Shukra in the 10th / Asli ghee kiska dalda kiska

[Guest guest]

Varun ji, ab aap hi bataien kya karein;

Shri Nirmal bhardwaj ji ne introduction me likha hai MERA DRAD MAT HAI KI BHAVISHYA ME LAL KITAB KE SHODKARTA ISE IK HISTORICAL DOCUMENT KI TARAH ISTEMAL KARKE LOK KALYAN KE MARG PAR AAGE BADHENGE.(page xi) appealfurther Bhatia ji page (xxiii) par farmate hain... BAAD ME ISKI PROOF READING SHRI PRABHAKAR JI V SHRI BHARDWAJ JI NE KI. ab batao. The line on page 107 of the original Urdu 1941 edition reads :> > " deewar kachchi, mitti kachchi, tah hi kachchi garda(n) ho"> > In the transliterated version of Yograj ji the words ` tah hi' have been written as ` na hi' and the word garda(n) [ of gard,mitti] has been written as `gar va(n)' ab poora arth badal diya ya nahin> > In the 1942 urdu edition page 156 the line is as follows :> > " deewar kachchi, mitti kachchi, tah hi kachchi garda(n) ho"> > Agar yeh transliteration ke maharathion ka haal hai to ab tak hindi ke pehle sanskarno ko DALDA ghee kahne ki kya tuk bani. ab koi Bhatia ji se pooche aapke KHALIS ghee me kitni milawat hai. maine to jo pehle mistakes nikali thi inhone to usko acknowledge hi nahin kiya. documentary proof hai bhai mai koi apni manghadhant batein thoda likh raha tha ya hun.

aage gutke ko detail me padhte hain. inhone to apna milawat wala ghee shor macha kar asli aur doosron ka DALDA kahan hai par bechare redares ko to asli material ka pata chale. kyonki

SAACHAI CHUP NAHIN SAKTI BANAWAT KE ASSUULON SE

KI KHUSHBOO AA NAHIN SAKTI KAGAZ KE PHOOLON SE.

sincere to lalkitab

kulbirbance , Varun Trivedi <varun_trvd wrote:>> Dear Kulbir bhai,> > There seems to have occurred an error of reading the words correctly in Yograj ji's gutka of 1941.> > The line on page 107 of the original Urdu 1941 edition reads :> > " deewar kachchi, mitti kachchi, tah hi kachchi garda(n) ho"> > In the transliterated version of Yograj ji the words ` tah hi' have been written as ` na hi' and the word garda(n) [ of gard,mitti] has been written as `gar va(n)'> > In the 1942 urdu edition page 156 the line is as follows :> > " deewar kachchi, mitti kachchi, tah hi kachchi garda(n) ho"> > In the 1952 urdu edition the line on page 470 is as follows:> > "Deewar maghrabi jab tak kachchi , parivar daulat zar umda ho"> > Therefore one should always go to the original to confirm what has actually been said.> > If one doesn't have the west wall kachchi, he can get a part of it plastered with mitti [ mitti ka lep karva den]> > Have a nice day,> > Varun> > > > Save all your chat conversations. Find them online.>

[Guest guest]

Varun ji, please confirm is it tah ki or tah hi. and gar wan ho or is it garda na ho.

thanks

kulbirkulbir , "kulbirbance" <kulbirbance wrote:>> Varun ji, ab aap hi bataien kya karein;> > Shri Nirmal bhardwaj ji ne introduction me likha hai MERA DRAD MAT HAI> KI BHAVISHYA ME LAL KITAB KE SHODKARTA ISE IK HISTORICAL DOCUMENT KI> TARAH ISTEMAL KARKE LOK KALYAN KE MARG PAR AAGE BADHENGE.(page xi)> appeal> further Bhatia ji page (xxiii) par farmate hain... BAAD ME ISKI PROOF> READING SHRI PRABHAKAR JI V SHRI BHARDWAJ JI NE KI.> ab batao. The line on page 107 of the original Urdu 1941 edition> reads :> >> > " deewar kachchi, mitti kachchi, tah hi kachchi garda(n) ho"> >> > In the transliterated version of Yograj ji the words ` tah> hi' have been written as ` na hi' and the word garda(n) [ of> gard,mitti] has been written as `gar va(n)' ab poora arth badal> diya ya nahin> >> > In the 1942 urdu edition page 156 the line is as follows :> >> > " deewar kachchi, mitti kachchi, tah hi kachchi garda(n) ho"> >> > Agar yeh transliteration ke maharathion ka haal hai to ab tak hindi> ke pehle sanskarno ko DALDA ghee kahne ki kya tuk bani. ab koi Bhatia ji> se pooche aapke KHALIS ghee me kitni milawat hai. maine to jo pehle> mistakes nikali thi inhone to usko acknowledge hi nahin kiya.> documentary proof hai bhai mai koi apni manghadhant batein thoda likh> raha tha ya hun.> > aage gutke ko detail me padhte hain. inhone to apna milawat wala ghee> shor macha kar asli aur doosron ka DALDA kahan hai par bechare redares> ko to asli material ka pata chale. kyonki> > SAACHAI CHUP NAHIN SAKTI BANAWAT KE ASSUULON SE> > KI KHUSHBOO AA NAHIN SAKTI KAGAZ KE PHOOLON SE.> > sincere to lalkitab> > kulbirbance> > > > > > > > > > > > > , Varun Trivedi> varun_trvd@ wrote:> >> > Dear Kulbir bhai,> >> > There seems to have occurred an error of reading the words correctly> in Yograj ji's gutka of 1941.> >> > The line on page 107 of the original Urdu 1941 edition reads :> >> > " deewar kachchi, mitti kachchi, tah hi kachchi garda(n) ho"> >> > In the transliterated version of Yograj ji the words ` tah hi'> have been written as ` na hi' and the word garda(n) [ of> gard,mitti] has been written as `gar va(n)'> >> > In the 1942 urdu edition page 156 the line is as follows :> >> > " deewar kachchi, mitti kachchi, tah hi kachchi garda(n) ho"> >> > In the 1952 urdu edition the line on page 470 is as follows:> >> > "Deewar maghrabi jab tak kachchi , parivar daulat zar umda ho"> >> > Therefore one should always go to the original to confirm what has> actually been said.> >> > If one doesn't have the west wall kachchi, he can get a part of it> plastered with mitti [ mitti ka lep karva den]> >> > Have a nice day,> >> > Varun> >> >> > > > Save all your chat conversations. Find them online.> >>

