# Indo-Aryan: Rules for schwa deletion in modern Indo-Aryan languages



## lachesisdecima

Hi all. 

I have been seeing quite a few discussions on the schwa in recent threads. I would like to know the rules for schwa deletion in modern Indo-Aryan languages. By modern Indo-Aryan languages, I mean languages such as Bengali, Hindi, Gujarati and Punjabi. 

Are there any hard and fast rules for schwa deletion in all of these languages. I know one rule is that in most cases, the terminal schwa is deleted (except when they end with a conjunct). How about in other situations, such as the medial schwas. Do they differ from language to language or are they consistent throughout? These things can be quite confusing. I cannot simply read a Hindi text and figure if words that I do not know have the schwa deleted medially. Some rules would really aid me here 

I would also like to know if Odia does this as well. I heard that Odia maintains the schwa in their language. i.e. instead of saying duur, they would say duuro or something. I would like to cross check this fact. 

Thanks in advance for any replies!

Addendum: I know that Bengali and Odia do not technically have the schwa (ə) but their inherent vowel is the ɔ instead. However, please assume when I mean schwa, I mean both the actual schwa as well as the Bengali/Odia one.


----------



## Wolverine9

This topic has been discussed on the forum before. Here is a useful link that's also been posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa_deletion_in_Indo-Aryan_languages


----------



## lachesisdecima

Right. Thanks then


----------



## Wolverine9

Actually, schwa deletion has mainly been discussed with regards to Hindi and Urdu on this forum, not with the other Indo-Aryan languages.


----------



## lachesisdecima

Wolverine9 said:
			
		

> Actually, schwa deletion has mainly been discussed with regards to Hindi and Urdu on this forum, not with the other Indo-Aryan languages.



Well. That's good then. Hopefully, someone comes along and expounds upon those


----------



## Dib

For Bengali

*Word finally:*
1. I read somewhere that Bengali really has only one word with word-final consonant cluster - গঞ্জ (gɔnj), meaning a "large market village", mostly limited to placenames now-a-days, but very frequent there. Otherwise, if there is a consonant cluster at the end, an "-o" is *added* after that. In fact, even গঞ্জ may be pronounced as "gɔnjo" when used as a normal word, and not as a placename suffix. Modern English loanwords do not follow this rule in the mouth of the educated speakers for understandable reasons. So, Perso-Arabic "zabt" (ضبط) becomes "jɔbdo" (জব্দ) in Bengali, for example. And obviously, there is no question of deleting any schwa's in this context.

2. When the deletion would not produce a word-final consonant cluster, the situation is far more complicated:
2.a. Some of the frequent grammatical endings like -to, -lo, -bo, -o are pronounced with a final -o, but are usually/often spelt with a schwa, e.g. korto/করত (he used to do), korlo/করল (he did), korbo/করব (I'll do), kɔro/কর (you do, also spelt: করো), etc.
2.b. Some Sanskrit words retain their final schwa - rather turn it into an -o, most notably the Sanskrit perfect participles in -ta*** (Skt. pronunciation-wise), secondary derivatives in -īya, etc. e.g. ahoto/আহত (injured), agoto/আগত (arrived), bharotio/ভারতীয় (Indian), etc. Other Sanskrit words tend to delete the schwa: gun/গুণ (quality), palon/পালন (...), jɔl/জল (water) etc.
2.c. Non-Sanskrit words usually delete the final schwa, but there are many exceptions, e.g. aj/আজ (today), kal/কাল (tomorrow/yesterday; also: time, but in that sense a Sanskrit loanword), batil/বাতিল (cancelled), etc. On the other hand, bhalo/ভাল (good, also spelt ভালো), chhoTo/ছোট (small), bɔRo/বড় (big), etc.

So, basically, you have to know word by word for 2b/c.

*Word internally:*
3. I think the general Hindi rule _ə → ∅ /VC_CV_ works also for Bengali for the old loanwords, i.e. primarily Arabic/Persian, and native words, e.g. চলতি/cholti (current adj.), কলকাতা/kolkata (also spelt sometimes: কোলকাতা), আরবি/arbi (Arabic), আমলা/amla (bureaucrat < Arabic 3amala, عملة, workers), etc.

4. However, in Sanskrit words, I think the schwa is normally not deleted, merely transformed into ɔ or o, depending on the environment****. Interestingly, even uneducated speakers don't seem to delete schwa's in this context, which probably suggests that the rule 3 is not productive any more. So, Bengali retains a contrast between aroti/আরতি (~worship) and arti/আর্তি (pain, painful urge), etc. অপসরণ (removal) is pronounced "ɔposɔron" (s = like English sh).

