|
سمجهه ۾ ائين ٿو اچي ته ڊاڪٽر ٽرمپ سنڌي الف – ب
لاءِ هارون لوهار واري رسم الخط کي سونهون بنايو
آهي، اُن جي باوجود اکرن جون ڪيتريون صورتون
منهنجي نظر مان نڪتل ڪتابن ۾ ڏنل ڪونهن. ان سلسلي
۾ جن به چڱن تعليم يافته سنڌين سان لهه وچڙ ۾ آيو
آهيان، اُهي اُن کان واقف ڪونهن. تنهنڪري مان يقين
سان چئي سگهان ٿو ته وسرڳي آواز ”ج“ ۾ ”ڪ“ ۾ نج
سنڌي آواز ”گ“ ۽ مورڌني آواز ”ڻ“ مشنري سوسائٽي جي
اسڪولن ۾ بلڪ اڻلڀ آهن ۽ اُهي عام استعمال هيٺ آيل
اکرن جي صورتن کان بلڪل نرالا آهن. اُنهن ۾ هڪڙي
صورت ته نهايت مشڪل آهي ۽ اُها آهي ”ن“ جو مورڌني
آواز ۽ اُن کي شروع ۽ وچ ۾ لکڻ وارو مسئلو. سنڌي
”ڱ“ ۽ ”ک“ واريون صورتون به کل جهڙيون آهن. ٿي
سگهي ٿو ته گهڻي استعمال کانپوءِ اُهي عام فهم ٿي
وڃن، مگر جن به سنڌين کي اهي ڏيکاريم، تن جي شاهدي
ان دعويٰ کي رد ڪيو آهي. هارون ”گ“ کي قديم سنڌي
اکر ڪري ڏيکاريو آهي، مگر سڌاريل الف – ب جي
پڌرائيءَ کان اڳ مون اُن کي ”ک“ جي شڪل ۾ ئي ڏٺو
هو. جيڪڏهن اِها حقيقت ڪانهي ته پوءِ پراڻي وقت جي
سنڌين وٽ ”نک“ موجود آهي.جڏهن ته اِنهن ٻنهي کان
”نگ“ وڌيڪ موزون هو.
”ج“ جي وسرڳي آواز لکڻ لاءِ عام طريقو”ج“ ئي موجود
هو ۽ ”ڄ“ جي لاءِ ڪا الڳ شڪل ڪانه هئي. حالانڪه
مون سنڌيءَ ۾ اُن لاءِ ”ڃ“ جي شڪل به ڏٺي آهي.
جڏهن ته آخري شڪل وڌيڪ عام آهي. مون پهرين جي چونڊ
ڪئي ڇاڪاڻ ته پيون اکر ”نڃ“ کي ظاهر ڪرڻ لاءِ مقرر
ڪيو ويو، جنهن لاءِ قديم سنڌيءَ ۾ ڪو هڪ اکر موجود
ڪونهي.
”ڏ“ جي صحيح شڪل جيئن هارون ڏيکاري آهي.”ڏ“ ئي هئڻ
گهرجي. منهنجي اڳيان اِها ڳالهه بيسود آهي ته
اُنهن مان ڪنهن به هڪ شڪل جي چونڊ ڪئي وڃي، ڇاڪاڻ
ته ”د“ تي اِنهيءَ نموني ٽن ٽٻڪن سان ٻيو ڪوبه اکر
ڪونه ٿو جڙي. سڌاريل الف – ب ۾ ٽٻڪن جو انبار هيٺ
مٿي ڪرڻو پيو ته جيئن ”ٽ“ جي مورڌني آواز جون
مختلف صورتون ٺهن. ٽٻڪن کي ڪهڙي نموني سان استعمال
ڪجي، ان سان ڪوبه فرق ڪونه ٿو پوي، اهڙي قسم جا
متبادل طريقا ڪوبه لاڀ ڪونه ٿا پهچائين. ڊاڪٽر جي
پسنديده هندستانيءَ ۾ ”ٿ“ کي ”ت“ يا ”ت“ ڪري لکيو
ويو آهي، جڏهن ته ”ڏ“ يا ”ڌ“ يا ”ڌ“ مان ساڳيو ئي
مقصد حاصل ٿئي ٿو.
ڇا مون کي ”ز“ ۽ ”ڦ“ جي صورتن بابت ڪو اعتراض هئڻ
گهرجي، جن کي گذريل وقت جا سنڌي ٻنهي شڪلين ۾
لکندا رهيا آهن. پوئين طرز سڌاريل رسم الخط ۾
استعمال ڪيل ”ڦ“ کان به وڌيڪ عام رهي آهي، ڇاڪاڻ
ته پراڻي سنڌي لکت ۾ ٻنهي ۾ ڪوبه فرق رکيل ڪونهي.
