# Hindi: How is ण pronounced? (Thread closed awaiting moderation).



## greatbear

A statement which seemed shocking to me, "ण when isolated is pronounced as न by most people", was made by member tonyspeed recently in a thread on dots in Hindi. But maybe it is only me who is shocked and have failed to notice all these new न's mushrooming everywhere (or maybe they were always there).

So, my questions to Hindi speakers:
(1) How do you pronounce it "in isolation"?
(2) According to you, how does the majority pronounce it?

Also, since tonyspeed failed to back up his assertion by any kind of reference, I would also like the other members to come up with references or data which indeed point out that ण is pronounced as न by the majority of Hindi speakers.


----------



## marrish

Give me a couple of days, I hope to be able to say something about this. Not sure whether I'd be able to confirm or deny. It is getting more and more interesting! Please don't feel limited with this, do look for any reference from which we might learn that it is not so.


----------



## souminwé

Before I go hunting for references, I will answer questions (1) and (2). 

I am not sure what tonyspeed meant by "in isolation" but here goes:

I have the capacity to pronounce ण and so does everyone I know. We were all taught to read, write and recite Hindi with a distinct ण. You can easily hear it in the media, too.
As for if I actually distinguish it from न, I would say not often, nor do most of the people that I've interacted with.  But, not _often_ is the important phrase there, as I have definitely heard people use it, even if only sporadically, and it has become habitual for me in some words as well (I think I always pronounce the ण in  भविष्यवाणी and निर्माण, for example).


----------



## greatbear

That is interesting, because you have heard often ण as न. Anyway, though, at least since you do pronounce ण in certain words, it can't be just removed from the script (as per a suggestion by tonyspeed). I keep looking forward to more experiences.
Regarding "in isolation", I in fact didn't understand much, since tonyspeed also thought that it could be removed from the Hindi script itself: so I am assuming that he meant that ण is _never _pronounced at all by the majority of Hindi speakers (since that is what would warrant the complete removal of a letter). Anyway, let's just keep looking for more opinions, let's not derail this thread by petty bickering.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> ण is _never _pronounced at all by the majority of Hindi speakers



How about ख़ ? The official recommendation is to remove the bindi, but I have distinctly heard, not one or two, but many people pronounce it; again, depending on the word! How is this any different from the ण situation? I also suspect the removal of ण is even higher amongst the illiterate.


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> How about ख़ ? The official recommendation is to remove the bindi, but I have distinctly heard, not one or two, but many people pronounce it; again, depending on the word! How is this any different from the ण situation? I also suspect the removal of ण is even higher amongst the illiterate.



I believe it is not a removal -  it is just how the laguage evolved - which you see it is faithfully retained in Urdu - on opposition to Hindi, which quite recently got to replace the existent sounds and words with their ''so called SaMskRtaM equivalents".


----------



## souminwé

Seeing as before the great Urdu-Hindi divide, pronouncing x as kh was just a lack of education thing, I think it's proposterous to suggest that the entire Hindi speaking world all of a sudden become ultra-Sanskritist and replaced everything with "SanskritniSTh" equivalents.

In reality,wider spread Urdu education and media standards ensure the pronunciations of x,G,q in Pakistan. Furthermore, with the importance of these sounds in Qur'anic recitation, it is only natural that they will become _the_ way of speaking.

Seeing as the Hindi script isn't so adept at expressing these sounds, nor are they important for our liturgical language(s), it seems to me simply a matter of people who could never produce these phonemes continuing to not be able to produce these phonemes.
Other than z and f, x is indeed the most integrated in Hindi of the Persian phonemes. I don't feel there is any need to dump the nuqtah, just as much as I don't feel their is need to dump the retroflex n.


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> Seeing as the Hindi script isn't so adept at expressing these sounds, nor are they important for our liturgical language(s), it seems to me simply a matter of people who could never produce these phonemes continuing to not be able to produce these phonemes.



Could you please be a little more explicit. Perhaps it's just me.


----------



## marrish

The point is here that Urdu, call it Hindi, Hindui, Hindavi or Rextah or Gujri or anything our previous generations found sufficient to describe the language, diverged much from its original form  to go for another one in United India = so called shuddh Hindi = where Sanskrit forms of words were to dominate on the indigenous ones. The simple man speaks no Shuddh hindi but the language which has been going on, and presently upon the influence of retrospecting big men (retrospecting doesn't mean here 60 yrs but 1500 at least.)


----------



## souminwé

QURESHPOR said:


> Could you please be a little more explicit. Perhaps it's just me.



Well everyone seems to think that all pre-partition Hindustani (Urdu? Hindi?) speakers could produce x, G, q. That doesn't quite jive with me - if that were so, they would not have almost enitrely vanished today. Compare /z/, which is well used and alive, and it isn't particularly becoming to say /j/ in its place - who says jyaada instead of zyaada 

It seems evident to me that many, especially the rustic folk and the illiterate, would not be able to pronounce these phonemes correctly. Political forces can do a lot of things, but they can't simply kick out a phoneme used by millions of people. /x/'s marginal status in modern Hindi only suggests to me that it was on its way to become a solid part of Hindi just as much as /z/ has, but the Hindi-Urdu divide occurred to early for it do so.

Hindi speakers could not pronounce retroflex n's or S's before the division, and now we all have the capability. Education, standardisation, religious forces etc. have all contributed to this.
x,G,q it seems were not well ingrained enough that they could survive in a script and standard language that regard them as optional or even superfluous.

Plus, it seems that the number of people who can't produce x,G,q has only increased today because of the unimportant position they now occupy.


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> Well everyone seems to think that all pre-partition Hindustani (Urdu? Hindi?) speakers could produce x, G, q. That doesn't quite jive with me - if that were so, they would not have almost enitrely vanished today. Compare /z/, which is well used and alive, and it isn't particularly becoming to say /j/ in its place - who says jyaada instead of zyaada
> 
> It seems evident to me that many, especially the rustic folk and the illiterate, would not be able to pronounce these phonemes correctly. Political forces can do a lot of things, but they can't simply kick out a phoneme used by millions of people. /x/'s marginal status in modern Hindi only suggests to me that it was on its way to become a solid part of Hindi just as much as /z/ has, but the Hindi-Urdu divide occurred to early for it do so.
> 
> Hindi speakers could not pronounce retroflex n's or S's before the division, and now we all have the capability. Education, standardisation, religious forces etc. have all contributed to this.
> x,G,q it seems were not well ingrained enough that they could survive in a script and standard language that regard them as optional or even superfluous.
> 
> Plus, it seems that the number of people who can't produce x,G,q has only increased today because of the unimportant position they now occupy.



