# Hindi: Changing the script?



## souminwé

This is an idea I've been wrestling with for a long time, and I think it's time to ask everyone else's opinion: should Hindi adopt the roman script?

This may seem pointless because the Devanagari script is quite perfectly suited for Hindi - there is a letter for every phoneme and there is only a handful of words that can't be spoken as written.
However, "social benefit-wise", everyone online is already using the roman script, movie titles/advertisements are often written in it, and those who write in the script seem to take advantage of the entire extended Hindi vocabulary: Sanskrit, Perso-Arabic, English and Tadbhava (perhaps because it's not associated with any sort of "movement, save maybe globalisation). 
If Hindi was romanised, would that make it a more popular language to learn internationally? Would romanising our script connect us with the global "conscience" - would there be a faster flow of ideas, from the West to Africa to the common Indian man?
And of course, it would make Hindi much more common on the internet.

Would you be for or against this change, and why?


----------



## greatbear

I would be for the change, mainly because any language can be learnt very fast when we know how to read it. A Roman script wouldn't solve all the problems though: German and Italian are written in Roman script yet we have a "z" that is spoken like "ts" but in many other Roman script languages the same "z" is like the English "z" - rather than a new language like Esperanto, what we need is a spelling reform, with new sounds (for example, a Hindi "kh" or "chh") being represented by either a new letter or an older Roman letter with some accent mark above or below - thus a wider Roman alphabet.
Probably one would say that the phonetic alphabet is already there, but we don't have signs like the schwa in the Roman one, which puts off people. In addition, if you see a sign like "Cesky Krumlov", how would you know that it's supposed to be pronounced like "Chesky" and not "Sesky" or "Kesky"? So in my opinion it's better to have one script for all the languages. So my answer is yes, not just for Hindi, but for all languages that can be represented on paper by characters.

Of course the scripts we have can be retained, but those would only be people really interested in aspects of history and language that would be learning to read them.


----------



## Qureshpor

A change of any language script to another is, understandably, an emotive issue.

If one is considering a change to another script, one needs to ask certain questions.

1) Whilst perhaps no script is perfect, is the current Devanagri script for Hindi (and other languages) meeting the requirements of the language?

2) Most people would probably answer the above in the affirmative . If this is the case, then why change the script?

3) If there are other factors to consider, e.g facilitating people to be part of the greater global community, a large proportion of which uses the Roman/Latin alphabet, will this change enhance progress and prosperity?

4) What of countries that are not using the Roman alphabet? Are they all lagging behind in science, technology and commerce? I suppose Japan is the classic example where the Japanese are continuing to prosper in spite of their own alphabet.

5) What will happen to the body of literature in Devanagri once the shift to Roman has taken place? Can everything be realistically converted to Roman?

6) Will there be a moving away from or even abandonment of India's classics, even bearing in mind that Sanskrit has been written in different alphabets over the ages? Will Devanagri become accessible to the modern day "Pundits" (scholars) only? 

7) Before one thinks in terms of benefits of Globalisation, should not the main 15-20 odd language scripts also come together on a relatively common platform? What of the  body of literature and classics of other languages if they were also to follow suit?

8) If yes to 7, would the International Phonetic Alphabet be of any use? I have looked at it and it does look quite daunting!

After having pondered over the above list of questions, I would only go for change if there was a clear benefit in national terms.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> 3) If there are other factors to consider, e.g facilitating people to be part of the greater global community, a large proportion of which uses the Roman/Latin alphabet, will this change enhance progress and prosperity?
> 
> 4) What of countries that are not using the Roman alphabet? Are they all lagging behind in science, technology and commerce? I suppose Japan is the classic example where the Japanese are continuing to prosper in spite of their own alphabet.
> 
> After having pondered over the above list of questions, I would only go for change if there was a clear benefit in national terms.



Why national terms? Why not global terms? I don't think anyone was talking about progress in science or about prosperity; language or script changes wouldn't bring about those things. (By the way, the Japanese youth do speak and learn English.) The point is that of greater communication and understanding of each other: in another thread, you mentioned how if I were able to read Urdu script, I could have enjoyed some good poetry. Isn't it unfortunate that because of scripts, I am hindered from reading that poetry? Similarly, I know of some excellent Chinese poetry which is not in Mandarin, the form commonly taught: isn't it unfortunate that even many Chinese are unaware of that poetry?

Also, it is not just the so-called "pundits" who will have access to Devanagari or Urdu scripts: the world is getting more and more democratized, so I think anybody having the interest to go deeper will be able to. But why burden the whole society with the non-ability to mutually communicate? In other words, yes, the point is of progress, but not in material terms: but in terms of wisdom and understanding. A language is to communicate, not create barriers. There is no "national": we are a humankind.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> Why national terms? Why not global terms? I don't think anyone was talking about progress in science or about prosperity; language or script changes wouldn't bring about those things. (By the way, the Japanese youth do speak and learn English.) The point is that of greater communication and understanding of each other: in another thread, you mentioned how if I were able to read Urdu script, I could have enjoyed some good poetry. Isn't it unfortunate that because of scripts, I am hindered from reading that poetry? Similarly, I know of some excellent Chinese poetry which is not in Mandarin, the form commonly taught: isn't it unfortunate that even many Chinese are unaware of that poetry?
> 
> Also, it is not just the so-called "pundits" who will have access to Devanagari or Urdu scripts: the world is getting more and more democratized, so I think anybody having the interest to go deeper will be able to. But why burden the whole society with the non-ability to mutually communicate? In other words, yes, the point is of progress, but not in material terms: but in terms of wisdom and understanding. A language is to communicate, not create barriers. There is no "national": we are a humankind.



I brought in science in technology because practically every piece of research is published in English which of course uses Roman alphabet. And I do know that English is taught in Japan as it is in almost every country on the planet. But, the point is that the Japanese have not abandoned their own script in favour of Roman. That is all.

Of course I am for communicating with all mankind. Learning a script on its own will not facilitate understanding of that language. A vast majority of non-Arab Muslims can read the Arabic alphabet and I dare say quite a few of them could recite the Qur'an just as well as an educated Arab; but unless they have learnt the language itself, knowledge of the script will not take them very far. If all the languages of the world could be (and there is no reason why should n't be) written in the International Phonetic Alphabet, I would n't be able to understand Sindhi, let alone any other language.