”ط“ کي ٽن وسرڳي آوازن ظاهر ڪرڻ لاءِ ڪتب آندو ويو
هو، جن مان هڪ ته اڳيئي بيسود ٿي چڪو هو، باقي ٻن
بابت به ڪيترا اعتراض اُٿيا ۽ نيٺ اُنهن مان هٿ
ڪڍڻا پيا، ڇاڪاڻ ته ُهي سنڌين ۽ لسانيات جي ماهرن
لاءِ بلڪل اوپرا هئا. باقي ٻن ٽن اکرن ”جهه“ ۽
گهه“ کي ڪتب آڻڻ ۾ ڪوبه حرج محسوس ڪونه ٿيو. اِهي
ٿورا اڻانگا ضرور آهن، مگر گذريل وقت جيان وسرڳي ۽
غير وسرڳي آوازن کي همشڪل ڪري لکڻ کان ائين لکڻ
بهتر سمجهيو ويو.
مورڌني ”ن“ لاءِ الڳ نشانيءَ جي اهميت کي ڊاڪٽر
ٽرمپ به مڃي ٿو. ان سلسلي ۾ ”ط“ جو استعمال ئي
بهتر ٿيندو. اُن سان گڏ ٽٻڪي جو استعمال بيسود
ٿيندو، ڇاڪاڻ ته ٽٻڪو ڪوبه مطلب پورو ڪونه ٿو ڪري،
جڏهن ته ”ط“ جي نشاني ٻئي ڪنهن به اواز کي ظاهر
ڪانه ٿي ڪري ۽ ڪنهن ٻي نشانيءَ سان ڀلجي پوڻ جو به
انديشو ڪونهي، تڏهن ڊاڪٽر ٽرمپ جي اُن بيان جو ڪو
مقصد ڏسڻ ۾ ڪونه ٿو اچي ته ”ط“ ٽٻڪي کانسواءِ
لاڀائتو ڪونه ٿيندو.
”ک“ کي ”ڪ“ جو وسرڳي آواز سمجهڻ ۾ مون کي ڪا دقت
محسوس ڪانه ٿي ٿئي. اِهو هميشه ”ڪ“ جو وسرڳي آواز
ئي رهيو آهي ۽ ڪن حالتن ۾ اُهو غير وسرڳي به رهيو
آهي. جيئن ته اِهي ٻيئي شڪليون بغير ڪنهن امتياز
جي ٻن الڳ آوازن جي نمائندگي ڪنديون هيون ته هاڻ
اهو عمل ڪو ايترو شديد ڪونه ٿو لڳي ته اِهي ٻيئي
الڳ الڳ آوازن کي ظاهر ڪن. دراصل ”ک“ کي ڊاڪٽر
ٽرمپ جيتري مڃتا ڏني آهي، اُها اُن کان گهڻُو
ڪارائتو ڪم ڪري رهي آهي. اُها قديم سنڌي لکت ۾ ”گ“
۽ ”ڪ“ جي وسرڳ طور ڪتب ايندي رهي آهي. اِنهن ٽنهي
اکرن مان ڪنهن هڪ جي حدبندي ڪرڻ هڪ قدرتي عمل آهي،
جيڪي سنڌي آسانيءَ سان سمجهي سگهن ٿا. جڏهن ته غير
سنڌي اُنکي آسانيءَ سان سمجهي ڪونه سگهندا.
جيڪڏهن ”ڍ“ لاءِ الڳ اکر جي ضرورت ڪانهي ته اهو
جلدي خودبخود متروڪ ٿي ويندو. ڊاڪٽر ٽرمپ جي سماعت
جو احترام ڪندي چئجي ٿو ته اُنهيءَ اکر ۽ ڏ يا ڌ ۾
وڏو فرق موجود آهي.
مان پنهنجي مشاهدي جي بنياد تي گهڻو ڪجهه وڌيڪ چئي
سگهان ٿو، پر جيئن ته مون ڊاڪٽر ٽرمپ پاران مسلمان
سنڌي الف – ب تي ڪيل بحث جي شروعات ڪارائتين
ڳالهين سان ڪئي آهي، انڪري وڌيڪ گفتگو کي بيسود
سمجهان ٿو.
هندستاني نشانين کي هيٺين حالتن ۾ ڪتب آڻي سگهجي
ٿو: 1- رسم الخط ۾ صدين کان ڪابه نشاني موجود
ڪانهي. 2- جتي اهي سنڌي آوازن جو پورائو ڪري
سگهندا هجن.
