# Hindi, Urdu: mechanics of the -ah- transformation into -eh-



## MonsieurGonzalito

Friends,

This Wikipedia article on Hindustani Phonology briefly discusses the transformation of "inherent schwas" into "*ɛ"* in the vicinity of* "h".*
For the remainder of this question, I will represent the schwas as "*a"* and the "ɛ" sounds as "*e"*, for simplicity.

The rule the article gives is that, if an "h" sounds is surrounded by 2 "underlying orthographic" schwas, the transformation occurs.

कहना / کہنا   =(transliteration)=>  _k*aha*naa_ =(a replacement for e)=> _kehanna_ =(schwa deletion)=> _kehnaa_

शहर / شہر =(transliteration)=> _sh*aha*r_ =(a replacement for e)=> _shehar_ =(no schwa deletion)=> _shehar_

ठहरना / ٹھہرنا =(transliteration)=> _Th*aha*rnaa_ =(a replacement for e)=> _Theharnaa_ =(schwa deletion)=> _Thehrnaa_


Now, before I continue, let clarify that this is not e question about schwa deletion per se, nor about in which regions or language registers the "a replacement for e" occurs, nor about the quality of the "ɛ" sound. The question is concerned exclusively with the mechanics of the "a replacement for e", wherever and whenever it does occur, according to the rule given by the article.

In my opinion, the rule/mechanism expressed above is a little simplistic. 
It is not that we have "2 orthographic a's surrounding an h", and then we do schwa deletion. 
Rather, some syllabication occurs from the start in the speaker's mind, taking into account the schwa deletion already. Only then he thinks about "e" replacement, if the "ah" group happens to fall in the same syllable, after the schwa-deleted syllabication has occurred.

Using the same examples as above:

_kahanaa =(schwa deletion)=> kahnaa =(syllabication)=> kah-naa =(replacement)=> kehnaa

shahar =(no schwa deletion)=> shahar =(syllabication)=>   sha-har =("a" and "h" fall on different syllables, hence no replacement)=> shahar

Thaharnaa =(schwa deletion)=> Thahrnaa =(syllabication)=> Thahr-naa =(replacement)=> Thehrnaa_


Notice that, according to "my" rule, "_shahar_" is still "_shahar_", not "_shehar"._

Could a speaker validate if my reasoning is correct, and therefore the Wikipedia mechanism is incorrect?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Alfaaz

Urdu: 

Please note that شہر (both of Arabic and Persian origins) is monosyllabic - _shahr_. 

This becomes evident when the word appears in an اضافت.
فتحۂ مجہول - _fatHah-e-majhuul_: variant pronunciation may* occur whenever a letter is joined by a فتحہ to ہ or ح. 

*As discussed in previous threads, both pronunciations can be heard being used (sometimes by the same speaker) in various contexts. 
Relevant threads: 

Urdu: ‘فتحہ ش مجہول’
Urdu: pronunciation of پہل
Urdu-Hindi: lahr vs. lahar vs. laher etc.


----------



## littlepond

I think the Wikipedia rule looks good, irrespective of presence or absence of syllabification. There are numerous words like this: praihr, shaihr, zaihr, kaihr, laihr, daihl, saihnaa, kaihnaa, and so on (and some derive from Sanskrit, some from Perso-Arabic, so there's nothing related to where they come from).


----------



## aevynn

A few comments: 

1. It would probably be better to say "underlying _phonemic_ schwas" rather than "underlying _orthographic_ schwas." This is a rule of allophony which occurs even in the speech of illiterate speakers who may have no knowledge of orthographic conventions. 

2. I don't think your proposed mechanism produces correct results, at least for the variety that I'm familiar with. In my experience, शहर / شہر is usually realized as [ʃɛ.ɦɛɾ]. The first syllable is decidedly a [ɛ]. To the extent that one discernibly pronounces a vowel in the second syllable (which I would), it's again a [ɛ], not a schwa. 

