# Urdu-Hindi: Urdu/Hindi spelling conventions



## Qureshpor

Many moons back, while in the pursuit of learning Devanagri I managed to get to a stage where I could read a WHOLE page of a book without too much strain! However it came to me as a big surprise to learn that some words were spelt differently in the two scripts. The most obvious ones were "yih/vuh" which in Devanagri were written as "yah/vah" for the singular and "ye/ve" for the plural. Another difference that took me by surprise was the fact that words with a consonant 3ain following a short vowel were represented in Devanagri with the lengthening of the vowel, e.g ba3d (after)>> baad.

The purpose behind this thread is to invite everyone who may have an interest in this topic to come up with instances where the two conventions differ. This process, hopefully, could be beneficial for those forum members who know only Urdu or Devanagri. It could also be of interest to those forum members who might speak Urdu-Hindi but do not write it. There is of course also the possibility that even those who are familiar with both scripts may learn a thing or two from the contributions of participating members.

I have already mentioned yih/vuh vs yah/vah and ye/ve as well as ba3d/baad. I will mention one more thing and then let others come in with their suggestions.

shuruu3 in Devanagri is shuruu (I wonder how many people familiar with Devanagri are aware of this)

saHiiH in Devanagri is sahii. Just to clarify this point by way of a couple of examples.

aap kii baat saHiiH nahiiN hai. (Urdu) = aap kii baat sahii nahiiN hai. (in Devanagri)

In the following couplet, both Urdu and Devanagri "sahii" are identical.

tuu hai harjaa'ii to apnaa bhii yahii taur sahii
 tuu nahiiN aur sahii, aur nahiiN aur sahii

Amanat Lakhnavi


----------



## panjabigator

Very interesting thread, Qureshpor. Just an aside, but perhaps of interest to some: Punjabi (in the Gurumukhi script), on many occasions, does distinguish between 'ain and alif. The first example that comes to mind is the word "ba3d," which in Gurumukhi would be written babba, aiRaa, kanna, dadda. (Sorry. Unable to reinstall Devanagari and Gurumukhi on my computer for the moment).


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> Very interesting thread, Qureshpor. Just an aside, but perhaps of interest to some: Punjabi (in the Gurumukhi script), on many occasions, does distinguish between 'ain and alif. The first example that comes to mind is the word "ba3d," which in Gurumukhi would be written babba, aiRaa, kanna, dadda. (Sorry. Unable to reinstall Devanagari and Gurumukhi on my computer for the moment).




You mean *ਬਾਅਦ*? The transliteration of this word would be baaad!! Of course, I know that the implied pronunication is baa'ad.
Getting back to Urdu-Devanagri, I mentioned in my opening post that the short vowel+3ain in Urdu ends up being written as a long vowel in Devanagri, e,g. ba3d >> baad. I don't know if this statement is correct from a linguistic perspective. shi3r (couplet/poetry) is written as sher in Devanagri, which in turn becomes indistinguishable from sher/lion etc. I can't think of an easy everyday word where Urdu has u+3 combination apart from mu3tii (donor, as in a donor of funds etc) which, if written in Devanagri would be "motii" (as in pearl).


----------



## tonyspeed

I'm going to guess that vajah, jagah, subah, tarah may also be spelled differently. Would you happen to know for sure? Those 'h's seem suspicious. 
You have already mentioned words such as dunyaa in another thread.
We have also mentioned aam in another thread where the meaning is common and not mango.
And I also suspect baadshaah is yet another such word.
How about the particle "ki" meaning "that"?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I'm going to guess that vajah, jagah, subah, tarah may also be spelled differently. Would you happen to know for sure? Those 'h's seem suspicious.You have already mentioned words such as dunyaa in another thread. We have also mentioned aam in another thread where the meaning is common and not mango.And I also suspect baadshaah is yet another such word. How about the particle "ki" meaning "that"?




Tony, vajah is actually vajh but hardly anyone pronounces it in this manner. In poetry, it would have the same "vazn" as "sharm". jagah is as per Devanagri. But I am sure you are aware that some people pronounce it as "vajeh".

Now, subah is subH in reality (this H is not ordinarily distinguished fronm the "normal" h. But once again only careful speakers would pronounce it as subH in place of subaH. Same goes for tarH*. This H is the voiceless equivalent of the letter 3ain. In other words, just like a voiced Kh (x) becomes a Gh as in Gham, a voiced H, becomes an 3ain as in 3aam (ordinary). Talking about "3aam", other "3aam" everyday words with an 3ain are 3aadii (accustomed to), 3aadat, 3aashiq, 3ishq, 3iid, 3ajiib, 3izzat, 3aziiz, 3itr*, 3ilaaj, 3alii, 3ilm, 3umr, 3imaarat, 3imraan, 3iisaa, 3ilaaqah (region) etc.

baadshaah is as per Devanagri. 

We have been talking about "sanam" and "saabun" in recent threads. Someone only familiar with Devanagri is likely to think that the "s" in these words along with sanduuq, saaf, sabr, saaHib/saaHibah, saadiq, subH, sabr, saHraa (desert), siHHat (health), siHn (courtyard), saHiiH (true/correct), sirf, suraaHii (long necked flask), sifr (zero), sulH (peace), safaa'ii, sandal, suurat, suufii and the like would be the same "s" as "saaNp", "saag" etc. But this "s" is different (called svaad) although not distinguished from the "s" in saaNp in ordinary conversation.

Devanagri ki and na are kih and nah in Urdu.

* In these words, the "t" is not the "t" as in tel, teraa etc. It is called "toe". Some examples of this "t" are taaqat, tabii3at, taalib (seeker, as in taalib-i-3ilm [student]), taraf, tarH, tarz (style), taur, tariiqah, totaa, tuufaan, tai, tayyaarah (aeroplane) etc


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> * In these words, the "t" is not the "t" as in tel, teraa etc. It is called "toe". Some examples of this "t" are taaqat, tabii3at, taalib (seeker, as in taalib-i-3ilm [student]), taraf, tarH, tarz (style), taur, tariiqah, totaa, tuufaan, tai, tayyaarah (aeroplane) etc



This is interesting. Would you happen to know what the original tongue position for "toe" is in the original languages? I'm assuming that Urdu speakers still pronounce them as the dental 't' in 'tel' and 'teraa'.


----------



## Ghabi

QURESHPOR said:


> saHiiH in Devanagri is sahii.


Hello! Forgive my intrusion, but I wonder if सही and صحیح share the same etymology? Platts seems to suggest sahii is of Indic origin, instead of a clipped version of Sa7ii7.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> This is interesting. Would you happen to know what the original tongue position for "toe" is in the original languages? I'm assuming that Urdu speakers still pronounce them as the dental 't' in 'tel' and 'teraa'.



Yes, your assumption is correct. toe is one of the four "emphatic" consonants as far as Arabic goes. t as in tel/toe, s as in saaNp/svaad, zaal as in zikr (which in Classical Arabci has the th sound as in English that)/zoe (as in zulm) and d (as in daaNt)/zvaad. toe, zoe, svaad, zvaad are Urdu names of these consonants, not Arabic. As for how one should pronounce these letters, from what I have read in Arabic books, one needs to constrict one's tongue. I am sorry I am not very good at describing such details. This might be helpful.

http://arabic.tripod.com/Arab10.htm#Pronunciation


----------



## Qureshpor

Ghabi said:


> Hello! Forgive my intrusion, but I wonder if सही and صحیح share the same etymology? Platts seems to suggest sahii is of Indic origin, instead of a clipped version of Sa7ii7.




These are two seperate words. The Indic (KhaRii bolii) word is sahii, as in ...

nahiiN jaate to nah sahii, mujhe kuchh farq nahiiN paRtaa!

If you are not going, so be it; it makes no difference to me.

Another example...

bahut sahii Gham-i-dunyaa, magar udaas nah ho

There are many sorrows in the world, I accept, but do not be sad..

