# Hindi: pronunciation of e before ha



## Birdcall

This question applies to Hindi, based off the Devanagari script, since Urdu pronunciation might be different.

In Hindi the words mehnat, mehmaan, and chehraa are spelled with a long e before the ha, but to me the pronunciations sound like mahnat/mahmaan/chahraa with a short e (as in the English hen) before the ha, as if the e matraa weren't there. Is it standard to shorten the e vowel sound?

Out of curiosity, how are these words pronounced in Urdu? (since none of these words contain an e vowel marker in Urdu spelling)


----------



## akak

Actually, these words have a short 'ay' [ए] not a long 'e' ई

मेहनत  - mehnat (a very slight i/e sound)
मेहमान - mehmaan
चेहरा - chehraa

Many people, especially from UP may flatten the vowel sound so it sounds like "mahnat" or "mahman" -- that is common among Urdu-speakers too. 
Interestingly other such words are spelled the Urdu way, with no vowel marked: 

महफिल (most commonly pronounced "mehfil")
पहला  (pehla)
यह (yeh) etc


----------



## Faylasoof

Birdcall said:


> ....
> Out of curiosity, how are these words pronounced in Urdu? (since none of these words contain an e vowel marker in Urdu spelling)


 In Urdu we don’t mark short vowels except in primary school books! For the rest, diacritics are used only to mark foreign / very uncommon word for the sake of clarity / accuracy of pronunciation.




akak said:


> ...
> Many people, especially from UP may flatten the vowel sound so it sounds like "mahnat" or "mahman" -- that is common among Urdu-speakers too.
> ...


 I’m not sure if this is really so! The Urduphones I talk to, be they in Lucknow,  Delhi, Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad use the pronunciations below. In fact, in the latter two places I’ve heard _menat_ and _memaan_ quite frequently. In other words they keep the <e>, drop the <h> but generally don’t seem to put <a> - this being true of many non-native Urdu speakers I’ve met in certain parts of Pakistan. Sometimes however the non-native Urduphones do say _mahmaan_ etc. But native Urduphones don’t or rather shouldn’t as this would be an obvious slip. 

The pronunciation of the words akak you give above are: 

مَحْفِل_ m*a*Hfil _- but always pronounced with a sound between an <a> of _agar_ and <e> i.e more like the *diphthong* _ai_ / _ay_ = _m*ai*Hfil / m*ay*Hfil_!!!

پَہْلا_ p*a*hlaa_ - but always more as the dipthong in محفلabove.

The following are pronounced as in the source languages they came from:

چِہْرَہ_ ch*e*rah_ _Persian_ - the <h> is silent (= مکھڑا_ mukhRaa_ _Sanskrit-Prakrit_ = صوررت_ Suurat  Arabic-Persian_) 

مِحْنَت_ m*e*Hnat_ _Arabic-Persian_

مِہْمان_ m*e*hmaan_ _Persian_

یِہ_ y*e*h_ _Hindi_


----------



## Birdcall

Ok, so the correct pronunciation is mehmaan (e as in khel, not as in pehlaa/pahlaa)? In Hindi an e maatraa is written in but the word is pronounced as if no vowel were written in (mahmaan --> mehmaan with short e).

I didn't know the ha in chehra is silent. In Hindi most people pronounce the e as a short e even though a long e maatraa is written in, so chehra rhymes with pahla (pehla).

akak, I was never suggesting that the words have an ई sound. All I was saying is that to me मेहनत sounds more like महनत (mehnat with a short e sound as in the e in the English word bend).


----------



## Faylasoof

Birdcall said:


> Ok, so the correct pronunciation is mehmaan (e as in khel, not as in pehlaa/pahlaa)? In Hindi an e maatraa is written in but the word is pronounced as if no vowel were written in (mahmaan --> mehmaan with short e).



That is correct! It is _mehmaan_ in Urdu.

We got the word from Persian where it has the same spelling as the one we use in Urdu. 



Birdcall said:


> I didn't know the ha in chehra is silent. In Hindi most people pronounce the e as a short e even though a long e maatraa is written in, so chehra rhymes with pahla (pehla).



This is like nearly all other words which end in a <ha>. So Madinah is pronounced as <_madiin*aa*_> - rhymes with _pahl*aa* = paihl*aa*, _and  _chehrah _-> _chehr*aa*_.


