Khan-i Arzu's Observations on the Relationship
" of Sanskrit and Persian^
by Abdul Azim, New York
1. Introductory remarks.
Sirajuddin Ali Khan Arzu (1689—1756),^ better known as Khan-i
Arzu, was one of the earliest scholars to study the relationship between
languages. Although he knew very little about Sanskrit and nothing
about Old Iranian languages, he was able to discover that Book Hindi,
i. e., Sanskrit, is related to Persian. In his still unpublished Musmir,
said to be a learned work on grammar and linguistics, Arzu speaks of
his discovery in unambiguous terms^ :
Up to this day no one has conceived of the tawäfuq (concord/agree¬
ment/relationship) between Hindi and Persian except this fakir Arzu in
spite of the fact that there were a number of dictionary makers and
other scholars of this guiding science. And whoever should be the dis¬
ciple and the follower of this humble (Arzu), he should establish the
fundamental principle and should base the correction of some Persian
■words on it as I have written in my own books such as Sirajul Lugha
and Chiragh-i Hidayat, etc. And it is amazing that Rashidi and others
were in India, yet they failed to observe that there is concord in these
two languages.
Khan-i Arzu makes use of this discovery by giving many cognate
words in his Persian dictionaries,* Sirajul Lugha and Chiragh-i Hidayat,
^ In tlie writing of this paper I have benefited from the lecture-notes of
Professors Ueiel Weinbeich and Robebt Austeblitz on the History of
Linguistics, of Professors W. B. Henning, M. J. Dbesden and I. Gebs¬
hevitch on Iranian PhUology, and of Professor M. B. Emeneau on Sanskrit
and Indian Linguistics. The paper was written at the University of Cali¬
fomia under the kind guidance of Professor Emeneau.
2 A. L. Siddiqi, Lakhnau kä Dabistän-i Shä'irl. Urdu Markaz, Lahore,
1955, pp. 82, 84.
ä Khan-i Arzu, Navädirul Alfäz, edited with an Introduction by Syed
Abdullah. Anjuman-e-Taraqqi-e-Urdu Pakistan, Karachi, 1951. Introduction, pp. 15, 26, 38.
* Mohd. Hosayn ebn-e Khalaf de Tabriz, Borhän-e Qäte\ edited by M.
Mo'in. Tehran, Khiäbän-e Golestän, 1952—56. (Hereafter this work wül be
18 ZDMG II9/2
and his Urdu-Persian dictionary, Navädirul Alfaz, which was written in
1751.* Inasmuch as the present writer has access only to the latter dic¬
tionary, it is on the basis of this work alone that he evaluates Arzu's
ideas in regard to Indo-Persian relationship.
2. Observations on the linguistic similarity of cognate words.
Eüian-i Arzu bases his claim of concord between Sanskrit and Persian
on correct linguistic observations. In his Navädirul Alfaz, he comments
on the phonetic, morphological, and semantic features of many cognate
words. Inasmuch as these words are very close both in sound and in
meaning, they are considered by him as proof of linguistic proximity
between the two languages. A few items from this dictionary are quoted
below. As it wiU be worthwhile to see how the cognates given by Arzu
are viewed today, references to modern works are given for each item.
Before presenting these items, it must also be noted that Khan-i Arzu
is not able to find cognates at aU for many words in his dictionary, and
that some of his etymologies are not correct.
(1) abhr
It has a mixed together or blended pronunciation of b and h, and is
abr (cloud) in Persian; this in Arabic is sahäb. This is common in Persian
and Book Hindi: there is not much difference. To give another example,
u^itur with lay fauqäni (upper t) is Persian and with täy hindi (Indic
if) is Hindi ... p. 6
Though his description is not technical, it is clear that Arzu is here
referring to aspiration and retroflexion. It is worth noting also that he is
emphasizing the single stroke effort for the pronunciation of aspirates by
saying that b and h have mixed together pronunciation. For the develop¬
ment of Indo-Iranian aspirated series into Indic and Iranian, see T. Bue-
Eow* pp. 68—72 and R. G. Kent' p. 29. For the retroflexed sounds, see
BuEEOW pp. 95—97. In R. L. Tuenee,^ the two words under discussion
are treated under items 549 abhrd- and 2387 üstra-. Manfeed Maye-
referred to as Moin.) For example, see Moin's footnote 11 on page 1868 where
he quotes Khan-i Arzu in regard to the relationship of the word for "vulture"
in Hindi and Persian.