Regarding the first paragraph. It has been 65 years since independence and therefore at least one generation is gone and another has replaced it. If people grow up in a (new) environment where Hindi is taught from Primary school age, is it a surprise that even those whose parents would have been pronouncing x, Gh and q correctly are now stuck with kh, g and k? Just look at the likes of Salman Khan and all the other Khans who can't pronounce their own names! As for f/z, please do not forget influence from English education. This is the reason why in your original post f, z formed part of the compulsory phonemes to retain the bindi.

I have lived amongst completely illiterate "rustic" folk and I can assure you that they pronounced f, z, sh, x and Gh with perfect ease. The only phoneme they did not pronounce correctly was q. And this is in the Punjab. I hope someone who has lived in the Urdu/Hindi areas can fill you in regarding your assertion.

In the pre-independence period, Urdu was taught in schools throughout Northern India including Punjab (East and West) and areas such as Hyderabad, Aurangabad, Bhopal. All these areas, apart from what is now Pakistan, are now practically devoid of organised Urdu teaching.


----------



## souminwé

I think you're looking at this a bit conspiratorially. I'm reading that Indian education system has intentionally "killed" x,G,q.

Are these rustic folks you speak of Pakistani? They live in a very different environment. Everyone on Pakistani television pronounces their Persian phonemes correctly and clearly. I am assuming that many of these rustic people have had some Qur'anic verses taught to them as well.

In India, the media folk sporadically pronounce their sounds correctly and almost never say q. It is not to hard to mishear x as kh in these situations.

I agree that the education system is likely _acidentally_ reinforcing the Indic approximations of the Perisan phonemes, but ultimately it's because of the attitude we have towards these phonemes (which almost treats them like allophones) and the fact that I still doubt everyone was capable of pronouncing them pre-division era.


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> I think you're looking at this a bit conspiratorially. I'm reading that Indian education system has intentionally "killed" x,G,q.
> 
> Are these rustic folks you speak of Pakistani? They live in a very different environment. Everyone on Pakistani television pronounces their Persian phonemes correctly and clearly. I am assuming that many of these rustic people have had some Qur'anic verses taught to them as well.
> 
> In India, the media folk sporadically pronounce their sounds correctly and almost never say q. It is not to hard to mishear x as kh in these situations.
> 
> I agree that the education system is likely _acidentally_ reinforcing the Indic approximations of the Perisan phonemes, but ultimately it's because of the attitude we have towards these phonemes (which almost treats them like allophones) and the fact that I still doubt everyone was capable of pronouncing them pre-division era.



Yes, these people I am talking about are Pakistani and when I said they were illiterate, I meant illiterate. No Arabic, no Persian, no Urdu, no Punjabi and NO TV! Radio had n't come to those people then let alone TV!

Let's wait for someone from across the border,  possibly from an Urdu background to offer their insight.


----------



## JaiHind

greatbear said:


> A statement which seemed shocking to me, "ण when isolated is pronounced as न by most people", was made by member tonyspeed recently in a thread on dots in Hindi. But maybe it is only me who is shocked and have failed to notice all these new न's mushrooming everywhere (or maybe they were always there).
> 
> So, my questions to Hindi speakers:
> (1) How do you pronounce it "in isolation"?
> (2) According to you, how does the majority pronounce it?
> 
> Also, since tonyspeed failed to back up his assertion by any kind of reference, I would also like the other members to come up with references or data which indeed point out that ण is pronounced as न by the majority of Hindi speakers.



I am shocked too by this assertion from that member. ण is never pronounced as  न. Most of Hindi I have heard in my life, there has been a clear difference between ण and न, if I don't say "all". In fact, right in the school when kids are taught alphabets, they are taught to differently pronounce these two na's. 

How do we pronounce these? I think tongue movements are different. For ण, tongue becomes a curve like, its tip touches the top of mouth, its tip is upward inclined, also there is a kid of jerk by the end of saying ण (if I can call it jerk). For न, as we all know, the tongue is rather straight and there is no upward inclined tip of the tongue. 

Anyways, if some people are not well versed in Hindi, let us tell them to listen more Hindi and take more interest in Hindi. Also let them not look at Hindi with colored glasses.


----------



## nineth

greatbear said:


> A statement which seemed shocking to me, "ण when isolated is pronounced as न by most people"



I had already posted about this on the other thread. This statement is shocking to me as well.



greatbear said:


> So, my questions to Hindi speakers:
> (1) How do you pronounce it "in isolation"?



ण  pronounced with the tongue at the same place as Ta, Tha, Da, Dha, whereas न is pronounced with the tongue at the same place as ta, tha, da, dha. The majority pronounces it like this, i.e., correctly.


----------



## BP.

souminwé said:


> ...
> Political forces can do a lot of things, but they can't simply kick out a phoneme used by millions of people. ....


They can and have. Look at the Turkish spoken in Turkey. The political leadership forced the omission of q, of kh/x and of w, these being replaced by k, ğ (a y really), and a v respectively, and you won't hear them in a Turkish street anymore, except maybe a faint q from some less-educated folk.

The French language authority guides the evolution of their language and unlike for English, decides which new words make the dictionary. I could imagine that even without using statutory means a political  entity could social-engineer the modification of parts of a language  over a longer period of time.


----------



## nineth

tonyspeed said:


> How about ख़ ? The official recommendation is to remove the bindi, but I have distinctly heard, not one or two, but many people pronounce it; again, depending on the word! How is this any different from the ण situation? I also suspect the removal of ण is even higher amongst the illiterate.


