Talk:کنھیا

Spelling

@Ash wki – کَنْہَیَّا (kanhayyā) has typically always been the more common spelling, why is that dubbed as 'non-standard' when نھ (nh) is very rare in Urdu? نعم البدل (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Because what I discovered is that etymologically, it's نھ and مھ respectively whenever the original Sanskrit word has ष्ण (ṣṇa) and ष्म (ṣma). Replacing them with ن (n)/م (m) + ہ (h) would be non-standard unless the word is extremely common like say تُمھیں (tumhẽ) or اُنھیں (unhẽ). In that case it would be just an alternative spelling. But as far as I know, کَنْہَیّا (kanhaiyā) isn't extremely common (What do you think, should I remove the "non-standard" label?). And also importantly Qureshi, which makes a difference between ہ and ھ, supports کَنَھیّا (kanhaiyā). - Ash wki (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also sorry, how are you, brother? Hope you're doing well. - Ash wki (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ash wki: I'm fine thank you, hopefully all is good at your end too.

• Because what I discovered is that etymologically, it's نھ and مھ respectively whenever the original Sanskrit word has ष्ण (ṣṇa) and ष्म (ṣma). – I'm slightly confused. Is کَنَھیَا (kanhayā) a reconstruction, based on the original Sanskrit lemma? If so, it's not necessary for a word to retain the original spelling of its ancestors, it can, and often does differ. As I said, aspirate 'm' and 'n' are very rare in Urdu, in fact there's only a couple of times where I have even seen that combination in Urdu, even when it comes to اُنْھیں (unhẽ), where in most (if not all cases), it's اُنْہیں (unhẽ).

Additionally, even Google search results show that the کَنْہَیَّا (kanhayyā) is the most common spelling, where the latter is rare, and even on google search کَنَھیَا (kanhayā) is polluted with results of کَنْہَیَّا (kanhayyā).

• And also importantly Qureshi, which makes a difference between ہ and ھ. The South Asian dictionaries are unreliable because they mix-up the various Unicode characters. The 'h' used for that word, in the dictionary by Qureshi, is the Arabic Unicode 'h' ه, not the Urdu do-chasme-he, or choti-he. So you need to be vary of the South Asian dictionaries. نعم البدل (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Sorry if I wasn't clear. No, it's not a reconstruction. I didn't mean that. What I'm saying is that the نھ (nh) is legit in the word, not just because the 'n' and 'h' sounds happened to coincide. As you said, words with نھ are rare. It is one of the rare examples.

Since it's quite common, you can remove my "non-standard" labeling then.

The 'h' used for that word, in the dictionary by Qureshi, is the Arabic Unicode 'h' ه, not the Urdu do-chasme-he, or choti-he.

Yes, I know. But you must understand that the dictionary is from 1971, the latest of all the reference dictionaries available on this site. The use of a unicode letter for the hā-e-makhlūt or do-chashmī he separate from the Perso-Arabic hā/he is most likely relatively recent (to avoid issues in the differing appearances of the letters in the final position, e.g. ساتھ and زمانه) because within Nastaliq the two letters are the same. The same situation is with kaaf and chhotī ye. - Ash wki (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ash wki: It's not that کَنْہَیَّا (kanhayyā) is merely a common spelling. It's that it's the standard spelling, hence why it's a lot more common than کَنَھیا (kanhayā).

• is most likely relatively recent Because of difficulties in the technology available during that time and before that (during the typewriting era), but the do-chashme-he and choti-he are/were considered separate. And realistically, time isn't really relevant, we're discussing today's Urdu. Today, mixing up the do-chashme-he and choti-he would either be a sign of Technology illiteracy (in Urdu), or lacking knowledge in Urdu (none of this which I'm attributing to you, just to clear things up, since your point is different). نعم البدل (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just to add to this, the two modern dictionaries, a.k.a Rekhta and UDB have used کَنْہَیَّا (kanhayyā) with the choti-he, not the do-chashme-he' . نعم البدل (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ash wki: – Please do have the courtesy to leave an explanation after you decide to revert an edit. نعم البدل (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل I thought we already had the discussion. Why change things after such a long time? - Ash wki (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you assumed that by ignoring my replies it would make it okay for you to continue your edits. I had forgotten about this, until recently when I saw your edits on کَوَّا (kavvā).

And yes. It is certainly acceptable to have multiple diacritics, because THAT is how the lemma is vocalised (referring to کَوَّا (kavvā)). Just like how every SINGLE Urdu dictionary has stated it to be. نعم البدل (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ash wki:. نعم البدل (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)