# Urdu, Hindi: Indic F-words



## marrish

Dear Forum friends,


The discussion about f>ph, ph<p transitions and transcription has been already stirred up in various threads and we can await more threads on this phenomenon, so let us commence with a peculiar facet which could be portrayed as follows:


While in Urdu, there is an abundance of Arabic and Persian words which contain the consonant "f", amongst which some Persian ones that borrowed their f's from Arabic, there is a commonly accepted belief about the absence of "f" in Prakrit/khaRii bolii-origin lexical stock. Whitth respect to Hindi, opinions regarding the foreigness of "f" can be heard. 


One does manage to hear 'f' in the speech of the ones who are normally not inclined to realize it where, say, an Urdu or Hindi speaker would expect them to do it, happen to pronounce it elsewhere. Apparently such words can be found which consist of a 'f' and Prakritic-khaRii-bolian genealogy. I'm particularily interested wheter such occurences can be called as quantitively worth mentioning and if any pattern or traces of a process could be distinguishable.

As a starter, here is an entry from Platts:


_H سلفا sulfā, s.m. A small ball of tobacco smoked in a ḥuqqa without the intervention of a tile:—sulfā karnā, v.t. To burn to ashes; to consume:—sulfā honā or ho-jānā, v.n. To be consumed; to be utterly destroyed or ruined._


----------



## UrduMedium

I have heard _fuul _(phuul, flower) and _fir _(phir, then) from Hindi speakers.

Also, this may be slang, but a popular Bollywood word ... _lafRaa _(as in kyaa lafRaa hai? -- what's the matter?)

Two more: _lafangaa _(show-off, bully), and _jaa'ifal_ (spice).


----------



## Alfaaz

UrduMedium said:
			
		

> _jaa'ifal_ (spice)


Interesting! Might be a bit off-topic, but what kind of spice is this and what is it used in?

Another word that I'd like to ask about is (getting this from GT, not sure if the spelling is correct) सफलता. Is the correct/original pronunciation saphalta (probably heard more from the South and/or in Bollywood movies from the "less educated/village" Hindi speakers) or safalta (seems to be more common in Hindi media) ?


----------



## UrduMedium

Alfaaz said:


> Interesting! Might be a bit off-topic, but what kind of spice is this and what is it used in?



jaa'ifal is nutmeg. In an earlier thread I also recall it described as jaiphal (as in jai phal). So there's variance in pronunciation. I have always heard and said jaa'ifal.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Dear Forum friends,
> 
> 
> The discussion about f>ph, ph<p transitions and transcription has been already stirred up in various threads and we can await more threads on this phenomenon, so let us commence with a peculiar facet which could be portrayed as follows:
> 
> 
> While in Urdu, there is an abundance of Arabic and Persian words which contain the consonant "f", amongst which some Persian ones that borrowed their f's from Arabic, there is a commonly accepted belief about the absence of "f" in Prakrit/khaRii bolii-origin lexical stock. Whitth respect to Hindi, opinions regarding the foreigness of "f" can be heard.
> 
> 
> One does manage to hear 'f' in the speech of the ones who are normally not inclined to realize it where, say, an Urdu or Hindi speaker would expect them to do it, happen to pronounce it elsewhere. Apparently such words can be found which consist of a 'f' and Prakritic-khaRii-bolian genealogy. I'm particularily interested wheter such occurences can be called as quantitively worth mentioning and if any pattern or traces of a process could be distinguishable.
> 
> As a starter, here is an entry from Platts:
> 
> 
> _H سلفا sulfā, s.m. A small ball of tobacco smoked in a ḥuqqa without the intervention of a tile:—sulfā karnā, v.t. To burn to ashes; to consume:—sulfā honā or ho-jānā, v.n. To be consumed; to be utterly destroyed or ruined._



marrish SaaHib, I believe that within the Sanskritic tradition, there are no f, z and x (and q) sounds in the alphabetic repertoire. This is demonstrated by the fact that f, z, x etc are indicated by a subscript dot when there is a need for clarity. The subscript is used to depict R and Rh which also do not belong to Sanskrit sound system. If we do get words with these consonants and they are not of Perso-Arabic origins (or English), then it is more an "anomaly" than anything else.

Take chaTaxnaa for example. In essence this is "chaTakhnaa". The same explanation can be offered for jaay-fal and others with f, z and x.

We all know that the proper word for flower in Urdu and Hindi is "phuul" and not "fuul" hence..

"bahaaro phuul barsaa'o meraa maHbuub aayaa hai"

The film title "ek phool do maalii"

Pakistani film song, "tuu phool mere gulshan kaa"

In Pakistan, there is no ph/f confusion in Urdu or Punjabi. As far as the f words of Persian and Arabic origins are concerned, they are always f and never ph because there is no ph in these languages. faziiHat (ignonimy, disgrace, scandal) is always faziiHat and saphaltaa (success) is always saphaltaa.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> marrish SaaHib, I believe that within the Sanskritic tradition, there are no f, z and x (and q) sounds in the alphabetic repertoire. This is demonstrated by the fact that f, z, x etc are indicated by a subscript dot when there is a need for clarity. The subscript is used to depict R and Rh which also do not belong to Sanskrit sound system. If we do get words with these consonants and they are not of Perso-Arabic origins (or English), then it is more an "anomaly" than anything else.


From a quick look at Wikipedia for Gujarati Phonology, I notice that the "f" sound exists there. Could such ph>f shift be due to Gujarati influence?


----------



## greatbear

The reason why I mentioned it in a recent thread ("uttke bajaanaa") is that I wanted to understand how do you understand that f/ph sound differently? To me, it's just the transliteration that is different: in a nutshell, what's the difference in pronouncing (lips, tongue, etc.) between "*f*azihat" and "*ph*ool"? If someone could explain that - if there is an explanation - then we can have the ball rolling, finally.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> The reason why I mentioned it in a recent thread ("uttke bajaanaa") is that I wanted to understand how do you understand that f/ph sound differently? To me, it's just the transliteration that is different: in a nutshell, what's the difference in pronouncing (lips, tongue, etc.) between "*f*azihat" and "*ph*ool"? If someone could explain that - if there is an explanation - then we can have the ball rolling, finally.



I see what you mean now..

Well, firstly ph is just the breathed (aspirated) form of p. p seems to be formed with closed lips being opened together whereas an f involves the lower teeth digging into the lower lips and going through the same process. Never really thought of the mechanism, just the end result.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> marrish SaaHib, I believe that within the Sanskritic tradition, there are no f, z and x (and q) sounds in the alphabetic repertoire. This is demonstrated by the fact that f, z, x etc are indicated by a subscript dot when there is a need for clarity. The subscript is used to depict R and Rh which also do not belong to Sanskrit sound system. If we do get words with these consonants and they are not of Perso-Arabic origins (or English), then it is more an "anomaly" than anything else.


I appreciate this contribution, Qureshpor SaaHib.


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> I have heard _fuul _(phuul, flower) and _fir _(phir, then) from Hindi speakers.
> 
> Also, this may be slang, but a popular Bollywood word ... _lafRaa _(as in kyaa lafRaa hai? -- what's the matter?)
> 
> Two more: _lafangaa _(show-off, bully), and _jaa'ifal_ (spice).


UrduMedium SaaHib, this is the kind of occurences I had in mind. Also, as a side note regarding the topic of this thread, I would wish to exclude the speech of people we know many of whom live in India, who don't pronounce "f" at all, for it deserves a new thread.


----------



## lcfatima

What about shareefa as siitaafal. Is it written siitaaphal or -fal? Also anaasfal/anaasphal (star anise/baadiyaan/baadiyaani).


I didn't realize lafanga had a 'ph' variation.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> While in Urdu, there is an abundance of Arabic and Persian words which contain the consonant "f", amongst which some Persian ones that borrowed their f's from Arabic, there is a commonly accepted belief about the absence of "f" in Prakrit/khaRii bolii-origin lexical stock. Whitth respect to Hindi, opinions regarding the foreigness of "f" can be heard.
> 
> 
> One does manage to hear 'f' in the speech of the ones who are normally not inclined to realize it where, say, an Urdu or Hindi speaker would expect them to do it, happen to pronounce it elsewhere. Apparently such words can be found which consist of a 'f' and Prakritic-khaRii-bolian genealogy. I'm particularily interested wheter such occurences can be called as quantitively worth mentioning and if any pattern or traces of a process could be distinguishable.
> 
> As a starter, here is an entry from Platts:
> 
> _H سلفا sulfā, s.m. A small ball of tobacco smoked in a ḥuqqa without the intervention of a tile:—sulfā karnā, v.t. To burn to ashes; to consume:—sulfā honā or ho-jānā, v.n. To be consumed; to be utterly destroyed or ruined._



As I have pointed out earlier, f, z, x etc in purely Hindi (non-Urdu/English) words will not be seen unless some words such as "farraaTe bharnaa" (Urdu) have been coined. Let's take a look at words that have been mentioned so far.

sulfah/sulfaa is of Persian origins, 
سلف _sulf, A cough.(Steingass/Farhang-i-Asifiyyah)
lafaNgaa is kinked to Persian "laaf zadan" (to boast)
siitaa-fal = siitaa phal
jaa'e fal = jaa'e-phal
lafRaa = laphRaa_


----------



## marrish

Very didactive feedback, QP SaaHib, which clears up many things in this thread. Please don't feel discouraged to come
forward with other examples
of the coined words, as they can  contribute to the topic.


----------



## lcfatima

What about faT-aa-faT?


----------



## Qureshpor

lcfatima said:


> What about faT-aa-faT?



I did think of this but my understanding is that this is Punjabi and our thread is more focused towards Urdu and Hindi. I don't know if there is phaTaaphaT in Punjabi (I'll have to check it in a dictionary) but even in Punjabi, the "genuine" f words are of Perso-Arabic and English origins.


----------



## Alfaaz

Icfatima said:
			
		

> What about faT-aa-faT?





> فَٹا فَٹ
> مقامی
> حکایت الصوت سے ماخوذ کلمہ ہے۔ اردو میں موجودہ تلفظ کے ساتھ مقامی ہندوستانی زبانوں سے داخل ہوا اور بطور متعلق فعل نیز بطور اسم استعمال ہوتا ہے۔
> 1. پھٹاپھٹ، جلدی سے، جھٹ پٹ۔


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> I see what you mean now..
> 
> Well, firstly ph is just the breathed (aspirated) form of p. p seems to be formed with closed lips being opened together whereas an f involves the lower teeth digging into the lower lips and going through the same process. Never really thought of the mechanism, just the end result.



You mean to say that in "ph" there is no lower teeth digging into the lips? If that is the case, then all my life I have only pronounced "f". I don't think I have even heard it ever. In any case, a "ph" without the teeth digging into the lips would resemble closely the "pah" in "pahaRe" (tables): is that what you mean? For I do not see any other way of aspirating the "p" if one were to exclude the possibility of the lower teeth digging into the lips.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> You mean to say that in "ph" there is no lower teeth digging into the lips? If that is the case, then all my life I have only pronounced "f". I don't think I have even heard it ever. In any case, a "ph" without the teeth digging into the lips would resemble closely the "pah" in "pahaRe" (tables): is that what you mean? For I do not see any other way of aspirating the "p" if one were to exclude the possibility of the lower teeth digging into the lips.



A "ph" as in "phuul" is totally different from "pahaa" (pahaaRe). Stand in front of a mirror and first try to say "p" and then "ph", "phuul". Now try a f, fuul and you'll see and hear the difference. This link might be of some help.

http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/charts/IPAlab/IPAlab.htm


----------



## UrduMedium

I tried a search under Hindi for the letter ph (फ) on Forvo. Presumably this is from native Hindi speakers. I tried several recordings and each time found an "f" pronunciation in words like phaaTak (faaTak), pheNknaa (feNknaa), phir (fir) and so on. Seems like the standard fare in Hindi is "f" sound for "ph". Hard to find Urdu-style "ph" sound. Very interesting.

See here


----------



## Alfaaz

^ It is interesting, because isn't "ph" described as a Hindi/Indic sound....while the "f" is usually described as an Urdu/foreign sound. Another thing that is sometimes a bit odd is the ph <---> f switch. philim for film, but fir for phir etc....


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> A "ph" as in "phuul" is totally different from "pahaa" (pahaaRe). Stand in front of a mirror and first try to say "p" and then "ph", "phuul". Now try a f, fuul and you'll see and hear the difference. This link might be of some help.
> 
> http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/charts/IPAlab/IPAlab.htm



Well, if you elide the schwa between "p" and "h" in "pahaaRe", then I don't see how it it different. It would be great if you could put some keywords for a video somewhere, so I can actually hear the "ph" you are talking about.


----------



## greatbear

Alfaaz said:


> ^ It is interesting, because isn't "ph" described as a Hindi/Indic sound....while the "f" is usually described as an Urdu/foreign sound. Another thing that is sometimes a bit odd is the ph <---> f switch. philim for film, but fir for phir etc....



If that is true, then it is very odd: for the sound where the teeth dig into the lower lips, "f" as per QP and not "ph", is the one spoken by Hindi speakers, at least by all that huge number I've interacted with so far or come across so far even in media, films, etc.


----------



## Alfaaz

greatbear said:
			
		

> If that is true, then it is very odd: for the sound where the teeth dig into the lower lips, "f" as per QP and not "ph", is the one spoken by Hindi speakers, at least by all that huge number I've interacted with so far or come across so far even in media, films, etc.


I'm not a Hindi scholar  or a scholar of any language for that matter! My comment was just based upon what I have read in past threads in this forum-which might be wrong- (about Hindi having a letter for ph but not f, for which a bindi was added/is used). Another observation was (again might be wrong) that probably most of the words listed in the Urdu Dictionary with پھ / ph are given as derived from (سنسکرت، پراکرت، ہندی) = (Sanskrit, Prakrit, Hindi), while for ف / f there would obviously also be words derived from other languages like (عربی، فارسی، ترکی، انگلش) Arabi, Farsi, Turki, English, etc. etc.

An example of the ph and f switch: YT: _Jhalla Wallah - Song - Ishaqzaade_...........1:40 "ik lesson meiN phail hogaya" 

Now I of course understand and you will also probably say that in this example/song, a certain style/atmosphere is being portrayed/depicted which does not hold true for all Hindi speakers. There is obviously a wide spectrum of Hindi speakers: some pronounce the words correctly (phir, phuul, phal), while others substitute the ph with an f (fir, fool, fal), while others might switch ph's and f's (phasaanah, philim, phail, faansi, fulkiyaaN, feray, etc.)


----------



## greatbear

Alfaaz said:


> There is obviously a wide spectrum of Hindi speakers: some pronounce the words correctly (phir, phuul, phal), while others substitute the ph with an f (fir, fool, fal), while others might switch ph's and f's (phasaanah, philim, phail, faansi, fulkiyaaN, feray, etc.)



Well, my question has been exactly this: what is this "ph", since all my life I have only heard one type of f sound. To me, all "fail", "fuul" and "farhan" are spoken with the same consonant. Can you or any other member point out to me any link where a Hindi/Urdu word is being spoken with this mysterious "ph"? (English word examples are irrelevant IMO, as English is spoken in a wide manner of ways.)


----------



## UrduMedium

greatbear said:


> Well, my question has been exactly this: what is this "ph", since all my life I have only heard one type of f sound. To me, all "fail", "fuul" and "farhan" are spoken with the same consonant. Can you or any other member point out to me any link where a Hindi/Urdu word is being spoken with this mysterious "ph"? (English word examples are irrelevant IMO, as English is spoken in a wide manner of ways.)



Try "Phal Ya Phool" on YT. It sounds like a Hindi recording but has the "ph" sound for phal and phuul, rather than fal and fuul. Starting at 0:16.


----------



## UrduMedium

greatbear said:


> Well, my question has been exactly this: what is this "ph", since all my life I have only heard one type of f sound. To me, all "fail", "fuul" and "farhan" are spoken with the same consonant. Can you or any other member point out to me any link where a Hindi/Urdu word is being spoken with this mysterious "ph"? (English word examples are irrelevant IMO, as English is spoken in a wide manner of ways.)



Find also on Youtube "Hindi Language vowels and consonants pronunciation key table.mp4" and start at 6:00. Interestingly the guy starts with "ph" sound but half way down the row switches to "f" sounds, and then toward the end goes back to "ph".


----------



## greatbear

Thanks a lot, UM! Now I do get it, thanks to your link to the Phal Ya Phool video. (And it is indeed what would a schwa-deleted "pahaaRaa" would be.) I must say that not many Hindi speakers speak "ph": most speak "f". "ph" even carries notions of rustic background or illiteracy among many Hindi speakers!


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> Well, my question has been exactly this: what is this "ph", since all my life I have only heard one type of f sound. To me, all "fail", "fuul" and "farhan" are spoken with the same consonant. Can you or any other member point out to me any link where a Hindi/Urdu word is being spoken with this mysterious "ph"? (English word examples are irrelevant IMO, as English is spoken in a wide manner of ways.)



Well, there is nothing mysterious about "ph". Listen to Youtube song entitled "Chehre Pe Giri  Zilfen" (the song is from film Suraj, duration being 5:34). 

First line is:

chihre pih giriiN zu*f*eN, kah do haTaa duuN maiN, gustaaxii mu3aaf, gustaaxii mu3aaf
ik* ph*uul tere juuRe meN, kah do to lagaa duuN maiN, gustaaxii mu3aaf, gustaaxii mu3aaf

Some typical ph words.

phaaNsii, pheNknaa, phaaTak, phal, phaaNk, phaaNsnaa, phaphuuNdii, phiikaa, phaa'oRaa (shovel), phaTnaa, phurtii, phaRaknaa, phaRphaRaanaa, phisalnaa, phuslaanaa, phalii, phulvaaRii, pherii-vaalaa, phere. Do you know the month of "phaagun"?


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Some typical ph words.
> 
> phaaNsii, pheNknaa, phaaTak, phal, phaaNk, phaaNsnaa, phaphuuNdii, phiikaa, phaa'oRaa (shovel), phaTnaa, phurtii, phaRaknaa, phaRphaRaanaa, phisalnaa, phuslaanaa, phalii, phulvaaRii, pherii-vaalaa, phere. Do you know the month of "phaagun"?



And all of them, including "phaagun"/"faguun", are spoken by most Hindi speakers with "f". I find your post quite irrelevant after my previous post, in which I have already indicated the pronunciation preferences of a majority of Hindi speakers. To me, just to remind of you of a longstanding quibble between us, language is dynamic and what's spoken _en masse_ is also the language for me. After understanding what's "ph", I find your previous ridicule of members using "f" for flower ("fuul"/"fool") quite unnecessary, rude and pedantic, at best.

Thanks anyway for another link!


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> And all of them, including "phaagun"/"faguun", are spoken by most Hindi speakers with "f". I find your post quite irrelevant after my previous post, in which I have already indicated the pronunciation preferences of a majority of Hindi speakers. To me, just to remind of you of a longstanding quibble between us, language is dynamic and what's spoken _en masse_ is also the language for me. After understanding what's "ph", I find your previous ridicule of members using "f" for flower ("fuul"/"fool") quite unnecessary, rude and pedantic, at best.
> 
> Thanks anyway for another link!



 I know courtesy and gratitude is not in your nature but could there be a possibility that I did n't see UM SaaHib's and your posts? In trying to search for helpful audio/videos (because I thought for once you were sincere in your quest for accurate information), it is obvious that these posts came in the interim period. And yes, "bahaaro fool barsaa'o" is ridiculous! At least with your newly gained insight, now you should have the ability to distinguish between "phan" of a snake and "fan" as in "art".

Whether most Hindi speakers pronounce "ph" as "f", that is up to Hindi speakers to agree or disagree with your sweeping statement. I do know that a lot of them do confuse "f" with "ph".


