# Panjabi: Shahmukhi double character/gemination



## Pvitr

In Gurmukhi the symbol  ੱ is used to represent a double/geminated sound, to differentiate between (eg)

know ਪਤਾ/pataa
leaf ਪੱਤਾ/pattaa (gemination on the 't')

BTW I believe the term is 'gemination' is correct, but I could be wrong!. If you are a Panjabi speaker I hope this will make sense anyway as both words are pronounced differently, the stress shifts a bit and the sound of the 'geminated' character is longer.

Can someone tell me how this is done in Shahmukhi script? Thank you. (If you could give the name of the character/eg of usage with the above words that would be helpful)


----------



## Alfaaz

ّ  (symbol) شدّہ، تشدید - _shaddah, tashdiid_

_gemination _- تشدید - _tashdiid_
_geminated _- مشدّد - _mushaddad_

پتا - _pataa_
پتّا - _pattaa_

More examples:

وٹّا _- vaTTaa_
حقّ، شکّ، وغیرہ - _Haqq, shakk, waGhairah_
پتّھر، تھپّڑ، وغیرہ -_ patthar, thappaR,waGhairah_


----------



## amiramir

[Edit: Crossposting. Alfaaz got there before me, as usual with a better answer!]

Gemination is the right word. For gurmukhi *ਖੱਟਾ* (khatta), I presume in Shahmukhi it would be the same convention as in Urdu
کَھّٹا -- i.e. with the squiggly tashdiid. ​


----------



## Qureshpor

amiramir said:


> [Edit: Crossposting. Alfaaz got there before me, as usual with a better answer!]
> 
> Gemination is the right word. For gurmukhi *ਖੱਟਾ* (khatta), I presume in Shahmukhi it would be the same convention as in Urdu
> کَھّٹا -- i.e. with the squiggly tashdiid. ​


Except that the tashdiid is over the letter being geminated, in this case ٹ T and not کھ kh as is the case with Gurmukhi. So, the word is کھٹّا khaTTaa (sour).


----------



## Pvitr

As an additional point would you add gemination to the following words?

one: ਇਕ ik or  ਇੱਕ ikk

in: ਵਿਚ vic or  ਵਿੱਚ vicc



Qureshpor said:


> Except that the tashdiid is over the letter being geminated, in this case ٹ T and not کھ kh as is the case with Gurmukhi. So, the word is کھٹّا khaTTaa (sour).


In Gurmukhi the adhak ੱ is not actually placed on the character before, it is more in between the two characters.



Alfaaz said:


> ّ (symbol) شدّہ، تشدید - _shaddah, tashdiid_


Is there any difference between the two terms? I notice most 2 replies use 'tashdiid'.


----------



## Qureshpor

Pvitr said:


> As an additional point would you add gemination to the following words?
> 
> one: ਇਕ ik or  ਇੱਕ ikk
> 
> in: ਵਿਚ vic or  ਵਿੱਚ vicc
> 
> 
> In Gurmukhi the adhak ੱ is not actually placed on the character before, it is more in between the two characters.
> 
> 
> Is there any difference between the two terms? I notice most 2 replies use 'tashdiid'.


Well, I would say the adhak is not placed between the two characters. If this was the case, no part of it (the adhak) would be over the previous letter.

There are in fact three possibilities for the word for gemination. "shadd", "shaddah" and "tashdiid". Take your pick.


----------



## Pvitr

Qureshpor said:


> Well, I would say the adhak is not placed between the two characters. If this was the case, no part of it (the adhak) would be over the previous letter.


I phrased it incorrectly. In Gurmukhi all the characters of a word are joined (by the top bar), no spaces - unlike Shahmukhi I think as certain letters are not joined (?). The adhak does not sit directly above the first character, nor does it sit directly above the geminated character. It sits on the space between. Yes, you're right that it is not between the 2 characters themselves. (Not sure if that explanation is any clearer, but it's irrelevant to the topic anyway.)


----------



## marrish

Pvitr said:


> In Gurmukhi the symbol ੱ is used to represent a double/geminated sound, to differentiate between (eg)


Well it's not a one-to-one situation. While in Shahmukhi only one symbol is needed to indicate any gemination — in Gurmukhi you'd need to use one of three symbols that serve the purpose.


----------



## marrish

Pvitr said:


> The adhak does not sit directly above the first character, nor does it sit directly above the geminated character. It sits on the space between.


