# Urdu in Devanagari Script



## JaiHind

I have always thought that Urdu can be written naturally in Dev Naagari Script; at least in India. I want your opinion on the same, especially if you have good exposure of India so that your views can be authentic for others.

I have seen Urdu newspapers in Dev Naagari script. I always thought Urdu is naturally written in Dev naagari script (indigenous script of India) along with in other scripts like Perso-Arabic script. 

How often have you come across Urdu in Devanagari script? If you see Urdu text in Devanagari script, what is your reaction? Are you friends surprised at seeing Urdu in Devanagari script? These are things in my mind which I want to clarify with you.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> I have always thought that Urdu can be written naturally in Dev Naagari Script; at least in India. I want your opinion on the same, especially if you have good exposure of India so that your views can be authentic for others.
> 
> I have seen Urdu newspapers in Dev Naagari script. I always thought Urdu is naturally written in Dev naagari script (indigenous script of India) along with in other scripts like Perso-Arabic script.
> 
> How often have you come across Urdu in Devanagari script? If you see Urdu text in Devanagari script, what is your reaction? Are you friends surprised at seeing Urdu in Devanagari script? These are things in my mind which I want to clarify with you.



First paragraph: Any language, in theory, can be written in a script that is different from its normal script with varying degrees of success. In this respect, Urdu can be written in Devanagri, just as Hindi can be written in Urdu script.

Second paragraph: Urdu is not *naturally *written in Devanagri script and you are wrong in your thinking here. It has always had its own script, the Urdu script, incorporating consonants from Arabic, Persian and KhaRii-Bolii. I think this script is just as indigenous as any other script used in India, including the Latin/Roman script. If we Aryans, coming from elsewhere can call oursleves "indigenous" to India, then these scripts are equally indigenous.

Third paragraph. I have seen, on the net, an Urdu magazine published both in its normal Urdu script and in Nagri. My reaction is that it is obviously there to reach out to a wider audience. For me, I have from infancy always been accustomed to the Urdu script. And even though I have learnt to read Devanagri, it does not have the "aaNkhoN kii ThanDak" effect. Devanagri is not suitable for the Urdu consonantal system. 

I hope I have been able to answer your questions to your satisfaction. There has been a demand for decades from certain quarters for Urdu to be written in Devanagri and Urdu-vaalas have vehemently resisted this. They regard this script the soul of the language and no less!


----------



## tonyspeed

JaiHind said:


> I have always thought that Urdu can be written naturally in Dev Naagari Script; at least in India. I want your opinion on the same, especially if you have good exposure of India so that your views can be authentic for others.
> 
> I have seen Urdu newspapers in Dev Naagari script. I always thought Urdu is naturally written in Dev naagari script (indigenous script of India) along with in other scripts like Perso-Arabic script.
> 
> How often have you come across Urdu in Devanagari script? If you see Urdu text in Devanagari script, what is your reaction? Are you friends surprised at seeing Urdu in Devanagari script? These are things in my mind which I want to clarify with you.



As I enjoy Urdu but am unable to read it yet, seeing Urdu in Devanagari script is quite refreshing. Of course, to accurately represent Urdu some additions have to be made to Devanagari. A novel way of representing alif is with the 'a' vowel in it's stand-alone form. Of course, for the average Urdu speaker alif is not that important but not-representing it can be distracting. Some omissions also have to be made for consonants like h and z, since in Urdu these sounds are represented by several different letters.  I don't see that as a problem as I have no particular attachment to accurate preservation of Arabic sounds. Some people are quite attached to historical representations of words, as is done in the English language (philosophy, centre, colour, etc) The zh sound also needs its own symbol, usually a jh modified by the dot. 

For the primary new sounds introduced by Persian (z, f, Gh, X), we already have the dot-representation, which is disturbingly ignored today by some.

I believe this may have been discussed in another thread.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ There is also another even more refreshing and rewarding route. Have a go at learning the Urdu script itself as many like me have made an attempt at learning Devanagri. This will open up for you an endless source of material for your reading pleasure. If Illuminatus SaaHib can learn it within a matter of days and begin to read newspapers, surely you could do this too.

If you were interested in learning to read Greek, would you begin by learning it in Cyrillic?


----------



## greatbear

Well, the Turkish did adopt roman script, so if Urdu adopted another script that could by and large represent all its phonetics, I don't see any loss: one could always re-transcribe the older literature. But we have already discussed this in another thread, where I was of the opinion that Hindi/Urdu (and most other languages) should adopt the roman script.


----------



## Qureshpor

Here is a link which gives a breakdown of various scripts used throughout the world, with languages listed under each script. 

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/langalph.htm

I have expressed my views already on this forum that in the early days of the Urdu-Hindi controversy, Roman alphabet could have been the "glue" that could have prevented the split. But that is history now. 

