अंतहीन अभीष्ट
शैलेश भारतवासी
पहुँच जाते हैं शब्द
अभीष्ट तक।
अंतहीन अभीष्ट......
बहुत अज़ीब बात है,
कुछ मायनों में
बेदुरूस्त शै भी
क़रीने से ज़्यादा
खूबसूरत और लाज़बाब होती है।
हर बार एक ही
आयोजन व प्रयोजन।
थकने की सोचना भी
वफ़ाई की दीवार है।
रोज़ दराज़ों से निकाल-निकाल
कर
ख़्वाब,
सजाता रहता हूँ क़ाग़ज़ी
फ़र्श पे।
रंगीन सितारों से जलाता
रहता हूँ
आशा और प्रतिआशा का दीया।
सुबह का सूरज
और फिर
रात का चाँद।
हर बार यूँही आते भी हैं
और जाते भी।
दराज़ों का खुलना
और बंद होना भी है
जैसे
अंतहीन अभीष्ट।
अंतहीन अभीष्ट......
For More Poems- http://merikavitayen.blogspot.com/
narayan prasad
आप कैसे संदेश भेजते हैं कि मुझे एक पंक्ति में केवल २ या ३ शब्द ही दिखाई देते हैं । संदेश पढ़ने का सारा मजा ही किरकिरा हो जाता है । ऐसे संदेश सामान्यतः मैं पढ़ता ही नहीं ।
लिखते-लिखते
पहुँच जाते हैं शब्द
अभीष्ट तक।
अंतहीन अभीष्ट......
बहुत अज़ीब बात है,
कुछ मायनों में
बेदुरूस्त शै भी
क़रीने से ज़्यादा
...............
Yahoo! Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing.
akshay.bakaya
Shailendra Mudgal
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/platts/
regards,
shailendra
रमण
जगह अनावश्यक नुक़्तों का
प्रयोग हुआ है। जहाँ पक्का
मालूम न हो वहाँ नुक़्ता
प्रयोग न करें। अक्षय जी का
संदेश पढ़ें। समय मिले तो
मेरा लेख (http://www.kaulonline.com/chittha/?p=138)
भी पढ़ें।
अक्षय जी, आप का सुझाव अच्छा
है कि हिन्दी अंग्रेज़ी
शब्दकोश से भी सलाह ली जा
सकती है। पर यदि आप को मेरे
लेख से यह लगा कि मैं ने जलील
को ज़लील का सही रूप बताया
है, तो आप ग़लत समझे हैं। मैं
ने यह लिखा है कि "कई हिन्दी
भाषी उत्साह में (लिखने या
बोलने में) वहाँ भी ज़ की
आवाज़ निकालते हैं जहाँ ज की
आवाज़ आनी चाहिए - जैसे जलील
की जगह ज़लील.."। उस का मतलब
यह नहीं कि ज़लील अपने आप
में शब्द नहीं है। और फिर यह
भी लिखा है कि "ऐसी ग़लती से
बचना चाहिए, क्योंकि इस से
शब्द का अर्थ ही बदल सकता
है"। और क्या घालमेल लिखा है,
उस के बारे में कृपया बताएँ।
नारायण जी, कृपया धीरज धरें।
शैलेश जी ने कविता लिखी है।
:-)
आप के संदेश अभी भी कई बार
बिगड़े हुए दिखते हैं, हो
सके तो जीमेल का प्रयोग कर
के संदेश भेजें, या गूगल
समूह की साइट से भेजें।
narayan prasad wrote:
> शैलेश जी,
> आप कैसे संदेश भेजते हैं कि मुझे एक पंक्ति में केवल २ या ३ शब्द ही दिखाई देते हैं । संदेश पढ़ने का सारा मजा ही किरकिरा हो जाता है । ऐसे संदेश सामान्यतः मैं पढ़ता ही नहीं ।
> --- नारायण प्रसाद
>
> शैलेश भारतवासी <bharat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> लिखते-लिखते
> पहुँच जाते हैं शब्द
> अभीष्ट तक।
> अंतहीन अभीष्ट......
>
> बहुत अज़ीब बात है,
> कुछ मायनों में
> बेदुरूस्त शै भी
> क़रीने से ज़्यादा
> ...............
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
रमण
Sorry for the typo in title (Akshay - Akshar).
Narayan ji, please don't be turned off by the length of lines in these
messages. Many people prefer to send messages in plain text rather than
HTML, and google/yahoo automatically restricts the length of the line.
Nobody presses an <enter> after writing 2-3 words.
