# Urdu, Hindi: Transliteration Conflict



## Qureshpor

The purpose of this thread is to set the record straight once and for all so that it is clear as daylight to all and sundry why a number of Urdu speakers point out the errors in transliteration of Urdu words in threads which include Urdu as one of the languages under discussion. The following quotes are the most recent in this regard and I hope to cover all the points raised within them. It is my hope and desire that after clearing the air, so to speak, there is no need to raise the same issues by the same people over and over again. There is obviously some grave misunderstanding at play here and the sooner this is removed the better it will be. I invite comments from all friends concerning what is being alleged in the quotes and my responses. 


greatbear said:


> ^ 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natural evolutions of a language and what people actually speak in favour of prescriptions (some of which are either outdated or irrelevant - no one needs them).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.





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 ...*
> 
> *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.*





greatbear said:


> ^ 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").


Firstly, I would like to begin my piece by making a couple of points whilst focusing on English, Hindi and Urdu.

1)    When someone writes in this forum, does n’t that person write in Standard English, Standard Hindi or Standard Urdu? (Or at least is n't he supposed to, according to the rules of the forum?)

I would suggest that unless specified otherwise, one writes in what is known as the standard language. I am aware that in English the concept of what is considered right or wrong according to the accepted standard language, has a fairly long history manifested in works like Fowler's Modern English Usage 1911 and Eric Partridge’s Usage and Abusage (First published in 1942). Practitioners of good Urdu try to follow the “isnaad” (authority) of the best prose and verse authors who have stood the test of time. Despite the fact that Hindi does not have this clear concept, still any Hindi writer worth his salt would know that all the ph words are not f words and therefore would not write them as such unless he/she was employing dialogue to demonstrate actual speech of characters. *If the initiator of a thread has purely colloquial or slang in mind, then it should be made clear from the start.
*
2)    Does the written language truly reflect the way one speaks? I would say no and this applies even to Hindi. We need not go into English as we all know cough is not cuf, station is not steshan, is is not iz and so on and so forth. In Hindi which unlike Urdu always incorporates short vowels a/i/u, still there are some vowels/consonants which are written but not pronounced as they ought to be, e.g the r, sh and NR in कृष्ण. सिंह is written siNh but pronounced siNgh. The alphabet in question for all the three languages is left to do the job in the best way it can and is not changed on a yearly or decade by decade basis to incorporate the “*ground realities*”. There may come a time when the speakers of all three languages might look for its respective alphabet to be “revamped”. But until that happens or the languages adopt the International Phonetic Alphabet, we are stuck with the current alphabets.

Now that the basics have been laid out, a word or two about Urdu.

a)    Urdu is written in the *Urdu alphabet* which in most cases chooses not to include the short vowels a/i/u included in it. These are shown in children’s books and where necessary to give the exact pronunciation of a word. In this forum, if I had my way I would write in Urdu only especially in Urdu only posts. But, as the purpose of all these threads is to impart correct information to everyone, for the benefit of those who cannot read the Urdu alphabet, one is left with no choice but to adopt the *Roman/Latin alphabet*. 

b)    A number of Urdu speakers try as best as they can to mirror the Urdu system of writing into the Roman/Latin system as closely as possible. Faylasoof SaaHib goes much further in his transliteration which practically mirrors Urdu 100%. Of course we add the short vowels too because within the Urdu system, we become accustomed to reading words as whole units by their appearance. Writing “mshkl” for “mushkil” would serve no purpose for beginners in Urdu or those who don't have command over Urdu script.

c)    When we have Urdu in mind, then it is not unreasonable to say that in Urdu the word is* written* ba3d vs baad, shi3r vs sher, phuul vs fuul, roz vs roj, darvaazah vs darvaazaa,* shukriyah* vs* shukriyaa*, ziyaadah vs jyaadaa, saHiiH vs sahii, shuruu3 vs shuruu and so on.  You will see that in some cases in Hindi mode of depiction, whole consonants are missing! We hope that through this any Urdu learner will be able to relate to the written language much more easily. There is no* hypocrisy* at play here. Even though the –ah words are not pronounced as –aa, we are talking about the written word.  Learners of the language will not be in any state of confusion once they are informed that in such words the h is silent. All our communication in this Forum is through the *written* word. So, the emphasis is on the *written* format. This is neither* nitpicking *nor* snobbery*. On the contrary it is information being provided to bring awareness to people who are new to Urdu. Why leave people in the dark? 

d)    No one is *dictating* to Hindi speakers to follow this way of writing. Please write as you wish. The whole idea is to communicate. As long as the reader can follow your system and understand the words, that’s all that matters. But if any of the English/Russian/Hindi/ Chinese speakers have an ounce of interest in Urdu or anybody who follows the forum in a passive way, then they clearly stand to benefit from these snippets of information. 