5 Syed Abdullah, Introduction to Navädirul Alfäz, pp. 15—16.
* Tlie Sanskrit Language. Faber and Faber, London. (Hereafter referred
to as Burrow.)
' Old Persian. New Haven, American Oriental Society, 1953. (Hereafter
referred to as Kent.)
' A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London, Oxford
University Press, 1962—1966. (Hereafter referred to as Turner).
Khan-i Arzu's Observations on the Relationship of Sanskrit a. Persian 263
hofer' gives Sanskrit and Old Iranian forms of these words on p. 113
in Band I. For the Iranian forms for the word for "cloud" see L. H.
GbayI" J700 and Paul Horn" item 63, and for the word for "camel"
see Kent ^ 79, Gray ^44 and 51, and Horn item 87.
(2) äp
... It means ab (water) in Persian, and ma in Arahic. This too is due to
linguistic agreement, for there is not much difference between these
words, as mentioned earlier. pp. 6-7
Here Khan-i Arzu is referring to the feature of voicing. For reflexes
of the word for water in Indo-Iranian, see Turner item 407 äp-, Mayr¬
hofer äpah in Band I p. 74, Kent p. 168 under api, and Horn item 2.
For the voicing in some Middle Iranian and most New Iranian languages
of intervocalic voiceless stops, see B. L. Johnson^^ p 45 ^nd Gray
pp. 50, 63, 79, 97—98.
(3) kes
It is the hair exclusively of the head, ges with g, e, and s. And that some
have written it with the meaning of long hair, which hangs from the
two sides of the head, is the result of the characteristic of the place.
And it is the short form of gesU, and the detaUs of this have been given
in Sirajul Lugha. In any event, it is from the world of linguistic con¬
cord. P- 358
For the reflexes of the word for "hair of the head" see Turner 3471
kisa-, Mayrhofer kdsah p. 267 in Band I, and Horn 950 ges. Note that
although the divergence in voicing in the initial consonant of this word
between Indic and Iranian is difficiUt, Burrow p. 97 has no hesitation
in relating the Indic and Iranian words.
(4) asw
This is caUed asp (horse) in Persian and faras in Arabic; and this too
is due to agreement, for there is not much difference between the letters
wäw and pe. p. 23
* Kurzgefaßtes Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. (A Concise
Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary.) Heidelberg, Carl Wmter, 1956 — . .
Universitätsverlag. (Hereafter referred to as Mayrhofer.)
1° Indo-Iranian Phonology. New York, The Columbia Univ. Press, 1917.
(Hereafter referred to as Gray.)
1^ Grundriß der Neupersischen Etymologie. Sammlung Indogermanischer
Wörterbücher. IV. Straß bürg. Verlag Von Karl .1. Trübner. 1893. (Hereafter referred to as Horn.)
Historical Grammar of the Ancient Persian Language. New York,
American Book Company, 1917.
18»
Note Arzu's comment about the similarity between the labial stop and
the labial semi-vowel. For the reflexes of this word in Indo-Iranian, see
TuENBE item 920 asm-, Mayehofee asvah p. 62 in Band I, Gbay
p. 2, and Hoen item 77. The relationship between the Hindi and Persian
word is not as simple as it appeared to Khan-i Arzu. For the develop¬
ment of the Indo-Iranian *sv cluster in Iranian, see Kent p. 173 and
Kael Hoffmann and H. W. Bailey p. 3 and p. 137 respectively.!*
(5) ka^chwäjhichuä
In the risälah" "whatever in Arabic is called bäxah, and sang-pust (tor¬
toise)." However, there is the opinion that kaSaf is a Persian word. And
kachwä and kasaf are from the world of linguistic concord as it became
clear after careful investigation and scrutiny. p. 325
Note the equation between ch and s and between wju and / that
should have led Arzu to relate the Urdu and Persian word under study.
