# Transliteration of Urdu and Hindi as used in this Forum



## marrish

Hi,

The background for this thread was a post by Chhaatr jii, which unfortunately got swept away in the WordReference crash/outage/disfunctionality of yesterday. This is the post which I have recovered from the file with a copy of the lost posts:



			
				Chhaatr said:
			
		

> QP and marrish sahibaan, thank you for your comments.  I'll admit my unfamiliarity with trying to put across Hindi/Urdu words in English alphabets and I believe the confusion stems from this.
> 
> I would be happy to check out any thread in this forum that deals with this subject in depth.




After this kind request from our new participant, Chhaatr jii, I ran a search of the existing threads, as a consequence of which I concluded that none of the threads went into the required depth on the subject at hand. It seemed advantageous to spend a couple of hours yesterday and today to prepare a review of the transliteration methods which are in vogue in and outside of the Forum. The outcome of this is a comprehensive chart which I'm reproducing below.

You can guess that posting of all these characters and making them visible - on the system the Forum uses - was a stumbling block in itself. I tried to do what I could but it is possible that you can't see all the characters being displayed properly on your computer.

I hope that it will facilitate the participation of Chhaatr SaaHib and other future members. Please feel free to comment, point out the shortcomings and offer your suggestions!


THE TRANSLITERATION CHART​


*Urdu**IIR Forum**IPA**ISO 15919**Devanagari*Vowelsاَ، ـَـaəaअآ، ـاaaaːāआ, ाاِ، ــِiɪiइ, िاِی، ــِیـــ ، ـِی، ئیiiiːīई, ​ीاُ، ـُـuʊuउ, ​ुاُو، ـُوuuuːūऊ, ूاو، و، ؤooːōओ, ​ोاَو، ـَوْauɔːauऔ, ौاے، ایـ ، ـیـ ، ـے، ئےeeːēए, ​ेاَی، ـََیـْ ، ـَے، ـَیai / ay
ɛːaiऐ, ै(ـِـ + ح، ع ھ)(ĕ)ɛ--- ऎ, ॆ(ـُـ + ح، ع ھ)(ŏ)o---ऒ,  ॊ---  (ر)riɻr̥ऋ, ृNasalizationں ، ـنـْ۔N~~ँ, /ंConsonantsبbbbब्بھـbhbʱbhभ्پpppप्پھـphpʱphफ्تtt̪tत्تھـtht̪  ʱthथ्ٹTʈṭट्ٹھـThʈʱṭhठ्ثs/ths/θs(स्)جjd͡ʒjज्جھـjhd͡ʒ  ʱjhझ्چcht͡  ʃcच्چھـchht͡  ʃ ʱchछ्حH /(7)ħh/ḥह्خxxkhख़्دdd̪dद्دھdhd̪ʱ  ʱdhध्ڈDɖḍड्ڈھDhɖʱḍhढ्ذz/Zz/ðz(ज़्)رrrrर्ڑRɽṛड़्ڑھRhɽʱṛhढ़्زzzzज़्ژZhʒzh(झ़्)سsssस्شshʃshश्صs/Ss/sˤṣ(स्)ضz/Dhz/dˤz̤(ज़्)طt/T/(6)t/tˤt(त्)ظz/Zz/ðˤẓ(ज़्)ع3 / (')ʕ/ə'--- (अ')غGhɣġग़्فfffफ़्قqqqक़्کkkkक्کھـkhkʱkhख्گgggग्گھـghgʱghघ्لlllल्لھـlhlʱlhल्ह्مmmmम्مھـmhmʱmhम्हنnnnन्نھـnhnʱnhन्ह--- (Pnj. ڻ)NRɳṇण्وv/wʋvव्  (ہ ، ﮩ ، ﮨ ، (ـہhɦhह्ھhʰh(ह्)ء('), (2)ʔ'---یـ ، ـیـ ، یyjyय्--- (ش، کھـ، چھـ)sh/SHʂṣष्


----------



## Qureshpor

^ marrish SaaHib, you have done a grand job. Your post is not only very comprehensive but also quite attractive in its outlook. I am sure past, present and future members will be able to benefit from it. A very big thank you!


----------



## tonyspeed

NR is very ugly looking. I'd even prefer ~ for nasalisation.


----------



## Chhaatr

marrish SaaHib thank you very much for this ready reckoner!


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> NR is very ugly looking. I'd even prefer ~ for nasalisation.


We have been using NR to distinguish it from N, as in maaN (mother). There is no compulsion on anyone to use any particular system. As long as one is able to put one's message across and others are able to understand it, that is all that matters. You can use ~ or any other symbol you wish to use.We'll soon get used to your innovation.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> ^ marrish SaaHib, you have done a grand job. Your post is not only very comprehensive but also quite attractive in its outlook. I am sure past, present and future members will be able to benefit from it. A very big thank you!





Chhaatr said:


> marrish SaaHib thank you very much for this ready reckoner!


