# Urdu, Hindi: retroflex spelling of foreign words



## marrish

In the thread about decades, Qureshpor SaaHib posted an instance from the website of the 

international broadcaster from Germany, Deutsche Welle. The name, _Deutsche Welle_, has been transcribed 

by the Urdu service of this broadcaster into Urdu as _*ڈ*وئچے ویلے /*D*o'iche vele/. _The Hindi service is called similarily,
*
डॉ*यचे वेले _/*D*aayche* vele/, _thus depicting the first consonant as a retroflex *D*.


One would normally expect that the writing of the name of the service happened with utmost care and precision. 

I presume that the persons in charge of it had a substantial command over the German language. What is surprising,

that in German, this name is pronounced *d*ɔɪ̯ʧəˈvɛlə, ''d'' being dental.


Interestingly, its Pashto service found it appriopriate to transcribe its name as دوئچہ ویلہ /*d*o'ichə welə/, 

notwithstanding that the retroflex consonant D also constitutes a part of this language and it is always depicted

in script.


Do you know of other words from languages other than English, which are transcribed into Hindi or Urdu in this way,

i.e. using retroflex consonants where dental ones are the original ones?


I'm wondering which compulsion is there in the Hindi/Urdu psyche to make them retroflex?



*I still don't know how to call ॅ which occasionally occurs in Nagari. I don't know either which sound it is supposed to indicate.


----------



## lcfatima

> I'm wondering which compulsion is there in the Hindi/Urdu psyche to make them retroflex?




I was wondering about this, too. 

I saw Turkey, Tanzania and Vietnam written with dental /t/ in Devnagari. 

I haven't seen these words written in Devnagari, but in pronunciation, Fajitas becomes faad͡ʒTaas, tortilla becomes TorTɪLLa and so on at Indian Tex-Mex restaurants. These are words coming into use by Indian English speakers and speakers of other Indian languages from American English but read with an Indian accent as spelled. The Spanish dental /t/ have been changed to retroflex.

Bottle as botal, why not boTal since it is a foreign word?

Probably with many words it would have to do with how the individual word entered the language, but before I thought all foreign /t/ and /d/ became retroflex.


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> Bottle as botal, why not boTal since it is a foreign word?



Yes, this is interesting why the "t" in the English "bottle" became Urdu-Hindi-Punjabi "botal". But we do know that the English "t" is neither the retroflex "T" nor the dental "t". I am not sure if retroflex sounds are found in European languages. I was surprised to read marrish SaaHib mentioning a dental "t" in German. I thought the dental sounds were more a part of Latin based languages like Italian rather than the Germanic languages like English, German and Dutch.


----------



## ihaveacomputer

Transcription of French is notoriously bad, retroflexes being but one of many problems! My assumption has always been that writers are ignorant of how French is pronounced and are applying English phonological rules.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> Yes, this is interesting why the "t" in the English "bottle" became Urdu-Hindi-Punjabi "botal". But we do know that the English "t" is neither the retroflex "T" nor the dental "t". I am not sure if retroflex sounds are found in European languages. I was surprised to read marrish SaaHib mentioning a dental "t" in German. I thought the dental sounds were more a part of Latin based languages like Italian rather than the Germanic languages like English, German and Dutch.



What I actually mentioned was a dental ''d'' in German, but it extends of course onto ''t'' as well. You are very right that the Romance languages have dental consonants, but not only them! German, Dutch, Swedish (Germanic), Slavic languages like Slovenian, Russian or Polish and even Ugro-Finnic Hungarian and Finnish have them dental.

http://www.forvo.com/word/d/

I don't think a typical retroflex d's or t's occur in any European language. This phenomenon is probably limited to South Asia and some parts of Africa, I think.

It is good that you mentioned that the English t's and d's are not fully retroflex or dental.