Anunad Singh
शैलेश भारतवासी
रमण जी माफ कीजिएगा।
यह पहली बार है कि नुक़्तों के प्रयोग में गड़बड़ी है।
हुआ यह कि यह कविता पहले से टंकित थी, मैंने पोस्ट करने से पहले प्रूफ रीडिंग नहीं किया, आमतौर पर ऐसा नहीं होता है। मैं सदैव हरदेव बाहरी जी के हिन्दी-हिन्दी शब्दकोश से सत्यापन के उपरांत ही शब्दों का टंकण करता हूँ।
वैसे शुद्ध शब्द यह होगा-
काग़ज़ ना कि क़ाग़ज़
लाजबाब ना कि लाज़बाब
अजीब ना कि अज़ीब।
भाषा प्रेमी मुझे क्षमा करें।
narayan prasad
रमण जी माफ कीजिएगा।
यह पहली बार है कि नुक़्तों के प्रयोग में गड़बड़ी है।
हुआ यह कि यह कविता पहले से टंकित थी, मैंने पोस्ट करने से पहले प्रूफ रीडिंग नहीं किया, आमतौर पर ऐसा नहीं होता है। मैं सदैव हरदेव बाहरी जी के हिन्दी-हिन्दी शब्दकोश से सत्यापन के उपरांत ही शब्दों का टंकण करता हूँ।
वैसे शुद्ध शब्द यह होगा-काग़ज़ ना कि क़ाग़ज़लाजबाब ना कि लाज़बाबअजीब ना कि अज़ीब।भाषा प्रेमी मुझे क्षमा करें।
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
शैलेश भारतवासी
नारायण जी,
बिना नुक़्ता लगाये हिन्दी और उर्दू के कई शब्दों के मूल का विभेदन मुश्किल है, कई बार उच्चारण का भी।
नुक़्ता इसलिए भी लगाये जाते हैं क्योंकि अरबी/फारसी की यह पाँच ध्वनियाँ हिन्दी में भी हैं।
और अंग्रेजी उच्चारण को हिन्दी में लिखना बिना नुक़्ता प्रयोग के तो बहुत मुश्किल हो जायेगा।
आगत शब्दों के साथ यह अतिरिक्त भार भी हर भाषा मे आ जाता है।
narayan prasad
नारायण जी,बिना नुक़्ता लगाये हिन्दी और उर्दू के कई शब्दों के मूल का विभेदन मुश्किल है, कई बार उच्चारण का भी।
नुक़्ता इसलिए भी लगाये जाते हैं क्योंकि अरबी/फारसी की यह पाँच ध्वनियाँ हिन्दी में भी हैं।
और अंग्रेजी उच्चारण को हिन्दी में लिखना बिना नुक़्ता प्रयोग के तो बहुत मुश्किल हो जायेगा।
आगत शब्दों के साथ यह अतिरिक्त भार भी हर भाषा मे आ जाता है।
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
Rose Alford
नारायण जी,बिना नॠक़ॠता लगाये हिनॠदी और उरॠदू के कई शबॠदों के मूल का विà¤à¥‡à¤¦à¤¨ मॠशॠकिल है, कई बार उचॠचारण का à¤à¥€à¥¤
नॠक़ॠता इसलिठà¤à¥€ लगाये जाते हैं कॠयोंकि अरबी/फारसी की यह पाठच धॠवनियाठहिनॠदी में à¤à¥€ हैं।
और अंगॠरेजी उचॠचारण को हिनॠदी में लिखना बिना नॠक़ॠता पॠरयोग के तो बहॠत मॠशॠकिल हो जायेगा।
आगत शबॠदों के साथ यह अतिरिकॠत à¤à¤¾à¤° à¤à¥€ हर à¤à¤¾à¤·à¤¾ मे आ जाता है।
On 20/12/06, narayan prasad <prasad...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
मेरा तो विचार यह है कि नॠकॠता के पचड़े में देवनागरी उरॠदू लिखनेवालों को ही पड़ना चाहिठ। हिनॠदी लिखते समय नॠकॠता को ताक पर रख देना चाहिठ।
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
रमण
I can understand your confusion - but in India you will have to get
used to not only reading such words as "biji", but *hearing* words like
"ij" (is), "hij" (his) and "joo" (zoo), and of course "gajal". Most
Indians grow up with not learning the "z" sound - unless they have
early exposure to good Urdu or English. Actually I am curious to know
what it's phonetic similarily with the "j" sound is, because these
sounds do seem quite apart. So, it is not that they don't take the
trouble of putting that dot. This is how some people pronounce it - or
are not sure whether the dot belongs there or not -- in the same manner
that many Hindi sounds do not come naturally to non-Hindi speakers. As
a non-native Hindi speaker, it took me a while to learn the घ, झ,
ध, ढ and a number of other consonants.