What alphabet the speakers of a particular language wish to use to write their language is their decision alone. As for Urdu speakers, I am not aware of any move from them suggesting to speakers of another language what alphabet they ought to use. By the same token, Urdu speakers do not need such advice from others. They are more than happy with their script and if they feel there is a need for any improvement or even complete disposal of it, they will decide that for themselves. For the time being, the general consensus amongst paractioners of Urdu is that it has served the purpose wonderfully for many centuries and there is no need to adopt any other alphabet.


----------



## marrish

^ I fully agree with the right of the Urdu-loving community to decide for themselves which script they should use. The Urdu abjad is perfectly suited for the language, the view I had expressed elsewhere. 

I also don't follow the point as to why should Urdu be written in Nagari? What is the advantage?

I'll be also grateful for those who might know where to find Urdu written in Nagari on the www.


----------



## lcfatima

It's perfectly fine to write Urdu in devnagri. I have several books of Urdu poetry written in nagri script from when I studied and lived in India. I bought them out in the market (they were not for our courses) and the shopkeeper was thrilled that I was interested in Urdu and poetry, and he himself accessed Urdu through nagri. In the program in which I studied in the US, the outlook was more of a Hindustani sister-language philosophy, and in some of our course texts we had nagri and nastaliq side by side. It was useful for me as a learner. I have met a lot of Indian Urduphiles of various native language backgrounds who approach Urdu poetry and song through devnagri. I think it's great. I have read before that many young people in Indian Urdu speaking families can only access Urdu in devnagri since they focus on English and Hindi in school. I don't think it matters too much which script it is written in, especially in an Indian context where it serves the purpose of sharing the richness and beauty of this Indian language.


----------



## greatbear

Completely agree with you, lcfatima, and beautifully said.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> It's perfectly fine to write Urdu in devnagri. I have several books of Urdu poetry written in nagri script from when I studied and lived in India. I bought them out in the market (they were not for our courses) and the shopkeeper was thrilled that I was interested in Urdu and poetry, and he himself accessed Urdu through nagri. In the program in which I studied in the US, the outlook was more of a Hindustani sister-language philosophy, and in some of our course texts we had nagri and nastaliq side by side. It was useful for me as a learner. I have met a lot of Indian Urduphiles of various native language backgrounds who approach Urdu poetry and song through devnagri. I think it's great. I have read before that many young people in Indian Urdu speaking families can only access Urdu in devnagri since they focus on English and Hindi in school. I don't think it matters too much which script it is written in, especially in an Indian context where it serves the purpose of sharing the richness and beauty of this Indian language.


It is indeed perfectly fine to write Urdu in Devanagri or any other script for that matter if there is a need for it. There is also no taboo against writing any Devanagri based language or any other language in Urdu script if there is a necessity. But, we all know that finding a few poetry books in Devanagri does not open a magic door that gives automatic access to all that is available in the language written in its own script.

It is of course a sad state of affairs if, as you say, a lot of Urduphiles approach Urdu poetry through Nagri. It is even sadder to note that young people from Urdu speaking backgrounds, in India, access Urdu through Devanagri because of their focus on English and Hindi. This is of course not the place to discuss the dire situation which compels them to opt for this course of action. But, the reality is, this is a certain recipe for the decline and ultimately the demise of Urdu in India.

All this might be “great” for you and also may not “matter too much” to you if Urdu is accessed through Devanagri. 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. The 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. If the new generation cannot read any of this material, then that material will belong in libraries and museums. This state of affairs resulting in the death of a language can surely not be "great" for any fair minded person. On the contrary, it should be a source of great concern! No speaker of any language would wish his/her language to be accessed through the script of another language. Is n't it strange that no one talks about writing Hindi in the Urdu script! When did Urdu begin to be written in the Urdu script? And what was the date when Hindi, the produce of Fort William College began to be written in Devanagri? What is it about the Urdu script that sticks in the throats of some people causing them to choke?


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> What is it about the Urdu script that sticks in the throats of some people causing them to choke?



Nothing at all in the Urdu script sticks in anyone's throat! But a language rather dies when it is limited to a certain section of people; having Urdu in Nagari and roman scripts only opens it to a lot many people, who don't have the training to read Urdu script (and nor the inclination or time to do so). Because of Urdu being accessible through Nagari script, more of India speaks Urdu or is conversant with certain Urdu words than would otherwise have been the case. It's the complete opposite of what you have said: Nagari, and Bollywood, has resuscitated Urdu in India. Which is good, for no language, no cultural legacy should die.

Note that many of those Urduphones are themselves choosing to focus on English and Hindi: no one is asking them to do so. There are schools everywhere in India that have education in Urdu, and Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, the prime Urdu areas, have Urdu as one of the official state languages. But if Urduphiles themselves want to progress (synonymous with Hindi in national context and English in international context), then there's nothing sad about it: it happens all the time, just as French was the snobs' language earlier. It's inevitable that languages hold a position in the hierarchy of powers all over the world, and I don't find anything sad or happy about it, insofar as languages can survive healthily enough.


