GEETanajli - guunjii sii hai saarii fizaa - Kyun Ho Gaya Na
Satish Kalra
numbers in almost every film of theirs. In the number below, the melodious
composition is amply enhanced by inspired rendering by both Sadhana Sargam
and Udit Narayan, conveying the right nuiances of love and romance in the
song. In fact, Sadhana Sargam sounds her sweetest in this song so far in
her nearly 25 yer old career. At least to my ears.
Enjoy the song. And as always, corrections and comments welcome.
% ITRANS Song #
%
\startsong
\stitle{guu.njii sii hai saarii fizaaa}%
\film{Kyun Ho Gaya Na}%
\year{2004}%
\starring{Aishwarya Rai, Vivek Oberoi, Amitabh Bachchan}%
\singer{Sadhana Sargam, Udit Narayan}%
\music{Shankar, Ehsaan, Loy}%
\lyrics{Javed Akhtar}%
%
% Audio on: Tips
% Contributor: Satish Kalra
% Transliterator: Satish Kalra
% Date: 30 Aug 2004
% Series: GEETanajli
% Comments:
% generated using giitaayan
%
\printtitle
#indian
%
saa:
guu.Njii sii hai saarii fizaa jaise bajatii ho.n shahanaa_iiyaa.n
laharaatii hai mahakii hawaa gunagunaatii hai.n tanhaa_iiyaa.n
sab gaate hai.n sab hii madahosh hai.n
ham tum kyo.n Kaamosha hai.n
saaze dil chhe.Do naa chup ho kyo.n gaao naa
aa_o naa, aa_o naa, aa_o naa, aa_o naa
tan man me.n kyo.n aisii dahakii hu_ii
Tha.nDii sii ik aag hai
ho saa.Nso.n me.n hai kaisii ye raaginii
dha.Dakan me.n kyaa raag hai
ye hu_aa kyaa hame.n hamako samajhaa_o naa
sab gaate hai.n sab hii madahosh hai.n
ham tum kyo.n Kaamosh hai.n
dil me.n jo baate.n hai.n ho.NTo.n pe laa_o naa
aa_o naa aa_o naa\threedots
u:
ab ko_ii duurii na ulajhana ko_ii
bas ek iqaraar hai
ab ham kahii.n naa tum ho kahii.n
bas pyaar hii pyaar hai
sun sako dha.Dakane.n itane paas aa_o na
sab gaate hai.n sab hii madahosh hai.n
ham tum kyo.n Kaamosh hai.n
ab mere sapano.n pe tum hii tum chhaa_o na
aa_o naa aa_o naa\threedots
%
#endindian
\endsong
--
Happy Listenings.
Satish Kalra
PS: I find the Giitaayan song generation process much more friendly than
the iTranslator 99.
aanand
it very well. I apprecitae S_A_L for making sadhana 's choice instaed
of alka or shreya.
She is really deserving singer.
She has also sung title song of Kuchch na kaho for the same composers.
In fact just other day i was listening these 2 songs and chupake se
from sathia one after other and it was pleasure listening to Sadhana.
I wish she gets work work and appreciation.
rgds
anand.
"Satish Kalra" <Satish...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<1t6dnUmXUak...@comcast.com>...
Animesh Kumar
<snipped>
>
>
> % ITRANS Song #
> %
> \startsong
> \stitle{guu.njii sii hai saarii fizaaa}%
quite curious, you have different spellings here, in the subject line, and
in the first line of the song.
> \film{Kyun Ho Gaya Na}%
> \year{2004}%
> \starring{Aishwarya Rai, Vivek Oberoi, Amitabh Bachchan}%
> \singer{Sadhana Sargam, Udit Narayan}%
> \music{Shankar, Ehsaan, Loy}%
> \lyrics{Javed Akhtar}%
> %
> % Audio on: Tips
> % Contributor: Satish Kalra
> % Transliterator: Satish Kalra
> % Date: 30 Aug 2004
> % Series: GEETanajli
> % Comments:
> % generated using giitaayan
> %
> \printtitle
> #indian
> %
> saa:
> guu.Njii sii hai saarii fizaa jaise bajatii ho.n shahanaa_iiyaa.n
> laharaatii hai mahakii hawaa gunagunaatii hai.n tanhaa_iiyaa.n
IIRC, parachhaaii.n becomes parachhaaiyaa.N in plural, note ii ~> i and .n
becomes .N. Just like la.Dakii ~> la.Dakiyaa.N or titalii ~> titaliyaa.N
> sab gaate hai.n sab hii madahosh hai.n
> ham tum kyo.n Kaamosha hai.n
> saaze dil chhe.Do naa chup ho kyo.n gaao naa
just curious, isn't it better to write saaz\-e\-dil for saaze_dil.
best
Animesh
<snipped> --
> Happy Listenings.
>
> Satish Kalra
>
> PS: I find the Giitaayan song generation process much more friendly than
> the iTranslator 99.
>
>
>
--
reply to ------ animesh AT eecs DOT berkeley DOT edu
Satish Kalra
news:ch2ju6$hko$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
>
>
> <snipped>
> >
> >
> > % ITRANS Song #
> > %
> > \startsong
> > \stitle{guu.njii sii hai saarii fizaaa}%
>
> quite curious, you have different spellings here, in the subject line, and
> in the first line of the song.
See my comment below re. "bindu Vs. chandra bindu". While it does not
matter much in the subject line, it does in the lyrics field, and hence
"guu.Njii" there.
I think both ways the pronunciation is the same, so take your pick.
I have never been able to figure out where to put the regular "bindu" Vs.
"chandra bindu"!
Vinay
> "Animesh Kumar" <animesh@SEE_SIGNATURE.COM> wrote in message
> news:ch2ju6$hko$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
>>
>>
>> <snipped>
>> >
>> >
>> > % ITRANS Song #
>> > %
>> > \startsong
>> > \stitle{guu.njii sii hai saarii fizaaa}%
>>
>
> "chandra bindu"!
>
Try this (as a rule of thumb).