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Whether most Hindi speakers pronounce "ph" as "f", that is up to Hindi speakers to agree or disagree with your sweeping statement. I do know that a lot of them do confuse "f" with "ph".



Isn't this more of a class/education level issue, and less so in terms of Hindi/Urdu dichotomy? I can recall this from Pakistan, from Urdu-speakers and speakers of other regional languages, typically when they are not well-educated or have rural background.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Thanks a lot, UM! Now I do get it, thanks to your link to the Phal Ya Phool video. (And it is indeed what would a schwa-deleted "pahaaRaa" would be.) I must say that not many Hindi speakers speak "ph": most speak "f". "ph" even carries notions of rustic background or illiteracy among many Hindi speakers!


I'm aware of the fact that there are many Hindi speakers who pronounce f in place of ph but I hadn't got any quantitative idea so thanks for the information. One thing that I might add to the discussion and response to lcfatima's post is that i.a. speakers of Gujarati background have the predilection to f, but I wouldn't consider them the sole culprits because also some Punjabi speakers indulge too much in f.

You are right as to how ph would sound like. Another suggestion which you can find useful is to substitute b for p in a word like, say, bhuulnaa (to forget) to phuulnaa (to flourish; blossom; swell etc.).

On the other hand my exposure to Hindi, how limited it might be, indicates that quite a sizeable number of Hindi speakers, amongst whom there are dwellers of villages but also educated urban class who pronounce ph whenever one would expect f, in words like _faujii, form, faaluudah._


----------



## Alfaaz

greatbear said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot, UM! Now I do get it, thanks to your link to the Phal Ya Phool video. (And it is indeed what would a schwa-deleted "pahaaRaa" would be.) I must say that not many Hindi speakers speak "ph": most speak "f". "ph" even carries notions of rustic background or illiteracy among many Hindi speakers!


Now that you have gotten the desired adequate examples and have even stated yourself that use of ph carries notions of rustic background or illiteracy (which I was hesitating to say beforehand), I'd like to take it a step further and ask: Is it because the "f" sound was foreign (according to my limited and probably wrong knowledge about Hindi), that it is considered to be better/a sign of education....even when mispronouncing words like fuul, faansi...?


----------



## UrduMedium

greatbear said:


> And all of them, including "phaagun"/"faguun", are spoken by most Hindi speakers with "f".
> Thanks anyway for another link!



FYI, "BBC Hindi Interview with Priya Gonsalves And Prosenjit Kundu from Syntheskillz." on Youtube:

0:36+ _saphaltaa _said with a clear ph
1:45+ _phailii _said clearly with ph

Could it be that in high-register Hindi (broadcast, BBC Hindi, etc), it is indeed "ph" for ph, but in colloquial usage it is mostly "f"?


----------



## flyinfishjoe

I strongly disagree with the claim that most Hindi speakers pronounce फ as फ़ in words such as phaaNsii, phephRaa, pheNknaa, etc., if that is what is being claimed. There is some confusion surrounding the words guphaa, phir, phal, and saphal, but even in those cases I would hesitate to say the majority of Hindi speakers pronounce these words with a फ़ sound.

BTW, if it counts for anything, I often hear fir, fal, safal, gufaa, etc., from young, anglophone, upper-class people usually in big cities like Delhi.


----------



## marrish

Someone told me that people who confuse these sounds normally can't tell the difference between them.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> I know courtesy and gratitude is not in your nature but could there be a possibility that I did n't see UM SaaHib's and your posts? ... At least with your newly gained insight, now you should have the ability to distinguish between "phan" of a snake and "fan" as in "art".



Indeed, the possibility did not cross my mind, and my apologies for reacting in a way I shouldn't have.

Yes, with the newly gained insight, I can distinguish between "phan" and "fan", and it would also make me more conscious of people's f's and ph's now (not that anything's going to change in my own pronunciation - it's too bedded now - I would continue pronouncing both as "fan").


----------



## greatbear

flyinfishjoe said:


> I strongly disagree with the claim that most Hindi speakers pronounce फ as फ़ in words such as phaaNsii, phephRaa, pheNknaa, etc., if that is what is being claimed. There is some confusion surrounding the words guphaa, phir, phal, and saphal, but even in those cases I would hesitate to say the majority of Hindi speakers pronounce these words with a फ़ sound.
> 
> BTW, if it counts for anything, I often hear fir, fal, safal, gufaa, etc., from young, anglophone, upper-class people usually in big cities like Delhi.



Well, I do disagree. Not just fir, fal, safal or gufaa, but I also hear faaNsii, fefRaa, and feNknaa all the time - including from people who neither young, nor even know English. Maybe in certains states like Rajasthan - where one can can also hear more Hindi like "dhanyvaad" rather than "shukriya" - the distinction is more maintained, but in rest of the Hindi belt there are not many who are even aware of the difference.

I suggest one thing for those who don't agree with me regarding the prevalence of "ph": why not carry out a counter search or listen to Indian media and focus on "f" when it should have been "ph"? Maybe the results would be astonishing ...


----------



## hindiurdu

There is little doubt that there's a broad ph > f shift underway in  many Indian speakers of Hindi. I don't know why this is happening and I  find it really annoying myself. I disagree it's upper class people also.  It's way too broad for that. My best guess is Marathi influence from  the movies because Marathi diction has a lot of 'f' in it, just like  Gujarati. You also see p > f in Gujarati too (paTaaxa > faTaaka).  Marathi also seems to have a strong jh > z tendency. My name = mera  naam = maazaa naav. 'Phal' has become 'fal' for a substantial section of  Hindi speakers. I am not at all surprised that some younger Hindi  speakers nowadays find the 'ph' sound to be alien for them to try and  pronounce it.

In general, I think this 'Indic' x/f/z thing is  overdone a bit. x exists in Vedic Sanskrit and there was also a weird  'f' (made with both lips). I'm guessing that orientalists made a  Classical Sanskrit = Indic equivalence and it hasn't been updated.  Assamese has x too. So does Kurux (including its very name), which is a  Dravidian tribal language in Bihar. Kashmiri does j > z all the time  (but also f > ph and x > kh).


----------



## Qureshpor

hindiurdu said:


> In general, I think this 'Indic' x/f/z thing is overdone a bit. x exists in Vedic Sanskrit and there was also a weird 'f' (made with both lips). I'm guessing that orientalists made a Classical Sanskrit = Indic equivalence and it hasn't been updated. Assamese has x too. So does Kurux (including its very name), which is a Dravidian tribal language in Bihar. Kashmiri does j > z all the time (but also f > ph and x > kh).



I am curious about the existence of x and f in Vedic Sanskrit. What was the alphabetical symbol that was used to represent these consonants? Did Gh (as in Ghalib) also exist? Any theories on their demise?


----------



## hindiurdu

QURESHPOR said:


> I am curious about the existence of x and f in Vedic Sanskrit. What was the alphabetical symbol that was used to represent these consonants? Did Gh (as in Ghalib) also exist? Any theories on their demise?



They are pronunciations of the visarg. All sounds had names and the x was called "jihvamuliya" (google it). The 'f' (which is not the English/Arabic 'f') but a bilabial one (pronounced according to Wikipedia in Turkmen for 'fabrik') that was called "upadhmaniya". Gh didn't exist afaik. I am not sure actually that they really ever died in all of Indic and certainly looking at modern Indic languages it would be tough to make the case that they entirely died out. However, they died (or were possibly removed to standardize) in Classical Sanskrit which, remember, was a very designed language. Remember also that ड़/ڑ didn't exist in Classical Sanskrit either. We wouldn't call that non-Indic today. As far as writing is concerned, Devnagari is very young compared to these languages. Look for some Brahmic representations at http://books.google.com/books?id=ZAu6xhfb4bUC&pg=PA132.


----------



## tonyspeed

It is a proven an accepted fact that F did not exist in the sub-continent before Persian and, later, English.  However, in at least one book I have read from the 1800s states that at that time, f had already begun to be synonymous with ph in some regions.  

The situation is even more unclear now because there are very large cities where this distinction has been lost in colloquial speech. Two of such major cities seem to be Delhi and Mumbai. I have also met a man from Bhopal who said 'f' instead of 'ph'.  

As this loss-of-distinction has spread, some of the changed pronunciations seem to be encroaching on the original pronunciations. So that even though someone may say phal, in another sentence he/se might say fatafat (even though this is really phataphat). So it seems there are also people who mix between the two variations.  

That being said, I have come across people that make the distinction. And I also have come across people that cannot pronounce 'f' at all, even in English! One older Gujurati gentleman I know pronounces all fa's as pha's (not to mention also all za's as ja's).   On TV and movies we still often hear the pha and fa distinction (unless the character is supposed to be from a 'f' pronouncing region - You can see a conspicuous example of this in Dhoom). I beleive this is how someone formally trained in Hindi/Urdu (as opposed to just Hindi) speech will speak. One thing that amazes me is that pha appears so often on TV/Movies, and yet there are Indians who insist that the letter is fa and there is no such thing as pha. It would seem that such people change pha to fa in their mind when they hear it based on what they expect to hear!  

In any case, you are beginning to find that pha is limited to certain out-lying Hindi speaking areas (one that I have not been able to fully define). I would not be suprised to find that most of the (non-Urdu) Indian pha speakers cannot pronounce fa at all these days. But I have no proof of this.


If you look up the movie "Do Phool - Hindi Comedy Film- Mahmood" on Youtube, you realise that not understanding the difference between ph and f can also be a source of comedy in Hindi pop culture. See minute 13:02 - 13:20.


----------



## UrduMedium

I never knew _faTaafaT _is supposed to be _phaTaaphaT_. Is this true? For me it's always been _faTaafaT _(meaning _very quickly_). And _phal _is _phal _for me, not _fal_.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I never knew _faTaafaT _is supposed to be _phaTaaphaT_. Is this true? For me it's always been _faTaafaT _(meaning _very quickly_). And _phal _is _phal _for me, not _fal_.


I will have to agree with my learned friend on this point. I don't believe Urdu speakers use "phaTaaphaT", if this word is indeed being used anywhere. And "phal" it is for "fruit", e.g. jaa'e-phal, siitaa-phal.


----------



## UrduMedium

^ Thanks, QP saahab. _faTaafaT _is very much a part of the spoken language.


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> ^ Thanks, QP saahab. _faTaafaT _is very much a part of the spoken language.


I agree, it's quite widespread. And always with ''F''s.


----------



## Wolverine9

I think English has a lot to do with the ph>f transition.  The influence of English has steadily increased after independence to the point where it's affecting even the pronunciation of native words.  Although you might find the ph>f transition among all education levels as some have suggested, I think it's most prevalent among the educated, urban youth since they are most influenced by English vocabulary.  Moreover, English words spelled with ph are pronounced as f, which probably further contributes to the same treatment of ph in Hindi.  And no, I don't believe all educated people follow the ph>f transition.  From my experience, many accurately differentiate between the 2 sounds.  I believe it's only considered rustic for ph to be pronounced as f for Perso-Arabic and English words, not for native ones.

There are very few native words, in my opinion, in which the only acceptable pronunciation is with an f instead of ph.  Besides the ones already mentioned, there is also 'saunf' (fennel).


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> I think English has a lot to do with the ph>f transition. The influence of English has steadily increased after independence to the point where it's affecting even the pronunciation of native words. Although you might find the ph>f transition among all education levels as some have suggested, I think it's most prevalent among the educated, urban youth since they are most influenced by English vocabulary. Moreover, English words spelled with ph are pronounced as f, which probably further contributes to the same treatment of ph in Hindi. And no, I don't believe all educated people follow the ph>f transition. From my experience, many accurately differentiate between the 2 sounds. I believe it's only considered rustic for ph to be pronounced as f for Perso-Arabic and English words, not for native ones. There are very few native words, in my opinion, in which the only acceptable pronunciation is with an f instead of ph. Besides the ones already mentioned, there is also 'saunf' (fennel).



I would consider even English but especially Perso-Arabic words as "native". Could you please provide any examples of these rare specimens.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> One thing that amazes me is that pha appears so often on TV/Movies, and yet there are Indians who insist that the letter is fa and there is no such thing as pha. It would seem that such people change pha to fa in their mind when they hear it based on what they expect to hear!



It is a matter of sensitivity: after raising this topic on this forum, since when UM gave me some good examples to hear the difference online, I now hear "ph" as "ph" and "f" as "f": earlier, to me, both were "f". Of course, since in my mind both were "f", I have to now hear a word and then it gets slowly registered, that ok this is with "ph" and not "f" (e.g., some people raised a hue and cry about my "fuufii" recently; at least, because of that, I could learn something more).



tonyspeed said:


> I would not be suprised to find that most of the (non-Urdu) Indian pha speakers cannot pronounce fa at all these days. But I have no proof of this.



Well, it's the "pha" that's not so much pronounced; "fa" is the universal pronunciation in India (excepting some speakers who speak everything as "pha", including in English words).



			
				Wolverine9 said:
			
		

> I think English has a lot to do with the ph>f transition.



Maybe, English education, or rather, a growing urbanisation and consequent neglect of languages, is partly the culprit, but I don't at all think that it is the sole culprit. I personally know many relatives and friends, including very old people, who have never had any English education and who hardly use any English words (except the ubiquitous ones like "station"), who are saying "f" instead of "ph".


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> I would consider even English but especially Perso-Arabic words as "native". Could you please provide any examples of these rare specimens.



I see what you mean.  I guess I should've said Indo-Aryan words (including the words incorporated from pre-Aryan languages such as Dravidian and Munda).  

The examples include:
 saunf (rather than saunph): fennel
faTaafaT (rather than phaTaaphaT)(I've seen it listed in Hindi/Urdu dictionaries so it's not just Punjabi): quickly
faaltuu (rather than phaaltuu): surplus, additional, useless

Those are the only ones I can think of.


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> I see what you mean.  I guess I should've said Indo-Aryan words (including the words incorporated from pre-Aryan languages such as Dravidian and Munda).
> 
> The examples include:
> saunf (rather than saunph): fennel
> faTaafaT (rather than phaTaaphaT)(I've seen it listed in Hindi/Urdu dictionaries so it's not just Punjabi): quickly
> faaltuu (rather than phaaltuu): surplus, additional, useless
> 
> Those are the only ones I can think of.


I remember having read somewhere (don't ask me where ) that this word is of Portuguese origins, but it is of course secondary information.


----------



## BP.

QURESHPOR said:


> I will have to agree with my learned friend on this point. I don't believe Urdu speakers use "phaTaaphaT", if this word is indeed being used anywhere. And "phal" it is for "fruit", e.g. jaa'e-phal, siitaa-phal.


And to the two similar posts:
p.haTaap.haT is how I say it. But I've never seen it written but with an f.


----------



## tonyspeed

BelligerentPacifist said:


> And to the two similar posts:
> p.haTaap.haT is how I say it. But I've never seen it written but with an f.



In Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary it is spelled phaTaaphaT, not faTaafaT.


----------



## greatbear

What do the "faTaafaT" speakers say: "phaT se" or "faT se" (meaning, "quickly, in an instant")?

Meanwhile, though unrelated, a motorcycle is "phaTphaTiyaa".


----------



## UrduMedium

greatbear said:


> What do the "faTaafaT" speakers say: "phaT se" or "faT se" (meaning, "quickly, in an instant")?
> 
> Meanwhile, though unrelated, a motorcycle is "phaTphaTiyaa".



ِI see where you are going with this ... yes I do say _phat se_ and _faTaafaT_. Never thought these may be related.

And _phaTphaTii _for motorcycle  

Then there's also _jhaT paT meN_ (in an instant).


----------



## greatbear

Ah yes, phaTphaTii for us, too  [I guess it's related to the sound of "phaTnaa" (tearing)].

Yes, that is where I was going: I think "phaT se" and "ph/faTaaph/faT" are very much related.


----------



## Wolverine9

BelligerentPacifist said:


> And to the two similar posts:
> p.haTaap.haT is how I say it. But I've never seen it written but with an f.



I've only heard it pronounced with an f.  It may be written with a ph though.  Is this what you meant too?


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> I see what you mean.  I guess I should've said Indo-Aryan words (including the words incorporated from pre-Aryan languages such as Dravidian and Munda).
> 
> The examples include:
> saunf (rather than saunph): fennel
> faTaafaT (rather than phaTaaphaT)(I've seen it listed in Hindi/Urdu dictionaries so it's not just Punjabi): quickly
> faaltuu (rather than phaaltuu): surplus, additional, useless
> 
> Those are the only ones I can think of.


Wolverine9, please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. The problem is that...

"aur bhii dukh haiN zamaane meN muHabbat ke sivaa" and in my case the word "muHabbat" refers to Urdu.

I must thank you for bringing the two words (sauNf and faaltuu...and there are no doubt more) to my notice. To be perfectly frank with you, it never crossed my mind that these words were Indic in nature but with a changed consonant (f for ph). Also thank you for pointing out that faTaa-faT is actually phaTaapaT. I have never come across phaTaa-phaT before!

We know that apart from ph > f change for some words in Urdu, we also have j > z shift (ziiT, zannaaTaa). You may also have come across kh > x shift and g > Gh change.

axroT= walnut , xarraaTe lenaa= to snore, chaTxaare lenaa= to relish food,
Taxnah/Taxnaa=ankle, TarKHaanaa=to work carelessly/to prevaricate, paTaKHnaa= to slam 
paTaaxaa=cracker, kalii kaa chaTaxnaa= for bud to sprout open, chaTaxnii=latch 

GhaTaa-GhaT pii jaanaa= to gulp down, GHunDah=hooligan


----------



## tonyspeed

hindiurdu said:


> Sorry, I have been missing for a while and may be missing context from other related threads.
> 
> In looking at this more and empirically observing it more, I have now begun to suspect the opposite. Let me put it provocatively: the pʰ sound might actually be artificial/educated at this point in Indic, i.e. not naturally used. From what I can tell, there appear to be two natural deteriorations for this in Indic: pʰ > p (from people whose native languages discourage aspiration) and pʰ > f.



It will depend on who you talk to in India. If you missed the appropriate regions or age groups, you will miss the people that say ph.
Most of the large cities from which migrants come to foreign countries say f (Mumbai, Delhi).

I am beginning to beleive this is mostly English influence. What is the first thing they teach one in English? ph is pronounced as f.
(That is because this same shift happened in Greek around the first century CE. Greek replaced ph with f.) And the start of this phenomenon
coincided with the British Raj.

It would be interesting to go back in time and note the kinds of people that were saying ph->f in the 1800s but it seems
English speakers didn't care that much when it was first happening to research it. Now it has a life of its own.


----------



## hindiurdu

tonyspeed said:


> Most of the large cities from which migrants come to foreign countries say f (Mumbai, Delhi). I am beginning to beleive this is mostly English influence. What is the first thing they teach one in English? ph is pronounced as f.



That is what I believed earlier too, but the distribution seems to be the flip of this. The more non-English educated the person, the more they are misusing f. YouTube for "Ganesh Vandana by indian classical vocalists" - this is a religious song sung by (they claim) 2,500 classical Indian vocalists. If you read the lyrics at this site, at 0:20 they should say "phalaachi" but they all say "falaachi". 

Of course, they're also doing the jh > z thing which is classic Marathi. This last thing is not really a deterioration. Afaik, there isn't a jh in Marathi (or it has conditional allophony). Now that I pay attention to it, I see romanized transcriptions online from Marathi-speakers that will say "Muze meri kitaab do". So, ruRNjhuRN becomes ruRNzuRN (no idea what this word means). Tujh similarly is pronounced Tuz. I think ph and f may always have been in allophony, with Sanskrit rules dictating 'ph', as otherwise the non-aspirated vs aspirated symmetry is destroyed in the Devnagari alphabet. Maybe it has always just been pronounced 'f' and the 'ph' standard pronunciation is "elitist" or, at least, more Urdu.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I am beginning to beleive this is mostly English influence.