----------



## Birdcall

I'm confused. Is the first h in chehraa/chehrah silent? It definitely is not silent in Hindi.

And the e in pehlaa is not a diphthong in standard (Western) Hindi, it's a short e as in the English 'bed' and the same short e as in raHm (pronounced rehem in Hindi), which is definitely a monothong.

So it's incorrect to pronounce mehnat as mahnat (short e) even though that pronunciation is pretty standard? From the pronunciation I hear in Bollywood movies and songs, if I didn't know the spelling of chehraa I would've guessed चहरा.


----------



## Faylasoof

Birdcall said:


> I'm confused. Is the first h in chehraa/chehrah  silent? It definitely is not silent in Hindi.


 No! I thought I was quite clear! What I said was:



Faylasoof said:


> ....
> This is like nearly all other words which end in a  <ha>. So Madinah is pronounced as <_madiin*aa*_> -  rhymes with _pahl*aa* = paihl*aa*, _and  _che*h*rah  _-> _che*h*r*aa*_.


 
Meaning only the _*final*_ _-a*h*_ becomes _-a*a*_, i.e. the <h>  sound becomes <a>. The middle <h> -red- above doesn't  change.



Birdcall said:


> And the e in pehlaa is not a diphthong in standard (Western) Hindi, it's  a short e as in the English 'bed' and the same short e as in raHm  (pronounced rehem in Hindi), which is definitely a monothong.



Yes, it isn't! But the way we pronounce it,  _it_ _sounds more like a dipthong! _Meaning_ we don't say either p*a*hlaa or p*e*hlaa ( as the <e> in hen), but sounds more like p*ai*__hlaa:_


Faylasoof said:


> ....
> مَحْفِل_ m*a*Hfil _- but  always pronounced with a sound between an <a> of _agar_ and  <e> i.e more like the *diphthong* _ai_ / _ay_  = _m*ai*Hfil / m*ay*Hfil_!!!
> 
> پَہْلا_ p*a*hlaa_ - but  always more as the dipthong in محفل above.


 _As I said above for both _پَہْلا_ p*a*hlaa__ and _مَحْفِل_ m*a*Hfil,  both sound more like having a diphthong when in actual fact  there is no dipthong __in either!_



Birdcall said:


> So it's incorrect to pronounce mehnat as mahnat (short e) even though  that pronunciation is pretty standard? From the pronunciation I hear in  Bollywood movies and songs, if I didn't know the spelling of chehraa I  would've guessed चहरा.



In Urdu it is _m*e*hnat_ (_not_ _m*a*hnat_- this woudl be a mispronunciaiton), just like it is _m*e*hmaan_ and _not_ _m*a*hmaan_... and as for _chehra*h*_ -> _chehra*a*_ we've done above, but just to reiterate everything:
 


Faylasoof said:


> The following are pronounced as in the source languages they came from:
> 
> چِہْرَہ_ ch*e*rah_ _Persian_ - the <h> is silent (= مکھڑا_ mukhRaa_ _Sanskrit-Prakrit_ = صوررت_ Suurat  Arabic-Persian_)
> 
> مِحْنَت_ m*e*Hnat_ _Arabic-Persian_
> 
> مِہْمان_ m*e*hmaan_ _Persian_



I've heard _m*a*hnat_ but we consider this incorrect! Should be _m*e*hnat_. Exactly where is it considered standard?I've heard m*e*hnat on many Indian channels too but since I don't watch too much TV I may have missed, what to us whould be the very odd sounding _m*a*hnat_!


----------



## akak

Birdcall said:


> akak, I was never suggesting that the words have an ई sound. All I was saying is that to me मेहनत sounds more like महनत (mehnat with a short e sound as in the e in the English word bend).


 
No, I wasn't saying you had. You did say 


> In Hindi the words mehnat, mehmaan, and chehraa are spelled with a long e before the ha,


I just pointed out that they are spelled with a short 'ay' ए - which is not quite an 'e' sound . and the long e is ई, as in मीठा



> I’m not sure if this is really so! The Urduphones I talk to, be they in Lucknow, Delhi, Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad use the pronunciations below.