- Raman
Rose Alford wrote:
> One time I was reading this word "बिजी" and I could not figure out for a long time what the word was, until I realized it was just "busy" and I had a good laugh. Now I am use to this type of bakvaas, but think of the trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi if they had just put that little dot under the ज.
>
>
>
>
>
> शैलेश भारतवासी <bharat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> नारायण जी,
> बिना नॠक़ॠता लगाये हिनॠदी और उरॠदू के कई शबॠदों के मूल का विभेदन मॠशॠकिल है, कई बार उचॠचारण का भी।
> नॠक़ॠता इसलिठ भी लगाये जाते हैं कॠयोंकि अरबी/फारसी की यह पाठच धॠवनियाठ हिनॠदी में भी हैं।
> और अंगॠरेजी उचॠचारण को हिनॠदी में लिखना बिना नॠक़ॠता पॠरयोग के तो बहॠत मॠशॠकिल हो जायेगा।
> आगत शबॠदों के साथ यह अतिरिकॠत भार भी हर भाषा मे आ जाता है।
>
> On 20/12/06, narayan prasad <prasad...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: मेरा तो विचार यह है कि नॠकॠता के पचड़े में देवनागरी उरॠदू लिखनेवालों को ही पड़ना चाहिठ । हिनॠदी लिखते समय नॠकॠता को ताक पर रख देना चाहिठ ।
Agastya Kohli / अगस्त्य कोहली
For example, I was taught to differentiate between फ and फ़, and ज and ज़. But the difference between क and क़. ग and ग़, and ख and ख़ were not emphasized, and their interchangeable use was not corrected. Why? I don't know. But now, I correct j and z usage for my students, but I couldn't careless if they say/write गलत instead of ग़लत.
Raman ji - your point about similarities between j and z phonetically is interesting, and I would argue that these "interchangabilities" are a result of devanaagarii using a ज plus a नुक्ता to denote z (and फ plus a नुक्ता for f). The natural tendancies in most languages (including Hindi) are to interchange j and y (or sometimes i) - यमुना and जमुना is a more natural (and widespread) phonetic indifference. All of Scandinavia uses "J" and pronounces it as a "Y". Hebrew name for God is spelt with an "i" (pronounced with a J).
Similarly R and L are interchangable sounds in a lot of languages... But because of roman's inability, now र has started to replace ड़ even for some hindi speakers... just like devanaagarii's original "limitation" caused the j/z, ph/f, k/q etc. ambiguity - I speculate.
रमण
कोहली" <agast...@gmail.com> wrote:
Agastya, thanks for your message.
> It is also a matter of ambiguous levels of "accptance".
I agree.
>
>
> Raman ji - your point about similarities between j and z phonetically is
> interesting, and I would argue that these "interchangabilities" are a result
> of devanaagarii using a ज plus a नुक्ता to denote z
I don't think it is a result of the script. I think it is somehow part
of our phonetics (if that means anything), because even people who
don't read default to a j for z. Even a kid जो
तुतलाता है (what is the English) is likely to do
this.
> (and फ plus a नुक्ता for f).
I don't know if f and ph are pronounced differently in English. Are
these? In Urdu, of course the difference is there betwen "fe" (फ़)
and "pe+dochashm" (फ).
> The natural tendancies in most languages (including Hindi) are to
> interchange j and y (or sometimes i) - यमुना and जमुना is a more natural
> (and widespread) phonetic indifference. All of Scandinavia uses "J" and
> pronounces it as a "Y". Hebrew name for God is spelt with an "i" (pronounced
> with a J).
Yes, Germans also pronouce J as Y (Japan=यापान). And what
about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेसुस,
Jose=होज़े. These things never stop fascinating me.
>
> Similarly R and L are interchangable sounds in a lot of languages... But
> because of roman's inability, now र has started to replace ड़ even for some
> hindi speakers... just like devanaagarii's original "limitation" caused the
> j/z, ph/f, k/q etc. ambiguity - I speculate.
