“THE United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language”.
This famous quote, attributed to George Bernard Shaw, sounds funny and educative at the same time. But it is not funny: issues related to usage and orthography can be quite confusing, as we realise while comparing American English to British English. And that is what Shaw wanted to convey.
The spelling system and norm used in writing a language with the proper letters is called orthography. Improper or incorrect use of language or bad usage is known as abusage, says ‘The Merriam-Webster Dictionary’.
In Urdu, the debate over what is correct usage, what is abusage and how a certain word should be spelt has an interesting history. As different scholars have expressed different views on Urdu orthography and usage, sometimes there have been some heated discussions, too, and disputes still exist over the spelling and usage of certain Urdu words and phrases.
But this kind of disagreement is not something that exists in Urdu alone as some languages, including English, have had their fair share of orthographic issues. Noah Webster, for example, had launched a campaign in the late eighteenth century to standardise the spelling and pronunciation of the American English to create a “national language” and unify the country through it. The campaign to change the spelling of certain English words is often referred to as ‘English Spelling Reform’. Those who believed English spelling rules are quite absurd and need to be reformed included geniuses such as George Bernard Shaw.
In Urdu, the issue has become entangled in some unnecessary debates because of some scholars’ insistence on sticking to the rules of spelling and grammar of certain languages, such as Persian and Arabic, from which thousands of words have been borrowed and assimilated into Urdu. For instance, Qamoos-ul-Aghlaat, a dictionary of “abusage” compiled by two scholars, Syed Mukhtar Ahmed and Maulana Zaheen, and published in 1936 from Hyderabad (Deccan), stressed that Persian and Arabic words absorbed in Urdu should be spelt and pronounced as they are pronounced and spelt in these languages. The book declared that Urdu words that have been coined through local usage by moulding Arabic and/or Persian were “incorrect”. Many scholars, including Rasheed Hasan Khan, vehemently opposed such ideas.
Some 200 years ago, wrote Rasheed Hasan Khan in his book Zaban Aur Qavaaid (1983), Insha Allah Khan Insha had formulated a rule that said a word that has been borrowed by Urdu from another language such as Arabic or Persian or Turkish has in fact become an Urdu word and it should be spoken and written as it is used in Urdu and not according to the standards of Arabic or Persian etc. Insha believed that the yardstick for a borrowed word’s authenticity is its usage in Urdu. Renowned scholars such as Abdus Sattar Siddiqi, Syed Sulaiman Nadvi and Moulvi Abdul Haq had already endorsed the principle that Insha had established.
English has borrowed thousands of words from Latin, Greek, French and some other languages but these borrowed words are used and pronounced as per the standards set by the speakers of English and not these languages. Same goes for Urdu. For instance, the English word ‘lantern’ has been borrowed by Urdu and it has become ‘laaltain’ in Urdu. How can we declare ‘laaltain’ incorrect?
But despite the views of these scholars Qamoos-ul-Aghlaat became surprisingly influential and some other books were written to expand such purist views. Even some dictionaries of Urdu followed it and especially when it comes to diacritic marks (zer, zabar, paish, etc.) Urdu lexicographers cannot go ahead without first referring to Arabic or Persian dictionaries. This is not to say that every incorrect pronunciation should be authenticated, but just a reminder that a borrowed word should be assayed from Urdu’s point of view as well.
Saeed Ahmed Usmani in his book Lafziyaat agrees with what Insha and Rasheed sahib had said about usage and orthography of words borrowed by Urdu. He agrees that a language is a living organism that goes through changes according to its own phonetic and linguistic rules. The book, just published by Karachi’s Bismillah Book House, enlists hundreds of Urdu words with correct spelling and pronunciation. But what bothers students of the Urdu language such as this writer is that he has often quoted Qamoos-ul-Aghlaat with Rasheed sahib and some other authorities while debating the correct spelling and pronunciation of Arabic, Persian and Turkish words borrowed by Urdu. Though seen often in disagreement with the authors of ‘Qamoos’, he has given unnecessary importance to the work.
Also, he often quotes different scholars when discussing the orthography and diacritic marks of certain words but leaves it half way down and the argument does not sound conclusive. Occasionally he gives conclusive remarks too, but this should have been with each and every entry. Aside from a few annoying typos, the book is quite interesting and informative.
The book is just another reminder that we need to standardise and unify the spelling rules and norms of using our national language.
Published in Dawn, Jannuary 4th, 2021
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.