I don't know from where do you get your data, tonyspeed, but I don't think that English influence has got much to do with it: maybe in the case of some, but not most. There are thousands of Hindi native speakers who have never been educated in English and from whom I have heard "f" for "ph" - my own "f" for "ph" has been picked up through growing up among such speakers, not from any English education's influence. You can also refer to my post 63 here.

Meanwhile, aren't we all going off-topic since some time now here? This thread is to discuss the z/j words/phenomenon, not the ph/f one!


----------



## tonyspeed

If you read my comment carefully I said   "I am beginning to beleive this is mostly English influence....And the start of this phenomenon coincided with the British Raj."  

Then I said: "Now it has a life of its own." matlab: Now it does not depend on English learning. It is spreading from one speaker to another. From parents to children etc...   

I never meant to insinuate that only English learners make this confusion.

I do not however agree with the fact that ph and f have always been in alliphony because in rural areas, the sound was always ph. It was and still is the f sound that rural speakers have trouble saying. If you look at my movie link for "do phool" on Youtube (in the actual f-word thread), you will see that it is a matter of learning to be able to pronounce the English 'f'. What does the man say to his wife in the clip? - Stop breaking English's legs.


----------



## tonyspeed

UM-ji,

I decided to retrace my steps and find reference to this ph->f phenomenon in historical grammar books. The only one I have been able to find so far is in Kellog's grammar (1876).


"A native, however illiterate, never confounds the smooth and aspirated consonants; and except in the case of फ ph, which is *often by the uneducated pronounced as  f,* never fails to give the aspirate its correct pronunciation."

Trying to mix this information in with the fact that many rural people seem unable to pronounce f, even in English, is problematic to me. Could this have to do with the degree of Persian or English governance in an area? Could it be that illiterate natives began mimicing the Persian f since the 1500s till now? Or even the English f since the beginning of the Raj? 

Coming up with an  answer at this time seems unlikely since Shakespeare's grammar which predates Kellog's does not mention this phenomenon at all. A problem here could be that the focus of Kellog's grammar is expressedly the difference between Urdu (khariboli) and Hindi (other dialects); therefore, he was more concerned about the common speech. Shakespeare's grammar seems to focus on proper Urdu (khariboli) speech.


----------



## tonyspeed

moderator, please move the responses dealing with f to the appropriate f-word thread.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> If you read my comment carefully ... Then I said: "Now it has a life of its own."



I did get your comment, and I disagree with it; I don't know on what basis you are claiming this very mythical and stereotypical notion. In many pockets of India, where English has _never_ entered, where there has been never any exposure to English, "f" is used instead of "ph" - so it's not some post-British Raj phenomenon, since those areas have basically remained in a time stasis in most respects.
In short, the ph/f phenomenon doesn't have much to with English or the British Raj, in my opinion. Rather, it has to do with natural Indic tendencies converging upon a pronunciation, in my opinion.


----------



## greatbear

The above only confirms my suspicion, that ph/f does not have anything to do with any mimicry of English or Persian; rather, it is due to a natural tendency of the Indic speakers.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> The above only confirms my suspicion, that ph/f does not have anything to do with any mimicry of English or Persian; rather, it is due to a natural tendency of the Indic speakers.


  I think it would be a stretch to jump to this conclusion for all Indic speakers.  You ignore the fact that 50% of Pakistanis are uneducated and yet it seems that in most situations ph/f distinction is retained. Also, many rural speakers cannot under any circumstance enunciate a proper f.  

The situation in my eyes can be summed up as: one rotten apple ferments the whole lump.


Anywhere large amounts of people from various backgrounds come into contact there will be language change. The "correct" way of doing things is often not the winner, and there is usually a trend towards language simplification. (Take as an example Mubaiya Hindi and the Creole English languages) Is f a simplification of ph? Possibily so. 

In such situation, the role of education provides a stabilising force to language change. If we have large-scale education, it slows the progression of the change to some extent by reminding people what the "proper", in other words old, way of doing this is and makes them feel guilty for pronouncing it the new way. In a situation where there is not wide-spread public education, there is no way the old-way of doing things can defeat the natural,neck-bending tendency that people have when confronted with situations of "bad" language usage. Naturally, it seems that humans tend to conform to the "bad" way of doing things as a type of empathy.  

In certain sections of England, there has been a tendency of th->f so that 'thing' is pronounced as 'fing'. If this takes root on a wider scale, would this be the "natural" tendency of English speakers? Probably not. But the wide-spread access to English education is probably going to render the th->f change impotent in the long run.


----------



## UrduMedium

tonyspeed said:


> UM-ji,
> 
> I decided to retrace my steps and find reference to this ph->f phenomenon in historical grammar books. The only one I have been able to find so far is in Kellog's grammar (1876).
> 
> 
> "A native, however illiterate, never confounds the smooth and aspirated consonants; and except in the case of फ ph, which is *often by the uneducated pronounced as  f,* never fails to give the aspirate its correct pronunciation."



Interesting, Tony saahab. My experience, at least on the Pakistan side of the border (esp Karachi) is the opposite. The so called "uneducated" have no issue saying 'ph' (like phaansii, phal, phuul, etc), but have trouble (at least some) with the "f" instead. So you may hear the word "film" as philam, and so on.


----------



## hindiurdu

Tony sahab, I think this is actually more related to the aspiration than anything else. 

When Marathi natives speak there is something really odd that happens: z > j, jh > z. YouTube for "Anupam Kher's New Marathi Venture: Thoda Tujha Thoda Majha - Marathi News [HD]." She says the word "Tezaab" as "Tejaab" and then all of a sudden "ThoRa Tuza, ThoRa Maza". Infact, she's doing that Himachali thing and trying to say "jh" (Hindi influence?) but only getting to "dz". Most illiterate Marathis can't pull this off. I have heard Marathis say things like "Maajhaa mez" (my table) as "Maazaa mej." This is different from the Kashmiri or Himachali j > z deterioration. Similarly, the ph > f phenomenon isn't English or anything else. This is people finding it hard to aspirate with p and finding that ph sound unnatural. People who are educated (= exposed to actual Hindi/Urdu diction) are more likely to say "ph" correctly. Think about it this way: if you educate a Marathi person with Hindi exposure (but not Hindustani/Urdu), they will force jh > z > jh but leave z > j alone. The net effect will be to scrub-out the "z" sound from their speech. I strongly suspect this is what is happening with 'f' also. I have *never* heard an educated person call stone 'fattar'. Only illiterate or poorly educated people do that.

This might not be that surprising actually and may have a parallel with Punjabi. In Punjabi, bh > p (tonal), jh > ch (tonal), chh > sh. All get rid of aspiration. For the sake of argument, if Punjabi lacked 'p' or 'ch' or 'sh', this would introduce them natively into Punjabi. Something very similar might be occurring here. These could simply be aspiration loss leading to consonant change to maintain sound distinctness. It might be very old indeed. BTW speaking of Punjabi "prabhat pheri" (Sikh custom) > "prabhat feri" (search YouTube).


----------



## hindiurdu

greatbear said:


> In short, the ph/f phenomenon doesn't have much to with English or the British Raj, in my opinion. Rather, it has to do with natural Indic tendencies converging upon a pronunciation, in my opinion.



I agree. Also, ph > f appears to be more prevalent with less English-educated people. Earlier I had thought this spread from Gujarati/Marathi via Bollywood, but now I am not so sure. I think it may always have been there.


----------



## hindiurdu

Separately, I also wonder if there are more examples of 'h' metathesis leading to this ph > f consonant switch. I can conjecture two, one of which I have already mentioned here:
patthar > phattar > fattar (Hindi)
paTaaxaa > paTaakhaa (conflated with phaTna?) > phaTaakaa > faTaakaa (Gujarati)

I also wondered why a word like "uphaar," where a ph sound effectively gets constructed, doesn't simply go to "ufaar". In Gujarati, I can understand it because there is medial schwa retention (upahaar), but in Hindi? Maybe there is a better example because afaik "uphaar" is not really used in normal Hindi that much (> tohfa).


----------



## greatbear

hindiurdu said:


> I also wondered why a word like "uphaar," where a ph sound effectively gets constructed, doesn't simply go to "ufaar". In Gujarati, I can understand it because there is medial schwa retention (upahaar), but in Hindi? Maybe there is a better example because afaik "uphaar" is not really used in normal Hindi that much (> tohfa).



That is because the word is उपहार and not उफार, HU. That is, when we pronounce "uphaar", we see "up" and "haar" as two different units/syllables: and we say "up", take a minute pause, and then "haar". The ph/f issue is with फ words.

Your Gujarati faTaakaa/faTaakRaa observation is interesting.


----------



## hindiurdu

Unbelievable. I found a reference from 1885 for this *exact* example and I absolutely swear that I didn't rig this! From "The cyclopædia of India and of eastern and southern Asia: commercial, industrial and scientific, products of the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms, useful arts and manufactures" by Edward Balfour: "Ph, in representing the sounds of the Indian alphabets, is to be regarded as a simple aspirate, as in up-hill, and not as an f, though this also occurs in the Mahrati (sic) where p'hul, HIND., a flower becomes fool, and pathar, a stone, fattar." Maybe my initial suspicion was correct. This is a Marathi thing that has spread to the Hindi zone via Bollywood. It is clearly not from English or anything non-Indic. The one thing against the Bollywood theory is that it seems way too pervasive. Maybe someone should do a survey. The really bizarre thing would be if ph > f (for Indic words) and f > ph (for non-Indic words) are happening simultaneously. It *is* possible if Maajhaa mez > Maazaa mej is possible.


----------



## hindiurdu

I might be wrong about jh always being z in Marathi. Apparently it is context dependent. Got this from a 2009 thread called "Marathi: I love you". माझे तुझ्यावर प्रेम आहे = Maaze tujhyaavar prem aahe. Apparently you need to know by context when it is pronounced z vs jh. Maaza and Tuzaa are always z but in the middle apparently the bets are off. In case you didn't notice, this puts a crimp in my "aspiration avoidance" hypothesis.


----------



## greatbear

I don't think it is due to any Marathi or Bollywood influence, HU, as I've heard it from people who don't see films and are too old to get influenced by other film-going public.


----------



## tonyspeed

hindiurdu said:


> Unbelievable. I found a reference from 1885 for this *exact* example and I absolutely swear that I didn't rig this! From "The cyclopædia of India and of eastern and southern Asia: commercial, industrial and scientific, products of the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms, useful arts and manufactures" by Edward Balfour: "Ph, in representing the sounds of the Indian alphabets, is to be regarded as a simple aspirate, as in up-hill, and not as an f, though this also occurs in the Mahrati (sic) where p'hul, HIND., a flower becomes fool, and pathar, a stone, fattar." Maybe my initial suspicion was correct. This is a Marathi thing that has spread to the Hindi zone via Bollywood. It is clearly not from English or anything non-Indic. The one thing against the Bollywood theory is that it seems way too pervasive. Maybe someone should do a survey. The really bizarre thing would be if ph > f (for Indic words) and f > ph (for non-Indic words) are happening simultaneously. It *is* possible if Maajhaa mez > Maazaa mej is possible.



   bahut xuub. shukirya. I think we can begin to assume that the ph->f phenomenon was most predominant in Bombay in the 1800s and spread through some method, migration or otherwise.



If one wants to hear someone say phataphat. See " Chidiya Ghar : Episode 246 - 1st November 2012" on youtube and skip to 08:57.


----------



## greatbear

I reiterate that I don't think Bombay has anything to do with the phenomenon, since I have found this to happen in very remote Hindi-speaking areas of India, where any influence of Bollywood can certainly be discounted and that of Bombay as well IMO.


----------



## Wolverine9

Personally, I don't think the ph>f transition is a natural Indo-Aryan development or due to the influence of Bombay.  It's likely a combination of Perso-Arabic and English influence.  There has been considerable Perso-Arabic influence on Indic languages for the last 1000 years and, likewise, English has had significant influence during the last 200 years.  Though not everyone has been influenced by English, the same cannot be said for Perso-Arabic.  People from all walks of life and educational backgrounds use Perso-Arabic vocabulary in their daily speech, and in many cases may not even know the origin of a particular word is Perso-Arabic.  I guess to be completely sure we would need to somehow figure out whether people who spoke Prakrit prior to the emergence of the new Indo-Aryan languages around a 1000 years ago pronounced the sound as 'ph' or 'f'


----------



## greatbear

I agree by and large with all that you have said, Wolverine9.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> Personally, I don't think the ph>f transition is a natural Indo-Aryan development or due to the influence of Bombay.  It's likely a combination of Perso-Arabic and English influence.  There has been considerable Perso-Arabic influence on Indic languages for the last 1000 years and, likewise, English has had significant influence during the last 200 years.  Though not everyone has been influenced by English, the same cannot be said for Perso-Arabic.  People from all walks of life and educational backgrounds use Perso-Arabic vocabulary in their daily speech, and in many cases may not even know the origin of a particular word is Perso-Arabic.  I guess to be completely sure we would need to somehow figure out whether people who spoke Prakrit prior to the emergence of the new Indo-Aryan languages around a 1000 years ago pronounced the sound as 'ph' or 'f'


Wolverine9, what I  find baffling is how Urdu speakers, for example, are able to preserve the "f" sound where it should be an "f" sound and likewise a "ph" sound where it should be "ph", making exceptions for a very small number of words that you pointed to earlier. Moreover, Persian influence in the Punjab has probably been sustained over a much longer period than elsewhere and illiterate Punjabis on the Pakistan side continue to say (for example) "phaTT" (wound), "phaaTak" (gate) "phull" (flower), "phaTTaa (plank of wood), "phaaR" (tear)...They don't use the "f" in these words. But they do say "Farsi", "filam" (film), "farash" (floor), "safar" (journey), "fulaaNRaa" (so and so)...How does one explain this?


----------



## Wolverine9

I think Urdu speakers in general are more in tune with Perso-Arabic vocabulary and the proper pronunciation of 'f'.  Moreover, 'ph' and 'f' are represented by totally different characters in the Urdu alphabet where as in Hindi (and I believe Gurmukhi too) 'f' is just 'ph' with a dot underneath.  That reduces the likelihood for confusion between the two sounds in Urdu.  The same goes for q, z, x, and G.  From what I've noticed, Urdu speakers are more likely to pronounce those sounds correctly than Hindi (and other Indic) speakers are and more likely to maintain the distinction between those sounds and their closest Hindi, Punjabi, etc. equivalents.  I guess over the centuries even the illiterate and uneducated Urdu speakers have become conscious of the proper pronunciation for those sounds, especially in Punjab since it was one of the earliest regions to have Persian influence.  I would venture to guess, however, that proper pronunciation of Perso-Arabic sounds such as 'f' among Urdu speakers also tends to vary depending on their region of origin.


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> I think Urdu speakers in general are more in tune with Perso-Arabic vocabulary and the proper pronunciation of 'f'.  Moreover, 'ph' and 'f' are represented by totally different characters in the Urdu alphabet where as in Hindi (and I believe Gurmukhi too) 'f' is just 'ph' with a dot underneath.



I am not sure I agree. 'f' for 'ph' and 'z' for 'jh' appear to be allophonic developments in Southern Indo-Aryan that has spread incompletely elsewhere, possibly due to Bollywood. It actually seems to resemble the y - zh allophony of (some dialects of) Punjabi. The 'z' thing is especially revealing because Marathi speakers phonemically associate that sound with jh and *not* with z itself. The two are jh → z and z → j (i.e. tujhaa → tuzaa, but zamiin → jamiin). Assamese (Eastern IndoAryan) has similarly developed x (the language itself is usually natively called Oxomiya) - I suspect this is linked to the ṣh (ष) - x thing we have discussed before. Northern Dravidian isolates have this also BTW (such as Kurux, which is spoken by tribal people in Bihar and Orissa - it's in the name of the language itself, pronounced kuRux). Similarly, some Northern IndoAryan (e.g. Western Pahari/Dogri) has developed θ for 'th', which Persian lacks but English has. Note that the core area where this is spoken never had any direct British rule at all and very low traditional literacy levels.

Addition: Maybe I should start a separate thread on this, but I am noticing another thing now. Some Eastern Punjabi speakers don't just do the usual chh → sh thing (chhoTa → shoTTa) but appear to actually be making the ṣh (ष) sound, i.e. ṣhoTTa (this is the halfway sound between sh and x). PG sahab, can you confirm/disconfirm if you are noticing this too? My family never does this BTW.


----------



## Wolverine9

Marathi and Assamese are both on the periphery of Indo-Aryan (southern and eastern, respectively), so they may have developed the z sound independently or borrowed it from another language.  Nevertheless, that doesn't mean either language influenced Hindi/Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, or other IA languages to develop the z or f sound.  Persian is much more likely to have been the original source of the z and f sounds in those languages.  Furthermore, as you have noted yourself, the z sound in Marathi and Assamese doesn't correspond to the z in Hindi/Urdu; if the z sound originated from Southern Indo-Aryan and spread elsewhere, you would expect at least some Hindi/Urdu speakers to replace jh with z, but that is not the case.  In most IA languages, z is present only in words of Perso-Arabic or English origin.  And f, besides the few words discussed earlier, is also only found in words of Perso-Arabic or English origin.  Unlike z, which may be present naturally in Marathi or Assamese, I don't believe f is a natural development in any IA language.  Here's a book (p.14, 2nd paragraph) corroborating the non-Hindi origin of sounds such as q, z, f, x, and G.   http://books.google.com/books?id=vvuP8sD1wloC&pg=PA14&dq=indo-aryan+consonants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-tCxUIy3OO6VjAKmtoGgDg#v=onepage&q=indo-aryan%20consonants&f=false

Also reference Massica, who goes into great detail about new Indo-Aryan  languages and explains how Urdu speakers, even the most uneducated,  generally pronounce the Persian origin sounds correctly (even more accurately, in regards to the Arabic sound q, than modern Persian speakers who pronounce the sound as G), which is not  always the case for Hindi and other IA speakers, especially as it  pertain to q, x, and G, but to some extent even f and z.


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> Marathi and Assamese are both on the periphery of Indo-Aryan (southern and eastern, respectively), so they may have developed the z sound independently or borrowed it from another language.  Nevertheless, that doesn't mean either language influenced Hindi/Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, or other IA languages to develop the z or f sound.



Sorry, the point about spread from Marathi was specific only to 'f', though I realize I misworded my sentence to make it seem like it applied to 'z' also. It doesn't. 'z' in Marathi and 'z' in Hindi are entirely differently sourced.



Wolverine9 said:


> In most IA languages, z is present only in words of Perso-Arabic or  English origin.  And f, besides the few words discussed earlier, is also  only found in words of Perso-Arabic or English origin.  Unlike z, which  may be present naturally in Marathi or Assamese, I don't believe f is a  natural development in any IA language.



I completely disagree, though yours is the traditional (HU-centric?) view and once used to be mine as well until the sheer weight of empirical exposure took it down. Our discussion about 'f' isn't just for a "few words discussed earlier." It is for every single instance of 'ph', which was probably always dead in Marathi and now that has spread to Hindi too where 'ph' is dying. This is extremely unlikely to be Persian or English in nature and, at least in my experience, apparently demonstrates inverse correlation with English/Urdu exposure. It is also extremely old as it was clearly extant in Marathi pre-1850, and Marathi is a highly Sanskritized language. Similarly, j → z is common in Pahari and Kashmiri and applies to words of any origin. Raajaa → raazaa, Sahab ji → sahab zi, poojaa (worship) → poozaa, jaan (life) → zaan.



Wolverine9 said:


> Furthermore, as you have noted yourself, the z sound in Marathi and Assamese doesn't correspond to the z in Hindi/Urdu; if the z sound originated from Southern Indo-Aryan and spread elsewhere



Assamese has x, not z - please reread. Already clarified 'z' above. In HU it is clearly from Persian/Arabic. But not so in other IA.