----------



## UrduMedium

It's not an easy task to teach kids a script that they are not taught in school and is not "in" in their environment. It's like swimming against the flow. Most parents just do not have the time, desire, and resources to do this. The same predicament faces children of Urdu speaker parents in the West. I think having more options (Nagri, Roman) available to these children may save them from a complete disconnect from the language. So insistence on the Urdu-only script in the Indian context can actually do more damage than good. Even there a section of the people will continue to use the Urdu scrip but the majority will lose out if Urdu is only accessible to them in Urdu script alone. 

Urdu script is not under any threat of extinction as there are tens of millions of people who use it. All this can happen in parallel.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> It is indeed perfectly fine to write Urdu in Devanagri or any other script for that matter if there is a need for it. There is also no taboo against writing any Devanagri based language or any other language in Urdu script if there is a necessity. But, we all know that finding a few poetry books in Devanagri does not open a magic door that gives automatic access to all that is available in the language written in its own script.
> 
> It is of course a sad state of affairs if, as you say, a lot of Urduphiles approach Urdu poetry through Nagri. It is even sadder to note that young people from Urdu speaking backgrounds, in India, access Urdu through Devanagri because of their focus on English and Hindi. This is of course not the place to discuss the dire situation which compels them to opt for this course of action. But, the reality is, this is a certain recipe for the decline and ultimately the demise of Urdu in India.
> 
> All this might be “great” for you and also may not “matter too much” to you if Urdu is accessed through Devanagri. 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. The 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. If the new generation cannot read any of this material, then that material will belong in libraries and museums. This state of affairs resulting in the death of a language can surely not be "great" for any fair minded person. On the contrary, it should be a source of great concern! No speaker of any language would wish his/her language to be accessed through the script of another language.




For some balance, here are my problems with the Urdu script, and yes, I DO view them as problems. 

1) Lack of vowel transcription.
   While this is fine for someone who has been using Urdu since childhood, not transcribing the vowels is a serious barrier for learners.
   How should one pronounce Xbr ? Is it Xibir or Xabar, or Xubar, etc etc. 
   One can possibly think of benefits such as less wasted ink, or in older days, less handwriting or carving on stone, but in the modern age, loss of vowels is
   more of a burden than a boon.

   If one thinks that not writing vowels is not a problem one should probably do research on the tetragammaton which are 4 Hebrew consonants that represent
   the personal name of God (not the word god, but a name like Shweta, Muhammad, Adam etc..) Due to superstition, Jews stopped uttering the name out
   of fear of blaspheming (and probably influenced by secret Roman cults as well), enforced this by willful non-use of vowel points in writing, and eventually they    
   FORGOT how to pronounce the name! Talk about mistakes...

   To quote Wikipedia:  "The lack of vowel signs in Arabic writing created more ambiguities : for example, in Classical Arabic _ktb_ could be _kataba_ = "he wrote", _
   kutiba_ = "it was written" or _kutub_="books""

2) Representing the same sounds with multiple different characters. Sure we can say it helps us distinguish word X from word Y, but if they sound the same
to the average speaker, then what's the problem? When we are speaking to others and they say sher, how do we know which one they are talking about? Context.
If one cannot determine the difference between phuul and fuul, they need more help than a better script, they may need help for brain problems. Our brain is
specifically arranged to be able to cope with such trivial issues. Why should written language need to be any more specific? 

The more we diverge the written language from the spoken language is the more effort that has to go into memorisation and explanation.
One has to memorise the spelling of words and memorise how to pronounce them since the pronunciation is different from the spelling.
This a major problem in English and is also problem in Urdu.

The one actual benefit I can see from this is in translation software. But how do we handle this in English, the most widely-used international language?
Anything that burdens the reader and writer makes them more prone to mistakes and wastes countless man-hours correcting documents or making
spell checkers.

3) While access to Arabic can be stated as a benefit, the question is why is Arabic limited to a specific script? It should not have to be either.
One could just as easily transcribe Arabic into Devanagari. If one wanted to preserve the special consonants one could come up with some kind of
special transcription scheme, using additional symbols. Unlike informal transcription of Urdu/Hindi online, scholars could adopt a standard to follow.

If we say that the Quran is tied to Arabic, this is probably true, but the Quran is not tied to written Arabic, but spoken Arabic. The Quran was memorised
and passed down orally before it was written in any one form of the Arabic writing system, which too has changed over the years.

Edit:
4) Memorising which letters join to the next letter and which ones don't
5) Memorising the initial, medial, and final forms of the letters

    Both of these show down the learning process and make the script more prone to trivial mistakes.



Scripts are tools invented by humans. They should not become our maalik as well!


----------



## Qureshpor

^ It is unnecessary to discuss the pros and cons of one script against another in this thread because we will all end up in a slanging match and that will serve no useful purpose. Your comment about the written Arabic, as found in the Qur'an, is inaccurate and you ought to have researched the details a little more before posting it. 