In short, if the goal for changing the Devanagri script to Roman is to increase "wisdom and understanding" and "mutual communication", then I am afraid, this goal will not be met.

You of course know that the example for Urdu is considerably different because there is some common ground for achieving understanding.


----------



## ihaveacomputer

One can learn Devanagari in ten hours' time. What's the point of all the effort and cost that one would have to invest in making the switch? I don't think Indonesian or Turkish receive a disproportionate amount of attention due to using the Roman script, for example. As far as the average Anglophone is concerned, they're still unintelligible. Anyone who would stay away from Hindi because of Devanagari probably wouldn't get very far once they start learning it, anyway. You'd also lose the attention Hindi _gains_ because of its script. Devanagari's aesthetics are what initially caught my eye and directed my attention towards the language.

As Qureshpor Sahib has noted, an international phonetic alphabet already exists in which there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Phonetics are more complicated than you might think, though! Using such an alphabet to transcribe language is no easy task.


----------



## Nai Urdu

ihaveacomputer said:


> One can learn Devanagari in ten hours' time. What's the point of all the effort and cost that one would have to invest in making the switch? I don't think Indonesian or Turkish receive a disproportionate amount of attention due to using the Roman script, for example. As far as the average Anglophone is concerned, they're still unintelligible. Anyone who would stay away from Hindi because of Devanagari probably wouldn't get very far once they start learning it, anyway. You'd also lose the attention Hindi _gains_ because of its script. Devanagari's aesthetics are what initially caught my eye and directed my attention towards the language.
> 
> As Qureshpor Sahib has noted, an international phonetic alphabet already exists in which there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Phonetics are more complicated than you might think, though! Using such an alphabet to transcribe language is no easy task.



I agree. As the American saying goes, _if it ain't broke, don't fix it ..._

Have a few smart people to make it easy to type Devnagari on the computer, than making millions of people change or learn new script and its nuances.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> But, the point is that the Japanese have not abandoned their own script in favour of Roman. That is all.




Just for clarification the Japanese script consists of Kanji (Chinese characters that have no specific sounds associated with them) and two syllabaries (one for Japanese origin words and one for writing foreign origin words).

I think the problem is not the script but, rather, the idea that we are considering changing the script! Why does this exist? Furthermore, why has the English script spread like a cancer through society? 
The first difference we need to address is that the Japanese united by means of revolution and counteracted western cultural influence by adopting western technology and methods quickly.
There was no such uniting and adoption of western ideas in South Asia therefore South Asia was conquered. A conquered country forms different views of the _maalik's_ culture than does a country
like Japan that escaped subjugation. I believe this mentality of the chikness, progressiveness, and maybe even to a small extent superiority of British culture has survived in the minds of many
in South Asia. This is a mental problem that is not easily corrected.


The second problem is why has the Roman script spread like a cancer throughout society? Who do we blame? On one hand, I think we can blame the failure of Urdu/Hindi speakers to settle on one script.
Internally, we know we are brothers, but culturally there is this divide that separates. Therefore, the median ground for communication becomes someone else's culture, in particular British (a compromise).
If the Japanese can learn 3 different types of characters with proficiency why can't we learn 2 with proficiency? One answer is obvious: politics. After Partition, we lost the desire to see the value in
each other's culture. The second answer is education. If we have a situation where at least half of the people in an area are not or were not going to school and learning their own script, what 
value does a script have in one's mind? The third answer one could claim is the rise in power of the desi NRI and the ABCD who have often lost touch with their own script but are a consumer
of everything South Asian. Then finally, we have the English-medium schools of those who can afford it that create a group of Indians that feel more at home with a "foreign" script and 
even a "foreign" vocabulary than their own. While Japanese learn English, I assure you that this situation is not the case with them. Why have we taken such a drastic stance that
we should go to school in the language of Britain and ignore our own? This is a lack of balance in my opinion for the sake of _laabh_. We talk about the advantage of English at the expense of our own tongue.
So of course, the script would suffer.

At any rate, at this point in time, adoption of Roman script would be advantageous to heal the schisms within South-Asian culture. But such a thing in my mind is unlikely to happen.
And unlike the relative beauty of standard Devanagari script we are being left with a monster which is as disorganised as the English spelling.


----------



## Alfaaz

> I believe this mentality of the coolness, progressiveness, and maybe even to a small extent superiority of British culture has survived in the minds of many
> in South Asia.


(Note The following comments are only opinions and are not intended to promote or condemn a certain language, philoshopy, or beliefs! They are not intended to represent all speakers of a language! Everyone has different opinions!) 
Agree with this to some extent...! There is no doubt that English has become a "global" language, mode of communication, science and technology. There shouldn't be any hositility for English just because it is was/is used by the British. It should be appreciated for all that if offers, just as other languages are! However, it is also true that one shouldn't fall into an inferiority complex...and speak English _just_ because it is _"cool"_!
Like a Sanjay Dutt quote from a movie "Angrez to chale gaye, lekin apne __________ yahaaN choR gaye"...


> The second problem is why has the Roman script spread like a cancer throughout society? Who do we blame? On one hand, I think we can blame the failure of Urdu/Hindi speakers to settle on one script.


I think Urdu and Hindi can and probably should even exist as separate languages and scripts. Having said that, the blame again goes on people for not having developed the languages and/or used them properly. As has been discussed and demonstrated on this forum, both languages contain a plethora of scientific terms (like "gel electrophoresis"/ھلامہ برقی تنقل , for example) but it is the fault of people for not using them regularly. 
Urdu of course does/can borrow from Arabic and Persian (into which a lot of scientific, medical, philosophical texts were translated from Greek/Latin). Farsi and Arabic have coined new terms and advanced in every field, whereas Urdu seems to have just been limited to poetry and literature. (of course there are some exceptions) 
The problem is the attitude: "aree, Urdu isti'maal karne ki kya zarurat hai ya nai alfaaz banane ka taradud kyoN kareN. Saari dunya mein angrezi isti'maal ho rahi hai, to hum bhi wohi isti'maal kar sakte hain!"

There is no doubt that English is used worldwide and is very useful especially in research, science, and technology. People should certainly take benefit from this and other aspects of the language (poetry). Again, there is nothing wrong with learning/speaking English or using Roman script (for learners, etc.), but one should also take care not completly abandon one's language and script!


