# fictional Indian town: Mayapore - pronunciation



## dudasd

Hello. 

I'm translating the tetralogy _The Raj _by Paul Scott, about India. One of the main places where the story takes place is a _fictional _town, named Mayapore. I need to know its pronunciation (our language is strictly phonetical); I don't know how to pronounce the "-ore" part, so any help is welcome. I don't know should it sound like "ur" in "Mayapur", or as "ore" in "Lahore" (which we pronounce as "La(h)-ho-re(h)"), or something third.

Thank you very, very much in advance.


----------



## bakshink

It is pronounced as MAYAPURI "U" as in "to" and "RI" as in "reach" (Delhi, Mumbai- pronounced as Mumbaee) and should be written as such. Even the correct pronounciation for Lahore is "Lahaur"  as in OR.


----------



## dudasd

Thank you very much, and especially for being so precise, this was an excellent explanation!  

Also, there was my mistake - "Lahore" used to be a traditional pronunciation here, but now I saw that it's standardized as "Lahor".  I apologize.


----------



## bakshink

Thank you "dudasd" I am not even aware that Lahore is now standardized as "Lahor". We still write it as "Lahore".The trend started with renaming of Bombay as Mumbai, I believe. Then Calcutta was renamed as Kolkata and Madras as Chennai and so on. When British ruled India they chose to spell the names of the places as they could speak them. So Kanpur was spelled as "Cawnpore" Pune as Poona, Bangluru as Banglore etc. Actually "Pur" or "Puri" means a settlement or a township. So Rampur, Ferozepur, Mayapuri, Gobindpuri and so on are the names for towns, cities, localities etc.


----------



## dudasd

No, you were right; it was my mistake for I was not precise, I meant the form "Lahor" has been standardized in my language (Serbian) and I wasn't aware of it.  When I was a child, in school we spoke and wrote "Lahore". Thank you very much one more time, your explanaton will be useful for me through the whole novel.


----------



## bakshink

You are welcome "dudasd".


----------



## Faylasoof

Hello Dudasd,

I been through Paul Scott’s “The Raj” quartet and do remember the name “Mayapore”. Do allow me to make a few corrections and suggestions. 

The British had the uncanny and very endearing habit of _anglicising_ the names of towns and cities in the Indian sub-continent, a point that bakshink alludes to. Consequently, to them it was, and still is, Lucknow instead of the more accurate Lakhnau / Lakhnao, where the <k> in the  <kh> is aspirated and _not_  fricative. This name of my family’s hometown is now permanently stuck in this highly anglicised form when written in English. The same can’t be said of the Kingdom of Awadh, which they firmly pronounced and wrote as Oudh! 

Similarly, to the Brits it was and still is Cawnpore instead of Kānpur = Kānpoor, where the <oo> is what one hears in the word <tool>. 

The British ear would hear our <pur = poor> (the <r> distinctly heard) as a sound more like in the English word <pore>. Hence the name above. Therefore the correct pronunciation of  <Mayapore> will be < Māyāpur = Māyāpoor > and _NOT_ <Māyāpuri / Māyāpuree>. The <e> in <Mayapore>is silent!
 
The name Lahore is also _anglicised_ and, as you can tell, rhymes with the _anglicised_  names Cawnpore and Mayapore. The “correct” pronunciation of this city’s name is variant! It actually depends on what language / dialect you speak and or read and which period of history you are referring to. Lahore has quite a history! Different linguistic groups becoming dominant over a long period.

The Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh composed several verses in Persian in praise of Lahore and there you read it as <Lā-hur = Lā-hoor>. For an Urduphone like myself, and the same would be true for most Hindiphones from U.P., Lahore’s pronunciation is more like <Lā-haur>, where the <au> in the second syllable is pronounced as the <ow> in <cow>! For Punjabis it is <La-hor> where the <a> of first syllable is pronounced slightly shorter than by us and also the second syllable is pronounced differently – the <or> being more like the sound you hear in the English words <or / door / pour> but with the <o> lengthened and <r> heard very clearly.

BTW, the name is still spelt as Lahore, a major city in Pakistan. _Not to be confused with a small town called Lahor in Swabi District, NWFP / Pakhtoonkhwah province of Pakistan. _

Incidentally, there is a real town by the name Māyāpur in West Bengal, India, with the geographical coordinates: 22° 25' 0" North, 88° 7' 0" East India! Here.


----------



## dudasd

Thank you, Faylasoof. In the case of _The Raj_ and Mayapore is that the writer is consistently writing -pur in names of other (existing) towns in India, and only in Mayapore he insists on -pore, so I think he didn't westernize its writing, and I can only suppose that he wanted to distinct it clearly from the existing Mayapur, both in writing and pronunciation. Now, if I accept your suggestion, I'll be in a kind of trouble - in my language, both towns would have to be written as "Majapur", and it could confuse the readers, I have to make it sound somewhat different from Mayapur. Any additional suggestions?