5. Also, it seems, noun stems retain their basic form also after adding grammatical endings, even when the new phonetic structure satisfies rule 3 (more evidence that the rule is no more productive), e.g. amol/আমল (era, period < Arabic عمل) > amole/আমলে (in era), amoler/আমলের (of era).

----

As you can imagine, the decision to retain or delete schwa is not always straightforward to arrive at. So, sometimes, there are variations, e.g. ɔmito/অমিত (lit. unmeasured > Bengali meaning: immeasurable) is expected to retain the final schwa as it is a Sanskrit perfect perticiple in -ta, and it usually does, except when it is used as a name, when it becomes ɔmit. 

And one super-rule to over-rule everything above: in poetic language, especially in songs, many more schwa's (or less often, other vowels) are restored/introduced. So, the popular song-line by Tagore: "amaro pɔrano jaha chay" is spelt "আমার পরাণ যাহা চায়", and stands for standard prose Bengali "amar pran jaha chay" (আমার প্রাণ যাহা চায়)| Or, "aji jhɔro-jhɔro mukhoro badoro dine" is spelt "আজি ঝর-ঝর মুখর বাদর-দিনে", and would stand for standard prose Bengali "aj jhɔr-jhɔr mukhor badol-dine" (আজ ঝর-ঝর মুখর বাদল-দিনে)|

----

Have more fun (or nightmare) with Bengali spelling. 

==========

**EDIT1:* It seems, if the Sanskrit -ta participles lose their participial force in meaning, they may lose the schwa in Bengali pronunciation, e.g. বিপরীত/biporit (opposite), অতীত/otit (past), প্রেত/pret (ghost), ভূত/bhut (ghost), but উদিত/udito (risen, e.g. sun) which contains the same Sanskrit root as the first 3 words, and দ্রবীভূত/drobi-bhuto (dissolved, i.e. become a দ্রব=solution). This probably also explains why উদিত, অমিত, etc. are pronounced udit, ɔmit, etc. when used as names.

***EDIT2:* In Sanskrit compound words, the schwa may be deleted after the first element if its stand-alone version deletes the schwa, e.g. প্রতাপ/protap (might/power) > প্রতাপশালী/protapsali (mighty). If the stand-alone version didn't delete the schwa, it seems to be retained in the compound as well, e.g. আয়ত/ayoto (oblong) > আয়তলোচনা/ayoto-lochona (a woman with long eyes). However, if the first element is only 2-syllables long, it seems to often retain the schwa in the compound, even if the stand-alone version deletes it, e.g. বল/bɔl (strength) > বলশালী/bɔlosali (strong), though not always, e.g. রাজধানী/rajdhani (capital city), রাজপথ/rajpɔth (highway), etc. Sometimes both versions may be heard, e.g. প্রাণদায়ী/pran(o)dayi (life-giving).


----------



## lachesisdecima

Dib said:


> For Bengali
> 
> *Word finally:*
> 1. I read somewhere that Bengali really has only one word with word-final consonant cluster - গঞ্জ (gɔnj), meaning a "large market village", mostly limited to placenames now-a-days, but very frequent there. Otherwise, if there is a consonant cluster at the end, an "-o" is *added* after that. In fact, even গঞ্জ may be pronounced as "gɔnjo" when used as a normal word, and not as a placename suffix. Modern English loanwords do not follow this rule in the mouth of the educated speakers for understandable reasons. So, Perso-Arabic "zabt" (ضبط) becomes "jɔbdo" (জব্দ) in Bengali, for example. And obviously, there is no question of deleting any schwa's in this context.
> 
> 2. When the deletion would not produce a word-final consonant cluster, the situation is far more complicated:
> 2.a. Some of the frequent grammatical endings like -to, -lo, -bo, -o are pronounced with a final -o, but are usually/often spelt with a schwa, e.g. korto/করত (he used to do), korlo/করল (he did), korbo/করব (I'll do), kɔro/কর (you do), etc.
> 2.b. Some Sanskrit words retain their final schwa - rather turn it into an -o, most notably the Sanskrit perfect participles in -ta (Skt. pronunciation-wise), secondary derivatives in -īya, etc. e.g. ahoto/আহত (injured), agoto/আগত (arrived), bharotio/ভারতীয় (Indian), etc. Other Sanskrit words tend to delete the schwa: gun/গুণ (quality), palon/পালন (...), jɔl/জল (water) etc.
> 2.c. Non-Sanskrit words usually delete the final schwa, but there are many exceptions, e.g. aj/আজ (today), kal/কাল (tomorrow/yesterday; also: time, but in that sense a Sanskrit loanword), batil/বাতিল (cancelled), etc. On the other hand, bhalo/ভাল (good, also spelt ভালো), chhoTo/ছোট (small), bɔRo/বড় (big), etc.
> 
> So, basically, you have to know word by word for 2b/c.
> 
> *Word internally:*
> 3. I think the general Hindi rule _ə → ∅ /VC_CV_ works also for Bengali for the old loanwords, i.e. primarily Arabic/Persian, and native words, e.g. চলতি/cholti (current adj.), কলকাতা/kolkata (also spelt sometimes: কোলকাতা), আরবি/arbi (Arabic), আমলা/amla (bureaucrat < Arabic 3amala, عملة, workers), etc.
> 
> 4. However, in Sanskrit words, I think the schwa is normally not deleted, merely transformed into ɔ or o, depending on the environment. Interestingly, even uneducated speakers don't seem to delete schwa's in this context, which probably suggests that the rule 3 is not productive any more. So, Bengali retains a contrast between aroti/আরতি (~worship) and arti/আর্তি (pain, painful urge), etc. অপসরণ (removal) is pronounced "ɔposɔron" (s = like English sh).
> 
> 5. Also, it seems, noun stems retain their basic form also after adding grammatical endings, even when the new phonetic structure satisfies rule 3 (more evidence that the rule is no more productive), e.g. amol/আমল (era, period < Arabic عمل) > amole/আমলে (in era), amoler/আমলের (of era).
> 
> ----
> 
> As you can imagine, the decision to retain or delete schwa is not always straightforward to arrive at. So, sometimes, there are variations, e.g. ɔmito/অমিত (lit. unmeasured > Bengali meaning: immeasurable) is expected to retain the final schwa as it is a Sanskrit perfect perticiple in -ta, and it usually does, except when it is used as a name, when it becomes ɔmit.
> 
> And one super-rule to over-rule everything above: in poetic language, especially in songs, many more schwa's (or less often, other vowels) are restored/introduced. So, the popular song-line by Tagore: "amaro pɔrano jaha chay" is spelt "আমার পরাণ যাহা চায়", and stands for standard prose Bengali "amar pran jaha chay" (আমার প্রাণ যাহা চায়)| Or, "aji jhɔro-jhɔro mukhoro badoro dine" is spelt "আজি ঝর-ঝর মুখর বাদর-দিনে", and would stand for standard prose Bengali "aj jhɔr-jhɔr mukhor badol-dine" (আজ ঝর-ঝর মুখর বাদল-দিনে)|
> 
> ----
> 
> Have more fun (or nightmare) with Bengali spelling.




Heh. As you said before, Dib! Always be careful of Bengali spelling. Thanks for the exposition for Bengali!


----------



## Dib

Though not directly addressing the topic, I should probably mention that the form কর from my examples before is tripply ambiguous inside the paradigm of the verb root কর্‌- (to do), though all the forms allow alternative spellings to (partially) resolve the ambiguity. It can stand for the following separate forms:

1) কর/kɔr : 2nd person familiar present imperative. Also spelt কর্‌ (with explicit হসন্ত to show that it is consonant-final), e.g. tui kɔr! ((You) do!)
2) কর/kɔro : 2nd person neutral present imperative/indicative. Also spelt করো, e.g. tumi kɔro (You do).
3) কর/koro (admittedly, this spelling is probably less frequent for this form, but still possible): 2nd person neutral future imperative. Also spelt করো (still ambiguous with #2, but probably the most frequent spelling), ক'রো, etc. e.g. tumi koro ((you) do (later)!)

Note that #2 has no unambiguous way of spelling, 1 & 3 have.


----------



## Dib

Added a couple of edits to post #6 to include some more details.


----------



## fdb

Dib said:


> e.g. amol/আমল (era, period < Arabic عمل) > amole/আমলে (in era), amoler/আমলের (of era).



Are you sure this is from عمل“work”? Maybe it is from عالم“world, era, aeon” with metathesis ʻālam > ʻāmal > amol ?


----------



## Dib

fdb said:


> Are you sure this is from عمل“work”? Maybe it is from عالم“world, era, aeon” with metathesis ʻālam > ʻāmal > amol ?



Thanks for the observation, fdb. So, someone had the patience to go through the details of my ramblings. 