Remember that chandrabindu is for the anunaasik (nasal) sound. It is
pronounced *with* a vowel.
e.g.: a.Ndheraa, kahaa.N, u.Ngalii, jaauu.N. However, with vowels i, ii, e,
ai, o, au (maatraas that are palced on top of the line/shirorekhaa in
Nagari), chandrabindu is replaced by anuswaar, simply because there's not
enough space on the top to put a chandrabindu. Hence nahii.n, kahe.n, hai.n,
ho.n, au.ndhaa. Technically, writing nahii.N, kahe.N, ho.N, and au.Ndhaa is
also not wrong. But it's not prevalent.
bindu or anuswaar, OTOH, is a representation of the half-panchamakshar (~N,
~n, N, n, m) sounds. And it is pronounced *after* a vowel. Remember it
simply as a replacement of the above five half-letters. e.g.: ra.ng,
pa.ncham, Da.nDaa, ma.ndir, a.nbar.
You can also write these as ra~Ng, pa~ncham, DaNDaa, mandir and ambar.
HTH..
Vinay
Satish Kalra
news:ryaZc.259$UR2.139@trnddc08...
I wish my school Hindi teacher had been this elaborate, simple, and clear.
Thanks, Vinay.
It sure helps in making the concept clear for me.
naniwadekar
"Satish Kalra" wrote -
>
> It sure helps in making the concept clear for me.
>
Time for a quiz, then. Please help make the concept
clear for other flounderers (like me).
a.Ndheraa or a.ndheraa?
If a.Ndheraa, why not a.ndheraa?
If a.ndheraa, why not a.Ndheraa?
a.Ndar or a.ndar ?
If a.ndar, etc etc ...
guu.nj or guu.Nj? gu.njan or gu.Njan?
- dn
Satish Kalra
news:2pm92qF...@uni-berlin.de...
To make it more clear, let me throw this ball into Vinay's lap. :-)
Vinay
Nani:
The key is in the pronunciation. Listen to how you pronounce the word?
I will give you an exercise to see the difference.
Speak ra.ng as in:
isakaa ra.ng laal hai
Now speak ra.Ng as in:
mujhe ra.Ng de
The first one uses anuswaar, because the "~N" sound is appearing
*after* the inherent 'a' vowel of 'ra', not *with* it.
The latter should be written with a chandrabindu because the nasal
sound is attached to the inherent vowel 'a' of 'ra'.
Clearer? No?
Repeat the same exercise with ha.ns (swan) and ha.Ns (laugh).
Vinay
naniwadekar
"Vinay" <v...@hotmail.com> wrote -
>
> I will give you an exercise to see the difference.
>
> Speak ra.ng as in:
> isakaa ra.ng laal hai
>
> Now speak ra.Ng as in:
> mujhe ra.Ng de
>
> The first one uses anuswaar, because the "~N" sound is appearing
> *after* the inherent 'a' vowel of 'ra', not *with* it.
>
> The latter should be written with a chandrabindu because the nasal
> sound is attached to the inherent vowel 'a' of 'ra'.
>
> Clearer? No?
>
> Repeat the same exercise with ha.ns (swan) and ha.Ns (laugh).
>
Quickly - the word ra.Ng is unknown to me. Let me restrict
the post to words known to me.
The 'ha.ns vs ha.Ns' case has helped me understand where
chandra-bindu may be used and where not, but it still
does not help when it comes to 'a.Ndheraa'. Why not
'a.ndheraa'? I don't detect any half-nasalization in the word.
And assuming that guu.Nj and gu.njan are the correct forms
of the words, as I believe they are, why chandrabindu in
one word but anuswar in the other?
- dn
Vinay
> "Vinay" <v...@hotmail.com> wrote -
> >
> > I will give you an exercise to see the difference.
> >
> > Speak ra.ng as in:
> > isakaa ra.ng laal hai
> >
> > Now speak ra.Ng as in:
> > mujhe ra.Ng de
> >
> > The first one uses anuswaar, because the "~N" sound is appearing
> > *after* the inherent 'a' vowel of 'ra', not *with* it.
> >
> > The latter should be written with a chandrabindu because the nasal
> > sound is attached to the inherent vowel 'a' of 'ra'.
> >
> > Clearer? No?
> >
> > Repeat the same exercise with ha.ns (swan) and ha.Ns (laugh).
> >
>
> Quickly - the word ra.Ng is unknown to me. Let me restrict
> the post to words known to me.
>
It is known to you if you have heard:
meraa ra.Ng de basa.ntii cholaa
baaT chalat na_ii chunarii ra.Ng Daarii
pyaar ke ra.ng me.n sai.nyyaa morii ra.Ng de chunariyaa
ra.ngiilaa re tere ra.ng me.n, yuu.N ra.Ngaa hai meraa man
mere ra.ng me.n ra.Ngane vaalii (perhaps unlikely :))
> The 'ha.ns vs ha.Ns' case has helped me understand where
> chandra-bindu may be used and where not, but it still
> does not help when it comes to 'a.Ndheraa'. Why not
> 'a.ndheraa'? I don't detect any half-nasalization in the word.
>
Simply because it is not pronounced that way. There are some people who
pronounce it as andheraa (you may not know but there is a "punchum"
song, in which Asha goes.. shaharo.n ki galiyo.n me.n jab andheraa
hotaa hai). However, the valid pronunciation and hence the valid
written form is 'a.Ndheraa', which has just a soft nasalisation on "a",
exactly same as on "ha" in ha.Ns (laugh). And not as in 'andhaa'
(blind), where the 'na' sound is "hard" and *after* the "a" sound.
> And assuming that guu.Nj and gu.njan are the correct forms
> of the words, as I believe they are, why chandrabindu in
> one word but anuswar in the other?
>
hmm.. you haven't done your homework properly. Try speaking both words
loudly, or better still listen to them spoken by someone else or check
some songs and see why there are written the way they are.
Hint: same logic as above.