Wolverine9 said:


> Also reference Massica, who goes into great detail about new Indo-Aryan  languages and explains how Urdu speakers, even the most uneducated,  generally pronounce the Persian origin sounds correctly (even more accurately, in regards to the Arabic sound q, than modern Persian speakers who pronounce the sound as G), which is not  always the case for Hindi and other IA speakers, especially as it  pertain to q, x, and G, but to some extent even f and z.



Irrelevant to present topic as the point here is the people familiar with Persian words are pronouncing Persian words the way they are pronounced. That's a tautology. The question was "why has f so rapidly replaced ph in post-Independence Hindi." There is some phenomenon at play here that has happened over the past ~50 years. When 'patthar' becomes 'fattar' something interesting is definitely going on. Given that we have both the source (Marathi/Southern Aryan) and the vector (Bollywood), that seems to clinch the case. I am pretty sure this will be a source of research and study in the future. People have only now really begun to document this phenomenon in Hindi because it has become so widespread so quickly. As I had noted earlier, it won't entirely surprise me if something even odder is happening in Marathi where Persian/English 'f' sounds are becoming 'ph' and Sanskrit 'ph' sounds are becoming 'f'. 

Close to a billion people natively speak IA so it should not be surprising that all these things have popped into existence. I doubt there are very many sounds that would not have made appearances at one point or another. Heck parts of the family have even developed tonality. It all goes to show that there's a lot of rote in Indic linguistics and simply not enough field research. Another thing I realized is that while the general trend in HU appears to be sh → s (eg akaashbel → aakaasbeli), in some cases things are swimming in the opposite direction. Kesar (saffron) → Keshar and prasaad → parshaad in many varieties of Western Hindi.


----------



## Qureshpor

This is how I see ph>f transition phenomenon.

Starting with Punjabi speakers, up to the generation born in the 1920s and even 1930s. Those who were educated had their schooling in Urdu. As Wolverine9 has said, the Urdu alphabet clearly differentiates ph for phuul and f for fauj for army ( phull and foj in Punjabi). They would not only have seen the ph and f words written differently but their teachers would have pronounced them differently along with j, z, x and Gh sounds. Moreover, in their day to day lives, they would have heard the likes of phull and foj. 

Those who were illiterate would have heard the ph/f sounds from their parents, family and friends and from other people within their environment. As I have indicated in my previous post, there are plenty of ph words in Punjabi which remain ph, at least on the Pakistan side. There is a teHsiil called phaaliyaa in District Gujrat in the Punjab. I have personally met Punjabis from the Indian Punjab (Sikhs and Hindus) who were of my parents' generation who pronounced ph, f, j, z, x and Gh perfectly correctly. As for q, my feeling is that people in their immediate environment, including the teachers pronounced it as a k and it jelled into a k.

For Urdu speakers I can be short and sweet. I don't know any person who would say f for ph! We know that actors from the Bombay film industry, of any ethnic or religious background pronounced ph, f, z, x and Gh correctly, at least perhaps as late as the 80s. 

The real question is why is it that Punjabis on the Indian side are saying "falii" for "phalii" (pod) and some (perhaps even a lot of) Hindi speakers are pronouncing "phuul" as "fuul". Interesting thing is that it seems as if they are totally oblivious of the existence of "ph" in their language's repertoire of consonants. The way Devanagri alphabet is set out, it is quite obvious that the consonants are grouped in neat logical columns and rows. In the p, ph, b, bh, m row it is clear that we have aspirated, unaspirated, aspirated, unaspirated and then a nasal. If फ is taken as f, then by the same logic ख ought to be read as x, घ as Gh and ज    as z ! But this is not the case. Or is it not? Well, in the case of j > z, one does detect instances in the speech of Hindi speakers, as has happened on occasions on this forum. Why? Are the teachers in India who teach Punjabi (in Gurmukhi) and Hindi (in Devanagri) unaware of the consonant ph and to a lesser extent j? Surely they must be! Or is it the case that consonants such as x, Gh and q are not seen to be important while speaking Hindi but one would look damned stupid if one pronounces the English z as j (jebra for zebra and jone for zone) and f as ph (philam/philm for film)! And one can not do without English!! Neither the alphabet nor these extra consonants are perceived to be "foreign". So there is no harm in getting ph and j wrong in Hindi as long as one gets the f and z right in English! So, is this due to English influence only? If there are indeed in existence Hindi speakers who are totally illiterate and have had no influence of Perso-Arabic or English f and z but go on saying "fuul", then all this still remains a mystery.


----------



## gagun

i get this link

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part6/chap6.htm


----------



## hindiurdu

I think I can help clarify this a bit because I started with the exact same set of questions as QP sahab and Wolverine9 sahab.



QURESHPOR said:


> Starting  with Punjabi speakers, up to the generation born in the 1920s and even  1930s. Those who were educated had their schooling in Urdu. As  Wolverine9 has said, the Urdu alphabet clearly differentiates ph for  phuul and f for fauj for army ( phull and foj in Punjabi). They would  not only have seen the ph and f words written differently but their  teachers would have pronounced them differently along with j, z, x and  Gh sounds. Moreover, in their day to day lives, they would have heard  the likes of phull and foj.



Absolutely true. And, infact,  even the actors who showed up in Bollywood, such as Sunil Dutt, Raj  Kapoor and Ashok Kumar, there was a deep awareness of this. You can tell  from their diction.




QURESHPOR said:


> For Urdu speakers I can be short and sweet. I don't know any person who  would say f for ph! We know that actors from the Bombay film industry,  of any ethnic or religious background pronounced ph, f, z, x and Gh  correctly, at least perhaps as late as the 80s.



This is  actually crucial. One thing which is clearly visible is that after the  80s the actors who showed up in Bollywood were often Bombay-born and  bred. This includes the second generation of Punjabis (Sanjay Dutt,  Abhay Deol), HU-people (Amir Khan, Saif Ali Khan), etc. If you listen to  these folks, the Marathi influence is unmistakeable. For non-Urdu  literates, x > kh, ph > f, q > k has happened. English sounds  (z) are preserved. Even for Urdu-literates (Amir Khan), a clear Marathi  drag is detectable in how they speak. They absolutely do NOT speak like  Northerners. Amir Khan drags his r's in a very Marathi style and will  often preserve a slight medial schwa where Punjabis and HU-natives would  kill it entirely and unhesitatingly (YouTube 'Satyamev Jayate : Toxic  Food - Poison On Our Plate?' and listen to him for a bit - this is  definitely not a native HU lehja). All have also adopted the Marathi  practice of often deleting the use of "apni/apna" : "Tum tumhari kitaab  laao" instead of "Tum apni kitaab laao". This has infected songs as well  and now you will often see a jarring 'f' instead of 'ph' and 'kh'  instead of 'x'. When a native HU speaker is put against the Mumbai-born  kid of a native HU-speaker the difference is obvious if you pay  attention. There are exceptions - Farhan Akhtar is Mumbai born but  speaks like a UPite, probably because his dad is a poet and emphasized  diction too.



QURESHPOR said:


> The real question is why is it that  Punjabis on the Indian side are saying "falii" for "phalii" (pod) and  some (perhaps even a lot of) Hindi speakers are pronouncing "phuul" as  "fuul".



I would flip that around. In my experience,  Punjabis are actually doing ph > f much less than Hindi speakers. Not  just less, *much* less. It actually seems like something in Punjabi is  actually causing a preservation of 'ph' somehow. Don't know what that  is, but I have no other explanation for it. Gujaratis are completely on  the 'f' side (just Google 'fataka fodo' instead of 'Patakha phodo') and  never seem to say 'ph' natively when speaking Indic languages at all,  even for older Gujratis. For HU, it appears to be much more recent. I  would postulate that is is correlated with the 'ph > f' transition in  Bollywood. It's a touch of Marathization of Hindi, really. Marathi is a  massive language in its own right, more people speak it natively than  there are native speakers of Persian (according to Wikipedia). So with  Bollywood being HQed in Maharashtra this was bound to happen sooner or  later.



QURESHPOR said:


> Interesting thing is that it  seems as if they are totally oblivious of the existence of "ph" in their  language's repertoire of consonants. The way Devanagri alphabet is set  out, it is quite obvious that the consonants are grouped in neat logical  columns and rows.



Yes, but no one actually internalizes it like this afaik.  Nagri teachers don't really draw out distinctions between 'f' and 'ph'  in teaching it. It's kind of left to learners completely. In HU or  Punjabi, where 'f' and 'ph' both existed, you would expect awareness.  But Marathi has relatively low Persian influence and there is no need to  preserve this distinction. 'f' could easily develop as an allophone and  just take over. Wide open space. And now it has a powerful means to  dominate larger languages to the North as well. In Urdu there is a lot  of emphasis on the distinctiveness of the 'f' sound. Not so in Hindi  teaching at all. It's prime target for 'f' takeover and that is exactly  what is happening.


----------



## greatbear

I do not think it's a Bollywood influence all over, as I know several native HU speakers who are of the generation of those pre-80s' Bollywood movies (where you imply the diction is fine) or those who haven't even seen films - very old generations - who speak "fuul". Bollywood influence and/or Marathi/Gujarati influence might be there for some, but certainly not all. Of course, I am saying this for the umpteenth time!

And, as for teaching, most Hindi teachers indeed do not emphasise upon the differences between f and ph while teaching Hindi: and they won't even correct you if you are speaking "phuul" as "fuul". There is nothing about a casual approach to our languages in this, though. Most English teachers won't similarly correct some wrong or non-standard English pronunciations. Language teachers are often a lazy breed, unfortunately: the result of their not being always interested in what they are doing.


----------



## hindiurdu

greatbear said:


> I do not think it's a Bollywood influence all over, as I know several native HU speakers who are of the generation of those pre-80s' Bollywood movies (where you imply the diction is fine) or those who haven't even seen films - very old generations - who speak "fuul". Bollywood influence and/or Marathi/Gujarati influence might be there for some, but certainly not all. Of course, I am saying this for the umpteenth time!



Are you sure about this? I ask because I personally cringe when I hear 'faaNsii kaa fandaa' instead of 'phaaNsii kaa phandaa' and feel like I hear this much, much, much more often than I used to. My personal preference is to be a purist about this and I feel that eventually this will be corrected in Hindi (but then I also cringe when I hear khazaanaa instead of xazaanaa and feel that will be eventually fixed also). Also, I feel like Biharis don't do ph > f all that much (could be wrong as I haven't had enough exposure to them).


----------



## greatbear

I am sure about this, as I myself grew up among 'ph -> f' Hindi speakers, none of whom are influenced by English or Bollywood. Of course, since I have grown up in such an environment, I do not cringe about this. Meanwhile, I never disputed the influence of Bollywood: I am saying it's not applicable for everyone, that the phenomenon has been existing from before the Bollywood effect. Yes, it is becoming more and more common: primarily due to lack of (proper) education, I would say, rather than Bollywood.

As for Biharis, I have had also a limited exposure to them, but I think you are right about them doing ph -> f much less.


----------



## Wolverine9

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Hindi-Urdu phonology that adds to our discussion and perhaps clarifies a few things:

Loanwords from Persian (including some words which Persian itself borrowed from Arabic or Turkish) introduced five consonants, /f, z, q, x, ɣ/.  Being Persian in origin, these are seen as a defining feature of Urdu,  although these sounds officially exist in Hindi and modified Devanagari characters are available to represent them.[15][16] Among these, /f, z/, also found in English and Portuguese loanwords, are now considered well-established in Hindi; indeed, /f/ appears to be encroaching upon and replacing /pʰ/ even in native (non-Persian, non-English) Hindi words.[10]

 The other three Persian loans, /q, x, ɣ/,,  are still considered to fall under the domain of Urdu, and are also  used by many Hindi speakers; however, some Hindi speakers assimilate  these sounds to /k, kʰ, ɡ/ respectively.[15][17] The sibilant /ʃ/ is found in loanwords from all sources (English, Persian, Sanskrit) and is well-established.[18] The failure to maintain /f, z, ʃ/ by some Hindi speakers (often non-urban speakers who confuse them with /pʰ, dʒ, s/) is considered nonstandard.[15] Yet these same speakers, having a Sanskritic education, may hyperformally uphold /ɳ/ and [ʂ]. In contrast, for native speakers of Urdu, the maintenance of /f, z, ʃ/ is not commensurate with education and sophistication, but is characteristic of all social levels.[17]


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Hindi-Urdu phonology that adds to our discussion and perhaps clarifies a few things



Actually it doesn't. It totally fails to account for the fact that there is a pattern of encroachment. It has been total in Marathi and Gujarati for the past ~150 years (documented, and for who knows how long before then in actuality) and it is partial and progressively increasing in Hindi, correlating with other features of Marathi spreading as well. I have no doubt this will be studied more. Until ~15 years ago there wasn't even awareness in the linguisitic community that this was actually even happening. Data collection on Indic is terrible in general. Even the v-w allophony stuff is pretty new and as far as I know there is only one actual study that collected empirical samples and lo-and-behold found conditional allophony in Western Hindi. Also, the Wikipedia article is dead wrong in one respect. ʂ, really? I don't think so. Please show me some examples on YouTube of native HU speakers using this in words to render ष. Basically never happens. 

GB's assertion is that ph > f is much older in Hindi. Anything is possible, of course, but this is not my personal experience and note that many others are as taken by surprise by the pervasiveness of this trend as I am. Of course, I have no exposure to people from, say, Indore or Bhopal which are HU-speaking but have been exposed to Maratha influence for centuries. So maybe Southern HU had it - I just don't know.


----------



## Wolverine9

If all of this has occurred in the last 150 years, then it coincides well with the rising influence of English.  And the English influence may not just be for Hindi, but for Punjabi, Marathi, Gujarati, and other IA languages too.  English has had a profound influence on more than just vocabulary, from food to clothing, education, film, and more.  So it shouldn't be at all surprising if English was mostly responsible for the ph>f transition.  Even among the uneducated and illiterate, English may have been the catalyst for the ph>f transition.  It could've been a case of "dekhaa dekhii" that caused a chain reaction and spurred the ph>f transition.  The uneducated, illiterate people may have observed/heard English-educated folk using f instead of ph and copied their style and gradually it could've spread from there.  Even if Bollywood played a part, that too may be connected with English influence, since the use of English vocabulary and Western influence has steadily increased in Bollywood, especially in the last few decades.  Increasingly, more and more dialogues and even film titles have English words.  In addition, many (maybe most) Bollywood actors nowadays use English as their predominant language off-camera and in their personal lives, and the English influence can often be very readily detected in Bollywood movies.


----------



## Qureshpor

A member of my family has told me that children, while being taught Hindi in Chennai, are taught "f" for "ph". It seems this is a much widespread phenomenon!

I've tried searching for something "meaty" and scholarly on this topic on the net but without any luck. The following are just a few examples where फ is equated to both ph and f.

“I really don't think any native Hindi speaker uses Fool or Darwaaja or Jadojehadd, although, I have seen multiple use of Fir.

Most of the people in India learn Hindi as a second or third language and there is always some influence of their mother-tongue on they [the] way they pronounce Hindi words. Hence, you get all these aberrations.”

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=130876

“The other two answers about "ph" and "f" are WRONG. I am an Indian and I say "phool". And everybody I know says "phool". Infact "ph" and f", "j" and "z" are WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY in Hindi. The mispronunciation is basically a regional one and confined to people who aren't much educated. I have seen also Pakistani people making the same mispronunciation.”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120131050005AA2jxO2

“The word for Flower in Hindi is फूल _phool_. Can you see our new letter at the start? Great! Note that फ _pha_ is *not* pronounced like an English ‘f’ sound like the ph in ‘philosophy’, this might be a little confusing! (You can learn more about the Hindi letter ‘f’ here).”

http://www.learning-hindi.com/post/858244745/lesson-16-consonants-part-5-pa-pha-ba-bha

p/ph/b/bh/m (Youtube: Miracle - hindi vyanjan yaad karein.mp4-02 04 )

p/ph/b/bh/m ( Youtube: Learn to Write & Read Hindi - Consonant Letter 5 (P,Ph,B,Bh,M)

(The instructor does fall into the “f” trap once or twice! 1:25, 1:45)

khuubsuurat fuul (Youtube: Learn the Hindi Alphabet - with animations and sounds-2:49 )


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> If all of this has occurred in the last 150 years



Wolverine sahab, that's a misunderstanding. Basically, the earliest documentation we have of Marathi says that 'ph' is pronounced as 'f'. So, it definitely predates English. There is zero evidence that I can find that Hindi had any such thing at that time or for the succeeding 120 years. And then, about 20-30 years ago, bam! A transformation. Basically, the British period and the early independence period were times of no change. This is a post-independence (actually even more recent than that) phenomenon. My personal experience actually says that it's really only happened in the last 15-20 years in a major way. GB's experience is that it is longer than that for some Hindi groups. I suspect that if you analyzed Bollywood movies and other video and audio content (eg interviews with random public members), you would see a low incidence in HU followed by a major spike since the 1990s. In my mind this is a post-1980 phenomenon. So is the grammar deterioration of "Tu tere raste jaa, main mere raste jaataa hoon." This was unknown in HU ~30 years ago. Similarly, the use of Marathi origin words like "bindaas". Now, these are also rampant. The other day I heard a Hindi speaker say the word "yeRaa". I had no idea what it meant. Apparently "crazy" or "stupid". Also, Marathi.

All this is surprising to me as well and, to be honest, I don't like this f and ph confusion. They are distinct sounds and I don't see how the language is served by confounding them and essentially losing the 'ph' sound. I have absolutely no objections to new words being introduced though. There are some Marathi practices like D > R (ड > ड़, ڈ > ڑ) which do not appear to have transferred over so much afaik. Maybe because formal Hindi education is insisting on maintaining that distinction even though R is a non-classical Sanskrit (i.e. absent in Sanskrit, don't know about Prakrits) sound that does not exist natively in Devnagri. It's baffling why they don't do the same for q, x, f and G because the language loses precision without them.


----------



## panjabigator

> Addition: Maybe I should start a separate thread on this, but I am noticing another thing now. Some Eastern Punjabi speakers don't just do the usual chh → sh thing (chhoTa → shoTTa) but appear to actually be making the ṣh (ष) sound, i.e. ṣhoTTa (this is the halfway sound between sh and x). PG sahab, can you confirm/disconfirm if you are noticing this too? My family never does this BTW.



Really interesting point here, HindiUrdu Sahib. I never thought of this as a retroflex sh, but I'll certainly listen closely and let you know what I hear. No one in my immediate family does the chh → sh switch, but I hear it almost universally at my Gurudwara. As a matter of fact, I almost feel like the "chh" articulators in my vicinity are in the minority!

I have to say, most Punjabi adults I met of my grandparents' generation articulated a distinct "ph" and "f." My paternal grandmother often says ph for f. I have the general feeling that this is a distinction that is no longer perceivable amongst Punjabi speakers in my generation.


----------



## tonyspeed

This change is not just confined to Hindi. This book mentions it in relation to Gujarati.

Reading Aquisition in India


----------



## tonyspeed

hindiurdu said:


> There is zero evidence that I can find that Hindi had any such thing at that time or for the succeeding 120 years.





hindiurdu said:


> There is zero evidence that I can find that  Hindi had any such thing at that time or for the succeeding 120 years.  .