H سہي सही _sahī_ [prob. S. सत्यं; whence H. सई, q.v.],  emphat. part. Yea, verily, indeed, true enough, forsooth; just so; very well, so be it, let it be; just; pray; please; (often added to the particle _to_, e.g. _āʼo to sahī_, 'Just come then,' 'come if you dare';—_kholo to sahī_, 'Pray open,' '_do_ open').
The other is saHiiH.

do + do = paaNch, saHiiH? 

nahiiN, Ghalat!

A صحيح _ṣaḥīḥ_ (v.n. fr. صحّ 'to be healthy, or sound,' &c.),  adj. Healthy, sound, valid; perfect; whole, entire; substantial, real, true, genuine; pure; right, just, proper, correct, accurate, authentic, sure, certain;


----------



## Ghabi

Hi again, QP! Thanks so much for the explanation and lovely examples, but I'm a bit confused: in Hindi one would say "do + do = paaNch, sahii?", right? I mean, in Hindi सही (in the sense of "correct; right") is meant to represent sahii, not sahiih; सही and صحیح just stand for two different words, unlike the case of आम and عام, which stand for the same word. I might be completely mistaken, of course, but when I first learnt the word सही I thought it's from Arabic صحیح and found it strange that the final ح is omitted, but then I thought perhaps that's a different word altogether?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ghabi said:


> Hi again, QP! Thanks so much for the explanation and lovely examples, but I'm a bit confused: in Hindi one would say "do + do = paaNch, sahii?", right? I mean, in Hindi सही (in the sense of "correct; right") is meant to represent sahii, not sahiih; सही and صحیح just stand for two different words, unlike the case of आम and عام, which stand for the same word. I might be completely mistaken, of course, but when I first learnt the word सही I thought it's from Arabic صحیح and found it strange that the final ح is omitted, but then I thought perhaps that's a different word altogether?




सही and صحیح are two different words with different meanings as I have already explained. However, they are both written as सही in Devanagri.

आम and عام are also two different words. The first one is a mango and the second means "ordinary". Once again in Devanagri, they are both written as आम. Mango in Urdu is آم .

(In Devanagri शेर is both lion and a couplet. In Urdu, the former is شیر and the latter شعر ).


----------



## Ghabi

I must have phrased my question awkwardly, and I apologize for that.  sahii سہی and sahiih صحیح are two different words with two different  written forms in Urdu, all right, but how can we know that it's not a  translation (instead of a transliteration) when صحیح appears as सही in a  corresponding Hindi text? Do we have other examples where a word-final ح  disappear in Hindi? صلاح and صبح appear as सलाह and सुबह in Hindi after all, with the final ح preserved. Or have I missed something?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ghabi said:


> I must have phrased my question awkwardly, and I apologize for that. sahii سہی and sahiih صحیح are two different words with two different written forms in Urdu, all right, but how can we know that it's not a translation (instead of a transliteration) when صحیح appears as सही in a corresponding Hindi text? Do we have other examples where a word-final ح disappear in Hindi? صلاح and صبح appear as सलाह and सुबह in Hindi after all, with the final ح preserved. Or have I missed something?





I think I follow your drift. sahii and saHiiH are two different words in Urdu with two different meanings. For these two distinct meanings Devanagri employs the same word “sahii” but of course context points to the intended meaning. I think words like shuruu3 and saHiiH are written as shuruu and sahii because for Hindi speakers and writers the final 3 and H are not “perceived” in hearing. For subH and salaaH, it is obvious that Hindi speakers do perceive the presence of an “h”. Sahii in Devanagri is NOT a translation of saHiiH! It is a mere coincidence that within the repertoire of “sahii”, Platts includes one of the meanings (true enough) to appear identical with one of the the meaning of saHiiH (true).

My “hunch” above does fall flat however! For riiH kaa dard, I do believe in Devanagri it is written as “riih kaa dard”.


----------



## Qureshpor

There is a category of words which in Devanagri have two aspirates in close proximity whereas in Urdu, one of them has "dropped off":

e.g. jhuuTh >> jhuuT
      dhokhaa >> dhokaa
      bhuukh >> bhuuk
      bhiikh >> bhiik

One could add khambhaa >> khambaa
                    paudhaa >> paudaa
                    hoNTh >>    hoNT

Besides the above, the verbal nouns in Urdu are written with an "O" ending whereas in Devanagri they end in a "V".

jhukaa'o (Urdu) >> jhukaav (Devanagri)
banaa'o >> banaav
lagaa'o >> lagaav etc
.......................................

gaa'e (cow and he/she/it sings) >>> gaay (cow)
chaa'e (tea) >> chaay
naa'o (boat) >> naav
.........................................

gaa'oN (village) >> gaaNv
paa'oN (foot)   >> paaNv
chhaa'oN (shade) >> chhaNv

This particular category of words was spelt the same way as Devanagri in older books.

As has been mentioned in "kamraa vs kamrah" thread, words that end in -ah in Urdu (of Arabic and Persian origins) are written with -aa in Devanagri.

mazah >> mazaa
gilah   >> gilaa
qabiilah >> qabiilaa
mu3aamalah >> maamlaa (?)

Enough for this post for the time being!


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> Besides the above, the verbal nouns in Urdu are written with an "O" ending whereas in Devanagri they end in a "V".
> 
> jhukaa'o (Urdu) >> jhukaav (Devanagri)
> banaa'o >> banaav
> lagaa'o >> lagaav etc



Very very interesting. How about dabaav? Is that dabaao in Nastaliq?


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Very very interesting. How about dabaav? Is that dabaao in Nastaliq?




Yes it is. And "Nastaliq" is "nasta3liiq" )). As I have indicated in another thread, "Nastaliq" is just one of the many styles of Urdu script.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Very very interesting. How about dabaav? Is that dabaao in Nastaliq?




Tony, I don't know if you have any interest in Urdu or Hindi poetry, but here is a Ghazal by Altaf Hussain Hali 1837-1914 (a shaagird of Ghalib), which allows the nouns and the verbs to rhyme. I shall mark the verbal nouns in blue.

dil ko kis tarH samajhiye kih vahii hai yih dil 
 vuh ummiideN haiN nah armaaN vuh umaNgeN haiN nah chaa'o 


yaar ko yaar samajhtaa hai nah tuu Ghair ko Ghair 
 tuu to achchhaa hai magar tere bure haiN bartaa'o


----------



## marrish

Another feature is that the marker of the future tense -gaa, -gii, -ge is written as an inherent part of the verb in Hindi, while in Urdu mostly not so. 
kare gaa << karegaa


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Another feature is that the marker of the future tense -gaa, -gii, -ge is written as an inherent part of the verb in Hindi, while in Urdu mostly not so.
> kare gaa << karegaa



Thank you, marrish saaHib for reigniting this thread.

The consonat "r" is represented in various ways in Devanagri, depending on its position in the word, e.g. रात, कुर्सी, पत्र. Also, the retroflex consonants as shown in the following two words ऋषि, कृष्ण   are not normally indicated in the Urdu script.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you, marrish saaHib for reigniting this thread.
> 
> The consonat "r" is represented in various ways in Devanagri, depending on its position in the word, e.g. रात, कुर्सी, पत्र. Also, the retroflex consonants as shown in the following two words ऋषि, कृष्ण   are not normally indicated in the Urdu script.


Your are most welcome! I hope this thread will keep on flickering! 

Indeed, it's a remarkable feature of this wandering Devanagari consonant "r". But, according to my source, the latter one is described as a vowel, not as a consonant. I am sure it doesn't exist in Urdu, nor in Prakrit. This one is a purely Sanskrit peculiarity, and visible in Hindi in the Sanskrit borrowings. I'm curious whether it's pronounced differently in Hindi these days than the consonant.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Your are most welcome! I hope this thread will keep on flickering!
> 
> Indeed, it's a remarkable feature of this wandering Devanagari consonant "r". But, according to my source, the latter one is described as a vowel, not as a consonant. I am sure it doesn't exist in Urdu, nor in Prakrit. This one is a purely Sanskrit peculiarity, and visible in Hindi in the Sanskrit borrowings. I'm curious whether it's pronounced differently in Hindi these days than the consonant.