Thank you very much for the encouragement.


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> NR is very ugly looking. I'd even prefer ~ for nasalisation.


NR might be ugly looking but it is nothing compared to the IPA symbols, would you agree? And also it is easy to type. Please come forward with an alternative for it. ~ is a nice way to convey nasalization but the problem is that it has to be placed above the vowel sign so it is quite bothersome to type it directly from the keyboard.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> We have been using NR to distinguish it from N,



Yes, well now I don't have to look so perplexed when you and Marrish-saahib type Punjabi words. Previously, when I saw NR I shuddered 
and was greatful to not be learning Punjabi.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Yes, well now I don't have to look so perplexed when you and Marrish-saahib type Punjabi words. Previously, when I saw NR I shuddered and was greatful to not be learning Punjabi.


I believe I have used NR for Hindi words too. Well, learning any language should be a matter of free choice and no one is insisting that you should learn Punjabi.


----------



## greatbear

Really nice job, marrish. This thread should be made a sticky; it would be of quite some help for all the future learners as well!


----------



## lambdakneit

QURESHPOR said:


> I believe I have used NR for Hindi words too. Well, learning any language should be a matter of free choice and no one is insisting that you should learn Punjabi.



Indeed QUERESHPOR Saa7ib, a great number of words in Hindi in fact have this retroflex NR. The first ones to come to mind is cold or ThaNRDa (टण्ड) and pronounciation uccaraNR (उच्चरण), and in my studies of Hindi grammar I have also come accross vyakaraNR (व्यकरण) which means grammar.

Most of these words seem to be from Sanskrit origin so I would not think that they are very common in colloquial speech. But don't take my word for it, perhaps a native speaker might have more to say about this.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Really nice job, marrish. This thread should be made a sticky; it would be of quite some help for all the future learners as well!


Thank you very much!


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> I believe I have used NR for Hindi words too. Well, learning any language should be a matter of free choice and no one is insisting that you should learn Punjabi.



I see, maybe I didn't see those threads.


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> I see, maybe I didn't see those threads.


This is a long thread on ण् NR ṇ Hindi: How is ण pronounced?


----------



## UrduMedium

Nice job marrish saahab. I agree this should be added to sticky notes.


----------



## greatbear

lambdakneit said:


> Indeed QUERESHPOR Saa7ib, a great number of words in Hindi in fact have this retroflex NR. The first ones to come to mind is cold or ThaNRDa (टण्ड) and pronounciation uccaraNR (उच्चरण), and in my studies of Hindi grammar I have also come accross vyakaraNR (व्यकरण) which means grammar.
> 
> Most of these words seem to be from Sanskrit origin so I would not think that they are very common in colloquial speech. But don't take my word for it, perhaps a native speaker might have more to say about this.



"Thandaa" is a very common word, lambdakneit; however, it is not written or said with a retroflex (ठंडा). उच्चरण reminds me of an unrelated, very colloquial word, उत्तरण. As for grammar, that's vy*aa*karaNR  (व्याकरण) - and that's a standard term for "grammar", nothing colloquial or shuddh about it.


----------



## cherine

Dear All,

I've made the thread a sticky (Great job, Marrish Sahib ). Please don't use it to chat. And if you have to discuss the transliteration of a particular word/letter/sound, open a new thread for it, with links to this one if you wish.

Thanks,
Cherine


----------



## Faylasoof

Great work marrish SaaHib! Just a small addition is needed! 

Could you add 'ay' as an alternative for 'ai' so we have:  ai / ay

Some may prefer one to the other and yours truly uses either forms and perhaps in the past may be more the 'ay' form. 

Thanks!


----------



## Cilquiestsuens

I suggest that the sound Ghayn should be written gh (underlined rather than capitalized) in order to reserve the capital letters for retroflex letters.

The sh sound should be underlined too, as there is no other way to differentiate it from the group : s +  h.

Underlining is therefore a way of showing that two letters actually represent a simple sound:

*gh* (aspirate)    vs.    *gh *   (affricate)
*kh* (aspirate)    vs.    *kh*   (affricate)
*sh* (cluster)     vs.     *sh *  (fricative)
*th*  (aspirate)   vs.    *th*    (affricate)

etc....


To be honest, I am not a great fan of the N to mark nazalisation. I kind of like the old school style that Punjabigator Sahab taught us a while ago: .n  (dot-enn), while we could keep N for retroflex N (that would allow us to avoid NR or whatnot and increase the overall consistency of the system)


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> Great work marrish SaaHib! Just a small addition is needed!
> 
> Could you add 'ay' as an alternative for 'ai' so we have:  ai / ay
> 
> Some may prefer one to the other and yours truly uses either forms and perhaps in the past may be more the 'ay' form.
> 
> Thanks!


Faylasoof SaaHib, thank you very much. I agree, I have missed this one and I'd like to add it since I use it myself at times. Unfortunately I can't edit it any more so may I ask you to do it for me?


