Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji

At the end of the first Pauri, there is the pankti

ਵਾਹੁ ਵਾਹੁ ਸਚੇ ਪਾਿਤਸਾਹ, ਤੂ ਸਚੀ ਨਾੲੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾੳੁ ॥

I have been told that this pankti is to be repeated at the end of each Pauri in this vaar. Among the reasons given was that this was a "parakh" added per Guru Sahib's instructions. It makes some sense when you read each of the following pauris in this vaar. The last line in each Pauri does not rhyme with the preceding 4 lines and it actually rhymes with the above pankti. For example, look at the 3rd pauri:

ਿੲਿਕ ਅਾਪਣੀ ਿਸਫਤੀ ਲਾਿੲਅਨੁ, ਦੇ ਸਿਤਗੁਰ ਮਤੀ ॥ ਿੲਕਨਾ ਨੋ ਨਾੳੁ ਬਖਿਸਓਨੁ, ਅਸਿਥਰੁ ਹਰਿ ਸਤੀ ॥ ਪੳੁਣੁ ਪਾਣੀ ਬੈਸੰਤਰੋ, ਹੁਕਿਮ ਕਰਿਹ ਭਗਤੀ ॥ ੲੇਨਾ ਨੋ ਭੳੁ ਅਗਲਾ, ਪੂਰੀ ਬਣਤ ਬਣਤੀ ॥ ਸਭੁ ਿੲਕੋ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਵਰਤਦਾ, ਮੰਿਨਅੈ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾੲੀ ॥੩॥

As you can see the "ਪਾੲੀ" rhymes with "ਤੂ ਸਚੀ ਨਾੲੀ ॥੧॥" but not with the previous 4 panktis.

Is this what Gursikhs here believe to be the case? Any further proof / reasoning on this issue? If true, it certainly highlights the importance of learning Gurbani Santhiya once again.

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji

From what I have learned, that is the case; you do repeat that Tuk after every Pauri. However, I don't have any further reasons on why this is the case, other than what you have already stated.

I remember one time Bhai Gurmej Singh was going over a Shabad ਹਰਿਮੰਦਰੁਸੋਈਆਖੀਐਜਿਥਹੁਹਰਿਜਾਤਾ (from Ramkali Ki Vaar) before going on stage to do Kirtan and he also spoke the Rahao Tuk afterwards. I didn't know this "rule" at the time, so I asked him and he explained how it is to be repeated. Later when looking over the Vaar, I noticed the same thing that you did about the rhyming pattern, so it makes sense that the line is repeated after each Pauri.

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji

would you repeat this pankti even during Akhand Sahib path?

Shouldn't something as major as this be mentioned in the rehat maryada then?

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji

Quote

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji

would you repeat this pankti even during Akhand
Sahib path?

It is repeated in Akhand Paaths (at least by those that read it this way)

Quote

Shouldn't something as major as this be mentioned
in the rehat maryada then?

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh Ji

A lot of things that are disagreed upon aren't included in Rehat Maryada. For example, the Rehat Maryada doesn't give an opinion on the following aspects of reading Gurbani:
-Whether to speak certain letters as "Pharsi" letters or not.
-Whether to add Bindis (or Naski Uchaaran as some say to get around using the word "adding") or not.
-Whether to speak the letter ਹ as a ਹ always, or to change it to a vowel letter with a higher tone (or to just make them silent)
-Where Adhaks ( ੱ ) are placed.
-etc.

Given that many differ in opinion on these kinds of issues, it isn't included in Rehat Maryada. The same can be said for your question. It could just be that some people don't believe in reading it that way (though I haven't heard anyone directly say anything against repeating the Tuk).

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Thank you for your input.
Could others maybe provide any other historical written information which explains this?

It may be beneficial to have this bani added into the Santhiya section of this site?