Yes, I am aware of this and rishi and krishNRa were meant to show two retroflex consonats and not "r". "r" is there in raat, kursii and patra. I shall leave your other queries to the experts.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Yes, I am aware of this and rishi and krishNRa were meant to show two retroflex consonats and not "r". "r" is there in raat, kursii and patra. I shall leave your other queries to the experts.


My apologies! I got things mixed up. 
Regarding SH and NR, my opinion is that these sounds don't make part of Urdu as well; who knows maybe they did before? 

I'm grateful to the experts in advance for bothering to answer my query regarding the pronunciation of 'r'.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> My apologies! I got things mixed up.
> Regarding SH and NR, my opinion is that these sounds don't make part of Urdu as well; who knows maybe they did before?
> 
> I'm grateful to the experts in advance for bothering to answer my query regarding the pronunciation of 'r'.




SH and NR have fallen off the edge, somewhere along the timeline. I don't know if they exist in the Prakrits (e.g KhaRii-bolii).

You know that the retroflex consonants in Urdu are represented with a little "toe" on top. Before some genius like me )) came up with the "toe", four dots were in use for the same thing! In Shahmukhi, the NR is often depicted with a toe on a nuun. Same can be done by planting a toe on a shiin, if necessary.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> SH and NR have fallen offen the edge, somewhere along the timeline. I don't know if they exist in the Prakrits (e.g KhaRii-bolii).
> 
> You know that the retroflex consonants in Urdu are represented with a little "toe" on top. Before some genius like me )) came up with the "toe", four dots were in use for the same thing! In Shahmukhi, the NR is often depicted with a toe on a nuun. Same can be done by planting a toe on a shiin, if necessary.


That genius got a huge following, and his/her invention got canonized subsequently. I wish your suggestions/opinions/inventions go on to be recognized and widely acclaimed, too )). And here is another example of the evolution of retroflex SH: bhaaShaa ---> bhaak(h)aa. 

Regarding Punjabi NR, I encountered two dots placed vertically, which could avoid misunderstandings in the occurrences in the medial and initial forms. It may, though, get confused with the humble te. Still different way of writing employs a little circle and I think with that there is no ambiguity left. Which one you prefer?

I find planting a toe on top of shiin a brilliant solution (if necessary, as you remarked). 

On the other hand, the Pashto solution for 'retroflexiveness' is a nice one.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Regarding Punjabi NR, I encountered two dots placed vertically, which could avoid misunderstandings in the occurrences in the medial and initial forms. It may, though, get confused with the humble te. Still different way of writing employs a little circle and I think with that there is no ambiguity left. Which one you prefer?
> 
> I have to confess that I have not come across these innovations. It is a sad state of affairs but I have not read all that much of Punjabi literature.
> 
> On the other hand, the Pashto solution for 'retroflexiveness' is a nice one.
> 
> I will have to plead ignorance once again!


----------



## marrish

I shall try to elaborate on this later, filwaqt mujhe roTii khaanaa hai!


----------



## marrish

I don't know how to place some examples, since there is no Unicode representation for these solutions, I'm afraid. I saw it in some hand-written editions of Punjabi short stories (sorry, I can't provide any reference for two vertical dots above). The small circle is like a sukuun on top of the base for nuun. This you may consult under http://www.gurbanifiles.org/shahmukhi/Shahmukhi SGGS, combined.pdf, for example.

In Pashto a small circle is glued under the letter to express 'retroflexiveness', also in the case of NR, which is used and written.

Nowadays, I have a feeling only ڻ is recognized by Unicode, but is hardly ever used in Punjabi script. So a dental nuun is mostly written, and this adds to the ambiguity. A pity! I think it's a topic for a separate thread. Unfortunately, my access to Shakhmukhi literature is nihil at the moment.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I don't know how to place some examples, since there is no Unicode representation for these solutions, I'm afraid. I saw it in some hand-written editions of Punjabi short stories (sorry, I can't provide any reference for two vertical dots above). The small circle is like a sukuun on top of the base for nuun. This you may consult under http://www.gurbanifiles.org/shahmukhi/Shahmukhi SGGS, combined.pdf, for example.
> 
> In Pashto a small circle is glued under the letter to express 'retroflexiveness', also in the case of NR, which is used and written.
> 
> Nowadays, I have a feeling only ڻ is recognized by Unicode, but is hardly ever used in Punjabi script. So a dental nuun is mostly written, and this adds to the ambiguity. A pity! I think it's a topic for a separate thread. Unfortunately, my access to Shakhmukhi literature is nihil at the moment.



Thank you. I shall look at the link in detail, time permitting. If I were given a little time and a few cups of tea, I could re-design "Shahmukhi" that would reflect Punjabi sounds accurately! (You can see that I am not a very demanding person!)


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you. I shall look at the link in detail, time permitting. If I were given a little time and a few cups of tea, I could re-design "Shahmukhi" that would reflect Punjabi sounds accurately! (You can see that I am not a very demanding person!)


Your welcome. I wish I had more time and resources to consult Punjabi written sources from the pre-computer era to see how the writers, having tea and time in abundance, had dealt with it.

ڻ with a little toe, admitted, seems nice and consequent, but tell me, please, how would you distinguish it from ٹ in the medial position?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Your welcome. I wish I had more time and resources to consult Punjabi written sources from the pre-computer era to see how the writers, having tea and time in abundance, had dealt with it.
> 
> ڻ with a little toe, admitted, seems nice and consequent, but tell me, please, how would you distinguish it from ٹ in the medial position?




yih bhii ko'ii puuchhne kii baat hai, bhaa'ii? dekhiye janaab, aap ne is 3alaamat se nuqtah jo giraa diyaa hai to aise savaal aap ke zihn meN uTheN ge nahiiN to aur kyaa ho gaa?


----------



## marrish

Just a rhetorical question. Phir to jahaaN tak maiN samjhaa, aap kii raa'e meN nuqte ko rakh kar toe ki nishanii usii ke uupar likhnaa chaahiye? This would solve the problem! Have you had some tea?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Just a rhetorical question. Phir to jahaaN tak maiN samjhaa, aap kii raa'e meN nuqte ko rakh kar toe ki nishanii usii ke uupar likhnaa chaahiye? This would solve the problem! Have you had some tea?



Yes! Yes!


----------



## marrish

Here one more instance of a different spelling convention (courtesy of Gabbar S.): 

Urdu: سنگھ singh
Hindi: सिंह siNh


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Here one more instance of a different spelling convention (courtesy of Gabbar S.):
> 
> Urdu: سنگھ singh
> Hindi: सिंह siNh




Yes, but in Urdu we use the do-chashmii he but I concede that you would have had difficulty with the Google Transliteration.

Interestingly, my father never pronounced this word as "Singh" but "सिंह". I don't know how to transliterate this.


----------



## Illuminatus

Ah, र v/s ऋ issue is a pet issue of mine, and so is the श v/s ष one. I'm already rubbing my hands in glee!

Like last time, there will be technical phonetic descriptors for sounds, but they will be in addition to commonly used symbols. I would suggest to all forum members that they try to become familiar with the IPA, if they haven't already. It helps a lot when discussing these issues in a technical vein (and even otherwise).

Let me first talk about the श and ष, classified in Sanskrit phonology as तालव्य and मूर्धन्य respectively.

The Sanskrit phonemic inventory had four fricative sounds (श, ष, स, ह), the _voiceless postalveolar fricative_ (ʃ), the _voiceless retroflex fricative_ (ʂ), the _voiceless alveolar fricative_ (s) and the _voiceless glottal fricative_ (h). 

