=== |
mumkin nahii;N kih gul kare vaisii shiguftagii
is sar-zamii;N me;N tu;xm-e mu;habbat mai;N bo chukaa
1) it's not possible that {the rose would create / there would be apparent / one would extinguish} such flourishing/expansiveness
2) in this tract of ground I {already sowed / am through with sowing} the seed of love
gul karnaa : 'To extinguish (a candle or lamp)'. (Platts p.911)
gul kardan : 'To extinguish, to snuff (a candle); to become apparent, manifest'. (Steingass p.1093)
shiguftagii : 'Expanding of a flower, blooming; bloom; beauty; flourishing state or condition; expansion (of the heart), delight, pleasure; astonishment'. (Platts p.732)
FWP:
SETS == GENERATORS; IDIOMS
MOTIFS
NAMES
TERMS == AMBIGUITY; METAPHOR; PADDING; VASOKHTWell, here's a wonderful study in idiomatic usages. In the first line, we seem to have three distinct possibilities:
=1) 'It's not possible that the rose would make/create such flourishingness' (the literal meaning).
=2) 'It's not possible that such flourishingness as might be expected would in fact be apparent/manifest' (the Persian idiom endorsed by SRF and Steingass).
=3) 'It's not possible that anyone would or could extinguish such flourishingness' (the Persian/Urdu idiom endorsed by Platts and Steingass, of which there are many examples in actual poetic usage).
Each of these possibilities can readily mesh with the second line, in different ways:
=1) '...because I've already sowed the seeds of love, which are far more potent and proliferative.'
=2) '...because what I've already sowed is the seeds of love, which are doomed to spring up and then wither without coming into their prime.'
=3) '...because what I've already sowed is the seeds of love, which have taken root and will in due course crowd out everything else.'
These ambiguities are helped along, of course, by the possible idiomatic usage of bo chukaa to mean something like 'I'm through with sowing, I'll have nothing to do with sowing!'; this reading could generate a whole additional set of possibilities; I won't go through and ring all the changes.
There's also the multivalence of 'in this tract of ground'. What tract of ground? Some metaphorical 'ground' of lovers' lives in particular, or of life in this world in general? Or the fertile soil of the lover's own heart? Or the stony ground of the beloved's heart?
And these ambiguities are also helped along by the similar multivalence of 'such'. It could casually refer merely to quantity (a large amount of flourishingness); or else it could identify some particular previously-identified quality of flourishness (the kind we would expect, the kind it usually has, the kind the seeds of love have, etc.). Thus the door is wide open for ironic readings too.