I hope this post clarifies the following questions too.


tonyspeed said:


> If the word does end with a Chotii he (incorrectly), does this give the reader the impression that there should be an exhalation at the end of the word?
> What about the word "baarah"? How do you pronounced the "ah" at the end?


Regarding the first question, no. There are not too many -h ending words in Urdu which actually result in -h pronunciation. One exception is "baarah" where the "-ah" ending exists in both Urdu and Hindi and the h is pronounced.

Have I been successful in removing the misunderstandings concerning the above matters?


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> The purpose of this thread is to set the record straight once and for all so that it is clear as daylight to all and sundry why a number of Urdu speakers point out the errors in transliteration of Urdu words in threads which include Urdu as one of the languages under discussion. The following quotes are the most recent in this regard and I hope to cover all the points raised within them. It is my hope and desire that after clearing the air, so to speak, there is no need to raise the same issues by the same people over and over again. There is obviously some grave misunderstanding at play here and the sooner this is removed the better it will be. I invite comments from all friends concerning what is being alleged in the quotes and my responses.



I welcome your clear worded constructive work which is going to contribute to the mutual understanding of the various peculiarities that differentiate both languages. It is a pleasure to comment on it.



QURESHPOR said:


> Firstly, I would like to begin my piece by making a couple of points whilst focusing on English, Hindi and Urdu.
> 
> 1) When someone writes in this forum, does n’t that person write in Standard English, Standard Hindi or Standard Urdu? (Or at least is n't he supposed to, according to the rules of the forum?)
> 
> I would suggest that unless specified otherwise, one writes in what is known as the standard language. I am aware that in English the concept of what is considered right or wrong according to the accepted standard language, has a fairly long history manifested in works like Fowler's Modern English Usage 1911 and Eric Partridge’s Usage and Abusage (First published in 1942). Practitioners of good Urdu try to follow the “isnaad” (authority) of the best prose and verse authors who have stood the test of time. Despite the fact that Hindi does not have this clear concept, still any Hindi writer worth his salt would know that all the ph words are not f words and therefore would not write them as such unless he/she was employing dialogue to demonstrate actual speech of characters. *If the initiator of a thread has purely colloquial or slang in mind, then it should be made clear from the start.
> *
> 2) Does the written language truly reflect the way one speaks? I would say no and this applies even to Hindi. We need not go into English as we all know cough is not cuf, station is not steshan, is is not iz and so on and so forth. In Hindi which unlike Urdu always incorporates short vowels a/i/u, still there are some vowels/consonants which are written but not pronounced as they ought to be, e.g the r, sh and NR in कृष्ण. सिंह is written siNh but pronounced siNgh. The alphabet in question for all the three languages is left to do the job in the best way it can and is not changed on a yearly or decade by decade basis to incorporate the “*ground realities*”. There may come a time when the speakers of all three languages might look for its respective alphabet to be “revamped”. But until that happens or the languages adopt the International Phonetic Alphabet, we are stuck with the current alphabets.



I agree with these points. Many a time other friends - including me - used to indicate the phonetic transcription, along with the original script/transliteration, if and when applicable. The part in bold in your post finds its reflection in the forum rules, if my memory serves me right.



QURESHPOR said:


> Now that the basics have been laid out, a word or two about Urdu.
> 
> a) Urdu is written in the *Urdu alphabet* which in most cases chooses not to include the short vowels a/i/u included in it. These are shown in children’s books and where necessary to give the exact pronunciation of a word. In this forum, if I had my way I would write in Urdu only especially in Urdu only posts. But, as the purpose of all these threads is to impart correct information to everyone, for the benefit of those who cannot read the Urdu alphabet, one is left with no choice but to adopt the *Roman/Latin alphabet*.
> 
> b) A number of Urdu speakers try as best as they can to mirror the Urdu system of writing into the Roman/Latin system as closely as possible. Faylasoof SaaHib goes much further in his transliteration which practically mirrors Urdu 100%. Of course we add the short vowels too because within the Urdu system, we become accustomed to reading words as whole units by their appearance. Writing “mshkl” for “mushkil” would serve no purpose for beginners in Urdu or those who don't have command over Urdu script.
> 
> c) When we have Urdu in mind, then it is not unreasonable to say that in Urdu the word is* written* ba3d vs baad, shi3r vs sher, phuul vs fuul, roz vs roj, darvaazah vs darvaazaa,* shukriyah* vs* shukriyaa*, ziyaadah vs jyaadaa, saHiiH vs sahii, shuruu3 vs shuruu and so on. You will see that in some cases in Hindi mode of depiction, whole consonants are missing! We hope that through this any Urdu learner will be able to relate to the written language much more easily. There is no* hypocrisy* at play here. Even though the –ah words are not pronounced as –aa, we are talking about the written word. Learners of the language will not be in any state of confusion once they are informed that in such words the h is silent. All our communication in this Forum is through the *written* word. So, the emphasis is on the *written* format. This is neither* nitpicking *nor* snobbery*. On the contrary it is information being provided to bring awareness to people who are new to Urdu. Why leave people in the dark?
> 
> d) No one is *dictating* to Hindi speakers to follow this way of writing. Please write as you wish. The whole idea is to communicate. As long as the reader can follow your system and understand the words, that’s all that matters. But if any of the English/Russian/Hindi/ Chinese speakers have an ounce of interest in Urdu or anybody who follows the forum in a passive way, then they clearly stand to benefit from these snippets of information.



I believe the most important participants and public of this and other forums are those who wish to benefit from them, counting on accurate and precise information and guidance on language matters so I fully agree with this stance.  Among those, starters in Urdu or starters to be, deserve more attention than the old-timers. It is the goal of spending forum-hours on both ends of exchange to have proper information. Since it was me who told a learner recently about the Urdu spelling of the word for ''thanks'', let me accentuate that in my opinion the mistake correction and additional information is in the interest of everyone. Of course, I wouldn't do it if Urdu was not the topic of discussion.

Regarding the Transliteration Chart which I prepared a couple of weeks ago, it is by no means to be taken as a prescription but as a guide in the prevailing transliteration methods which have existed in the forum long before I became an active member. Its purpose is to assist all users of the forum, especially newcomers in deciphering our proceedings.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> When someone writes in this forum, does n’t that person write in Standard English, Standard Hindi or Standard Urdu? (Or at least is n't he supposed to, according to the rules of the forum?)



Could you point out that Wordreference page for the pleasure of other foreros where such rules as you claim to exist are written?

Also, which standard English? Queen's? Australian? Canadian? Indian? South African? New Zealander? American? Which standard Hindi? You seem to be contradicting yourself again: you also said _"Despite the fact that Hindi does not have this clear concept"_. So, then, which standard? Pardon me, sire, Urdu would be in its dying throes if all people were to heed the likes of you, but, thankfully, English and Hindi don't have universal standards.



QURESHPOR said:


> सिंह is written siNh but pronounced siNgh.



Actually, you are wrong: it is very much pronounced "siNh". "siNgh" is pronounced only in surnames, which are written also in a different manner in Nagari. Also, we are not talking of Urdu or Hindi scripts: we are talking of transliteration.



QURESHPOR said:


> Now that the basics have been laid out,



If you are able to show me those rules and get this "siNh" business right, they are laid out. But if you are not able to, they are not, I guess. So most of us other foreros are waiting ... I know usually you vanish when you are in a fix, or marrish will respond for you, but we are still waiting.



QURESHPOR said:


> A number of Urdu speakers try as best as they can to mirror the Urdu system of writing into the Roman/Latin system as closely as possible. ...
> 
> 
> ... No one is *dictating* to Hindi speakers to follow this way of writing. Please write as you wish.



No one is asking Urdu speakers to mirror or not mirror whatever they want to, they can write howsoever they want to: but certain Urdu speakers _are dictating_ other speakers (and they need not be Hindi speakers; they can be speakers of any language of the world, including Urdu speakers) how to transliterate. You can forward your own transliteration ideas, you can suggest, you can advise when asked to, you can do whatever in your own posts: but certainly you cannot dictate others to transliterate only in the fashion you like. That is something unacceptable and _indeed_ contrary to the spirit of this forum (since you claim to be so versed with the rules of the forum...).



QURESHPOR said:


> The whole idea is to communicate.



So, you realised it finally? Yes, "shukriyaa", as written, is understood by all Urdu-knowing people, even though it does not have the "-ah" at the end. At least, marrish understood it when correcting: without understanding it, how did he correct?