جيڪڏهن اِنهن ٻنهي شرطن جو پورائو ڪونه ٿو ٿئي ته
پوءِ هندستانيءَ جو استعمال”بنا مقصد ۽ مونجهارو
پيدا ڪندڙ“ ٿيندو. ”جهه“ ۽ ”گهه“ جي حالت ۾
هندستاني کي ڪن نون ۽ اڻ ٺهندڙ اکرن تي ترجيع ڏيڻ
گهرجي (جهڙوڪ ط)، جڏهن ته ٻين اکرن جي حالت ۾ مون
کي اهڙي ڪا ضرورت ڏسڻ ۾ ڪانه ٿي اچي ته ڪو وڏي
مڃتا ماڻيل قديم سنڌي اکرن کي رد ڪري ڇڏجي يا اهڙن
اکرن کي هٽائي ڇڏجي، جيڪي ڪجهه وقت کان وٺي ڪتابن
جي ڇپائيءَ ۽ ٻين ڪمن ۾ بخوبي ڪتب اچي رهيا آهن.
بي ايڇ ايلس
8 جنوري 1855ع اسسٽنٽ ڪمشنر سنڌ
(”سنڌ آرڪائيوز“ ڪراچيءَ مان هٿ ڪيل ”ڪمشنر اِن
سنڌ جو پراڻو رڪارڊ ، فائيل نمبر187، عنوان: ”سنڌي
ٻولي.“)
Report of the Paren Committee of th Church
Missionary Society (London)
By
Ernest Trumpp
Station Karachi, November 1854
I am happy to inform the committee, that I
arrived on the point of my destination safely
through the grace of God, the 12 Septembe of
this year. Directly after arrival I took up the
study of the Sindhi Language. I am sorry to sah,
that I found everything in a confusion
respecting the Sindhi language. I addressed
myself to different Europeans, who have been for
many years in the country; to get some
information from the commissioner down to the
loweat official nobody knows anything of
Sindhi. The Only Man, Who took some interest in
the language, was the assistant Commissioner Mr.
Ellis, but instead of making things better, he
had made them worse by his silly alphabet.
In order to clear away the rubbish, I worote the
included ‘pamphlet on the “Sindhi Alphabet”
which I am happy to say, received the
approbation of the oriental Scholars in
Bombay,
and of the Comissioner in Sindh.The alphabet
therefore which Mr. Ellis had introduced in the
government schools and in the government offices
will be dicarded and that proposed by me
introduced.
Respecting the alphabet I insisted, that the
Hindustani Alphabet with 3 slight modifications,
should be adoptedL
1-
Because it suits the Sindhi Language perfectyly, as
being of the same stock.
2-
Because it is known to eery body, even to a great
many natives.
3-
Because it faculitates printing of books and the
indroduction of the romanized syste.
Respectiing other details I beg to refer to the
pamphlet. I move a petition to Government to the
effect that Government should print Grammar,
Dictionary and some school books to which Mr.
Frere Willingly agreed, promising that he would
do all in his power that the press should be
established in Karachi itself. The petition is
at the present before the Council in Bombay,
Which will, without any doubt confirm the
arrangement as the Government is even worse off
in the matter than the Mission. The books wchis
I am preparing at the presen are:
1-
A Sindhi reading Book, with grammatical notes and
derivation of words, affixed to it as dicionary.
2-
A Dicionary, Sindhi, - English in which the
derivation of every Sindhi word is given.
3-
A grammar of the Sindhi language.
The Grammar I intend to split into two separate
onesL
1-
A comparatice grammar, i.e. A scientific grammar
elucidation the Katchi, the Sindhi, and modern
Panjabi, all these being one and the same
family. These languages are the key to the other
great western branch, namlyL the Baruhuiki, The
Balochi or Irani, the ?? and Pushtu.
We hafe therefore in the west of India two
brances of the great Arian familyL
a-
The
India’s languages: i.e. Katchi, Sindhi, and
Western Panjabi.
b-
The intermediary languages, between
India and IranL Brahuiki, Balochi, Pushtu.
There is immense field for exploring these
languages, which are little, or ulterly unknown,
and which will clear up the way to the west.
Besides a comparative grammar I intend to comile
a smal practical Sindhi Grammar, in the
romanized system for the use of missionary
labour putting aside all speculation and merely
giving the colloquial use of the language.
For translationg school books there is at the present no
time whatsoever, I shall not touch any
translation, before I am completely master of
the language and answer for what I am translatin.
