ta(())iin-e jaa ko bhuul gayaa huu;N pah yih hai yaad
kahtaa thaa ek roz yih ahl-e na:zar kahii;N

1) I have forgotten the specification of place, but this I remember
2) a person of vision/insight one day said this, somehow



ta((aiyun (of which ta(())iin is a corruption) : 'Specifying, fixing, determining, assigning, appointing, deputing, establishing; appointment, establishment, determination, &c.' (Platts p.328)


na:zar : 'Sight, vision, view; look, regard, glance; observation, inspection; supervision; —favourable regard, favour, countenance; —view, opinion, estimation; —intent, design; —regard, relation, reference'. (Platts p.1143)


kahii;N : 'Somewhere; anywhere; wherever, whithersoever; —ever, anyhow, by any chance; ever-so-much, far, greatly; —may be, perhaps, peradventure'. (Platts p.808)

S. R. Faruqi:

These verses [{309,15}, {309,16}, {309,17}] are a verse-set [qi:ta((h-band]. Before them, in this same ghazal there's also a verse-set of ten verses [beginning with {309,5}]. The majority of editors have decreed these [three present] verses too to be a part of this [earlier] verse-set. (That is, in their opinion this ghazal has not two verse-sets, but only one verse-set.) It's possible that all thirteen of these verses might be from only one verse-set. But since the theme of the present [three] verses has become a bit different, it's possible that these three verses might be separate; or even if they are not separate, they can be considered separately from the rest of the verses.

The first line apparently seems unnecessary, but in the second line kahii;N was a bit of a crooked/tricky word, such that what is being said in the next verse is especially important, and where that idea has been said or has been heard, and if for it there would be only the word kahii;N , then there's the possibility that the importance of the idea might be lessened. Thus in the first line he said 'The place where I heard this idea, I don't remember; but the idea that I heard, I remember'.



SRF's discussion of verse-sets makes clear how crucial a role later editors (rather than the original poets themselves) play in identifying them. In the Abbasi-Mahfuz edition of the kulliyat (for which SRF has helped in the editing), this three-verse verse-set is marked as an independent one. I don't know whether there's any manuscript (or other) evidence either way.

In any case, this is an absolutely compellingly 'verse-set' kind of verse, since otherwise it would make no sense at all.

Note for grammar fans: How can kahtaa thaa , the habitual ('he used to say'), be combined with ek din ('one day'), which clearly points to a single occurrence? All I can say is that he's Mir and we're not. But don't try that in your Urdu class.