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> Just for clarification the Japanese script consists of Kanji (Chinese characters that have no specific sounds associated with them) and two syllabaries (one for Japanese origin words and one for writing foreign origin words).
> 
> I think the problem is not the script but, rather, the idea that we are considering changing the script! Why does this exist? Furthermore, why has the *English script* spread like a *cancer *through society?
> The first difference we need to address is that the Japanese united by means of revolution and counteracted western cultural influence by adopting western technology and methods quickly.
> There was no such uniting and adoption of western ideas in South Asia therefore South Asia was conquered. A conquered country forms different views of the _maalik's_ culture than does a country
> like Japan that escaped subjugation. I believe this mentality of the *chikness*, progressiveness, and maybe even to a small extent superiority of British culture has survived in the minds of many
> in South Asia. This is a mental problem that is not easily corrected.



It's Roman script, not English script, by the way - I know you have a grouse against English from earlier threads, so maybe that's why you made the Freudian slip. Why does the spread of Roman script like a cancer to you? Should people remain in their enclaves? So should the film "Pakeezah" have been only titled in the Urdu script, since that is your argument? What was wrong in Devanagarizing and Romanizing it? Interestingly we all are carrying on these discussions in English and in the Roman script. And how do you think a south Indian would read a Hindi film title, because many understand Hindi but cannot read Devanagari?

I would much rather belong to the conquered than the conqueror. By the way, Japanese does rely heavily on romanization, including native Japanese speakers and Japanese linguists: why are kunrei-shiki and Hepburn methods otherwise used? I myself learnt basic Japanese through the kunrei-shiki method. Comparing Japan and South Asia is like comparing apples and oranges: South Asia by virtue of its location has been invaded so many times (including by the Central Asians - now maybe you would say to weed out Arabic/Persian influences? how far you would go? maybe Sanskrit itself comes from Old Avestan?).

By the way, interested members here can read a very interesting article here about Japanese English learners: http://homepage.mac.com/moogoonghwa/Imagine/jway/jet.html



tonyspeed said:


> The second problem is why has the Roman script spread like a cancer throughout society? Who do we blame? On one hand, I think we can blame the failure of Urdu/Hindi speakers to settle on one script.
> Internally, we know we are brothers, but culturally there is this divide that separates. Therefore, the median ground for communication becomes someone else's culture, in particular British (a compromise).
> If the Japanese can learn 3 different types of characters with proficiency why can't we learn 2 with proficiency? One answer is obvious: politics. After Partition, we lost the desire to see the value in
> each other's culture. The second answer is education. If we have a situation where at least half of the people in an area are not or were not going to school and learning their own script, what
> value does a script have in one's mind? The third answer one could claim is the rise in power of the desi NRI and the ABCD who have often lost touch with their own script but are a consumer
> of everything South Asian. Then finally, we have the English-medium schools of those who can afford it that create a group of Indians that feel more at home with a "foreign" script and
> even a "foreign" vocabulary than their own. While Japanese learn English, I assure you that this situation is not the case with them. Why have we taken such a drastic stance that
> we should go to school in the language of Britain and ignore *our own*? This is a lack of balance in my opinion for the sake of _laabh_. We talk about the advantage of English at the expense of our own tongue.
> So of course, the script would suffer.
> 
> At any rate, at this point in time, adoption of Roman script would be advantageous to heal the schisms within South-Asian culture. But such a thing in my mind is unlikely to happen.
> And unlike the relative beauty of standard Devanagari script we are being left with a *monster *which is as disorganised as the English spelling.



I think you said the first problem was also that cancer - I fail to gather the two points when you are making one.

The discussion was about romanization, not how and where Urdu and Hindi diverge. Before the partition, for many people the only avenue of education was the Islamic madrasas, so it was natural that Urdu script was read by many of the literate Indians (though they were overall few in number). And I don't see any wrong that we have a better educational system now than madrasas: of course, the system is still bad, but it's better than the madrasas. You also fail to understand that Hindi is spoken throughout India, not Urdu. Anyway I don't want it to again become a Hindi-Urdu discussion, so better we come off that. I agree with Alfaaz that I am happy with Urdu and Hindi having separate scripts for now.

Everybody in India learns his or her own script: there are at least 3 languages to be learnt in an Indian school, English, Hindi and a local one. This is true irrespective of the medium of the school. So how is education a problem?

There is no permanent "our own": English is spoken by more Indians than British - whose language is it? Why not that of Indians? Why is there a page called Indian English, an elaborate page, on Wikipedia? If genesis were to define things, then maybe we could start talking in Gaelic even. Why should we not talk in Britain's language? Maybe the spelling is monstrous to you, but on the account of that very irregularity it's beautiful to some like me. It's evident that it's monstrous to you, considering your usage of horrible non-words like "chikness".


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> It's Roman script, not English script, by the way - I know you have a grouse against English from earlier threads, so maybe that's why you made the Freudian slip. Why does the spread of Roman script like a cancer to you? Should people remain in their enclaves? So should the film "Pakeezah" have been only titled in the Urdu script, since that is your argument? What was wrong in Devanagarizing and Romanizing it? Interestingly we all are carrying on these discussions in English and in the Roman script. And how do you think a south Indian would read a Hindi film title, because many understand Hindi but cannot read Devanagari?
> 
> I would much rather belong to the conquered than the conqueror. By the way, Japanese does rely heavily on romanization, including native Japanese speakers and Japanese linguists: why are kunrei-shiki and Hepburn methods otherwise used? I myself learnt basic Japanese through the kunrei-shiki method. Comparing Japan and South Asia is like comparing apples and oranges: South Asia by virtue of its location has been invaded so many times (including by the Central Asians - now maybe you would say to weed out Arabic/Persian influences? how far you would go? maybe Sanskrit itself comes from Old Avestan?).
> 
> By the way, interested members here can read a very interesting article here about Japanese English learners: http://homepage.mac.com/moogoonghwa/Imagine/jway/jet.html
> 
> 
> 
> I think you said the first problem was also that cancer - I fail to gather the two points when you are making one.
> 
> The discussion was about romanization, not how and where Urdu and Hindi diverge. Before the partition, for many people the only avenue of education was the Islamic madrasas, so it was natural that Urdu script was read by many of the literate Indians (though they were overall few in number). And I don't see any wrong that we have a better educational system now than madrasas: of course, the system is still bad, but it's better than the madrasas. You also fail to understand that Hindi is spoken throughout India, not Urdu. Anyway I don't want it to again become a Hindi-Urdu discussion, so better we come off that. I agree with Alfaaz that I am happy with Urdu and Hindi having separate scripts for now.
> 
> Everybody in India learns his or her own script: there are at least 3 languages to be learnt in an Indian school, English, Hindi and a local one. This is true irrespective of the medium of the school. So how is education a problem?
> 
> There is no permanent "our own": English is spoken by more Indians than British - whose language is it? Why not that of Indians? Why is there a page called Indian English, an elaborate page, on Wikipedia? If genesis were to define things, then maybe we could start talking in Gaelic even. Why should we not talk in Britain's language? Maybe the spelling is monstrous to you, but on the account of that very irregularity it's beautiful to some like me. It's evident that it's monstrous to you, considering your usage of horrible non-words like "chikness".