I can there fore not come before the Committee
with a proposal to translate the holy scrioueres
before two or three years. I know, that a
translation into Sindhi has bee exemted, but is
is mere work of natice munshis, who are not
answerabale for that they are translation, I
shalll neve consent to put our holy scrioture at
the mecey of a munshi. Such translations are
only ephemerea, not a Kiyas eis lei?
At the present I am studying, except Sindhi, Persian,
Arabic, Pushtu, which later language is a pure
Arian (Sanscrit) language, and not a fabulous
Herbrew one. It is a great shame upon all those,
who said it was Hrbrew tongue and the Afhans the
descendants of the ten tribes.
As soon as I shal have carried through the press any
book, I shal lay it before the Committree.
Meanwhile I can assure the Committee, that I am
in India, some few indispositins exempted, the
only thing I have to complain of are the fearful
dust stroms here, which have caused me frequent
ache in the ayes and disabled me whole days from
working. I am therefore longing to exchagnge
this unhappye vallye as soon as possible for the
Panjab, yet I will subject my own will to the
command of the Committee,
Remembring my self to the kindess and the prayers of the
Committee.
Karachi
20th November 1854 I
remain
Church Mission House Your humble
and
obedient servant
Ernes
Trumpp
(C13/076/22-CMS Papers,
Birmingham University Library, England.)
***
Report by B. H. Ellis
Dr Trumpp has recently published a memorandum on
th Sindhi language in which after a residence of
a few weeks in Sindh, he has summarily disposed
of all who have ever had anything to do with the
language including the Sindhians themselves. A
few comments are therefore reuired.
Much of Dr. Trumpp’s memo contains matter which
was very well known beore, and this portion of
course requires no remark. Some space is also
devoted to the discussion of the Hindoo Sindhi –
but Dr. Trumpp states that the great majority of
the population being Mohommedan a charcter is
required which Mussulmans will read, and to this
poin he has principally addressed himself so
that the portion of his memo relation to the
Hindoo Sindhi, may aslo be passed over through
the verry slighting way in which the Dr. speaks
of the labours of the late Captain Stack would
other wixe dispose and to enter more into detail
regarding this branch of the subject.
This charcater has for many years been adoptted
by mussalmans for writing Sindhi. But as a
matter of necessity addions have been madeto the
original characters to express the sound which
exit in Sindhee but are not found in the Arabic.
Presisely the same course was adopted in
Hindustan to suit the Arabic character to the language thre current,
and it is rather late in the day therefore for
Arabic purists to shudder at the idea of placing
extra dots upon the original forms of Semitic
letters.
The Sindhee alphabet lately published did not as
Dr. Trumpp admits essentially alter the old
system in fact the object was to alter it as
little as possible, and the alternotion are
realy much fever than Tr. Trump states. He
admits in one plan that in th Mussalman’s
attempts to express in the Arabic alphabet those
sound which were not orignally in it here is
great varaiety in their writing and yet he
refuses to give the revised alphabet credit vor
having adopted some of the varuos forms wchich
differ from those he has himself learnt.
Whether the old alphabet as in use in Sindhi is
“irrational” and “aribtrary” appears hardly to
the point. The alphabet is not a new one wchich
we might frame a philogical principle. The
English itself would have a poor chance if a
similarly attacked, and the onlye question, it
apears to me, was form the first, what additions
or amendments are absolutely essential to the
competeness of the existing alphabet, and not
wheter it should be oblished and German, Roman
or other lettletters subsituted for its present
forms.
I agree with Dr. Trumpp that it is sad, very sad
to see such a blunder in language as the use of
a ف with extra
dots as the aspirate of
پ. I regret
with him the blunder, but I am not prepared to
say with him “This letter must be struck out”
when it has existed (in both the forms
ف &
ڦ) for years
as a part of the writtend Sindhee languages. I
would rather quote his own words that “we are
bound to take letters as they are not as we
like”
The introducion of the Hindustani is
objectionable, because it does not provided for
all Sindhi sounds, and more especially because
the very confusion which Dr. Trumpp talk so much
of, will be created by forms which now represent
certain sounds beings made to stand for other
sounds e. g. ٿ
now Th, will become cerebral T. if this be not
confusing a language, I confess I donot
undeerstand the meaning of words.
I consider the question of the style of hand
writing to be quite seprate. It is clear that
the Nuskh is not well adopted for running hand
and as we find in other languages the use os
this style chiefly confined to printing, so no
doubt it will be found expedient hereafteer to
use in Sindhee a Nushtalik a running hand of
some sort for office work, The forms used to
express different letters hoever would be just
the same as in the printed hadnd. As in
Hindoostanee books are printed in one variety,
and correspondence is carried on in an othe.