The question is not of removal of  ण; please read the original post again. There is nothing wrong in admitting that you were misled/mistaken when you made the statement,  "ण when isolated is pronounced as न by most people" - this is the time you should do it. I've been following you right after you made that statement and you spawned nearly 5 to 6 different issues to deflect attention instead of taking it back; you can run, but you can't hide


----------



## marrish

Keeping the promise to come back again, all I can say for the moment is that tonyspeed SaaHib by no means has to "hide". There is no retroflex ''n'' in Braj bhaasha/bhaakaa at least. You may consult page 150 of this document by the Indian Government.
I'll be back!


----------



## marrish

nineth said:


> The majority pronounces it like this, i.e., correctly.


It seems that the point is solved, while you acknowledge there are people who don't. Whether they are in majority or minority is less important.
I wouldn't opt for the removal of this letter from Hindi because it is present there and also in many other Indic languages. Actually I'm against removing anything from the Hindi writing system, rather I'd go for adding a bit.


----------



## nineth

marrish said:


> It seems that the point is solved, while you acknowledge there are people who don't. Whether they are in majority or minority is less important.


Let's not run away from the main question. We are not discussing its removal.  The question is whether the majority pronounces it or not (pls see original post). So, before you post more of orthogonal information, is your answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know"?


----------



## Faylasoof

We all learn that ण is a retroflex nasal sound, unlike न. In other words they are different! Having said this, I hear more people now turning ण into an न !! Having good language teachers around always helps but as far as standard languages go, instilling a respect for good and proper pronunciation within us is just as important. Apart from this the ‘right’ environment is a must! Dialects, we all know, show considerable variations and we can’t completely eliminate their influence on any standard language. This too might also be influencing the way ण is being pronounced by some. Is the majority pronouncing it correctly _in isolation_? The ones I know do but that of course doesn’t make it the majority!  I’m not sure anymore of the rest.  Anyway, we already know that the majority can be incorrect about pronunciation and / or grammar. 

I have no intention of drifting into a (prolonged and off-topic) debate on the issue of ख (kh) versus ख़ (x) pronunciation here. But these two also illustrate the same point. Even now I know many illiterate people back home who make the distinction between the two (and between ‘s’ and ‘sh’ etc.). They are nearly all of the previous generation and this brings me back to the point of the right ambiance! At that time (over 6 decades ago) due to the influence and prevalence of Urdu in northern India many would learn the distinction between different phonemes even if they never had any formal education! The ‘right’ environment is essential.
So, ण and are not the same न and shouldn’t be treated so, just like ख (kh) and ख़ (x) are not the same. Of course it is good to know how the majority might be pronouncing these (we need hard evidence) but I’d rather stick to the way it is supposed to be. Call me somewhat of a linguistic conservative, if you like. That is fine by me. But we need to maintain certain things for language integrity. That is how I feel.


----------



## Qureshpor

Is ण pronounced as a ण in "Hindi" film songs?


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Is ण pronounced as a ण in "Hindi" film songs?


 Yes, I know! But I distinguish between the two! It is just me, I guess!


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> Yes, I know! But I distinguish between the two! It is just me, I guess!



Sorry, Faylasoof SaaHib, I did n't quite follow. Are you saying, yes ण is pronounced in "Hindi" film songs or no, it is n't.


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> Sorry, Faylasoof SaaHib, I did n't quite follow. Are you saying, yes ण is pronounced in "Hindi" film songs or no, it is n't.


 Sorry, I wasn't clear! I meant it isn't always! But I can't say for sure how often as I have not been listening to these songs often enough.


----------



## marrish

nineth said:


> Let's not run away from the main question. We are not discussing its removal.  The question is whether the majority pronounces it or not (pls see original post). So, before you post more of orthogonal information, is your answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know"?


I don't run away from the main question. What for you is the original question seems to differ from the one I see:

*''Hindi: How is ण pronounced?''  *

I cannot answer ''yes'' or ''no'' to this question. If you can, do it. It is also not possible for me to say ''I don't know''. According to my knowledge, what I heard and read, which is confirmed by Hindi speakers' opinions in this forum, *ण is pronounced in Hindi either as a retroflex  consonant or as a dental one.*

Two other questions are directed at "Hindi speakers" only - I think this restriction disqualifies my participation in this regard so don't expect me to trouble myself with answering.

The last part of the OP is a request to "others" for background references. In post no. 2 I'd said I was up to some research, because I find this topic interesting. Everyone is free to do some research. Have you once come up with a single reference?


----------



## nineth

> If you can, do it.



I've already said it. I'm saying it again: it is pronounced correctly by a majority of native speakers if not almost all, period.



marrish said:


> Have you once come up with a single reference?



I don't need to - that's something you don't seem to understand, and I don't feel the need to explain it to you now. Let me be blunt: my opinion from my experience as a native speaker is itself a reference -- it's up to you (or those looking for an answer): take it or ignore it - there is no guarantee. I don't feel the need to waste my time providing references for what I know about my language (there won't be any references one can rely on for complex reasons - making native speakers the best source of information, but that's another issue).


----------



## marrish

nineth said:


> I've already said it. I'm saying it again: it is pronounced correctly by a majority of native speakers if not almost all, period.
> 
> *There is no ''yes'' or ''no'' in your answer!!!*
> Yes, I know your opinion. As I said, whether the majority of minority does or doesn't do so, is for me irrelevant. The question which has been posed is *''Hindi: How is ण pronounced?'' *so I understand that you are repeatedly confirming the fact that it is pronounced in both ways, mostly as a retroflex.
> 
> I don't need to - that's something you don't seem to understand, and I don't feel the need to explain it to you now. Let me be blunt: my opinion from my experience as a native speaker is itself a reference -- it's up to you (or those looking for an answer): take it or ignore it - there is no guarantee. I don't feel the need to waste my time providing references for what I know about my language (there won't be any references one can rely on for complex reasons - making native speakers the best source of information, but that's another issue).
> 
> *I have much respect for your opinion as a native speaker and had appreciated your help in my queries. It is indeed a reference. Of course you don't have to go round looking for sources aiming at the antithesis of your opinion.
> *


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> Is ण pronounced as a ण in "Hindi" film songs?



Let me attempt to answer my own question. 

1) There is a song in the film, "Hare Rama Hare Krishna", with the words "dekho o diivaano tum yih kaam nah karo.." There is a line..