Anyways, I am pretty sure, it is from عمل“work”. The most typical Bengali use of this word is traditionally: "in/since the 'amol' of xyz" where xyz is a king or official or dynasty, etc. My only conjectural step here is that this "amol" originally meant "(time in) office/activity", which I believe is within the semantic sphere of عمل. Please, correct me if it is not. In fact, we also have in 18th century Bengali: "কটকে হইল আলিবর্দির আমল" (- Bharatchandra, as quoted in Samsad Bangla Abhidhan), i.e. "Alivardi's 'amol' was established in Cuttack", where 'amol' clearly means 'rule/authority', and Alivardi, I presume, is Alivardi Khan, Nawab of Bengal (1740-1756), who campaigned in Orissa to defeat the Marathas, etc. I think that should supply the missing link in the semantic shift. Today, however, amol is not limited to ruling powers and the like. It may be simply like, "in our parents' 'amol' (=times)", etc.


----------



## fdb

Thank you for the clarification. I do not know this usage from classical Arabic, but I see that Platts records it for Urdu: "administration, government, rule, sway, jurisdiction, possession; an office of administration".


----------



## Dib

Cool. I just checked Dehkhoda. He also lists these meanings for Persian:

خدمت . (از منتهی الارب ) (ناظم الاطباء). ماحصل حکومت و ریاست . (ناظم الاطباء). خدمت دولتی . کار دیوانی . شغل دیوانی ، مخصوصاً جمعآوری و تحصیل مالیات و خراج :... ابراهیم بن الحصین القوسی به سیستان اندرآمد و بعمل ... و برادر را به عمل هرات بگذاشت . (تاریخ سیستان ).

For those who don't read Persian: one of the meanings, Dehkhoda's comprehensive Persian dictionary defines for عمل (amal) is service, reign, office, etc. The very clear example sentence comes from Tarikh-e Sistan, and says: "Ibrahim bin al-Hasin(?) al-Qausi(?) came in to Sistan, and into 'amal'(=power?) ... and put (his) brother in 'amal'(=power?) of Herat."

----

I should have tagged the word "Perso-Arabic" in my original post. But, unfortunately, the edit window has passed. So, I'll just let it be. In any case, Bengali (like other Indian languages) pretty much always borrowed Arabic words through the filter of Persian.


----------



## tarkshya

To the best of my knowledge, Hindi, and by extension Urdu, does not have any temporal connotations in the meaning of the word عمل. Most common use in Urdu is to "put something to use" (عمل میں  لانا   amal meN laanaa), or "to comply with some order" (عمل  کرنا amal karnaa). I am not aware of any extended meanings that imply "era", or "period", or "reign".


----------



## Dib

tarkshya said:


> Most common use in Urdu is to "put something to use" (عمل میں  لانا   amal meN laanaa), or "to comply with some order" (عمل  کرنا amal karnaa).



The second meaning exists in Bengali too, though probably limited to the idiom আমল না দেওয়া/amol na deoa (not to give 'amol', i.e. "not to pay heed to/disobey").


----------



## lachesisdecima

Hi. I will tack this one here just to see if I can gain some replies. Also, I believe it is relevant. I think the other Hindi: नरेन्द्र Narendra pronunciation  may be dead. I will use the same example from that thread. 

I would like to clarify one thing. How does one delete the final schwa in नरेन्द्र? The thread above says that one should delete the final schwa from this conjunct. This seems really weird. Whenever one attempts to say narendr, there is this faint schwa heard at the end. I believe this happens with all final conjuncts.

For instance in the word, ऐक्य, I have always heard it being pronounced as ækyə. The speaker does attempt to delete the schwa (force of habit probably), but the schwa always comes out in the end. In this case, I believe this phenomenon is known ya glide. The schwa seems fainter (this might be an individual thing) but it is obviously there.

So shouldn't नरेन्द्र be pronounced like narendra with a schwa at the end. Deleting it frankly seems quite impossible.

PS: I know I am a non native speaker. So, please, do not hesitate to correct me on this whole thing.


----------



## mundiya

^ I guess what I should have said in the other thread is that it's not a full schwa at the end of नरेन्द्र but a partial schwa. It's definitely an "a" type of sound, not a different vowel.


----------



## lachesisdecima

mundiya said:


> ^ I guess what I should have said in the other thread is that it's not a full schwa at the end of नरेन्द्र but a partial schwa. It's definitely an "a" type of sound, not a different vowel.



Thanks. Good to know. That cleared up the confusion


----------