>
> On 12/20/06, रमण <raman.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rose,
> > I can understand your confusion - but in India you will have to get
> > used to not only reading such words as "biji", but *hearing* words like
> > "ij" (is), "hij" (his) and "joo" (zoo), and of course "gajal". Most
> > Indians grow up with not learning the "z" sound - unless they have
> > early exposure to good Urdu or English. Actually I am curious to know
> > what it's phonetic similarily with the "j" sound is, because these
> > sounds do seem quite apart. So, it is not that they don't take the
> > trouble of putting that dot. This is how some people pronounce it - or
> > are not sure whether the dot belongs there or not -- in the same manner
> > that many Hindi sounds do not come naturally to non-Hindi speakers. As
> > a non-native Hindi speaker, it took me a while to learn the घ, झ,
> > ध, ढ and a number of other consonants.
> > - Raman
>
> > Rose Alford wrote:
> > > One time I was reading this word "बिजी" and I could not figure out for
> > a long time what the word was, until I realized it was just "busy" and I had
> > a good laugh. Now I am use to this type of bakvaas, but think of the
> > trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi if they had just put
> > that little dot under the ज.
>
> > > शैलेश भारतवासी <bharatwasi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > नारायण जी,
> > > बिना नॠक़ॠता लगाये हिनॠदी और उरॠदू के कई शबॠदों के मूल का विभेदन
> > मॠशॠकिल है, कई बार उचॠचारण का भी।
> > > नॠक़ॠता इसलिठ भी लगाये जाते हैं कॠयोंकि अरबी/फारसी की यह पाठच धॠवनियाठ
> > हिनॠदी में भी हैं।
> > > और अंगॠरेजी उचॠचारण को हिनॠदी में लिखना बिना नॠक़ॠता पॠरयोग के तो बहॠत
> > मॠशॠकिल हो जायेगा।
> > > आगत शबॠदों के साथ यह अतिरिकॠत भार भी हर भाषा मे आ जाता है।
>
> > > On 20/12/06, narayan prasad <prasad_cw...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: मेरा
> > तो विचार यह है कि नॠकॠता के पचड़े में देवनागरी उरॠदू लिखनेवालों को ही पड़ना
> > चाहिठ । हिनॠदी लिखते समय नॠकॠता को ताक पर रख देना चाहिठ ।
>
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > >http://mail.yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Agastya Kohli / अगस्त्य कोहली
I don't think it is a result of the script. I think it is somehow part
of our phonetics (if that means anything), because even people who
don't read default to a j for z. Even a kid जो
तुतलाता है (what is the English) is likely to do
this.
I don't know if I agree - तुतलाने वाले बच्चे ऐसा बहुत कुछ करते हैं जो बड़े होने के बाद बिलकुल बदल जाता है! "मसूरी" को "मतूरी" कहने वाले कई बच्चों से मैं मिल चुका हूँ, हालाँकि "स" और "त" में कहीं भी अभेद नहीं है।
> (and फ plus a नुक्ता for f).
I don't know if f and ph are pronounced differently in English. Are
these?
English doesn't have an aspirate P sound (equivalent to a फ). Ph and F are pronounced the same way - you are correct. But I meant "ph" as in ITRANS, not English.
In Urdu, of course the difference is there betwen "fe" (फ़)
and "pe+dochashm" (फ).
And this I believe is an adaptation in nastaliq, to deal with aspirated sounds. I don't know, but I suspect Persian and Arabic don't have an aspirate P either.
> The natural tendancies in most languages (including Hindi) are to
> interchange j and y (or sometimes i) - यमुना and जमुना is a more natural
> (and widespread) phonetic indifference. All of Scandinavia uses "J" and
> pronounces it as a "Y". Hebrew name for God is spelt with an "i" (pronounced
> with a J).
Yes, Germans also pronouce J as Y (Japan=यापान). And what
about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेसुस,
Jose=होज़े. These things never stop fascinating me.
होज़े is a different issue. In Spanish, the letter J is called "hotta" (होत्ता) and is always pronounced as a ह. Sometimes G also does this (as in Argentina - अरहेन्तीना in Spanish). However Portuguese does not do this, and uses a J as a zh sound (like in mea sure).
Regardless, spanish word "Joven" (हौवेन) means a young man - not very far from यौवन if you allow for the J/Y transformation to occur! :-)
-Agastya
Rose Alford
Rose,
I can understand your confusion - but in India you will have to get
used to not only reading such words as "biji", but *hearing* words like
"ij" (is), "hij" (his) and "joo" (zoo), and of course "gajal". Most
Indians grow up with not learning the "z" sound - unless they have
early exposure to good Urdu or English. Actually I am curious to know
what it's phonetic similarily with the "j" sound is, because these
sounds do seem quite apart. So, it is not that they don't take the
trouble of putting that dot. This is how some people pronounce it - or
are not sure whether the dot belongs there or not -- in the same manner
that many Hindi sounds do not come naturally to non-Hindi speakers. As
a non-native Hindi speaker, it took me a while to learn the घ, ठ,
ध, ढ and a number of other consonants.