Raam ko samjho, *Krishn* ko jaano (note NOT KrishNR)

2) A well known bhajan from "Baiju Bawra" (mana tarapata Hari darashana ko aaja) has the wording...

bina guru gyaana kahaaN se paa'uuN
diijo daana Hari *guna* gaa'uuN (not guNR)

3) There is a song from the film "jawab" starting with the words..

kis *kaaran* jogan jog liyaa (not kaaraNR)

4) From film, "Chandan ka Palna", there is a Lata song with the words...

kis *kaaran* kaamini sharmaa'e (once again not kaaraNR)

5) In another thread Amitabh Bachchan has been put forward as an example of a person who speaks good Hindi. In 1983, he was interviewed by the BBC and there are two Youtube videos (part 1 and 2) entitled "BBC Interview Amitabh and Jaya bachchan". In the first at 4.29 the interviewer (a Hindi speaker) uses the word "*kaaran*" and in part 2, Amitabh Bachchan at 02:12 uses "*kaaran*".

By all accounts all these people should be saying "KrishNR", "guNR" and "kaaraNR" but for some strange reason they are not doing so!


----------



## souminwé

Well, like some of the Hindi speakers here have said, we don't consistently pronounce the retroflex n. I gave only two examples where I know I'm 100% consistent - bhaviSyavaaNi and nirmaaN. These aren't uber mundane words either.

It seems to me that more integrated words, like krSN, guN, kaaraN, are generally pronounced dentally.


----------



## ihaveacomputer

Even in Indian Punjab, where this phoneme is extremely common, Hindi speakers often drop it in favour of a dental nasal! The retroflex nasal seems to be associated exclusively with Punjabi. Obviously this is not the case for those who are educated and make a point to watch their pronunciation, but in colloquial speech, the poor ‌‌ण doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Source: Personal observation and the comments of others during the short year I spent on the subcontinent. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## marrish

_bhaaSHan, kaaran, shreni, arun, varnan, _even _apaharan_ - all heard dental today. Interestingly enough, the same speaker who pronounced dental n in _kaaran_ went on to utter a retroflex n in _kaaraNRoN se_.


I tend to subscribe to souminwé SaaHib's suggestion that it is the question of integration of those words in the language.


----------



## flyinfishjoe

Just wondering, why do some of you transcribe it as NR?


----------



## souminwé

To be phonetically accurate, in modern Hindi it's more often than not a nasalised retroflex flap than an actual retroflex n. Plus, our notation for a nasalised vowel is (vowel)N


----------



## marrish

flyinfishjoe said:


> Just wondering, why do some of you transcribe it as NR?


Well, I'm just following the convention of this forum. It is the best way I know to distinguish between the nasal sound N and the retroflex, without resorting to diacritics.


----------



## marrish

souminwé said:


> *To be phonetically accurate, in modern Hindi it's more often than not a nasalised retroflex flap than an actual retroflex n. *Plus, our notation for a nasalised vowel is (vowel)N


Your valuable input is much appreciated!


----------



## Qureshpor

ihaveacomputer said:


> ]Even in Indian Punjab, where this phoneme is extremely common, Hindi speakers often drop it in favour of a dental nasal! [/COLOR]The retroflex nasal seems to be associated exclusively with Punjabi. Obviously this is not the case for those who are educated and make a point to watch their pronunciation, but in colloquial speech, the poor ‌‌ण doesn't get the attention it deserves.
> 
> Source: Personal observation and the comments of others during the short year I spent on the subcontinent. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



I can relate to this. Even my "dushman" is a dushmaNR!


----------



## ihaveacomputer

souminwé said:


> To be phonetically accurate, in modern Hindi it's more often than not a nasalised retroflex flap than an actual retroflex n. Plus, our notation for a nasalised vowel is (vowel)N




Would you mind expanding further on this point? I was actually thinking about this very distinction a week back, comparing Hindi with Punjabi. Intervocalically, the preference for a flap definitely seems to exist. What about at the end of a word, however? Does crisp, conservative Hindi pronunciation allow for a flap in this context?

Let's use the example of "nirmāṇ", as raised earlier. In Punjabi, that final consonant is, without doubt, a flap. A true retroflex nasal doesn't sound completely out of place, but my (non-native) instincts guide me towards a flap. What about in Hindi? Does a retroflex nasal flap sound appropriate, or is that too Punjabi in flavour?


----------



## souminwé

I'm not sure....Punjabi NR's always seem very stark to me, but that may be simply because the sound isn't as common/integrated in Hindi.

If you watch the trailer for Aarakshan, you will hear a character say आरक्षण, and it sounds so much like आरक्षंड़ that that is what I googled as I tried to figure out the meaning.


----------



## tonyspeed

Faylasoof said:


> We all learn that ण is a retroflex nasal sound, unlike न. In other words they are different! Having said this, I hear more people now turning ण into an न !! Having good language teachers around always helps but as far as standard languages go, instilling a respect for good and proper pronunciation within us is just as important.



The situation I'm afraid is that at least in khaRii Bolii , the retroflex N became extinct due to language erosion over time (the same way ph has become extinct in certain areas) and people not being familiar with Sanskrit. Even if it does persist in other languages, I believe I am correct in saying that most if not all of the words in Hindi that contain a retroflex N are tatsama loan words from Sanskrit. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## JaiHind

Faylasoof said:


> We all learn that ण is a retroflex nasal sound, unlike न. In other words  they are different! Having said this, I hear more people now turning ण  into an न !!



So you are having company of people who pronounce it wrong  So which region of India are you talking about? And these people have what as their mother tongue? Is the incorrect pronunciation due to influence from some other mother tongue?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> The situation I'm afraid is that at least in khaRii Bolii , the retroflex N became extinct due to language erosion over time (the same way ph has become extinct in certain areas) and people not being familiar with Sanskrit. Even if it does persist in other languages, I believe I am correct in saying that most if not all of the words in Hindi that contain a retroflex N are tatsama loan words from Sanskrit. Please correct me if I am wrong.



I would tend to agree with you and this would explain its complete absence in Urdu!


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> To be phonetically accurate, in modern Hindi it's more often than not a nasalised retroflex flap than an actual retroflex n. Plus, our notation for a nasalised vowel is (vowel)N




It appears therefore that the ण in Hindi is pronounced, at least by some people as a true retroflex, by others a "nasalised retroflex flap" ( see also your post 39) and yet others by a dental n!