----------



## marrish

lcfatima said:


> I was wondering about this, too.
> 
> I saw Turkey, Tanzania and Vietnam written with dental /t/ in Devnagari.
> 
> I haven't seen these words written in Devnagari, but in pronunciation, Fajitas becomes faad͡ʒTaas, tortilla becomes TorTɪLLa and so on at Indian Tex-Mex restaurants. These are words coming into use by Indian English speakers and speakers of other Indian languages from American English but read with an Indian accent as spelled. The Spanish dental /t/ have been changed to retroflex.
> 
> Bottle as botal, why not boTal since it is a foreign word?
> 
> Probably with many words it would have to do with how the individual word entered the language, but before I thought all foreign /t/ and /d/ became retroflex.



Thank you for your input, lcfatima SaaHibah, it is highly interesting! 

I think that botal entered the language sufficiently long ago that it accomodated to this form. I have another one which might interest you: _dasambar/disambar_ 'December'. The 'd' is dental.


----------



## marrish

ihaveacomputer said:


> Transcription of French is notoriously bad, retroflexes being but one of many problems! My assumption has always been that writers are ignorant of how French is pronounced and are applying English phonological rules.



Did you refer to English speakers producing nearly retroflex sounds in French while they shouldn't?


----------



## UrduMedium

marrish said:


> Thank you for your input, lcfatima SaaHibah, it is highly interesting!
> 
> I think that botal entered the language sufficiently long ago that it accomodated to this form. I have another one which might interest you: _dasambar/disambar_ 'December'. The 'd' is dental.



Could it be that _botal _and _disambar _(also_ sitambar, agast, aktuubar_) came to Urdu/Hindi via Persian which is why the dental _t_?

I think a lot of the time _T _instead of _t _is due to sounds coming via English, like _fahiiTas _(rather than _fahiitas_). Standard conversion of English t into Urdu is T (not t).

One name like that is Tokyo, which you will find written in Urdu press both with a Te (Tokiyo) and with toi' (tokiyo). The latter is more recent and probably still less common.


----------



## marrish

It is interesting what you've said about Tokyo, I've never encountered it.
With all certainty I can say that the names of the months haven't come to Urdu via Persian because Persian has its own names of the months and above all, it never borrowed the English ones, helping itself to the French ones, instead.


----------



## ihaveacomputer

marrish said:


> Did you refer to English speakers producing nearly retroflex sounds in French while they shouldn't?



My apologies for being unclear. I was referring to transcription of French into Devanagari and Gurmukhi. I am not sure if Urdu writers often make the same errors.




marrish said:


> I don't think a typical retroflex d's or t's occur in any European language. This phenomenon is probably limited to South Asia and some parts of Africa, I think.



There are some retroflex consonants present in my father's native Sicilian, actually! Generally, though, you're right. Retroflex consonants and European languages don't often mix.


----------



## marrish

ihaveacomputer said:


> My apologies for being unclear. I was referring to transcription of French into Devanagari and Gurmukhi. I am not sure if Urdu writers often make the same errors.
> 
> Surprising! Unfortunately I've never had the pleasure of seeing transcriptions of French into Devanagari and Gurmukhi. I'd love to see some!
> 
> 
> There are some retroflex consonants present in my father's native Sicilian, actually! Generally, though, you're right. Retroflex consonants and European languages don't often mix
> 
> Wow, this is mind-boggling! Which consonants are they? Are they pronounced always or at times only? And, is their quality comparative with Urdu or Hindi ones?


----------



## ihaveacomputer

marrish said:


> Wow, this is mind-boggling! Which consonants are they? Are they pronounced always or at times only? And, is their quality comparative with Urdu or Hindi ones?