I am not suggesting that all Urdu speaking people use that pronunciation, but it is common in rural areas of places such as Faizabad/Ayodhya/Allahabad/Azamgarh area... I want to say places with khari boli, but I am not sure that's right. My father who is from Azamgarh, educated in Lucknow and has lived in Delhi slips between the two for mehnat/mahnat 

And I agree with the pronunciations  you have given, my transliteration was probably not up to par.


----------



## Birdcall

Oh, I see the confusion. By long e I meant ए. I would call ई long i.

In Bollywood songs, which usually adhere to "correct" pronunciation, I ALWAYS hear chehraa with a short e, rhyming with lahraa लहरा

Faylasoof you did originally say 
_ch*e*rah_ _Persian_ - the <h> is silent

so you can see how I thought that you meant the first h was silent since you wrote cherah and not chehrah.

I have never heard mehnat with a long e as in khel, but always with a short e as in lahar (leher). This was in Mumbai and Delhi. That's why I incorrectly assumed the word was spelled महनत before knowing how to actually spell the word. Maybe it's because ah (eh) is a sound native to Hindi (as in words like pahlaa/pehlaa) where as eh (long e) is much more common in Persian/Arabic-derived words in Hindi and it is nativized to eh (short e).


----------



## akak

Birdcall said:


> I have never heard mehnat with a long e as in khel, but always with a short e as in lahar (leher). This was in Mumbai and Delhi. That's why I incorrectly assumed the word was spelled महनत before knowing how to actually spell the word. Maybe it's because ah (eh) is a sound native to Hindi (as in words like pahlaa/pehlaa) where as eh (long e) is much more common in Persian/Arabic-derived words in Hindi and it is nativized to eh (short e).


 
While khel and mehnat in Hindi spelling both have the same ए vowel, in mehnat, as in chehra or mehman, the ह shortens the vowel sound.


----------



## Birdcall

Thank you akak! That's exactly what I was asking. From what Faylasoof is saying it sounds like this phenomenon exists in Hindi but the long vowel is maintained in Urdu?


----------



## Faylasoof

akak said:


> While khel and mehnat in Hindi spelling both have the same ए vowel, in  mehnat, as in chehra or mehman, the ह shortens the vowel sound.



Yes! Both _mehnat_ and _chehrah_ have a short <e> !



Birdcall said:


> Thank you akak! That's exactly what I was asking. From what Faylasoof is saying it sounds like this phenomenon exists in Hindi but the long vowel is maintained in Urdu?



Birdcall, sorry I think I misunderstood you in one of the earleir posts!!!  I should have seen that you meant <e> in <khel>, to which I said! But, infact, the <*e*> is short as in <h*e*m / th*e*m / th*e*n > in both the above examples, _though some people do strectch it_!! 

What I was emphasizing was that it is _m*e*hmaan_ and _not __m*a*hmaan; m*e*hnat_ and _not_ m*a*hnat (... and short <e> in both!).


----------



## Birdcall

Faylasoof, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but were you also saying that the short e in pahlaa (pehlaa) and in mehmaan are different? Because they sound the same to me, both distinct from the ai in paisaa (ai sounding like the a in the American English 'bad') and both sounding like the e in the English 'bed.'

Also, do the vowels o and u change in front of ha like e does? Because I have seen variable forms of the same word like muhraa/mohraa and kuhraa/kohraa (I say kuhraa).


----------



## Faylasoof

Birdcall said:


> Faylasoof, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but were you also saying that the short e in pahlaa (pehlaa) and in mehmaan are different? Because they sound the same to me, both distinct from the ai in paisaa (ai sounding like the a in the American English 'bad') and both sounding like the e in the English 'bed.'
> 
> Also, do the vowels o and u change in front of ha like e does? Because I have seen variable forms of the same word like muhraa/mohraa and kuhraa/kohraa (I say kuhraa).



Yes, for us they are! For پَہْلا_ p*a*hlaa_, as for مَحْفِل_ m*a*Hfil, they end more like a diphthong, although there is none there! It is a light diphthong but I do hear it and in fact it is almost the same way we pronounce p*ai*__sa - not p*aii*sa, which is a strong diphthong.  

This is a little tricky for me as I've heard different versions of it.