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Many Gursikhs, especially from Sampradayak background, advocate repeating the Rahao Pankiti of Ramkali kee Vaar, every time the Pauri of this Vaar is concluded. If you look at each Pauri of this Vaar carefully, you notice that the last Pankiti of this Vaar rhymes not with the other Pankitis of this Pauri but with the Rahao Pankiti. Furthermore, this is the only Vaar, out of 22 Vaars of Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee, that has the Rahao Pankiti. Lastly, many Puratan Paathis used to repeat the Rahao Pankiti after each Pauri. All these facts make the case for repeating the Rahao Pankiti every time the Pauri of this Vaar is concluded.

On the other hand, many Gurmukh Pyaare are of the opinion that we should read Gurbani as it's written and not add or take away Gurbani Pankitis at our own will. If Guru Sahib jee had willed that we should read the Rahao Pankiti after every Pauri, then Guru Sahib jee would have given Soochna or Hukam as is the case with the Salok of Siri Baavan Akhri whereby Guru jee has given this Soochna:

ਏਹੁ ਸਲੋਕੁ ਆਦਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਪੜਣਾ॥

In the absence of such Hukam, it does not seem right to do Paath of the Rahao Pankiti after each Pauri. But the case is different when doing Kirtan of this Vaar. When doing Kirtan of this Vaar, then it seems like we should repeat this Pankiti after each Pauri. The sad thing is that in our Panth, the Kirtan of 22 Vaars is not done and only Siri Asa kee Vaar Kirtan or perhaps couple of more Vaars e.g. Siri Basant kee Vaar or Kanra kee Vaar are sung but rest of the Vaars are not sung.

Rest Guru Sahib jee knows the best.

Kulbir Singh

Kulbir Singh,

You make a good point on why not to repeat the line. However, I will not be replying to that point. What I would like to say is that given the way that Vaars are sung, it doesn't make sense for you to say that this line shouldn't be read when reading the Bani, but should be read when singing. Vaars are not sung like "regular" Shabads; they are read in sequence, as you may hear in AsaKiVaar and BasantKiVaar (and KaanrhaKiVaar, as you mention, though I have never heard anyone sing that). So rules that apply to singing that Vaar should also apply to reading it, at least when looking at the Bani of the Vaar itself. It is also, noteworthy that AsaKiVaar does contain a Rahao Tuk, but that one is contained within a Salok, not a Paurhi.

Also, if you look at the poetry aspect of Gurbani, that line is needed to complete the Paurhi. Not only to complete the aforementioned rhyming, but the rhythmic schema in general. I would explain this further, but it is a bit hard to explain through text.

I do not mean to offend anyone about what I am about to say, but it is worth mentioning that those that advocate not adding or removing from Gurbani should also consider not adding/removing symbols (such as Bindis) when reading Bani. Again, I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, and don't really don't need anyone to reply addressing just this point, because I know people don't usually take that point well.

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I was going to ask the same question Kulbir Singh Ji - why is there difference in between singing and reading the baani?

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Quote

I was going to ask the same question Kulbir Singh Ji - why is there difference in between singing and reading the baani?

As is the tradition, for the most part, Kirtanis use Rahao or Tek Pankiti as Asthaaee. Same is true for singing Siri Ramkali kee Vaar (Mahalla 3). This is the only Vaar that has a Rahao Pankiti; therefore, this Pankiti should be taken as the Asthaaee and each Pauri would serve as it's Antra. After each Pauri (Antra), one would naturally come back to Asthaaee i.e. Rahao Pankiti, which will result in singing this Pankiti after each Pauri.

While doing straight Paath, there is no distinction between Asthaaee and Antra; so this Rahao Pankiti should not be repeated with each Pauri.

Kulbir Singh

Quote

While doing straight Paath, there is no distinction between Asthaaee and Antra; so this Rahao Pankiti should not be repeated with each Pauri.

But the way Vaars are sung is like doing straight Paath. I'm not too concerned on convincing you of repeating the Pankti or not, but I find the reasoning of singing vs. reading very strange because Vaars aren't sung the way that you describe; they are sung similar to "straight Paath" as you say.

Anyways, I don't feel like this conversation is really moving forward and we seem to be ignoring some points, so I think this a good place to stop and say that we agree to disagree.

