A coin of this type was recently posted on Fb and there was a very interesting discussion on the couplet. The final couplet is now decoded as:
Alfaaz Husain: Shailen Bhandare Sir, on this coin there doesn't seem to be a 'Re' before Ft ( the divider) instead there seems an Alif before it. Could the word be 'YAFT' and not 'GIRAFT? You had once suggested the couplet as:
Arth Giraft ze Sahibqiran Shahjahani / Muhammad Murad Shah Sikandar-i-Thani
And a variant
Arth Giraft ze Shahjahan Sahibqirani / Muhammad Murad Shah Sikandar-i-Thani. (Replacing Yaft with Giraft wouldn't make much difference in meaning though).
Shailen Bhandare: Alfaaz Husain The alif of the word یافت is quite clear on this coin. Moreover, یافت would make better sense with ارث - patrimony, which was "received / found" by Murad Shah from Shahjahan, rather than گرفت which means it just "was" his.
Alfaaz Husain: So we have finally cracked this entire couplet. Thanks sir.
Sohail Khan: Shailen is correct. Compare with Nanak couplet of Yaft.
Harun A. Shaikh: Bottom line - irs ze gi - ft divider - "re" of giraft before shaheb
Alfaaz Husain: Bottom line is irs and Snah Ahd before Sahib its 'ze' Harun A. Shaikh. Another small correction in your suggested couplet Shailen Bhandare sir, it would be Irs and not Arth. As in Steingass: Irsارث is verbal noun of Varasورث ; VN (ورثہ) which also means inheriting. Is Hindi word Virasat also derived from ورثه ?
Shailen Bhandare: Alfaaz Husain, Yes, so is وارث = inheritor, which appears in couplet of Bidar Bakht - all come from the same root.
Jan Lingen: Shailen, to finalise this interesting discussion, may I conclude that the couplet should read: "Irs Yaft ze sahibqiran shahjahani / muhammad murad shah sikandar-i-thani"
Or the variant:
"Irs Yaft ze shahjahan sahibqirani / muhammad murad shah sikandar-i-thani"
(Received the patrimony from Shah Jahan, the ‘Lord of conjunctions, Muhammad Murad Shah, the second Alexander.)
Shailen Bhandare: Jan Lingen. Yes, these would be the two definite contenders. The actual placement of letters on the coin favours the first version. But the second alternative is also valid considering placement can often be variable. I'd request Sohail Khan Sahib or Sanjay Garg to suggest additions of izafats to words like "Shah-i Jahan" or "Sahib-i Qiran" in case they have an impact on the "weight" of the syllables in the couplets.
Sanjay Garg: Shailen Bhandare, First line could have 'Shah-i Jahan' and Sahib-Qirani', thus: Irs yaft ze Shah-i Jahan Sahib-Qirani. Alternatively, (more plausible reading) would be: Irs yaft ze Sahib-i Qiran Shah Jahani.
Sohail Khan "Zahay Nasseb". Shailen Bhayya, first I need to know what is after "Waris" [I detest Asiatic Society's "th" for "Say". It is uncalled for in Persian speaking culture e.g. we cannot have Thurayya, Thuboot, Thani and Warith going on in our culture].
I suspect it can be "Warisay Mulk" or Warisa Umam, or Warisay --- etc. I agree with Jan that it could/should be :
Muhammad Murad Shah Sikandaray Sani / Waris--- Yaft ze Shahjahan Sahibqiran
As for Shahjahani: It is a misfit here; This is comparable to Humayuni, (Adlay) Jahangiri etc and does not go here. I realise that Shahjahanay, Sahebqiranay is written in many places, but that is calligraphic prermissiveness e.g. Bulbulay --for one Bulbul; Marday for one man --and here the writing is with the longer Ye.
I have copied this here for the benefit of the interested members here. I have also made suitable changes in the conversation and deleted some out of context / unimportant comments.
AMit
