Arshi gives , but then in his footnotes Arshi shows that in letters Ghalib used both and about equally often (as can be seen in the examples above). It seems clear that Ghalib considered both forms grammatically correct and poetically appropriate for that point in that verse. This is surely the reason that he himself couldn't seem to remember which form he had officially chosen. More than any other verse, this one seems to have often come to Ghalib's mind in his later years, at least when he wrote to his friends. The six instances given above are more than can be found for any other verse. Such quotations in letters are of biographical interest of course, and also illustrate the emotional context in which the verse seemed appropriate to him. I reproduce in this commentary every such reference that I've found, since the instances in which he actually analyzes, or even discusses, his own verses are all too few. The vocabulary of this verse is utterly simple-- which enables it to be nicely turned out when it comes to visual wordplay. The expression 'X ' is a petrified phrase that means 'to wait for X', but its literal meaning is 'to watch X's road,' to watch for X to arrive. Here the 'watching' in the first line is echoed by the 'let's see' and the 'show' in the next line. The polite imperative , literally 'please look', is colloquially used the way 'let's see' is in English. And , 'to show', literally means 'to cause to see', and is of course derived from , 'to see'. (In fact is just a variant form of ; it has the advantage for this verse of scanning with an initial long syllable instead of a short one.) In Urdu, 'to see', 'to look', and 'to watch' are all expressed by . The eager spectator waited a lifetime to see what death would show him. Why? Because life in the world proved so unsatisfying in general? Because his particular life was so especially wretched and full of pain? Because he had mystical longings that could only be fulfilled beyond this limited life? Because death had a reputation as a master showman who might offer a fine spectacle? In the second line, can be read either as an archaic variant of , 'upon dying', or more literally as '[we] died, but'. The former seems to be spoken before death, the latter after death (for more verses in which the dead lover speaks, see 57,1 ). The former is more neutral and hopeful; the 'but' in the latter suggests that what death has to show is very likely to be disappointing. The most striking bit of grammar in the verse is the plural subjunctive, which requires an implied plural subject. Death seems to be irrevocably singular. So who are the 'they' who would be doing the showing? One might of course argue that the plural ending was required by the rhyme , so that the poet was simply-- and slackly-- yielding to necessity. But Ghalib is too tricky a poet to be so readily constrained. I would argue that it's the same 'they' who appear in the expression 'they say' (in both English and Urdu)-- a wryly observed, vague group defined both by being elusively powerful, and by being not me/us. It could theoretically of course be a respectful reference to God, but it certainly doesn't come across that way; God is in any case almost always addressed more intimately. Then, of course, the final jewel is the artistic use of the multifaceted ; for more on this see 15,10 . All these readings of are possible: =let's see what they would show (as translated above) =let's see-- what would they show? =let's see-- would they show, or not? =let's see-- as if they would show! Ghalib cited this verse in melancholy contexts, including laments about the decline of his powers as a poet. But surely he was also reminding his addressees of what he as a poet had already so richly achieved-- could anything from the next world compare with what he had seen, and shown, already? Note for grammar fans: On , see 215,1 . graphics/waiting.jpg