- Raman
Rose Alford wrote:
> One time I was reading this word "बिजी" and I could not figure out for a long time what the word was, until I realized it was just "busy" and I had a good laugh. Now I am use to this type of bakvaas, but think of the trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi if they had just put that little dot under the ज.
>
>
>
>
>
> शैलेश à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¤µà¤¾à¤¸à¥€ wrote:
>
> नारायण जी,
> बिना नॠक़ॠता लगाये हिनॠदी और उरॠदू के कई शबॠदों के मूल का विà¤à¥‡à¤¦à¤¨ मॠशॠकिल है, कई बार उचॠचारण का à¤à¥€à¥¤
> नॠक़ॠता इसलिठà¤à¥€ लगाये जाते हैं कॠयोंकि अरबी/फारसी की यह पाठच धॠवनियाठहिनॠदी में à¤à¥€ हैं।
> और अंगॠरेजी उचॠचारण को हिनॠदी में लिखना बिना नॠक़ॠता पॠरयोग के तो बहॠत मॠशॠकिल हो जायेगा।
> आगत शबॠदों के साथ यह अतिरिकॠत à¤à¤¾à¤° à¤à¥€ हर à¤à¤¾à¤·à¤¾ मे आ जाता है।
>
> On 20/12/06, narayan prasad wrote: मेरा तो विचार यह है कि नॠकॠता के पचड़े में देवनागरी उरॠदू लिखनेवालों को ही पड़ना चाहिठ। हिनॠदी लिखते समय नॠकॠता को ताक पर रख देना चाहिठ।
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
शैलेश भारतवासी
मित्रो,
यहाँ प्रश्न शब्दों के व्यवहारिक उच्चारण का नहीं है बल्कि उनके शुद्ध-लेखन से है। आखिर 'ज' और 'ज़' ध्वनियों के उच्चारण को वयक्त करने का कोई तो माध्यम होना चाहिए? जहाँ तक व्यवहार की बात है तो पूर्वी-उत्तर प्रदेश के ९० प्रतिशत लोग दन्त, तालब्य और मूर्धा 'स' के उच्चारण में कोई अंतर नहीं करते हैं या कर पाते हैं परन्तु लिखते समय हमेशा शुद्ध-लेखन को ही प्रोत्साहित किया जाता है।
नारायण जी,
आपका यह कहना ठीक है कि इन ध्वनियों में अंतर न कर पाने का उदाहरण दे पाना कठिन है, फिर भी शुद्ध-लेखन और उच्चारण के समय सावधानी बरतना आवश्यक है।
यदि आप 'गज़' (एक प्रकार के माप की ईकाई) को 'गज' (हाथी) उच्चारित करेंगे तो कोई बंदूक नहीं चालयेगा, आपका पाप नहीं कहा जायेगा, मगर आप भाषाविद् भी नहीं कहे जायेंगे।
यदि आप 'राज़'(रहस्य) को 'राज'(शासन) कहेंगे तो भी बहुत सूक्ष्म-त्रुति है, कोई पाप नहीं।
कृपया आप उदाहरण देने के इस तरीके को अन्यथा नहीं लेंगे।
narayan prasad
>but think of the trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi
Rose Alford <oml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One time I was reading this word "à ¤¬à ¤¿à ¤œà ¥€" and I could not figure out for a long time what the word was, until I realized it was just "busy" and I had a good laugh. Now I am use to this type of bakvaas, but think of the trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi if they had just put that little dot under the à ¤œ.
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.
narayan prasad
> Now I am use to this type of bakvaas
If that is bakvaas, almost all the English words of the Asian origin are bakvaas. One English native speaker uttered the word उरॠडू and it took me quite some time to make out that he meant उरॠदू. Similar thing happened when an Englishman said टनॠयवाड, which was supposed to be धनॠयवाद.
>but think of the trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi>if they had just put that little dot under..Please apply the similar condition in case of learners of English. Do native English speakers spell English words for learners of English ?
Rose Alford <oml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One time I was reading this word "à ¤¬à ¤¿à ¤œà ¥€" and I could not figure out for a long time what the word was, until I realized it was just "busy" and I had a good laugh. Now I am use to this type of bakvaas, but think of the trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi if they had just put that little dot under the à ¤œ.