----------



## Faylasoof

Done, marrish SaaHib!


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> Done, marrish SaaHib!


Great, it's complete now.


----------



## marrish

Dear Urdu and Hindi knowing friends,

How do you feel about the possible manner of transliterating Urdu words ending in -ah with a ''visarga'' instead of incorrect long -aa?

For example, chest is سینہ  in Urdu, transliterated _siinah_, and I don't know whether this word is used in Hindi but it would be written as सीना, equal to _siinaa,_ the verb meaning 'to sew'. 

Would you find सीनः a better solution?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Dear Urdu and Hindi knowing friends,
> 
> How do you feel about the possible manner of transliterating Urdu words ending in -ah with a ''visarga'' instead of incorrect long -aa?
> 
> For example, chest is سینہ  in Urdu, transliterated _siinah_, and I don't know whether this word is used in Hindi but it would be written as सीना, equal to _siinaa,_ the verb meaning 'to sew'.
> 
> Would you find सीनः a better solution?


It is good to have a consultation process marrish SaaHib. However a Hindi speaker would need to have prior knowledge whether a particular word ends with an -ah in Urdu in order for him/her to make a decision to use the visarga or not.


----------



## marrish

QURESHPOR said:


> It is good to have a consultation process marrish SaaHib. However a Hindi speaker would need to have prior knowledge whether a particular word ends with an -ah in Urdu in order for him/her to make a decision to use the visarga or not.


Yes, QP SaaHib, this is my intention to have a consultation process. Thank you for the appreciation. 
I have addressed the ''Urdu and Hindi knowers'' for this task as I can imagine the speaker of Hindi only can have this difficulty. Let it be said, it is good to have your answer since you are the the ''Urdu and Hindi knower''!


----------



## jakubisek

I know I cannot change the habit of this forum, just someone asked an alternative to NR, so here's my solution: 

Write nasalisation by M instead of N and use N instead of NR.
Then the "row" of retroflex sounds would all be in capitals T Th D Dh N

I acutally like the tilda (even if written after the vowel - just as the N is) much better, but would have to switch keyboards to be able to enter it, so I use M for (chandra)bindu. 

However, where the dot precedes a plosive, I'd just transcribe it as the homorganic nasal: 

THaNDaa (instead of ThaMDaa), gandaa (instead of gaMdaa)

The advantage of NR is that people who are here for some years, are used to it.
The disadvantage is that newcomers may be pretty perplexed! As the rest seems self-understood, to me the only confusing letter, this one, looked like a retroflex R preceded by nazalization. And well, how do you actually differenciate between nazalized vowel followed by R and oral vowel followed by N ?


----------



## greatbear

marrish said:


> Would you find सीनः a better solution?



Not at all: since that's not how we pronounce it. If you put the visarga, there's the "ha" sound (heavy aspiration), which is not the case with almost all words ending in "-ah" in Urdu (and in "-aa" in Hindi). I doubt whether Urdu speakers also pronounce this "h" of "siinah": do they?


----------



## Wolverine9

jakubisek said:


> Write nasalisation by M instead of N and use N instead of NR.
> Then the "row" of retroflex sounds would all be in capitals T Th D Dh N



I like this idea.  I've seen M used to indicate nasalization on other online sites so it wouldn't be that big of a change for me.


----------



## Wolverine9

marrish said:


> Dear Urdu and Hindi knowing friends,
> 
> How do you feel about the possible manner of transliterating Urdu words ending in -ah with a ''visarga'' instead of incorrect long -aa?
> 
> For example, chest is سینہ  in Urdu, transliterated _siinah_, and I don't know whether this word is used in Hindi but it would be written as सीना, equal to _siinaa,_ the verb meaning 'to sew'.



Yes, सीना is used in Hindi for both "chest" and "to sew".  Obviously, context determines the meaning.  It's fairly easy to differentiate between a noun and verb, so I don't think there's any confusion.



marrish said:


> Would you find सीनः a better solution?



सीनः (siinaH) is pronounced differently than सीना (siinaa) as GB mentioned.  Most Urdu speakers pronounce  سینہ (siinah) as سينا (siinaa).  The equivalent Hindi _spelling _of سینہ would be सीनह्; however, it is not pronounced as such and so not transcribed that way.  Urdu preserves the Persian spelling of words, while Hindi generally transcribes words as they are pronounced.  Thus, the Persian -ah becomes -aa in Hindi.

I think words such as siinaa/siinah should be transcribed according to individual preferences.  There's no ambiguity in meaning regardless of the transcription.