Refuses to feed trolls.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> It's Roman script, not English script, by the way - I know you have a grouse against English from earlier threads, *argumentum ad hominem!* so maybe that's why you made the Freudian slip. *argumentum ad personam!*Why does the spread of Roman script like a cancer to you? Should people remain in their enclaves? So should the film "Pakeezah" have been only titled in the Urdu script* ab rem!* , since that is your argument? *ab rem!*What was wrong in Devanagarizing and Romanizing it? Interestingly we all are carrying on these discussions in English and in the Roman script. And how do you think a south Indian would read a Hindi film title, because many understand Hindi but cannot read Devanagari?
> 
> I would much rather belong to the conquered than the conqueror. By the way, Japanese does rely heavily on romanization, including native Japanese speakers and Japanese linguists: why are kunrei-shiki and Hepburn methods otherwise used? I myself learnt basic Japanese through the kunrei-shiki method. Comparing Japan and South Asia is like comparing apples and oranges: South Asia by virtue of its location has been invaded so many times (including by the Central Asians - now maybe you would say to weed out Arabic/Persian influences? *ab rem! *how far you would go? maybe Sanskrit itself comes from Old Avestan?).*argumentum ad phantasmam!*
> 
> By the way, interested members here can read a very interesting article here about Japanese English learners: http://homepage.mac.com/moogoonghwa/Imagine/jway/jet.html
> 
> 
> 
> I think you said the first problem was also that cancer - I fail to gather the two points when you are making one. *argumentum ad phantasmam!*
> 
> The discussion was about romanization, not how and where Urdu and Hindi diverge. (*it is you bringing this topic up!!!*)Before the partition, for many people the only avenue of education was the Islamic madrasas, so it was natural that Urdu script was read by many of the literate Indians (though they were overall few in number). And I don't see any wrong that we have a better educational system now than madrasas: of course, the system is still bad, but it's better than the madrasas. *(truism!!! Name one place where the education system is not better than 200 years back!!!)* You also fail to understand that Hindi is spoken throughout India, not *Urdu. (again your Freudian projections! The topic of this thread is Hindi and English!!! Nobody is saying Hindi should be written in Urdu!!!)* Anyway I don't want it to again become a Hindi-Urdu discussion, *(it is you and none else who is doing this!!!)* so better we come off that. *(you just can't do it!)* I agree with Alfaaz that I am happy with Urdu and Hindi having separate scripts for now.
> 
> Everybody in India learns his or her own script: there are at least 3 languages to be learnt in an Indian school, English, Hindi and a local one. (how about the ones where Hindi is the local one?) This is true (it doesn't lend veracity to your libels) irrespective of the medium of the school. So how is education a problem?
> 
> There is no permanent "our own": English is spoken by more Indians than British - whose language is it? Why not that of Indians? *(Because most of them can't speak it properly!!!!)*Why is there a page called Indian English, an elaborate page, on Wikipedia? *(Because most of them can't speak it properly!!!!)*If genesis were to define things, then maybe we could start talking in Gaelic even. Why should we not talk in Britain's language? Maybe the spelling is monstrous to you, but on the account of that very irregularity it's beautiful to some like me. It's evident that it's monstrous to you, considering your usage of horrible non-words like "chikness".



Please give the space for expression to anybody. Don't bash! Please, don't spread hatred! Excuse me, readers, this is a response to a personal attack.


----------



## greatbear

Most Brits can't spell English words and most French are extremely poor at French grammar as well as spellings (and it is mostly the ABCDs - a derogatory term to which itself objection should have been raised - of tonyspeed who win spelling bees in USA); would you say then that they are not their languages? (in response to a comment from marrish that is unquotable since s/he's chosen to put it inside a box).

As for the Hindi-Urdu thing, I guess you should reread tonyspeed's post in which he starts discussing the partition and understanding between two different cultures, because of which Alfaaz already started discussing the Urdu-Hindi question _prior _to me. I haven't introduced nothing new, but people shouldn't expect to get away with saying something and then posing that they said nothing. That is also a truism. The rest is immaterial, since anyway my viewpoint to the thread's original question is clear and the remaining would be nothing but armchair discussion, since anyway we are not going to bring romanization or otherwise.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> The discussion was about romanization, not how and where Urdu and Hindi diverge. Before the partition, for many people the only avenue of education was the Islamic madrasas, so it was natural that Urdu script was read by many of the literate Indians (though they were overall few in number).




Could you kindly please provide your source of information upon which you have made the above outrageously untrue statement.

For the benefit of other friends on the forum, a "madrasah" means "a place of study" and this was the only word Urdu  speakers would have used for a "school" before the English word gradually displaced it. I am from post partition era by a long way and I went to a "madrasah" along with hundreds of thousands of children in the country. Even after partition these schools were not "Islamic" schools and neither were they before partition. Of course there were places one could go to learn to read the Qur'an but these were not "Islamic madrasas". In a madrasah all the subjects which are the norm in any school, anywhere in the world, were taught. In terms of Hindi, a madrasah is a पाठशालय or a विद्यालय.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> Could you kindly please provide your source of information upon which you have made the above outrageously untrue statement.
> 
> For the benefit of other friends on the forum, a "madrasah" means "a place of study" and this was the only word Urdu  speakers would have used for a "school" before the English word gradually displaced it. I am from post partition era by a long way and I went to a "madrasah" along with hundreds of thousands of children in the country. Even after partition these schools were not "Islamic" schools and neither were they before partition. Of course there were places one could go to learn to read the Qur'an but these were not "Islamic madrasas". In a madrasah all the subjects which are the norm in any school, anywhere in the world, were taught. In terms of Hindi, a madrasah is a पाठशालय or a विद्यालय.