Helpful resources: "bha.Nware kii gu.njan.." and "jo guu.Nje wahii dil
kii aawaaz hai.."
Now to prove that you have got it, solve the quiz you posted in this
thread and post the answers.
Vinay
>
> - dn
Balaji Murthy
> Satish Kalra wrote:
>
>>"naniwadekar" <nani3...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2pm92qF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>>clear for other flounderers (like me).
>>>
>>>a.Ndheraa or a.ndheraa?
>>> If a.Ndheraa, why not a.ndheraa?
>>> If a.ndheraa, why not a.Ndheraa?
>>>a.Ndar or a.ndar ?
>>> If a.ndar, etc etc ...
>>>guu.nj or guu.Nj? gu.njan or gu.Njan?
>
>
> The key is in the pronunciation. Listen to how you pronounce the word?
> I will give you an exercise to see the difference.
>
> Speak ra.ng as in:
> isakaa ra.ng laal hai
>
> Now speak ra.Ng as in:
> mujhe ra.Ng de
>
> The first one uses anuswaar, because the "~N" sound is appearing
> *after* the inherent 'a' vowel of 'ra', not *with* it.
>
> The latter should be written with a chandrabindu because the nasal
> sound is attached to the inherent vowel 'a' of 'ra'.
>
> Clearer? No?
>
> Repeat the same exercise with ha.ns (swan) and ha.Ns (laugh).
> Vinay
Vinay,
How about the use of anuswaar in words like sa.nyam, sa.nhaar, sa.nskaar
etc? Shouldn't all that be chandrabindu?
Thanks,
- Balaji
Satish Kalra
"Satish Kalra" <Satish...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1t6dnUmXUak...@comcast.com...
**** "...........ho.nTo.n pe......." ****. {This following Vinay's post re
'bindu' and 'chandrabindu'.}
> aa_o naa aa_o naa\threedots
>
> u:
> ab ko_ii duurii na ulajhana ko_ii
> bas ek iqaraar hai
> ab ham kahii.n naa tum ho kahii.n
**** " ab naa kahii.n ham naa tum ho kahii.n" ****
Vinay
news:ch5972$p0q$1...@news01.intel.com...
Just the kind of time when I anticipate Ketan's warning message :). Anyway,
I think this is a useful and relevant discussion for this group especially
in regards to the lyrics transcriptions. So I will try to answer.
sa.nyam, sa.nhaar and sa.nskaar *do* have a hard half-panchamaakshar sound.
Compare the pronunciations of sa.nyam with saa.Ny-saa.Ny, sa.nhaar with
chhaa.Nh and sa.nskaar with saa.Ns. You can clearly see the difference in
the sound of anuswaar v/s anunaasik (chandrabindu). So the reason these
words do not have a chandrabindu is that because they do not have the
anunaasik (nasalization) sound.
As for the actual sound of anuswaar (before ya, ra, la, va, sha, Sha, sa,
ha), let me refer to my grammar notes so that I don't generalise wrongly. It
says that..
The anuswaar has a..
..close to '~n' sound before 'ya' as in sa.nyam, sa.nyog.
..'m' sound before 'va' as in sa.nvat.
..close to '~N' sound before 'ha' as in si.nh, sa.nhaar.
..'n' sound before the rest as in sa.nrakshak, sa.nlagn, sa.nshay, sa.nsaar
Vinay
> Thanks,
>
> - Balaji
Abhay Jain
Vs.
> > "chandra bindu"!
> >
> Satish ji:
>
> Try this (as a rule of thumb).
>
> Remember that chandrabindu is for the anunaasik (nasal) sound. It is
> pronounced *with* a vowel.
> e.g.: a.Ndheraa, kahaa.N, u.Ngalii, jaauu.N. However, with vowels i, ii,
e,
> ai, o, au (maatraas that are palced on top of the line/shirorekhaa in
> Nagari), chandrabindu is replaced by anuswaar, simply because there's not
> enough space on the top to put a chandrabindu. Hence nahii.n, kahe.n,
hai.n,
> ho.n, au.ndhaa. Technically, writing nahii.N, kahe.N, ho.N, and au.Ndhaa
is
> also not wrong. But it's not prevalent.
>
> bindu or anuswaar, OTOH, is a representation of the half-panchamakshar
(~N,
> ~n, N, n, m) sounds. And it is pronounced *after* a vowel. Remember it
> simply as a replacement of the above five half-letters. e.g.: ra.ng,
> pa.ncham, Da.nDaa, ma.ndir, a.nbar.
> You can also write these as ra~Ng, pa~ncham, DaNDaa, mandir and ambar.
>
> HTH..
Wow. Learned something. Thanks Vinay.
AJ
>
> Vinay
>
> >
Surjit Singh
>>
>> How about the use of anuswaar in words like sa.nyam, sa.nhaar,
>> sa.nskaar etc? Shouldn't all that be chandrabindu?
>>
>
> Just the kind of time when I anticipate Ketan's warning message :).
I do not think he would mind as long as you keep choosing examples with
pa.ncham and DaNDaa in the same sentence :)
Sometimes you should Pankaj Malik and Noor Jehan too!
>
> Vinay
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
Visit my home page at
http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html
Balaji Murthy
> "Balaji Murthy" <bmu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ch5972$p0q$1...@news01.intel.com...
>
>> Vinay,
>>
>> How about the use of anuswaar in words like sa.nyam, sa.nhaar,
>> sa.nskaar etc? Shouldn't all that be chandrabindu?
>
> As for the actual sound of anuswaar (before ya, ra, la, va, sha, Sha,
> sa, ha), let me refer to my grammar notes so that I don't generalise
> wrongly. It says that..
>
> The anuswaar has a..
>
> ..close to '~n' sound before 'ya' as in sa.nyam, sa.nyog.
> ..'m' sound before 'va' as in sa.nvat.
> ..close to '~N' sound before 'ha' as in si.nh, sa.nhaar.
