ABOUT : On the multivalence of , see Platts's three definitions given above. The first one is the usual relative pronoun one, while the others range through 'when, whenever, if, since, in that'. In this latter, non-relative-pronoun use, is a substitute for , and thus can be temporal ('when'), causal ('since'), or propositional ('if'). This wide range offers the poet further degrees of interpretive flexibility. Compare the similar flexibility of , in 39,4 ; and of , discussed in 53,8 . ABOUT AND : Both words are associated with intoxication, in idiomatic, complex, and often ambiguous ways (see the definitions above). See for example how Nazm uses in his commentary on 169,7 . Of the two words, is particularly multivalent, since it can mean both 'intoxication' and something like a 'hangover' (which in widespread folk belief may often be 'cured' by drinking more wine, the ' hair of the dog ' treatment); for examples of such ambiguous use of the term, see 3,6 ; 170,2 ; 278x,3 ; 372x,2 ; 441x,8 . For other linkings of , , the , and a sea of wine, see 18,1 and 360x,7 . A verse with all those elements except the Cupbearer: 29,9x . Verses with both and : 228,13x *; 440x,5 . More examples: 16,9x ; 29,9x ; 42,11x ; 44,4x ; 67,3 // 361x,5 These colloquially complex words and are wonderfully evocative here-- the speaker has now drunk up whatever the Cupbearer has poured out, but is already feeling bored, sated, ready for some new thrill. He yawns and stretches, and looks about him restlessly. Will he crave another whole bout of drinking, beyond what even the Cupbearer can provide, or will he turn in some other direction? Bekhud rightly points to 60,11 for its mystical implications, but both verses also emphasize the importance of as 'capacity' in a broad sense, as a measure of what someone can hold or bear. The 'intoxication of thirst' suggests that even without (enough) wine-- and it seems that there can never be enough-- the man of knows the intoxication of his own thirst, his own passion and desire. That second line is the chief glory of the verse. The first line is so abstract that the listeners can hardly process it quickly or make much sense of it. By contrast, the second line is-- when, after the usual tantalizing mushairah delay, the listeners finally get to hear it-- vivid and colloquial, setting up a strong visual and aural image of the way the shore endlessly 'drinks' the lapping waves. How could the seashore not be a match for the sea, in breadth and depth and sinuousness? As is proper in a true 'mushairah verse', the line withholds its punch-word, , until the last possible moment. Only when the listeners hear the very end of the second line can they put the whole image together. It's easy to imagine that they would have called out ! graphics/seashore.jpg