----------



## Qureshpor

jakubisek said:


> I know I cannot change the habit of this forum, just someone asked an alternative to NR, so here's my solution:
> 
> Write nasalisation by M instead of N and use N instead of NR.
> Then the "row" of retroflex sounds would all be in capitals T Th D Dh N
> 
> I acutally like the tilda (even if written after the vowel - just as the N is) much better, but would have to switch keyboards to be able to enter it, so I use M for (chandra)bindu.
> 
> However, where the dot precedes a plosive, I'd just transcribe it as the homorganic nasal:
> 
> THaNDaa (instead of ThaMDaa), gandaa (instead of gaMdaa)
> 
> The advantage of NR is that people who are here for some years, are used to it.
> The disadvantage is that newcomers may be pretty perplexed! As the rest seems self-understood, to me the only confusing letter, this one, looked like a retroflex R preceded by nazalization. And well, how do you actually differenciate between nazalized vowel followed by R and oral vowel followed by N ?


You make some valid points jakubisek. There is certainly room for further contemplation and improvement.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> [...] सीनः (siinaH) is pronounced differently than सीना (siinaa) as GB mentioned.  Most Urdu speakers pronounce  سینہ (siinah) as سينا (siinaa).  The equivalent Hindi _spelling _of سینہ would be सीनह्; however, it is not pronounced as such and so not transcribed that way.  Urdu preserves the Persian spelling of words, while Hindi generally transcribes words as they are pronounced.  Thus, the Persian -ah becomes -aa in Hindi.
> 
> I think words such as siinaa/siinah should be transcribed according to individual preferences.  There's no ambiguity in meaning regardless of the transcription.


I think it would be fair to say that सीनः was merely some food for thought and no more. I personally agree that the visarga served a particular pronunciaion albeit it may not be followed to the letter in modern times (eg. in du:kh). 

Whilst it is true that Urdu speakers do not use aspiration at the end of "siinah", Urdu speakers, IMHO, do not pronounce it as "siinaa" either. But we won't dwell on this. 

Regarding the way Devanagri transcribing words "generally" as they are transcribed, I can give you many instances when it does n't. Here is just one from a recent post.

Khabar sun ke to uskii (g_ _ D) hii f_T gayii

Would "faT" be transcribed by an "f" or a "ph"?

Well, there are times when there can be ambiguity in meaning but I agree people can make their own choice how they wish to transcribe this or any other word for that matter.


----------



## marrish

greatbear said:


> Not at all: since that's not how we pronounce it. If you put the visarga, there's the "ha" sound (heavy aspiration), which is not the case with almost all words ending in "-ah" in Urdu (and in "-aa" in Hindi). I doubt whether Urdu speakers also pronounce this "h" of "siinah": do they?


It has appeared that I have re-invented the wheel! Dr. D.C. Phillott, Hindustani* Lecturer Cambridge University wrote in 1918:

On p. 332: [Visarga] is rare in Hindi, it is sometimes used to transliterate the Persian final silent _h_.

On p. 338 As already stated, the symbol : may be used for the final silent _h_ of Urdu and Persian.

http://archive.org/stream/hindustanimanual00philiala#page/330/mode/2up

*I can but heartily recommend this book for those who wish to improve their Urdu!


----------



## Wolverine9

That book is nearly a century old, though.  Its assertion about the visarga is not relevant for current usage.  It would potentially cause confusion as the visarga would be pronounced differently for Sanskrit words vs. Persian words.  The book also claims on p. 338 that Hindi is written in 3 other scripts, which again is not the case in current times.

Note: I do think that either the visarga or ह् could (and actually might) be used when transliterating the final Persian _h _in Devanagari-based Urdu.


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> That book is nearly a century old, though.  Its assertion about the visarga is not relevant for current usage.  It would potentially cause confusion as the visarga would be pronounced differently for Sanskrit words vs. Persian words.  The book also claims on p. 338 that Hindi is written in 3 other scripts, which again is not the case in current times.
> 
> Note: I do think that either the visarga or ह् could (and actually might) be used when transliterating the final Persian _h _in Devanagari-based Urdu.


You make a couple of valid remarks about the state of affairs in Hindi - but I dare say they are not applicable here. I was talking of transliteration of Urdu into Nagari, not about Hindi usages. I shall continue this topic in the thread devoted to visarga.


----------



## jakubisek

Since 2 users commented positively about the suggested change of the retroflex nasal's transcription from NR to N and of the anusvar/anunasik  from N to M, I'd lobby for making a vote on that across the users group. 

However, what I found really useful in the Slavic forum here, they have a box of letters with a diacritic on the menu bar of the post-editing window (just where we have the icons for inserting a link, picture etc). So when writing the post, one can just click on the letters offered there (ś, etc..) and they are entered into the text. If we could get a similar "button" of letters with subscript dots and with macrons, we could easily enter here the proper transliteration!

Anyone knows how to "embed" this into our post editor?  Look at the Slavic languages quick reply window, so you know what I mean


----------



## marrish

My stance on your suggestion is that the characters with diacritics in the Slavic forums offer the possibility of typing the original letters from screen, which occur in the alphabets of those languages while we've been discussing transliteration here, not typing in the original alphabets. For this reason I am not a big fan of this suggestion. Apart from this, this forum is a multilingual one and different transliteration schemes are in vogue for those languages.