The consonants you'll find in Sicilian are equivalent to "ڈ / ड", "ٹ / ट"  and Shuddh Hindi's "ष". These are represented in Sicilian by -dd-, tr- and str-, respectively. The "-dd-" sound replaces Latin's "-ll-". Some of you may be familiar with the word "bello" in Italian, usually meaning beautiful. In Sicilian, the word is "beddu", including the retroflex consonant! The "tr-" and "str-" sounds include the above retroflexes and are followed by the typical English "r". The sounds are almost similar to those you'll find in the English words "tree" and "shred", but initiated with retroflex consonants.


----------



## marrish

^ Thanks a lot, ihaveacomputer, for these revelations!!!


----------



## lcfatima

In UAE and Oman, Arabs also use botal instead of zujaajah or some Arabic origin term, probably adopted from Hindustani like a lot of other lexicon.

Googling led me to this info on botal coming from Portuguese botelho. I am not a Portuguese speaker, but I believe that would make it a dental /t/. So it may have been adopted earlier than the widespread adoption of English words in Indian languages.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3q...YQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=botal mai Arabic&f=false


----------



## tonyspeed

Let's not forget aspataal, which is also rendered with a dental consontant. अस्पताल


----------



## Machlii5

marrish said:


> The name, _Deutsche Welle_, has been transcribed
> 
> by the Urdu service of this broadcaster into Urdu as _*ڈ*وئچے ویلے /*D*o'iche vele/. _The Hindi service is called similarily,
> *
> डॉ*यचे वेले _/*D*aayche* vele/, _thus depicting the first consonant as a retroflex *D*.
> One would normally expect that the writing of the name of the service happened with utmost care and precision.
> I presume that the persons in charge of it had a substantial command over the German language. What is surprising, that in German, this name is pronounced *d*ɔɪ̯ʧəˈvɛlə, ''d'' being dental.
> 
> Interestingly, its Pashto service found it appriopriate to transcribe its name as دوئچہ ویلہ /*d*o'ichə welə/,
> notwithstanding that the retroflex consonant D also constitutes a part of this language and it is always depicted
> in script.
> 
> Do you know of other words from languages other than English, which are transcribed into Hindi or Urdu in this way, i.e. using retroflex consonants where dental ones are the original ones?
> 
> I'm wondering which compulsion is there in the Hindi/Urdu psyche to make them retroflex?
> 
> *I still don't know how to call ॅ which occasionally occurs in Nagari. I don't know either which sound it is supposed to indicate.


In European languages, “t“ and “d“ are generally referred to as “dental“ consonants (as opposed to “labial“, “velar“ etc.), but in pronouncing them the tip of the tongue normally doesn't get anywhere near the teeth. It touches the bony ridge between the teeth and the palate, the alveolar ridge, - that's why phoneticians rather speak of “alveolar“ consonants.
There may be variations as to the exact spot where the tongue touches the alveolar ridge, e.g. for “st“ it would be nearer the teeth, for “sht“ nearer the palate, there may be individual differences or even slightly different standards in different languages, but these differences are phonologically irrelevant as there are no changes in the meanings of words. 

But in Hindi/Urdu there are two distinguished sets:  dental t/d and retroflex T/D (where the tip of the tongue curls on the palate). You'll notice that the alveolar set is just in the middle between the dental set and the retroflex set.
I suppose that to the ear of a Hindi/Urdu speaker, if it doesn't sound like द  and  त it must be  ड and ट - or rather *ठ *- we mustn't forget another difference: at least in German and English <t> is always spoken with an aspiration, whereas <d> never is.


----------



## tonyspeed

Machlii5 said:


> In European languages, “t“ and “d“ are generally referred to as “dental“ consonants (as opposed to “labial“, “velar“ etc.), but in pronouncing them the tip of the tongue normally doesn't get anywhere near the teeth. It touches the bony ridge between the teeth and the palate, the alveolar ridge, - that's why phoneticians rather speak of “alveolar“ consonants.
> There may be variations as to the exact spot where the tongue touches the alveolar ridge, e.g. for “st“ it would be nearer the teeth, for “sht“ nearer the palate, there may be individual differences or even slightly different standards in different languages, but these differences are phonologically irrelevant as there are no changes in the meanings of words.
> 
> But in Hindi/Urdu there are two distinguished sets:  dental t/d and retroflex T/D (where the tip of the tongue curls on the palate). You'll notice that the alveolar set is just in the middle between the dental set and the retroflex set.
> I suppose that to the ear of a Hindi/Urdu speaker, if it doesn't sound like द  and  त it must be  ड and ट - or rather *ठ *- we mustn't forget another difference: at least in German and English <t> is always spoken with an aspiration, whereas <d> never is.