Rose Alford
> Now I am use to this type of bakvaas
If that is bakvaas, almost all the English words of the Asian origin are bakvaas. One English native speaker uttered the word à ¤‰à ¤°à ¥ à ¤¡à ¥‚ and it took me quite some time to make out that he meant à ¤‰à ¤°à ¥ à ¤¦à ¥‚. Similar thing happened when an Englishman said à ¤Ÿà ¤¨à ¥ à ¤¯à ¤µà ¤¾à ¤¡, which was supposed to be à ¤§à ¤¨à ¥ à ¤¯à ¤µà ¤¾à ¤¦.
>but think of the trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi>if they had just put that little dot under..Please apply the similar condition in case of learners of English. Do native English speakers spell English words for learners of English ?
Rose Alford <oml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One time I was reading this word "à ¤¬à ¤¿à ¤œà ¥€" and I could not figure out for a long time what the word was, until I realized it was just "busy" and I had a good laugh. Now I am use to this type of bakvaas, but think of the trouble they would have saved me "a learner" of hindi if they had just put that little dot under the à ¤œ.
Narayan Prasad
> तुतलाने वाले बच्चे ऐसा बहुत कुछ करते हैं जो बड़े होने के बाद बिलकुल बदल जाता है!
कोई आवश्यक नहीं । इसका एक उदाहरण देता हूँ । एक ऐसी रामलीला पार्टी थी जिसके सभी पात्र (व्यास, राम, सीता, रावण, ...) तुतलाने वाले थे ।
जब मारीच स्वर्ण का हरिण बन कर कुटिया के पास सीता को लुभाने के लिए चक्कर काटता है, उस समय सीता जी राम से बोलती हैं --
हे थ्वामी इथ मिनदे तो माँनतन नाँओ
हे थ्वामी इथ मिनदे तो माँनतन नाँओ
दिथथे तुतिये ती नँत्था हो,
दिथथे तुतिये ती नँत्था हो ।
देथा न तभी ऐथे मिनदे तो
देथा न तभी ऐथे मिनदे तो
दैथा यह थुभग थलोना है ।
देथो तो थिन थे पाँव तनत
देथो तो थिन थे पाँव तनत
थोना हीं थोना थोना है । ।
इसके बाद जब राम हिरण को मारने के लिए चले जाते हैं, बाद में सीता जी लक्ष्मण को उनके पीछे भेज देती हैं । उसके बाद रावण कुटिया के पास योगी का रूप धारण करके आता है और सीता जी से कहता है –
भित्था दे दो नूँपवती,
भित्था दे दो नूँपवती,
द्वाने थाँन एत दोदी है ।
नोटः बचपन में जो कुछ सुना था उसमें से कुछ ही याद रहा जिसे आपके सामने प्रस्तुत किया ।
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006
3:54 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 3:54 PM
Narayan Prasad
> And what about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेसुस, Jose=होज़े.
In Latino, the "J" is not pronounced as "H", but something like "इअ" and hence the Latin alphabet does not have "J". In its place "I" is used, e.g. for "Jew", Latino has "Iudaeus" and for "January" it's "Ianuarius" (इआनुआरिउस).
In Spanish "J" is pronounced as a guttural sound, as in German "ch" in "buch" or the Arabic "ख़े" as in ख़ुदा, but softer. The most interesting sound is that of "C" in Spanish (of Spain) as in "Barcelona". It is none of the three --- बर्सेलोना, बर्थेलोना, बर्फ़ेलोना. To pronounce it correctly, bring the tip of the tongue in the straight horizontal direction just up to the outside of the position of the two lips almost closed with the lower and upper lips just touching the tongue and try to pronounce "स".
--- Narayan Prasad
-----Original Message-----
From: hi...@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of ???
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:57 AM
To: Hindi
Subject: [Hindi] Re: Shailesh's kavita and comments from ....
On Dec 20, 8:02 pm, "Agastya Kohli / अगस्त्य कोहली" <agast...@gmail.com> wrote:
Agastya, thanks for your message.
> It is also a matter of ambiguous levels of "accptance".
I agree.
>
>
> Raman ji - your point about similarities between j and z phonetically is
> interesting, and I would argue that these "interchangabilities" are a result
> of devanaagarii using a ज plus a नुक्ता to denote z
I don't think it is a result of the script. I think it is somehow part of our phonetics (if that means anything), because even people who don't read default to a j for z. Even a kid जो तुतलाता है (what is the English) is likely to do this.