Pronouncing Binday is a part of Gurbaani grammar to do Shudh Paath and drive correct meaning. Whereas adding Rahio tuk after every pauri in this Ramkali Ki Vaar gives no benefit in grammar or to drive the correct meaning. Just adding for rhyming purpose implies that Guru Sahib has forgotten something and we should add it. Quite surprising thought! What is the benefit of a repeating a tuk for rhyming purpose? Skilled Paathis knows how to do the Paath of this Vaar. A similar skill as used in doing Paath of Tin Tukees can be applied here.

Jasjit Singh,

As I said before, I don't really need a response for the Bindi thing, since I know how people here react to that. Because of this, I won't get into that (even though you ironically said something that could easily be used against your point). Going into that discussion is pretty pointless on this forum (I don't mean to offend anyone by that; it's just how I feel when I'm on here).
The one thing I did want to say was that there is a difference between the poetic schema of Titukee Shabads and what we are talking about here. It would be nice to discuss this with someone with more knowledge the Chhand-Bandhi of Gurbani, but very few seem to know about that.
Due to the way that things are being said in this thread, it makes me feel that it is pointless for me to go on further about this, so I apologize for not fully addressing your comment.

gus1kh jio,

Rule of Binday (due to Gurbaani Viakaran and Shudh Ucharan) implies in Smagar Gurbaani. Simply there is a no such rule of rhyming interjection in Gurbaani Ucharan. Repeat of the Rahao Pankiti after each Pauri in Raamkali ki vaar is considered as a Sampat. If there is a such rule then it should be applied somewhere else too. But fact is, it is not a rule. For example, take below Salok from Sorath Ki Vaar.
ਮਃ ੩ ॥
ਸਹਜੇ ਜਾਗੈ ਸਹਜੇ ਸੋਵੈ ॥
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਉਸਤਤਿ ਹੋਵੈ ॥
ਮਨਮੁਖ ਭਰਮੈ ਸਹਸਾ ਹੋਵੈ ॥
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਚਿੰਤਾ ਨੀਦ ਨ ਸੋਵੈ ॥
ਗਿਆਨੀ ਜਾਗਹਿ ਸਵਹਿ ਸੁਭਾਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮਿ ਰਤਿਆ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਉ ॥੨॥

Ending word ਜਾਉ of last tuk has completely different rhyming to ending word ਸੁਭਾਇ of previous tuk. It would be interesting to know what do you do while doing Paath of this Salok?

Keertan te paath da farak hundai. Keertan vich ta tukkaan repeat vi keetiyan jandiyan ne. Kai vaar pramaan vi ditte jande ne. Eh koi argument nahi ke vaar da gauna vakhra hai iss lai usda paath vi vakhra hove. Parampara ehi hai ke paath jiven likhya hai uvein hi kita jave.

Jasjit Singh,

That is why I said "poetic schema", which is much different than rhyming. There are other places in Gurbani that rhymes don't occur; for example:
।ਮਃ ੨।
।ਜਿਸੁਪਿਆਰੇਸਿਉਨੇਹੁਤਿਸੁਆਗੈਮਰਿਚਲੀਐ।
।ਧ੍ਰਿਗੁਜੀਵਣੁਸੰਸਾਰਿਤਾਕੈਪਾਛੈਜੀਵਣਾ॥੨।

Here we have a Soratha (not to be confused with Raag Sorath) without a rhyming scheme, but it does still have a poetic schema. The rhyming alone is not what I am talking about here. Also, I have said several times, that I am no longer interested in furthering this point because it appears that we aren't likely to change our beliefs (not that I'm a firm believer of either side, I'm really just playing "devil's advocate" so to speak).
Also, I said that I am not interested in the whole Bindi conversation (unless of course the person I am talking to has some knowledge of linguistics).


eyesacademic,
I apoligize for not replying to your comment, but it appears that the point I am trying to make is being ignored, which is likely my mistake, as I may not be able to articulate my point clearly (I've addressed the whole singing a Vaar vs singing other Shabads thing in earlier posts). Also, from my past experience on this forum, I've learned that when the more popular users disagree with you, it is useless to keep on commenting; also as Guru Ji says: ।ਜਿਥੈਬੋਲਣਿਹਾਰੀਐਤਿਥੈਚੰਗੀਚੁਪ।, so I should probably just stay quiet (kind of bad on my part since I keep on replying to posts after I have tried finishing the conversation several times).