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> I'm not sure....Punjabi NR's always seem very stark to me, but that may be simply because the sound isn't as common/integrated in Hindi.
> 
> If you watch the trailer for Aarakshan, you will hear a character say आरक्षण, and it sounds so much like आरक्षंड़ that that is what I googled as I tried to figure out the meaning.



This is very interesting. Could you please let me know how the ण is pronounced in its pristine form.


----------



## BP.

^It appeared slightly different, and finally I've figured the Hindi version is pronounced from further up the nose, but a linguistic-unlearnt person like me can't name you the exact makhraj for it.


----------



## Faylasoof

JaiHind said:


> _So you are having company of people who pronounce it wrong_  So which region of India are you talking about? And these people have what as their mother tongue? Is the incorrect pronunciation due to influence from some other mother tongue?


 _This is a presumption on your part!_  I refer to the media which covers a wide range of people! I'm not privy to where these people come from and what exactly is their mother tongue but if they had greater respect for language then we wouldn't this issue in the first place! After all they were taught this difference in school! Besides, one generally notices words being mispronounced quite often these days - and it isn't just restricted to Hindi, you also find it Urdu and I bet other languages too!!


----------



## marrish

BelligerentPacifist said:


> ^It appeared slightly different, and finally I've figured the Hindi version is pronounced from further up the nose, but a linguistic-unlearnt person like me can't name you the exact makhraj for it.


I feel myself intrigued as to how this one might sound? Somewhat nasal with retroflex or a ''flap'' at the same time?


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> I feel myself intrigued as to how this one might sound? Somewhat nasal with retroflex or a ''flap'' at the same time?


 It is not easy to explain! It may be worth searching for some sound files on the net and then give an indication of how to ge to them. 


*A general note to all*: _Of course we all should remember that no live video and sound files are allowed. So it'll be best to provide a link that we can easily get to by typing it ourselves when searching. I myself too shall look for them._


----------



## souminwé

QURESHPOR said:


> This is very interesting. Could you please let me know how the ण is pronounced in its pristine form.



Just an "n" articulated at the same place as the other retroflex sounds (without any accompanying flap). I don't really know of any places where you could hear it said perfectly. Dravidian languages have this sound, try checking out something in Tamil for an example (in the song Kannazhaga, the phrase "_kaNNazhaga_" has this phoneme).


----------



## Qureshpor

souminwé said:


> Just an "n" articulated at the same place as the other retroflex sounds (without any accompanying flap). I don't really know of any places where you could hear it said perfectly. Dravidian languages have this sound, try checking out something in Tamil for an example (in the song Kannazhaga, the phrase "_kaNNazhaga_" has this phoneme).



Thank you. Would you say that, in conclusion, you are not aware if it is articulated correctly by Hindi speakers anywhere?


----------



## souminwé

Ah, I see I contradicted myself there. I meant to say that I didn't know where you could hear a Hindi* speaker say it perfectly. I really should proof read.

I have heard it pronounced "correctly" on occasion (perhaps only obvious to my linguistically au fait ear), but yes, in conclusion I'm not sure with what frequency it appears. Even newscasters get it "wrong" about 50% of the time ; on the flip side, newscasters are the only ones I've pronouncing the phoneme as in Tamil or (supposedly) Sanskrit. I don't think this means actual Hindi speakers never produce the correct sound, however.


----------



## jakubisek

tonyspeed said:


> ph has become extinct in certain areas



Has ph become extinct anywhere in Hindi (leave out Dravidian speaking areas) ?  Pl. elaborate on this.


----------



## jakubisek

In general, I am amused by some of the discussions here. 
Do you mean to say, that English are wrong when they pronounce the "c" in census same as the "s" in sense?   Of course, those were different sounds in (classical) Latin, but that does not mean they got "incorrectly" merged in the course of history (in this case, in medieval France). So expressions like "language erosion" and all the emotions about what is right and wrong are rather un-linguistic. HU is a nice example of a language in its natural process. At some point, the NIA vernacular picked up words from the near west (let me introduce this term, meaning Near East, when looking from Europe, i.e. Arabic, Persian, Turkic. Here comes the x, q, G as new (originally "foreign", now what one of you called "indigenous") set of distinct phonemes. Obviously, majority of Indians (if you think of India as a whole, geographicallly, and Indians as a whole, across classes and casts) could not pronounce them, but they became the norm and were relevant, as Persian was the "high" language of culture and administration in much of the subcontinent.  They became some people's native sounds, but some people's acquired (learned) sounds.  As Persian has no longer much relevance in modern India, so the social "pressure" to pronounce X correctly is not strong.  This should be considered alongside the arguments about the political pressure to pronounce it wrong. I do not think of "z" as fully integrated, as I have more often heard "j" from uneducated people of non-Muslim background.    About retroflex nasal, this one comes - in case of Hindi - from Sanskrit and is not a part of the folk colloquial pronunciation your mother would have if you were from some backward village from those parts of the Hindi belt that are not too close to Marathi areas, for example.  The distinction of dental vs. retroflex became extinct in the Doab and around (that's why they did not even bother to write it in the mss of BB) since many centuries. Therefore, those who do not feel inferior by pronuncing their language not as they were taught in school, but as they learned from their mum, will not pronounce it. If I remember well, in Rajasthani this phoneme is distinct (is it not?), while in Bihari it is not.  I also learned a different Czech in school than the one we speak at home (though my father is a writer) and using the colloquial one in informal context is my preferrence. So I think we should separate this kind of emotional part of "right" and "wrong" and listen to the speech around us neutrally.   By the way, about X (which I heard definitely more often as "kh" during my travels in India, which, admittedly, were more often outside Hindi areas proper - like in Himachal) and all the Persian heritage of HU, are those not kept alive in India mainly by the Urdu associated with "ghazal" that influenced Bollywood songs?  (I don't know, I try to avoid listening to those songs, as I simply dislike pop, but when I heard real "X" or "Z" in India - where I never watched TV  - it was mostly from pop-songs, quite unlike the streets I hitch-hiked through, which were quite "kharaab" roads, never "xaraab", as far as the truck-drivers' comments are concerned


----------



## greatbear

^ Well put, jakubisek! Sadly, there's been a tendency on this forum from many posters to dismiss outright the natural evolutions of a language and what people actually speak in favour of prescriptions (some of which are either outdated or irrelevant - no one needs them). When people start correcting others that it should be "shukriyah" and not "shukriyaa" even though it's the former I hear (from _both_ Urdu and Hindi speakers), something seems to me amiss.


