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

sancho wrote:

Dear Afzal saab,

Thank you for responding to my comments. Let me make a few points.
There are 2 issues being discussed here... one with reference to
transcribing lyrics into Roman on RMIM...and secondly the broader
issue of Hindi vs Urdu, etc, etc.



My dear Sanjeev Saheb, (I hope you are happy now !)

That was my point all along --- that we should eschew the broader
question. People have been debating this issue for decades, and
no end is in sight. It raises the "temperature" on both sides,
and that is cunter-productive to a reasoned debate. It would have
been much better to let the discussion remain confined to RMIM....




I fully agree with you when you say that while transcribing lyrics of
Indian films, we must use “zindagi” and not “jindagi”, “zara” and not
“jara” and so on. This has nothing to do with the relative merits or
forms of the languages but with the fact that the singer inevitably
sings it as “zindagi” and not “jindagi”. If some singer sang it as
“jindagi”, we could either say that he is wrong and still transcribe
it as “zindagi” or accept that for that song, one needs to sing it as
“jindagi”. My guess is that, irrespective of the pronunciation in the
streets, most singers would “correctly” pronounce words like “zindagi”
and it is a must that when we use these on RMIM, we use “z” and not
“j”. If people (knowingly or unknowingly) use ‘j’, there is no harm
in pointing it out to them – indeed we should.




You say that, "irrespective of the pronunciation in the streets,
most singers would 'correctly' pronounce words like "zindagi"...
Is it not a tacit admission that the street pronunciation viz.
"jindagi" is wrong ? If you maintain that there are in fact two
words, one in Urdu (with 'z') and the other in hindi (with 'j'),
the question would arise whether the song in question is an Urdu
language song or a hindi language song. Lyricists like Majrooh,
Saahir and JaaN Nisaar Akhtar would no doubt continue to use
"zindagi", others (like Kavi Pradeep or Neeraj) would start using
"jindagi". U-wallahs have no problems with songs like "Jeevan hai
madhuban". I hope you remember this beautiful song from "Jasoos".
U-wallahs would never want the song to be written like "Zindagi
hai gulshan". What they apprehend is a demand (in future) that
lyricists should use "jindagi" in all their songs. After all,
what is good enough for hindi should be good enough for Urdu too.
And that is why I have expressed my belief that "zindagi" is, and
will continue to be, an Urdu word. There is no hindi version.






On the broader Hindi vs Urdu issue, as you said, when a word does move
languages “it does NOT happen that the word simply vanishes from its
original language. It continues to be a part of that language”. I
agree. Which is why, i said that the Urdu word would always remain
“zindagi”. But there can be no restrictions put on how the Hindi word
is to be used...that is a function of how it is said by Hindi users.
On the question of “why borrow”, I really don’t have an answer other
than “why not”. Borrowing and assimilating from other areas is how
languages evolve. I am sure Urdu itself has borrowed from Arabic or
Persian (to be honest, I don’t know and I am happy to be corrected).
And while it is not mandatory for the form to change, it seems to be
more of the norm. I would think of it this way. A foreign word is
being used regularly in your language. It does not fully adhere to the
structure of your language. Which is more likely to happen- that the
word changes to fit the structure or the structure of the language
changes to fit the word? I would guess that the former happens more
often. But the latter too does (as evidenced by the “nukta” and words
like “en passant” in English, directly borrowing both spelling and
pronunciation from French). There is no right or wrong in this.





You have no answer for the question "why borrow". Let me also
add that it is not the U-wallahs who have either "borrowed" this
word in Hindi or "willingly loaned" it to hindi. Such words have
been "expropriated" by the H-wallahs and, what is more, they also
claim all these words like "kad", "mutaabik", etc.) are now
hindi words. It is like saying that "China is an integral part
of India". These folks are not even prepared to concede that
these words (in their real and true form) could ever have been
Urdu words. Languages may assimilate words from other languages,
but that should be a natural process. Urdu has assimilated a
very large number of words from Faarsi. But, to my knowledge,
no U-wallah has ever claimed that these are now ONLY Urdu words
or that Faarsi can no longer lay claim to them. Also, to my
knowledge, Urdu and its practitioners have tried their utmost to
retain the original spelling of these words. They have not
sought to mutilate them. So Urdu is being assailed by a double -
edged sword. On the one hand, it is accused of harbouring such a
large number of words from "foreign" or "alien" sources. On the
other, many of these words are being "assimilated" in the hindi
language, and their existence as Urdu words is being brazenly
denied. Is this fair ?