----------



## greatbear

^ Here's the sentence from the rules which you seem to be milking, QP: "You may ask politely for context if it is needed for a suitable reply,  and you may kindly and politely correct a fellow member's deviations  from standard language in a post that otherwise addresses the thread  topic."

The concerned post (no. 13 here) though does not "otherwise address the thread topic," so it still falls foul of the rule; in addition, in the zeal to correct/dictate, it also asks the user to avoid a perfectly fine construction for a far more suspect construction (ke liye/kaa). (See for that discussion here.)


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Of course, I wouldn't do it if Urdu was not the topic of discussion.



In fact, Urdu is not the topic, and yet you did it! The thread is clearly and uniquely titled "Hindi": the user ("learner" according to you, though jakubisek has never declared his intentions to be such as far as I know) only asked for certain words - how they are spelt in Urdu (which anyway he should have been doing in a separate thread, since a separate question). That does not mean that everything he answers there onwards becomes the domain of Urdu: or if it does, then "fast" and "reply" must surely be Urdu words.


----------



## tonyspeed

Bottom line is Hindi is _mostly_ phonetic (exception being words like kahanaa and words where the inherent is dropped like sam(a)jhaa - SH and NR may not be pronounced by all, but it is technically the 'correct' way)  and Urdu is not phonetic, neither does it attempt to be. Two different philosophies on script.

And GB-saahib is correct. The animal is siNh/siNha, never siNgh.


----------



## marrish

> Originally Posted by *greatbear*
> [...]The concerned post (no. 13 here) though does not "otherwise address the thread topic," so it still falls foul of the rule; in addition, *in the zeal to correct/dictate, it also asks the user to avoid a perfectly fine construction for a far more suspect construction (ke liye/kaa).* (See for that discussion here.)



If a person asks a direct question about Urdu, albeit in a Hindi thread, it would be rude to ignore him. Good manners is a good quality to have.

Reference:


> Originally Posted by *jakubisek*
> [...]And how does Urdu spell lier, lawyer, coffee and kaafii ?





> Originally Posted by *marrish* [...]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.





> Originally Posted by *jakubisek*
> Fast reply ke liye shukriyaa [...]





> Originally Posted by *marrish*
> [...] And at least in Urdu, if you are interested, thanks is shukriyah. no long aa at the end. Also, in case you have an interest for modern languages, it is kaa shukriyah, not ''ke liye''.


This is not what a native speaker of Hindi has in mind.


> Originally Posted by *Chhaatr* TS jii IMHO in this context I would say 99 out of 100 people would say it this way. Only a few would say "aane ke liye shukriyaa".


----------



## greatbear

^ Kahe patthar se apnaa sir fodnaa!


----------



## marrish

I hope this discussion won't focus on _siNh_ which is hardly ever used for the animal and to the contrary, used over and over again as a name and pronounced _siNg(h)_!

So here is another one: ज्ञान. How is this word pronounced and how should it be transliterated?


----------



## tonyspeed

marrish said:


> I hope this discussion won't focus on _siNh_ which is hardly ever used for the animal and to the contrary, used over and over again as a name and pronounced _siNg(h)_!
> 
> So here is another one: ज्ञान. How is this word pronounced and how should it be transliterated?



In aam Hindi this is prononced gyaan. Some may pronounce it ganaan.
But it is really jNaan, where N is ञ.


----------



## greatbear

In Hindi, gyaan, and in Gujarati, gnyaan/gnaan (gives a clue about the original pronunciation, which is why I included it).

Meanwhile, "siNh" is very much used; and as I said earlier, the surname siNgh is also written differently.


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> [...] Have I been successful in removing the misunderstandings concerning the above matters?


No!  Alas, my sincere efforts have gone to waste!


greatbear said:


> Could you point out that Wordreference page for the pleasure of other foreros where such rules as you claim to exist are written?


It appears the author was desperate to find a flaw. Fortunately he managed to discover for himself the basis for my assertion and has consequently answered his own premature query. Other quotes from Forum's rules can be provided but there is no need at this stage.


greatbear said:


> ^ Here's the sentence from the rules which you seem to be milking, QP: "You may ask politely for context if it is needed for a suitable reply, and you may kindly and politely correct a fellow member's deviations from *standard language* in a post that otherwise addresses the thread topic."