----------



## Faylasoof

jakubisek said:


> In general, I am amused by some of the discussions here.
> Do you mean to say, that English are wrong when they pronounce the "c" in census same as the "s" in sense? Of course, those were different sounds in (classical) Latin, but that does not mean they got "incorrectly" merged in the course of history (in this case, in medieval France). So expressions like "language erosion" and all the emotions about what is right and wrong are rather un-linguistic. HU is a nice example of a language in its natural process. At some point, the NIA vernacular picked up words from the near west (let me introduce this term, meaning Near East, when looking from Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , i.e. Arabic, Persian, Turkic. Here comes the x, q, G as new (originally "foreign", now what one of you called "indigenous") set of distinct phonemes. Obviously, majority of Indians (if you think of India as a whole, geographicallly, and Indians as a whole, across classes and casts) could not pronounce them, but they became the norm and were relevant, as Persian was the "high" language of culture and administration in much of the subcontinent. They became some people's native sounds, but some people's acquired (learned) sounds. As Persian has no longer much relevance in modern India, so the social "pressure" to pronounce X correctly is not strong. This should be considered alongside the arguments about the political pressure to pronounce it wrong. I do not think of "z" as fully integrated, as I have more often heard "j" from uneducated people of *non-Muslim background*. About retroflex nasal, this one comes - in case of Hindi - from Sanskrit and is not a part of the folk colloquial pronunciation your mother would have if you were from some backward village from those parts of the Hindi belt that are not too close to Marathi areas, for example. The distinction of dental vs. retroflex became extinct in the Doab and around (that's why they did not even bother to write it in the mss of BB) since many centuries. Therefore, those who do not feel inferior by pronuncing their language not as they were taught in school, but as they learned from their mum, will not pronounce it. If I remember well, in Rajasthani this phoneme is distinct (is it not?), while in Bihari it is not. I also learned a different Czech in school than the one we speak at home (though my father is a writer) and using the colloquial one in informal context is my preferrence. So I think we should separate this kind of emotional part of "right" and "wrong" and listen to the speech around us neutrally. By the way, about X (which I heard definitely more often as "kh" during my travels in India, which, admittedly, were more often outside Hindi areas proper - like in Himachal) and all the Persian heritage of HU, are those not kept alive in India mainly by the Urdu associated with "ghazal" that influenced Bollywood songs? (I don't know, I try to avoid listening to those songs, as I simply dislike pop, but when I heard real "X" or "Z" in India - where I never watched TV - it was mostly from pop-songs, quite unlike the streets I hitch-hiked through, which were quite "kharaab" roads, never "xaraab", as far as the truck-drivers' comments are concerned


 May I remind everyone that the thread is really about the pronunciation of ण ! However by way of illustration we can bring in other examples to illustrate the argument.
Your above presumptuous remark amuses me no end, as do some of your other attempts in this and other posts to argue the points you wish to make. Since when has being a Muslim meant that you have an innate ability to pronounce ‘z’?! I can assure you that there are plenty of Muslims who regularly miss-pronounce ‘z’ as ‘j’, just as there are non-Muslims who can pronounce ‘z’ with ease. All depends on your training. Also, I only partially agree that ‘z’ is not fully integrated! This may be true more of some parts / regions of South Asia but not others. 
Many of us are cognizant of the fact that language pronunciation varies and some of us have even made this point both here and in other threads. However, there is such a thing as standard / educated pronunciation of a language and the languages we deal with in this forum too have a standard form. In standard Urdu ‘z’ is distinct from ‘j’ whether we like it or not. Similarly for ण there too is a standard pronunciation which I was taught but I am well aware that the non-standard forms exist and are common. 
For many, and esp. learners of any language, it is best to know / start with the standard pronunciation of a language. One our main jobs here at WRF is to help learners which is why for Urdu, for example, we go for the standard pronunciation. We must. It may therefore help to know that when we use ‘x’ instead of ‘kh’ in the transliteration ‘xaraab’, the point being made is that this is how the word is spelt in its standard Urdu form and what its standard pronunciation is. BTW, there are many truck drivers (as well as shopkeepers, sweepers and the like) I’ve come across, particularly in Pakistan, who regularly say ‘xaraab’ - with a  fricative ‘k’. 
There are plenty of threads which discuss this issue and it goes for the following too:


> …When people start correcting others that it should be "shukriyah" and not "shukriyaa" even though it's the former I hear (from _both_ Urdu and Hindi speakers), something seems to me amiss.


 Some very old threads exist where precisely this point was made, i.e.  that the ending ‘h’ is never pronounced and sounds like ‘aa’(!), _but the orthographic representation for the transliteration form is indeed ‘shukriyah’ (with an ‘h’ ending) since that is how we spell it in Urdu_. The above example is therefore irrelevant.
So, going back to ण , I feel there is a standard pronunciation but am fully aware that this is not always possible as local, often  uneducated, speech influences one’s pronunciation.


----------



## greatbear

Faylasoof said:


> Some very old threads exist where precisely this point was made, i.e.  that the ending ‘h’ is never pronounced and sounds like ‘aa’(!), _but the orthographic representation for the transliteration form is indeed ‘shukriyah’ (with an ‘h’ ending) since that is how we spell it in Urdu_. The above example is therefore irrelevant.



Well, I know the Urdu pronunciation: which is the point I was making. People here nowadays have even started dictating: "Thou shalt transliterate like this". Unless Urdu's natural script is roman, which I don't think it is. The same member also said that Urdu doesn't have any "hypocrisy" (his wording): I wonder if saying "aa" but writing "ah" - and telling (read: instructing/dictating) others to eschew "aa" in favour of "ah" - isn't hypocrisy, then what is ...

Meanwhile, standards are always in the catch-up mode: they are not rigid stones though they may want very much to remain so. They have to finally reflect the ground realities. It's _unfortunate _that you and a couple of other members have always chosen to ignore ground realities: insofar as only that some members choose to attack others for not following their puritanism.