3. I agree with @littlepond jii that applying ɛ-allophony before schwa deletion models things pretty well. I haven't come up with any obvious counterexamples. The one thing to be careful of is that, for the purposes of schwa deletion, any allophone of schwa still counts as a schwa --- even if it is no longer literally a schwa because of the ɛ-allophony rule. For example, I would expect the oblique plural शहरों / شہروں to be realized as [ʃɛɦ.ɾõː]. This can be derived from underlying morphophonemic representation as follows: 

/ʃəɦəɾ+õː/ -----(a)-----> /ʃɛɦɛɾ+õː/ -----(b)-----> /ʃɛɦɾ+õː/ -----(c)-----> [ʃɛɦ.ɾõː]​
where + denotes the morpheme boundary, (a) is ɛ-allophony, (b) is schwa deletion, and (c) is surface realization (syllabifying according to the maximum onset principle).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

OK. so "shahar" might not be the best example or counter-example as there seems to be no agreement among native speakers about how it is pronounced.

I should point out that the speaker in the Urdu Lughat follows "my" rule (i.e. sha-har with two syllables, none of them converted).

One could argue that she is doing that for learning/over-clarity purposes, but she doesn't hesitate to do the conversion when necessary:
Example with pehla (peh - laa, as far as I can hear, it might even be the same woman)

Going through the useful list provided by @littlepond, always taking the pronunciation examples from the Urdu Lughat:

1) केहर / کيہر  doesn't count because the script caught up with the pronunciation (it has े / ی )  

2) The 2-syllable words in which "arbitrary" schwa deletion occurs, becoming monosyllables, also don't prove or disprove any rule
- ज़हर / *زَہْر*  (one syllable, zehr), 
- लहर / لہر (one syllable, lehr)

3) Multi-syllable words in which there doesn't seem arbitrariness in schwa deletion, also don't prove or disprove any rule
- सहना / سَہْنا   seh-naa
- कहना / کہنا    keh-naa

4)  प्रहर / *پِرَہَر*  follows my rule  (two syllables, pra-har, no transformation), and disproves Wikipedia's

5) दहल / دہل not only disproves my rule (de - hel) , but also presents the phenomenon mentioned by @aevynn : "e" sounds at both sides of the "h"


So, in conclusion: ... no conclusion


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

In justice to all the useful answers given: the purpose of my question was trying to figure out some useful "algorithm" based solely on the scripts, to figure out when the _ah => eh_ transformation occurs.

The answers clarified for me that it is not possible. Especially because the starting point, which is schwa deletions, has already some degree of arbitrariness in relation to the scripts.

Or, to put it more precisely: it is possible to come up with a rule that will capture most cases, but it will fail when the schwa deletion is too aggressive in relation to the scripts.

And, to be even more precise: it is difficult to do what I want to do based solely on the Devanagari script (which is usually my starting point).
Urdu dictionary definitions with full diacritics can prove more useful for this particular problem, because of the indication of vowels and sukoons.

On the Devanagari side, conjuncts and viramas don't seem to reflect schwa deletions in speech with the same degree of faithfulness.


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> OK. so "shahar" might not be the best example or counter-example as there seems to be no agreement among native speakers about how it is pronounced.



There's no "disagreement" among native speakers: when singular, both "shaihr" and "shaihair" are pronounced by the same speaker him/herself. The former requires a slight more effort, hence sometimes the sliding into the second pronunciation. No "shaihar" exists in pronunciation, at least as commonly spoken/heard.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> 1) केहर / کيہر  doesn't count because the script caught up with the pronunciation (it has े / ی )



The spelling is कहर ! (केहर would've been pronounced as "kehar" - with an "e" sound as in "seknaa" and a schwa retention - and not as "kaihr.") One of the entries in Dasa for reference:

*कहर* *kahara*

संज्ञा पुं० [सं० *क़हूर*]

