# Hindi: Are Hindi words pronounced exactly how they are written?



## Paintdrop

Is it true that reading and speaking Hindi is extremely easy once you learn all the vowels and consonants of Hindi? In other words, is it true that Hindi words are spoken exactly how they are written?


----------



## LluviaDeRisa

Yes, spoken exactly how it's written. But I am not sure if that makes it "extremely easy," especially if you're starting to learn it from scratch. It has a different script that one will have to learn and get used to.


----------



## Paintdrop

You're right! I'm sure there will be other challenges even after mastering pronunciation of vowels and consonants. 

If it is truly spoken the way it's written, I would like to know why the words hello and salt are not pronounced exactly how they are written. 

Hello is written नमस्ते, but pronounced as "nah-muh-stay," yet the न has a "nuh" sound, not "nah". 

As for salt, नमक, is it really pronounced as "nah-muck" or "nuh-muck?" 

Thanks!


----------



## Qureshpor

Paintdrop said:


> You're right! I'm sure there will be other challenges even after mastering pronunciation of vowels and consonants.
> 
> If it is truly spoken the way it's written, I would like to know why the words hello and salt are not pronounced exactly how they are written.
> 
> Hello is written नमस्ते, but pronounced as "nah-muh-stay," yet the न has a "nuh" sound, not "nah".
> 
> As for salt, नमक, is it really pronounced as "nah-muck" or "nuh-muck?"
> 
> Thanks!




Standard pronunciation for these two words is "namaste" and "namak". I don't know where you have heard the other pronunciations.


----------



## tonyspeed

Paintdrop said:


> In other words, is it true that Hindi words are spoken exactly how they are written?



Yes, hindi is easy to read. No, Hindi is NOT easy to pronounce. It is difficult for an English speaker to pronounce because 
1) the vowel sounds are mostly pure whereas in English we are used to dipthongs 
2) use of language sounds that are very Indic but very un-English. For example, retroflex and dental consonants, nasalization, and the most difficult aspiration and NON-aspiration. (You have to watch how much air you exhale while speaking) 

So yes, it is easy to read, but it is also easy to read incorrectly.

As far as the last question above you asked, the answer is yes in MOST cases. But there are exceptions. 

For instance,the H sound when surrounded by the vowel (a as in namaste) becomes a different vowel sound. Therefore, kahanaa कहना is actually pronounced कैना (kainaa). 

There is the problem of which inherent vowels to silence. Sometimes this is not obvious from the script. Therefore a word such as घटना  when read literally would be pronounced ghatana, but it actually pronounced ghatna. Only experience or a dictionary can help you with this. 

Another exception is when the "a" vowel is preceded by the "y" sound (especially at the end of a word) as in समय. There the "a" vowel sound, once again becomes "ai" as in समै. 

There is also the case where the "aa" vowel sound is followed by a y at the end of a word such as गाय. In this case, the vowel is pronounced as a dipthong of the "aa" and "ii" vowel sounds (गाई), not as gaaya.

These were just a few of the exceptions off the top of my head.


I would also suggest that you learn the vowel sounds by ear and stick to Hindi script. Trying to learn Hindi through roman letters is an exercise in futility. That is where your confusion is coming from.


----------



## Paintdrop

QURESHPOR said:


> Standard pronunciation for these two words is "namaste" and "namak". I don't know where you have heard the other pronunciations.



Yes, but what type of sound is the "a" in namaste? Is it an uh sound, or an ah sound? Also, I'm very sorry, but I must also ignorantly ask why are there two ways to spell hello in Hindi? Why do you use both नमस्ते and namaste? When you learned Hindi, did you have to know both forms of hello? Sorry for sounding like a clueless worm.


----------



## Paintdrop

@Tonyspeed  

Thanks! So do you think it's possible for someone to fluently speak Hindi in less than a year without ever travelling to India?


----------



## tonyspeed

If you dedicate all your free time to it, it is possible to be conversationally fluent in less than a year or a little over a year. Literal fluency, no. I don't think literal fluency caa be acheived in a year in any language unless it is very similar you one's own mother tongue.