_For both of these, the vowel before the_ <h> i_s more like_ <o> _as in _<do> of <ek , do = 1, 2> _and not the_ <u> _of _put_. At least that is how we say it._

_


----------



## Birdcall

Interesting. For me, the first vowel in mehnat and pahlaa are exactly the same, and I pronounce the ai in paisaa not as a dipthong (I pronounce it as a dipthong in Tamil though like the i in night) but as the a in the Persian bandar "port" (Tehrani accent), and first vowels of mehnat/pahlaa sounding like the e in the Persian fekr "thought" (Tehrani accent).

I don't speak Persian at all (anymore) but I remember clearly how those words sound in Tehrani Farsi.


----------



## Faylasoof

Birdcall said:


> Interesting. For me, the first vowel in mehnat and pahlaa are exactly the same, and I pronounce the ai in paisaa not as a dipthong (I pronounce it as a dipthong in Tamil though like the i in night) but as the a in the Persian bandar "port" (Tehrani accent), and first vowels of mehnat/pahlaa sounding like the e in the Persian fekr "thought" (Tehrani accent).
> 
> I don't speak Persian at all (anymore) but I remember clearly how those words sound in Tehrani Farsi.



I see! For us they are as I explain above, so different!

Of these two, we pronounce _mehnat_ like you do.


----------



## Birdcall

So is the e pronounced long (as in khel) or short (as in pehlaa/pahlaa) in the words mehtar and behtar?


----------



## akak

Birdcall said:


> So is the e pronounced long (as in khel) or short (as in pehlaa/pahlaa) in the words mehtar and behtar?


Short, as in mehmaan.


----------



## Qureshpor

akak said:


> Short, as in mehmaan.



I have n't read all the posts thoroughly but I think no one has mentioned the "common factor" in all these words. I first became aware of this phenomenon in a Persian grammar book. The author indicated that whenever a short vowel a/i/u is preceded by an h/H, a glottal stop (hamza in Arabic words) and an 'ain, the vowel is changed quite considerably. Examples of these words have already been given, so I shall only attempt to give one example of each.

kahnaa >>> kaihnaa (ai=e in jet)
maHbuub>>>maiHbuub
ta'riiKh>>>taariiKh (the vowel is shorter than aa) 
ba3d>>> baa3d (the vowel is shorter than aa) 

kih=>>> ke (e is shorter than the e of le le)
miHnat>>> meHnat 
itmi'naan>>>itmenaan
shi3r>>> she3r (not sher!)

nuh ( Persian nine)>>>noh (but not as much)
muHabbat>>>moHabbat (as above)
mu'min>>>>momin ( as above) [cf.the famous poet)]
bu3d (Arabic remoteness)>>> bo3d (as above)


----------



## Birdcall

Regarding the discussion I was having with Faylasoof about the pronunciation of pahlaa, I have since learned that though even though I (and, I believe, the vast majority of Hindi speakers) pronounce it pehlaa with a short e as in bed, pronouncing that vowel something like the a in American English "glad" is common in Urdu, which I think was what Faylasoof was describing.


----------



## Abu Talha

Excuse my butting in, gents!


QURESHPOR said:


> kahnaa >>> kaihnaa (ai=e in jet)
> maHbuub>>>maiHbuub


Just to confirm, by "ai" you don't mean a (slight) diphthong, as in "bait"?



QURESHPOR said:


> ta'riiKh>>>taariiKh
> (the vowel is shorter than aa)


I think this might be a separate, unconnected issue. I think usually, the hamza is not pronounced rather the seat of the hamza is. (I think this is classically faSeeH even in the Arabic)


QURESHPOR said:


> mu'min>>>>momin ( as above) [cf.the famous poet)]
> itmi'naan>>>itmenaan


mu'min should then be moomin and itmi'naan should be itmeenaan, according to the above rule. Platts agrees. (This might deserve its own thread, especially with the case where there is a Haraka on the hamza.)



QURESHPOR said:


> muHabbat>>>moHabbat (as above)


This one is interesting. moHabbat always sounded strange to me because I said muHabbat*. But would you say muHibb (as in muHibb-e watan) or moHibb? 
*In this case, however, muHabbat is a corruption of maHabbat. 