"""""Also, from my past experience on this forum, I've learned that when the more popular users disagree with you, it is useless to keep on commenting; also as Guru Ji says: ।ਜਿਥੈਬੋਲਣਿਹਾਰੀਐਤਿਥੈਚੰਗੀਚੁਪ।, so I should probably just stay quiet (kind of bad on my part since I keep on replying to posts after I have tried finishing the conversation several times)."""""""

dont be a wimp please. You keep playing this psychological point that no one will support you, if your views are different and this way you want people support you. this writing has no relationship to the topic.. either refute other people's points or keep quiet. don't be a cry baby please.

you say that you will debate only if someone has knowledge of linguistics or make other pre conditions. this way you try to place yourself a level above others, as if you alone are an expert in these subjects. just make your points and then see what othhers have to say

Veer / Bhen Bhagauti Ji

Gurs1kh Ji is somewhat right in the fact that he has made some points above which have not been responded to. He didn't attack anyone personally so please don't revert to name calling.

I initially started this conversation as I had a genuine query so I am not supporting one side vs another.

Thanks Preetraj,

Even when posting, I thought someone might say that I'm just being a wimp by not replying, but since certain people seem to have the final word on this forum, I just felt like it was a waste of time to reply. The only time I've been replying is just to let others who may read this later on know that those people didn't necessarily "win" (not that I consider discussion something we can win or lose, just couldn't find a better word for the mentality) and maybe people won't assume that they are right and may think a little for themselves.

I do not mean to insult anyone. Also, as I've mentioned many times now, I am not interested in convincing people of my viewpoint. The only reason I am posting is that I'm still trying to learn more about their points, which I can't do if my questions are being ignored. But since you can't express emotions too well over text, I feel that they are just assuming that I am being angry in my response, even though I am not.

The only reason I mentioned the poetry/linguistics thing is that because people with a knowledge of those would at least consider viewpoints other than their own. For example, I know a little about linguistics (not an expert by any means), but by learning the amount that I know, I can see why some people may read Gurbani the way they do (by adding/removing letters). I entertain the thought in my mind without accepting the thought, which is what we all should do when we are discussing these topics. Not even consider other opinions is the thing that makes us put ourselves on a higher level than others, because then we are basically just saying that my knowledge is greater than this person's, rather than saying that my knowledge is equivalent to, but different from this person's..

The only thing I really want to say to Bhagauti veer/bhen ji is that maybe we should try to be more like Guru Ji:
।ਮਿਠਬੋਲੜਾਜੀਹਰਿਸਜਣੁਸੁਆਮੀਮੋਰਾ॥ਹਉਸੰਮਲਿਥਕੀਜੀਓਹੁਕਦੇਨਬੋਲੈਕਉਰਾ।

Anyways Preetraj ji, I assume you have gotten all you'll really get out of your question. Basically, it depends on personal belief; you can decide for yourself on which way makes more sense to you, but there isn't any kind of rule in place for the entire Panth (as I mentioned in my second comment to you). There are many issues like this in our Panth, and for all of them, we have to decide for ourselves which ones make the most sense to us, rather than taking people's word for it.
By the way, keep in mind that just because my points weren't addressed, doesn't necessarily mean that I was right and they were wrong. Their points are just as valid as the point that you made in the beginning of this thread, so you should still take them into consideration.

Gurs1kh jee, no one adds or removes Bindis in Gurbani. What I think you are alluding to is the Vishesh Dhuni. Bindis were just added to certain letters about a hundred years ago by linguists for the purpose of writting modern Punjabi literature. Before this it was generally understiod that some Gurmukhi letters had dual sounds much like how the English letter 'c' can sound like an 's' or a 'k'. If one reads an old hand written copy of Sri Dasam Granth one can see that there are no Bindis in Zafernama. Yet knowledgeable paathis would always pronounce the Vishesh-dhunis where it was needed. I know you did not want to discuss this but I felt the need to give a historic linguistic background of vishesh dhunis in relation to Shudh Gurbani Ucharan for the benefit of other readers here.