Anyone who wishes to transliterate NR as N and N as M is free to do so without any hesitation and no poll is needed for it. However, I personally would stick to the custom of NR for retroflex nasal and N for nasalization of the vowel. The reason is simply the high occurence of nasalization in Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi (and others) so using a single character for it is an advantage, as opposed to very low occurence of the nasal retroflex, and complete absence of this sound in Urdu. As far as M for the nasal is concerned, it doesn't really reflect very well the fact that in these languages, it is the dental nasal consonant [n] which can be substituted by the nasalization of the syllable. Moreover, the Urdu script uses [n] character (or modified at the end of the word) to depict nasalization. M is perhaps good for transliterating Sanskrit (and I do use it at times).


----------



## jakubisek

marrish said:


> My stance on your suggestion is that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the characters with diacritics in the Slavic forums offer the possibility of typing the original letters
> 
> 
> 
> They are also used for transliterating the Cyrillic script as well. Just saw people using them conveniently...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this forum is a multilingual one and different transliteration schemes are in vogue for those languages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> How come? The international ISO ... (don't ask me the number  transliteration scheme uses identical roman letters for identical letters accross the languages. Transliteration of individual Indic languages differ only inasmuch some use different additional letters not used in others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> high occurence of nasalization in Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi (and others) so using a single character for it is an advantage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in these languages, it is the dental nasal consonant [n] which can be substituted by the nasalization of the syllable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not completely true (it will be dental nasal consonant only before dentals, in some languages before palatals and retroflexes as well, but it will be bilabial nasal consonant between labials)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Urdu script uses [n] character (or modified at the end of the word) to depict nasalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M is perhaps good for transliterating Sanskrit (and I do use it at times)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. M is equally bad for sanskrit nasal as for the other languages (wherever it is used to represent a nasal before,e.g.,  s,ś,h it misleads people to think that they should pronounce "samsaara" "samhitaa", and the like, which is wrong. Just as transliterating anusvaara with N will result in misleading people to pronounce "sambuddhah" as "sanbuddhah". So there's always a risk in every simplification.
> 
> No doubt, the standard transliteration, if we only could enter it easily here at the forum, would of course be the best.  That's why the wish we could have something as the Slavic forum does (and no matter what the thing serves for)
> 
> The argument that retroflex N is much less common in the NIA and especially the three that are most discussed here is really valid. I did not think of it. Just the NR looks very puzzling to one who looks at a forum thread where some google search lead them and so they did not see this thread's useful table.  This is why I kind of try to eradicate (not so seriously  the NR use
> And... Are there no words in NIA where a nasalized vowel does precede retroflex flap? If they do exist, how do we distinguish N+R from NR?  And even if they do not exist, still readers may think so, especially if you describe a NIA language unknown to them. If I say that  the Sanskrit for death is maraNRa, how does a person, who has no idea about Sanskrit, know that I do not mean nazalized a in maraN followed by the HU-style "flap" Ra?   That's my "objective" concern, while just not liking it is of course purely subjective. Oh, sorry I actually did not want to stirr up a long discussion in this sticky thread. Mea culpa. But if someone knew how the Slavicists got their diacritics here and could do the same for the (uniform, I strees once again) diacritics for transliterating Indian languages, it would certainly do no harm: You can always choose to not use it, but have the added bonus of the "use it" option.
> Howgh
Click to expand...


----------



## Wolverine9

Upon further reflection, it's probably best to continue representing the nasal sound as N, since that is the accepted standard here.  For retroflex n, I think n or N are good options and would prevent any possible confusion caused by NR.


----------



## urdustan

Hello,

Is v or is w the more acceptable transcription on this forum for و ?


----------



## marrish

^It doesn't matter. There are some words from Arabic where as you know it is [w] and nothing else, some from Persian where all of them are [v] and in original Urdu words (Indic) they are so called *conditional allophones*. It means they get pronounced in both ways, not only in Indic words but in all Urdu words. This explanation is only valid for v/w not for [o] [au] [uu]!


----------



## sapnachaandni

Great job marrish jii! 
vo (=voh/vuh) “TRANSLITERATION CHART” jo aap ne lagaayaa  hai, bahut achchhaa hai. bahut saare logoN ke kaam aa’egaa. ise banaane  ke liye bahut bahut shukriyaa. 


par maiN iske baare meN kuchh kahnaa chaahtii huuN. is chart meN aisaa likhaa gayaa hai:



*Urdu*
*IIR Forum*
*IPA*
*ISO 15919*
*Devanagari*
(ـِـ + ح، ع ھ)
(ĕ)
ɛ
---
ऎ, ॆ
(ـُـ + ح، ع ھ)
(ŏ)
o
---
ऒ, ॊ



pahlii baat: (ـِـ + ح، ع ھ) ke liye IPA 3alaamat [e] hai, [ɛ] nahiiN.
duusrii baat: (ـِـ + ح، ع ھ) aur (ـُـ + ح، ع ھ) ke alaavaa (=3laavah) ek aur aavaaz bhii Hindii aur Urduu donoN meN bolii jaatii hai, aur vo aavaaz hai:
(ـَـ + ح، ع ھ), jiskii IPA 3alaamat [ɛ] hai; jaise [kɛna:] (کہنا), [rɛna:] (رہنا) vaGhairah.