Here is your evidence: Kellogg's A Grammar of the Hindi Language p. 28 starting at the top of the page. It clearly states that to a large extent the common people were making this mistake in the 1800s. By the way, this man seemed to have spent a lot of time in Calcutta and wrote this book in Allahabad according to one website so his exposure would have been far wider than just Bombay. (Maybe we can stop blaming the Marathis now)


I think what happened is that non-prescriptivism finally won. In the years following independence the Bollywood complex in particular was very Urdu leaning. And learned Urdu speakers know this difference. The usage of F in common urban Hindi kept growing during that whole period, but Bollywood kept denying its existence. Then, in the 90s we have a legitimisation and celebration in Film of Bombay street language and the common tongue. People stopped trying to use prescriptivist language in Bollywood. Now, instead, we have the wild west of language portrayed in Bollywood films. From, Hinglish to street slang and beyond.



Another interesting remark is found in Edwin Greave's "A Grammar of Modern Hindi" (1896). On page 13 he claims that "the influence of Urdu has resulted in even some natives (uneducated) pronouncing फ like f, but it is quite incorrect". So maybe Urdu indirectly is at fault for all of this. (Now we can stop blaming the angrez)

It would seem as if ph->f was caused by the uneducated trying to appear educated.


----------



## gagun

can you tell me
-
Language--------------------------word---------------------------------------------------------------------------meaning 
 Sanskrit________________________काफी (kAphI) not kAfii ___________________________________________                                                                                                         ________coffee
  Hindi___________________________काफी written as (kaphii)*ﰷﭘﮭﯽ  * but be pronounced as काफ़ी(kaafi)*ﰷﻓﯽ*___________                               coffee
  Urdu_________________________  *ﰷﻓﯽ؟*


Then,is kaphi in Urdu-hindi and  kAphi in Sanskrit same or different.if they are same , then in Urdu ,it is written some sites as kaafi (کافی) not kaphi(کاپھی) but in HINDI why  is it written as kaphi not kafii and pronounced as kaafi?
coffee in english was derived from arabic word qahwah -قهوة


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Here is your evidence: Kellogg's A Grammar of the Hindi Language p. 28 starting at the top of the page. It clearly states that to a large extent the common people were making this mistake in the 1800s. By the way, this man seemed to have spent a lot of time in Calcutta and wrote this book in Allahabad according to one website so his exposure would have been far wider than just Bombay. (Maybe we can stop blaming the Marathis now)
> 
> I think what happened is that non-prescriptivism finally won. In the years following independence the Bollywood complex in particular was very Urdu leaning. And learned Urdu speakers know this difference. The usage of F in common urban Hindi kept growing during that whole period, but Bollywood kept denying its existence. Then, in the 90s we have a legitimisation and celebration in Film of Bombay street language and the common tongue. People stopped trying to use prescriptivist language in Bollywood. Now, instead, we have the wild west of language portrayed in Bollywood films. From, Hinglish to street slang and beyond.
> 
> Another interesting remark is found in Edwin Greave's "A Grammar of Modern Hindi" (1896). On page 13 he claims that "the influence of Urdu has resulted in even some natives (uneducated) pronouncing फ like f, but it is quite incorrect". So maybe Urdu indirectly is at fault for all of this. (Now we can stop blaming the angrez)
> 
> It would seem as if ph->f was caused by the uneducated trying to appear educated.


Tony SaaHib, I am afraid I was not able to access the pages you have mentioned but I have no problem taking your word for it. IMHO, both Greaves and Kellogg could be describing the "over-correction" process whereby people, especially those who have no access to the written word (or who have heard others utter words in this manner) think that the word must be an "f" or a "z" word. This process jells and the pronunciations become the norm. Examples of this process are occasionally witnessed on this forum. Had Urdu been the cause of ph > f phenomenon, it would not only have affected Urdu speakers themselves but also Punjabi speakers in Pakistan too. But this has not been the case. So much so that even the illiterate Punjabis differentiate ph words from the f ones! I have already said this several times.

The Urdu dialogue of these "Hindi" films, I assure you, was not "prescriptive" and was quite "legitimate" and it did not need any further "legitimising". It was the language spoken across a wide spectrum of the ethnic and religious divide and was not the language of the elite but ordinary people from urban and rural areas. Bombay street language is surely not the "average" Hindi of other areas, is it? I accept there might be an occasional film which depicts a certain class of people but this was not the norm. I also accept that some of the words or poetic constructions in some songs would not have been understood by everyone but poetry, in any language, usually has a higher register than day to day dialogue. 

I am still of the view that this ph > f has come about as a consequence of Urdu language and culture's displacement from the scene and its replacement by Devanagri. Had the subscript dots been kept, we may not have had this development. Children from a very young age would have been taught to differentiate between ph and f, j and z, x and kh, Gh and g etc. This very loss has resulted in this "khichRii". By the way, I like your description of the current Bollywood language.


----------



## marrish

gagun said:


> Can you tell me-
> Language------------word-------meaning
> Sanskrit  ______काफी (kAphI) not kAfii _coffee
> Hindi__काफी written as (kaphii)*ﰷﭘﮭﯽ  * but be pronounced as काफ़ी(kaafi)*ﰷﻓﯽ*___________                               coffee
> Urdu_____   *ﰷﻓﯽ؟*
> 
> 
> Then, is kaphi in Urdu-hindi and  kAphi in Sanskrit same or different. If they are same, then in Urdu, it is written some sites as kaafi (کافی) not kaphi(کاپھی) but in HINDI why  is it written as kaphi not kafii and pronounced as kaafi?
> coffee in English was derived from Arabic word qahwah -قهوة


Let me try to answer your query:

I think referring to Sanskrit is uncalled for as there is no word in Sanskrit for 'coffee' as Sanskrit was not spoken at the time coffee was introduced to India.

In Hindi the word is written कॉफ़ी but you can find sloppy काफी too. In order to make फ [pha] into फ़ __


----------



## hindiurdu

tonyspeed said:


> Here is your evidence: Kellogg's A Grammar of the Hindi Language p. 28 starting at the top of the page. It clearly states that to a large extent the common people were making this mistake in the 1800s. By the way, this man seemed to have spent a lot of time in Calcutta and wrote this book in Allahabad according to one website so his exposure would have been far wider than just Bombay. (Maybe we can stop blaming the Marathis now)



Actually we can't. There is a clear generational difference over the past 15-20 years. We are not talking about some or even many words being mangled. What the book seems to describe is akin to the zanjiir → zanziir/janziir phenomenon. We are talking about near-total disappearance of ph from the speech of tens of millions of people in a pervasive way. Lots of 20 year olds speak differently from their parents. BTW even I had noted earlier that Bengali actors/actresses sometimes used to say 'fiir' in movies instead of 'phir' even 50 years ago. What you're describing as "an attempt to appear educated" simply doesn't jive with what's happening. I view it slightly differently. We know that Vedic Sanskrit had 'x' and 'kh' and then, perhaps due to the dialect of one region prevailing or due to someone (Panini?) notion of perfection, x was ejected from Classical Sanskrit. So, 'x' was lost. Then, later, we know that ष collapsed into श and the ʂ sound was lost from HU and Punjabi (though it existed in Sanskrit and lives on in Pashto - discussed earlier). This seems like a similar loss actually, where Urdu retains the distinction, but Hindi is losing it and collapsing it into 'f'. Why would it do this now of all times and why so rapidly in one generation (1980 born and after)? Persian and English don't explain it. Those influences have existed for over 1000 years and 150 years respectively.




tonyspeed said:


> I think what happened is that non-prescriptivism finally won. In the years following independence the Bollywood complex in particular was very Urdu leaning. And learned Urdu speakers know this difference. The usage of F in common urban Hindi kept growing during that whole period, but Bollywood kept denying its existence. Then, in the 90s we have a legitimisation and celebration in Film of Bombay street language and the common tongue. People stopped trying to use prescriptivist language in Bollywood. Now, instead, we have the wild west of language portrayed in Bollywood films. From, Hinglish to street slang and beyond.



But, in my experience, it is not so simple. People are speaking differently from their parents, and in a large scale way. It's not simply Bollywood reflecting common speech. Bollywood also says "tu teri kitaab laa". This was *not* common Hindi speech of pre-1980. Infact, it is grammatically incorrect. However, there's been a huge upsurge of people speaking like this in HU areas in India. Why?



QURESHPOR said:


> I am still of the view that this ph > f has  come about as a consequence of Urdu language and culture's displacement  from the scene and its replacement by Devanagri. Had the subscript dots  been kept, we may not have had this development. Children from a very  young age would have been taught to differentiate between ph and f, j  and z, x and kh, Gh and g etc. This very loss has resulted in this  "khichRii".



I agree with this view. Loss of script distinction and lack of educational emphasis led to a vulnerability which a different phonetic structure from a different language was able to exploit. I have no objections to language evolution and influences, but in this one case, I believe this leads to lowering the sound repertoire of Hindi, which is bad.

Correction: Persian influence has actually existed for ~3000 years as the languages have been borrowing from one another. There are cases where one Iranian word in IA has been displaced by a newer Iranian word over millennial spans. Eg. the Sanskrit word for pomegranate was daaDim/daaDimv, which was probably borrowed from Iranian. Later displaced by the (also Iranian) anaar. Ref: The Pomegranate (Anthropological Series), 1919.


----------



## hindiurdu

Just to create a comparison. Imagine that wide-swathe of Hindi speakers stopped using 'j' almost completely in normal speech and replaced it with the 'z' sound over the next 20-30 years. "Zab tak hai zaan, zaan-e-zahaan" and "Zamshedpur ka zangal me zaanvaron ka zamghaTTaa". This is similar. "Falwaalaa fir fal lekar aayaa. Fir fal fuuTaa." A simple "English has expanded its influence" won't suffice. Something else has happened. 

Conjecture: It almost feels like verbal laziness. Like it is too hard for people to say 'ph' compared to 'f'. There is no perceived conflict in doing this, so they just say 'f' all the time. Definitely teacher laziness has a lot to do with it. 'f' basically becomes an accepted allophone for 'ph' (over past ~30 years, commensurate with decline of Urdu) and then becomes the preferred allophone for it for a large chunk of speakers (over past ~20 years). English doesn't act as a brake over this because English has no explicit phonemic awareness of 'ph' (it's just an allophone of 'p', and actually one that is largely not used in the subcontinent). These Hindi-speakers will continue to make the 'ph' sound but not for फ​. It will happen in words like uphaar उपहार​ (similar to English speakers unknowingly saying ph in haphazard).


----------



## marrish

^Very funny indeed, on both counts. I agree with many points you make.


----------



## Qureshpor

hindiurdu said:


> Just to create a comparison. Imagine that wide-swathe of Hindi speakers stopped using 'j' almost completely in normal speech and replaced it with the 'z' sound over the next 20-30 years. "Zab tak hai zaan, zaan-e-zahaan" and "Zamshedpur ka zangal me zaanvaron ka zamghaTTaa". This is similar. "Falwaalaa fir fal lekar aayaa. Fir fal fuuTaa." A simple "English has expanded its influence" won't suffice. Something else has happened.
> 
> Conjecture: It almost feels like verbal laziness. Like it is too hard for people to say 'ph' compared to 'f'. There is no perceived conflict in doing this, so they just say 'f' all the time. Definitely teacher laziness has a lot to do with it. 'f' basically becomes an accepted allophone for 'ph' (over past ~30 years, commensurate with decline of Urdu) and then becomes the preferred allophone for it for a large chunk of speakers (over past ~20 years). English doesn't act as a brake over this because English has no explicit phonemic awareness of 'ph' (it's just an allophone of 'p', and actually one that is largely not used in the subcontinent). These Hindi-speakers will continue to make the 'ph' sound but not for फ​. It will happen in words like uphaar उपहार​ (similar to English speakers unknowingly saying ph in haphazard).


In this 20-30 year period, you have also managed to get rid of declension and nasalisation! If your "zedified" sentences appear hilarious, you can see the effect "effefied" speech is having!


----------



## tonyspeed

hindiurdu said:


> This seems like a similar loss actually, where Urdu retains the distinction, but Hindi is losing it and collapsing it into 'f'. Why would it do this now of all times and why so rapidly in one generation (1980 born and after)? Persian and English don't explain it. Those influences have existed for over 1000 years and 150 years respectively.     But, in my experience, it is not so simple. People are speaking differently from their parents, and in a large scale way.     I agree with this view. Loss of script distinction and lack of educational emphasis led to a vulnerability which a different phonetic structure from a different language was able to exploit. I have no objections to language evolution and influences, but in this one case, I believe this leads to lowering the sound repertoire of Hindi, which is bad.




What if we combine these two ideas? India in 1971 was appoximately 70% illiterate (http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2001-02/chapt2002/chap106.pdf). This means that people had to rely on sound to learn Hindi speech.  They had to hear the word and emulate the correct pronunciation.  According to these same records, we see a massive jump in the literacy rate since the 70s so that now only 30% of people are illiterate. When someone is literate, they can now learn words not only by hearing them, but also by reading them. 

Since, the ph in Devanagari script is usually not distinguished from the f (originally a product of jingoism), we have a generation of people (corresponding to the rapid education of the 70s, 80s, and 90s) thinking that there is no difference between ph and f.   So although the ph->f phenomenon existed before as a form of poor-man's Urdu mimicry, the exacerbation of the problem is ironically probably caused by education (or more aptly said, mis-education).  

Now venturing into the area of speculation - This should mean that the areas that have preserved the ph should be the most uneducated areas. Bihar and rural UP are the most uneducated areas in the Hindi-speaking belt. Therefore one would expect to see ph still be used in those areas.  

And this would also explain why the ph->f change seems to affect cities so rapidly. Could it be because the city dwellers have better access to education?


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Since, the ph in Devanagari script is usually not distinguished from the f (originally a product of jingoism), ...



Not jingoism, but because 'f' is a post-Nagari import - so there as no separate letter originally in the alphabet for it. Hence, the addition of dot, which is understandably not always preserved in a society coming to grips with large-scale illiteracy and lack of access to good education.

I think it's simply a matter of education. Now that I have been made conscious of "ph" on account of this forum, I try to be conscious of it in my speech as well. My teachers should have done it. It's bad that teachers, whom we look to for so many things, are so lazy. And maybe even ignorant themselves.


----------



## UrduMedium

I think distinguishing "similar" sounds with just a dot in Nagari was not the smartest of the moves, in my humble view. That's like using blue and green for traffic light rather than red and green. Difficult to blame  people if they make a mistake in such an environment. If Roman letters distinguished _z _and _j _the same way, perhaps there would have been much confusion among English speakers too. 

On a different note, I also want to share my research of sample size 1  I have a colleague who grew up in a small dairy town in Gujarat (India) speaking Gujarati as his native language. Well educated and now settled in the US. This guy speaks both _ph _and _f_ but it is not uncommon for him to say something like _phipTii _(fifty) and other _F _words with _ph_, from time to time. The point I am making is that it's not always _ph > f_, but sometimes_ f > ph_ also.


----------



## Wolverine9

UrduMedium said:


> I think distinguishing "similar" sounds with just a dot in Nagari was not the smartest of the moves, in my humble view. That's like using blue and green for traffic light rather than red and green. Difficult to blame  people if they make a mistake in such an environment. If Roman letters distinguished _z _and _j _the same way, perhaps there would have been much confusion among English speakers too.



Many scripts have this problem, though.  In Urdu (and Persian), for example, p and b, H and x, z and s, are all represented by the same characters with only dots distinguishing them.  Likewise, r and R are also similarly differentiated in Urdu.  In English, v and w (often confounded by IA speakers) are similarly written.  I'm sure the same is true for many other languages.  The script creators probably thought they were making things easier for people by making those letters similar.


----------



## greatbear

UrduMedium said:


> I think distinguishing "similar" sounds with just a dot in Nagari was not the smartest of the moves, in my humble view. That's like using blue and green for traffic light rather than red and green. Difficult to blame  people if they make a mistake in such an environment. If Roman letters distinguished _z _and _j _the same way, perhaps there would have been much confusion among English speakers too.



I completely agree with you on this: it wasn't a smart move at all, just to add a dot underneath, particularly in a script that is not otherwise reliant on dots below.



UrduMedium said:


> This guy speaks both _ph _and _f_ but it is not uncommon for him to say something like _phipTii _(fifty) and other _F _words with _ph_, from time to time. The point I am making is that it's not always _ph > f_, but sometimes_ f > ph_ also.



This happens with quite a few people when they use English words: I've never understood why, when otherwise they do pronounce "f". Meanwhile, it's a pleasant surprise, that even having grown up in Gujarat, where mostly everything is "f", he also has "ph" in his repertoire.


----------



## UrduMedium

Wolverine9 said:


> Many scripts have this problem, though. In Urdu (and Persian), for example, p and b, H and x, z and s, are all represented by the same characters with only dots distinguishing them. Likewise, r and R are also similarly differentiated in Urdu. In English, v and w (often confounded by IA speakers) are similarly written. I'm sure the same is true for many other languages. The script creators probably thought they were making things easier for people by making those letters similar.



Very valid comment. Thanks, Wolverine9. 

I think the difference is that none of the sounds listed above are foreign to Urdu. In other words, they were already firmly established. That's not the case with Hindi's dotting scheme. The dots seem to distinguish established Indic sounds with imported foreign sounds. That's bound to egg people on to make the mistake. Secondly, putting dots while writing in Urdu has never been optional or an afterthought as it seems to be in Hindi with Nagari script. Put another way, the dots are very much part of the letter shape in Urdu, rather than just a distinguishing flag.

Urdu has several very similar z sounds as in_ ze, zaal, zuaad, and zoe_. If these four were only distinguished with each other with a dot here and a dot there, it would have made people crazy. Luckily they are all very distinct. Same with s sounds _siin, suaad, and se_. _be _and _pe _are indeed similar looking but the dots can't be skipped otherwise you don't get either sound. H and x are not very close, in my humble view. x is much closer to k and kh instead and luckily they all have distinct shapes.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I think distinguishing "similar" sounds with just a dot in Nagari was not the smartest of the moves, in my humble view. That's like using blue and green for traffic light rather than red and green. Difficult to blame people if they make a mistake in such an environment. If Roman letters distinguished _z _and _j _the same way, perhaps there would have been much confusion among English speakers too.


I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with using subscript or superscript dots to differentiate consonants. The issue is that they should be used consistently. No one confuses a D from a R and Dh from a Rh in Nagri and the reason for this is because in these cases the subscript dots are used without exception.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Very valid comment. Thanks, Wolverine9.
> 
> I think the difference is that none of the sounds listed above are foreign to Urdu. In other words, they were already firmly established. That's not the case with Hindi's dotting scheme. The dots seem to distinguish established Indic sounds with imported foreign sounds. That's bound to egg people on to make the mistake. Secondly, putting dots while writing in Urdu has never been optional or an afterthought as it seems to be in Hindi with Nagari script. Put another way, the dots are very much part of the letter shape in Urdu, rather than just a distinguishing flag.


The dots existed in Devanagri script even before the "innovation" to represent the additional Urdu sounds, most obvious ones being the dot to represent nasalisation of vowels/consonants, the consonant *ङ* and the subscript dot below D and Dh to form R and Rh.

The "imported foreign sounds" had been around for a thousand years if not longer and people, including those who were illiterate, had at least some if not all in their daily speech. So, the addition of the subscript dot to represent Urdu sounds was not such a drastic introduction as it might be perceived.


----------



## langnerd

I don't read enough stuff in Devanagari to know: how often are the subscript dots (for Gh, f) left out? Is it an issue of register? (E.g. a hand-painted shop sign may leave them out, but what about newspapers? government documents? published poetry?) Would a high school student's essay be marked with an error for leaving out the dot?

I'm not convinced it is jingoism -- but if it is, would Hindutva publications intentionally leave them out? Would someone transcribing Urdu poetry into Devanagari use them consistently and without fail?


----------



## greatbear

To answer your question, the subscript dots are left out from everywhere: it could be a hand-painted shop sign or a newspaper or a Hindutva publication (what the Hindutva publication will do is rather to avoid words of Perso-Arabic origins as far as possible). And these dots are also present everywhere. Their usage is inconsistent: a student's marks wouldn't be deducted for not putting one where it ought to be. As everyone knows and accepts this inconsistency. It isn't jingoism: it's the famous "chaltaa hai" attitude of Indians.