So this point of Vishesh-dhunis which are actually a part of the letter's dual sound cannot be likened to the topic being discussed.

nimana ji,

You are right that I didn't want to discuss this (and also, it isn't really the topic of the thread), but since you spoke a bit more kindly than some others, here's what I have to say:

The thing that you overlooked about Zafarnama is that the letters that are supposed to be pronounced differently from the Punjabi phonemes are marked with, for lack of a better term, accent marks. Go check it out for yourself. To me, that just gives more proof that we shouldn't be changing those letters when the accents marks aren't there. Even in the Sirlekh, you'll see that the ਜ in Zafarnama has an accent mark, but the ਸ in Patisaahi doesn't, because as a convention in all of Dasam Granth, Patisaahi is used in Sirlekhs, not Patashaahi with that 'sh' phoneme.

In the same handwritten Saroops, you can go back to the beginning and see that in Jaap Safhib that Panktis such as ।ਕਿਜਾਹਰਜਹੂਰਹੈਂ॥ਕਿਹਾਜਰਹਜੂਰਹੈਂ। do not have accent marks, so we should not be pronouncing the ਜs in those lines as 'z', but as 'j'. You can go to Chaupai Sahib and see that words such as ਸਰਨ, ਦੁਸਟ, ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ, etc, do not have accent marks either, so they shouldn't be pronounced with the 'sh' phoneme, but the 's' phoneme.

I personally am not really big on telling people that things should be a certain way, which is why when it came to the RamkaliKiVaar, I made sure to say that people may differ in opinion (see the response to Preetraj ji's question why it isn't mentioned in the Rehat Maryada). Anyways, to me these accent marks are clear proof that we shouldn't be modifying letters to what we consider is correct. Also, note that when talking about these modified letters, I never referred to them as letters with bindis added (we only started adding bindis to signal these phoneme changes later on; but before then, there was already a mark to signal these).

One thing that must be considered is that languages change. The Punjabi we speak today is not the same as the Punjabi that was spoken 300 years ago. Also, when languages borrow words from other languages, they almost always seem to change the pronunciation. You'll notice that English doesn't generally use the phonemes for ਕ, ਚ, ਟ, ਤ, or ਪ at the beginning of words so when they use words from languages that do, they end up using ਖ, ਛ, ਠ, ਥ, and ਫ instead (and by ਫ, don't mean 'f', but an aspirated 'p'; to see the difference compare the 'p' in "pin" vs "spin"), and we do the opposite when we use English words (for the most part). To see this in action, just see how we end up saying the following words in Punjabi: car, chocolate, taco, pizza, and party. Also, see how we (or non-Punjabi speakers) say these words in English: ਕਿਰਪਾਨ, ਚੰਦ੍ਰ, ਟੋਕਰੀ, ਤਾਲ, and ਪੰਡਿਤ. Another interesting one is to see how Hawaiians say "Merry Christmas" (see here: [www.youtube.com]).

Considering that all of this happens, why is it so hard to believe that Gurbani uses Persian words, but doesn't keep the Persian pronunciations of the words (not referring to Zafarnama here, since as before I explained that it does use Persian pronunciation)? In Dasam Granth, there is even an instance where the word 'near' is used and is written as 'ਨੀਅਰ', when the actual English pronunciation is closer to ਨੀਉਰ than it is to ਨੀਅਰ (but both of those aren't exactly right since English's 'r' differs from Gurmukhi's 'ਰ'). This is another example of how words from other languages can be used without pronouncing them exactly how they are in the original language.

Anyways, the main point is that the argument a words in Gurbani such as ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹ (for example), should be pronounced 'Patashaa' rather than 'Patisaah' isn't too convincing for two reasons. Firstly, old handwritten Saroops using the aforementioned accent mark to signal phoneme changes such as this; and secondly because though we may agree that the word originates from Farsi, that doesn't mean that the original language's pronunciation is the one that Gurbani uses. Not to even mention how words within just one language tend to change over time.

