107_03

{107,3}

jo aa))uu;N saamne un ke to mar;habaa nah kahe;N
jo jaa))uu;N vaa;N se kahii;N ko to ;xair-baad nahii;N

1) if I would come before her, then she wouldn't say, 'Welcome!'
2) if I would go from there to somewhere [else], then no 'Farewell!'

Notes:

mar;habaa : 'Welcome to ampleness, or to a spacious or roomy place; welcome! hail! God bless you! bravo!'. (Platts p.1021)

;xair-baad : 'May he prosper; farewell!' (Platts p.498)

*Platts Dictionary Online*

Nazm:

It's a complaint about unkindness. And ko has the meaning of 'direction', and it ought not to be considered redundant [zaa))id]. The poets of this [=Nazm's own] era are often in error about this: in udhar ko and kidhar ko and kahii;N ko they consider ko to be redundant, and avoid using it. Thus when they write is :tara;h se they declare the se to be redundant, and have abandoned it; and this opinion itself is erroneous. (111)

== Nazm page 111

Bekhud Dihlavi:

In this verse Mirza Sahib complains of the beloved's unkindness and indifference. The meaning is that when I go to meet her, when she sees me she's not happy, and when I take my leave, she doesn't say 'farewell'. On both occasions she shows carelessness/indifference. (162)

Bekhud Mohani:

When somebody comes, then the Iranis say 'Welcome!' and when he goes, then they say 'Farewell!'. Whether they have any acquaintance or relationship with that person, or not. (213)

FWP:

SETS == PARALLELISM == TRANSLATABLES

The verse feels like the first half of a small informal verse-set that might include this one and the next one, {107,4}.

Both of these verses, simple and transparent, non-multivalent, non-ambiguous, seem like 'translatables', and yet in another sense they also don't. There's a lot of 'ghazal world' knowledge that the reader must have in order to understand the relationship of lover and beloved that could give rise to these verses. Can they really be made into anything in English?