----------



## Qureshpor

langnerd said:


> I don't read enough stuff in Devanagari to know: how often are the subscript dots (for Gh, f) left out? Is it an issue of register? (E.g. a hand-painted shop sign may leave them out, but what about newspapers? government documents? published poetry?) Would a high school student's essay be marked with an error for leaving out the dot?
> 
> I'm not convinced it is jingoism -- but if it is, would Hindutva publications intentionally leave them out? Would someone transcribing Urdu poetry into Devanagari use them consistently and without fail?


It might be easier to answer your question by pointing out the dots which are not left out. Subscript D > R, subscript Dh > Rh. The superscript dot is also not missed out. Now, by a process of elimination, you should be able to work out the dots that are left out, more often than not.

When Urdu poetry of well known masters is transcribed in Devanagri, the dots for q, X, Gh, f and z are added. I can't remember if there is a dot for Z (Zaalah-baarii). Technically speaking it should be below sh but I believe when it is placed, it is below jh.


----------



## gagun

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...mIDQDg&usg=AFQjCNGKJ9fAZofSm879F7d9hAWp76iA1Q


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> It might be easier to answer your question by pointing out the dots which are not left out. Subscript D > R, subscript Dh > Rh.



In fact, you are wrong! This dot is also often missed out, ranging from schoolchildren's answer-sheets (where again it is not considered worthy of marks' deduction) to pamphlets to hand-painted signs. Yes, in literature and newspapers, it's missed out much less often than with the imported dots, but even there, it is. The "chaltaa hai" attitude continues with these as well.



QURESHPOR said:


> The superscript dot is also not missed out.



Superscript dots aren't the question at all here; I wonder why are you introducing them in discussion, unless to obfuscate it.


----------



## langnerd

greatbear said:


> Superscript dots aren't the question at all here; I wonder why are you introducing them in discussion, unless to obfuscate it.



I suppose QP is showing that it is not intrinsically in the nature of dots to be left out (e.g. because they are so small). The superscript dots are never correctly left out, the dots in R/Rh are perhaps left out sometimes but not as often as the last group, which includes the dots to represent f/z/K/Gh/Zh which are very often left out.

The point being that it's not just laziness about dots, it's something more specific to the f/z/K/Gh/Zh group.

Also in Urdu Script it's not a problem - dots are never left out.


----------



## tonyspeed

langnerd said:


> I suppose QP is showing that it is not intrinsically in the nature of dots to be left out (e.g. because they are so small). The superscript dots are never correctly left out, the dots in R/Rh are perhaps left out sometimes but not as often as the last group, which includes the dots to represent f/z/K/Gh/Zh which are very often left out.  The point being that it's not just laziness about dots, it's something more specific to the f/z/K/Gh/Zh group.  Also in Urdu Script it's not a problem - dots are never left out.



I have relied on the book "Hindi Nationalism" by Rai for my claim that the dots were originally left out because of the distancing people were doing with Persian consonants in the post-independence days as the enmity between India and Pakistan festered. (One should realise that there was a war between Pakistan and India in 1965 and 1971!!!! How easily this could have spilled over into language matters!) There is an infamous quote which has been quoted several times stating how many printing shops left out sub-script nuqtas on all Persian letters at one point (while retaining the dot under R and Rh).

  It is also important here to realise that Devanagari is a syllabary that was invented for Sanskrit, not Hindi. It has been in use (in different forms) since before Hindi was formed. There is no R and Rh flap in Sanskrit, so the "foreign" sound was notified by the sub-script bindu.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I have relied on the book "Hindi Nationalism" by Rai for my claim that the dots were originally left out because of the distancing people were doing with Persian consonants in the post-independence days as the enmity between India and Pakistan festered.



The claim is ridiculous, as in all Nagari material, pre-independence and going back to very old days, consistency of dots has been an issue.



			
				langnerd said:
			
		

> I suppose QP is showing that it is not intrinsically in the nature of  dots to be left out (e.g. because they are so small). The superscript  dots are never correctly left out, the dots in R/Rh are perhaps left out  sometimes but not as often as the last group, which includes the dots  to represent f/z/K/Gh/Zh which are very often left out.



I don't see the validity of the point, because nasalizations are very much an ever-present part of the language: whereas, a "zaroorii" is said as "jaroorii", "phuul" as "fuul", and so on. One cannot go wrong with nasalizations, since they have always been part of Hindi and also since we speak like that. But when it comes to the f/z/k/Gh/Zh part, not many of us speak like that. This is not limited to sounds coming through Persian. A similar problem exists with words like "LakshmaN": where "ksh" is often reduced to "chh" or "chchh" - not only in speaking but also in writing!

What I meant to say earlier (in post 110, when I was agreeing with UM) is that since these sounds (of f, z, Gh, etc.) are not so much there, one should have had a different mechanism to burn them into people's range of vision, in their consciousness, rather than having an ineffective dot below. That it has turned out to be ineffective is already evident, and I don't see why we are disputing a fact!


----------



## Qureshpor

langnerd said:


> I suppose QP is showing that it is not intrinsically in the nature of dots to be left out (e.g. because they are so small). The superscript dots are never correctly left out, the dots in R/Rh are perhaps left out sometimes but not as often as the last group, which includes the dots to represent f/z/K/Gh/Zh which are very often left out.
> 
> The point being that it's not just laziness about dots, it's something more specific to the f/z/K/Gh/Zh group.
> 
> Also in Urdu Script it's not a problem - dots are never left out.


langnerd SaaHib, you are indeed very astute since this is exactly what I had in mind! Yes, there is something more “specific” to the f, z, q, x, Gh group and that is the link or bond it has with Urdu. We do not have a situation of “imported dots” and neither should these sounds be considered “foreign”. If they are foreign, then R and Rh also fall in the same category yet the subscript dot for these two consonants is not left out.

I can not comment on Tony SaaHib quoting from Professor Alok Rai’s book “Hindi Nationalism” because I have not read the book in its entirety. Hopefully, Tony SaaHib will be able to respond to any challenge put forward. 

Nasalisation is part of the language and it is no more or no less important than the consonants within the language. As long as Urdu language and culture prevailed, majority of the people were pronouncing words incorporating this group of consonants. Now, educated Hindi speakers are saying “taraajuu” for “taraazuu”, “jaruurii” for “zaruurii” and other such words mainly if not entirely because of the removal of these subscript dots from the Devanagri alphabet. If these subscript dot consonants are taught to the children at the very beginning of their schooling, there is no chance whatsoever their mispronouncing them. It is as simple as this.

You have probably missed a number of relevant threads due to your recent entry into the forum. The gentleman Tony SaaHib has in mind who was complaining about sending his manuscripts to the publishers which ended up with subscript dots being removed is no other than Professor Shahid Amin of Delhi University. Please see post 46 “Use of the Bindi” thread. 

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2361421&page=3&highlight=Rai+Professor

Here is a link to “A Debate between Alok Rai and Shahid Amin Regarding Hindi” in which this matter is brought up. Professor Alok Rai describes the deliberate omission of these “bindis” as “a kind of vandalism” (page 190, first and second paragraphs).

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...JEEFLLk5v_mg6Q

On page 189 he writes..

"The ultimate irony is that till the day he died, Zail Singh, the President of India could never get his name written properly in Hindi. They would never put a bindi under "ja", it would always be "Jail Singh"...You might know that Zail Singh was the seventh president of India. (See post 5 of “zail” thread)

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1804606&highlight=Rai+Professor

So, this omission of the dots is more than the “chaltaa hai” attitude. I used to possess a Hindi Grammar book published in India. Unfortunately I do not have it any more but I clearly remember that the author/s had no qualms about these dots because their exclusion was openly discouraged.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Nasalisation is part of the language and it is no more or no less important than the consonants within the language. As long as Urdu language and culture prevailed, majority of the people were pronouncing words incorporating this group of consonants. Now, educated Hindi speakers are saying “taraajuu” for “taraazuu”, “jaruurii” for “zaruurii” and other such words mainly if not entirely because of the removal of these subscript dots from the Devanagri alphabet.



You have once again succeeded in eliding the main question. If you see the film "Ishaqzaade", the hero in the film is unable to pronounce Zoya, his beloved's name: the girl tries to teach him the pronunciation, but he is unable to say other than "Joya". The million dollar question is rather what do _un_educated _Urdu_ speakers say: do they say "taraajuu" or "taraazuu"?
If the uneducated Urdu speaker says taraazuu but expects the Hindi speaker to say that as well, rather than the more natural "taraajuu", then the subscript dot was an ineffective mechanism to achieve that end. And, it is proved so to be the case - so, I don't really understand what are you disputing. The subscript dot hasn't prevented "educated" Hindi speakers from - if we may look from your elitist perspective, what you will call as - mangling words.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> Now, educated  Hindi speakers are saying “taraajuu” for “taraazuu”, “jaruurii” for  “zaruurii” and other such words mainly if not entirely because of the  removal of these subscript dots from the Devanagri alphabet. If these  subscript dot consonants are taught to the children at the very  beginning of their schooling, there is no chance whatsoever their  mispronouncing them. It is as simple as this.



I would add that those who have very limited familiarity with Urdu are most likely to make these errors.  Those who know Urdu or who are familiar with Urdu through poetry, listening to ghazals, etc, are more conscious of the proper pronunciation.  There are certain words, however, where even those who are otherwise conscious of proper Urdu, make such mistakes.  One of the most egregious errors I've heard is sabzii being pronounced as sabjii.



QURESHPOR said:


> So, this omission of the dots is more than the “chaltaa hai” attitude. I used to possess a Hindi Grammar book published in India. Unfortunately I do not have it any more but I clearly remember that the author/s had no qualms about these dots because their exclusion was openly discouraged.



I think that maybe dictionaries and grammar books encourage dots, but newspapers, books, magazines, and other publications don't follow these guidlines.


----------



## UrduMedium

I think with regard to words like _zaruurii _and _jaruurii_, we are forgetting the fact that for a non-Urdu-aware Hindi speaker, there is not much need to differentiate between the two, no matter how funny and incorrect _jaruurii _may sound to your and my ear. This is completely parallel to the situation, when an Arabic speaker hears _zaruurii _from an Urduphone, and bursts into laughter when he is told that it is the same as the Arabic _dharuurii_. The point being, Urdu does not have the _dh (dhuaad/ض)_ sound so it just maps it to z (just like many Hindiphones mapping z to j). So if I say _zaruurii, _I am perfectly fine in my language regardless of how funny and incorrect my Arab friend may think it is. Many moons ago, I have gone though this exact experience with someone Arabic speaking on pronouncing a common Urdu name. 

Now on top of the above situation, using ONLY the subscript dots to distinguish _zaruurii _and _jaruurii_, in written forms, amounts to misleading and complete dereliction of duty on part of the linguists and or experts of scripts. OK, OK, I'm exaggerating here, but hopefully you get my drift .

Edit: Another personal comment. I know too many fellow Urdu speakers who are smug about their purist pronunciation, and love to laugh at regional pronunciations like Jahuur-ul-Islam (Bangladesh cricketer), not realizing their pronunciation of the name (Zahuur-ul-Islam) is also technically incorrect when compared to the original Arabic name.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I think with regard to words like _zaruurii _and _jaruurii_, we are forgetting the fact that for a non-Urdu-aware Hindi speaker, there is not much need to differentiate between the two, no matter how funny and incorrect _jaruurii _may sound to your and my ear. This is completely parallel to the situation, when an Arabic speaker hears _zaruurii _from an Urduphone, and bursts into laughter when he is told that it is the same as the Arabic _dharuurii_. The point being, Urdu does not have the _dh (dhuaad/ض)_ sound so it just maps it to z (just like many Hindiphones mapping z to j). So if I say _zaruurii, _I am perfectly fine in my language regardless of how funny and incorrect my Arab friend may think it is. Many moons ago, I have gone though this exact experience with someone Arabic speaking on pronouncing a common Urdu name.


Your above stance defies any logic!

We write Urdu words (say zail, zaruurii and zulm) in identical manner to Arabic. Yet, we pronounce them if they were all written with a ze ! Reason? Because we inherited the pronunciation from Persian.

jail, jaruurii and julm is written with j. Devanagri has neither inherited the writing from Urdu nor the j pronunciation. If they were written with a subscript dot, their pronunciation would be with a z (ze) and become identical to Urdu. My point is that if the subscript is used from primary school level, children would grow up to distinguish various sounds (f, z, x, Gh and even perhaps q).


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Your above stance defies any logic!
> 
> We write Urdu words (say zail, zaruurii and zulm) in identical manner to Arabic. Yet, we pronounce them if they were all written with a ze ! Reason? Because we inherited the pronunciation from Persian.



True, that we got the pronunciation from Persian. But also because we do not have the ض sound. Neither did Persians, so I suspect they mapped it to z. Same goes for zoi, zaal, suaad, se (the), and so on. The point is, its fine for a given consonant to take one sound in one language and somewhat different in another. Same is the story with the qaaf. The purists can't ever stop complaining about the q/k pronunciation difference. The same disparity exists in Urdu-Hindi and English sounds. Even something basic like a T is different.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I can do no more than to quote Rudyard Kipling.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."


----------



## hindiurdu

UrduMedium said:


> I think with regard to words like _zaruurii _and _jaruurii_, we are forgetting the fact that for a non-Urdu-aware Hindi speaker, there is not much need to differentiate between the two, no matter how funny and incorrect _jaruurii _may sound to your and my ear. This is completely parallel to the situation, when an Arabic speaker hears _zaruurii _from an Urduphone, and bursts into laughter when he is told that it is the same as the Arabic _dharuurii_. The point being, Urdu does not have the _dh (dhuaad/ض)_ sound so it just maps it to z (just like many Hindiphones mapping z to j). So if I say _zaruurii, _I am perfectly fine in my language regardless of how funny and incorrect my Arab friend may think it is. Many moons ago, I have gone though this exact experience with someone Arabic speaking on pronouncing a common Urdu name.



This reminds me of how ramzaan suddenly became ramadhaan in English rendering in the subcontinent a few decades ago. Anyway, every language has a standard. In many western parts of HU's native zone, there is a strong a > ai tendency with illiterate people. That's the non-diphthongal vowel of 'pan' and 'bail' (ox). The English 'Lunch' is rendered 'lainch'. 'Puncture' becomes 'Painchar' (Watch YouTube 'Teri Tirchhi Nazar ne Dil ko Kar Diya Penchar' for an example). When they first learn Devnagari they don't read it 'kə khə gə ghə' (that's the schwa 'a' at the end). In scores of schools of the area you will hear both teacher and children saying 'kai khai gai ghai'. Even words like 'mat' (don't) and 'kar' (do) take on shades of 'mait' and 'kair'. But this isn't considered acceptable pronunciation because there is a standard. Forgetting zealots for a moment (it's irrelevant what they want or don't want), in the subcontinent, 'zaruurii' is the standard for this word. It has been so for a thousand years. Similarly, it may be fine in Himachali languages to say 'azi raati' for 'aaj raat' but when someone from there speaks Hindi, aaj is correct, not aaz.

So, it is fine to have languages and dialectical variations in which people say 'painchar', 'mait', 'julmi' and 'raazaa zii', but when you speak the standard language you have to say things the way they should be said. Some things are close to universal, like schwa deletion. These are inherent to the flow and tune of language itself. 'j' instead of 'z' (or vice-versa for that matter) is not. Just my own 2 cents. Most Hindi dictionaries have z and x in them. So they should also be taught properly. It's just a little dot for crying out loud. And to circle back to how this discussion got started, see what happens. When you make an attempt to screw around with the structure of your own phonology (disregarding how ph and f are differentiated), you lost the sound that you started out considering to be more native ('ph') to the extent that millions of people are forgetting it. Unintended consequences.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> I think that maybe dictionaries and grammar books encourage dots, but newspapers, books, magazines, and other publications don't follow these guidelines.


One can not and should not generalise of course. The reason why I mentioned one grammar book (published in India by a government institution) was because it openly discouraged the usage of such dots, almost as a policy statement.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> [...]The million dollar question is rather what do _un_educated _Urdu_ speakers say: do they say "taraajuu" or "taraazuu"?
> If the uneducated Urdu speaker says taraazuu but expects the Hindi speaker to say that as well, rather than the more natural "taraajuu", then the subscript dot was an ineffective mechanism to achieve that end.[...]


Both educated and uneducated (read: illiterate) Urdu speakers say _taraa*z*uu_. In this context, saying that ''_taraa*j*uu_'' would be more natural is a humbug.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> QURESHPOR said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]So, this omission of the dots is more than the “chaltaa hai” attitude. I used to possess a Hindi Grammar book published in India. Unfortunately I do not have it any more but I clearly remember that the author/s had no qualms about these dots because their *exclusion was openly discouraged*.
> 
> 
> 
> One can not and should not generalise of course. The reason why I mentioned one grammar book (published in India by a government institution) was because it openly *discouraged the usage of such dots*, almost as a policy statement.
Click to expand...

I believe Wolverine9 answered in good faith; I have understood that the book was against the omission (=exclusion) of the dots.


----------



## Qureshpor

hindiurdu said:


> This reminds me of how ramzaan suddenly became ramadhaan in English rendering in the subcontinent a few decades ago. Anyway, every language has a standard. In many western parts of HU's native zone, there is a strong a > ai tendency with illiterate people. That's the non-diphthongal vowel of 'pan' and 'bail' (ox). The English 'Lunch' is rendered 'lainch'. 'Puncture' becomes 'Painchar' (Watch YouTube 'Teri Tirchhi Nazar ne Dil ko Kar Diya Penchar' for an example). When they first learn Devnagari they don't read it 'kə khə gə ghə' (that's the schwa 'a' at the end). In scores of schools of the area you will hear both teacher and children saying 'kai khai gai ghai'. Even words like 'mat' (don't) and 'kar' (do) take on shades of 'mait' and 'kair'. But this isn't considered acceptable pronunciation because there is a standard. Forgetting zealots for a moment (it's irrelevant what they want or don't want), in the subcontinent, 'zaruurii' is the standard for this word. It has been so for a thousand years. Similarly, it may be fine in Himachali languages to say 'azi raati' for 'aaj raat' but when someone from there speaks Hindi, aaj is correct, not aaz.
> 
> So, it is fine to have languages and dialectical variations in which people say 'painchar', 'mait', 'julmi' and 'raazaa zii', but when you speak the standard language you have to say things the way they should be said. Some things are close to universal, like schwa deletion. These are inherent to the flow and tune of language itself. 'j' instead of 'z' (or vice-versa for that matter) is not. Just my own 2 cents. Most Hindi dictionaries have z and x in them. So they should also be taught properly. It's just a little dot for crying out loud. And to circle back to how this discussion got started, see what happens. When you make an attempt to screw around with the structure of your own phonology (disregarding how ph and f are differentiated), you lost the sound that you started out considering to be more native ('ph') to the extent that millions of people are forgetting it. Unintended consequences.


Thank you for bringing some sanity to the discussion. It is much appreciated. Perhaps you would be kind enough to say a word or two in the "mustanad" thread where I have asked if there was such a concept as "fasiiH" or "mustanad" in Hindi. From my experience of Hindivaalas so far,  their Hindi does appear rather "free style"!


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> I believe Wolverine9 answered in good faith; I have understood that the book was against the omission (=exclusion) of the dots.


You make a valid point Shah SaaHib. Perhaps my wording could have been clearer.


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Both educated and uneducated (read: illiterate) Urdu speakers say _taraa*z*uu_. In this context, saying that ''_taraa*j*uu_'' would be more natural is a humbug.