----------



## Machlii5

Paintdrop said:


> Yes, but what type of sound is the "a" in namaste? Is it an uh sound, or an ah sound? Also, I'm very sorry, but I must also ignorantly ask why are there two ways to spell hello in Hindi? Why do you use both नमस्ते and namaste?


Having been an absolute beginner myself not so long ago I guess I know what's puzzling you. नमस्ते is the standard greeting in Hindi script (devanagari), and namaste is the same word in transliteration (or romanization) i.e. written in Latin (= Roman) script as a help for people who are not yet familiar with devanagari. The vowel letters in the Latin script originally corresponded to “pure“ vowel sounds, like you still find in Italian and Spanish, and to a certain extend in most of the other European languages - except English. The basic problem native speakers of English are facing is that English uses the Latin script in a different way: there is hardly a single spelling of any given vowel sound, and no single pronunciation of any given vowel letter. That's why you're wondering if the “a“ is an “uh“ or an “ah“ sound. But it's really quite easy: the pronunciation of the short “*a*“ in Hindi is similar to the English indefinite article “*a*". 
In “I've got *a* c_*a*_r“ you have both the short *a* and the long *aa.* Pronounce the *i* like in “b*i*t“, the *u* like in b*u*sh (both also have a long form). The *e* is like in “b*e*d“, and remember that you must pronounce it also at the end of a word, e.g. namast*e*, unlike in English where a written final “e“ is mute and only serves to change the pronunciation of the preceding vowel (e.g. not vs note  / hat vs hate / bit vs bite / cut vs cute etc.). Non-standard romanizations like नमस्ते -> "nah-muh-stay“ try to “help“ native English speakers pronounce correctly but prevent you from finding the word in a dictionary or spelling it correctly in devanagari.   
B.t.w., the easiest way to get familiar with the sounds of Hindi is to listen to Bollywood songs


----------



## Paintdrop

Machlii5 said:


> Having been an absolute beginner myself not so long ago I guess I know what's puzzling you. नमस्ते is the standard greeting in Hindi script (devanagari), and namaste is the same word in transliteration (or romanization) i.e. written in Latin (= Roman) script as a help for people who are not yet familiar with devanagari. The vowel letters in the Latin script originally corresponded to “pure“ vowel sounds, like you still find in Italian and Spanish, and to a certain extend in most of the other European languages - except English. The basic problem native speakers of English are facing is that English uses the Latin script in a different way: there is hardly a single spelling of any given vowel sound, and no single pronunciation of any given vowel letter. That's why you're wondering if the “a“ is an “uh“ or an “ah“ sound. But it's really quite easy: the pronunciation of the short “*a*“ in Hindi is similar to the English indefinite article “*a*".
> In “I've got *a* c_*a*_r“ you have both the short *a* and the long *aa.* Pronounce the *i* like in “b*i*t“, the *u* like in b*u*sh (both also have a long form). The *e* is like in “b*e*d“, and remember that you must pronounce it also at the end of a word, e.g. namast*e*, unlike in English where a written final “e“ is mute and only serves to change the pronunciation of the preceding vowel (e.g. not vs note  / hat vs hate / bit vs bite / cut vs cute etc.). Non-standard romanizations like नमस्ते -> "nah-muh-stay“ try to “help“ native English speakers pronounce correctly but prevent you from finding the word in a dictionary or spelling it correctly in devanagari.
> B.t.w., the easiest way to get familiar with the sounds of Hindi is to listen to Bollywood songs



This makes sense, but I am still puzzled. When learning Hindi, am I required to know both the Devanagari and the Latin script to fully understand the language? Can I ignore the Latin script and just focus on Devanagari? Learning two ways to write each word seems like double work in my opinion. 

For instance, the Swedish word for dictionary is ordbok. I would then move on to learn another word. However, in Hindi, it seems like I'd first have to learn the word written in Devanagari, and then learn the exact same word written in its Latin script. Is this true? In fact, are some Hindi books written in Latin script?