As I have said in my earlier post, everything seems to gravitate towards an enormous "blackhole" called Devanagri! I find it very strange.


----------



## UrduMedium

The following post from another current thread is relevant here. It has two IIL regulars vouching for the following statement: 

"A large corpus of contemporary Urdu literature is written in Deonagarii, esp. in India."

See the post here:


----------



## Faylasoof

tonyspeed said:


> For some balance, here are my problems with the Urdu script, and yes, I DO view them as problems.
> 
> 1) Lack of vowel transcription.
> While this is fine for someone who has been using Urdu since childhood, not transcribing the vowels is a serious barrier for learners.
> How should one pronounce Xbr ? Is it Xibir or Xabar, or Xubar, etc etc.
> One can possibly think of benefits such as less wasted ink, or in older days, less handwriting or carving on stone, but in the modern age, loss of vowels is
> more of a burden than a boon.
> 
> If one thinks that not writing vowels is not a problem one should probably do research on the tetragammaton which are 4 Hebrew consonants that represent
> the personal name of God (not the word god, but a name like Shweta, Muhammad, Adam etc..) Due to superstition, Jews stopped uttering the name out
> of fear of blaspheming (and probably influenced by secret Roman cults as well), enforced this by willful non-use of vowel points in writing, and eventually they
> FORGOT how to pronounce the name! Talk about mistakes...
> 
> To quote Wikipedia: "The lack of vowel signs in Arabic writing created more ambiguities : for example, in Classical Arabic _ktb_ could be _kataba_ = "he wrote", _
> kutiba_ = "it was written" or _kutub_="books""
> 
> ......
> 
> Edit:
> 4) Memorising which letters join to the next letter and which ones don't
> 5) Memorising the initial, medial, and final forms of the letters
> 
> Both of these show down the learning process and make the script more prone to trivial mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> Scripts are tools invented by humans. They should not become our maalik as well!


 I’m afraid there are many inaccuracies in your argument above. 

As someone who knows enough (Biblical) Hebrew and its history, your bringing in the issue of vowelling in this language - a very late event indeed - has no bearing on the discussion here! 

As a counter example one can take Aramaic, also written without vowels, but the language of both written and oral communication for a large part of the Ancient Middle East for thousands of years. During its 3,000-year written history, Aramaic’s lack of written vowels never hindered its progress and expansion and its demise and replacement by Arabic also had nothing to do the vowel-issue! But here we are discussing Urdu which has had vowels (as diacritics) anyway to begin with and we have no problems pronouncing words even when written without them!!

You are also wrong about much of what you state concerning Arabic and the Quran. Again not relevant here! 

Needless to repeat, Urdu is written in it fully vocalized form only in children’s books. You too can get hold of these of you wish to practice reading Urdu. You’ll find it isn’t that difficult. All a matter of trying! 

As to the ligature issue in Urdu, in a sense a parallel issue of altered syllable morphology also exists in the Nagari script depending on which syllables end up together. Initially I too had some issues with reading the Nagari script but after some practice they disappeared! Practice makes perfect!


----------



## Faylasoof

UrduMedium said:


> The following post from another current thread is relevant here. It has two IIL regulars vouching for the following statement:
> 
> "A large corpus of contemporary Urdu literature is written in Deonagarii, esp. in India."
> 
> See the post here:


 UM SaaHib, as you might guess, we (BP SaaHib and I) were merely stating this fact. However, I too would like to see the Urdu script maintained and in fact promoted in Indian schools where Urdu is being taught. I have a bit more to say on this issue. Let me sort out a thing or two.

I do agree that it is possible to have both the scripts.


----------



## Faylasoof

As has been said already, yes it is possible to write Urdu in the Nagari or any other script just as it is possible to write Hindi and Sanskrit (or for that matter Japanese and Chinese) in the Latin script. On this forum we’ve been regularly using Romanized Urdu!

Although a language is defined by its grammar rather than its script, the latter is part of its identity. Apart from this, relying on the script that developed with the language has some advantages as one can learn to differentiate certain words from others (as QP SaaHib mentions above, post 10) as well as making clear certain word-relationships. The latter, for example, applies to borrowings from Arabic which works on a root system. Just to give a simple example from Urdu in its own script (derived from the Perso-Arabic script)

Arabic root ص۔ح۔ب S-H-b: From this we get صاحِب SaaHib / مُصاحَبہ muSaaHabah / صُحْبَت SuHbat (Persianised form of صُحَْبَہ SuHbah as borrowed into Urdu) / مُصاحِب muSaaHib etc.

Writing in the Nagari script these relationships are lost since the letter ‘ص Saad’ is represented by the ‘siin’ sound and ‘ح He’ by ‘he’. Unless one had prior knowledge, one wouldn’t know how these words are related to each other - or indeed which ones are not related at all e.g. شیر sher vs. شِعر she3r (post# 10), as mentioned above are not the same! Here the script does help. Just two examples. 