> ..'n' sound before the rest as in sa.nrakshak, sa.nlagn, sa.nshay, sa.nsaar
I still have some misgivings, but before we (need to) take this offline,
one last question. What is the closest approximate pronunciation when
the anuswaar is at the end of a word, e.g. swaya.n?
- Balaji
Vinay
I think this scenario is specific to some Sanskrit words only. And as far as
I can see, all anuswaars on the terminal "akaar" (I think you will only find
them with "akaars") has the sound of 'm' as is swayam, evam etc. But I am
not sure about it. There may be a simple rule about it and I may be looking
at it in a twisted manner. BTW, do you know of any Non-Sanskrit (non-tatsam)
word in Hindi that has an anuswaar (a 'real' one, not a replacement of
chandrabindu) on the terminal letter?
You can reply me offline.
Vinay
> - Balaji
lt
> I think this scenario is specific to some Sanskrit words only. And as far
as
> I can see, all anuswaars on the terminal "akaar" (I think you will only
find
> them with "akaars") has the sound of 'm' as is swayam, evam etc. But I am
> not sure about it. There may be a simple rule about it and I may be
looking
> at it in a twisted manner. BTW, do you know of any Non-Sanskrit
(non-tatsam)
> word in Hindi that has an anuswaar (a 'real' one, not a replacement of
> chandrabindu) on the terminal letter?
How about words in a different dialect like, "ajahu.n" as in "piya ajahu.n
na aae" ?
naniwadekar
"Vinay" <v...@hotmail.com> wrote -
>
> song, in which Asha goes.. shaharo.n ki galiyo.n me.n
> jab andheraa hotaa hai). However, the valid pronunciation
>
The primary purpose of that song wasn't to enunciate
the word 'andhera' properly but, to make a guess about
its picturisation, Asha returns to her home with a tightly
shut door from andheri galiyaaN. She gives the first
stab to the door on 'shaharon kii', next jab on 'jab' and
the final jerk on andhehhhraa~~. I think the music
directur has clevurly designed the tune to evoke this scene.
Silly jokes aside ...
>
> hmm.. you haven't done your homework properly. Try
> speaking both words loudly, or better still listen to them
> spoken by someone else ...
>
The problem is that most those, like me, who can't make out
whether 'guu.Nj' is half-nasalised or hard-nasalised on
hearing the word can't overcome the inability. I can't,
and will never be able to, make out 'guuNj vs guunj',
'k vs q', 'Kh vs kh', 'g vs G' by the ear. Not just me;
let me hide behind Kalra-ji (who is hiding behind you).
He grew up in UP-Delhi, watching Hindi Films 24 hours
(but blames his grammar teacher whose lessons he
must have bunked to watch SJ's films), and despite listening
to the Hindi-proficient and Urdu-proficient actors of those
days, he can't make out 'guuNj vs guunj' type issues either.
Some people seem to have the ear to detect things which
floor others.
- dn
Vinay
>
> "Vinay" <v...@hotmail.com> wrote -
>>
>> song, in which Asha goes.. shaharo.n ki galiyo.n me.n
>> jab andheraa hotaa hai). However, the valid pronunciation
>> and hence the valid written form is 'a.Ndheraa' ...
>>
>
> The primary purpose of that song wasn't to enunciate
> the word 'andhera' properly but, to make a guess about
> its picturisation, Asha returns to her home with a tightly
> shut door from andheri galiyaaN. She gives the first
> stab to the door on 'shaharon kii', next jab on 'jab' and
> the final jerk on andhehhhraa~~. I think the music
> directur has clevurly designed the tune to evoke this scene.
>
I did not mean to say that Asha or RDB is at fault. IMO, no body is. These
kind of liberties by music composers are not uncommon, nor unappreciated.
That was just to show how the word when written as andheraa or a.ndheraa
would sound as opposed to the normally correct pronunciation which is
written as a.Ndheraa.
But it was good to know that you could find at least one "clever" thing that
RD did :).
>
> Silly jokes aside ...
>
OK. Yes, silly jokes aside..
>>
>> hmm.. you haven't done your homework properly. Try
>> speaking both words loudly, or better still listen to them
>> spoken by someone else ...
>>
>
> The problem is that most those, like me, who can't make out
> whether 'guu.Nj' is half-nasalised or hard-nasalised on
> hearing the word can't overcome the inability. I can't,
> and will never be able to, make out 'guuNj vs guunj',
> 'k vs q', 'Kh vs kh', 'g vs G' by the ear. Not just me;
> let me hide behind Kalra-ji (who is hiding behind you).
> He grew up in UP-Delhi, watching Hindi Films 24 hours
> (but blames his grammar teacher whose lessons he
> must have bunked to watch SJ's films), and despite listening
> to the Hindi-proficient and Urdu-proficient actors of those
> days, he can't make out 'guuNj vs guunj' type issues either.
> Some people seem to have the ear to detect things which
> floor others.
>
>
I think you may have a point in some cases, the problem is not as big as it
seems to you in the cases we discussed. By definition, it is very natural,
easy and intuitive for a native speaker to be able to differentiate between
the sounds of its words, in most case even without knowing. And I think
guu.Nj/gu.njan should actually be a very easy case even for a non-native
speaker. If it helps, guu.Nj has the french nasal sound or sound similar to
the one in words such as muu.Ng. While gu.njan's anuswaar sound would be
similar to ka.nchan, pa.ncham (kyaa karuu.N.. you asked for it).
I don't think Kalra ji has any problem differentiating between the sounds of
anuswaar/chandrabindu in guu.Nj/gu.njan. He was just not sure about where to
apply these symbols while writing. The two are different things. The writing
confusion, to a large extent, is caused by replacement of chandrabindu with
anuswaar on some maatraas (for writing efficiency or aesthetic concerns or
whatever). That's why the idea and suggestion that the learners should be
taught to always use chandrabindu when it is meant even on maatraas written
on top of the line, has some weight. <Digression check..>
I know these kind of things are more easier to explain in person (using
voice) than just by writing. But I would be glad to answer any more
questions if you have. Write me offline.