----------



## Faylasoof

Hello dudasd,

If you strongly feel that you ought to give the town a different looking name in print to distinguish it from the real town, then I do have a suggestion. You’ll be quite consistent and faithful to the author if in your language you call the town <Mā-yā-poor>, i.e. both the  <a> sounds long and the <o> (or <u> ) long too. This’ll avoid any confusion that you fear. But, just as a matter of interest, why do you say that calling the town in Serbo-Croat as <Majapur> would confuse the readers? Most would know that they are reading a novel and the town may / may not actually exist.

I do see your argument in the above post, but I still beg to differ! My original suggestion above that the ending <e> is silent still stands, as in the case of <Cawnpore = Kānpur = Kān-poor> so also for <Mayapore>. There are many towns and cities in the Indian Subcontinent which appear to have _inconsistent __spelling_ in English! For the Brits it was always Cawnpore (= Kānpur = Kānpoor) but also always Sitapur (= See-tā-poor), Nagpur (= Nāg-poor) etc., all having the _same last syllable_ but the first spelt completely differently. Paul Scott took advantage of this. 

The important point to consider is that English, unlike other Germanic languages, _does not pronounce an ending <e> making <Mayapore> sound like <Ma-ya-poo-ri _(or worse, _ Ma-ya-poo-ray_)!_>. If Scott wanted the ending vowel to be pronounced  as such, then he would have called his fictitious town <Mayapuri> and NOT  <Mayapore>._ It is quite conceivable that he gave this _anglicised_ name – Mayapore- in order to distinguish it from the real town _only_ _in print_. It really doesn’t matter as both would be pronounced the same. Please consider Lahore vs. Lahor. They are virtually indistinguishable when heard.

So I reiterate. My own feeling is that <Mayapore> should be pronounced as the author intended, viz. <*Mā-yā-poor*>. I assume it is eminently possible to easily transliterate this into Serbo-Croat.


----------



## dudasd

I must agree with you about the consistency of Scott's transliterations; though there really are English/American writers who do not hold to the rule of "mute e" when transliterating foreign names, Paul Scott is _extremely_ careful about that. The ending vowel -i in Indian words and names (be they Hindi or from some other language of India) he is always writing like -i or -ee. But again, he writes -pur (in names of towns and districts, like Dibrapur, Rajpur etc.) so consistently again that he _really_ confused me with "Mayapore"; at first I had thought myself it was Mayapur (the existing city you mentioned), and wondered why he wrote it like that, but then I realized it was a fictional town and began speculating about possible pronunciation.

Well, it seems I'll have to write it Majapur (j=y in Serbo-Croatian) and to put a footnote with the explanation. Many readers will be interested to open their atlases and see where the story takes place, so I must make it clear, otherwise they will accuse either me, or the writer for our bad geography. (We had a bit too much geography in school, I guess, especially my generation learned much about India, so I know many people who really do that - including me  ).

Thank you very much.


----------



## Faylasoof

I absolutely agree with the idea of a footnote giving an explanation! That'll help the curious readers. You could, if you so wish, include the British usage of Cawnpore for Kānpur (= Kānpoor) etc. etc. 

 Glad to be of help!


----------



## bakshink

Since Paul Scott has created a fictional town,it doesn’t need to have the name of the illusionary town that existed in Hindu mythology. 

It is better to capture the essence of the original text as far as possible. 

In Hinduism “Maya” means great illusion. This world which is a great illusion is known metaphorically as Maya Nagri or Mayapuri. Hindi is geneder specific and all animate and inanimate things have a gender. “Pur” for town is masculine and “Puri” is feminine. Since “world” called “duniya” in Hindi has a feminine gender, so I think this illusionary world is called Mayapuri and not Mayapur.  

I cannot comment upon Paul Scott’s intention of spelling the ficitional town differently but as being discussed a footnote will be able to retain closeness with the original test and yet avoid confusion. 

For learning more about “Maya” visit 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)


----------



## dudasd

Wow, this is really interesting, the possibility that maybe the writer wanted to give a hint of that sub-meaning as well! And it really fits the context, actually he's writing about many "illusions" in the novel. I could add that to the footnote as well.  Thank you VERY much!


----------



## Faylasoof

I know what <maya> means and perhaps Paul Scott also knew. He _may_ have deliberately chosen this name from the towns he knew in India. But all this is pure speculation, interesting though it might be. We just don’t know whether this was really the thought behind him choosing the name. _There may equally have been a more mundane reason._ So I’m sure it’ll be made clear in the footnote that this _might_ be a reason for the name, but _in the absence of any evidence we have no way of telling. _

  I think there is a danger of us going into all kinds of contextual meanings. The original question was about pronunciation of <Mayapore> so I avoided going into all this. 