The example of Turkish language mentioned above illustrates very well what happens when you do decide to change the script. I have many Turkish friends who complain that even now they have little or no access to their literary heritage since the decision (political or otherwise) to change the script nearly a hundred years ago. Not enough of the large corpus of Ottoman Turkish literature has been transliterated into the Modern (Romanized) Turkish script for the present-day generation to benefit from, thus leading to a disconnect.

Although there is an ongoing process to publish Urdu literature in the Nagari script the process is slow and some works may never get transliterated into Nagari anyway. It may have something to do with what publishers think is popular or would be popular and therefore sells.

In UP and Bihar there has been a move to teach Urdu in its own script. This has received enthusiastic reception from many pupils and a person’s religo-cultural background is _not_ the issue. It appears now to be entirely a matter of getting more official support for this project to succeed.

It might be very useful to hear Pandit Anand Gulzar Dehlavi * (full name: Pandit Anand Mohan Zutshi Gulzar Dehlavi) on this and other relevant issues. Just google his name. He has given several interviews on various aspects of Urdu and the Hindi-Urdu debate, including the script issue that we are discussing here. His opinion is that the Urdu script should be taught in schools where pupils learn Urdu until, if I recall correctly, around class 8 (or slightly higher) and the script promoted. This is to enable everyone have easy access to our literary heritage in the original.

If you are interested in this issue then I shall try to provide you with the appropriate links via PMs as many of them are videos on Youtube!


(* Gulzar (_gulzaar_) is of course his _takhallus_ (pen name) and this Gulzar should not be confused with the other Gulzar. He too is a poet but not a _pakkaa dehlavii_, unlike the _pandit SaaHib _who grew up in Old Delhi, consequently speaks the Delhi dialect of Urdu. His longest interview is with Obaid Siddiqui. Also on Youtube.)


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> ...The example of Turkish language mentioned above illustrates very well what happens when you do decide to change the script. I have many Turkish friends who complain that even now they have little or no access to their literary heritage since the decision (political or otherwise) to change the script nearly a hundred years ago. Not enough of the large corpus of Ottoman Turkish literature has been transliterated into the Modern (Romanized) Turkish script for the present-day generation to benefit from, thus leading to a disconnect.


I was in Istanbul recently for a couple of weeks and had the pleasure of touring the city quite extensively. Everywhere there ware signs of  Ottoman power, with plaques on the gates and walls of beautiful buildings in Ottoman Turkish. I could of course read the writing which seemed to have a large admixture of Persian (and Arabic). But I would suggest that the vast majority of the natives walking up and down the streets or the shop keepers would not have the slightest clue as to what was written.To me, this is not progression but regression!


----------



## greatbear

Faylasoof said:


> The example of Turkish language mentioned above illustrates very well what happens when you do decide to change the script. I have many Turkish friends who complain that even now they have little or no access to their literary heritage since the decision (political or otherwise) to change the script nearly a hundred years ago. Not enough of the large corpus of Ottoman Turkish literature has been transliterated into the Modern (Romanized) Turkish script for the present-day generation to benefit from, thus leading to a disconnect.





			
				QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> I could of course read the writing which seemed to have a large admixture of Persian (and Arabic). But I would suggest that the vast majority of the natives walking up and down the streets or the shop keepers would not have the slightest clue as to what was written.To me, this is not progression but regression!



At least, they can read some other labels and signs! Ataturk brought in wide-scale reforms because most, a big most, of Turkish population was illiterate, not knowing how to read and write, daunted by the script. And did he succeed! This in itself illustrates how scripts should not become barriers to literacy, information and knowledge-seeking: no one is asking to kill a script, but let it be there for those who want to delve into all those yet-not-transcribed works of literature. The first priority is communication and human empowerment, which difficult scripts do hinder: yes, practise makes perfect, but roman script, to take an example, is much easier than the Arabic scripts Urdu is written in, and as soon as there's a difficulty involved it will dull the appetites of many a learner.


----------



## JaiHind

tonyspeed said:


> As I enjoy Urdu but am unable to read it yet, seeing Urdu in Devanagari script is quite refreshing. Of course, to accurately represent Urdu some additions have to be made to Devanagari.



Thanks for this; I personally agree with you.



marrish said:


> ^ I fully agree with the right of the Urdu-loving community to decide for themselves which script they should use. The Urdu abjad is perfectly suited for the language, the view I had expressed elsewhere.
> 
> I also don't follow the point as to why should Urdu be written in Nagari? What is the advantage?



Thanks for your views. I am not saying Urdu "should be" written in Nagari. I am saying it can be and it is being written in Nagari and wanted to know other's view about the same. 