I would also like to say that Harinder Singh (SikhRI), Jaswant Singh, and Surendar Pal Singh bring up a very good point in their book "Gurū Granth Sāhib: Its Language & Grammar", which I will quote here:
"While the modern Gurmukhī has come to incorporate the character ਸ਼ as a representative of the "sh" phone, this character was available in premodern South Asia. For example, the Devnāgarī script carried two comparable alternatives for the "sh" phone (श, ष) and the Perso-Arabic script incorporated a character known as shīn for this sound value as well. Due to the availability of "sh" phone in other scripts and its absence in the earliest forms of Gurmukhī, it seems reasonable to surmise that these phones were either not pronounced, or less pronounced within the particular historical and regional context of the Gurū Granth Sāhib's compilation." (Page 22)

When it comes to the comments about 'c' being pronounced as both 's' and 'k', I just want to say that English is not a good role model for scripts, and I think that the script compiled by Guru Angad Dev would be the best system we have for representing Gurbani in writing; we shouldn't need to use the IPA to accurately write down how Gurbani is supposed to be pronounced (we could but we shouldn't have to). I admit that some letters do have different sounds, those letters being in the fourth column of the Gurmukhi script's chart (ਘ, ਝ, ਢ, ਧ, and ਭ), but their pronunciation depends on their position in the word (as you will note even when saying the name of these letters), which is why we can accurately pronounce them. This is not the case for the letters ਸ, ਖ, ਗ, ਜ, ਫ, ਲ, and ਕ, which some tend to say are dual sound letters. If that was the case, we would need to use something like the IPA to accurately represent them in writing.

There are probably many mistakes I've made since I didn't go back and double-check my post entirely, so please forgive me for any mistakes. I am only bringing up what I believe and the reasons why. I request everyone to not see this as an attack on what they believe (sorry again Bhagauti ji), because that is not what it is intended to be. I'm not saying that I am right about everything; I am just saying that these arguments should be taken into consideration as well when discussing pronunciation of Gurbani.

Lastly, I'd like to leave you with these videos of how old languages sounded like (pay extra attention to English) and you can decide for yourself how much languages can change over time (especially since in Gurmukhi, we are only talking about very small changes, such as some phonemes being added, nasal sounds becoming more prominent, etc):
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]

Not only are have there been changes in languages in the past (like how American English and British English diverged), but there are even changes happening in languages today. For one example, you can look up the cot-caught merger, or watch this video:
[www.youtube.com]

Bhul-chuk Maaf Karni

Quote
In the same handwritten Saroops, you can go back to the beginning and see that in Jaap Safhib that Panktis such as ।ਕਿਜਾਹਰਜਹੂਰਹੈਂ॥ਕਿਹਾਜਰਹਜੂਰਹੈਂ। do not have accent marks, so we should not be pronouncing the ਜs in those lines as 'z', but as 'j'. You can go to Chaupai Sahib and see that words such as ਸਰਨ, ਦੁਸਟ, ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ, etc, do not have accent marks either, so they shouldn't be pronounced with the 'sh' phoneme, but the 's' phoneme.

It seems like you have very weak understanding of Vishesh Dhuni (that require foot bindi) as a part of correct pronunciation of a root word. ظفرنامہ (Zafarnama) can't be pronounced correctly unless you place bindi under Jajja and Faffa ਜ਼ਫ਼ਰਨਾਮਾ. ظفرنامہ is written in Farsi. Today's Dasam Granth has Zafarnama in transliteration form from Farsi to Gurmukhi.

To your assumption that ਜਾਹਰਜਹੂਰ should be pronounced without foot bindi is incorrect. They are Persian (Farsi) words and requires foot bindi to pronounce correctly. Listen to pronunciation of ਜਾਹਰ ਜਹੂਰ by a non-Sikh Qaadri Gulaam Haider. See, how clearly he pronounce it as ਜ਼ਾਹਰ ਜ਼ਹੂਰ (forward to 3:30min). Listen to other Farsi words from Zafarnama as well, how correctly he pronounces them which requires bindi if they are written in Gurmukhi script.