Hindi carries forward more or less the same inventory, except that the retroflex fricative, ष, has more or less merged with the postalveolar one, श, such that both are now pronounced like the _sh_ in the English word ship. I say _more or less_ because virtually no speaker, at least in the regions I have grown up in and stay in now (Rajasthan, MP, Maharashtra) differentiates b/w these sounds. Yet I do hear claims from people that they do so and that they are aware of the difference. For the most part, they are simply imagining it. The most blatant proof of the fact that the difference is not phonemic in Hindi is that kids learn where to use which by referring to them as शलजम वाला श and षटकोण वाला ष (पेट-कटा ष), something that should otherwise have been unnecessarily in a (almost) phonetic script like Devanagari. This is similar to remembering which words have _te ت_ and which words have _toe ط _in Urdu. There is NO difference in sound, at least nowadays. It's an orthographic convention that is being carried forward. A few people do maintain the distinction in a few words, but as a whole, we can safely say that the two have merged. Amen.

Depending on where you draw the line between Hindi/Hindustani/Urdu, you can also say that the sounds ف and ز, the _voiceless labio-dental fricative _(f) and the _voiced alveolar fricative_ (z) have entered into the phonetic inventories of a lot of Hindi speakers now, and many make the distinction very clearly. Depending on where they have grown up, you can also expect some speakers to also speak غ ,خ and ق, the _voiceless velar fricative _(x), _voiced velar (sometimes uvular) fricative_ (ɣ) and the _voiceless uvular stop_ (q) respectively. This is especially true of people raised in Muslim families, Urdu speaking areas and trained actors and singers. When I speak, I always maintain 
the first set of distinctions, while I choose to maintain the second set depending on my listener.

Will post about the र v/s ऋ issue in a while.


----------



## Illuminatus

The previous post was getting long, so the second issue—र v/s ऋ—will be dealt with here.

Incidentally, I've already written a detailed explanation of this on my blog Linguistrix. You may either check it out there itself (there are further inputs in the comments). I am also posting it here.

Anyhow, rants aside, this post is about a particular letter of Hindi that has often been a point of contention and a source of a debate. That letter is ऋ. As in the word ऋषभ or कृषि or आकृति. You may have observed that most speakers of Hindi pronounce ऋ as essentially रि [rɪ] thus pronouncing the words I mentioned as रिषभ, क्रिषि and आक्रिति respectively while speakers of Marathi and Gujarati pronounce it as रु [rʊ] thus saying रुषभ, क्रुषि and आक्रुती. It is a completely different matter that most Hindi speakers do not pronounce ष in the first place. They use the same sound for ष and श, roughly the voiceless post-alveolar fricative, which also explains why most of us spent a lot of sweat and blood in memorizing when a word had श and when it had ष—there were no phonetic clues to differentiate between what was essentially a spelling distinction.

But I digress. Let’s get back to the slippery ऋ business. Quite a few Marathi speakers believe that their pronunciation is more superior or more-correct, so to speak, compared to the Hindi counterpart. This is of course hokum—a community can choose whatever pronunciation it wants for ऋ. But out of academic interest, I tried to investigate the situation.
Let’s try to look at what ऋ really is. ऋ is usually called a syllabic consonant, meaning that it acts as the nucleus of a syllable. To understand it better, look at the word _button_ (click here and listen to the pronunciation). You’d notice that there is no audible vowel sound after [t]. This doesn’t work if you pronounce it with an Indian accent, so check out the pronunciation I have given the link to. Despite there being no vowel sound after [t], you get the feeling that the word has two syllables. That’s because the [n] sound here acts like a syllabic consonant, that is, it is the nucleus of the second syllable [tn]. We usually associate syllables with vowels, so it seems weird to see a consonant making a syllable, but it’s perfectly normal—syllables are usually interpreted based on peaks of sonority, and sufficiently sonorous sounds like [m, n, r, l] can also act as syllable nuclei. Look at the pronunciation of the word _bottle_, for instance. Here [l] is acting like a syllabic consonant.
Let’s put this into perspective. ऋ is supposed to be a syllabic consonant, so it won’t have a vowel with it and, going by the definition, that rules out both variants [rʊ, rɪ]. As a community, speakers of Marathi have chosen one way of representing this sound, while Hindi speakers have chosen another.

What does ऋ sound like? I have never heard Vedic Sanskrit spoken by a native speaker, but thankfully, we have modern languages that routinely use syllabic consonants. Czech has a tongue twister _Strč prst skrz krk_ that has no vowels—just four syllables with _r _in a syllabic role. Click here for the pronunciation of this sentence by a native speaker. Here’s another video of a guy explaining the tongue twister.

What’s the bottom line? That it’s perfectly OK to call ऋ either रु or रि; neither pronunciation probably matches the pronunciation of ऋ in Vedic Sanskrit anyhow. It does’t matter either way. And there is really no point in calling one pronunciation superior to the other.


----------



## Qureshpor

Illuminatus said:


> Ah, र v/s ऋ issue is a pet issue of mine, and so is the श v/s ष one. I'm already rubbing my hands in glee!
> 
> Like last time, there will be technical phonetic descriptors for sounds, but they will be in addition to commonly used symbols. I would suggest to all forum members that they try to become familiar with the IPA, if they haven't already. It helps a lot when discussing these issues in a technical vein (and even otherwise).
> 
> Let me first talk about the श and ष, classified in Sanskrit phonology as तालव्य and मूर्धन्य respectively.
> 
> The Sanskrit phonemic inventory had four fricative sounds (श, ष, स, ह), the _voiceless postalveolar fricative_ (ʃ), the _voiceless retroflex fricative_ (ʂ), the _voiceless alveolar fricative_ (s) and the _voiceless glottal fricative_ (h).
> 
> Hindi carries forward more or less the same inventory, except that the retroflex fricative, ष, has more or less merged with the postalveolar one, श, such that both are now pronounced like the _sh_ in the English word ship. I say _more or less_ because virtually no speaker, at least in the regions I have grown up in and stay in now (Rajasthan, MP, Maharashtra) differentiates b/w these sounds. Yet I do hear claims from people that they do so and that they are aware of the difference. For the most part, they are simply imagining it. The most blatant proof of the fact that the difference is not phonemic in Hindi is that kids learn where to use which by referring to them as शलजम वाला श and षटकोण वाला ष (पेट-कटा ष), something that should otherwise have been unnecessarily in a (almost) phonetic script like Devanagari. This is similar to remembering which words have _te ت_ and which words have _toe ط _in Urdu. There is NO difference in sound, at least nowadays. It's an orthographic convention that is being carried forward. A few people do maintain the distinction in a few words, but as a whole, we can safely say that the two have merged. Amen.
> 
> Thank you for all your time and effort for this and the subsequent post. Both very informative and this is very much appreciated. I have one resevation though! After all the effort I have put in trying to learn the true pronunciation of ष, you are saying I need not have bothered because hardly anyone pronounces it correctly!
> 
> Depending on where you draw the line between Hindi/Hindustani/Urdu, you can also say that the sounds ف and ز, the _voiceless labio-dental fricative _(f) and the _voiced alveolar fricative_ (z) have entered into the phonetic inventories of a lot of Hindi speakers now, and many make the distinction very clearly. Depending on where they have grown up, you can also expect some speakers to also speak غ ,خ and ق, the _voiceless velar fricative _(x), _voiced velar (sometimes uvular) fricative_ (ɣ) and the _voiceless uvular stop_ (q) respectively.
> 
> Amen for this!!
> 
> This is especially true of people raised in Muslim families, Urdu speaking areas and trained actors and singers. When I speak, I always maintain the first set of distinctions, while I choose to maintain the second set depending on my listener.
> 
> I often wondered how it is that even modern day singers can pronounce x and ɣ, yet the modern "Umrao Jaan" has n't got a clue! She is possibly one of many who don't have the necessary training (?).
> 
> Will post about the र v/s ऋ issue in a while.