Moving on to what is meant by “standard” language.


greatbear said:


> [...] Also, which standard English? Queen's? Australian? Canadian? Indian? South African? New Zealander? American? Which standard Hindi? You seem to be contradicting yourself again: you also said _"Despite the fact that Hindi does not have this clear concept"_. So, then, which standard? Pardon me, sire, Urdu would be in its dying throes if all people were to heed the likes of you, but, thankfully, English and Hindi don't have universal standards. [...]


One only need type in youtube “x TV News” where x is name of the country in question. Forum friends will see that the language is one and the same, namely “Standard English” whichever English speaking country it might be. As for Standard Hindi, it would be that language where the speaker/writer uses the correct grammar and has correct enunciation of the vowels and consonants. The following (ab)usage will most certainly not come under the category of “Standard Hindi”. I can quote numerous examples but the following should be sufficient to make my point.

“chaar vyakti bazaar jaa raheN haiN.”

“Main usse/usko jyaada/adhik pyaar karta hoon jitna ki tumse.” (This is supposedly a translation for “I love her more than I love you!)

"Jaise hi paadshah ne awaam ki fariiyaadeiN sunii, bawandar aa jayegaa"


greatbear said:


> [...] By the way, I am not sure if it should be "mulk/desh kii khaatir" or "mulk/desh ke khaatir" (both "desh" and "mulk" being masculine): both sound fine to me when I imagine them, but surely one must be wrong grammatically?


I shall leave it to those Hindi speakers who know their language to recognize the errors in the above quotations. Here are just a few examples of misuse of consonants: azeeb, maazraa, fal, fuuT, roj, jyaada. Further to above, a speaker who knows Standard Hindi would not display an embarrassing lack of understanding when translating the following sentence taken from Hindi literature.

महादेव प्रसाद सेठ साहूकार वंश में उत्पन्न हो व्यापारी गाधी पर बैठने पर भी फलों से लदे रसिक रसाल-जैसे थे अपने फल लुटाकर द्विजगण का कलरव श्रवण करना ही रुचता था।


greatbear said:


> [...]Actually, you are wrong: it is very much pronounced "siNh". "siNgh" is pronounced only in surnames, which are written also in a different manner in Nagari. Also, we are not talking of Urdu or Hindi scripts: we are talking of transliteration.


Hindi aside, it seems difficulties are being encountered even in the comprehension of straight forward plain English. The point which I was making was in answer to this question in section 2) of my post “Does the written language truly reflect the way one speaks?” Whether “सिंह” is pronounced correctly when it refers to a “lion” is neither here nor there. It is pronounced “siNgh” for a person’s name. The number of incidents one comes across the name as compared with the animal is going to be much greater. This “ground reality” has not been incorporated into the script because a script is not changed on a regular basis to adjust to the way some people speak. In Devanagri script a subscript dot is not placed under फ even though (allegedly) majority of Hindi speakers do not distinguish between फ and फ़. This was the point being made.


greatbear said:


> [...] So, you realised it finally? Yes, "shukriyaa", as written, is understood by all Urdu-knowing people, even though it does not have the "-ah" at the end. At least, marrish understood it when correcting: without understanding it, how did he correct?


A somewhat naive question. He understood it perfectly well because his knowledge of Hindi is better than most on the Forum. And that includes one or two of the so called “native” speakers. Forum members might wish to consult this thread with regard to this matter.

द्विजगण का कलरव श्रवण करना http://forum.wordreference.com/showt...=Thread+closed

Enough said! No “majak” ir indeed “mazakh” intended.

“And before casting aspersions on other people's dharohar even in parihaas (I am generous today, so I am giving you the Shuddh Hindi word for which you only knew the Arabic word), learn to speak proper Hindi: it's ma*zakh, not majak. If you speak raat, that's fine, but speaking z as j is horrible.”
*
http://forum.wordreference.com/showt...1#post11550581

If the issue of “context” is in question yet again, please click on the appropriate part of the quote to get to the full context.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> The following (ab)usage will most certainly not come under the category of “Standard Hindi”. I can quote numerous examples but the following should be sufficient to make my point.
> 
> *“chaar vyakti bazaar jaa raheN haiN.”*
> 
> “Main usse/usko jyaada/adhik pyaar karta hoon jitna ki tumse.” (This is supposedly a translation for “I love her more than I love you!)
> 
> "Jaise hi paadshah ne awaam ki fariiyaadeiN sunii, bawandar aa jayegaa"



What's wrong with the first quote (in bold)?