> (and फ plus a नुक्ता for f).
I don't know if f and ph are pronounced differently in English. Are these? In Urdu, of course the difference is there betwen "fe" (फ़) and "pe+dochashm" (फ).
> The natural tendancies in most languages (including Hindi) are to
> interchange j and y (or sometimes i) - यमुना and जमुना is a more natural
> (and widespread) phonetic indifference. All of Scandinavia uses "J" and
> pronounces it as a "Y". Hebrew name for God is spelt with an "i" (pronounced
> with a J).
Yes, Germans also pronouce J as Y (Japan=यापान). And what about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेसुस, Jose=होज़े. These things never stop fascinating me.
Agastya Kohli / अगस्त्य कोहली
Raman ji meant "Latinos" as Central/South American (mostly Spanish speaking) people - not as Latin the language.
Regarding C in Spanish (from Spain) - what you're describing about Barcelona - that is the Catalonian pronounciation of "c", not the Spanish pronounciation.
-Agastya
> And what about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेसुस , Jose=होज़े.
Rose Alford
Narayan ji,
Raman ji meant "Latinos" as Central/South American (mostly Spanish speaking) people - not as Latin the language.
Regarding C in Spanish (from Spain) - what you're describing about Barcelona - that is the Catalonian pronounciation of "c", not the Spanish pronounciation.
-Agastya
On 12/21/06, Narayan Prasad <prasad...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> And what about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेसॠस , Jose=होज़े.In Latino, the "J" is not pronounced as "H", but something like "इअ" and hence the Latin alphabet does not have "J". In its place "I" is used, e.g. for "Jew", Latino has "Iudaeus" and for "January" it's "Ianuarius" (इआनॠआरिउस ).In Spanish "J" is pronounced as a guttural sound, as in German "ch" in "buch" or the Arabic "ख़े" as in ख़ॠदा , but softer. The most interesting sound is that of "C" in Spanish (of Spain) as in "Barcelona". It is none of the three --- बरॠसेलोना, बरॠथेलोना, बरॠफ़ेलोना. To pronounce it correctly, bring the tip of the tongue in the straight horizontal direction just up to the outside of the position of the two lips almost closed with the lower and upper lips just touching the tongue and try to pronounce "स".
--- Narayan Prasad-----Original Message-----
From: hi...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of ???
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:57 AM
To: Hindi
Subject: [Hindi] Re: Shailesh's kavita and comments from ....
On Dec 20, 8:02 pm, "Agastya Kohli / अगसॠतॠय कोहली" < agast...@gmail.com> wrote:Agastya, thanks for your message.> It is also a matter of ambiguous levels of "accptance".I agree.>>> Raman ji - your point about similarities between j and z phonetically is> interesting, and I would argue that these "interchangabilities" are a result
> of devanaagarii using a ज plus a नॠकॠता to denote zI don't think it is a result of the script. I think it is somehow part of our phonetics (if that means anything), because even people who don't read default to a j for z. Even a kid जो तॠतलाता है (what is the English) is likely to do this.> (and फ plus a नॠकॠता for f).I don't know if f and ph are pronounced differently in English. Are these? In Urdu, of course the difference is there betwen "fe" (फ़) and "pe+dochashm" (फ).
> The natural tendancies in most languages (including Hindi) are to
> interchange j and y (or sometimes i) - यमॠना and जमॠना is a more natural
> (and widespread) phonetic indifference. All of Scandinavia uses "J" and> pronounces it as a "Y". Hebrew name for God is spelt with an "i" (pronounced> with a J).
Yes, Germans also pronouce J as Y (Japan=यापान). And what about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेसॠस, Jose=होज़े. These things never stop fascinating me.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 3:54 PM
Agastya Kohli / अगस्त्य कोहली
The Spanish alphabet is NOT the English alphabet and has its own pronunciation rules. Just because it uses Roman like English doesn't mean it is the same alphabet. Every language has its own set of phenomes.for example it has the letter "ll" which is pronuounced like "ya" so the word llama is not "लमा" it is "यमा".By the way, "h" is always silent in Spanish.
Narayan ji,
Raman ji meant "Latinos" as Central/South American (mostly Spanish speaking) people - not as Latin the language.
Regarding C in Spanish (from Spain) - what you're describing about Barcelona - that is the Catalonian pronounciation of "c", not the Spanish pronounciation.