----------



## Qureshpor

Illuminatus said:


> What’s the bottom line? That it’s perfectly OK to call ऋ either रु or रि; neither pronunciation probably matches the pronunciation of ऋ in Vedic Sanskrit anyhow. It does’t matter either way. And there is really no point in calling one pronunciation superior to the other.



I shall have to read this post at least once again to get my head round it. However, thank you once again for your hard work. I have a number of questions about a few of the vowels and consonants represented by Devanagri but I shall post them in seperate threads. Hopefully you and others would pour out your words of wisdom!


----------



## Illuminatus

Being able to pronounce these sounds is an important aspect of their voice training. I have heard even Shaan pronouncing the ghain in ghuroor.


----------



## tonyspeed

Illuminatus said:


> What’s the  bottom line? That it’s perfectly OK to call ऋ either रु or रि; neither  pronunciation probably matches the pronunciation of ऋ in Vedic Sanskrit  anyhow. It does’t matter either way. And there is really no point in  calling one pronunciation superior to the other.



My main problem with the ri vs ru scenario is that we create standards so there will not be confusion.
In standard Hindi, the pronunciation is ri. In standard Gujurati and Marathi and many South Indian Languages, the standard pronunciation is ru. Therefore, it seems common sense
to me to pronounce it as RI when speaking Hindi and to pronounce it as RU when speaking other langauges! There is no need to impose one's mother-tongue pronunciation on Hindi.


----------



## Illuminatus

I doubt it is there in Mandarin. Do you have any source? 

The syllabic r is definitely there is a few Slavic languages, including Czech, whose example I've given in my post. 

Mandarin does have some instances of what have been called syllabic fricatives, though.


----------



## tonyspeed

Illuminatus said:


> I doubt it is there in Mandarin. Do you have any source?
> 
> The syllabic r is definitely there is a few Slavic languages, including Czech, whose example I've given in my post.
> 
> Mandarin does have some instances of what have been called syllabic fricatives, though.



It is from Wikipedia - how accurate it is will therefore be debatable: 

"R-colored vowel
In phonetics, vocalic r refers to the phenomenon of a rhotic segment such as [r] or [ɹ] occurring as the syllable nucleus. This is a feature of a number of Slavic languages such as Czech, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian, as well as some western Bulgarian and eastern Slovene (Stirian) dialects. It also appears in languages like English and Mandarin Chinese, where it occurs as an r-colored vowel, a vowel whose distinctive feature is a low third formant."




Here is a post I found on the way currently it is supposed to be pronounced in Sanskrit (though still not the original probably):

"*‘ऋ’ का दोषपूर्ण उच्चारण*
ऐसा लगता है कि ‘ऋ’ की सही ध्वनि से अधिकांश लोग अपरिचित हैं। ‘ऋ’ न तो  ‘रु’ है और न ही ‘रि’, जैसा कई लोग समझते हैं। दरअसल ‘ऋ’ का सही उच्चारण  ‘र्’ (आधा ‘र’) होता है। जैसे कि ऋतु का उच्चारण होगा र्+तु (Rtu), न कि  रितु

 (Ritu)। अगर आप अभी ऋ नहीं बोल पा रहे हैं, तो थोड़े-से अभ्यास से बोलने  लगेंगे। ठीक इसी तरह हम लोग प्राय: ‘ृ’ भी सही नहीं बोलते हैं; जैसे कि  कृष्ण में, तृष्णा में आदि। ‘ृ’ का उच्चारण ‘ऋ’ से ही जुड़ा हुआ है। उदाहरण  के तौर पर कृष्ण बोलने का सही तरीक़ा है क्+र्+ष्ण (Krshna), न कि क्रिष्ण  (Krishna)। अब आप लोगों को ‘क्र’ और ‘कृ’ में शंका हो सकती है। इसलिये  समझें, क्र=क्+र (Kra) और कृ=क्+र् (Kr)। चकरा गए न, वाक़ई थोड़ा मुश्किल  तो शरू-शुरू में मेरे लिए भी था।"


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Yes, but in Urdu we use the do-chashmii he but I concede that you would have had difficulty with the Google Transliteration.
> 
> Interestingly, my father never pronounced this word as "Singh" but "सिंह". I don't know how to transliterate this.


سنگھ is written indeed with the _do-chashmii he_; thank you for understanding. Actually I was sure there was a _do-chashmi he_ when I typed this word (without Google's support, to be frank) but surprisingly enough, it doesn't show correctly. Now I see that if you type it correctly and paste it here in the post by default font (arial), then it displays like in the previous post. I had to change the font, and, yes! It's correct now.

But the point is about different spelling convention between the Urdu and Hindi scripts, anyway.

As to the pronunciation (let's agree pronunciation does not always go paired with the spelling convention), the word [singh] is never pronounced as such in Hindi, Urdu or Punjabi. 


In Hindi it's precisely what is written (I have written the transliteration with the Hindi one in the previous post, with N representing a nasalization of the preceding vowel, see Sanskrit _siṃha_) OR



its pronunciation follows the pattern of Punjabi:

In Punjabi it's never pronounced as it's written as Punjabi doesn't know an aspirated g. The aspiration employed in script expresses the tonal value in speech, but by no means an aspiration! So it's *siNg*, with a rising tone; the N here stands for a nasal sound *ŋ*;


In Urdu, the script does neither do justice to the pronunciation, as the pronunciation varies from the option 1 and 2 (same like Hindi), though maybe without the rising tone, let's say (same like Hindi).


----------



## marrish

Illuminatus said:


> The previous post was getting long, so the second issue—र v/s ऋ—will be dealt with here.
> 
> Incidentally, I've already written a detailed explanation of this on my blog Linguistrix. You may either check it out there itself (there are further inputs in the comments). I am also posting it here.
> 
> Anyhow, rants aside, this post is about a particular letter of Hindi that has often been a point of contention and a source of a debate. That letter is ऋ. As in the word ऋषभ or कृषि or आकृति. You may have observed that most speakers of Hindi pronounce ऋ as essentially रि [rɪ] thus pronouncing the words I mentioned as रिषभ, क्रिषि and आक्रिति respectively while speakers of Marathi and Gujarati pronounce it as रु [rʊ] thus saying रुषभ, क्रुषि and आक्रुती. It is a completely different matter that most Hindi speakers do not pronounce ष in the first place. They use the same sound for ष and श, roughly the voiceless post-alveolar fricative, which also explains why most of us spent a lot of sweat and blood in memorizing when a word had श and when it had ष—there were no phonetic clues to differentiate between what was essentially a spelling distinction.
> 
> But I digress. Let’s get back to the slippery ऋ business. Quite a few Marathi speakers believe that their pronunciation is more superior or more-correct, so to speak, compared to the Hindi counterpart. This is of course hokum—a community can choose whatever pronunciation it wants for ऋ. But out of academic interest, I tried to investigate the situation.
> Let’s try to look at what ऋ really is. ऋ is usually called a syllabic consonant, meaning that it acts as the nucleus of a syllable. To understand it better, look at the word _button_ (click here and listen to the pronunciation). You’d notice that there is no audible vowel sound after [t]. This doesn’t work if you pronounce it with an Indian accent, so check out the pronunciation I have given the link to. Despite there being no vowel sound after [t], you get the feeling that the word has two syllables. That’s because the [n] sound here acts like a syllabic consonant, that is, it is the nucleus of the second syllable [tn]. We usually associate syllables with vowels, so it seems weird to see a consonant making a syllable, but it’s perfectly normal—syllables are usually interpreted based on peaks of sonority, and sufficiently sonorous sounds like [m, n, r, l] can also act as syllable nuclei. Look at the pronunciation of the word _bottle_, for instance. Here [l] is acting like a syllabic consonant.
> Let’s put this into perspective. ऋ is supposed to be a syllabic consonant, so it won’t have a vowel with it and, going by the definition, that rules out both variants [rʊ, rɪ]. As a community, speakers of Marathi have chosen one way of representing this sound, while Hindi speakers have chosen another.
> 
> What does ऋ sound like? I have never heard Vedic Sanskrit spoken by a native speaker, but thankfully, we have modern languages that routinely use syllabic consonants. Czech has a tongue twister _Strč prst skrz krk_ that has no vowels—just four syllables with _r _in a syllabic role. Click here for the pronunciation of this sentence by a native speaker. Here’s another video of a guy explaining the tongue twister.
> 
> What’s the bottom line? That it’s perfectly OK to call ऋ either रु or रि; neither pronunciation probably matches the pronunciation of ऋ in Vedic Sanskrit anyhow. It does’t matter either way. And there is really no point in calling one pronunciation superior to the other.