QURESHPOR said:


> kih=>>> ke (e is shorter than the e of le le)
> miHnat>>> meHnat


This one always confused me. Is the concensus that only i becomes e, or a too? That might cause some ambiguity if two different words exist one with a fatHa and the other with a kasra. I can't think of any right now except siHr (magic) and the vulgar version of saHar (dawn). By the way, Platts gives meHnat as correct for miHnat but keeps siHr and not seHr. I'm not sure what's going on here. I'd love to know if there is a governing rule here.

Quite interesting that pahla, being an Indic word (I think) doesn't have this.

EDIT: I thought I'd juxtapose these two to ask if you pronounce them differently:


QURESHPOR said:


> maHbuub>>>maiHbuub
> miHnat>>> meHnat


----------



## tonyspeed

s





daee said:


> Just to confirm, by "ai" you don't mean a (slight) diphthong, as in "bait"?



As far as I know this vowel is never pronounced as a dipthong in NW India or in Pakistan. And even when it is in other parts of the sub-continent, it never sounds like the "a" in bait. That sound is represented in romanization as the letter "e". This sound is just as QP-ji decribes: similar to a English short e but pronounced higher in the throat and for a longer duration sometimes.

In my opinion, this is the hardest vowel sound for an English speaker to hear and imitate properly.


----------



## Abu Talha

tonyspeed said:


> s
> 
> As far as I know this vowel is never pronounced as a dipthong in NW India or in Pakistan. And even when it is in other parts of the sub-continent, it never sounds like the "a" in bait. That sound is represented in romanization as the letter "e". This sound is just as QP-ji decribes: similar to a English short e but pronounced higher in the throat and for a longer duration sometimes.
> 
> In my opinion, this is the hardest vowel sound for an English speaker to hear and imitate properly.


I think I agree with you in that that it doesn't sound like the vowels in bait, at least I don't pronounce it like that. However, what I'm trying to get at is how to pronounce the vowel given that the borrowed Arabic word had a full zabar/fatHa or zer/kasra originally.

If the word is of non-Arabic origin, then I think it is natural to pronounce it as the e in "met", for example "mehmaan", "chehra", etc.

But if it is of Arabic origin, should the speaker try to incorporate some hint of the original vowel into his pronunciation? For example, in words (originally) like maHfil, maHboob, miHnat, maHZ, saHar, siHr, dahr, SaHn, maHall, mahr, muHaafiz, muHibb, maHabbat/muHabbat.

My theory (which is flawed, and I'll point out the flaws too) is as follows:

1. If there is a zer/kasra on the letter before the he, then it should be pronounced as in the original, like the i in bit. Examples: siHr, miHnat,  One possible flaw is that miHnat is always said as meHnat, (even though it is not terribly hard for my tongue to say miHnat).

2. If there is a zabar/fatHa on the letter before the he then:
    a. if there is a haraka (zer, zabar or pesh) on the he, then the zabar/fatHa must be pronounced clearly, like the u in bus. Examples: maHall, saHar. One possible flaw is that saHar sounds terribly unnatural if spoken so. However, maHabbat does not but this may be due to the shadda on the be and the subsequent fatHa, which transfers the stress. 
    b. if there is a sukoon on the he then the zabar/fatHa must be changed to an e with perhaps a hint of the original fatHa. I don't know if there is an English equivalent except some Americans say "yes" with that vowel. Examples: mEHZ, mEHfil, mEHboob, sEHn, Ehmad, dEhr, mEhr.

3. If there is a pesh before the he, then
    a. if there is a harakat on the he, then the pesh must be pronounced as in the original like the u in put. Example, muHaafiz, muHibb, muHabbat.
    b. if there is a sukoon on the he, then I'm not sure. Perhaps, it is allowed to change to an o, like the o in joke. For example, tawajjoh. Although saying tawajjuh is not very hard or unnatural.
(All notes about something being unnatural are subjective to me and my tongue!)

Any thoughts, ahl-e zabaan?