I know that both sets of Urdu speakers say "taraazuu": that _is_ my point! An uneducated Hindi speaker's natural impulse is to say "taraajuu" - I wasn't talking about natural impulses of Urdu speakers. That is why, the subscript dot has been an ineffective strategy to teach the Hindi speaker to say sounds like z, x, etc.



			
				hindiurdu said:
			
		

> Most Hindi dictionaries have z and x in them. So they should also be  taught properly. It's just a little dot for crying out loud. And to  circle back to how this discussion got started, see what happens. When  you make an attempt to screw around with the structure of your own  phonology (disregarding how ph and f are differentiated), you lost the  sound that you started out considering to be more native ('ph') to the  extent that millions of people are forgetting it. Unintended  consequences.



No one is disputing here the value of a good education. Rather, what's the issue at the moment is whether this subscript dot is an effective strategy to combat sounds being forgotten by "millions of people" or not. Some of us believe that the subscript dot wasn't the wisest of methods to achieve distinctions between, say, "ph" and "f", "j" and "z", and so on. What do you think?



			
				QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> Thank you for bringing some sanity to the discussion.



If someone is saying what you are more likely to agree with, is only that standpoint sane? UM's arguments also carry perfect sanity nor are outside the scope of this thread, and I whole-heartedly agree with them. In any way, it's not for you to decide upon the sanity of something.


----------



## UrduMedium

hindiurdu said:


> This reminds me of how ramzaan suddenly became ramadhaan in English rendering in the subcontinent a few decades ago. Anyway, every language has a standard. In many western parts of HU's native zone, there is a strong a > ai tendency with illiterate people. That's the non-diphthongal vowel of 'pan' and 'bail' (ox). The English 'Lunch' is rendered 'lainch'. 'Puncture' becomes 'Painchar' (Watch YouTube 'Teri Tirchhi Nazar ne Dil ko Kar Diya Penchar' for an example). When they first learn Devnagari they don't read it 'kə khə gə ghə' (that's the schwa 'a' at the end). In scores of schools of the area you will hear both teacher and children saying 'kai khai gai ghai'. Even words like 'mat' (don't) and 'kar' (do) take on shades of 'mait' and 'kair'. But this isn't considered acceptable pronunciation because there is a standard. Forgetting zealots for a moment (it's irrelevant what they want or don't want), in the subcontinent, 'zaruurii' is the standard for this word. It has been so for a thousand years. Similarly, it may be fine in Himachali languages to say 'azi raati' for 'aaj raat' but when someone from there speaks Hindi, aaj is correct, not aaz.
> 
> So, it is fine to have languages and dialectical variations in which people say 'painchar', 'mait', 'julmi' and 'raazaa zii', but when you speak the standard language you have to say things the way they should be said. Some things are close to universal, like schwa deletion. These are inherent to the flow and tune of language itself. 'j' instead of 'z' (or vice-versa for that matter) is not. Just my own 2 cents. Most Hindi dictionaries have z and x in them. So they should also be taught properly. It's just a little dot for crying out loud. And to circle back to how this discussion got started, see what happens. When you make an attempt to screw around with the structure of your own phonology (disregarding how ph and f are differentiated), you lost the sound that you started out considering to be more native ('ph') to the extent that millions of people are forgetting it. Unintended consequences.



Thanks for a detailed post, HU. I agree with your point about standard language pronunciation. However the validity of pronunciation exists within the scope of _a given language_. _ramadhaan _is the correct pronunciation or the month's name in Arabic; _ramazaan/ramzaan_ is the correct pronunciation in Urdu; _ramadaan _is the correct pronunciation of the same month in English. Insisting that it be _ramazaan _in English too is childish, and you'll hear many Urdu speakers complain about it. One word, three correct pronunciations in three languages. My issue mainly is with applying the pronunciation standard set in one language to another in a derisive manner. At one end of the scale many of us insist that today's Hindi and Urdu are different languages, yet at the other end, we insist the rules of one must apply to the other. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Now, if the Hindi world agrees that _zaruurii _is the accepted correct pronunciation, and only regards _jaruurii _as regional or dialectic or uneducated, I have no problem with it. But then keeping the letters for such close sounds in Nagari the same (with only a dot apart) is a very poor choice. See just for comparison how distinctly similar/close sounds like ze, zaal, zuaad, zoi and siin, suaad, se are written.

I also very much agree with your last statement about the unintended consequences of tinkering too much with phonology of a language. Imagine if Persian (and then Urdu) had decided that all the Arabic sounds (like zaal, zoi, zuaad, suaad, se, and so on) had to be perfectly be part of standard Persian or Urdu. We would still be struggling to speak well and have an aching tongue.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> At one end of the scale many of us insist that today's Hindi and Urdu are different languages, yet at the other end, we insist the rules of one must apply to the other. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Now, if the Hindi world agrees that _zaruurii _is the accepted correct pronunciation, and only regards _jaruurii _as regional or dialectic or uneducated, I have no problem with it. But then keeping the letters for such close sounds in Nagari the same (with only a dot apart) is a very poor choice.


UM SaaHib, it is extremely unfortunate that we end up talking cross purposes.

No one is insisting on applying the rules of one language upon another. If you care to flick through the pages of The Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary, compiled by Cambridge University Scholar, Dr. R. S. McGregor, you will see that the words are given as "taraazuu" and not "taraajuu", "zaruurii" and not "jaruurii", "Gham" and not gam" and so on. Now, if children are taught to pick out a R from a dot below a D, can't they be taught to distinguish between other consonants with and without a dot in the same manner? What is so special about D > R and Dh > Rh with the addition of a subscript dot that for the rest of the sounds the dot becomes a very poor choice? What is good for the goose is good for the gander! The dot for anything may not be the best thing invented since sliced bread but as Devangri has been using a dot for nasal consonants and these retroflexes, it was surely an obvious and logical choice. 

I don't accept that it is a Hindi speaker's natural impulse to say a "j" and not a "z". It all depends on one's environment. As I have said over and over again, uneducated illiterate Punjabis pronounce these sounds quite correctly because they hear these sounds from birth. If this environment is no longer so for Hindi speakers, this is fair enough. But whilst NCERT books place a dot for f and z, what is it about x, Gh etc that prevents the powers to be not to employ a dot for them? You don't need to be Einstein to work out the reason!

*NCERT Books **[url]http://ncertbooks.prashanthellina.com/*[/URL]


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> [...]Imagine if Persian (and then Urdu) had decided that all the Arabic sounds (like zaal, zoi, zuaad, suaad, se, and so on) had to be perfectly be part of standard Persian or Urdu. We would still be struggling to speak well and have an aching tongue.


Despite keeping on pronouncing those Arabic souds _very frequently_, I don't have an aching tongue, do you?


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> I don't know from where do you get your data, tonyspeed, but I don't think that English influence has got much to do with it: maybe in the case of some, but not most. There are thousands of Hindi native speakers who have never been educated in English and from whom I have heard "f" for "ph" - my own "f" for "ph" has been picked up through growing up among such speakers, not from any English education's influence. You can also refer to my post 63 here.
> 
> Meanwhile, aren't we all going off-topic since some time now here? This thread is to discuss the z/j words/phenomenon, not the ph/f one!


If you read the thread title, you will be reassured that this thread is dedicated to F/PH, not to Z/J. The other one can be found here.


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> If you read the thread title, you will be reassured that this thread is dedicated to F/PH, not to Z/J. The other one can be found here.



Ha, ha, marrish, that's a classic one! Well, to help you with some history studies, that post and several others _were_ in the z/j thread; subsequent to my post and tonyspeed's post 64, all those messages were moved by the moderators from there to here. Now, I hope you get on with the actual discussion rather than with a fault-finding mission.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Ha, ha, marrish, that's a classic one! Well, to help you with some history studies, that post and several others _were_ in the z/j thread; subsequent to my post and tonyspeed's post 64, all those messages were moved by the moderators from there to here. Now, I hope you get on with the actual discussion rather than with a fault-finding mission.


That's funny indeed, I found it while reading carefully the previous posts to get on with the discussion! I thought the reference to the Z-thread would do no harm. You are right, now I remember that the posts were in that thread before.


----------



## greatbear

Some people think that "f" for "ph" as in "fal"/"phal" is due to some English influence (an opinion which I have always disputed). I came upon some further recent evidence of how deeply entrenched is "fal" and the like among Hindi speakers, with no apparent connections to English.

I was having an interesting conversation a couple of days back with someone who did his primary schooling in Hindi and didn't know any English till then (now he's a fluent English speaker); we were talking about Indian religions and their philosophies. The person's mother is a monk and he himself is deeply spiritual person; he also comes from Hindi belt and has been brought up in the belt. This person says "fal". His wife, from another region of the Hindi belt, also says "fal". The wife's mother, coming from a very traditional, non-English-influenced background, also says "fal". So I just thought to mention it here, as some of the members have otherwise the tendency to keep blaming English/globalization for everything that doesn't fit their palate.

Meanwhile, I have never had any problem with "fal", and even after knowing here that the word is "phal", I am rather more comfortable with "fal" and "fuul". This might not please a couple of elitists here, but Hindi does have "fal" as much as, if not more than, "phal". And I don't see it as corruption, but simply evolution.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> As I have pointed out earlier, f, z, x etc in purely Hindi (non-Urdu/English) words will not be seen unless some words such as "farraaTe bharnaa" (Urdu) have been coined.



There's also _pharraaTe bharnaa_.  This word has both _ph _and _f _forms.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Some people think that "f" for "ph" as in "fal"/"phal" is due to some English influence (an opinion which I have always disputed). I came upon some further recent evidence of how deeply entrenched is "fal" and the like among Hindi speakers, with no apparent connections to English.  I was having an interesting conversation a couple of days back with someone who did his primary schooling in Hindi and didn't know any English till then (now he's a fluent English speaker); we were talking about Indian religions and their philosophies. The person's mother is a monk and he himself is deeply spiritual person; he also comes from Hindi belt and has been brought up in the belt. This person says "fal". His wife, from another region of the Hindi belt, also says "fal". The wife's mother, coming from a very traditional, non-English-influenced background, also says "fal". So I just thought to mention it here, as some of the members have otherwise the tendency to keep blaming English/globalization for everything that doesn't fit their palate.  Meanwhile, I have never had any problem with "fal", and even after knowing here that the word is "phal", I am rather more comfortable with "fal" and "fuul". This might not please a couple of elitists here, but Hindi does have "fal" as much as, if not more than, "phal". And I don't see it as corruption, but simply evolution.


   It is not England's fault. It was the Mughal's fault. Pronouncing ph as f was a way of seeming more cultured in city areas because it made one seem like he/she had a command of Urdu consonants. This fact is mentioned by several older Hindi Grammars.  I think you will find that educated people over 60/70 will not usually say fal.


----------



## greatbear

^ Well, I don't know about whose "fault" it was/is, tonyspeed: my opinions are always that languages evolve and change over time (of course, it is always someone's "fault" - we live, thankfully IMO, in a dynamic world). I am least interested in history of such sort: what interests me more is the how do people actually use and pronounce a word. "f" instead of "ph" is a very common pronunciation and not limited to those people exposed to English - only that much can I say from my observations so far.


----------



## insouciantguru

This is a most interesting discussion. As Hindi speaker from Delhi I’d like to chime in.

I concur with the view that -at least in the Hindi-speaking North Indian belt- the ph>f shift has taken root since the introduction of Peso-Arabic sounds into the Hindustani vocabulary. It is also certainly possible that this phenomenon might have gathered an accelerated pace since the increased arrival of English words- through the inexorable Bollywood and Cable TV effect- into everyday spoken HU in urban India, and is subsequently percolating down to rural/ small town speakers. [This does happen: A friend of mine was recently doing field work in the remotest parts of Jharkhand. When she interviewed certain uneducated labourers as to how they felt about something. They replied: “medium”, in English. She was shocked.]

Common usages/distortions I’ve noticed amongst Delhi speakers and certain other north Indian town speakers are: _Phir > fir_, _Phat> fat, Phool>Fool_ and the like as has already been stated. Many of the lower class immigrants from other parts of the Hindi belt- especially rural areas- don’t make this error however. In fact many of them, especially from remote parts of UP, Bihar etc have difficulty in enunciating “f” sounds! I don't think I've ever heard people from the heartland of the hindi-belt- especially the ones with little contact with English or Urdu speakers- say _"fansi"_ for _"phansi" _and the like.

They make the typical mistake of pronouncing English words beginning with an “f” sound with the HU “ph” syllable. “Phone” becomes the HU “_phone”_, “Full” becomes _“phull”_, “fashionable” becomes _“phaisanabal"_. Why would they make these errors if they were familiar with the “f” sound?

As for the Marathi influence on Hindi, it is probably confined to Bombay Hindi of which the less said the better.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Welcome to the Forum, insouciantguru Jii. 

Thank you for your thoughts. In your opinion why is it that Urdu speakers have not been affected by the "phuul > fuul" phenomenon?


----------



## insouciantguru

Thanks for the welcome Qureshpurji. 

IMO, The _phool>fool_ error is not by any means flatly across the board among Hindi speakers, but it is not uncommonly heard in Delhi and other towns in N. India either.

Hindi speakers- more so the ones not put through formal education- generally have no internal filter of rules that clearly tell them where the “f”’ sound is apposite and where it would be wrong. Unlike Urdu speakers, most don’t always know the subtle distinctions between sounds of Arabic-Persian descent that are invariably the source of “f sounds” and those of Khari Boli (there are exceptions of course- Punjabis would probably have a better grasp for obvious reasons).

The sheer volume “f sound” words that have seeped into urbanite Khari Boli speech-which in turn affects rural dialects- overtime through the first wave of Persian/ Arabic/ Turkic loan words _(“faaltu”, “faisalaa”, “fauj”)_ and now more recently from English _(“film”, “phone”, “fridge” “formula”)_, has greatly influenced the way HU speakers pronounce the words that are conventionally supposed to begin with the _“ph”_ sound, many a times perversely so. Is it possible that this perversion is less likely among Urdu speakers since they are naturally or subconsciously more in tune with these finer distinctions regarding words where “f” should NOT be used in place “ph” as it would corrupt the original pronunciation (such as _phool>fool_)? Perversely, some under-informed Hindi speakers may consider such a distortion more urdu-ised (my opinion)!

I must stress that this phool> fool phenomenon is, in my opinion, limited to certain types of speakers in North India:



Among the educated people, the English urbanites, who’re least bothered with these distinctions (in their case English may well have affected their HU enunciations), or speakers whose first language isn’t Hindi who don’t have an idea either.
The uneducated types who unknowingly copy the ones above, and in the process, corrupt their former pronunciations to some degree. (E.g. They may eventually move from _Phillum> fillum_ but also sadly, from _phool>fool_).

I don't personally know how Gujarati may have affected Hindi speech in N. India. I understand they have the f sound. Is there some evidence of Gujarati causing this shift?

Edited to add: There is a similar confusion between j and z sounds when spoken by undereducated Hindi speakers from rural parts of the Hindi belt. They Hindi-ize Urdu words. _zaahil>jaahil, zaroor>Jaroor_


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> [...]Edited to add: There is a similar confusion between j and z sounds when spoken by undereducated Hindi speakers from rural parts of the Hindi belt. They Hindi-ize Urdu words. _zaahil>jaahil, zaroor>Jaroor_


Thank you for your detailed answer insouciantguru Jii. I suppose, if there was a study carried out by linguists in this field, that may be the definitive explanation. My personal views are summarized in # Post 85.

Would you believe it? The actual word is "jaahil" and not "zaahil"! Another case which goes towards my line of thinking in the above mentioned post.


----------



## insouciantguru

QURESHPOR said:


> Would you believe it? The actual word is "jaahil" and not "zaahil"! Another case which goes towards my line of thinking in the above mentioned post.



That is interesting Qureshji. I am not totally surprised though. That's the nub of it, isn't it? So many of us pronounce these words independent of their etymology, It's whatever catches on.

Edit- And may I request you to not address me with the suffix "ji". It just doesn't feel right for me, unless this is the done thing in this forum.


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> [...] Edit- And may I request you to not address me with the suffix "ji". It just doesn't feel right for me, unless this is the done thing in this forum.


jaise aap kii marzii janaab. nahiiN, yih is Forum kii riit nahiiN balkih chand Urdu bolne vaale "SaaHib" or "Jii" vaGhairah duusre ko 3izzat dene kii xaatir isti3maal karte haiN. bas yahii vajh hai.


----------



## marrish

insouciantguru said:


> [...] The sheer volume “f sound” words that have seeped into urbanite Khari Boli speech-which in turn affects rural dialects- overtime through the first wave of *Persian/ Arabic/ Turkic loan words *_*(“faaltu”,* “faisalaa”, “fauj”)_ and now more recently from English _(“film”, “phone”, “fridge” “formula”)_, has greatly influenced the way HU speakers pronounce the words that are conventionally supposed to begin with the _“ph”_ sound, many a times perversely so. Is it possible that this perversion is less likely among Urdu speakers since they are naturally or subconsciously more in tune with these finer distinctions regarding words where “f” should NOT be used in place “ph” as it would corrupt the original pronunciation (such as _phool>fool_)? Perversely, some under-informed Hindi speakers may consider such a distortion more urdu-ised (my opinion)!
> [...]


Actually faaltuu is not a loan-word from Pers./Ar. or Turkish but it comes from Portuguese, which I suggested earlier in this thread.

You may find the following article by Dr. Rauf Parekh, an Urdu lexicographer and linguist, interesting (relevant portion at the end): http://archives.dawn.com/archives/157340


----------



## insouciantguru

Ok thank you for that link maarish sahab. So is there no _ph>f _shift (in words such as _phansi>fansi, phool>fool) _at all whatsoever among the urdu speakers west of the border? I find that a little hard to believe.


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> Ok thank you for that link maarish sahab. So is there no _ph>f _shift (in words such as _phansi>fansi, phool>fool) _at all whatsoever among the urdu speakers west of the border? I find that a little hard to believe.


West of which border and whose border? Could you please be a bit more specific.


----------



## insouciantguru

QURESHPOR said:


> West of which border and whose border? Could you please be a bit more specific.



QP Sahab, I meant the Indo-Pak border as regards the Urdu spoken in Pakistan.


----------



## marrish

insouciantguru said:


> Ok thank you for that link maarish sahab. So is there no _ph>f _shift (in words such as _phansi>fansi, phool>fool) _at all whatsoever among the urdu speakers west of the border? I find that a little hard to believe.


You are welcome. Now that the question of border is clarified (believe me I had a hard time to get what you meant), I can confirm that according to what I heard in different places, this phenomenon is not found.


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> QP Sahab, I meant the Indo-Pak border as regards the Urdu spoken in Pakistan.



Ah, I see! Thank you. You will no doubt find out that Urdu speakers east of the Pakistan border also do not confuse "ph" with a "f". I am sure Urdu speakers from India will be able to confirm this.

You will probably have read in this thread that even illiterate Punjabis from Pakistan do not confuse "ph" with "f". They use the appropriate consonant where it meant to be used. 

All this is to do with the environment one is brought up in.


----------



## insouciantguru

marrish said:


> You are welcome. Now that the question of border is clarified (believe me I had a hard time to get what you meant), I can confirm that according to what I heard in different places, this phenomenon is not found.



Thanks Maarish sahab. Interesting. I wonder why this is the case.


----------



## marrish

insouciantguru said:


> Thanks Maarish sahab. Interesting. I wonder why this is the case.


Well, I've been wondering why it is the opposite - why it occurs 'east of the border', right from the start of this thread


----------



## insouciantguru

QURESHPOR said:


> Ah, I see! Thank you. You will no doubt find out that Urdu speakers east of the Pakistan border also do not confuse "ph" with a "f". I am sure Urdu speakers from India will be able to confirm this.
> 
> You will probably have read in this thread that even illiterate Punjabis from Pakistan do not confuse "ph" with "f". They use the appropriate consonant where it meant to be used.
> 
> All this is to do with the environment one is brought up in.