I have not conducted a survey, but there will be surely a higher proportion of z-speaking Muslims than z-speaking Hindus in HU. And, I am z-speaking but kh-speaking Hindu, to clarify. And there are many like me. And many unlike me. But exceptions don't disprove the rule. It was QP who first brought the religious dimension to these forums: he said that Urdu script is important as then the Muslims can read the Quran. It is funny how some members here can say whatever they want to but are not capable to accept certain other realities.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Well, I know the Urdu pronunciation: which is the point I was making. People here nowadays have even started dictating: "Thou shalt transliterate like this". Unless Urdu's natural script is roman, which I don't think it is. The same member also said that Urdu doesn't have any "hypocrisy" (his wording): I wonder if saying "aa" but writing "ah" - and telling (read: instructing/dictating) others to eschew "aa" in favour of "ah" - isn't hypocrisy, then what is ...






jakubisek said:


> Fast reply ke liye shukriyaa
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward the day the two phonemes will merge in English too and there'll be no more *hypocrisy* anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marrish said:
> 
> 
> 
> jakubisek, if I may, there is no hypocrisy which we don't like. *And at least in Urdu, if you are interested,* thanks is shukriyah. no long aa at the end. Also, i*n case you have an interest* for modern languages, it is kaa shukriyah, not ''ke liye''.
Click to expand...


----------



## greatbear

^ marrish, you have, mistakenly or intentionally, highlighted the wrong portion of your post: this is the portion to be highlighted: "*there is no hypocrisy which we don't like*." and "*thanks is shukriyah. no long aa at the end.*"
The two, you know, don't juxtapose well together.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> ^ marrish, you have, mistakenly or intentionally, highlighted the wrong portion of your post: this is the portion to be highlighted: "there is no hypocrisy which we don't like." and "thanks is shukriyah. no long aa at the end."
> The two, you know, don't juxtapose well together.


Let the choice to highlight what I want stay with me. You have also failed to understand which language was being discussed. The word "hypocrisy" wasn't introduced by my post. In my elliptical phrase, words "there is no question of hypocrisy" -should be understood.


----------



## tonyspeed

Faylasoof said:


> May I remind everyone that the thread is really about the pronunciation of ण ! However by way of illustration we can bring in other examples to illustrate the argument. Your above presumptuous remark amuses me no end, as do some of your other attempts in this and other posts to argue the points you wish to make. Since when has being a Muslim meant that you have an innate ability to pronounce ‘z’?! I can assure you that there are plenty of Muslims who regularly miss-pronounce ‘z’ as ‘j’, just as there are non-Muslims who can pronounce ‘z’ with ease. All depends on your training. Also, I only partially agree that ‘z’ is not fully integrated! This may be true more of some parts / regions of South Asia but not others.  Many of us are cognizant of the fact that language pronunciation varies and some of us have even made this point both here and in other threads. However, there is such a thing as standard / educated pronunciation of a language and the languages we deal with in this forum too have a standard form. In standard Urdu ‘z’ is distinct from ‘j’ whether we like it or not. Similarly for ण there too is a standard pronunciation which I was taught but I am well aware that the non-standard forms exist and are common.  For many, and esp. learners of any language, it is best to know / start with the standard pronunciation of a language. One our main jobs here at WRF is to help learners which is why for Urdu, for example, we go for the standard pronunciation. We must. It may therefore help to know that when we use ‘x’ instead of ‘kh’ in the transliteration ‘xaraab’, the point being made is that this is how the word is spelt in its standard Urdu form and what its standard pronunciation is. BTW, there are many truck drivers (as well as shopkeepers, sweepers and the like) I’ve come across, particularly in Pakistan, who regularly say ‘xaraab’ - with a  fricative ‘k’.  There are plenty of threads which discuss this issue and it goes for the following too:  Some very old threads exist where precisely this point was made, i.e.  that the ending ‘h’ is never pronounced and sounds like ‘aa’(!), _but the orthographic representation for the transliteration form is indeed ‘shukriyah’ (with an ‘h’ ending) since that is how we spell it in Urdu_. The above example is therefore irrelevant. So, going back to ण , I feel there is a standard pronunciation but am fully aware that this is not always possible as local, often  uneducated, speech influences one’s pronunciation.



Very well said Faylasoof-Ji.   This entire argument boils down to correct (by the book) vs colloquial speech. Some people are taught correctly (by the book), others use the colloquial form. Sometimes this is related to one's social group, sometimes this is linked to one's friends, sometimes this is linked to one's family, sometimes this is linked to preference.  

These exact same things happen in English. And there are many people who try (if not succeeding) to pronounce French words according to original pronunciation, others do not. Some try to pronounce Spanish words (somewhat) correctly (halepeno vs jalapeno (although most do not prounce the ñ-sound according to the book))  In the context of arts there are some who perceive themselves as more refined and say BaXh as opposed to just Bach. Somehow as well, we are taught his first name is pronounced "yohan" and not "johan" according to spelling. There are a myriad other possible examples.  All have to do with individual experience and preference. Where is someone trying to place themselves socially?

  I pronounce letters according to the way those in front of me are pronouncing it. z or j or kh or xh makes no difference to me personally. Where I draw the line however is f vs ph, personal preference.


----------



## Wolverine9

Faylasoof said:


> Some very old threads exist where precisely this point was made, i.e.  that the ending ‘h’ is never pronounced and sounds like ‘aa’(!), _but the orthographic representation for the transliteration form is indeed ‘shukriyah’ (with an ‘h’ ending) since that is how we spell it in Urdu_. The above example is therefore irrelevant.



That's a difference in transliteration between Hindi and Urdu.  In Hindi, the correct form is _shukriyaa_; in Urdu, it's _shukriyah_.  In cases like this, people should spell it as they wish.


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> That's a difference in transliteration between Hindi and Urdu.  In Hindi, the correct form is _shukriyaa_; in Urdu, it's _shukriyah_.  In cases like this, people should spell it as they wish.