Vinay
> - dn
>
>
>
Satish Kalra
> >
> > song, in which Asha goes.. shaharo.n ki galiyo.n me.n
> > jab andheraa hotaa hai). However, the valid pronunciation
> > and hence the valid written form is 'a.Ndheraa' ...
> >
>
> The primary purpose of that song wasn't to enunciate
> the word 'andhera' properly but, to make a guess about
> its picturisation, Asha returns to her home with a tightly
> shut door from andheri galiyaaN. She gives the first
> stab to the door on 'shaharon kii', next jab on 'jab' and
> the final jerk on andhehhhraa~~. I think the music
> directur has clevurly designed the tune to evoke this scene.
>
>
> Silly jokes aside ...
>
> >
> > hmm.. you haven't done your homework properly. Try
> > speaking both words loudly, or better still listen to them
> > spoken by someone else ...
> >
>
> The problem is that most those, like me, who can't make out
> whether 'guu.Nj' is half-nasalised or hard-nasalised on
> hearing the word can't overcome the inability. I can't,
> and will never be able to, make out 'guuNj vs guunj',
> 'k vs q', 'Kh vs kh', 'g vs G' by the ear. Not just me;
> let me hide behind Kalra-ji (who is hiding behind you).
> He grew up in UP-Delhi, watching Hindi Films 24 hours
> (but blames his grammar teacher whose lessons he
> must have bunked to watch SJ's films),
Nani: You could have been a great fore-teller. :-)
>and despite listening
> to the Hindi-proficient and Urdu-proficient actors of those
> days, he can't make out 'guuNj vs guunj' type issues either.
> Some people seem to have the ear to detect things which
> floor others.
Jokes apart, yes, for me, it is easier to make out the spoken word (most of
the times), but when writing/iTransing, ".n" Vs. ".N" was/is more
problemtic for me.
Vinay's lessons have been more educative than all those shcool teachers who
never let us question anything and/or never gave any examples to illustrate
what Vinay has been able to do so simply.
Now, to make this post more RMIM related, how many times do the words "ra.ng
de" appear in the T(h)akshak (1999) song "rang de mujhe rang de mujhe rang
de rang de mujhe rang de..."?
Ket...@att.net
>Vinay's lessons have been more educative than all those shcool teachers who
>never let us question anything and/or never gave any examples to illustrate
>what Vinay has been able to do so simply.
>
>Now, to make this post more RMIM related, how many times do the words "ra.ng
>de" appear in the T(h)akshak (1999) song "rang de mujhe rang de mujhe rang
>de rang de mujhe rang de..."?
Hmm...just because your school teachers never let you question things, does not
mean you keep asking the same question. :)
You have asked this question on March 2nd and on April 26th 2004, and the last
time you said "you gave up counting with the meter running at 192". You have
also brought in this very same question in the past, exactly when you made an
off-topic post, or contributed to an off-topic thread. I don't think it is
necessary to bend over backwards to make a post relevant to RMIM, by bringing in
questions just for the heck of it. If you feel guilty, writing an off-topic
post, well don't write it. I don't see you having done anything wrong in this
post, so why try and wrench it back to make it RMIM related, with an inane
question?
Ketan
Ketan
Vinay
LT:
The word has an anunaasik sound and therefore a chandrabindu is put
over 'hu', making the written word as ajahu.N. That some people write
anuswaar instead of a chandrabindu does not alter the pronunciation.
Vinay
V S Rawat वी एस रावत
how come Vinay's clarification did not make it clear that
both "yaa.n" should be "yaa.N"
it was already clarified that ii should be i in both.
also, when, in the first it is "shah(a)naa_iyaa.N", then the
second word should also be "tan(a)haa_iyaa.N" to match the
meter.
>> sab gaate hai.n sab hii madahosh hai.n ham tum kyo.n
>> Kaamosha hai.n saaze dil chhe.Do naa chup ho kyo.n gaao
>> naa aa_o naa, aa_o naa, aa_o naa, aa_o naa
>>
>> tan man me.n kyo.n aisii dahakii hu_ii Tha.nDii sii ik
>> aag hai
when the half of fifth letter of any set is letter is put as
a bindu at the top, only the representation changes, not the
sound of it.
Several people, including Vinay are having the habit of
using .n in all those five cases for (~n, ~N, N, n and m).
When software translates that and gives bindi in devanagari
that will be clearly legible.
But, as most people never go to read it in devanagari and
manage only with reading in english itrans, it becomes a big
deterrent to approximate that .n to five different sound,
and it becomes even more highlighted when m is coded as .n
like kampan -> ka.npan
In the above line, Tha.nDii could be written as ThaNDii for
ease of reading.
>> ho saa.Nso.n me.n hai kaisii ye raaginii dha.Dakan me.n
>> kyaa raag hai ye hu_aa kyaa hame.n hamako samajhaa_o
>> naa sab gaate hai.n sab hii madahosh hai.n ham tum
>> kyo.n Kaamosh hai.n dil me.n jo baate.n hai.n ho.NTo.n
>> pe laa_o naa
>
>
> **** "...........ho.nTo.n pe......." ****. {This
> following Vinay's post re 'bindu' and 'chandrabindu'.}
oops! ho.nTho.n
Afzal saab might clarify whether it is ho.nT in urdu?
>> aa_o naa aa_o naa\threedots
>>
>> u: ab ko_ii duurii na ulajhana ko_ii bas ek iqaraar hai
>>
iqaraar? not sure.
>> ab ham kahii.n naa tum ho kahii.n
>
>
> **** " ab naa kahii.n ham naa tum ho kahii.n" ****
>
>
>> bas pyaar hii pyaar hai sun sako dha.Dakane.n itane
>> paas aa_o na sab gaate hai.n sab hii madahosh hai.n ham
>> tum kyo.n Kaamosh hai.n ab mere sapano.n pe tum hii tum
>> chhaa_o na aa_o naa aa_o naa\threedots
--
Rawat
naniwadekar
"V S Rawat wrote -
>
> when the half of fifth letter of any set is letter is put as
> a bindu at the top, only the representation changes, not the
> sound of it.
