Urdu: Why kh/k replaced with x (خ)? (2025)

In words like Tarxaanaa, chaTxanii, chaTax, and many more, it seems like the native (Indic) k/kh sounds were replaced with a x (خ) sound. Also, in may more words, k/kh was clearly left unchanged.

I wonder why this replacement was done and what was any documented justification for it. Perhaps there are a few specific situations that call for it. If so what are they?

Similarly, for paTaakaa. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1535618

UrduMedium said:

In words like Tarxaanaa, chaTxanii, chaTax, and many more, it seems like the native (Indic) k/kh sounds were replaced with a x (خ) sound. Also, in may more words, k/kh was clearly left unchanged.

I wonder why this replacement was done and what was any documented justification for it. Perhaps there are a few specific situations that call for it. If so what are they?

Click to expand...

I don't think we have discussed this topic separately, so thank you for starting this thread. I did mention it in passing in post 58 of this thread.

I shall just add the words I mentioned there in this thread.

axroT= walnut
paTaaxaa=cracker
chaTaxnii=latch
Taxnah/Taxnaa=ankle

xarraaTe lenaa= to snore
chaTxaare lenaa= to relish food
Tarxaanaa=to work carelessly/to prevaricate
paTaxnaa= to slam
kalii kaa chaTaxnaa = for bud to sprout open

There are also some "Ghain" words too. A couple of examples of these are..

GHunDah=hooligan
GHaTaa-GHaT pii jaanaa= to gulp down

And of course "z" words too. One example that comes to mind is

zannaaTaa as in zannaaTe-daar thappaR

I don't know the reason behind replacement of an Indic consonant with a Persian/arabic one but it seem as if most of the words have a T in them!

There is also XushHaal Xaan XaTTak, but I think this is Pashto.

Another one for your pleasure, UM SaaHib, but this time in Punjabi: lakkh (100000)--->lax
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2390599

QURESHPOR said:

There are also some "Ghain" words too. A couple of examples of these are..

GHunDah=hooligan
GHaTaa-GHaT pii jaanaa= to gulp down

Click to expand...

I'm seeing GHaTaa-Ghat for the first time now, for me it is ghaTaa-ghaT.

marrish said:

I'm seeing GHaTaa-Ghat for the first time now, for me it is ghaTaa-ghaT.

Click to expand...

GHaTaa-GHaT for me too like QP saahab.

marrish said:

I'm seeing GHaTaa-Ghat for the first time now, for me it is ghaTaa-ghaT.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you would care to turn the pages of "Farhang-i-Asifiyyah" or our "piir-murshid", janaab-i-Platts.

GhaTar-GhuuN

QURESHPOR said:

Perhaps you would care to turn the pages of "Farhang-i-Asifiyyah" or our "piir-murshid", janaab-i-Platts.

GhaTar-GhuuN

Click to expand...

Thanks for the ´reprimand´! And so I did, very inspiring lecture, especially the first one. There is also a shi3r from Insha for illustration of GHaTaa-GHaT.

GHaTar-GHuuN is of course known to me only in this form as it would be impossible to substitute [GH] with [gh] as such switch would annihilate the superb onomatopoeic effect .

In reference to GhunDaa that you´ve mentioned above, the Farhang says: ''گُنڈا زیادہ بولتے ہیں guNDaa ziyaadah bolte haiN''. I've never heard guNDaa in Urdu with a [g].

UrduMedium said:

^I always thought it was GHuTar GHuuN.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. I am mistaken.

marrish said:

Also possible.

Click to expand...

Acutally again I didn't pay attention and copied the above post BUT the variant with a zabar is also heard, and Farhang-e-Aasafiyyah has to say that ''lakhna'uu waale GhuTGhuuN bolte haiN''.
Of course UM SaaHib is right, Farhang-e-Aasafiyyah has it as GHuTar-GhuuN.

janaab-e-3aaliyaan, this lakhnau-waalaa has heard more than one form but for us GhaTar-GhuuN and GhaTaa-Ghat sound best, as QP SaaHib mentioned above.

But aren't we going off-topic now? I thought we are supposed to be discussing the k/kh shift to x rather than the Gh phoneme.

Coming back to this old thread .. had this thought.

Could this switch perhaps be to unwittingly reduce the number of "Indic-only" sounds in words for: the ease of delivery, or to reduce the "alien-ness" of the sound of these words, among the newcomer primarily-Persian speakers? That too normally in favor of keeping the retroflex sounds and replacing aspirated sounds with the closest Persian sound available.

So GhaTaaGhaT is one degree more familiar to a Persian speaker than ghaTaaghaT.

^ As a theory it may be right, UM SaaHib, perhaps it more economical to pronounce a single sound like x or Gh, than k+h or g+h.

Whatever be the reason, there is nothing against such change as both gh and kh as well as Gh and x have belonged to the consonantal repertoire of Urdu speakers. And congratulations on your first 1000 posts!

marrish said:

^ ۔۔۔ And congratulations on your first 1000 posts!

Click to expand...

Thank you marrish saahab! Time flies when one's having fun

marrish said:

^ As a theory it may be right, UM SaaHib, perhaps it more economical to pronounce a single sound like x or Gh, than k+h or g+h.

Whatever be the reason, there is nothing against such change as both gh and kh as well as Gh and x have belonged to the consonantal repertoire of Urdu speakers. And congratulations on your first 1000 posts!

Click to expand...

marrish SaaHib, kh and gh are one sound each, just like x and Gh are. In addition, in GhaTaa-GhaT, the original g is not an aspirated sound but a voiced sound.