I merely mentioned this for fear of being
misunderstood when I assert, that there is no
advantage in point of clarity of wirting gained
by adopting the Hindustanee. I mean thereby that
the adopion of the symbols used to express sound
in Hindustanee would not aeven in this point of
view repay us for displacing those forms to
which the majority of the people of the country
have been accustomed for ages. Of course, the
running hand is more quickly written than that
used in printing; this is the case equally in
Hindustanee, which has both styles of wirting.
Sindhee might of course have the same.
Dr. Trumpp objects to the use of dots to express
aspirates in a Semitic language and says “This
must lead to confusing heap of dots and is
contrary to the nature of the alphabet”. The
latter objection is disposed of by the fact that
an alphabet applied represents sounds foreign to
it, must as a matter of course; add signs
contrary to its original nature. This has been
the custom in Sindh, and it appears to me not a
whith more unphilogical than the heaps of dots
and other devices engrafted in Hindustanee upon
a Semitic alphabet.
And dotting is surely a less “Cumbrous” though
more arbitrary way of expressing what wanted,
thus ڇ is
much easier to write as the aspirate of
چ than the
double letter subtituted in Hindustanee
چهه.. But this
is mere matter of opinion – the fact is the
letter exists in the language and is universally
wirtten as ڃ. I
theerefore see no reason for this expulsion,and
so with the other aspirates where they exist,
and are generally recognized in all writings
ancient and modern.
The summary mode in which Dr. Trummp corrected
the mistakes of the Sindhees and their
blundering languages does not surprise me, but I
am astonished at a profssedc philogist’s being
satisfied with a represention of the sounds of
ڱ (ngya) by
نڱ (ng). He
might as well propose the abolition of the
Sanscrit …… and that in future it be represented
by …. And he will lfind after a longer
intercourse with Sindians that ng is a very
incorrect representaion of the pure sound
ڱ. The same
remarks apply to Dr., Trumpp’s substitution of
ني for
ڃ.
And Dr. Trumpp objects that it is against the
nature of a Semitic alphabet to express a nasal
sound by two dotsl. Of cours and it is eqally
against the nature of a Semitic alphabet to
represent andy sounds other than Semitic. Yet
such is the duty a Sindhi alphabet has to
perform, and Dr. Trumpp may not be aware, that a
similar nasal sounds to the one in question is
expressed in the Semitic alphabet which
represented the Trukish languages by three dots
with a guaf گ
The philogical enormity is therefore none third
greater in Turkis than in the revised Sindhee
alphabet, and we have at any rate an analogous
adoptin in a Semitic alphabet for the purpose of
representiong certain nasal sound which do not
exit in the original Semitic tongues.
With regard to the alternation exibited by Dr.
Trumpp in his comarision of the olf and revised
alphabets a few words are necessary. The
ط was
introduced in two ways and not in four as Dr.
trumpp iners where the retention of dots could
make no difference, they were comitted as
cumbrous thus ج
expressed no more than
ح there being
no other letter for which the symbol could be
mistaken if written wighout the dots.
But there was one great objection to the
ط and that was
its being new to Sindhes. At the time of the
revision of the alphabet I was no aware of
ٺ being in
common use for the aspirate of
ٽ The first I
saw of it was its insertion in an alphabet
published last August by oe Haroon Lohar of the
Mission House, and subsequent search has
confirmed me in the belief that this letter
should have beenretained in the revised alphabet
as having been used in old wirtings and being
generally )Though very far from universally)
inteligible to modern Sindhians. Therewould then
of course have been no use for
ت this letter
might thus be struck oft and the
ٺ of Haroon
Lohar retainde.
The alphabet of Haroon appears to have been Dr.
Trumpp’s guide in reference to the former Sindhi
alphabet but there are many forms there in given
which not only do not occur in books that I have
seen, but are quite unknown to many Sindhees of
good educaion whom I have consulted.
Thus I am pretty confident that the forms be
given for the aspirates of J, and K for the
peculiar Sindhee Sound fo G, and for cerebral N,
are so rare, that if they do occur in M.S. They
must be considered rather as peculiarities in
writing than as forms which have received the
sanction of general use. One of these forms is
an impossible one for how could be cerebral n
ن be presented
when initial or medial? The forms for the
Sindhee G, and for Kh, are so absurd, that
nothing but universal use could have justified
fgheir retention, and to this they certainly
have no claim for they are utterly unknown to
every Sindhee to whom I have shown them. Haroon
has entered گ
as an old Sindhee letter, but until the
publication of the revised apphabet I had always
seen G expressed by ک
and if not, how is it that the old Sindhees has
نک when
نگ would be
expected as the nearer of the two? |