According to wikipedia, by way of "Sounds of the World's Languages: "
Although denti-alveolar consonants are often labeled as "dental",  because only the forward contact with the teeth is visible, it is the  rear-most point of contact of the tongue that is most relevant, for this  is what defines the maximum acoustic space of resonance and will give a  consonant its characteristic sound.[1]
 In the case of French, the rear-most contact is alveolar or sometimes slightly pre-alveolar. Spanish /t/ and /d/ are laminal denti-alveolar,[2] while /l/ and /n/ are alveolar (though they assimilate to a following /t/ or /d/). Similarly, Italian /t/, /d/, /t͡s/, /d͡z/ are denti-alveolar, while /l/ and /n/ are alveolar.[3]"

So it would seem that European languages don't have pure dentals.


----------



## marrish

While browsing through the net I encountered an interesting case of an English word which hasn't been transcribed into Hindi employing retroflexes:

द _हिन्दु _da hindu_ - _The Hindu (newspaper)


----------



## Sheikh_14

marrish said:


> In the thread about decades, Qureshpor SaaHib posted an instance from the website of the
> 
> international broadcaster from Germany, Deutsche Welle. The name, _Deutsche Welle_, has been transcribed
> 
> by the Urdu service of this broadcaster into Urdu as _*ڈ*وئچے ویلے /*D*o'iche vele/. _The Hindi service is called similarily,
> 
> *डॉ*यचे वेले _/*D*aayche* vele/, _thus depicting the first consonant as a retroflex *D*.
> 
> 
> One would normally expect that the writing of the name of the service happened with utmost care and precision.
> 
> I presume that the persons in charge of it had a substantial command over the German language. What is surprising,
> 
> that in German, this name is pronounced *d*ɔɪ̯ʧəˈvɛlə, ''d'' being dental.
> 
> 
> Interestingly, its Pashto service found it appriopriate to transcribe its name as  ویلہ /*d*o'ichə welə/,
> 
> notwithstanding that the retroflex consonant D also constitutes a part of this language and it is always depicted
> 
> in script.
> 
> 
> Do you know of other words from languages other than English, which are transcribed into Hindi or Urdu in this way,
> 
> i.e. using retroflex consonants where dental ones are the original ones?
> 
> 
> I'm wondering which compulsion is there in the Hindi/Urdu psyche to make them retroflex?
> 
> 
> 
> *I still don't know how to call ॅ which occasionally occurs in Nagari. I don't know either which sound it is supposed to indicate.


Linguistic jargon aside since I am still acquainting myself with them, the entire premise of the thread appears to be incorrect. The German D should be transcribed in Urdu as ڈ since it is identical to the English d. If anything Pashto has erred perhaps by way of Dari.

For more on this please consult What are the pronunciation rules for the consonant d?.

I'm not exactly sure what stirred the misunderstanding. There are a few proficient Germanspeakers in the forum who would be better able to speak to this. But my understanding with multiple interactions with Germans is that they do not have the Latin d I.e. د sound in their alphabet. Thence Urdu and Hindi are in the right here. It is indeed Do'icha-w/v(German only incorporates a v sound)ela.