You have reiterated the obvious. In any case, people are free to do what they wish but if they are linguistically inclined they may wish to be informed about these spelling differences and conventions. If someone wished to write ''shukriy*aa*'' in Urdu, well, I don't think anyone would mind, but in that case I wouldn't recommend your advice simply because there is no possibility to spell it as you wish without risking committing a serious orthographical error.


----------



## Wolverine9

^ That's true.  My comment was meant in a general Hindi/Urdu sense, though.  Similar to the issue of _siinah/siinaa_ discussed elsewhere.  However, if I'm not mistaken, the _shukriyaa _that's being debated was used specifically in a Hindi context/thread.


----------



## marrish

No, you appear to be mistaken. Although the thread relates to Hindi alphabets, the relevant part of the discussion was about Urdu spelling of words. In this context my having pointed out the correct spelling of a word is nothing out of the blue, is it? Perhaps the addressed person can best decide for himself if my having offered extra language tips was a good idea rather than third parties debating it in three (!) threads already!



jakubisek said:


> [...] and how does urdu spell lier, lawyer, coffee and kaafii ?





jakubisek said:


> marrish said:
> 
> 
> 
> in urdu, all these sounds are spelt with alif, that means a long aa آ.
> لائر، لائر (none of them an urdu word, just transliteration), کافی for both coffee and kaafii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jakubisek said:
> 
> 
> 
> fast reply ke liye shukriyaa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marrish said:
> 
> 
> 
> and at least in urdu, if you are interested, thanks is shukriyah. No long aa at the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## greatbear

^ What the concerned party decides, I don't know: but I can certainly say that it vitiates the atmosphere of the forum by being nitpicky on every word and snobbishly say, "oh but in Urdu, we say this like this, you know...", which is all the more ironic since roman script is not the script of Urdu and is rather meant to reflect how people say things rather than _write_ things: your "-ah" endings will only give a wrong impression to many learners about the pronunciation (and I've experienced that: I've seen western speakers trying to pronounce that "h").


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> [...] I have not conducted a survey, but there will be surely a higher proportion of z-speaking Muslims than z-speaking Hindus in HU. *And, I am z-speaking but kh-speaking Hindu, to clarify.* And there are many like me. And many unlike me. But exceptions don't disprove the rule. *It was QP who first brought the religious dimension to these forums*: *he said that Urdu script is important as then the Muslims can read the Quran.* [...]


Forum members should be able to gauge the accuracy of this claim from the following posts. 




greatbear said:


> [...]"School ke raaste par meri mulaqat *roj* ek bhaloo se hua karti thi" excites some more interest than a bit tepid "School ke raaste par meri mulaqat *roj* ek bhaloo se hoti thi." The former gives you a sense of immediacy and adventure, that you are now going to recount something what happened one day when you met the bear. The second is a bit kind of been-there-done-that thing.





greatbear said:


> Here's a sentence in quite good Hindi among others you will find online: उपभोक्तागण दुकानदारों द्वारा पूरा पैसा लेकर भी *तराजू *में डंडी मारकर कम तौलने की टुच्ची हरकतों से _आजीज़_ आ चुके हैं। .





greatbear said:


> A *"taraajuu"* is a balance. [...]





greatbear said:


> By the manner of speaking. Or you could use "ko":
> Main tumse *jyaada*/adhik usko pyaar karta hoon.


I am not too certain if this "shaqs" can be called a "kh speaking " person either.



greatbear said:


> In Hindi, at least you cannot call a woman as a *"shaqs"*. It is a word reserved for men.


Now, let us move onto the second claim. For everyone’s information QP joined the Forum on 06/02/2011. A Person called elroy has mentioned “religion” first of all in 2005, “Muslims” by a certain Masood in 2005 and “Hindus” by someone called Jhorer Brishti in 2006. In fact, it was a certain Hindi speaking rahulbemba who kept bringing religion into the Forum. Moving to to specifics...

*"*It was QP who first brought the religious dimension to these forums: *he said that Urdu script is important as then the Muslims can read the Quran."
*
I believe the author of this claim has the following post of mine in mind. I am quoting the relevant portion.


QURESHPOR said:


> [...] But, I have no doubt there will be many many people to whom it does matter greatly if their children know the difference between phuul and fuul, ba3d (after) and baad (wind), shi3r (poetry/couplet) and sher (lion). These are just one or two examples from the top of my head. But, frankly, this would be the least of their problems. T*he biggest loss will be in losing a script through which the generation would have the facility to access Arabic (especially reading the Qur’an in its original),* Persian , a knowledge of which is important for a good understanding of Urdu language and most importantly, access to the literary legacy of their forefathers. [...]


—*27/09/2012*
Please take a note of the date and also the context in which it was written. But before this date, it is the author himself who had brought "Qur'an" into the debate. One of the moderators had to delete the post but I produce for Forum members, the footprint that was left behind.[/QUOTE]

26th September 2012, 10:15 AM
*greatbear*
Senior Member
*This message has been deleted by* *cherine.*
Reason

The Qur'an is in Arabic. This thread is about Urdu.
...................

Once again, from a person for whom "shuddh Hindi" is at once "obnoxious" and "sacrosanct", can one really take all this seriously?


----------



## greatbear

^Ha ha, your attempts at finding my "j"s prove only the contrary, QP: how entrenched is "j" in Indic consciousness and how much acquired is "z". So, even though I usually say "z", I still unconsciously lean towards "j" in unguarded moments. Thanks for the insights. The rest of your post seems irrelevant.


----------



## Qureshpor

jakubisek said:


> Has ph become extinct anywhere in Hindi (leave out Dravidian speaking areas) ?  Pl. elaborate on this.


You may find this thread of interest.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2451709&highlight=fal


----------



## Qureshpor

Since most of the post 53 has nothing to do with ण, all that I would like to ask jakubisek is if he is familiar with the concept of a "paragraph".


----------



## greatbear

^ Oh, you are also taking up writing classes on here now!


----------



## Qureshpor

^
It seems the author of the post has taken up a new name. girgiT kii tarH raNg badalnaa to sunaa hai, naam nahiiN!


QURESHPOR said:


> Since most of the post 53 has nothing to do with ण, all that *I would like to ask jakubisek* is if he is familiar with the concept of a "paragraph".


vaise, naam meN rakhkhaa hii kyaa hai? rose ho yaa roj, phuul ho yaa fuul!


----------