>
> Several people, including Vinay are having the habit of
> using .n in all those five cases for (~n, ~N, N, n and m).
>
> When software translates that and gives bindi in devanagari
> that will be clearly legible.
>
> But, as most people never go to read it in devanagari and
> manage only with reading in english itrans, it becomes a big
> deterrent to approximate that .n to five different sound,
> and it becomes even more highlighted when m is coded as .n
> like kampan -> ka.npan
>
Big deterrent? You cannot just approximate .n to any of the
five different sounds even if you tried, let alone inadvertantly.
Try pronouncing ka.npan as kanpan (instead of kampan)
or ra.ng as raNg (instead of ra~Ng). But, for p-varga
consonants, it might be a better idea to use half-m and
avoid '.n' representation. (iTrans engine has a bug because
of which it cannot process '.m' as anuswar, IIRC.)
The five different anuswar sounds are not associated at
random with their sets. For instance, in the labial anuswar
in kampan, the anuswar is pronounced with closed lips
and the labial mode is extended to completing the
associated 'p' before lips are allowed to part. Every
anuswar qua anuswar is a half-letter. n and m exist
independently, too, and so may ~N in a rare word like
vaa~N_may. But the point about anuswar is that
it is pronounced in the same manner as the attached
(succeeding) letter and that mode of pronounciation
is moved away from after completing the anuswar plus
the attached letter in one go. Try to separate your tongue
from your dant between pronouncing half-n and t in the
word dant and you will know you just can't pronounce
the word in any way except one.
- dn
naniwadekar
"Satish Kalra" <Satish...@comcast.net> wrote -
>
> Vinay's lessons have been more educative than all those shcool teachers
who
> never let us question anything and/or never gave any examples to
illustrate
> what Vinay has been able to do so simply.
>
I don't deny that Vinay's lesson provides good pointers
towards understanding the difference between chandrabindu
and anuswar but it doesn't solve the mystery for good (not
Vinay's fault) for people who have had doubts. That is why
I set a quiz for you. Through observation and lot of help
from UVR, I now have a much better idea. I had never used
chandrabindu in my life, I think, before reading discussions
related to it on rmim.
Note to Vinay - Thanks for your offer to provide
further instruction. I will take it up if and when I feel
I can put it to good use (which probably means : never).
- dn
Satish Kalra
> In article <p56dnfbcIpi...@comcast.com>, Satish Kalra says...
>
> >Vinay's lessons have been more educative than all those shcool teachers
who
> >never let us question anything and/or never gave any examples to
illustrate
> >what Vinay has been able to do so simply.
> >
> >Now, to make this post more RMIM related, how many times do the words
"ra.ng
> >de" appear in the T(h)akshak (1999) song "rang de mujhe rang de mujhe
rang
> >de rang de mujhe rang de..."?
>
>
> Hmm...just because your school teachers never let you question things,
does not
> mean you keep asking the same question. :)
>
> You have asked this question on March 2nd and on April 26th 2004, and the
last
> time you said "you gave up counting with the meter running at 192". You
have
> also brought in this very same question in the past, exactly when you made
an
> off-topic post, or contributed to an off-topic thread.
I am sure I have asked this question even before, as you said, but it does
not mean I can't ask it again. And there is even more reason to do so since
the exact answer is still unknown. If I gave up at the count of 192 does
not mean no one else can't count higher than that. :)
V S Rawat वी एस रावत
> Try this (as a rule of thumb).
>
> Remember that chandrabindu is for the anunaasik (nasal) sound. It is
> pronounced *with* a vowel.
> e.g.: a.Ndheraa, kahaa.N, u.Ngalii, jaauu.N. However, with vowels i, ii,
> e, ai, o, au (maatraas that are palced on top of the line/shirorekhaa in
> Nagari), chandrabindu is replaced by anuswaar, simply because there's
> not enough space on the top to put a chandrabindu. Hence nahii.n,
> kahe.n, hai.n, ho.n, au.ndhaa. Technically, writing nahii.N, kahe.N,
> ho.N, and au.Ndhaa is also not wrong. But it's not prevalent.
>
> bindu or anuswaar, OTOH, is a representation of the half-panchamakshar
> (~N, ~n, N, n, m) sounds. And it is pronounced *after* a vowel. Remember
> it simply as a replacement of the above five half-letters. e.g.: ra.ng,
> pa.ncham, Da.nDaa, ma.ndir, a.nbar.
> You can also write these as ra~Ng, pa~ncham, DaNDaa, mandir and ambar.
>
apart from .n and .N, iTRANS recognises one code for .c
which is devanagari ardhchandra ॅ
I have seen this used mostly in in engish word, e.g.
form (faa.crm)
doctor (Daa.cTar)
I am not able to recall anything from my school days which
used this symbol. Could someone give some examples of
originally hindi words using it.
I wonder whether this is a recent addition to hindi.
-------------------
Over to urdu.
Urdu script has
nuun ن for devanagari m
miim م for devanagari n
nuun-e-Gunnaa (gunnaa?) ں for devangari .n
The first thing that comes to notice is that there is no
symbol for devanagari ardhchandra ॅ Thus, form gets written
as فارم which would read as faarm
I think that automatically excludes sounds equivalent to
devangari chandrabindu ँ
thus, in urdu, mother (maa.N ) is written as ماں which would
read as maa.n
Is a urdu speaker prnouncing maa.N will be sounding
different from hindi speaker sounding maa.N
When urdu/ arabic based words are adapted in hindi, how is
this discrepancy handled? Does the .n sound is changed to .N
as per the already defined rules of hindi?
About .n, in Tabish's u-trans page about ArabTeX he mentions
--------quote
Nasalizations are inducated by nun-e-gunnah, coded as .n:
mae.n ﻣﹷﻴﮟ
ba.ngAl ﺑﹷﻨﮕﺎﻝ
--------quote end
Even after conceeding that ba.ngAl has nasalisation, he
writes ba.ngAl with nuun whereas it should have been written
as nuun-e-gunnaa as per his above statement.
