gardaan ho / gar vaan ho

[Guest guest]

Respected Lalkitabee ji,

 

The `daal' and `wow' controversy apart:

 

There is a simple rule of language that entities are separated by a

comma where as a verb or a verb segment is never separated by a

comma in a sentence. With this in view , let us examine the line

under discussion. Pandit ji has used a dash [ - ] instead of a

comma to separate the entities.

 

The line as it appears on the page is :

 

" deewar kachchi, - matti kachchi [-] tah hi kachchi – gardaan [ gar

vaan ] ho "

 

If the last segment were not a fourth entity then it would not have

been separated with a dash [ comma ]. Since it has been separated it

means it is yet another entity like the previous three.

 

If we take the last segment to read `gar vaan ho' in that case it

becomes a verb-segment and could not have been separated with a

dash. Then the line would read : " deewar kachchi,matti kachchi,tah

hi kachchi gar vaan ho " . Had the last segment not been separated, in

that case even I would have been tempted to read it as `gar vaan ho'.

 

Therefore the last segment as it appears i.e. separated , on the

page has to be read as " gardaan ho " and no other way.

 

With respect,

 

Varun Trivedi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " lalkitabee "

<lalkitabee wrote:

>

> Respected Yograj Bhai

>

> I think Varun ji is right.Bcoz i was reading at line no.11 at same

> page of shukkar 10. In the writting of word " DEGA " ,I saw Daal is

> identical to WRITTEN IN " GARDAAN " .

>

> With Regards

>

> Pt.Lalkitabee

> V.Shukla

>

>

>

, " varun_trvd "

> <varun_trvd@> wrote:

> >

> > Respected Yograj ji,

> >

> > Yes you are right that there can be confusion between 'dal'

> > and 'wow'. I also had this confusion when I first read the word.

> > Since the word did not read 'wahaan', there was no 'h' in the

word

> > and the line is written with dash marks [ - ] which act like a

> comma

> > as:

> >

> > " Deewar kachchi , matti kachchi , tah hi kachchi , gar vaan /

> > gardaan ho "

> >

> > If the word is read as 'gar vaan' and the word 'vaan' to

> > mean 'vahaan' then there will be only three conditions and any

one

> > of these three will make venus act benefic.

> >

> > If the word is read as 'gardaan'[ of mitti & gard] as I intend to

> > read, then there will be four conditions and any one of those

four

> > will do.

> >

> > I still feel that the word should be read as 'gardaan'

> >

> > With lots of respect

> >

> > Varun Trivedi

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Yograj Prabhakar

> > <yr_prabhakar@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Vipin Bhai

> > >

> > > I thank you very much for your concern and the faith you have

> > shown in me. I will rectify every possible mistakes from the book

> > and will upload a Darustee-namaa as soon as possible. I request

> > every mate including you to point out such errors.

> > >

> > > Kulbir Bhai, I confess and confirm that the correct word in

> > question is " Taiy " not " Na " I agree with you that this

> particular

> > mistake has changed (rather spoiled) the whole meanings. I will

> not

> > give any silly excuse for this. For me this is a criminal

mistake,

> > and mistake is a mistake. I never had any doubt whatsoever in my

> > mind regarding your sincerity, you were, you are, and hopefully

> > will remain my well wisher in the truest sense and continue to

> guide

> > me in future.

> > >

> > > Varun jee, the word you mentioned as " Garda (n) " is incorrect.

> The

> > correct word is " Gar Vaan " . " Gar " means " If " and " Vaan "

> > means " There " . Perhaps you mistook the Urdu alphabet " Vayo "

> > as " Daal " in this instance. I too committed a similar mistake

and

> > misjudged " Taiy " as " Na " as one " Nukta " was missing from " Taiy "

in

> > the Urdu page.

> > >

> > > Respectfully

> > > Yograj Prabhakar

> > >

> > >

> > > lalkitabee <lalkitabee@> wrote:

> > Bhai Yograj Ji

> > >

> > > I also confirmed from original text ,it is as legible as

quoted

> > by

> > > Mr.Varun.This is not only a misprint, this is an error of

> reading

> > or

> > > transliteration. It has been read wrong by u or ur helping

> hand .

> > So

> > > I think -It is urgent to make correct all phrases by reading u

> or

> > in

> > > ur presence.If u feel any difficulty of legibility in 1941

> > book ,u

> > > can take help of 1942 book or other versions also.U have all

> the

> > > material & capability .Bcoz some of us are reading orginal

> books

> > but

> > > other innocent readers are seeking hindi books & we recommend

> ur

> > > book as REAL BOOK. Bcoz only u are the Urdu expert or

> > > transliterater ,who is concerned with the transliterated

> > lalkitab,

> > > specially with a team of knowing URDU. I know it was a

> > challenging

> > > work for a single person ,but now this book is an effort of

the

> > > group of same linguists.So u shud publish a " correction list

of

> > > misprints & errors " as soon as possible. I know it is a hard

> job

> > but

> > > for the sake of lalkitab u shud publish. Otherwise

> saying " DALDA

> > > BOOKS " for other hindi Lalkitabs, will be a childish activity

> of

> > > some reputed personalities.

> > > With Regards

> > > Pt.Lalkitabee

> > > V.Shukla

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with

> > Search.

> > >

> >

>