My only gripe would be with the ending as it ought to be *ڈ*وئچہ ویلہ and not end in a baRii ye. It ends with a soft ah sound and not an E sound. In other words wella is pronounced as Vela not vele (except in the Austrian dialect). Since DW is a German and not an Austrian broadcaster the above stands.  Welle - Wiktionary۔ Same goes for Deutche which ought to be pronounced as Do'icha not Do'iche. For instance it's Do'icha Bank, not Do'iche bank. 

For context this is how it is transcribed in Arabic دويتشه فيله. Thence the Urdu transcription is incorrect only in how it ends not in how it begins!


----------



## aevynn

lcfatima said:


> Bottle as botal, why not boTal since it is a foreign word?





Qureshpor said:


> Yes, this is interesting why the "t" in the English "bottle" became Urdu-Hindi-Punjabi "botal".


Urdu-Hindi _botal_ is supposedly an old loanword deriving from Portuguese _botelha_, not from English _bottle_ --- and Portuguese at least has dental t's.



ihaveacomputer said:


> My assumption has always been that writers are ignorant of how French is pronounced and are applying English phonological rules.


I suspect this is often true, and not just for French. For example, the Mandarin sounds represented by pinyin "b" and "j" are actually the _voiceless_ unaspirated [p] and [t͡ɕ]. The former is identical to Hindi-Urdu [p] (پ प) and the latter is probably closest to [t͡ʃ] (च چ). And yet, Beijing is transcribed as बेजिंग, बीजिंग, بیجنگ... Vowels aside, notice the use of [ b] (ب ब) and [d͡ʒ] (ज ج). The only explanation I see for this is that the word has been filtered through English.


----------



## Pokeflute

aevynn said:


> Urdu-Hindi _botal_ is supposedly an old loanword deriving from Portuguese _botelha_, not from English _bottle_ --- and Portuguese at least has dental t's.


Yup - another poster pointed out the months (etc. sitambar), but these are also from Portuguese. Which is why the more "English" equivalents have retrodlexes (e.g. "sepTembar")

Similarly, I hear "bauTal" alongside "botal", likely because the former is an English loan and the latter is Portuguese.


----------



## Frau Moore

"In European languages, “t“ and “d“ are generally referred to as “dental“ consonants (as opposed to “labial“, “velar“ etc.), but in pronouncing them the tip of the tongue normally doesn't get anywhere near the teeth. It touches the bony ridge between the teeth and the palate, the alveolar ridge, - that's why phoneticians rather speak of “alveolar“ consonants."

German is my mother tongue. When I pronounce "deutsch" my tongue is definitely touching my teeth. (However there are other German words containing a "d" where my tongue would indeed touch the ridge above the teeths). 

For me the difference between a German and a Hindi /Urdu dental d or t is this - the German sounds carry a whiff of aspiration - but even this depends on particular words and probably on regions. Here in the South of Germany we speak quite soft and unaspirated d and t sounds.


----------



## Happu

Qureshpor said:


> Yes, this is interesting why the "t" in the English "bottle" became Urdu-Hindi-Punjabi "botal". But we do know that the English "t" is neither the retroflex "T" nor the dental "t". I am not sure if retroflex sounds are found in European languages. I was surprised to read marrish SaaHib mentioning a dental "t" in German. I thought the dental sounds were more a part of Latin based languages like Italian rather than the Germanic languages like English, German and Dutch.



Actually _botal _was not adopted from English but from Portuguese, which may come as a surprise. The same goes for_ pistaul_. Or maybe it shouldn't be so surprising, as the Portuguese arrived in India before the British did.

I once drew up a list of Portuguese-derived words in Hindi, I got to around thirty. The Portuguese letter t or d remains dental in Hindi. Interestingly _bAlTI_ (bucket) is also from Portuguese, but from _balde, _so the d becomes a T_._


----------



## Happu

lcfatima said:


> I saw Turkey, Tanzania and Vietnam written with dental /t/ in Devnagari



You can add Thailand to the list, written थाईलैंड, so only the English 'd' in 'land' becomes retroflex.

​


----------