Thanks for the expertly answer, it's much appreciated. I'm sure, though that *it merits a separate thread*, together with other sounds which have, according to you, fallen out of use, or assimilated to easier-perceived sounds.


----------



## Qureshpor

Illuminatus said:


> The previous post was getting long, so the second issue—र v/s ऋ—will be dealt with here.



I presume your arguments apply equally to the lengthened vowel ॠ? Can you please provide some examples of words where this is used.


----------



## Qureshpor

And Illuminatus SaaHib, whilst you are at it )) could you please enlighten us about ॡ and its longer counterpart. Thanks.


----------



## Madheshi

Amazing thread, just the one i was always thinking about since i learnt some urdu writing.., Well to me Urdu appears to preserve whatever persian has, while hindi feels it should promote sanskrit version of the words. Someone in this thread says that श ष स are indistinguishable, but thats wrong. People who constructed "devanagiri" system were pretty much expert linguists of those times. The present phonetic classification was to some degree already being followed 1000 years ago in languages close to devanagiri script following languages. If common people aren't able to differentiate between those 3 "sa" then its their fault (or tongue), but i can pronounce as well as hear the difference. Urdu/English have no equivalents of ष, ण . at least. While "Qh", "za" "zha" etc are not natural to devanagiri.


----------



## Madheshi

Pronunciation of many hindi words is very strange to proper bhojpuri speakers. As to my best knowledge "devanagiri" is all about "What u hear is what u write", which means ideally there is no "silent" letter in devanagiri as in English, While in Urdu u need to pronounce even the sounds that aren't actually written in the nastaliq sentence (surely it tedious to write all the vowels properly).
Qureshpor
if u know devanagiri and nastaliq, could u tell me ur views on this :
कहना should be pronounced as "kehna" or "ka-ha-na" ?
if "kehna" is कहना , then how should "kahna" be written ?
is the "bihari" pronunciation correct ? or are everybody else incorrect ?


----------



## Madheshi

marrish said:


> Here one more instance of a different spelling convention (courtesy of Gabbar S.):
> 
> Urdu: سنگھ singh
> Hindi: सिंह siNh


How would u differentiate "sangh" & "singh" written in urdu ?


----------



## marrish

Madheshi said:


> How would u differentiate "sangh" & "singh" written in urdu ?


I would write it with a '_zer'_ diacritical symbol under the _'siin'_ letter for _singh_ and with a _'zabar'_ diacritical symbol above the letter _'siin'_ for _'sangh'_. However, the word _'sangh'_ does not exist in Urdu.


----------



## tonyspeed

Madheshi said:


> कहना should be pronounced as "kehna" or "ka-ha-na" ?
> if "kehna" is कहना , then how should "kahna" be written ?
> is the "bihari" pronunciation correct ? or are everybody else incorrect ?



I know this was directed towards QP, but if I may chime in, I would say it is impossible to write a word that is pronounced ka-ha-naa in standard Hindi/Urdu.
 Bhojpuri has its own system of phonetics which is separate from standard Hindi.


----------



## Illuminatus

Madheshi said:


> Someone in this thread says that श ष स are indistinguishable, but thats wrong. People who constructed "devanagiri" system were pretty much expert linguists of those times. The present phonetic classification was to some degree already being followed 1000 years ago in languages close to devanagiri script following languages. If common people aren't able to differentiate between those 3 "sa" then its their fault (or tongue), but i can pronounce as well as hear the difference. Urdu/English have no equivalents of ष, ण . at least. While "Qh", "za" "zha" etc are not natural to devanagiri.



First off, I didn't say that श ष स are indistinguishable. I said that only for श and ष. Secondly, I didn't say that Devanagari is a faulty system made by idiots. Devanagari was originally a script used for writing Sanskrit. Sanskrit phonology is similar, but NOT identical, to Hindi phonology. When you look at a language and the corresponding writing system, you see how it represents sounds of that language. It's a common observation in Linguistics that Writing Systems, and orthography in general, are very resilient to change compared to speech (that's also one of the reasons for the highly illogical spelling system in English. It's the results of centuries of overlap of several layers of influences on the language while the spelling system stayed unchanged).

The श and ष distinction is an artifact of Sanskrit that still continues in the spelling system. If you as a speaker (native or non-native) makes it, I have no problem with that. But saying that Hindi speakers _should _distinguish between श and ष sounds because that's how the word is written and those who don't it are being faulty or are speaking some other language of their own is just plain wrong. Many native Hindi speakers in many Hindi-speaking communities do not make the distinction. You don't use a 2000 year old yardstick to 'evaluate' language use and then discard it as faulty. 

Devanagari is a reasonably phonetic system, but it's not the gospel truth. At the end of the day, the problems you stated with respect to the vowel pronunciation in words like कहना exist because you have what is practically a solidified spelling system for a language that slowly keeps changing.

Also, what phonetic value should be assigned to a particular letter in a writing system is not as easy a problem as it appears to be, even for fairly phonetic writing systems. What should the value of the letter अ be? Should it be a schwa as in the sound in चलना or should it be the vowel in कहना which is more open and frontal than the schwa? These are issues that you try to resolve for academic interest, but the aim is to understand how writing systems represent (or fail to), the phonology of the language they are being used to write, not to assert linguistic superiority.


----------



## Alfaaz

tonyspeed: Couldn't "ka-ha-naa" be written as:  کَہَنٰ or کا ہا نا  or کَہَنَ ?


----------



## tonyspeed

Alfaaz said:


> tonyspeed: Couldn't "ka-ha-naa" be written as:  کَہَنٰ or کا ہا نا  or کَہَنَ ?



So are you saying کہنا with no vowel marks is supposed to be pronounced differently than with vowel marks? I'm not sure if I understand your writing method.


----------



## Alfaaz

No; in one of your responses, you said: 



> I would say it is impossible to write a word that is pronounced ka-ha-naa in standard Hindi/Urdu.



So I was just trying to come up with/suggesting possible ways of writing/representing "ka-ha-naa"...using the marks as would be in an Arabic/Urdu learning book.


----------



## Madheshi

tonyspeed said:


> I know this was directed towards QP, but if I may chime in, I would say it is impossible to write a word that is pronounced ka-ha-naa in standard Hindi/Urdu.
> Bhojpuri has its own system of phonetics which is separate from standard Hindi.



The writing system of Hindi had been standardized, but i don't think anybody has ever standardized the pronunciation of hindi. Infact, कहना should be pronounced "क-ह-ना" (in one go of course). But if "kehna" is to be written then the hindi spelling should instead have been " केहना " or "कैहना".

Can anybody tell me how "कैहना" and "कहना" should be pronouced ? should they be pronounce in the same way ?


----------



## Madheshi

i think "kehna" should be written as "कैहना" . 
and "कहना" should be pronounced as "ka-ha-na" (in one go)


----------



## Madheshi

tonyspeed said:


> So are you saying کہنا with no vowel marks is supposed to be pronounced differently than with vowel marks? I'm not sure if I understand your writing method.