The reason why someone may love to write Urdu in Nagari is that they already may be knowing Nagari script and may not be willing to learn a new script itself in order to communicate in Urdu.



lcfatima said:


> It's perfectly fine to write Urdu in devnagri. I have several books of Urdu poetry written in nagri script from when I studied and lived in India. I bought them out in the market (they were not for our courses) and the shopkeeper was thrilled that I was interested in Urdu and poetry, and he himself accessed Urdu through nagri. In the program in which I studied in the US, the outlook was more of a Hindustani sister-language philosophy, and in some of our course texts we had nagri and nastaliq side by side. It was useful for me as a learner. I have met a lot of Indian Urduphiles of various native language backgrounds who approach Urdu poetry and song through devnagri. I think it's great. I have read before that many young people in Indian Urdu speaking families can only access Urdu in devnagri since they focus on English and Hindi in school. I don't think it matters too much which script it is written in, especially in an Indian context where it serves the purpose of sharing the richness and beauty of this Indian language.



Right; I agree with you Icfatima. I don't understand why would some people "object to" Urdu written in Nagari script. Also, due to practical reasons people may prefer to write it in Nagari script. 

Anyway the language is being increasingly identified with Muslims in India and is dying amongst other communities. Therefore in order to keep the language surviving, it should be promoted to be written in as many scripts possible, right? 



QURESHPOR said:


> Any language, in theory, can be written in a script that is different from its normal script with varying degrees of success. In this respect, Urdu can be written in Devanagri.



Thanks for this. 



QURESHPOR said:


> Urdu is not naturally written in Devanagri script and you are wrong in your thinking here. It has always had its own script, the Urdu script, incorporating consonants from Arabic, Persian and KhaRii-Bolii.





QURESHPOR said:


> If we Aryans, coming from elsewhere can call oursleves "indigenous" to India, then these scripts are equally indigenous.



Ok, so you call yourself Aryan. Sorry but I am not interested in this discussion in this thread. Aryan invasion theory is a myth. Devanagari is an indigeneous script of India and there is no doubt about it; you know that. 



QURESHPOR said:


> I have seen, on the net, an Urdu magazine published both in its normal Urdu script and in Nagri. My reaction is that it is obviously there to reach out to a wider audience.



What is wrong in that? Every magazine wants to reach out to the maximum audience/readership!



QURESHPOR said:


> There has been a demand for decades from certain quarters for Urdu to be written in Devanagri and Urdu-vaalas have vehemently resisted this. They regard this script the soul of the language and no less!



Ok, I didn't know about this kind of demand, but in my opinion it is a good demand and there is no harm in allowing it. I don't know if being fanatical and extremist about language and its "purity" should be practiced.


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> 1) Thanks for your views. I am not saying Urdu "should be" written in Nagari. I am saying it can be and it is being written in Nagari and wanted to know other's view about the same.
> 
> 2) Ok, I didn't know about this kind of demand, but in my opinion it is a good demand and there is no harm in allowing it. I don't know if being fanatical and extremist about language and its "purity" should be practiced
> 
> 3) Ok, so you call yourself Aryan. Sorry but I am not interested in this discussion in this thread. Aryan invasion theory is a myth. Devanagari is an indigeneous script of India and there is no doubt about it; you know that.
> 
> 4)What is wrong in that? Every magazine wants to reach out to the maximum audience/readership!


1&2) To me, 2 is clearly contradicting your views in 1. And I don't quite follow your second sentence in 2)

3) My point is quite simple and if you fail to understand it, there is not too much that I can do. However, I shall make another attempt. Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi and other languages linked to Sanskrit form part of the Indo-European branch of languages. At the peak of this pyramid sits Hittite, the oldest known Indo-European language and Sanskrit, Old Persian, Greek and Latin have come down from it. The Hittites lived in an area on the west coast of present day Turkey. So there was a movement of peoples at some stage who brought an Indo-European language to India. Therefore, this Indo-European language did not originate in India and neither those people who spoke it. It stands to reason then that you and I are no more indigenous to the Subcontinent then gorillas are to the moon! It is true, there are lots of myths floating about but this is NO myth. But if it makes you happy believing it is a myth, be my guest and stay happy.

I would n't be surprised if Devanagri script was linked in someway to some other script. Frankly what is indigenous to India and what is n't has no bearing on my thought. My thinking is:

xirad-mandoN se kyaa puuchhoN kih merii ibtidaa kyaa hai
kih maiN is fikr meN rahtaa huuN, merii intihaa kyaa hai!

Iqbal

4) Did I say there was anything wrong at all?

Edit: I forgot to respond to one of your points "I don't understand why would some people "object to" Urdu written in Nagari script". Is this what you had in mind in your opening post? It does not appear so to me.

Urdu speakers are no more *against* Urdu being written in Devanagri than Hindi speakers are *for* Hindi being written in Urdu script.


----------



## Faylasoof

greatbear said:


> At least, they can read some other labels and signs! Ataturk brought in wide-scale reforms because most, a big most, of Turkish population was illiterate, ......The first priority is communication and human empowerment, which difficult scripts do hinder: yes, practise makes perfect, but roman script, to take an example, is much easier than the Arabic scripts Urdu is written in, and as soon as there's a difficulty involved it will dull the appetites of many a learner.


