=== |
![]() |
be-ḍhang : 'Ill-mannered, ill-behaved, ill-bred, uneducated, improper, ugly'. (Platts p.203)
aġhlāl : 'Yokes, chains (for the neck)'. (Platts p.61)
FWP:
SETS == EXCLAMATION
MOTIFS == BONDAGE; MADNESS
NAMES
TERMS == OPENING-VERSE; VERSE-SETIn his discussion of {930,1} SRF says that a ḥusn-e mat̤laʿ is like a verse-set, except that a verse-set cannot contain an opening-verse. So we might think of the term as referring to a verse-set located at the beginning of a ghazal. Whatever the terminology, this verse and {1781,2} are clearly linked. This one can stand on its own, but {1781,2} cannot, as SRF points out.
Whose chains is the longed-for new madman begged to rattle? The apnī of course means basically 'own', officially with reference to the subject of the sentence. SRF takes it colloquially as the speaker's own (short for hamārī apnī ) chains, but it could with even greater grammatical plausibility refer to the newcomer's own chains. The newcomer would thus be begged to come in and make a noise in that silent prison, by rattling his chains. This possibility is surely at least as plausible as that he would somehow, and for some unknown reason, rattle someone else's chains. It also works very well with {1781,2}: by loudly rattling his chains he would perhaps inspire the speaker (and others?) to similarly rattle their own chains.
Note for grammar fans: In the second line hilā jāve looks as if it ought to be, grammatically speaking, short for hilā kar jāve , 'having caused to move, would go'. But in this particular case, it's probably not. Here are some other things that it's not:
= hil jāve , 'would move', a colloquial form of the intransitive hile , from hilnā (parallel to ā jāve , 'would come')
= hilāyā jāve , 'would be caused to move', the passive, from hilānā
= hilātā jāve , 'would go on causing to move', a continuative, from hilānā
I mention these because many of my students used to find this kind of thing confusing. We who learn the language in a kitābī way need to know the grammar, so we tend to value it. But it's always possible that some special idiomatic thing may have been going on with Mir's usage, so it's good to be flexible as well, and stay alert for colloquial subtleties.
In this case I had doubts, so I consulted my teacher, C. M. Naim. He said (January 2018) that he considers hilā jāve to be not kar -deletion but a kind of idiomatic 'intensifier'. He offered the same view about uṭhā jāve in {1781,2} and pā jāve in {1781,12}. In all three cases these are transitive verbs used with intransitive auxiliary verbs, so they don't fit easily into regular compound-verb paradigms. But the only way we can tell that such cases do not represent kar -deletion is through the semantic context. More examples: {722,10}; {1807x,1}; {1871,7}.