=== |
![]() |
kuchh ho ai mur;G-e chaman lu:tf nah jaave us se
nau;hah yaa naalah har ik baat kaa andaaz hai ek
1) something might/would/should be, oh bird of the garden-- the pleasure/refinement would/should not go {from / because of} it/that
2) an elegy, or a lament-- of every single utterance/idea, the style is 'one'
lu:tf : 'Delicacy; refinement; elegance, grace, beauty; the beauty or best (of a thing); taste; pleasantness; gratification, pleasure, enjoyment; —piquancy, point, wit; —courtesy, kindness, benignity, grace, favour, graciousness, generosity, benevolence, gentleness, amenity'. (Platts p.957)
ek : 'One, single, sole, alone, only, a, an; the same, identical; only one; a certain one; single of its kind, unique, singular, preëminent, excellent'. (Platts p.113)
FWP:
SETS == A,B; EK; GENERATORS; MIDPOINTS; POETRY
MOTIFS
NAMES
TERMS == POETICS; THEMEThe extreme multivalence of this verse makes it what I call a 'generator' of meanings. In the first line, the heavy lifting is done by the two future subjunctives ho and similarly (though to a lesser extent) jaave . Here are some possibilities for kuchh ho :
=something might happen (neutral)
=let something happen! (I want it to!)
=if something should happen... (part of planning for the future)and for lu:tf nah jaave :
=pleasure might not go (uncertainty)
=pleasure would not go (a kind of conditional assertion)
=pleasure ought not to go (a moral obligation)and for us se :
=because of it/that
=from it/thatAnd then, the us can refer either to some unknown 'it', or else to some contextually indicated 'that' (the one in 'something', or the 'elegy' or 'lament' in the next line).
In the second line, what really strikes me forcefully is that after the miniature two-item 'list' of 'elegy or lament', we get the sudden globally sweeping generalization about har ik baat , 'every single utterance/idea'-- which strongly suggests that the full range of such utterances goes from 'elegy' to 'lament'. The speaker apparently can't even conceive of the existence of a wider range of examples.
And what do we then learn about 'every single utterance/idea'? That its 'style' is ek -- a word with a remarkable variety of possible meanings in its own right (see the definition above).
Finally, since this is a radically 'A,B' verse, we're left entirely on our own in deciding how to put the two lines together. Something in the first line is being likened and/or contrasted to something in the second line-- but what, exactly? Or are the whole lines being compared or contrasted, in their broad meanings? The elusiveness of this verse is stunning.