----------



## Qureshpor

daee said:


> I think I agree with you in that that it doesn't sound like the vowels in bait, at least I don't pronounce it like that. However, what I'm trying to get at is how to pronounce the vowel given that the borrowed Arabic word had a full zabar/fatHa or zer/kasra originally.
> 
> If the word is of non-Arabic origin, then I think it is natural to pronounce it as the e in "met", for example "mehmaan", "chehra", etc.
> 
> But if it is of Arabic origin, should the speaker try to incorporate some hint of the original vowel into his pronunciation? For example, in words (originally) like maHfil, maHboob, miHnat, maHZ, saHar, siHr, dahr, SaHn, maHall, mahr, muHaafiz, muHibb, maHabbat/muHabbat.
> 
> My theory (which is flawed, and I'll point out the flaws too) is as follows:
> 
> 1. If there is a zer/kasra on the letter before the he, then it should be pronounced as in the original, like the i in bit. Examples: siHr, miHnat,  One possible flaw is that miHnat is always said as meHnat, (even though it is not terribly hard for my tongue to say miHnat).
> 
> 2. If there is a zabar/fatHa on the letter before the he then:
> a. if there is a haraka (zer, zabar or pesh) on the he, then the zabar/fatHa must be pronounced clearly, like the u in bus. Examples: maHall, saHar. One possible flaw is that saHar sounds terribly unnatural if spoken so. However, maHabbat does not but this may be due to the shadda on the be and the subsequent fatHa, which transfers the stress.
> b. if there is a sukoon on the he then the zabar/fatHa must be changed to an e with perhaps a hint of the original fatHa. I don't know if there is an English equivalent except some Americans say "yes" with that vowel. Examples: mEHZ, mEHfil, mEHboob, sEHn, Ehmad, dEhr, mEhr.
> 
> 3. If there is a pesh before the he, then
> a. if there is a harakat on the he, then the pesh must be pronounced as in the original like the u in put. Example, muHaafiz, muHibb, muHabbat.
> b. if there is a sukoon on the he, then I'm not sure. Perhaps, it is allowed to change to an o, like the o in joke. For example, tawajjoh. Although saying tawajjuh is not very hard or unnatural.
> (All notes about something being unnatural are subjective to me and my tongue!)
> 
> 
> "Preacher" SaaHib (), I do not believe one needs to set apart Arabic words containing h/H (or 3ain) from Indic or Persian words with h in them preceded by a/i/u. This "phenomenon" certainly exists in normal natural speech with words from all the three sources. Of course it is possible for you, me and anyone else to pronounce the a/i/u absolutely correctly as in kahnaa/mihr-baan/maHfil/miHnat/kuhnah/muHabbat etc but it would sound somewhat contrived.
> 
> Any thoughts, ahl-e zabaan?
> 
> We are all ahl-i-zabaan, are n't we? It is another matter that the zabaan might not be the same for all of us! I hope you would be kind enough to accept this ahl-i-zabaan's thoughts!


----------



## Abu Talha

> "Preacher" SaaHib (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), I do not believe one needs to set apart Arabic words containing h/H (or 3ain) from Indic or Persian words with h in them preceded by a/i/u. This "phenomenon" certainly exists in normal natural speech with words from all the three sources.


Haha! I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to preach. I apologize if I came across like that. It's just that I was trying to make a consistent theory of something that's been bugging me for quite some time. I've heard some people who pronounce words like SaHn (courtyard) like Saahn, and Ahmad and Ahsan like aahmad and aahsan respectively. On the other hand, I've also heard people who make the vowel exactly like the e in mehmaan.

It was mainly an effort to reconcile these two varying practices. Given that we have a standard Urdu register, I was hoping we could determine the standard pronunciation.


> Of course it is possible for you, me and anyone else to pronounce the a/i/u absolutely correctly as in kahnaa/mihr-baan/maHfil/miHnat/kuhnah/muHabbat etc but it would sound somewhat contrived.


Well, that's what I was trying to discuss. What is absolutely correct? I don't think it is the Arabic pronunciation because the Arabic fatHa is pronounced differently from the Urdu zabar. The former being the short version of the a in "can", and the latter being the u in "bus". 

Anyway, I realize that it seems like making much ado about nothing. It's only that this has been bugging me for some years now...

Thanks for your interest!


----------



## rahulbemba

Birdcall said:


> This question applies to Hindi, based off the Devanagari script, since Urdu pronunciation might be different.
> 
> In Hindi the words mehnat, mehmaan, and chehraa are spelled with a long e before the ha, but to me the pronunciations sound like mahnat/mahmaan/chahraa with a short e (as in the English hen) before the ha, as if the e matraa weren't there. Is it standard to shorten the e vowel sound?



You are right. The sound of "e" is short, not very long, in Hindi.


----------

