather than the borrowed language?"

You make it sound as if it is mandatory to change the pronunciation
of a 'borrowed' word. One question would be : why 'borrow' the word
in the first place ? Hindi (the Sanskriticised version) has, and
had been, doing quite well on its own. So why not let Urdu (with
its Faarsi/Arabic vocabulary) strictly alone ? After all, there is
a pefectly suitable word like "jeevan" available in Hindi. What the
U-wallahs look askance at is this process ---> first "expropriate"
Urdu words and "incorporate" them in hindi, then change their pro-
nunciation and mode of writing and start claiming that these are
actually Hindi words only ! And since a word like "zindagi" will
continue to be used in Urdu, there can be a subsequent demand that
U-wallahs too should start writing it with a "jeem" and not with a
"ze". Please remember that there have been a great many attempts,
over the years, to get Urdu to drop its script and switch over to
the D. script. Also, every h-wallah seems to characterize the
Arabic/Faarsi/Tukic content of the Urdu language as "foreign, alien
and non-indigenous". It is in this background that the reservations
of Urdu-wallahs have to be seen and understood.

There is one thing that I have never been able to quite understand.
Why is there so much interest in and fascination for Urdu poetry
amongst hindi-wallahs ? It seems to be a one-way traffic, as
U-wallahs do not seem to exhibit such a fascination for hindi
poetry. Ask an average U-wallah about Niraala or Jai Shankar
Prasad and he would give you a blank look. And it isn't as if
H-wallahs are seeking to do any favour to Urdu poetry or U-wallahs.
Could it be that there is something intrinsically exquisite,
elegant, refined and resplendent about the language that can be
seen in all its splendour in its poetry ? If it is indeed so, why
seek to distort or mutilate this graceful language, under one
specious argument or another ?

You have cited examples of certain English words like "phone",
"train", "jungle" etc. But I think these are quite irrelevant for
purposes of our discussion. Let us confine ourself to the two
Indian languages, viz. Urdu and Hindi.

You will excuse me for saying that a lot of stuff in your post
above (roughly from the middle to the end) does not seem to follow
a logical path of reasoning. So I am unable to deal with those
points. Even then, I would like to submit that, by and large,
U-wallahs are not concerned as to how some H-wallahs SPEAK certain
Urdu words or use some Urdu sounds. Even when Urdu words are
written in the hindi press wrongly (e.g. without the "nuqta"), an
U-wallah would not be overly concerned. The whole discussion
is about a small Newsgroup like RMIM where the conversational
exchanges are carried on in Roman. And it is with respect to only
such a limited setting that a few U-wallahs like Yours Truly,
Naseer Saheb and the original poster Asif protested.

As regards "correct" and "incorrect", I doubt if a common meeting
ground is possible. You may say that, in the hindi belt, more and
more people are speaking this word as "jindagi". And these people
can keep on shouting from the house-tops that it is a hindi word and
is absolutely correct. But, please rest assured that it would not
persuade the U-wallahs to give up their firmly rooted belief that it
is in fact an Urdu word and its only correct form is with a "Z".

Most h-wallahs have little love lost for the Urdu language, despite
their fascination for Urdu poetry. And this is a fact that cannot
be gainsaid. One example should suffice. Most veteran RMIMers
would remember a gentleman by the name of Mr. Sami Mohammed who
was (and should still be) a huge fan of Naushad and Mohammed Rafi.
He used to maintain a web-page which he called "Sami's Urdu/hindi
Music Page". I don't know if it is still there. And then, about
9-10 years back, one RMIMer asked him point blank (on the forum) as
to why he called it his "Urdu/hindi" page, and why not as "Hindi/
Urdu" page. And you should surely be aware of the huge role of
the Urdu language in Indian film lyrics. Go figure, as the US folks
would say.


Afzal








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sound of j and z in Hindi films and songs
    ... issue of Hindi vs Urdu, etc, etc. ... language song or a hindi language song. ... Borrowing and assimilating from other areas is how ...
    (rec.music.indian.misc)
  • Re: Sound of j and z in Hindi films and songs
    ... some subtleties of English language. ... languages and dialects, except Urdu, Dogri, and English. ... these films titled them as above in film credit rolls. ...
    (rec.music.indian.misc)
  • Re: hindi/urdu pronunciation
    ... Hindi media? ... It would have been okay to say that in Urdu it is ... The spelling "dhokhaa" is universally ... commonly accepted spelling for the language under consideration. ...
    (rec.music.indian.misc)
  • Re: Sound of j and z in Hindi films and songs
    ... some subtleties of English language. ... languages and dialects, except Urdu, Dogri, and English. ... these films titled them as above in film credit rolls. ...
    (rec.music.indian.misc)
  • Re: Sound of j and z in Hindi films and songs
    ... some subtleties of English language. ... languages and dialects, except Urdu, Dogri, and English. ... these films titled them as above in film credit rolls. ...
    (rec.music.indian.misc)
Loading