For details of the development of the Indo-Iranian word for "tortoise",
see Tuenee item 2619 kacchapa and also 2968 kasyapa, Mayehofee
kasyapah p. 190 in Band I, Bueeow p. 92, Hoen item 856, and Mom
footnote 2 on p. 1651.
{6)badh
It is an obstruction that is made with sweepings and mud to block the
water ... And apparently badh and band, which is Persian, are from the
world of (linguistic) agreement, for they are close in pronunciation, p. 55
Note that the difference in aspiration in the final position of the word
for "bind" is disregarded by Arzu. Also to be noted is the fact that he
considers the long nasalized vowel and its short oral counterpart plus
n, as found in the Urdu and Persian word respectively, to be close in
pronunciation. For the development of the word under study in Indic
and Iranian, see Tuenee item 9136 bandhd-, Mayehofee bandhdh
p. 407 in Band II, Kent band p. 199, and Hobn item 230.
(7) gala (discussed under the word top)
... Also the research indicates that (the Persian word) gulü with first
vowel as a (i. e., in the form of galü), as some people pronounce it, is
Handbuch der Orientalistik ; Band IV Iranistilc ; Abschnitt 1 Linguistik.
E. J. BrUl, Leiden — Köhl, 1958.
Navädirul Alfäz incorporates all the words of the first Urdu dictionary,
Oharäibul Lugliät by A. W. Hanswi, a writer of the 17th Century. This dic¬
tionary is often referred to as the "risälah" by Khan-i Arzu.
Khan-i Arzu's Observations on the Relationship of Sanskrit a. Persian 265
more probable, and the reason is that in Hindi they call it galä with a,
and -ä and -ü are interchangeable. Thus it is from the agreement of
languages. And this is the main reason according to Fakir Arzu even
though others are not convinced. p. 167
It is to be noted that Arzu is now using the evidence of Indic to
fix the pronunciation of Persian. Given the fact that Persian has two
variants, galü and gulü, the one that agrees with the Hindi form is to be
chosen. For the reflexes for the word for "throat", see Turner item
4070 gala, Mayehofer galah p. 330 in Band I, Horn item 928, and
MoiN footnote 2 on p. 1832. For the I in New Persian and r in earlier
forms of this word in Iranian, see Gray $ 358 and ^ 354.
(8) ast
This is the binder of discourse in afSrmative. In Persian näst (negative
of ast) the letter nün is prefixed to it, (just as) nästik (with the letter
nun) means "infidel" in Hindi. Hence there is linguistic proximity be¬
tween these languages. And hast can be a substitute of ast in Persian,
for the letter alif (initial a-) in both languages can be a substitute for
the letter he (ha-) ... p. 23
The important thing to be noted here is that Khan-i Arzu is now
using morphological correspondences as a criterion of linguistic relation¬
ship. The facts that Hindi ast (he is) corresponds to Persian ast, and that
both languages have negative prefix na-, prove that there is linguistic
agreement between them. For the details of the element "he is" in the
two branches of Indo-Iranian, see Turner item 977 asti, Mayrhofer
dsti p. 67 in Band I, Kent p. 174, and Horn items 107 and 1094. For
the secondary development of A in singular forms in Iranian, see P. HoRN^*
and W. B. Henning.^* For the negative na-, see Turner item 6906,
Mayrhofer p. 120 in Band II, Burrow p. 282, Kent p. 192, and Hoen
item 1014. See Tuenee item 7092 for Sanskrit nästika-.