Jasjit Singh Ji,

With all due respect, there was no such thing as "foot bindis" at the time that these Banis were written, but Zafarnama does have, again for lack of a better word, a certain accent mark that lets us know of the Vishesh Dhuni. That accent mark is what lets us know that the ਜ is supposed to be pronounced 'z' not 'j'. No such accent marks show up in Jaap Sahib.

Please look at some actual handwritten versions of Dasam Granth before replying.

Quote

It seems like you have very weak understanding of Vishesh Dhuni

Well, I apologize for my ignorance; I have very little knowledge in general and am pretty stubborn, so that may be why I am not changing my view (though I do understand your view).
However, I have explained in my earlier post when Vishesh Dhuni applies (when there is an accent mark).

Honestly Singh Sahib Ji, we aren't really going to get anywhere in this discussion, since we aren't likely to convince each other. Also, as I was saying earlier, and I mean this with all due respect, I honestly feel that I am just being given the same (or similar) points over and over again. I understand what you guys are saying, and if it was about anything other than Gurbani, I'd be fine with reading things your way.

Anyways, I have a lot of respect for you and all of the other people that replied in this thread and I personally don't have any issues with you reading Gurbani the way that you want. Also, to be clear: I do understand why it makes sense to you.
In fact, there are two Kaurs in my area that firmly believe in reading Gurbani the way you do and when they end up making mistakes according to their beliefs, I help them out by letting them know how they should read it. For example, they sang a Shabad with the word ਸੰਕਾ, and they read it with an 's' sound, even though according to their beliefs they should have read it with an 'sh' sound. I told them afterwards that they should have pronounced it with a 'sh' sound even though I personally would pronounce it with an 's' sound (since the Vishesh Dhuni accent mark isn't present). Just wanted to bring that up in case you think that I'm just having a difficult time understanding what you are saying. I understand, but respectfully disagree.

Since it is mostly my fault that this entire topic started in the first place (by making a small remark about it, though I said that it wasn't worth getting into), I would like to apologize to Preetraj Ji for getting so off topic from the original question. It might have been better if we moved this to it's own thread.

।ਜੇਤੇਬਦਨਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿਸਭਧਾਰੈ॥ਆਪੁਆਪਨੀਬੂਝਉਚਾਰੈ।

Gurs1kh jee, But Bindis representing Vishesh Dhunis as we know it are a recent addition to the standardization of Punjabi Lippi which happened about a 100 years ago as Punjabi literature began to grow. Before that it was understood that certain letters of the Gurmukhi script had Vishesh Dhunis(dual sounds) even without the visible Bindis which were later on adopted into the Gurmukhi lippi for easier reading.

Take any old hand written Dasam Granth and see for yourself that there are no Bindis in Zafernama, but that does not mean the Vishesh Dhunis were not pronounced. It is only in recent printed sroops that Bindis began to be added to Dasam Bani. Zafernama is a masterpiece. It was so well written that when recited, it moved Aurangzeb to the core. Can you imagine if a few Visheshdhunis were ignored, he would have laughed instead of being moved. Words like Patshahi is Farsi in origin. Unless one comes from the state of Bihar then it is understandable if you say Patsahi instead of Patshahi otherwise there is no excuse for mispronouncing Farsi words because we all know Guru Jee was well versed with the Farsi language.

It's hard to believe that Guru Nanak Dev Jee who had traveled all over the middle east and central Asia would pronounce Farsi sounds like Z as J. I have even seen Bazurgs who had come from west Punjab before partition and could read and write urdu, when they would say digest in Punjabi they would correctly pronounce it as Hazm not Hajam as Punjabis do now who have been bereft of Farsi/Urdu education and therefore do not know the correct pronunciation. Or take the example of Baba Farid Jee's Bani. Baba Farid jee was well educated in Farsi and Arabic. It would be hard to imagine that he of all people would mispronounce Islamic words like Oozu as Ooju or Azrail as Ajrail or Farishta as Farista.