mujhe lagtaa hai jab (ـِـ + ح، ع ھ) aur (ـُـ + ح، ع ھ) ko is chart meN lagaayaa gayaa hai to phir (ـَـ + ح، ع ھ) ko bhii lagaanaa chaahiye.

kuchh aisaa hii:



*Urdu*
*IIR Forum*
*IPA*
*ISO 15919*
*Devanagari*
(ـَـ + ح، ع ھ)

ɛ
---

(ـِـ + ح، ع ھ)
(ĕ)
e
---
ऎ, ॆ
(ـُـ + ح، ع ھ)
(ŏ)
o
---
ऒ, ॊ



ek aur baat in tiin aavaazoN ke baare meN jinkii IPA 3alaamat aisii hai: [ɛ], [e], [o];
in tiin aavaazoN ko Urduu meN “zailii aavaazeN” (ذیلی آوازیں) (allophones) kahte haiN aur Urduu meN inke liye alag alag naam bhii rakhe ga'e haiN:
[ɛ] ko Urduu meN "xafiif [ɛ:]" (خفیف اَے), "zabar-e-maj'huul" (زبر مجہول), "xafiif zabar" (خفیف زبر) vaGhairah kahte haiN.
[e] ko Urduu meN "xafiif [e:]" (خفیف اِے), "zer-e-maj'huul" (زیر مجہول), "xafiif zer" (خفیف زیر) vaGhairah kahte haiN.
[o] ko Urduu meN "xafiif [o:]" (خفیف اُو), "pesh-e-maj'huul" (پیش مجہول), "xafiif pesh" (خفیف پیش) vaGhairah kahte haiN.

ye (=yeh/yih) sab naam maiN ne Dr. Gopiichand Naarang aur Dr. Gyaanchand Jain ke mazaamiin (مضامین) (essays) meN dekhe, jaise in mazaamiin meN:

گوپی  چند نارنگ، ڈاکٹر: اردو کی بنیادی اور ذیلی آوازیں، مشمولہ مقالہ در ’اردو  املا و قواعد‘ مرتّب: ڈاکٹر فرمان فتح پوری، مقتدرہ قومی زبان اسلام  آباد،۱۹۹۰ء
گیان چند جین، ڈاکٹر: اردو کی آوازیں، مشمولہ مقالہ در ’اردو املا و قواعد‘ مرتّب: ڈاکٹر فرمان فتح پوری، مقتدرہ قومی زبان اسلام آباد،۱۹۹۰ء​
Urduu kii saarii aavaazoN kii IPA 3alaamateN Dr. Gyaanchand Jain ne “Lisaanii Mutaale” (لسانی مطالعے) pages 148-149 meN likhii haiN. vahaaN bhii (ـَـ + ح، ع ھ) ke liye IPA 3alaamat [ɛ] hai aur (ـِـ + ح، ع ھ) ke liye IPA 3alaamat [e]. wikipedia  par bhii (ـَـ + ح، ع ھ) ke liye IPA 3alaamat [ɛ] hai.

mujhe pataa nahiiN ki *IIR Forum* ke mutaabiq [ɛ] (ـَـ + ح، ع ھ) ke liye kaun sii 3alaamat miltii hai. ye bhii pakkaa maaluum (=ma3luum) nahiiN ki devnaagrii meN [ɛ] (ـَـ + ح، ع ھ) ke liye koii 3alaamat banaa’ii ga’ii hai ki nahiiN. baRii mehrbaanii (=mihrbaanii) hogii agar koii bataa de.

aaxrii baat ye ki jis taraH Urduu lipi meN in zailii aavaazoN ([ɛ], [e], [o]) ke liye alag alag 3alaamat banaa'ii nahiiN ga'ii hai, Hindii lipi meN bhii inke liye koii alag 3alaamat maujuud nahiiN. iskii vajah ye hai ki ye sab zailii aavaazeN (allophones) haiN. (meraa matlab ye hai ki bhale hii devnaagrii meN in tiin zailii aavaazoN  ([ɛ], [e], [o]) ke liye alag alag 3alaamateN maujuud hoN, par Hindii likhaavaT meN in 3alaamatoN (ऎ, ऒ) kaa istemaal (=isti3maal) nahiiN kiyaa jaataa).


thanks


----------



## marrish

sapnachaandni jii, is maHfil meN aap ke shaamil hone par apnii xwushii zaahir karne ke saath saath aap ke is tabsire ke liye shukriyah kahnaa chaahuuN gaa. baa ijaazat, baaqii aNgrezii meN likh letaa huuN taa kih sab Haaziriin samajh sakeN.

