SHANUL Haq Haqqee (1917-2005), one of the foremost lexicographers of Urdu, played a pioneering role in laying down the basic principles and norms for compiling Urdu Dictionary Board’s gigantic, 22-volume Urdu-Urdu dictionary named Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par — or Urdu dictionary on historical principle.

The historical principle, also known as the philological principle, refers to a method in lexicography that requires confirming the meaning of a particular word through illustrative quotations from literature. It traces a word’s history from the earliest to the modern times, seeing how it was used in different ways in literary texts through centuries and records every nuance. It is a kind of a word’s biography with its different meanings, variant spellings and etymology. Urdu Dictionary Board (UDB) conceived its Urdu Lughat Tareekhi Usool Par on the lines of Oxford English Dictionary that gives history and meanings of half-a-million English words. The UDB aimed at recording each and every word ever used in Urdu, with all shades of meanings and citations. Moulvi Abdul Haq was made the dictionary’s first chief editor when the board was established in 1958, but he died in 1961. After that Haqqee who was already serving the board as honorary secretary was instrumental in running the board and compiling the manuscripts. Aside from his honorary services for the board for 17 years, Haqqee has to his credit several linguistic and lexicographic works, not to mention his poetry, translations and several editorial feats.

Among Haqqee’s lexicographic works is Farhang-i-Talaffuz, or an Urdu dictionary of pronunciation. It was the first of its kind and was published in 1995 by Islamabad’s National Language Authority. The unique feature of Farhang-i-Talaffuz is that it records the correct pronunciation of Urdu words with some rare Urdu vowels that do occur in Urdu but are never specifically mentioned in Urdu dictionaries. During his tenure at the UDB, Haqqee had begun mentioning these additional Urdu vowels in the manuscript as well as the usual ones. But UDB’s 22-volume dictionary is not for common readers and is not easy to handle either. So Haqqee compiled Farhang-i-Talaffuz and he devised special diacritic marks, different from zer, zabar, pesh, the conventional ones used in Urdu, to capture those unique sounds in this dictionary.

Farhang-i-Talaffuz was generally received well and so far its six editions have been published, a remarkable achievement for any one-volume Urdu-Urdu dictionary. But Dr Syed Rizawan Ali Nadvi, a scholar of Arabic who had taught Arabic at different universities, had some reservations. Dr Nadvi wrote a detailed article, pointing out some lapses in Farhang-i-Talaffuz, especially regarding some Arabic words used in Urdu and the way they were listed and explained in Farhang-i-Talaffuz. Haqqee admitted some of the errors that were mentioned and made some corrections in the second edition published in 2002. But Nadvi wrote five more pieces, criticising Farhang-i-Talaffuz. Those articles by Nadvi, critically reviewing Farhang-i-Talaffuz, were posthumously collected in a book titled Farhang-i-Talaffuz: Aik Tehqeeqi-o-Tanqeedi Mutal’a (2024). But in several instances, Haqqee was right and Nadvi’s criticism was based on his too much emphasis on the usage and pronunciation in Arabic, while hundreds of words borrowed from Arabic have been used with different pronunciations in Urdu and even with different meanings. Haqqee had rightly recorded these words as used in Urdu.

Now a new book, Farhang-i-Talaffuz Ka Tehqeeqi-o-Lisaani Jaaeza, critically evaluates Haqqee’s dictionary. Written by Muhammad Umar Khan and recently published by Lahore’s Fiction House, the book also takes into account Nadvi’s criticism previously published. Author Umar Khan objectively assesses Farhang-i-Talaffuz and impartially points out some lapses. In the beginning, he discusses the errors in some headwords as listed in Farhang-i-Talaffuz. In the second chapter, he discusses the words that were part of the first edition (1995) but were expelled in the second edition (2002). The third chapter evaluates Farhang-i-Talaffuz in alphabetical order, pointing out errors in recording of pronunciation, meanings or etymology. The last chapter critically reviews Dr Nadvi’s criticism on Farhang-i-Talaffuz and says many of the errors pointed out by Nadvi are in fact not errors but they rather show how some Arabic words as used in Urdu. Umar Khan has objectively mentioned some mistakes that have somehow got their way into the dictionary. But on such occasions, he is quite composed and gives his views based on some authentic Urdu, Arabic and Persian dictionaries.

Muhammad Umar Khan, a scholar from Sahiwal, has previously published a critical review of Shamsur Rahman Farooqi’s Lughaat-i-Rozmarra under the title Lughaat-i-Rozmarra Ka Tehqeeqi-o-Lisaani Jaiza (2021). One hopes he will keep on reviewing Urdu dictionaries since we badly need such scholars.

Published in Dawn, June 22nd, 2026