I made the statement because there still exist madrasahs - where religious education is provided more often than not.

From Wikipedia: "This will enhance the education system of madrasas in India. Though the  madrasas impart Quranic education mainly, efforts are on to include  Mathematics, Computers and science in the curriculum."

Also from Wikipedia: "However, in English, the term _madrasah_ usually refers to the specifically Islamic institutions. A typical Islamic school usually offers two courses of study: a _ḥifẓ_ course teaching memorization of the Qur'an (the person who commits the entire Qur'an to memory is called a ḥāfiẓ); and an ʿālim course leading the candidate to become an accepted scholar in the community."

You could also read news items like at http://twocircles.net/2012mar17/close_darul_uloom_deoband.html to know how madrasas and Islam are closely connected: just as a Jesuit convent school is connected to Christianity.


----------



## Alfaaz

> I guess you should reread tonyspeed's post in which he starts discussing the partition and understanding between two different cultures, because of which Alfaaz already started discussing the Urdu-Hindi question _prior _to me. I haven't introduced nothing new, but people shouldn't expect to get away with saying something and then posing that they said nothing. That is also a truism.



I agree with this; Just to clarify, I didn't want to say much on the Hindi-Urdu debate, so just gave a brief remark. My main point was that it is because people don't use Urdu/Hindi words often that English seems to be more prominent. I had no intention of starting the whole Hindi-Urdu, political, social debate, etc.

tonyspeed's comment:  


> The second problem is why has the Roman script spread like a cancer throughout society? Who do we blame? On one hand, I think we can blame the failure of Urdu/Hindi speakers to settle on one script.
> Internally, we know we are brothers, but culturally there is this divide that separates. Therefore, the median ground for communication becomes someone else's culture, in particular British (a compromise).
> If the Japanese can learn 3 different types of characters with proficiency why can't we learn 2 with proficiency? One answer is obvious: politics. After Partition, we lost the desire to see the value in
> each other's culture. The second answer is education.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Most Brits can't spell English words and most French are extremely poor at French grammar as well as spellings (and it is mostly the ABCDs - a derogatory term to which itself objection should have been raised - of tonyspeed who win spelling bees in USA); would you say then that they are not their languages? (in response to a comment from marrish that is unquotable since s/he's chosen to put it inside a box).




Actually I am not aware of ''the ABCDs'' so I can't really say anything about it. If you say it is a derogatory term, OK, I don't like derogatory terms.
It doesn't form a part of this topic - there are illiterates, literates and quasi-literates in every language. So what? Is your suggestion that Hindi users should not be ashamed to simplify the spelling given the FRENCH and BRITISH or other advanced nations don't manage to comply with the orthography? I'm trying to bring this discussion to the topic.



> As for the Hindi-Urdu thing, I guess you should reread tonyspeed's post in which he starts discussing the partition and understanding between two different cultures. I haven't introduced nothing new, but people shouldn't expect to get away with saying something and then posing that they said nothing. That is also a truism. The rest is immaterial, since anyway my viewpoint to the thread's original question is clear and the remaining would be nothing but armchair discussion, since anyway we are not going to bring romanization or otherwise.


The partition was historically the moment of reflection about different scripts, and adopting the Roman, too (Gandhi). A reference to a particular historical period is not feeding on Urdu and Hindi controversy! Did the OP say something of Urdu???

I think the discussion is finished for you because you say that ''we are not going to bring romanization or otherwise''. 
This statement provoked by emotions you have created while answering another member's private opinion is in stark contrast to the original contribution by yourself (interesting) at post #2. Please, don't take yourself driven easily by emotions, we all profit from your constructive inputs.


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> A reference to a particular historical period is not feeding on Urdu and Hindi controversy! Did the OP say something of Urdu???



Yes, tonyspeed _did mention_ Urdu/Hindi; you could reread his post and Alfaaz's reply based on that comment alone.

I mentioned the inability to spell, because in your opinion most Indians don't speak English well enough - so don't many British (and they can't spell too, in addition).


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I made the statement because there still exist madrasahs - where religious education is provided more often than not.
> 
> From Wikipedia: "This will enhance the education system of madrasas in India. Though the  madrasas impart Quranic education mainly, efforts are on to include  Mathematics, Computers and science in the curriculum."
> 
> Also from Wikipedia: "However, in English, the term _madrasah_ usually refers to the specifically Islamic institutions. A typical Islamic school usually offers two courses of study: a _ḥifẓ_ course teaching memorization of the Qur'an (the person who commits the entire Qur'an to memory is called a ḥāfiẓ); and an ʿālim course leading the candidate to become an accepted scholar in the community."
> 
> You could also read news items like at http://twocircles.net/2012mar17/close_darul_uloom_deoband.html to know how madrasas and Islam are closely connected: just as a Jesuit convent school is connected to Christianity.




I would suggest to you in the politest manner possible that you should do your homework thoroughly before making such remarks as posted in your initial post. Places like Deoband specialise in certain subjects including Islamic studies and such places (possibly a handful in the whole of undivided India) are not the same as primary and secondary schools (from pahlii jamaa3at to dasviiN jamaa3at {matriculation} which, according to you were Islamic madrasas, places where all and sundry went and learnt the Urdu script! Supposing this was true, did all the Hindus, Sikhs and Christians who were literate in Urdu also go to these "Islamic madrasas"? I shall leave the argument here and hope that readers can decide for them selves what is fact (truth) and what is propaganda.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Yes, tonyspeed _did mention_ Urdu/Hindi; you could reread his post and Alfaaz's reply based on that comment alone.
> 
> Yes, he did. Once. Alfaaz's post doesn't play any role because you didn't include that post, only one person was the target of your anger. He mentioned something as Urdu/Hindi speakers supposed to have been agreed on the question of the script = at that time. You will no doubt subscribe to the fact that many of them (tonyspeed hasn't differentiated between them nor put them in opposition) were one and the same as a part of a ''continuum'' as they call it.
> 
> I mentioned the inability to spell, because in your opinion most Indians don't speak English well enough - so don't many British (and they can't spell too, in addition).


 Well there is a big difference between spelling and speaking, and to my standards, many Hindi speakers don't speak Hindi well enough, as well. (Urdu speakers were not a part of this debate, but let me add, they don't speak properly as well for the most, be it Urdu or English. Most of them don't know Hindi, so they can't be blamed, but there are some who do!).