It seems you are talking about the print characters - even then, the placing of _addhak_ depends on the typographic design.


----------



## Pvitr

Would be very interested to know if there is any gemination on the following words in Shahmukhi script.

one: ਇਕ ik or ਇੱਕ ikk

in: ਵਿਚ vic or ਵਿੱਚ vicc

Do words that end in a consonant (without any vowels applied to it) ever have that final consonant geminated when written in Shahmukhi?


----------



## Pvitr

marrish said:


> — in Gurmukhi you'd need to use one of three symbols


I do not understand which 3 symbols you mean?


----------



## marrish

Pvitr said:


> I do not understand which 3 symbols you mean?


Tippi, bindu, and addhak (already mentioned).


----------



## Pvitr

marrish said:


> Tippi, bindu, and addhak


That is not correct.

In Gurmukhi script there is only 1 character for gemination. That is:  ੱ (_adhdhak _- ?transliteration may be off but the _dh _character is geminated).

There are two characters used for nasalization of vowels (I am not a linguist so not sure of the terminology - basically they add an 'n' sound)

ੰ tippii - for short vowels eg ਪਿੰਡ _piṅd _village
ਂ bindii (not bindu) - for long vowels/diphthongs eg ਮੈਂ _maiṅ _I

(Again my transliteration may be off, but I think these words are fairly common for Panjabi speakers, so hopefully you get the gist).

Just goes to show how inadequate the latin script can be when attempting to handle Indic languages - and how well suited indic scripts are to the sound systems of their languages!


----------



## Au101

Pvitr said:


> That is not correct.
> 
> In Gurmukhi script there is only 1 character for gemination. That is:  ੱ (_adhdhak _- ?transliteration may be off but the _dh _character is geminated).
> 
> There are two characters used for nasalization of vowels (I am not a linguist so not sure of the terminology - basically they add an 'n' sound)
> 
> ੰ tippii - for short vowels eg ਪਿੰਡ _piṅd _village
> ਂ bindii (not bindu) - for long vowels/diphthongs eg ਮੈਂ _maiṅ _I
> 
> (Again my transliteration may be off, but I think these words are fairly common for Panjabi speakers, so hopefully you get the gist).
> 
> Just goes to show how inadequate the latin script can be when attempting to handle Indic languages - and how well suited indic scripts are to the sound systems of their languages!



marrish is correct. _Addak_ is not used to geminate _m_ and _n_, _ṭippī_ must be used, e.g. ਲੰਮੀ _lammī _'long'. However, I am not aware of any examples of _bindī_ being used for this, but I would trust marrish more than myself.


----------



## Pvitr

Au101 said:


> marrish is correct. _Addak_ is not used to geminate _m_ and _n_


mmm...Perhaps I misunderstood what Marrish was saying. If you look in any (basic) Panjabi/Gurmukhi grammar book you learn that adhdhak is used for gemination, which is what I was saying.

I had not considered the '_ ੰਮ' combination, it's an interesting point. However I am not sure if that combination of sounds is considered gemination. The tippii is still used for nazalisation.

I wonder how Shahmukhi represents words like this? Would be helpful if someone could provide e.g. ਲੰਮੀ _lammī _'long' in Shahmukhi, to know whether it is geminated.

As always there are many layers to the topic... I look forward to discovering more.


----------



## Au101

Okay I'll do my best. As I'm sure you know, India has its own rich tradition of linguistics and linguistic analysis going back to Panini and, before him, certain of the Vedangas. In Europe as well we have our grammatical traditions generally inherited from classical grammars of Latin and Greek. I can't really talk about those very much, but I bring them up because sometimes the way we might look at something in a schoolroom - whether we're studying a foreign language or our own - may not correspond exactly to the way we look at things in modern, international, academic linguistics. And that's totally fine because modern linguistics is trying to take a very rigorous, (more) scientific approach that (although it has borrowed traditional concepts and traditional terminology) applies more universally and takes account of more languages. Whereas in a schoolroom we're not necessarily trying to keep our fingers on the latest technical linguistics research, we're trying to teach people to read and write and spell and communicate. So I make no comment on how Gurmukhi spelling may be taught to foreign students of the language, or to children in India, I will talk only from the point of view of modern linguistics. Although in modern linguistics too there are times where people may not agree on definitions or classifications or how a particular phenomenon should be interpreted. Phonetics and phonology, in my experience, seem to be particularly open to interpretation. For example, the term 'retroflex' is defined by Wikpedia as



> A *retroflex*, *apico-domal*, or *cacuminal* (/kæˈkjuːmɪnəl/) *consonant* is a coronal consonant where the tongue has a flat, concave, or even curled shape, and is articulated between the alveolar ridge and the hard palate.