Your contribution is significant because it delves into scarcely covered topic of so called allophones or rather vowels which somehow used not to be considered as part of Urdu or Hindi, mainly because of lack of graphic representations in their own scripts.

You will have noticed that I put these entries in brackets, for the same reasons. These sounds and letter combinations fall rather into the category of phonetical transcription than transliteration, nevertheless I found out during the preparation of this chart that would be wiser to include them in the list than to leave them out.

Most of the times people go with transliteration on the forum but at moments it's important to emphasise the pronunciation. There seems no agreed ''forum standard'' to represent these vowels as yet! 

It is very interesting to see so good scholarly references. Unfortunately I don't have access to them, however will have to agree with the IPA [e] for (ـِـ + ح، ع ھ). As a matter of principle I am cautious with Wikipedia and to be frank, I assigned [ɛ] because I perceive it to be this sound, not [e], especially with regard to Urdu. Your remark about the short [e] not being used in Hindi is also pertinent - however the symbols do exist in Devanagari and that is why I included them in the Devanagari column.

More often than not we use [ai] to hint at the vowel in _k*ai*hnaa_, with explanation that it's short. It seems you have touched on a topic that hasn't found its solution yet! Still, from the perspective of transliteration - it remains _k*a*hnaa, m*u*Htaram, m*i*hrbaan (Urdu) _while in Hindi the latter two would become (in phonetic transcription, following Nagari spelling) _[mo:htərəm], [me:hərba:n].
_
Once more, thank you very much for your learned comments. I will try to look for a specific thread where this topic came up and where we can share more information.


----------



## sapnachaandni

Thanks for answering marrish jii. 

maaf (=mu3aaf) kiijiye ki maiN ne angrezii meN nahiiN likh diyaa, par lagtaa hai agar angrezii meN likhtii, to mujhii ko achchhaa nahiiN lagtaa aur meraa man nahiiN bhartaa (Urduu-Hindii itnii pyaarii lagtii hai naa, is liye)

btw, as you know, these are short vowels: [ɛ], [e], [o]; and these are long vowels [ɛ:], [e:], [o:].




> Most of the times people go with transliteration on the forum but  at moments it's important to emphasise the pronunciation.


You're right. (kaash aisaa nahiiN hotaa)




> I assigned [ɛ] because I perceive it to be this sound, not [e], especially with regard to Urdu.


Could you please look at this:
(1)
"بِہتر" >>> *Urduu* transliteration is "b*i*htar", but its pronunciation is not [b*i*htər] in Urduu. 
"बेहतर" >>> *Hindii* transliteration is "b*e*htar"(after 'a'-deletion), but its pronunciation is not [b*e:*htər] in Hindii.

Which one is the right *pronunciation*: [b*e*htər] or [b*ɛ*htər]? ([e] and [ɛ] are both short vowels)
Is it possible that both are pronounced ([b*e*htər] and [b*ɛ*htər])? 

(2)
"چِہرہ" >>> *Urduu* transliteration is "ch*i*hrah", but its pronunciation is not [tʃ*i*hra:] in Urduu. 
"चेहरा" >>> *Hindii* transliteration is "ch*e*hraa"(after 'a'-deletion), but its pronunciation is not [tʃ*e:*hra:] in Hindii.

Which one is the right *pronunciation*: [tʃ*e*hra:] or [tʃ*ɛ*hra:]? ([e] and [ɛ] are both short vowels)
Is it possible that both are pronounced ([tʃ*e*hra:] and [tʃ*ɛ*hra:])?

 (3)
"سِہرا" >>> *Urduu* transliteration is "s*i*hraa", but its pronunciation is not [s*i*hra:] in Urduu. 
"सेहरा" >>> *Hindii* transliteration is "*se*hraa"(after 'a'-deletion), but its pronunciation is not [s*e:*hra:] in Hindii.

Which one is the right *pronunciation*: [s*e*hra:] or [s*ɛ*hra:]? ([e] and [ɛ] are both short vowels)
Is it possible that both are pronounced ([s*e*hra:] and [s*ɛ*hra:])?




> More often than not we use [ai] to hint at the vowel in _k*ai*hnaa_, with explanation that it's short.


Yes. The *pronunciation *is [kɛhna:] ([ɛ] is short vowel), but "kahnaa" (کہنا , कहना) can't be written as _k*ai*hnaa_ (!), however [ɛ:] is written as "ai".


Thank you so much.


----------



## marrish

You are very welcome indeed!

You have made a couple of pertinent points which are not only about transcription/transliteration but in principle about pronunciation vs. spelling in Urdu and Hindi respectively of those short vowels (o, e, ɛ). It would be a pity if this discussion got lost in between all other matters in this long thread; moreover the topic into which you were kind to offer new insights unfortunately exceeds the scope of this thread and deserves a thread of its own  As said in the first post here, this chart is based on observations of the forum and is not prescriptive, rather the opposite, and believe it or not, _kahnaa_ does get written as _kaihnaa_ in the forum, to indicate [ɛ], however it is not the only way of pronunciation.