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> Before the partition, for many people the only avenue of education was the Islamic madrasas, so it was natural that Urdu script was read by many of the literate Indians (though they were overall few in number).



I think you are forgetting a large chunk of history.http://www.languageinindia.com/april2003/macaulay.html 

Lord Macaula - Minute on Indian Education

"
19. 5. WHAT IS THE MOST USEFUL WAY OF USING THE MONEY ALLOCATED FOR THE INTELLECTUAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIA?
    We now come to the gist of the matter. We have a fund to be employed  as government shall direct for the intellectual improvement of the  people of this country. The simple question is, what is the most useful  way of employing it?
    All parties seem to be agreed on one point, that the dialects  commonly spoken among the natives of this part of India, contain neither  literary nor scientific information, and are, moreover, so poor and  rude that, until they are enriched from some other quarter, it will not  be easy to translate any valuable work into them. It seems to be  admitted on all sides, that the intellectual improvement of those  classes of the people who have the means of pursuing higher studies can  at present be effected only by means of some language not vernacular  amongst them.

    19. 6. WHAT THEN SHALL THAT LANGUAGE BE?
    What then shall that language be? One-half of the Committee maintain  that it should be the English. The other half strongly recommend the  Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be, which  language is the best worth knowing?

    I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. -But I have done  what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read  translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have  conversed both here and at home with men distinguished by their  proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the  Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I  have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a  good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and  Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed,  fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the  Oriental plan of education.

    It will be hardly disputed, I suppose, that the department of  literature in which the eastern writers with any Orientalist who  ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be  compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from  works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded, and general  principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes  absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say, that  all the historical information which has been collected from all the  books written may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at  preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral  philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.

    19. 7. INDIANS CANNOT BE EDUCATED BY MEANS OF THEIR MOTHER-TONGUE: ENGLISH IS THE LANGAUGE
    How, then, stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at  present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them  some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly  necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among the  languages of the west. It abounds with works of imagination not inferior  to the noblest which Greece has bequeathed to us; with models of every  species of eloquence; with historical compositions, which, considered  merely as narratives, have seldom been surpassed, and which, considered  as vehicles of ethical and political instruction, have never been  equaled; with just and lively representations of human life and human  nature; with the most profound speculations on metaphysics, morals,  government, jurisprudence, and trade; with full and correct information  respecting every experimental science which tends topreserve the health,  to increase the comfort, or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever  knows that language has ready access to all the vast intellectual  wealth, which all th wisest nations of the earth have created and  hoarded int 4he course of ninety generations. It may be safely said,  that the literature now extant in that language is of far greater value  than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in all  the languages of the world together. Nor is this all. In India, English  is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher  class of natives at the seats of Government. It is like to become the  language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the language  of two great European communities which are raising, the one in south  of Africa, the other in Australasia; communities which are every year  becoming more important, and more closely connected with our Indian  empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature, or at  the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest  reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that  which would be the most useful to our native subjects."

English schools existed well before Partition and were based on quite preposterous feelings of British self-importance. Their decision spawned the said Romanisation cancer.


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> I think you are forgetting a large chunk of history.http://www.languageinindia.com/april2003/macaulay.html



I am not forgetting a chunk of history: most Indians didn't have the access to these Macaulay schools, most did study in madrasas. My grandfather studied in a madrasa, and he could read and write four to five languages (not English though). What Macaulay believed about Oriental literature or philosophy has only to do with his views: he may have tried to impose English on us, and maybe as a result many of the Indians are speaking English, but what happened a couple of hundred years ago has no relation to what is now. Today most Indians are comfortable with English - some a lot, some a little. That is reality, and I don't see this reality as some kind of cancer. I don't see it as mine vs. yours, and I have no enmity towards the British for colonising us.



			
				QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> I would suggest to you in the politest manner possible that you should  do your homework thoroughly before making such remarks as posted in your  initial post.



You chose to completely overlook the Wikipedia, which hints that you are not willing to do your homework at all. I have personally known people who have studied in madrasas, including those among my family, so I know what I am talking about.

To go back to the topic of romanization finally and why even a reform of roman scripts across languages that are already written in roman script is necessary, I would give an example. Once while explaining something I wrote the word 'chakra' on the board and all my French students didn't understand the word even though they know it: since the 'ch' for them is the sound 'sh'! As soon as they realized that, that it's the 'tch' sound I wrote, they murmured and everyone knew the word. (It's a very commonly known word now across the West, though often misunderstood or partially understood. You will find the word used a lot in Japan-produced animes.) These kinds of misunderstandings are vital to be avoided: why do we have them when we can avoid them by using a simple script reform? I am not espousing for adopting the International Phonetic Alphabet, but simply that a Spanish "j" should not give the impression of being a French "j" when it is not so: little changes or additions by way of accent marks are needed.

ihaveacomputer mentioned that one can learn Devanagari in ten hours' time. Yes, one can. Yet, I know many people who speak quite well Hindi and yet who can't read it, having learnt it through roman scripts. It is not merely about learning a script - it is also about reading fast, and when our brain is going to encounter characters long familiar to it, it is going to absorb faster. Also, the point is not just about those who are learning Devanagari, but rather about those who aren't learning another language: because communication problems too often arise exactly between these people. If I read a place name like Schiermonikoog, I should be able to know how to pronounce it even if I don't know Dutch, and similarly for Thiruvananthapuram or Pataliputra.


----------



## tonyspeed

greatbear said:


> To go back to the topic of romanization finally and why even a reform of roman scripts across languages that are already written in roman script is necessary, I would give an example. Once while explaining something I wrote the word 'chakra' on the board and all my French students didn't understand the word even though they know it: since the 'ch' for them is the sound 'sh'! As soon as they realized that, that it's the 'tch' sound I wrote, they murmured and everyone knew the word. (It's a very commonly known word now across the West, though often misunderstood or partially understood. You will find the word used a lot in Japan-produced animes.) These kinds of misunderstandings are vital to be avoided: why do we have them when we can avoid them by using a simple script reform? I am not espousing for adopting the International Phonetic Alphabet, but simply that a Spanish "j" should not give the impression of being a French "j" when it is not so: little changes or additions by way of accent marks are needed.
> 
> If I read a place name like Schiermonikoog, I should be able to know how to pronounce it even if I don't know Dutch, and similarly for Thiruvananthapuram or Pataliputra.