کا ہا نا  is like "का हा ना" , i want urdu for "kahna" , not "kehna"


----------



## Alfaaz

In Urdu both kehna and kahna would be written the same way کہنا (I think) but "kahna" specifically would be کَہْنا (Prakrit zuban se makhooz/پراکرت زبان سے ماخوذ)

While browsing through the dictionary, found other words that might be "mispronounced": بَہْنا _bahna_ instead of behna; دوپَہْر _do pahar _instead of do peher; (Sanskrit, __)

Another common one is اَہَم _aham_, and not the now commonly heard ahem; also رَہْبَر _rahbar_ (as in a ghazal sung by Nayyara Noor- ae jazba-e-dil gar mein chahon) and not rehbar! (Arabic, Persian, respectively)


----------



## Madheshi

Alfaaz said:


> In Urdu both kehna and kahna would be written the same way کہنا (I think) but "kahna" specifically would be کَہْنا (Prakrit zuban se makhooz/پراکرت زبان سے ماخوذ)
> 
> While browsing through the dictionary, found other words that might be "mispronounced": بَہْنا _bahna_ instead of behna; دوپَہْر _do pahar _instead of do peher; (Sanskrit, __)
> 
> Another common one is اَہَم _aham_, and not the now commonly heard ahem; also رَہْبَر _rahbar_ (as in a ghazal sung by Nayyara Noor- ae jazba-e-dil gar mein chahon) and not rehbar! (Arabic, Persian, respectively)


so which one is the correct pronunciation in hindi/urdu ? kehna or kahna ? rehna or rahna ?


----------



## Alfaaz

> so which one is the correct pronunciation in hindi/urdu ? kehna or kahna ? rehna or rahna ?


Great question to which I don't have a clear answer! If you want to go by the dictionary, then I guess it would be kahna and rahna رَہْنا {رَہ (فتحہ ر مجہول) + نا} (سنسکرت ! 
Using it might give you a blank stare or two (depending on the audience). Let's wait and see what others say about this...


----------



## tonyspeed

Madheshi said:


> i think "kehna" should be written as "कैहना" .
> and "कहना" should be pronounced as "ka-ha-na" (in one go)



You are right. It probably should be written that way. But then we would also have to change the spelling of many other words as well including,
rahna, sahna, bahana, pahanna, aham, mahal, raham, kahar, shahar, lahar, zahar, mahanga, bahan - not to mention tay, bhay, samay, taajomay, vishay etc.

Who came up with these spellings? And according to which standard were they written? I don't think anyone knows right now.


----------



## marrish

*Another interesting instance of a difference in the spelling convention between Urdu and Hindi: 

*_'police'_ is written with long vowels in Urdu: پولیس

whereas the Hindi word is पुलिस, with all the vowels short.


----------



## marrish

marrish said:


> *Another interesting instance of a difference in the spelling convention between Urdu and Hindi:
> 
> *_'police'_ is written with long vowels in Urdu: پولیس
> 
> whereas the Hindi word is पुलिस, with all the vowels short.



Which version is closer to the original?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Which version is closer to the original?




The former I would say. And if you were speaking with my uncle, he would say "puLs" (in Punjabi)!


----------



## marrish

Thanks, and pulsiyaa for a policeman, I suppose (in Punjabi).


----------



## marrish

Another word:
frog: I think it is written in Urdu most frequently as _meNDak_ مینڈک while Hindi goes for मेंढक _meNDhak_. I recalled this word in the context of _barsaatii meNDak_!
I am curious to know which one, containing a ''h'' or without is better, as I see a couple of examples which are contrary to my pronunciation on internet (both of scripts).


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Which version is closer to the original?



I can't read the Urdu script, but the Devanagari script is certainly very close to the English original: both vowels are short in English as well (of course, they are longer than the Hindi short vowels but much shorter than the Hindi long vowels, but then one language's vowels can never be transliterated into another language).

However, in many areas, many Hindi speakers pronounce police as "puliis" (i.e. with the long "i").


----------



## greatbear

Illuminatus said:


> The श and ष distinction is an artifact of Sanskrit that still continues in the spelling system. If you as a speaker (native or non-native) makes it, I have no problem with that. But saying that Hindi speakers _should _distinguish between श and ष sounds because that's how the word is written and those who don't it are being faulty or are speaking some other language of their own is just plain wrong. Many native Hindi speakers in many Hindi-speaking communities do not make the distinction. You don't use a 2000 year old yardstick to 'evaluate' language use and then discard it as faulty.



Yes, maybe, and for similar reasons, most Hindi speakers don't distinguish between a dot below or not in words like barkaraar/barqaraar: the word is being discussed in another thread, but since your reasoning about distingushing between the two "sh" so perfectly also explains why I write "barkaraar" and not "barqaraar" while nineth would like to write it without a dot in Devanagari, that I chose to bring up this point here.
By the way, for me, there is a difference between pronouncing श and ष: I don't think many Hindi speakers would agree with you that there's no difference between the two. In layman's terms, the latter is more "shrill".


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Here is a post I found on the way currently it is supposed to be pronounced in Sanskrit (though still not the original probably):
> 
> "*‘ऋ’ का दोषपूर्ण उच्चारण*
> ऐसा लगता है कि ‘ऋ’ की सही ध्वनि से अधिकांश लोग अपरिचित हैं। ‘ऋ’ न तो  ‘रु’ है और न ही ‘रि’, जैसा कई लोग समझते हैं। दरअसल ‘ऋ’ का सही उच्चारण  ‘र्’ (आधा ‘र’) होता है। जैसे कि ऋतु का उच्चारण होगा र्+तु (Rtu), न कि  रितु
> 
> (Ritu)। अगर आप अभी ऋ नहीं बोल पा रहे हैं, तो थोड़े-से अभ्यास से बोलने  लगेंगे। ठीक इसी तरह हम लोग प्राय: ‘ृ’ भी सही नहीं बोलते हैं; जैसे कि  कृष्ण में, तृष्णा में आदि। ‘ृ’ का उच्चारण ‘ऋ’ से ही जुड़ा हुआ है। उदाहरण  के तौर पर कृष्ण बोलने का सही तरीक़ा है क्+र्+ष्ण (Krshna), न कि क्रिष्ण  (Krishna)। अब आप लोगों को ‘क्र’ और ‘कृ’ में शंका हो सकती है। इसलिये  समझें, क्र=क्+र (Kra) और कृ=क्+र् (Kr)। चकरा गए न, वाक़ई थोड़ा मुश्किल  तो शरू-शुरू में मेरे लिए भी था।"



That is also the way it is supposed to be pronounced in Hindi.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> Yes, maybe, and for similar reasons, most Hindi speakers don't distinguish between a dot below or not in words like barkaraar/barqaraar: the word is being discussed in another thread, but since your reasoning about distingushing between the two "sh" so perfectly also explains why I write "barkaraar" and not "barqaraar" while nineth would like to write it without a dot in Devanagari, that I chose to bring up this point here.
> By the way, for me, there is a difference between pronouncing श and ष: I don't think many Hindi speakers would agree with you that there's no difference between the two. In layman's terms, the latter is more "shrill".




If श and ष distinction is not being made by some or most Hindi speakers, the very fact that the script continues to preserve the original sounds of a language (as well as others mentioned in post 36 by Illuminatus) means that this logic of preserving original consonants should also apply to q (k with a subscript dot) as well as x and gh. According to Illuminatus, even in this age there are Hindi speakers who distinguish between x, Gh and q (as well as f and z)*. And I assure you that in the previous generation, this number would have been much greater. nineth may "consider it okay to drop the dot" and that is his prerogative but rest of the Hindi speakers making these distinctions might have other ideas. Amongst these Hindi speakers there is a strong possibility of some having the names Khan, Ghalib and Qadir. It would be interesting to see what views Hindi speakers like tonyspeed, flyfishinjoe, souminwe, omlick and others on the forum have on this issue.