(9) angust
With täy hindi (Indic t) it means nar anguSt (male finger, i. e., thumb),
and this too is the proof of linguistic proximity; for the word badan
means "face, appearance" in Hindi, but badan is an Arabic word (meaning
"body"); consequently it is like saman (jasmine) which means a flower
in Hindi and a particular flower in Persian. p. 41
1^ Grundriß der Iranischen Philologie, Vol. I, section 2, p. 153.
Das Verbum. Zeitschrift für Indologie rmd Iranistik, Vol. IX, p. 237.
suman
With u in Hindi, it comes with the unrestricted meaning of flower, and
in Persian it (i. e., saman) is one kind of pleasant-smelling white flowers.
And this is one kind of (linguistic) agreement. p. 285
In relating Persian angust and Hindi anguSt, Khan-i Arzu goes a step
further. In addition to partial differences in sounds (dental stop vs. re¬
troflex stop), now he brings partial semantic differences into consideration.
The two words prove the linguistic agreement between Persian and
Hindi because one means a "finger" and the other a "specific finger".
To emphasize the fact that this partial difference in meaning is not some¬
thing unusual, he gives two other words which have undergone some
change in meaning. The meaning of badan, a loan word from Arabic
according to Arzu, becomes specific in Urdu; but in this language the
word saman (jasmine) becomes a general word for "flower". For the
"thumb" word in Indic and the "finger" word in Iranian, see Tuhner
item 137 angusthä-, Maybhofbe angustdh p. 22 in Band I, Gbay p. 10,
and Hoen item 125. For the word for "jasmine/flower", see Tubneb
13492 sumanas- and Moin footnote 2 on p. 1166. As for the native word
badan (face), Khan-i Arzu was mistaken in relating it to the Arabic
loan word badan (body). The two words have to be diff'erentiated as in
J. T. Platts^®^ p. 140 where separate entries are made for badan: one
derived from Sanskrit vadana and the other borrowed from Arabic. With
the intervocahc -d-, the Urdu badan cannot originate from Prakrit
vayana- (see Tuenee item 11246) and has to be a later borrowing from
Sanskrit.
(10) leaf
In Persian, it comes with the meaning of something that originates on
the surface of water etc. (foam), and in Arabic it is called zabad ... In
Hindi it is used with the meaning of balyam (phlegm), and this is the same
thing and is from the (world of linguistic) agreement. The letter / is
found in the present-day language of India, but in the Book Language it
is not there, as is known to a researcher. p. 337
Note that Arzu is relating the Hindi and Persian words on the ground
that "foam" and "phlegm" are the same thing. Also note that he is
aware of the absence of / in Sanskrit, and of the hyper-Persianized Hindi
form kaf for Sanskrit kapha. For details, see Tuenee item 2756, Maye¬
hofee kaphah p. 158 in Band I, Bueeow p. 26, Hobn item 860, and
Mom footnote 6 on p. 1658.
A Dictionary of Urdu, Claaaioal Hindi, and English. London, Oxford
University Press, 1965.
Khan-i Arzu's Observations on the Relationship of Sanskrit a. Persian 267
3. Khan-i Arzu's precedence in the field of Indo-ljraman and his in¬
fluence on later writers.
Following the traditions of the time, Arzu wrote in Persian on varied
subjects, and linguistics was just one of his major fields of interest. His
authority as a scholar of Persian was accepted both by his contemporaries
and by later writers. Moreover, he had tremendous influence on the
emerging new generation of Urdu poets. On the contrary, it seems that
Arzu's followers did not take much interest in his work on linguistics. It
is only recently that his linguistic writings have received the scholarly
attention of Syed Abdullah who edited and pubhshed Navädirul Alfaz
in 1951, exactly two hundred years after it was \vritten.
Muhammad Husain Azad, an eminent Urdu writer, claimed toward
the end of the last centm-y that Sir William Jones benefited from the
works of KUian-i Arzu. In his foreword to SuWiandän-i Färs}'' he wrote:
About one hundred and fifty years ago, two of our lexicographers, Khan-i
Arzu and Tek Chand Bahar (a disciple of Arzu), who were learned in
Persian and native speakers of Hindi, found out the relationship be¬
tween the two families. Sir William Jones studied Persian and Sanskrit
in India in 1783. We cannot but question whether he got this point on
his own, or whether he did not indeed receive his insight through the
work of these scholars.