The way you describe it, it seems that not only does Hindi need a reform, but the European languages need a reform too to get on the same page! And indeed it seems you are arguing for universal language reform change.

But I do think that this is an over-simplification of the matter. The real matter is that no matter how we try to make languages the same, they are inherently different to the very core. I have heard English learners speak Hindi
and I have French learners speak Hindi, and they both have one thing in common: they cannot escape their own language pronunciation. An 'o' in English is not the same as an 'o' in French is not the same as an 'o' in Hindi.
Though sharing similarities, they are absolutely different. The same can be stated for almost every vowel sound. 

Then we get to 'h'...The 'h' in _maathaa_ for Hindi has absolutely no meaning to some other languages -  So a Spanish speaker ends up calling his forehead his mother. So how can one pronounce it correctly reading it the first time? How do we represent the aspiration in _chhoot_ in such a way that learners do not read a curse word (Or even 'discount'. Although most English speakers will end up saying a non-word when reading chhoot for the first time)? You can't because aspiration is not a concept that is known to English and many other language speakers. The 'R' in '_paR_'. How does an English speaker know how to distinguish '_paD_' from '_par_'? In fact, how can an English speaker distinguish the 'r' in _karnaa_ from the 'r' in circus. They are miles away from each other. How does an English speaker distinguish the 't' in table from the 't' in _tel_. The other day I accidentally said _poTaa_ causing someone to think I was taking about 'photos' instead of grandson.

Languages are essentially different. We can try to wash away the differences by adopting the script popularised by the Roman-Catholic church, but I fear it masks the actuality that a random person cannot pick up a book
written in Romanised Hindi and expect to be understood when read. The pronunciation differences between some of the European languages and Hindi are so vast that I wonder if it's even worth it.

(Even English speakers confuse the sounds 'sh' and 'ch' (example: 'shikago' for Chicago). I fear this is the legacy of the Norman conquest. Yes, history can have a lasting impact.)


----------



## greatbear

tonyspeed said:


> The way you describe it, it seems that not only does Hindi need a reform, but the European languages need a reform too to get on the same page! And indeed it seems you are arguing for universal language reform change.



No, it's the roman script that needs a reform according to me, and yes that applies to all languages written in it: I think I had made the point very clear in my very first post on the topic itself. It's surprising that you are understanding it only now.



tonyspeed said:


> How does an English speaker distinguish the 't' in table from the 't' in _tel_.



Why not? That is exactly what I'm arguing for: put a dot or some other mark below the other 't' to let the user know that it's not pronounced the same way. It's up to the user to find out how the 't' with dot is pronounced. It is misleading to me to write both the t's with the same character when the sounds are completely different.



tonyspeed said:


> The real matter is that no matter how we try to make languages the same, they are inherently different to the very core.



I'm not trying to do that: each language has its own richness, its own sounds and its own structure, and I don't want to replace one with another. I am asking for a script uniformity so that access to different languages becomes easier: not languages becoming the same. Writing Hindi in roman script doesn't change Hindi the language at all. Whether you write "Bhaarat" in Devanagari or roman, it doesn't matter: the meaning remains the Indian subcontinent/India.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> I am not forgetting a chunk of history: most Indians didn't have the access to these Macaulay schools, most did study in madrasas. My grandfather studied in a madrasa, and he could read and write four to five languages (not English though). What Macaulay believed about Oriental literature or philosophy has only to do with his views: he may have tried to impose English on us, and maybe as a result many of the Indians are speaking English, but what happened a couple of hundred years ago has no relation to what is now. Today most Indians are comfortable with English - some a lot, some a little. That is reality, and I don't see this reality as some kind of cancer. I don't see it as mine vs. yours, and I have no enmity towards the British for colonising us.
> 
> You chose to completely overlook the Wikipedia, which hints that you are not willing to do your homework at all. I have personally known people who have studied in madrasas, including those among my family, so I know what I am talking about.



I am glad that you have now realised the  great blunder you had made. Yes most Indians, in pre-partition times (in Urdu dominant areas) went to a madrasah (school) but NOT an "Islamic" madrasah as you had said earlier. And yes I read all that you had provided evidence wise.

1) The existence of madrasas post-partition does not equate to madrasah= Islamic madrasah

2) There is no mention whatsoever in Wikipedia quotes that the author is talking about pre-partition madrasas (schools).

3) Deoband was and is a place specialising in certain fields of language (Urdu/Persian/Arabic) and Islam. "Most Indians" and your grandfather (as far as I know) did not study at Deoband. He went to a madrasah in the same way as hundreds of thousands of other children would have gone to. To a madrasah (school) and not an Islamic madrasah. I am sure you understood everything I said the first time. I feel I am repeating myself.


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> I am glad that you have now realised the  great blunder you had made. Yes most Indians, in pre-partition times (in Urdu dominant areas) went to a madrasah (school) but NOT an "Islamic" madrasah as you had said earlier. And yes I read all that you had provided evidence wise.
> 
> 1) The existence of madrasas post-partition does not equate to madrasah= Islamic madrasah
> 
> 2) There is no mention whatsoever in Wikipedia quotes that the author is talking about pre-partition madrasas (schools).



Yes, my grandfather went to a school which was a madrasah, but I have no idea whether he got any education in Islam or not there: so I don't know how do you claim that I "realised my great blunder."

On the other hand, here's a paper that yet again says according to which madrasahs outside of the Arabic world have _always _been associated with Islam: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13293/Madrasa in Asia definitief.pdf?sequence=1 

Again, why do you think "Islamic education system" and "Islamic learning" is mentioned in the following papers?
http://www.countercurrents.org/rawat271105.htm
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21100674268461

Also, again from Wiki where you failed to find anything: "While 'madrasah' can now refer to any type of school, the term "madrasah" was _originally _[my emphasis] used to refer more specifically to a medieval Islamic centre of learning, mainly teaching Islamic law and theology, usually affiliated with a mosque, and funded by an early charitable trust known as _waqf_." "Madrasahs were largely centered on the study of _fiqh_ (Islamic jurisprudence)."