 A script needn’t be changed to increase literacy and I agree with you that “scripts should not become barriers to literacy,….”, which is why Turkish could have continued to be written in its original script while a literacy program expanded. The reasons for changing the script were mostly political but we needn’t go into them because then we would surely go off-topic! 

The scripts under discussion here being easy or difficult is entirely a matter of training and exposure. None of them (Latin, Arabic or Nagari) are difficult per se and each can offer problems to learners. As someone who is at ease with all three, I can say that their relative difficulties are not significant and more a matter of perception than anything else. Good training is all that matters. 

... and yes a language can have more than one script and they can co-exist provided recognition and support is given to each. In this way we won’t kill them, otherwise we would, as happened in Turkey.


----------



## greatbear

Faylasoof said:


> A script needn’t be changed to increase literacy ...



Well, I completely disagree: scripts are more or less difficult _per se_, and they also need to be changed to promote literacy. Just because someone has had training in something doesn't make that thing easy in itself. Most new learners unexposed to both Nagari and Urdu scripts would find the former easier.


----------



## Faylasoof

greatbear said:


> Well, I completely disagree: scripts are more or less difficult _per se_, and they also need to be changed to promote literacy. Just because someone has had training in something doesn't make that thing easy in itself. Most new learners unexposed to both Nagari and Urdu scripts would find the former easier.


 Scripts are difficult _per se_? Difficult or easy depends on a number of factors such as at what age one is exposed to them– the earlier the better, as it is for languages. Quality of training etc. also matter.  Nagari script easier than Urdu? Change a script to promote literacy? You have a right to your opinions of course. I disagree!

It is obvious what your stand is. I think enough has been said and further discussion is pointless!


----------



## Qureshpor

JaiHind said:


> Anyway the language is being increasingly identified with Muslims in India and is dying amongst other communities. Therefore in order to keep the language surviving, it should be promoted to be written in as many scripts possible, right? .


So be it. And death is something we will all have a taste of, sooner or later. Let me quote Pandit Anand Narain "Mulla" (1901-1997), who was a High Court Judge in Lucknow and an Urdu poet.

"Urdu is my mother-tongue; I can give up my religion, but I can not give up my mother tongue". There is a Youtube video available where you can see him and hear his language. You talk about death of Urdu, so these lines might be quite appropriate.

ek maut kaa jashn manaa leN to chaleN
phir poNchh ke ashk muskuraa leN to chaleN
aa tujh ko gale lagaa kar ai miiThii Urdu
ek aaxirii giit gaa leN to chaleN!

And with regard to the language being only of Muslims..

lab-i-maadar se Mullaa loriyaaN jis ne sunaa'ii thiiN
vuh din aayaa hai ab us ko bhii GhairoN kii zabaaN samjhuuN

This was the language of the Freedom Movement and the language of diversity.

Mullaa banaa diyaa hai ise bhii maHaaz-i-jang
ek sulH kaa payaam thii Urdu zabaaN kabhii!

It should also be allowed to  thrive and survive with its own script, just as any other Indian language? Right?


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> It should also be allowed to  thrive and survive with its own script, just as any other Indian language? Right?



You are time and again getting on emotional highs and making it seem as if someone were divorcing Urdu from its script, which I don't see any member suggesting it here. Urdu script is thriving in India, and never has ever been any attempt made otherwise. The question is of Urdu also present in Devanagari script, which is something very common in India and which according to members like me is good _for Urdu_: it enables greater reach of Urdu and it _prevents_ death of Urdu, which would have be the case if Urdu were to try to walk on the crutches of only its script in India.


----------



## Qureshpor

Here is a link to an interview conducted by Ather Farouqui (different from the other Faruqi!) and Professor Ralph Russell entitled simply "An Interview with Ralph Russell". I am quoting one question from AF concerning Urdu script and RR's reply to it.

http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/10/20russellInterview.pdf

AF : The Persian script used in Urdu has now become the bête noire of Hindu communal organizations, and some Urdu writers also have accepted their view. The communal Hindu organizations demand that Urdu speakers should at once reject this foreign script and adopt the Devanagari script. What is your opinion?

RR : I am strongly against changing the Persian script and adopting the Devanagari script for Urdu. I also strongly oppose those who advocate the Roman script for Urdu. The problem of the script is not a linguistic one; it is a political and cultural one. But I do advocate that Urdu literature should as far as possible be published in Devanagari too, so that people who cannot read the Persian script can read and enjoy Urdu literature. My view is that since Muslims have an emotional attachment to the Persian script, it should be maintained. Moreover, in the prevailing political and social conditions, Indian Muslims would accept neither Devanagari nor the Roman script. So it is pointless to raise the question.

I would like to add that for Urdu speakers there are many reasons for preserving its script, in addition to the "emotional attachment".


----------



## greatbear

RR's views here are in perfect sync with what I, UM and lcfatima have already expressed: the additional option of having Urdu literature in Nagari script only enhances its reach. For the rest, no one on this thread has suggested that Urdu be exclusively written in Nagari; the title is not "Urdu in Devanagari Script Only".