You are trying to explain why the pronunciation (and spelling)
of these Urdu words is required to undergo a change in hindi.
{A sort of "shuddhi-karan" perhaps ?}. First of all, is there a
crying need to "borrow" these words in the first place ? Isn't
'jeevan' a sufficiently suitable word ? Didn't the "pristine"
hindi of the 1860's, say, do without these Urdu words ? I have
tried in my time to read Hindi literature and poetry, but it was
all too much for me.

You say that such words do not adhere to the "structure" of the
hindi language. If that is so, why borrow the word in the first
place ? And what exactly is this "structure" which does not
support these Urdu words ? I hope you will clarify why and how
"jindagi" is compatible with Hindi's structure, and "zindagi" is
not.

And, please, U-wallahs have no desire, or the means, to control
how the average man in the street pronounces these words.






Your concern seems to be that “zindagi” in Urdu might be forced to
become “jindagi”. I agree that would be stupid and wrong. I was not
aware of the background to get Urdu to drop its script and switch over
to Devnagri. Yes, that too is silly, in my opinion and should not
happen. But just as one should not force “zindagi” to become “jindagi”
in Urdu, one cannot force it to remain “zindagi” in Hindi. I think,
the fundamental difference lies in your insisting that it is an Urdu
word, whereas my view point being that it is today both an Urdu word
and a Hindi word and as such can exist independently (hence the
English examples of such cases as jungle and bungalow) and can evolve
independently. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.





Yes, let us agree to disagree. There is no question of any force
here. But I do not understand why it cannot remain "zindagi" in
hindi ? Why is it essential that it should get changed to
"jindagi" ? And, mind you, I am not talking here of the average
man in the street and his pronunciation.

The English language examples you have cited are not quite
relevant here. The word "jungle" has been used in Urdu poetry
around the mid-1850's. Meer Anees says : "JaNgal ke sher gooNj
rahe the kachhaar men". He passed away around 1874. The word
might have been borrowed by the Englishmen but, to my knowledge,
they never claimed that it was an original English word or that it
was NOT an Indian language word.





I suppose you are referring to my hypothetical guess as to how “z” got
assimilated in Hindi as not logical. I might have rambled on a bit
there...especially bringing in “ph” and “f” and et al. The basic point
was only that 2 languages could have the same word in different forms.
I apologize for the diversions along the way.




I am sorry I got lost in trying to pinpoint your chain of
thought. Even now, if you can re-write the same succintly,
I can still try to deal with your points.




Finally, for myself, I appreciate Urdu poetry for exactly the reasons
you have given - something intrinsically exquisite, elegant, refined
and resplendent about the language that can be seen in all its
splendour in its poetry. Further, there is something in its form of
speech, which makes Urdu, to me, the sweetest language to hear- which
further adds to the charm of poetry in that language. And yes, if we
replaced “z” by “j” it would certainly “distort” and “mutilate” it a
great deal. I hope it doesn’t happen





Thanks. If such "mutilation" and "distortion" is not good for
the Urdu language, how can that be justified in the Hindi
language ? And avoidance of such 'mutilation' in Hindi is all
so easy. People can just revive the earlier practice of using
"nuqtaas" and letters like 'z' and 'q' etc.






But I would still say that if a large enough section of the hindi
speaking population chose to say “j” over “z” for a word used
regularly in hindi, then that’s it. To quote Voltaire (perhaps a bit
out of context) – I do not agree what you say, sir...but i shall
defend with my last breath your right to say so. I do not think this
will in any way detract from the strength of Urdu or its poetry. Why
else would so many Urdu poets be so well known – across the spectrum
of Hindi and urdu speakers. And I hope that never changes





This sort of logic is a little strange. First "expropriate"
Urdu words, then "mutilate" their spelling and pronunciation,
and finally conclude "that's it". I am sure, you are familiar
with what is known as "Madras Bashai". However popular and
wide-spread it may be, is it an acceptable substitute for
literary Tamil ?

I am sorry I cannot repeat Voltaire's words in this discussion.
The comment may seem witty, but is more of a falsidical paradox.
I think he also said that "Common sense is not so common".




Afzal




Sancho
.

Loading