विपत्ति । आफत । संकट । गजब । उ०—क्या क़हुर है यारो जिसे आ जाय बुढ़ापा । आशिक को तो अल्लाह न दिखालाये बुढ़ापा ।—नजीर (शब्द०) ।
*मुहा०*—*कहर का* = (१) कटिन । असह्यय । मात्रा से अधिक । अत्यंत । जैसे,—कहर की गरमी, कहर का पानी । (२) भयानक । डरावना । (३) बहुत बड़ा । महान् । कहर करना = (१) अत्याचार करना । जुल्म करना (२) अदभुत कर्म करना । ऐसा काम करना जिससे लोगों को विस्मय हो । अनोखा काम करना । (३) असंभव को संभव करना । अमानुष कृत्य करना । *कहर टूटना* = आफत आना । दैवी विपत्ति पड़ना । *कहर ढाना* = किसी के लिये संकट पैदा करना । संकटग्रस्त बनाना । *कहर मचना* = भयंकर उत्पात मचना । भयंकर उपद्रव होना ।

Some more examples: saihm, paihn, raihm, laihk, daihk, saihl, jaihl, baihn, Dhaihnaa, raihnaa, paihl ... I fail to see how you fail to see a consistency.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I listened to Bollywood songs containing "shahar" to check how it is pronounced.

1)* fevikol se*
_[Public] shahar kii kare hai teraa [wait] re_
_Thumke jo kamariyaa hile zilaa kyaa [state] re_
   [Youtube: zE7Pwgl6sLA at 3:09]

2) *kajraa re*
_    barbaad ho rahe haiN jii 
    tere apne shahar vaale_
    [Youtube: 4dsFQFCvVGU at 1:03]

3) *havaaeN*
_   xayaaloN kaa shahar
   tuu jaane tere hone se hii aabaad hai
   havaaeN haq meN
   vo hii haiN aate-jaate jo teraa naam leN_
[Youtube: cYOB941gyXI at 2:09]

4) *teraa raastaa chhoRuuN na *
_   gairoN ke Dar se 
   tere shahar se_
   [Youtube: LrQarGrjC68 at 0:00]


5) *hai bas-ki har ik un ke ishaare *
_    tum shahar meN ho to hameN kyaa Gam jab uTheNge
    le aaeNge baazaar se jaa kar dil-o-jaan aur_
   [Youtube: Cw_tlUykgGk at 0:59]

All singers pronounce the word more or less similarly, with the "ɛ" sound at both sides of the "h".
Sometimes it is difficult to say if the second syllable is a full syllable or just a fully articulated "h-r" articulation, as it is usually the case.

So I am starting to think this is like the French "e", that one can realize it or not, resulting in actual syllable length changes.

Notice that in 1), 2), 3), and 4), "shahar" has to measure 2 syllables, for the meter to be appropriate.
In 5), which is older? Urdu? more proper?, "shahar" is 1 syllable. 
This is obvious from the lyrics themselves, one doesn't really need to listen to them.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

littlepond said:


> There's no "disagreement" among native speakers: when singular, both "shaihr" and "shaihair" are pronounced by the same speaker him/herself. The former requires a slight more effort, hence sometimes the sliding into the second pronunciation. No "shaihar" exists in pronunciation, at least as commonly spoken/heard.


Today I stumbled into Alamgir's "Bahana Wohi Hai Bahana". [sample Youtube=PnOZH3lnCI]

He sings /b*a*h*aa*naa/  all the time, no "ɛ" before or after the "h".


----------



## littlepond

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> He sings /b*a*h*aa*naa/  all the time, no "ɛ" before or after the "h".



There is never any "ɛ" in "bahaanaa" for any native speaker: it's always "bahaanaa"! Once there is "aa" sound immediately after "h," how can there be "ɛ" before "h"? There are numerous other words of this type (mostly infinitive verbs): "nahaanaa," "ramhaanaa," ...