*"Depending on where you draw the line between Hindi/Hindustani/Urdu, you can also say that the sounds ف and ز, the _voiceless labio-dental fricative (f) and the voiced alveolar fricative (z) have entered into the phonetic inventories of a lot of Hindi speakers now, and many make the distinction very clearly. Depending on where they have grown up, you can also expect some speakers to also speak غ ,خ and ق, the voiceless velar fricative (x), voiced velar (sometimes uvular) fricative (ɣ) and the voiceless uvular stop (q) respectively". _(Illuminatus-post 35)


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> If श and ष distinction is not being made by some or most Hindi speakers, ... nineth may "consider it okay to drop the dot" and that is his prerogative but rest of the Hindi speakers making these distinctions might have other ideas. Amongst these Hindi speakers there is a strong possibility of some having the names Khan, Ghalib and Qadir. It would be interesting to see what views Hindi speakers like tonyspeed, flyfishinjoe, souminwe, omlick and others on the forum have on this issue.



In my opinion, the श and ष distinction is made by many Hindi speakers.
A Khan, Ghalib and Qadir are perfectly acceptable: I have no idea why would you consider their opinions unacceptable for their names. However, if a Khan, Ghalib and Qadir are also Urdu speakers, then obviously they carry over the differences that they observe in Urdu speech, and in fact the language that they use is Urdu, while remaining all the time intelligible to Hindi speakers. Their names are thus not the reasons for the probability of their opinions being discredited: it is rather whether they are Urdu speakers first rather than Hindi speakers.
And the same argument applies to members like tonyspeed, who lists jamaican creole and jamaican english as his languages on his profile: can we consider him as a Hindi speaker? First of all, has he used it in his everyday life, in communications with his friends, family and business contacts?


----------



## panjabigator

> it is rather whether they are Urdu speakers first rather than Hindi speakers.



I do think has been a productive but scattered thread (as are the nature of list threads, which is why we typically don't let them happen), but the above comment worries me. Can we avoid off topic discussions on who is or isn't a Hindi speaker? Or even better, start a new thread in the Cultural Café that explores the ramifications of an imagined Hindiphonistan. Q and Kh and retroflex Sh for all! But please, let's not derail this thread. This is not the place to define what qualifies a Hindi speaker.


----------



## greatbear

panjabigator said:


> I do think has been a productive but scattered thread (as are the nature of list threads, which is why we typically don't let them happen), but the above comment worries me. Can we avoid off topic discussions on who is or isn't a Hindi speaker? Or even better, start a new thread in the Cultural Café that explores the ramifications of an imagined Hindiphonistan. Q and Kh and retroflex Sh for all! But please, let's not derail this thread. This is not the place to define what qualifies a Hindi speaker.



I completely agree. For that to happen, member QP must desist from making provocative and off-topic statements such as "Amongst these Hindi speakers there is a strong possibility of some having the names Khan, Ghalib and Qadir."


----------



## flyinfishjoe

To be honest, most Hindi users do not really make such a big deal of क vs क़, etc. Many are not even aware of the _nuqtaa_'s purpose in Devanagari. One is infinitely more likely to be chastised for writing शड्यंत्र instead of षड्यंत्र ("conspiracy") than for writing बगीचा instead of बग़ीचा. Several grammarians, including Hardev Bahri, I believe, have described the _nuqtaa_ as simply "optional" in Hindi writing. I've read somewhere that the current Indian government policy is to keep ख़, फ़, and ज़, but to get rid of ग़ and क़I .

Personally, I prefer the use क़, ख़, etc., but I don't think it is a mistake if someone leaves out the dot.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> And the same argument applies to members like tonyspeed, who lists jamaican creole and jamaican english as his languages on his profile: can we consider him as a Hindi speaker?



I would make the argument that a good Hindi learner is usually better able to analyse the micro-nuances of a language than is a mother-tongue speaker because they usually pay more attention. The fact that you have been exposed so much to English to the point where you consider it one of your mother tongues also opens your mind up to an awareness that the average Hindi mother-tongue speaker does not.

Being the case that I do not live in India, and my Hindi speaking associates cover a wide base of induviduals, most of which I would not consider mother-tongue speakers and others that are from Lucknow(and I guess in your mind are probably Urdu speakers), I cannot comment with authority on this matter from personal expereience. I prefer not to misrepresent who I am online (unlike some) but, rather, defer to authors who have more authority on this matter.

Rupert Snell, Beginner's Hindi Script: "ष: although technically retroflex, this is not regularly distinguished from sha except in combination with retroflexes"  (This is an obvious point. In combination you HAVE to pronounce it as a retroflex.)

Tej K. Bhatia, Colloquial Hindi: "ष is pronounced like श"

But maybe as a gora Rupert Snell has no authority to speak on Hindi either. Maybe all foreigners should feign ignorance, but then we would forget that one of the first Hindi Grammars was produced by a certain Mr. Kellog. But maybe he did not use it either in everyday life.


I think we all know the reason why the nuqtah has been systematically eradicated in Hindi documents of the past, and in my previous comments I have insinuated that there are certain pro-Hindu, anti-Muslim forces at work within India that only have respect for Sanskrit and have little appreciation for Mulsim-influenced culture unless it brings in cold hard cash like Lal Qila, Taj Mahal, and biriyaani.  It is a certain mental disease brought about by politics mixed with religion. So let us bring this argument to rest. We know it is preferential treatment. The fact that the government now wants to preserve the nuqtah in some instances at least, as joe mentioned, is progress. So let us leave it there and see how much pettiness society can put aside in the coming years. 

And at the same time, we must ask the qustion, does Urdu contain any words in which the retroflex n and sh has been eliminated as well? (My initial inclination is 'no' because such consonants only occur in direct borrowings from Sanskrit which began in the 19th century.)


----------



## flyinfishjoe

I don't think there has been any systematic eradication of the _nuqtaa_ by pro-Hindu/anti-Muslim forces! It's just easier to leave it out. There's no political motivation behind लड़कियां vs लड़कियाँ either. If you read books written in the 19th century, you'll find that they are very inconsistent in this regard. You might find रोज़ on one page and रोज the rest of the book. In fact, I believe that Hardev Bahri said that the _nuqtaa_ was uncommon in Hindi until the early part of the 20th century when its use was promulgated by writers who had been educated in Persian and Urdu (as was common in north India for many years). He goes on to say that the use of this subscript dot is not well-established/concrete, and is completely optional (this was written ~1960). In case you're interested, I believe that he wrote this in _Persian Influence on Hindi._

Personally, I subscribe to the belief that it's a matter of style whether to write, for example, खिलाफ or ख़िलाफ़. Neither is a misspelling.


----------



## tonyspeed

flyinfishjoe said:


> I don't think there has been any systematic eradication of the _nuqtaa_ by pro-Hindu/anti-Muslim forces! It's just easier to leave it out. There's no political motivation behind लड़कियां vs लड़कियाँ either. If you read books written in the 19th century, you'll find that they are very inconsistent in this regard. You might find रोज़ on one page and रोज the rest of the book. In fact, I believe that Hardev Bahri said that the _nuqtaa_ was uncommon in Hindi until the early part of the 20th century when its use was promulgated by writers who had been educated in Persian and Urdu (as was common in north India for many years). He goes on to say that the use of this subscript dot is not well-established/concrete, and is completely optional (this was written ~1960). In case you're interested, I believe that he wrote this in _Persian Influence on Hindi._
> 
> Personally, I subscribe to the belief that it's a matter of style whether to write, for example, खिलाफ or ख़िलाफ़. Neither is a misspelling.



I beleive your points have somewhat of a ring of truth. I quickly glanced at Kellog's grammar which has no nuqtah. Maybe a more accurate statement would be: the proponents of the Devanagari alphabet held Persian consonants in little regard from the absolute beginning, always representing them as "foreign", and yet even in Kellog's Grammar he admits that even at that time (1870's) the "F" consonant had already been "nativised." My comments were based on something else I read where a writer laments that he gives the printers a manuscript with nuqtah and printery returns copies devoid of nuqtah. My understanding of the root cause was therefore incomplete.

Some of your points as far as anusvara are commented on in http://books.google.com/books?id=1W8IAAAAQAAJ 
but anusvara to my knowledge has never had anything to do with politics. Kellog claims mainly foreigners made the distinction.


----------