This statement requires critical examination. It is the behef of the
present \\Titer that William Jones was in no way influenced by Khan-i
Arzu. Our rejection is based on the following factors.
The linguistic thinking of William Jones was a gradual outgrowth
of that of his predecessors in Europe.^* Many scholars before Jones had
made statements in regard to the relationship between languages, es¬
pecially those of Europe, Iran, and India. Fü. Sassetti wrote letters from
India during his stay there from 1583 to 1588. In these letters he ex¬
plicitly said that Sanskrit is related to Greek and Latin. In defense of
his theory he cited numerals from these languages. In 1597 Bonaventura
Bulcanius cited several points of agreement in the vocabulary of German
and Persian. In 1643 Claud. Salmasius claimed that Latin, Greek, Teu¬
tonic, and Persian are related. He based his observations on such data
as numerals and kinship terms.
" Agha Muhammed Baqar, Lahore, 1887, pp. 4, 48.
1* Holgbb Pedebsen, Discovery of Language. Indiana, 1962, pp. 6, 9, 21.
J. T. Watebman, Perspectives in Linguistics. Phoenix, 1963, pp. 14—16.
H. M. Hoenigswald, On tlie History of the Comparative Method. Anthro¬
pological Linguistics, Vol. 5, 1963, pp. 2—3.
Even if we disregard what Jones owed to his European predecessors,
his famous statement of 1786 alone is enough to demonstrate that he
arrived at his remarkable conclusions because of his thorough examina¬
tion of Sanskrit and the classical languages of Europe, and that he was
not the least influenced by Khan-i Arzu. William Jones' statement
runs as follows
The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful struc¬
ture; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and
more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a
stronger aflS.nity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar,
than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed,
that no phüologer could examine them all three, without believing them
to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer
exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for sup¬
posing that both the Gothick and the Celtick, though blended with a
very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the
Old Persian might be added to the same family ...
It schould be noted that Old Persian is included at the end of the list,
and with reservations. Jones was by no means so sure of this inclusion
as he was of the relationships between the European languages and
Sanskrit. If he had known of Khan-i Arzu's discovery, he could hardly
have written as he did. After he had closely examined both the "Shdh-
ndmah" of Firdausi and the "Zendavesta" by M. Anquetil, Sir Wil¬
liam Jones declared in 1789
Having twice read the works of Firdausi with great attention, since I
applied myself to the study of old Indian literature, I can assure you
with confidence, that hundreds of Pdrsi nouns are pure Sanscrit, with
no other change than such as may be observed in the numerous bhdshä's,
or vemacular dialects, of India ; that very many Persian imperatives are
the roots of Sanscrit verbs ; and that even the moods and tenses of the
Persian verb substantive, which is the model of all the rest, are de-
ducible from the Sanscrit by an easy and clear analogy : we may hence
conclude, that the Parsi was derived, like the various Indian dialects,
from the language of the Brdhmans; ...
" Lord Teignmouth, The Works of Sir Williatn Jones, Vol. III. London,
Printed for John Stockdale, Piccadilly; and John Walkeb, Paternoster-
Row, 1807, p. 34.
Lord Teignmouth, Op. cit., pp. 114 and 118.
Khan-i Arzu's Observations on the Relationship of Sanskrit a. Persian 269
... when I perused the Zend glossary, I was inexpressibly surprized to
find, that six or seven words in ten were pure Sanscrit, and even some of
their inflexions formed by the rules of the Vydcaran ; as yushmacam, the
genitive plmal of yushmad. ... and it foUows, that the language of
the Zend was at least a dialect of the Sanscrit, approaching perhaps as
nearly to it as the Pracrit, or other popular idioms, which we know to
have been spoken in India two thousand years ago.