Why is it so?
Further I have seen nuun-e-Gunnaa used only at the end of
some basic word like jaa_uu.N, though if such a word is
extended then nuun-e-gunnaa comes at the middle as in
jaa_uu.Ngaa. Otherwise I have not seen nuun-e-gunnaa used in
the middle of a word.
Thus, ha.ns (swan) and ha.Ns (laugh) both will get written
with nuun instead of nuun-e-gunnaa.
The difficulty comes with nuun getting used for ~N ~n N n m
as well as as for .n. whereas five sounds are almost similar
and in the broad category of n sound, the m sound is totally
different. Thus, when I try to transliterate from hindi to
urdu, while processing . used for five ending forms, I have
to filter out m which gets translated to miim, and then all
remaining forms translate to nuun.
Any clarification on the above, or any help in simplifying
the above is welcome.
--
Rawat
UVR
>
> Urdu script has
>
> nuun ن for devanagari m
> miim م for devanagari n
> nuun-e-Gunnaa (gunnaa?) ں for devangari .n
"nuun Ghunna" (not gunnaa) is the equivalent of .N
The equivalent of .n is "nuun mu'allan".
As far as the script goes, there is no separate medial
character for nuun Ghunna -- it uses the same symbol as
the 'regular' nuun. Thus, a.ndhiyaaraa, aa.Ndhii and
bhanak are all written with the same 'n' character.
Yes, it's confusing. No, it's not the only script with
such a problem.
> I think that automatically excludes sounds equivalent to devangari
> chandrabindu ँ
No, it does not. Don't confuse the script with the
language. The fact that a script does not have the
ability to represent a sound does not automatically
mean that the sound does not exist in the language
that script represents.
> thus, in urdu, mother (maa.N ) is written as ماں which would read as maa.n
>
> Is a urdu speaker prnouncing maa.N will be sounding different from hindi
> speaker sounding maa.N
No, because in Urdu maa.N is written as maa.N and
pronounced as maa.N. aa.Ngan is written as aa.ngan
and pronounced aa.Ngan.
> When urdu/ arabic based words are adapted in hindi, how is this
> discrepancy handled? Does the .n sound is changed to .N as per the
> already defined rules of hindi?
There is no discrepancy.
> Even after conceeding that ba.ngAl has nasalisation, he writes ba.ngAl
> with nuun whereas it should have been written as nuun-e-gunnaa as per
> his above statement.
>
> Why is it so?
See above.
> Further I have seen nuun-e-Gunnaa used only at the end of some basic
> word like jaa_uu.N, though if such a word is extended then nuun-e-gunnaa
> comes at the middle as in jaa_uu.Ngaa. Otherwise I have not seen
> nuun-e-gunnaa used in the middle of a word.
Your observation is accurate.
> Thus, ha.ns (swan) and ha.Ns (laugh) both will get written with nuun
> instead of nuun-e-gunnaa.
Correct.
> The difficulty comes with nuun getting used for ~N ~n N n m as well as
> as for .n. whereas five sounds are almost similar and in the broad
> category of n sound, the m sound is totally different. Thus, when I try
> to transliterate from hindi to urdu, while processing . used for five
> ending forms, I have to filter out m which gets translated to miim, and
> then all remaining forms translate to nuun.
Ok, but what I don't understand is, where exactly do you need
to replace .n with 'miim'? I can't think of a single instance.
Can you give an example?
> Any clarification on the above, or any help in simplifying the above is
> welcome.
Hope the above helps. If not, please ask.
-UVR.
V S Rawat वी एस रावत
> "nuun Ghunna" (not gunnaa) is the equivalent of .N The
> equivalent of .n is "nuun mu'allan".
Actually I am reading about this "nuun mu'allan" for the
first time. What is the unicode code of this? What is its
symbol?
> As far as the script goes, there is no separate medial
> character for nuun Ghunna -- it uses the same symbol as
> the 'regular' nuun. Thus, a.ndhiyaaraa, aa.Ndhii and
> bhanak are all written with the same 'n' character. Yes,
> it's confusing. No, it's not the only script with such a
> problem.
I have seen nuun Ghunnaa as a "nuun without the dot".
You are right that it does not have "jointed" forms. Even
if it comes in the middle as in "khaa_uu.ngaa", it has
standalone representation.
>> I think that automatically excludes sounds equivalent
>> to devangari chandrabindu ँ
>
> No, it does not. Don't confuse the script with the
> language. The fact that a script does not have the
> ability to represent a sound does not automatically mean
> that the sound does not exist in the language that script
> represents.
Whatever sounds are there in a script, there should be
letters/ symbols for representing it and at least some valid
words should be there which use such letters/ symbols/ sounds.
Urdu owes its creation to the lack of indian letters/ sounds
in arabic language/ script. all those dochashmii letters
and many more were not there is arabic, but needed in indian
languages.
Interesting I was glancing through a primer on Arabic, and
found that it did not show chhoTii yeh used as the sound of
"e" (der, ek), nor did it have ba.Dii yeh at all.
If some sound is there in a language but there is no letter/
symbol to denote it, how will this sound pass on through
generations, and how will words be formed using this
sound.
>> thus, in urdu, mother (maa.N ) is written as ماں which
>> would read as maa.n
>>
>> Is a urdu speaker prnouncing maa.N will be sounding
>> different from hindi speaker sounding maa.N
>
>
> No, because in Urdu maa.N is written as maa.N and
> pronounced as maa.N. aa.Ngan is written as aa.ngan and
> pronounced aa.Ngan.
as you stated that .N is written as Ghunna and .n is written
as nuun, the above is now clear to me. I was not aware of that.
>> Even after conceeding that ba.ngAl has nasalisation, he
>> writes ba.ngAl with nuun whereas it should have been
>> written as nuun-e-gunnaa as per his above statement.
>>
>> Why is it so?
>
> See above.