QP Sahab, I can tell you, as a Punjabi myself (sadly, although I can understand most of it- at least the broad dialect spoken here-I can't speak it well  and can't read it at all as I was brought up in Delhi), that many, MANY Punjabis, Dillivallas, UPiites here say _fir _instead of _phir _among the various other words shifts. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the _phir>fir_ shift is now virtually considered acceptable in the sense that rarely will someone correct you for it, which is not the case, IMO, with the _phool>fool _pronunciation for which an educated person in HU might correct you.


----------



## Wolverine9

Interesting article.  There is at least one inaccuracy, though, as shown below:

"The influence of the Portuguese language on Urdu, Gujarati *and Konkani, a  dialect of Urdu* spoken in southern India and around Mumbai..."

Konkani is of course a distinct language and is most similar to Marathi.


----------



## Wolverine9

insouciantguru said:


> QP Sahab, I can tell you, as a Punjabi myself (sadly, although I can understand most of it- at least the broad dialect spoken here-I can't speak it well  and can't read it at all as I was brought up in Delhi), that many, MANY Punjabis, Dillivallas, UPiites here say _fir _instead of _phir _among the various other words shifts. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the *phir>fir* shift is now virtually considered acceptable in the sense that rarely will someone correct you for it, which is not the case, IMO, with the *phool>fool *pronunciation for which an educated person in HU might correct you.



I think you made an error in the examples in bold.  For the latter, did you mean to say something like: _fauj _--> _phauj_?


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> QP Sahab, I can tell you, as a Punjabi myself (sadly, although I can understand most of it- at least the broad dialect spoken here-I can't speak it well  and can't read it at all as I was brought up in Delhi), that many, MANY Punjabis, Dillivallas, UPiites here say _fir _instead of _phir _among the various other words shifts. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the _phir>fir_ shift is now virtually considered acceptable in the sense that rarely will someone correct you for it, which is not the case, IMO, with the _phool>fool _pronunciation for which an educated person in HU might correct you.


"fir" is most certainly a Punjabi thing and this is the same pronunciation amongst Punjabis on both sides of the border. 

As for as Urdu is concerned, it is best if Urdu speakers hailing from India confirm (or deny) that Urdu speakers do not confuse a phuul for a fuul. I would say that they most certainly would n't. Please do not forget that mother tongue Urdu speakers in Pakistan have their origins in India. And I know they don't say "fodnaa" for "phoRnaa" to take another example. The reason is quite simple. Right from a very young age (apart from hearing ph and f words), we learn in our Urdu qaa3idah..ph/phuul and f/favvaarah! ph and f are distinct letters in the Urdu alphabet. I say "fir" (or more like "fer") when speaking Punjabi but never ever whilst speaking Urdu.


----------



## insouciantguru

Wolverine9 said:


> I think you made an error in the examples in bold.  For the latter, did you mean to say something like: _fauj _--> _phauj_?



 I meant_ phir _is being increasingly pronounced as _fir, phisalna_ as _fisalna, phool_ as _fool._


----------



## insouciantguru

QURESHPOR said:


> "fir" is most certainly a Punjabi thing and this is the same pronunciation amongst Punjabis on both sides of the border.
> 
> As for as Urdu is concerned, it is best if Urdu speakers hailing from India confirm (or deny) that Urdu speakers do not confuse a phuul for a fuul. I would say that they most certainly would n't. Please do not forget that mother tongue Urdu speakers in Pakistan have their origins in India.



QP sahab, I totally get that. What I was suggesting was regarding the semi-literate, illiterate Urdu speakers within India not the formally educated ones. Logically, they should be making similar shifts when everyone around them is, no?

As you rightly said the ph / f sound overlap as well as the actual letter(s) overlap in the Devnagari script (for these sounds) is much less precise, thus only increasing the ambiguity in usage.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> "fir" is most certainly a Punjabi thing and this is the same pronunciation amongst Punjabis on both sides of the border.
> 
> As for as Urdu is concerned, it is best if Urdu speakers hailing from India confirm (or deny) that Urdu speakers do not confuse a phuul for a fuul. I would say that they most certainly would n't. Please do not forget that mother tongue Urdu speakers in Pakistan have their origins in India. And I know they don't say "fodnaa" for "phoRnaa" to take another example. The reason is quite simple. Right from a very young age (apart from hearing ph and f words), we learn in our Urdu qaa3idah..ph/phuul and f/favvaarah! ph and f are distinct letters in the Urdu alphabet. I say "fir" (or more like "fer") when speaking Punjabi but never ever whilst speaking Urdu.



So from your experience, the ph/f confusion exists within Punjabi but not Urdu?


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> So from your experience, the ph/f confusion exists within Punjabi but not Urdu?


As far as "phir" > "fir" is concerned, yes. But, we (in Pakistani Punjab) most certainly do not pronounce the word for "pod" as "falii", or the word for flower as "ful". On the contrary they are "phalii" and "phul". A wound is a "phaTT" and not "faTT". A gate is a "phaaTak" and not a "faaTak". So, ph/f words are distinguished in the Pakistani Punjab. This is my experience at least.


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> QP sahab, I totally get that. What I was suggesting was regarding the semi-literate, illiterate Urdu speakers within India not the formally educated ones. Logically, they should be making similar shifts when everyone around them is, no?
> 
> As you rightly said the ph / f sound overlap as well as the actual letter(s) overlap in the Devnagari script (for these sounds) is much less precise, thus only increasing the ambiguity in usage.


Once again, I would prefer to leave it to an Urdu speaker from India to give a possible definitive answer. However, I can still put forward my views.

An illiterate Urdu speaker is still likely to say "phuul" because if s/he has grown up in an Urdu speaking environment, then "phuul" has never been "fuul". A literate Urdu speaker in Urdu is unlikely to go down the f route for ph words. An Urdu speaker never having had any contact with the Urdu alphabet but having all his basic studies in Devanagri may fall into the f trap. This is because the subscript dot is not used consistently to distinguish a ph from a f. Please do not forget that the basic Devanagri consonant in this particular group (p, ph, b, bh, m) is a ph and not a f. It can only become a f with a subscriot dot.


----------



## insouciantguru

QURESHPOR said:


> Once again, I would prefer to leave it to an Urdu speaker from India to give a possible definitive answer. However, I can still put forward my views.
> 
> An illiterate Urdu speaker is still likely to say "phuul" because if s/he has grown up in an Urdu speaking environment, then "phuul" has never been "fuul". A literate Urdu speaker in Urdu is unlikely to go down the f route for ph words. An Urdu speaker never having had any contact with the Urdu alphabet but having all his basic studies in Devanagri may fall into the f trap. This is because the subscript dot is not used consistently to distinguish a ph from a f. Please do not forget that the basic Devanagri consonant in this particular group (p, ph, b, bh, m) is a ph and not a f. It can only become a f with a subscriot dot.



I agree that an Indian Urdu speaker would give you a more informed answer. Like you, I was only offering my opinion.

QP Sahab, my point is that just as the Urdu in Pakistan has to some extent been Punjabi-ized and further Arabized compared to the version still spoken in India (I maybe wrong here), the every-day spoken Urdu in India-as opposed to the formal higher register- has, in my opinion, probably been coloured, however slightly, by the various Hindustani versions spoken all around (in which the ph/f confusion does exist). Honestly, I don't really notice much difference between the two languages, in their everyday spoken forms as they are spoken here. The "speaking environment" as you said is more ambiguous regarding the ph/f confusion than it is in Pakistan going by your observations there, and this should have rubbed off onto colloquial, urban Indian Urdu speech.


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> [...]
> 
> QP Sahab, my point is that just as the Urdu in Pakistan has to some extent been Punjabi-ized and further Arabized compared to the version still spoken in India (I maybe wrong here), the every-day spoken Urdu in India-as opposed to the formal higher register- has, in my opinion, probably been coloured, however slightly, by the various Hindustani versions spoken all around (in which the ph/f confusion does exist). Honestly, I don't really notice much difference between the two languages, in their everyday spoken forms as they are spoken here. The "speaking environment" as you said is more ambiguous regarding the ph/f confusion than it is in Pakistan going by your observations there, and this should have rubbed off onto colloquial, urban Indian Urdu speech.


There is no doubt that a language is influenced by other languages spoken around it and Urdu is no exception. In Pakistan, say for example in the cosmopolitan city of Karachi, it is likely to be affected by Sindhi, Pashto and Punjabi amongst other languages. These languages in turn have been influenced by Urdu. I provided an example for the Punjabi word "raso'ii" for kitchen that has been replaced by "baavarchii-xaanah" in Punjabi households.If I were to use raso'ii" whist speaking Punjabi, my Punjabi listeners would think I've just got off H.G.Well's time machine after having been in company with Baba Farid, Bulleh Shah, Waris Shah and the like! Similarly Urdu in India would naturally be affected by languages spoken within its vicinity. But, I can not say with certainty that Urdu speakers would consequently lose the ph/f distinction, for the reasons I have already mentioned in previous posts.

Regarding Urdu being "further Arabized" in Pakistan, this is not the first time this idea has been brought to this forum and it won't be the last. However, this is not the reality and I have stated this over and over again. I have quoted an Urdu professor from London's School of African and Oriental Studies (Ralph Russell) and if you search under his name you will find the exact quote. If you (or others who say similar things) were able to read Ghalib, Iqbal, Faiz, Insha (for example), you will see that in fact the trend is downwards and not upwards. Urdu speakers lament at the quality of present day Urdu in the Pakistan media (Radio, TV and Newspapers). One of the reasons for this is that the modern generation hardly reads its top authors, whether in verse or prose and the result is that their range of vocabulary is somewhat limited.


----------



## insouciantguru

QP Sahab, that Pakistani Urdu is being further Arab-ized, Punjabi-ized, Persian-ised was my general perception and admittedly a totally uninformed one. I did not mean to insinuate anything. I can't read the script, nor can I understand a lot of the more formal words. I remember watching some news-clips on PTV ages ago and when the newsreaders said 'welcome back nazreen". I genuinely thought nazreen was a woman's name.


----------



## Qureshpor

insouciantguru said:


> QP Sahab, that Pakistani Urdu is being further Arab-ized, Punjabi-ized, Persian-ised was my general perception and admittedly a totally uninformed one. I did not mean to insinuate anything. I can't read the script, nor can I understand a lot of the more formal words. I remember watching some news-clips on PTV ages ago and when the newsreaders said 'welcome back nazreen". I genuinely thought nazreen was a woman's name.


It's all to do with the environment one is brought up in of course. Words themselves do not have ethnicity or faith attached to them. 

Talking about "naaziriin" (viewers/spectators...there is also saami3iin..listeners), you would in turn be used to "darshak". In my childhood when we had our very first transistor radio, I remember tuning into Radio Jalandhar and when the news would begin the male announcer invariably said.." e aakaashvaaNRii e". I thought "aakaashvaaNRii" was a lady's name too! It's a small world!

I know this might be off topic but someone who is able to read both Urdu and Hindi scripts would certainly be better placed to judge the way each language is being portrayed in the written and spoken media. The way words are spelt also brings surprises. And if anyone wishes to be familiar with Urdu, just listen to "Bollywood" songs (especially those of Muhammad Rafi, Talat Mahmood, Mukesh, Lata Mangeshkar,Asha Bhosle era)! I was just listening on Youtube...type AE BAAD E SABA ZARA AHISTA CHAL and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> Regarding Urdu being "further Arabized".



Though Urdu may not have added Perso-Arabic vocabulary to its lexicon in the 19th century the way Hindi did with Sanskrit vocabulary, wouldn't you say formal registers of Urdu emphasize or utilize more Perso-Arabic vocabaulary than what would be found in ordinary speech?  For example, I've noticed that in many of Alfaaz's posts, he gives examples that have a lot of Perso-Arabic vocabulary: a "Persianized" Urdu in other words.  I believe you even pointed out his choice of vocabulary in one of your posts.  There is of course nothing wrong with using such vocabulary and I'm not trying to offend Alfaaz in any way.  Just attempting to explain why some Hindi speakers feel, whether correctly or mistakenly, that there is an Urdu equivalent (or near-equivalent) of "Sanskritized" Hindi.

EDIT: I believe there are also some scholars who have mentioned that formal Urdu preferentially uses Persian vocabulary in certain contexts the way formal Hindi utilizes Sanskrit vocabulary.  Their quotes should be listed somewhere on this forum.  I remember reading them, but I'll need to do a search when I have more time.


----------



## insouciantguru

This is a very interesting read on the Hindi-Urdu relationship: Hindi and Urdu since 1800, by Christopher Shackle and Rupert Snell. 
It broadly covers these topics:

1. The relationship between Hindi and Urdu
2. The British Raj
3. Before and after independence
4. The range of Hindi and Urdu
5. The basic components of Hindi and Urdu
6. The Sanskrit component
7. The Arabic component
8. The Persian component
9. The English component


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> Though Urdu may not have added Perso-Arabic vocabulary to its lexicon in the 19th century the way Hindi did with Sanskrit vocabulary, wouldn't you say formal registers of Urdu emphasize or utilize more Perso-Arabic vocabaulary than what would be found in ordinary speech?  For example, I've noticed that in many of Alfaaz's posts, he gives examples that have a lot of Perso-Arabic vocabulary: a "Persianized" Urdu in other words. [...]
> EDIT: I believe there are also some scholars who have mentioned that formal Urdu preferentially uses Persian vocabulary in certain contexts the way formal Hindi utilizes Sanskrit vocabulary.  Their quotes should be listed somewhere on this forum.  I remember reading them, but I'll need to do a search when I have more time.


"Entropy is the degree of randomness in a thermodynamic process and the change in Gibb's free energy is defined as: Delta G = Delta H minus TDelta S" where G is Gibb's free energy, S the entropy, H the enthalpy and T the absolute temperature on the Kelvin scale." Do you speak on a daily basis in this language? I know the answer and it is "No". All languages have particular registers to cater for the topic in hand and Urdu would be no different in its specialized vocabulary. Please produce the scholars you have in mind with their quotes containing samples of Urdu of that particular style. It would probably be better for you to open a new thread because all this has nothing to do with ph > f.
It's best for Alfaaz SaaHib to respond himself if he so desires.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ This is one of many books mentioned in the pages of this forum. But, thank you for mentioning it once again.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> It would probably be better for you to open a new thread because all this has nothing to do with ph > f.


Seconding. I am afraid that this thread which I opened quite a long time ago and which has been progressing smoothly is going to be closed ultimately as the recent posts are absolutely off-topic. This thread is about Indic F-words and their permutations, not about Urdu or Hindi in general so I would appreciate your understanding.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> "Entropy is the degree  of randomness in a thermodynamic process and the change in Gibb's free  energy is defined as: Delta G = Delta H minus TDelta S" where G is  Gibb's free energy, S the entropy, H the enthalpy and T the absolute  temperature on the Kelvin scale." Do you speak on a daily basis in this  language? I know the answer and it is "No".



Believe it or not, the answer is actually yes.  I am a student of science.  But I may be an exception to this.



QURESHPOR said:


> Please produce the scholars you have in mind



Shackle and Snell mention it on p. 18.  Thanks for the book reference, insouciantguru.


EDIT: We should discontinue this discussion as per marrish's request.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> "Entropy is the degree of randomness in a thermodynamic process and the change in Gibb's free energy is defined as: Delta G = Delta H minus TDelta S" where G is Gibb's free energy, S the entropy, H the enthalpy and T the absolute temperature on the Kelvin scale." Do you speak on a daily basis in this language? I know the answer and it is "No".



Actually, the answer is a very emphatic "Yes"!


----------



## Alfaaz

Wolverine9 said:
			
		

> For example, I've noticed that in many of Alfaaz's posts, he gives examples that have a lot of Perso-Arabic vocabulary: a "Persianized" Urdu in other words. I believe you even pointed out his choice of vocabulary in one of your posts. There is of course nothing wrong with using such vocabulary and I'm not trying to offend Alfaaz in any way. Just attempting to explain why some Hindi speakers feel, whether correctly or mistakenly, that there is an Urdu equivalent (or near-equivalent) of "Sanskritized" Hindi.


I'm not offended and the brief explanation would be (as has been given in those posts already in reply to marrish and QP SaaHibaan) that every language seems to use a certain higher/formal register for science or any other specialized field. In English, we often borrow from Latin and Greek (in addition to other languages) which it seems the early philosophers and scientists (even poets) used. In Urdu, it has mainly been Arabic and Persian, again two languages that the early philosophers, poets, scientists, specialists used for their own works or even to translate works from Greek. Let's look at an example: 

_Solar power: شمسی توانائی shamsii tawaanaa'ii ; solar day: یوم شمسی yaum-e-shamsii ; solar apex: داس الشمس daas-ul-shams ; solar constant: شمسی مُستقل shamsii mustaqill ; solar spot : داغ آفتاب daagh-e-aaftaab
_
Even though _shams_ and _aaftaab_ are being used in all of the terms above, it doesn't necessarily mean that the common speaker would say something like: 

_Aaj to aise lagta hai jaise shams/aaftaab ke aage aik bhi saHaab nah aayaa ho! Shadeed garmi hai! 
_for 
_Aaj to aise lagta hai jaise suraj ke aage aik bhi baadal nah aayaa ho! Shadeed garmi hai!

_Similarly, in English one would obviously choose different words depending on context: _cutting/chopping off vs. amputating ; holes/spaces vs. fenestare ; disorder vs. entropy ; jaw(bone) vs. mandible ; ears vs. pinaae ; etc._



			
				Wolverine9 said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, the answer is actually yes. I am a student of science. But I may be an exception to this.


Therefore, these words would probably seem common and comprehensible to you, while they might not to someone who isn't familiar with them. It seems the same would apply to Urdu or Hindi, in which the speakers of each language might not understand some of the specialized terminology of their language and/or not be familiar with that used in the other language. When they aren't familiar with terms being used in the other language, they might draw the conclusion that language is being Arabicised/Persianized or Sanskrtized. It might be that some consider Bollywood to be Arabicised/Persianized/Urduized with words like _i'shq, dil, maHabbat, a'zeez, junoon, bardaasht, himmat, HauSalah, aarzuu, tamannaa, salaam, etc._ , while others might understand these words (and even consider them part of colloquial Hindi). However, when the latter group sees an Urdu news bulletin with _wazeer-e-aa'zam, matla'a abr aaluud, or intixaabaat, etc._ that they don't understand or use in their speech, they might conclude (just like the first group) that there might be a conscious effort to use highly Arabicised/Persianized language, even though it is completely normal Urdu (just like song lyrics or film dialogues) to others. 

Lastly, the topic of whether Urdu is currently being Arabicised/Persianized: as has been said in the posts above and elsewhere in the forum, if people were to read all the Urdu literature (not only poetry, but also scientific, philosophical, etc.) they would realize that there is no such "initiative" being made and Urdu has always included these terms/words in its lexicon. The terms/words mentioned in my posts could all probably be found in Platts (or any other Urdu dictionary) and it's not like they were taken from another language's dictionary. However, it is true that (commonly) people might not be familiar with them.


----------



## marrish

^ Interesting and well formulated opinion but it is a pity the discussion about Persianization is being extended here instead of the new thread. The appropriate quotations are present there as well, would you mind to send a copy of your post there as well, please? Otherwise, I think it is very likely your post can get deleted from here and it would be nice to preserve it.


----------



## cherine

I'm afraid there are some off-topic posts here and, yes, they should be deleted. Unfortunately, the mods are busy these days, so I'll have to close this thread before it get further off-hand, until one of us finds the time to work on it.

 I think Marrish's suggestion to copy your (plural) posts that are relevant to the other thread there (by copying your post here, then posting again there).


----------