----------



## Qureshpor

Urdu.

The a > e (as in English "bet") in words like "mahr" (dowry), "shahr" (month/city), baHr (sea), "maHbuub" (beloved) and qa3r (bottom of a well), sha3r (hair) is due to the presence of the h, H and 3.

When the vowel is "i", this tends to be pronounced something like the "a" in "late".

mihr > mehr (kindness/sun), siHr > seHr (magic), iHtiraam > eHtiraam (respect), shi3r > she3r (poetry)

With "u", the shift is towards "o"

muhr > mohr (seal/stamp), MuHammad > MoHammad, shu3lah (flame) > sho3lah


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Does the fact that sometimes the Urdu letter representing _h_ is _he_ ح, and not _chhoTii he_ ہ, have any bearing in the transformation from inherent _a_ to /ɛ/?

For example, I find that the Urdu Lughat speaker uses clear _a_'s when pronouncing words with  _he_ ح.

_sahar _

_tarah  _

_ahad_ 

Or is she just trying to be overly-clear, to a fault?


----------



## aevynn

I don't think chhoTii vs baRii he makes a difference. For example, you can hear Naseeruddin Shah pronounce سَحَر as [sɛɦɛɾ] in his recitation of Faiz's SubH-e-aazaadii (cf. YouTube watch?v=G08XzpuIKU4).

That being said, there are three common "-ah/H" words where phonology and orthography diverge a bit and their phonemic representations probably doesn't match what's suggested by the orthography. These words are: taraH, jagah, and SubaH. Note that one of these has a chhoTii he. While these are written with an -ah/H, I think their phonemic representation in the minds of most speakers probably veers towards /tər(ɦ)aː/, /d͡ʒəg(ɦ)aː/, and /sʊb(ɦ)aː/. I'm not very confident about whether there should be a /ɦ/ in those phonemic representations, and if there is, whether it should come before or after the /aː/, but the important point here is that I think the phonemic representation of these words probably has an /aː/ in it rather than an /ə/. The [ə]-[ɛ] allophony rule applies on the level of phonemic representations (rather than at the level of orthography), and these words don't have the requisite combination of phonemes in their phonemic representations, so they're unaffected by this allophony rule.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I stumbled into more words that don't seem to follow the rule (per the Urdu Lughat pronunciation). I don't know why.

महल / مَحَلّ "palace" == _maHal_, not _mɛhɛl_
अहद /  اَحَد  "Arabized one" == _aHad_, not _ɛhɛd  _

[EDIT: actually, it might be because of what @aevynn says in #13: those words are pronounced with quite long _"a's"_, despite the orthography:  _mahaal_, _aahad_]


----------



## desi4life

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I stumbled into more words that don't seem to follow the rule (per the Urdu Lughat pronunciation). I don't know why.
> 
> महल / مَحَلّ "palace" == _maHal_, not _mɛhɛl_
> अहद /  اَحَد  "Arabized one" == _aHad_, not _ɛhɛd  _
> 
> [EDIT: actually, it might be because of what @aevynn says in #13: those words are pronounced with quite long _"a's"_, despite the orthography:  _mahaal_, _aahad_]



In Hindi and colloquial Urdu, the pronunciation is _mɛhɛl_. I’m not familiar with the word अहद /  اَحَد but I think it would be like महल / مَحَلّ . In formal/proper Urdu, though, _maHal_ and _aHad_ might be preferred based on the Urdu Lughat sample. They are not pronounced with long “a”.


----------



## Alfaaz

MonsieurGonzalito said:
			
		

> I stumbled into more words that don't seem to follow the rule (per the Urdu Lughat pronunciation). I don't know why.


مَحَلّ can be heard being pronounced both ways.

On the other hand, اَحَد is always pronounced _aHad_. 

Relevant information: ٱلْأَحَد is one of the _Asmaa-ul-Husna_ and appears in Surah Ikhlaas of the Quran.


----------