I like this differentiation by Huff:
"From a structural and legal point of view, the madrasa and the  university were contrasting types. Whereas the madrasa was a pious  endowment under the law of religious and charitable foundations (waqf),  the universities of Europe were legally autonomous corporate entities  that had many legal rights and privileges. These included the capacity  to make their own internal rules and regulations, the right to buy and  sell property, to have legal representation in various forums, to make  contracts, to sue and be sued."

So yes, it could refer to any type of school, but more often than not, they were (and now strongly are) associated with religion. In any case, if a madrasah depends for funding on a mosque/the wakf board, it automatically becomes religious: if you want to keep discussing it, we may start the discussion in the cultural cafe, where we might have more opinions too, rather than on this thread.


----------



## Qureshpor

greatbear said:


> Yes, my grandfather went to a school which was a madrasah, but I have no idea whether he got any education in Islam or not there: so I don't know how do you claim that I "realised my great blunder."
> 
> On the other hand, here's a paper that yet again says according to which madrasahs outside of the Arabic world have _always _been associated with Islam: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bi...293/Madrasa in Asia definitief.pdf?sequence=1
> 
> Again, why do you think "Islamic education system" and "Islamic learning" is mentioned in the following papers?
> http://www.countercurrents.org/rawat271105.htm
> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21100674268461
> 
> Also, again from Wiki where you failed to find anything: "While 'madrasah' can now refer to any type of school, the term "madrasah" was _originally _[my emphasis] used to refer more specifically to a medieval Islamic centre of learning, mainly teaching Islamic law and theology, usually affiliated with a mosque, and funded by an early charitable trust known as _waqf_." "Madrasahs were largely centered on the study of _fiqh_ (Islamic jurisprudence)."
> 
> I like this differentiation by Huff:
> "From a structural and legal point of view, the madrasa and the  university were contrasting types. Whereas the madrasa was a pious  endowment under the law of religious and charitable foundations (waqf),  the universities of Europe were legally autonomous corporate entities  that had many legal rights and privileges. These included the capacity  to make their own internal rules and regulations, the right to buy and  sell property, to have legal representation in various forums, to make  contracts, to sue and be sued."
> 
> So yes, it could refer to any type of school, but more often than not, they were (and now strongly are) associated with religion. In any case, if a madrasah depends for funding on a mosque/the wakf board, it automatically becomes religious: if you want to keep discussing it, we may start the discussion in the cultural cafe, where we might have more opinions too, rather than on this thread.



I am sorry I am not a brain surgeon. Otherwise I might be able to help you. Learning about Islam in a "madrasah" does not make a "madrasah" an "Islamic madrasah". How difficult is this for you to comprehend? I was taught "The Gospel according to St.Matthew" at school. But, it was not a Christian School! I beseech the help of another friend or two from the forum to help me convey this simple message to you!

I shall leave this to someone else who has been to a "madrasah" in pre-partition India (or has knowledge about pre-partition madrasahs there) to convince you that "madrasahs" of the general type (not one specialising, like Deoband) were government funded schools and have had nothing to do with "waqf". Perhaps you could ask some one of your parents' (if not your grandparent's) generation if they went to a "waqf" funded madrasah. I assure you, the answer will be in the negative.
I don't feel the need to discuss anything on the cultural cafe. I believe your introduction of this totally unrelated topic is nothing short of mischief!


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> So yes, it could refer to any type of school, but more often than not, they were (and now strongly are) associated with religion.


Please as an enlightened man don't fall prey to media language, I beg you. Please don't spread populistic ways of looking at the affairs. Instead of posting this tirade here, why didn't you do it in cultural cafe?


----------



## greatbear

QURESHPOR said:


> I believe your introduction of this totally unrelated topic is nothing short of mischief!



I would request you to mind your language in the future and limit yourself to discussions, whether you agree or disagree. Anyone reading your answer itself would know what is what, so thanks for your reply.

@marrish - the tirade was started by QP in response to my wording "Islamic madrasah", not by me. You should get your facts right first (just as you didn't know what's ABCD in another thread) before commenting on who's doing what.


----------



## panjabigator

*The original query asked "should Hindi adopt the roman script?"

I'm not too sure where we've ended up. Off topic posts will be deleted from here on out.

Panjabigator
(moderator)

*


----------



## nineth

I think the Roman script should be adopted but it should coexist with Devanagari.  It might appear that this makes things more complex, since one would need to know both Devanagari and the Roman equivalent of Hindi sounds. I don't think it would be a problem though. Some of the south slavic languages I believe are written in both Cyrillic and Roman (Serbian I think) for example.  Four of the five languages I speak already have different scripts, and from my experience, and I feel (Devanagari + Roman script for English + Roman script for Hindi) is not going to be a problem. In future and over time, if Devanagari gets thrown away in favor of the Roman version, so be it - users' choice prevails.


----------



## tonyspeed

nineth said:


> I think the Roman script should be adopted but it should coexist with Devanagari.  It might appear that this makes things more complex, since one would need to know both Devanagari and the Roman equivalent of Hindi sounds. I don't think it would be a problem though. Some of the south slavic languages I believe are written in both Cyrillic and Roman (Serbian I think) for example.  Four of the five languages I speak already have different scripts, and from my experience, and I feel (Devanagari + Roman script for English + Roman script for Hindi) is not going to be a problem. In future and over time, if Devanagari gets thrown away in favor of the Roman version, so be it - users' choice prevails.



Doesn't Kokani use this method? I wonder if this has had any drawbacks.


----------



## flyinfishjoe

I don't see any need to adopt the Latin script, at least not anymore. What kind of spelling system would be used? Would it presuppose a knowledge of English orthography? Would IAST be used?


----------



## marrish

If you ask me, I tend to say that changing the script of Hindi would be equal to the gradual changing of the language. While Hindi is Sanskrit-oriented, it would not be a good idea to introduce the Latin alphabet - making the English loanwords enter the language easier. It is a political choice, as far as my opinion is concerned.


----------



## tonyspeed

flyinfishjoe said:


> I don't see any need to adopt the Latin script, at least not anymore. What kind of spelling system would be used? Would it presuppose a knowledge of English orthography? Would IAST be used?



I don't think anyone is suggesting using English orthography. There are many languages that use Roman script that have their own orthography rules that are quite regular, including Vietnamese and Pinyin Mandarin. Usually someone has to standardise the orthography first. Given the rigid entrenched views of some of the political parties in power, we are talking about a pipe dream anyway. If they even suggested this, Shiv Seniks would probably start burning things.


----------