----------



## tonyspeed

Faylasoof said:


> As a counter example one can take Aramaic, also written without vowels, but the language of both written and oral communication for a large part of the Ancient Middle East for thousands of years. During its 3,000-year written history, Aramaic’s lack of written vowels never hindered its progress and expansion and its demise and replacement by Arabic also had nothing to do the vowel-issue! But here we are discussing Urdu which has had vowels (as diacritics) anyway to begin with and we have no problems pronouncing words even when written without them!!



Lack of a car never hindered man from finding his way across continents either, but I am sure that no one would doubt the benefits that having a car brings. It seems that we are here opposed to using a car for historical and cultural reasons; and since walking never stopped us before. 

If you are telling me that I can learn Urdu as easily as Hindi as a learner far-removed from the continent of origin and without a teacher, I am here to tell you that this is not the case.

By the way, romanisation of Urdu was tried already. It is sad that somewhere along the way it died.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Lack of a car never hindered man from finding his way across continents either, but I am sure that no one would doubt the benefits that having a car brings. It seems that we are here opposed to using a car for historical and cultural reasons; and since walking never stopped us before.
> 
> If you are telling me that I can learn Urdu as easily as Hindi as a learner far-removed from the continent of origin and without a teacher, I am here to tell you that this is not the case.
> 
> By the way, romanisation of Urdu was tried already. It is sad that somewhere along the way it died.



In learning any thing, Tony SaaHib, one has to have the necessary eagerness and enthusiasm. I managed to learn Devanagri and Gurmukhi without living in the environment and without a teacher. It all depends on whether you really want to do something or not.

Before Hindi took a separate path in the early nineteenth century, an agreement on the use of the Roman alphabet might have kept the language and the two communities united.

If your analogy is that walking is equivalent to the Urdu alphabet and a car to the Devanagri,  then I am afraid it is not a very good analogy. Knowing both alphabets, I know which one gets me from a to b quicker!


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> In learning any thing, Tony SaaHib, one has to have the necessary eagerness and enthusiasm. I managed to learn Devanagri and Gurmukhi without living in the environment and without a teacher. It all depends on whether you really want to do something or not.


I can add my own example to this, due to the interest in Nagari and Gurmukhi I have learnt them too, without a teacher. I have also taught the Urdu script to a couple of folks. Nowadays, with all the material on the net it should be very easy to learn it on one's own.


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> 1&2) Urdu speakers are no more *against* Urdu being written in Devanagri than Hindi speakers are *for* Hindi being written in Urdu script.



Whilst (unsuccessfully) searching on the net for anything that is comparable to Urdu's concept of "mustanad" (authoritative) and "fasiiH" (chaste), I came across the following article "Does Hindi have a future?" This is its opening paragraph. 

"Film journalist Ajay Brahmatmaj is in the line of fire of many Hindi fanatics. Not for his weekly film reviews in the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran but for the unpardonable crime of writing Hindi in the Roman script for the blog passionforcinema.com. Despite the avalanche of criticism, Brahmatmaj says he will not amend his style as that's the only way he can reach a large audience." 

It seems that the reason for employing the Roman alphabet by Brahmatmaj is to reach a larger audience. It's ironic that Devanagri is being suggested to write Urdu for the same reason yet Devanagri itself is failing to reach its own readership in sufficient numbers.

http://www.bollywhat-forum.com/index.php?topic=22959.0;wap2


----------



## Rallino

I don't think you can compare this case with Turkish.

Turkish didn't change just the alphabet. We can learn the Arabic alphabet in one day, that's not a problem, but we still can't read much, because the vocabulary changed drammatically. Quite a lot of Arabic/Persian words were replaced by Turkic words. For instance I know the Arabic alphabet, but I would need an Ottoman-Turkish dictionary to be able to make sense of what I'm reading.

Here we're discussing about changing *only* the alphabet. That alone, wouldn't create a disconnection with the past. Those who want to read the old litterature can always learn the alphabet and do it, as long as the vocabulary is the same.

Using a script that doesn't show the vowels is indeed a big obstacle for learners (I know that I used to complain about it, saying: _«Whoever came up with the idea of not writing the vowels, I hope he died a horrible death! _») , but then, that's the beauty of the Arabic/Urdu script, I think. That's why it is so aesthetical. If all the vowels were fully written, it would look quite awkward. Nevertheless, I agree that as a learner, trying to read Urdu script is very similar to reading Chinese (which I also studied for a period); in that, in order to be able to read the word, you have to already know it. And also sometimes the reverse case holds: You recognize the word, but can't remember which vowels it had, so you end up understanding the sentence without being able to actually read it out loud. All these things also happen to a certain extent in English too, one might argue, but it's not as frequent.


----------



## gagun

in south india urdu (islamic) books  are available in telugu script but qaf ق and x both represents same letter as x خ in telugu.


----------