I think, there are some errors in the u-trans page of
Tabish. e.g he writes paudhaa as pauda (ending small a)
where as he writes jaesA with an ending capital A.
Further, he writes hamzaa before the letter,
^cA'E ﭼﺎﺋﮯ
kO'I ﻛﻮﺋﹻﯽ
jA'O ﺟﺎﺋﻮ
whereas I have seen hamzaa after the letters.
Is there any other site which can give more idea of ArabTeX.
>> The difficulty comes with nuun getting used for ~N ~n N
>> n m as well as as for .n. whereas five sounds are
>> almost similar and in the broad category of n sound,
>> the m sound is totally different. Thus, when I try to
>> transliterate from hindi to urdu, while processing .
>> used for five ending forms, I have to filter out m
>> which gets translated to miim, and then all remaining
>> forms translate to nuun.
>
>
> Ok, but what I don't understand is, where exactly do you
> need to replace .n with 'miim'? I can't think of a
> single instance. Can you give an example?
I am talking about transliterating devanagari script to urdu
script. .n of devanagari does not become .n of urdu. I need
to separate the instances like ka.npan where .n becomes m
And then, ka.ngan ka.nchan etc become nuun.
>> Any clarification on the above, or any help in
>> simplifying the above is welcome.
Sure.
To begin with, tabish's utrans site mentions tanviin (as
double zabar) represented by aN to give nasalization.
tqrIbaN ﺗﻘﺮﹺﻳﺒﹷﴼ
faoraN ﻓﹷﻮﺭﹶﴽ
how is this nasalization different from .n or .N
nasazlization represented by nuun or Ghunnaa?
I don't know how well you are conversant with arabic also. I
am not.
In Arabic, Tanween is not a letter/ symbol but a concept
called nutation and there are three methods to get it.
fathah (zabar in arabic) doubled to give a.n
kasrah (zer in arabic) doubled to give i.n
dammah (pesh in arabic) doubled to give u.n
tabish's tanviin seems to be fathah doubled.
how can these be seen in terms of .n .N nuun or Ghunnaa.
> Hope the above helps. If not, please ask.
thanks.
Studying urdu till now has made it clear to me that we can't
have urdu in iTrans just the way we have hindi and other
indian languages in it.
In indian language a letter/ symbol has exactly one sound
everywhere it is used. thus devangari "a" will remain "a"
wherever it is used.
This is not the case with urdu. The same letter/ symbol
gives different sounds depending of where in the word it is
being used, e.g. alif at the beginning of a word has one
sound and alif in the rest of word has different sound.
Further, what is prefixed or suffixed to that letter also
modifies its sound, e.g. chhoTii yeh modifies the sounds (or
its sound is modified) when it is used before a vowel
(becomes wa) or after zabar (becomes ai), or after zer
(becomes (ii) or after wow (becomes (au) or a hamzaa is put
after it.
That means we can't really have urdu in itrans in the
current sense of itrans. Three possibility come to mind:-
1. we create english symbols for each urdu letter so that
there is one to one transliteration between them to generate
urdu script. Anybody converting that to indian languages
will have to do the entire translitration on the fly.
2. We first convert urdu to some indian language, and then
write that in itrans just like current indian languages are
written. We will have to add additional codes in iTrans to
represent those additional letters (five z, etc.) of urdu.
In that case, Anybody needing to read that in urdu will need
to transliterate from indian languages to urdu on the fly.
3. intermixes the two, like ArabTeX. In ArabTeX, there are
mostly one to one english symbols for each urdu letter, but
there is some mix up, e.g., alif used at the beginning of
word is represented by "a", whereas alif used in the middle/
end of word giving the sound of "aa" is written as "A", and
zabar also is written as "a".
Which of the three (or any other that you can think of)
methods would people find most convenient?
----------------
Though discussion about Itrans can't be off topic on this
ng, but it can be boring for many people.
so, one piece of information that people might find interesting.
In older songs, you might have seen constructions like
"jaavo-jaavo" or "gaavuu.n" where this "v" is quite clear.
If you were wondering about such words, the scripting style
of urdu "created" these words. These are not found in indian
languages.
If you write "aa_o" or "gaa_uu.n" in hindi, and
transliterate that to urdu, you will find that alif or
alif-madd is appearing in urdu and then "o" or "uu" is
appearing. Urdu does not not allow successive vowels thus
you need to insert a "wow" in between.
thus j + aa + o becomes j + aa + wow + o
thus ga + aa + uu + .n becomes ga + aa + wow + hamzaa + .n
people fluent in urdu will be able to mentally convert that
wow or hamzaa and read it correctly, but, urdu itself has
possibility of "vo" or "wow + hamzaa" construction, thus,
anyone not that conversant to urdu is not able to understand
to drop those "wow' etc, and ends up reading that as "jaavo"
or "gaavuu.n" or hu_aa as huwaa.
Thus, whenever you find such words in a hindi film song, you
can conclude that
1. the singer was reading the lyrics written in urdu script,
2. he/ she was not really fluent in urdu script. :)
-----------
Then comes the confusion in names. due to chhoTii yeh and
wow used as letters ya and wa, respectively, as well as
various vowel sounds.
In urdu words of normal usage, people memorize everything
and pronounce correctly, but the problem comes when hindi
proper nouns (names) come written in urdu.
Thus, the way gaa.ndhii was pronounced as geNDhaa_ii by that
angrez in that film, people end up pronounce bhagawatii as
bhagotii, or sevak as sayawak.
Not to mention the modification due to
1. preactice of dropping zabar, zer, pesh in urdu.
2. no equivalent of halant in urdu. Of course there is a jzm
or sukun defined in unicode for arabic, I wonder why that
was not adapted to urdu.
Surprisingly and interestingly there is one tatwiil (denoted
by dash or underline) in arabic which can be said equivalent
to avagrah .a (that ulTaa s).
>
> -UVR.
--
Rawat
UVR
Rawat,
It is my opinion that this particular discussion has no relevance
to RMIM. I will not participate in this RMIM thread any more.
-UVR.