  … and bakshink the argument of <dunyia> being feminine in Urdu-Hindi bears little to the way Scott writes < Mayapore >. That would be stretching the argument! As I say above, if Scott really wished it to be pronounced as you suggest then he would write it as < Mayapuri>. Which he doesn’t. I still think he was simply following a convention common then amongst Brits.  

 BWT, the word <dunyia  دُنیا = the world> originated from Urdu-Arabic, not Hindi, and comes from the Arabic root d-n-y د-ن-ی ---> verbs <dana دَنَی daniya /   دَنِیَ > = to be close /to be low .


----------



## BP.

Gotta disagree baksijii. In (pure) Hindi world is rather _sansaar_ or _jag_ rather than _duniaa_ or _jahaan_ or _3aalam_. All of which are probably masculine. Hence _Mayapuur_ for _illusionary world_, if your hypothesis is the one the author took. Btw I've never heard _-puuri_ in any place's name, always _-puur_.
___________________________________________________________________


mard e mantaq, its really comforting to know you can appreciate the difference between au and o i.e. Lahaur vs Lahor. I've tested it with people and its imperceptible to most ears. We're sadly a dying breed.

Interestingly, and correct me if I'm wrong, in Indian Punjab and even some Hindiphone areas, Peshawar is/was pronounced Peshor. At least that's what I gathered from old Rafi and Kishore songs. We see the same trend in Urdu with BajawaR->BajoR and Mingawara->Mongora.

The same thing happened to _naush_->_nosh_ (Pers:_noosh_?) and _shaux_->_shox_ (Prs:_shoox_) a while ago.


----------



## bakshink

I don't have any books here to show that the mythological township was called "Mayapuri" or why the world is metaphorically called Maya nagari or Mayapuri and not "Nagar" or "Pur". 
Time permitting, will search net. Generally "Puris" are townships within the towns.
So one "Pur" may have many "Puris" but there are exceptions too. 
Delhi has "Mayapuri" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayapuri), Chankyapuri, Mangolpuri and so many more. 
Jagganathpuri known as "Puri" is a famous town in ORISSA state of India. Interestingly Lord Jagganath is a male deity . 

Dear BP Ji as regards your mention of Punjabi uniqueness of pronounciations. Yes, Peshawar is Pishaur for us. Lahore is Lauhr, Police is Puls, Popular motorcycle "Bullet" is "Bult", Harvester Combine is "Combain", Behen(sister) is "Bhain".

And making a mention of another thread here.
Dear Faylasoof, Ishq is Ishaq for us.And "LaRRna" and "LaRRana" are dear to us. 
That's why "Hum Ishak laRRate to hain bagharte nahin". No one does I think except when in Lukhnaoo (as we call it).


----------



## Faylasoof

Dear Bakshink,

Thanks for your link. I for one never doubted the existence of _-puris_ (not the ones we eat!), but coming back to the topic, I'm convinced that Scott was good at spelling and his Mayapore rhymes with the words <pore, core, gore etc.>. Hope you (finally) agree.

PS: About _3ishq baghaarnaa_ - what else would one expect from a city (Luknau) famed for its cuisine. Cooking techniques seem to be everywhere!!

BP,
I firmly believe we are at least a rare breed if not a dying breed to be able to distinguish the <au> and <o> sounds. There is hope, I think, in some from the next generation.

About the rest, i.e. Peshor etc. I can't say. We always say it the proper way.


----------



## BP.

Faylasoof said:


> Dear Bakshink,
> I firmly believe we are at least a rare breed if not a dying breed to be able to distinguish the <au> and <o> sounds.
> There is hope, I think, in some from the next generation.


janaab e 3aalii, hame.n yuu.n kibr sinii me.n daaxil kiye de rahe hai.n! aap balehaaz e 3umr hamaare buzurg hai.n, I'm only in the same age bracket as gator bhayya!

But I'm not as optimistic about the kids nowadays.


----------



## bakshink

Dear BP
May I ask, what is the meaning of kibr sinii?


----------



## Faylasoof

Dear Bakshink,

kibr sinii = sin rasiidagii = 'umr rasiidagii = bozurgii =  sin / 'umr kii baRaaii  etc. = (be) senior / (have) seniority (in age)


----------



## BP.

Thank you for the opportunity bakshi sahab.

_kibr_ = _akbar_ = _kabiir_, from the root k b r, meaning great or big or significant.

_sin_ is year. So the whole means [old] age ('agedness').

Filosofer gave some great synonyms. _sin/3umr rasiidagii, buR-haapa, zyaadati e 3umr_ (makes it sound like a really good thing),_tawiil ul 3umrii / tawaalat e 3umr, daraazi e 3umr_ are some. Some that imply old age but aren't exact translations are _buzurgii, zu3uf_ etc

To make the noun i.e. _an ancient person_, remove the last _ii_ from the adjectives that have this, e.g. _kibr sin_ is _old_. As would say _3umr rasiida_ be.

There's another beautiful word for old age that's escaping my mind right now. I'll get back with it later if I ever recall it.


----------