[Guest guest]

Varun ji; what does tah hi denote, layer on ground or is it tai hi

meaning surely, absolutely.

thanks

kulbir

, Varun Trivedi

<varun_trvd wrote:

>

> Dear Kulbir bhai,

>

> The line on page 107 of the 1941 urdu ed reads :

>

> " Deewar kachchi, matti kachchi, tah hi kachchi, garda(n) ho "

>

> " jism mota, sehat umda, shukkar ghar 10 ve se ho "

>

> The same lines are exactly identical in the 1942 edition page

156 line 14/15. You can compare the word 'tah' written there with

the word 'tah' written in the 1941 edition.

>

> I read urdu painfully slow and with lot of difficulty, still an

urdu learner like me could read it correctly, I am surprised how

others miss read the line so much so that it meant just the reverse

of what is being said.

>

> Just yesterday I answered your query about Moon in the 7th where

a word 'tah bazaari' had occured. I had read it in the original 1952

edition on page 1016. Therefore I immediately knew that the word

is 'tah'

>

> Kulbir ji, any person who knows just elementry urdu will read

it 'tah' and not 'na'

>

> I once again confirm that I read the lines as I have quoted

above in the red.

>

> Regards,

>

> Varun

>

>

>

>

>

> Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Kulbir bhai,

 

In the context of Venus 10th where the line occurs, it is to be read

as ' tah hi kachchi' meaning the kachcha floor. Pandit ji lays down

four options all separated by a dash [-] as we would do with a comma

[,]. It is always different entities which are separated with a

comma.

 

If some people try to make the segment out as ' tai hi kachchi', I

have nothing to say. All I can say is that once Pandit ji has laid

down the two previous options he doesn't have to say ' certainly

kachchi' as a third option. Even otherwise 'certainly kachchi' can

not be a third option, it is not an entity like the previous two.

 

It will be ludicrous to read it as " deewar kachchi, matti kachchi,

certainly kachchi,....

 

Have a nice day,

 

Varun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " kulbirbance "

<kulbirbance wrote:

>

> Varun ji; what does tah hi denote, layer on ground or is it tai

hi

> meaning surely, absolutely.

> thanks

> kulbir

> , Varun Trivedi

> <varun_trvd@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kulbir bhai,

> >

> > The line on page 107 of the 1941 urdu ed reads :

> >

> > " Deewar kachchi, matti kachchi, tah hi kachchi, garda(n) ho "

> >

> > " jism mota, sehat umda, shukkar ghar 10 ve se ho "

> >

> > The same lines are exactly identical in the 1942 edition page

> 156 line 14/15. You can compare the word 'tah' written there with

> the word 'tah' written in the 1941 edition.

> >

> > I read urdu painfully slow and with lot of difficulty, still

an

> urdu learner like me could read it correctly, I am surprised how

> others miss read the line so much so that it meant just the

reverse

> of what is being said.

> >

> > Just yesterday I answered your query about Moon in the 7th

where

> a word 'tah bazaari' had occured. I had read it in the original

1952

> edition on page 1016. Therefore I immediately knew that the word

> is 'tah'

> >

> > Kulbir ji, any person who knows just elementry urdu will read

> it 'tah' and not 'na'

> >

> > I once again confirm that I read the lines as I have quoted

> above in the red.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Varun

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

> >

>