Note the three choices of tongue shape and a nice wide window of possible positions.

Leaving that aside.

You are quite correct, _gemination_ is the correct word for lengthening a consonant. You give a perfect example. In ਪੱਤਾ _pa*tt*ā_ the _t_ is held for longer - it takes longer to say - than the _t_ in ਪਤਾ _patā_. In Gurmukhi this is indeed marked by the _addhak_ as you say.

Turning now to nasalisation. Consider the word ਮੈਂ _maiṁ_. In this case we have a nasalised vowel, the vowel is pronounced with some of the air flowing through the nose giving a distinctive sound.

In a word like ਪਿੰਡ _piṇḍ_, what we have is a nasal consonant _ṇ_ before the following _ḍ_. Thus ਪਿੰਡ _piṇḍ_ is equivalent to ਪਿਣਡ. In modern linguistics terminology, we say that the _ṭippī_ represents a nasal consonant that is "homorganic" (pronounced in the same place) with the following consonant. Thus, while in ਪਿੰਡ_ piṇḍ_, the _ṭippī_ represents a ਣ _ṇ_, in ਸਿੰਘ _siṅgh_ it represent a ਙ _ṅ_. This generally would be considered a consonant, not a vowel. The _i_ in _piṇḍ_, and _siṅgh_ may be slightly nasalised, simply on account of occurring just before a nasal consonant, just like the _a_ in ਅਨਾਰ_ anār_ might be slightly nasalised, but my understanding at least is that that would usually be considered incidental. Now there is an important difference between these two phenomena - the nasalised vowel and the nasal consonant homorganic with the following consonant. I don't know if it's easy to illustrate in Punjabi, but it's very easy in Hindi. मँगवाना _mãgvānā_ should, theoretically, be pronounced with a nasal vowel and no clearly discernable ङ sound (as in si*ng*). Theoretically, it should sound different to गंगा = गङ्गा = _gaṅgā_, which should have a clear consonant sound. Some speakers may not make this distinction, or may not notice, I can make no comment on that, but अँग and अंग are theoretically different.

Now, in the case of ਲੰਮੀ _lammī_ what we have (so I have been told) is the equivalent of गंगा = गङ्गा. We have the nasal consonant homorganic with the following consonant. So in this case, the _ṭippī_ represents _m_, just as it does in ਕੰਬਲ _kambal_ (I believe this means 'blanket', but I know almost no Punjabi, so perhaps this isn't really used; I know it is in Hindi). For this reason, we have here a double, or geminated _m_, which is why my books at least tell me



> Note that _addak_ is not used to geminate _m_ and _n_.


----------



## Alfaaz

Pvitr said:
			
		

> Do words that end in a consonant (without any vowels applied to it) ever have that final consonant geminated when written in Shahmukhi?


Apart from exercise books for learners or children's learning books, diacritics are not regularly used in Arabic-based scripts (Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Panjabi, Balochi, Sindhi, etc. etc.).

Terminal gemination is usually not indicated for most words, except for those that might have religious significance such as _rabb _and _Haqq_._ _Both words are geminated in Arabic, so it is retained in other languages (Urdu, Punjabi, etc.) as well. 

In poetry, terminal gemination might be indicated for meter, etc. (Forum members who are experts in this field could hopefully shed further light on potential reasons.) Another reason might simply be aesthetics. 

Example: In this Panjabi piece by Anwar Masood, _vichch _is written with a _tashdiid _in the third couplet, but without it in the fourth couplet. 
Otherwise (in prose, etc.), it is usually assumed that the reader would be aware of the correct pronunciations. Diacritics are written when verses from the Quran are quoted. Other cases when diacritics might be included were mentioned in the following relevant quote from Urdu: Diacritic marks.


			
				Alfaaz said:
			
		

> mundiya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are all of the diacritic marks usually left out in writing or only some of them? Which ones?
> 
> 
> 
> Most are usually left out, but the following often appear to be included:
> 
> _tanween _in words like فوراً - _faur_an_
> _khaRii zabar _in words like تقویٰ - _taqwaa_
> _zer _for an _izaafat_
> _tashdeed _(مسکن - _maskan _vs. مسکّن - _musakkin/musakkan_)
> _Harakaat_/diacritic marks for words from other languages, for words that are not commonly used, or words that have identical spelling and would be difficult to differentiate from context alone (اِس - _is_, اُس - _us_; اِن - _in_, اُن - _un_; منتظَر - _muntazar_, منتظِر - _muntazir_; etc.)
Click to expand...