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> What's wrong with the first quote (in bold)?


Would you care to open a new thread with this sentence in mind?


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> One only need type in youtube “x TV News” where x is name of the country in question. Forum friends will see that the language is one and the same, namely “Standard English” whichever English speaking country it might be.



Whoa! This comment shows ignorance of the reality of English. Standard American English is vastly different from standard British English in both words, pronunciation and, occasionally, grammer as well.  And we won't begin to speak about Indian English which many Americans can't even understand...


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> A somewhat naive question. He understood it perfectly well because his knowledge of Hindi is better than most on the Forum. And that includes one or two of the so called “native” speakers. Forum members might wish to consult this thread with regard to this matter.



A native speaker, while not always prescriptively correct is a sea of vast knowledge that comes from experience and innate understanding of a language (as spoken by his/her family/peer group). 
One can learn rules of Hindi in books, but one cannot learn nuances and feelings from them.

In fact, even a native's "mistakes" can be enlightening about the said ground realities not found in books, whereas a book-learners mistakes are not enlightening at all.

Arguing sinha vs singh with a native Hindi speaker comes across a bit presumptuous to me, as if people can't tell the difference between a name and an animal.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Whoa! This comment shows ignorance of the reality of English. Standard American English is vastly different from standard British English in both words, pronunciation and, occasionally, grammer as well. And we won't begin to speak about Indian English which many Americans can't even understand...


Although this thread's focus is not on what is deemed to be Standard English but I shall reply to your post nevertheless. It would indeed be height of ignorance to expect no differences in pronunciation, minor differences in grammar and even small differences in vocabulary. If you were to read two Nobel prize winners William Golding (UK) and John Steinbeck (US) , you will see that both the writers are writing standard English.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> [...] Arguing sinha vs singh with a native Hindi speaker comes across a bit presumptuous to me, as if people can't tell the difference between a name and an animal.


I suggest that you read my posts once again so that you become aware of the reason for my bringing up this topic in the first place. It has nothing to do with native and non-native speech.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> If you were to read two Nobel prize winners William Golding (UK) and John Steinbeck (US) , you will see that both the writers are writing standard English.



Really? Is Faulkner writing the same English as Burns? And then, going to non-writers: is Rahul Dravid talking in the same English as Shane Warne? Is Alec Guinness talking in the same English as Will Smith? Height of ignorance parading itself!


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> A native speaker, while not always prescriptively correct is a sea of vast knowledge that comes from experience and innate understanding of a language (as spoken by his/her family/peer group). One can learn rules of Hindi in books, but one cannot learn nuances and feelings from them.
> 
> In fact, even a native's "mistakes" can be enlightening about the said ground realities not found in books, whereas a book-learners mistakes are not enlightening at all.


Let us see if the above is a genuine belief or whether it is just a transitory thought.


greatbear said:


> [...] As for the ऋ, many Hindi speakers _do_ pronounce it correctly, and even if not always correctly, they pronounce it differently from रि.[...]





tonyspeed said:


> [..] *And in any case, I prefer the renowned scholars to the opinion of someone off the street*. The renowned scholar has to back up his arguments because they are in print, and one is subject to ridicule from ones peers and all of India if one is wrong. *The man off the street can say anything he wants and relies on the power of the mob or on one's supposed "Indian-ness" as a touchstone but has done little if no research.* The scholar who writes the book has probably investigated the matter at the ground level from different perspectives and in different areas of India. *If one argues otherwise, then we might as well burn the books I suppose and all text message GB when we have a question.*





nineth said:


> [...] In fact, _greatbear_ asks you about statistics that prove your claim, while I actually say that such statistics are very difficult to find, *and the best and the most accurate information can be directly obtained from native speakers and those have interacted with them.* No study can provide more valuable data than a group of native speakers - let's say from different areas. [...] You have your facts wrong here just because of the simple reason that *I* say they are wrong, period. Wait for other Hindi speakers to confirm.





tonyspeed said:


> As you see, *I* say nothing. *I have been relying on "renowned authors" to give me my information before now. *When I get contradictory information from what is in print, I have to be cautious. I have not really paid attention with consistency before in my personal experience (but I will be sure to listen carefully from now on!). *I would believe the claim if more Hindi speakers confirm that have shown in the past to lack bias. But considering there are precious few on this board, I fear I may be waiting a long time.*


We should n't of course discard the possibility that the scholar/book writer could also be a "native" speaker of the language!


----------