Unnecessary confusion is getting created.

Originally the discussion was going on regarding the "Bindi on Head" but then later on more explanation was given on "Bindi in Foot". These are 2 separate things.

Irrespective of whether the "Bindi on Head" is written or not (in older hand-written swaroops or nowadays printed swaroops), it is supposed to be pronounced for Grammatical reasons.

On the other hand, "Bindi in Foot" was for the new alphabets which was included (to the paintee) by Dasam Pita Ji. The Bindi from the Foot is never omitted because that is the shape of the alphabet.

Even when Tippi, Bindi, Adhak on the Head is invisible it is to be pronounced for Grammatical reasons at appropriate places. But Bindi in Foot is always visible because it is shape of alphabet used in appropriate word.

Excellent points Nimana jee. It's hard to imagine that Guru Sahib jee did not pronounce Vishesh Dhunis of Sh, Kh and F etc, when He went to middle east.

Kulbir Singh

Gurmukh Pyaariho,

As I said before many times, we aren't going to get anywhere with this conversation.

When it comes to the marking for Vishesh Dhuni, I again ask that you

Quote

Please look at some actual handwritten versions of Dasam Granth before replying.

There you can see what the actual marking for Vishesh Dhuni is. You can see that there is a way that Vishesh Dhuni is scripted. Using a Bindi for it showed up later. That is why I said that Zafarnama does use Vishesh Dhuni (hence why I write it as Zafarnama and not Japharnama). From the way you write, it makes it seem like you think I said that it doesn't.

I will admit that you bring up a good point for Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the Middle East, but again the written Gurbani doesn't have the markings needed for Vishesh Dhuni and to be clear: I do not mean a Bindi, so please do not bring up that same point again (bolded to emphasize, not to show anger). Bindis show Vishesh Dhuni in modern Punjabi, but back in the times that these Banis were written, there was a separate marking used to convey it.

Can we please just agree to disagree on this topic? Mainly since we seem to be just going in circles and I don't think either side will be convinced to change.

Nimana Ji, the recent point about Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the Middle East is probably the only new point I've received in the whole thread and really the only convincing one, so I thank you for your input. That point alone isn't convincing enough, but I'll keep it under consideration.

Quote

Bindis show Vishesh Dhuni in modern Punjabi, but back in the times that these Banis were written, there was a separate marking used to convey it.

I'm interested to know what type of markings were used. Could you please post some examples or pictures?

Mohkam Singh Ji,

You can look at a bunch of old handwritten Saroops on Panjab Digital Library; here are some examples:

Look at the bottom of this Ang, where Zafarnama starts. You can see the mark on words like ਜਫਰਨਾਮਹ, ਰਜਾ, ਬਖਸ, ਸਹਿਨਸਹ, ਸਾਜੋ, ਬਾਜੋ, ਫਰਸ, etc, but you'll see that they are not on words like ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹੀ (I explained why this doesn't have the mark earlier), ਦਸਤਗੀਰ, ਫਉਜੋ, etc. This is how the mark shows up in most Saroops. I encourage you to look at the rest of the Saroop and confirm for yourself the claims I made earlier about these marks not being on some words, in earlier Banis, that we tend to pronounce with Vishesh Dhuni. Here, I'll help out: ਕਿਜਾਹਰਜਹੂਰਹੈ, words like ਦੁਸਟ, ਦ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ, ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ, ਸਿਵ in Chaupai Sahib
Whole Saroop: [www.panjabdigilib.org]


Here is another example. In this one, the mark is a bit different, and looks kind of like a "footed" ਰ ( ੍ਰ ), but without the loop. This version of the mark is less common (this might even be the only Saroop with it like this)
Whole Saroop: [www.panjabdigilib.org]


There are many more examples, but since the pictures take up a lot of space on the page, I didn't want to include too many. You can find more Saroops here: [www.panjabdigilib.org]

Hope this helps address your question Bhai Sahib Ji.