WITH the import of critical canons from the Western, more particularly English literary tradition, a large number of English literary terms poured into our literature. Enamoured of them, we suddenly felt that the critical terms we had inherited from our classical tradition are devoid of meanings helping us in no way in the understanding of literature.
No doubt the newly imported terms helped us a lot in our new understanding of literature. But they, at the same time, created a problem for us — how could we convert them to Urdu. In a number of cases we, with much ado, found or coined their equivalents in Urdu. But these were terms which appeared adamant to be translated in Urdu. Haphazardous attempts to coin their Urdu equivalents were found inadequate to the extend of being ridiculous.
But now a serious attempt has been made in this respect. The Urdu Department of G.C. University, Lahore, has brought out a volume titled as Muntakhib Urdu Istilahat compiled by two distinguished scholars Dr Suhail Ahmad Khan and Mohammad Salimur Rehman. As asserted by them, it is for the first time that an Urdu Department of any university has undertaken such a project.
This volume may be seen as a solution to our problem in respect of literary terms as explained above. We have here a selected list of English literary terms along with their equivalents in Urdu. And each term carries with it a short note tracing its origin and explaining its meanings in a simple way. For instance, absurd is simply a word meaning nonsensical. Here we find the compilers explaining how this word transformed into a meaningful literary term denoting a trend in modern literature more particularly in the world of modern theatre.
These explanatory notes have enhanced the value of this volume. Now in addition to Urdu equivalents of the terms we are here introduced to different literary trends and philosophical concepts which have given birth to these terms.
I am all praise for the volume. And I intend to keep it with me as a guide book. But at the same time I may be excused for having my reservations in respect of certain coinages made by the compilers.
Let me here refer to a theory of language known as Ease Theory, which says that men by nature are ease-loving in their speech. They tend to evade and forget what is difficult to pronounce. Instead, they have a tendency for what is easily expressed. On this principle, the theory says, human speech has originated and developed. At least with me this theory fits well. I am an ease-loving soul, evasive of words and expressions which ask for an effort when needed to be pronounced and written.
So Mohammad Salimur Rehman’s coinage ‘khuftanz’ as an Urdu equivalent of ‘irony’ has made me a bit uneasy. With due respect to his scholarship, the term lies heavy on me. So, when needed, I will be content to write ‘irony’ in Urdu with no desire for its Urdu equivalent.
So is the case with the term ‘imagery’. I feel more at ease with the English term than with such equivalents as ‘Paiker tarashi’ or Shary tasveer’. In fact, ‘imagery’ is no more an unfamiliar term for the readers of Urdu literature. Urdu language itself seems to have grown familiar with this term, while its Urdu equivalents as conceived by our scholars smack of unfamiliarity and affectation.
I remember Mohammad Hasan Askari bothering at one time for an Urdu equivalent of the term ‘culture’. Those were the years when his main theme was culture in relation to Pakistan. But he did not waste much time in his quest for the Urdu equivalent. He reconciled with the English term, saying let it be treated as an Urdu word. And I don’t remember he ever used the term ‘siqafat’ in any of his articles in those years.
In fact, we generally believe that because of its cultural links with Arabic and Persian Urdu is more accommodative to terms and expressions borrowed from those two languages than to those borrowed from English or Hindi. It is not always so. With its ease-loving nature, Urdu has been seen so many times to be more accommodative to easy and simple terms of English than to the unfamiliar difficult terms and words from Arabic and Persian.
So I don’t think that ‘nukhast misal’, which has been presented in this volume as an Urdu equivalent of ‘archetype’ can gain currency in Urdu. The English term ‘archetype’ appears to be more easy and hence has better chances to gain currency as an Urdu term.
However, these may be taken as reactions of an ease-loving reader, which will have no effect on the importance of this scholarly work, nor will it lessen my admiration for it. With my reservations in respect of certain Urdu equivalents, the book will serve as a guide to me.
WITH the import of critical canons from the Western, more particularly English literary tradition, a large number of English literary terms poured into our literature. Enamoured of them, we suddenly felt that the critical terms we had inherited from our classical tradition are devoid of meanings helping us in no way in the understanding of literature.