----------



## tonyspeed

Machlii5 said:


> the pronunciation of the short “*a*“ in Hindi is similar to the English indefinite article “*a*".
> In “I've got *a* c_*a*_r“ you have both the short *a* and the long *aa.* Pronounce the *i* like in “b*i*t“, the *u* like in b*u*sh (both also have a long form). The *e* is like in “b*e*d“, and remember that you must pronounce it also at the end of a word, e.g. namast*e*,



This is why I particularly hate the sounds like game. In various dialects of English "a" is pronounced two different ways. Some people pronounce it like the "u" in "but" and some people pronounce it like the "ay" in "pay". Therefore this example is confusing to a English speaker familiar with the breadth of the English language.


The e in namaste sounds nothing like the e in bed. It sounds like the "ay" in pay and gay except it is pure. The e in bed is a short "e" sound.




Paintdrop said:


> This makes sense, but I am still puzzled. When  learning Hindi, am I required to know both the Devanagari and the Latin  script to fully understand the language? Can I ignore the Latin script  and just focus on Devanagari? Learning two ways to write each word seems  like double work in my opinion.



You do not have to learn the word in Latin script. Actually Hindi can never be correctly transcribed in Latin script. The only reason people do it is because not all Indians are literate in Devanagari and Pakistanis can't read Devanagari.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> You do not have to learn the word in Latin script. Actually Hindi can never be correctly transcribed in Latin script. The only reason people do it is because not all Indians are literate in Devanagari and Pakistanis can't read Devanagari.



Good Morning Tony,

1) It can be if one uses the International Phonetic Script.

2) Are you sure that Pakistanis can't read Devanagri?


----------



## rahulbemba

Paintdrop said:


> Is it true that reading and speaking Hindi is  extremely easy once you learn all the vowels and consonants of Hindi? In  other words, is it true that Hindi words are spoken exactly how they  are written?



I think yes, by and large it is easy to  pronounce, though 100% accurate pronunciation is not achieved even by  most Indians because Indians coming from different parts and regions of  India have their own accents. In general, if you write in Latin script  the pronunciations would be similar. Though there would be differences  in understanding differences in vowels, for newcomers. For example,  Krishna is pronounced as Krishna and not Krishnaa, while Sita is  pronounced Seetaa. I have found some people using a better method of  Transliteration. 

Please search about ISO 15919, which is the  international standard for transliteration of Devanagari and related  Indic scripts into Latin characters. Even I am thinking about learning  it, though I know Devanagari thoroughly. I am planning to learn, because  on internet forums, this new script is getting more popularity, and as  there is more curiosity about India and Indian languages on the  international scenario, it is becoming more important. (Devanagari  script is the common script for many other Indian languages, like  Marathi). 

In my opinion, you should learn this system of  transliteration and then you will be able to use Latin script for Hindi.  Learning Devanagari will take some time. If should think about your  intention and the depth to which you want to understand or make use of  the language and decide accordingly.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> 2) Are you sure that Pakistanis can't read Devanagri?



pakistani log devanagari nahiiN paDh sakte jaise seb laal hote haiN..


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> pakistani log devanagari nahiiN paDh sakte jaise seb laal hote haiN..



mu3aaf kiijiye gaa, bhaa'ii saaHib. kuchh Thiik tarH aap kii baat samajh meN nahiiN aa'ii. yaqiin-an is meN qusuur meraa hii ho gaa!


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> pakistani log devanagari nahiiN paDh sakte jaise seb laal hote haiN..



OK, Sorry for being so slow. I think I get your drift now. Just as it is a reality that apples are red, it is also reality that Pakistanis can't read Devanagri. I suppose this is what you meant. If this is true then I would like to say that SOME varieties of apples are green and SOME Pakistanis can read Devanagri! When you said, "...and Pakistanis can't read Devanagari", this is what prompted me to ask the question, "Are you sure that Pakistanis can't read Devanagri?"


----------



## Tryingtoimprovemyhindi

I think you should also keep in mind that hindi is a fairly flat language in terms of pronounciation.


----------