It must be admitted that Khan-i Arzu made the first explicit state¬
ment about the relationship of Sanskrit and Persian. As stated earlier,
European scholars were able to observe the relationship between Indic
or Iranian on one hand and the European languages on the other; but
none of them related Persian and Sanskrit directly before Khan-i Arzu.
In the last analysis it may be immaterial whether Khan-i Arzu was
the first to observe the Sanskrit-Persian relationship, or whether his
writings influenced later scholars. His importance hes in the fact that he
made a discovery and made it independently.
4. Conclusions
Khan-i Arzu observed systematic correspondence between Sanskrit and
Persian mainly on phonological but also on morphological and semantic
levels, and he was the first to make an explicit statement that there is
linguistic agreement between these languages. However, it appears from
his statements that he did not postulate a single source for the two
languages. Sir William Jones, who postulated a single source for Sanskrit,
Persian, and the classical languages of Europe, was not aware of Khan-i
Arzu's discovery.
dem Aspekt der Sprache
Von Rolf Teauzettel, München
In Darstellungen der chinesischen PhUosophiegeschichte findet man,
daß neben vielen anderen Begriffen der abendländischen Philosophie
auch der der Ontologie verwendet wird^. Schon eine kurze Überprüfung
einschlägiger Passagen führt aUerdings zu einem wenig befriedigenden
Ergebnis, da der Terminus Ontologie in der Regel nur in seiner all¬
gemeinsten Bedeutung (Lehre vom Wesen aUes Seienden) einbezogen
wird, nicht aber in seiner spezifischen. Andererseits hatte man letztere
im Auge, als man erste Versuche unternahm zu klären, wieso die chine¬
sische Philosophie über einige schüchterne Ansätze zur Grundlegung
einer Logik nicht hinausgekommen ist^, da man sich des genetischen
Zusammenhangs beider Disziphnen in der griechischen Philosophie durch¬
aus bewußt war. Das Ziel dieser Überlegungen soU demnach sein zu
prüfen, ob es überhaupt sinnvoll, d. h. wissenschaftlich produktiv ist,
diesen im Abendlande geprägten Begriff ohne weiteres in die Darstel¬
lung der chinesischen Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte zu übernehmen,
wobei festzuhalten bleibt, daß im folgenden der engere Begriff von
Ontologie thematisch ist, so wie er von Christian Wolff bestimmt wurde
als die metaphysica generalis im Gegensatz zur metaphysica specialis. Ihr
Gegenstand deckt sich mit dem, was bei Thomas von Aquin den ersten
Zweig der sapientia, von diesem metaphysica genannt, büdet imd die
ihrerseits die Fortführung des Teiles der Ersten Phüosophie des Aristo¬
teles ist, die auch Metaphysik heißt. Aristoteles hatte ihr eine dreifache
Aufgabe zugewiesen: die Lehre vom Seienden als Seiendes, von den
ersten Gründen und von Gott. Sowohl in der klassischen griechischen
Phüosophie als auch in der Scholastik des Mittelalters kam dabei der
^ So z. B. in A. Fobke, Geschichte der alten chinesischen Philosophie. 2.,
imveränderte Aufl. Hamburg 1964.
^ Texte, in denen erste Grundzüge eüier Logik Gtestalt gewinnen, sind in
China nur in der Zeit vom Ausgang des 4. bis ins 2. Jhdt. v. Chr. konzipiert
worden (TeUe aus Mo-tzu und Chuang-tzu, Kung-sun Lung-tzu u. a.). Außer
in der buddhistischen, unter indischem Einfluß stehenden Philosophie bUdete
die Logik von da an in China kein Thema mehr, und zwar bis zum Ende des
19. Jhdts, als von Europa her neue Anregimgen kamen. Es erübrigt sich, dio
inzwischen recht umfangreiche Sekundärliteratm- hierzu aufzuführen, da sie
leicht den sinologischen Standardbibliographien zu entnehmen ist.