			
				Pvitr said:
			
		

> I wonder how Shahmukhi represents words like this? Would be helpful if someone could provide e.g. ਲੰਮੀ lammī 'long' in Shahmukhi, to know whether it is geminated.


Example from a Puniabi _nazm_:
لمّی رات سی دردِ فراق والی
تیرے قول تے اساں وساہ کر کے
کَوڑا گُھٹ کیتی مٹھڑے یار میرے
مٹھڑے یار میرے، جانی یار میرے
تیرے قول تے اساں وساہ کر کے
...

فیض احمد فیض از شامِ شہرِ یاراں​Transliteration:

_lammii raat sii dard-e-firaaq vaalii
tere qaul te asaaN visaah kar ke
kauRaa ghuT kiitii miThRe yaar mere
miThRe yaar mere, jaanii yaar mere
tere qaul te asaaN visaah kar ke
...

Faiz Ahmad Faiz az shaam-e-shahr-e-yaaraaN _

The complete piece (and book) is currently available here.


----------



## Pvitr

Thank you to everyone for sharing your knowledge - and particularly to Marrish for opening a doorway to knowledge that I didn't know existing! 


Au101 said:


> the _ṭippī_ represents a nasal consonant that is "homorganic" (pronounced in the same place) with the following consonant


Au101-thanks for the extensive information. I shall have to reread it to try to understand it fully - as I said previously I'm no linguist.

So on a basic level (and returning to the issue of gemination) are you saying that adhdhak geminates all characters other than m/n?

PS I would say that ਕੰਬਲ _kambal_ (blanket) is indeed widely used_._


----------



## marrish

Au101 said:


> I am not aware of any examples of _bindī_ being used for this


By way of illustration.
انّی ਉਂਨੀ (੧੯/19)
انّا ਉਂਨਾ (that much), but
کنّا ਕਿੰਨਾ (how much) needs _Tippii_.
Any corrections are very welcome.


Au101 said:


> So in this case, the _ṭippī_ represents _m_, just as it does in ਕੰਬਲ _kambal_ (I believe this means 'blanket', but I know almost no Punjabi, so perhaps this isn't really used; I know it is in Hindi)


Yes, you are right on all the three counts — _Tippii_ does represent _m_ in this word although not _gemination itself_. The basic meaning is 'blanket' and, even though it is used (I can't be possibly specific in any way about that) _the_ Punjabi word as I know it is,,
کمّل، کمّلی
ਕੰਮਲ/ਕੰਮਲ਼ੀ
(a shawl/blanket) e.g. کالی کمّلی والے_ kaalii kammLii vaale_ (an epithet of the Prophet Muhammadّؐ).

BTW, I'm just wondering if there's any spelling difference between "19" and "unnii" 'that much (f.). but I'm short on spare time as of nowadays ; there's a difference in/(of?) the pitch accent (tone) between the two words.


----------



## marrish

Pvitr said:


> Thank you to everyone for sharing your knowledge - and particularly to Marrish for opening a doorway to knowledge that I didn't know existing!


You are very welcome and so am I equally grateful and indebted to all participants. Someone will be thankful to you for having posed the question.


----------



## Pvitr

The point about ਂ (bindi) and gemination is interesting.


marrish said:


> I'm just wondering if there's any spelling difference between "19" and "unnii" 'that much (f.)


For the examples given by Marrish the Gurmukhi spellings don't necessarily mirror the Shahmukhi (or vice versa):

انّی ਉਂਨੀ (੧੯/19) - spelling is *ਉੱਨੀ *(unnii) which is an 'adhdhak+n' combination
انّا ਉਂਨਾ (that much) - spelling is *ਓਨਾ */ *ਓਨੀ *(m. onaa/f. onii) which demonstrates that bindii is used to gemination 'n' I believe as mentioned upstream.

(Spellings from shabdkosh/Punjab Uni are the same). Obvs, differing pronunciations may well exist.

However, my grammar books do point out that there are some special cases of u+nasalisation (expanding on the rules of which form of nasalisation to use for which vowel) so I wonder if there is some linguistic reason for this? ie a word with u/uu+n combination.


----------