I invite you to open a new thread which can cover all the aspects of this topic so that all interested parties can freely contribute in it. I will be certainly happy to take part and try to give my view.

_baaqii urduu kii bajaa'e aNgrezii likhne ke liye ma3azirat chaahtaa huuN lekin wa3dah yih hai kih aap kii nayii laRii meN Urdu, Hindi meN zaruur likhuuN gaa!_


----------



## sapnachaandni

Thank You so much marrish jii,



> I invite you to open a new thread which can cover all the aspects of  this topic so that all interested parties can freely contribute in it. I  will be certainly happy to take part and try to give my view.




_Urduu-Hindii meN likhii hu'ii baateN paRh kar baRii xushii (=xwushii) hogii._


----------



## Dib

I have a question about _phonetic_ transcription, rather than transliteration. If I want to distinguish the IPA [dã:t] and [da:nt], can I do that within the present transliteration scheme? I think the only option I have now is "daaNt" which - as Urdu or Hindi transliteration goes - can be realized as either. Am I reasoning it right? If so, can we add a bit to the present transliteration scheme to make it also transcription-friendly? I personally prefer to transcribe the speech, rather than transliterate the spelling, but I'd like to diverge from the forum norms as little as possible.


----------



## marrish

Yes, it is perfectly possible in this scheme, we are though free to ameliorate and expand it. As far as transcription is concerned, we have a good choice between IPA and ISO 15919 (traditionally used for transcription of Indic languages).

Please see for yourself if these solutions suit you:

[dã:t] daaNt
[da:nt] daant


----------



## Dib

Thanks for your reply. Firstly, sorry about the typo in my question. I wrote "daNt", when I meant "daaNt". I don't want to use IPA because it is  cumbersome to type, and many may not be familiar with it. ISO 15919 is just another transliteration scheme. I prefer to use the forum's prevalent transliteration scheme, but modified as unobtrusively as possible. In fact it is already quite suitable for transcription, thanks to a good phonetic match of the native spellings this scheme transliterates, and that means my style of writing is normally different only in missing some hamza's, final h-s, etc. because they don't occur in the kind of speech I am familiar with, and most people hopefully don't even notice it.

The problem I am facing here is however, that if I write "daaNt" it may be taken as a transliteration of Devanagari "दांत", which may well be pronounced [da:nt] as the normal conventions of pronouncing anusvaar in Hindi goes. Also, Urdu orthography does not distinguish between a nuun-e Ghunna and a normal nuun in this position. Can that also lead to confusion? This is one of those rare cases where I think the transcription scheme may have to differ slightly from the transliteration scheme. What do you think?


----------



## marrish

I find IPA a nasty thing to type too and if and when necessary, I copy it from the first page of this thread. I never found your transliteration bothersome; everything is good as far as we can understand each other in terms of words we are talking about. It is indeed very close to transcription and careful "transliterators" always tend to be keeping the pronunciation in mind. Final -h most of the time doesn't occur in Urdu or Hindi too but sometimes it does. hamza's are important as far as Urdu spelling and grammar and sometimes pronunciation is concerned but nobody minds if you don't indicate them. When I transliterate Hindi I never use hamzas where one could use them merely as an apostrophe indicating the syllables, barring a diphthong, because they are not there. In Urdu they are there and although they have never been meant to be pronounced as such, they serve this very function of separating phonemes. 

I understand your problem. There is a dichotomy at least in my personal case. On the one hand I indicate Ghunnas as required by pronunciation, as you rightly state, in this position, while, trying to be faithful to the spirit of transliteration, I also do it when a "bindi" is there in Nagari. Still I think it is not obnoxious because most of the cases it seems unlikely that Urdu and Hindi differ on these points. I think, but I am completely not sure, that [da:nt] is and perhaps can't be pronounced with [n] in Hindi. Thank you very much for these points, which give testimony to your utmost care and attention. For this reason I will open a thread about it. If and when we all come to an agreement I am sure it can be incorporated into these guidelines which can be consulted on the first page.


----------



## Dib

This time a question about transliteration proper of Devanagari Hindi. Do we have a way to transliterate ज्ञ as in ज्ञान (Hindi pronunciation in IPA /gja:n ~ gjã:n/) = knowledge? Etymologically (i.e. in Sanskrit) it is a conjunct of "j (ज्) + ñ (ञ)" (Roman transliteration in IAST with Devanagari in parantheses), though the pronunciation is very different in standard Hindi (and other modern languages of the subcontinent - which do differ among themselves). Also, the palatal nasal ñ is not a stand-alone phoneme in Hindi (neither can I remember of any independent existence in Sanskrit).


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Would it be convenient to add the اِ as a possible Urdu expession of the _e_ sound, as in اِحْسان / एहसान ?


----------