-Agastya
On 12/21/06, Narayan Prasad < prasad...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> And what about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेस� स , Jose=होज़े.In Latino, the "J" is not pronounced as "H", but something like "इअ " and hence the Latin alphabet does not have "J". In its place "I" is used, e.g. for "Jew", Latino has "Iudaeus" and for "January" it's "Ianuarius" ( इआन� आरिउस ).In Spanish "J" is pronounced as a guttural sound, as in German "ch" in "buch" or the Arabic " ख़े" as in ख़� दा , but softer. The most interesting sound is that of "C" in Spanish (of Spain) as in "Barcelona". It is none of the three --- बर� सेलोना, बर� थेलोना, बर� फ़ेलोना. To pronounce it correctly, bring the tip of the tongue in the straight horizontal direction just up to the outside of the position of the two lips almost closed with the lower and upper lips just touching the tongue and try to pronounce " स".
--- Narayan Prasad-----Original Message-----
From: hi...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of ???
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:57 AM
To: Hindi
Subject: [Hindi] Re: Shailesh's kavita and comments from ....
Agastya, thanks for your message.> It is also a matter of ambiguous levels of "accptance".I agree.>>> Raman ji - your point about similarities between j and z phonetically is> interesting, and I would argue that these "interchangabilities" are a result
> of devanaagarii using a ज plus a न� क� ता to denote zI don't think it is a result of the script. I think it is somehow part of our phonetics (if that means anything), because even people who don't read default to a j for z. Even a kid जो त� तलाता है (what is the English) is likely to do this.> (and फ plus a न� क� ता for f).I don't know if f and ph are pronounced differently in English. Are these? In Urdu, of course the difference is there betwen "fe" ( फ़) and "pe+dochashm" (फ).
> The natural tendancies in most languages (including Hindi) are to
> interchange j and y (or sometimes i) - यम� ना and जम� ना is a more natural
> (and widespread) phonetic indifference. All of Scandinavia uses "J" and> pronounces it as a "Y". Hebrew name for God is spelt with an "i" (pronounced> with a J).
Yes, Germans also pronouce J as Y (Japan= यापान). And what about Latinos pronouncing J as H. Jesus=हेस� स, Jose= होज़े. These things never stop fascinating me.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 3:54 PM
Rose Alford
narayan prasad
Narayan ji,
Raman ji meant "Latinos" as Central/South American (mostly Spanish speaking) people - not as Latin the language.
Regarding C in Spanish (from Spain) - what you're describing about Barcelona - that is the Catalonian pronounciation of "c", not the Spanish pronounciation.
-Agastya
narayan prasad
You are absolutely right. It seems there is plenty of bakvaas on both ends. Some day they might grow wise and fix the English spelling system as it is totally bakvaas, but probably not in our lifetimes....I guess we all have to suffer unnecessarily for some reason or other.dhanyavaad
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.
Agastya Kohli / अगस्त्य कोहली
| Thank you | Gracias | [ gra. jas]1 or [ gra.sjas] |
Looks like the link you provided lists two "standard" spanish pronounciations...
BTW - my knowledge of Spanish/Catalonian pronounciations is limited to my conversations with a Barcelona native, and what she has told me about the two languages. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other opinions in Spain/Barcelona.
After all - its easy to find two native Hindi speakers who disagree on the "correct" use of our language too! :-)
-A
narayan prasad
Thank you Gracias [ gra. jas]1 or [ gra.sjas]
Looks like the link you provided lists two "standard" spanish pronounciations...
BTW - my knowledge of Spanish/Catalonian pronounciations is limited to my conversations with a Barcelona native, and what she has told me about the two languages. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other opinions in Spain/Barcelona.
After all - its easy to find two native Hindi speakers who disagree on the "correct" use of our language too! :-)
-A
On 12/21/06, narayan prasad <prasad...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:<< Regarding C in Spanish (from Spain) - what you're describing about Barcelona - that is the Catalonian pronounciation of "c", not the Spanish pronounciation.>>No. This peculiar pronunciation might be typical of the Catalan dialect. But *it is* the *standard pronunciation* of the Spain Spanish. See, for example, the following write-up regarding the Standard Pronunciation of Spain for the word "gracias":--- Narayan Prasad
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
रमण
too, IMO. The spelling and the pronunciation are delinked, and the
learner has to figure out a way of learning each separately, without
expecting their complete interdependence. This also means that a word
will always be spelt the same way no matter what its pronunication or
your accent is (with some exceptions). This may create some confustion,
but takes a lot of confusion out too.
The fact that devanaagarii is expected to be a phonetic script gives us
a lot of advantage, but puts extra pressure on the script, and
sometimes also results in this type of confusion that Rose experienced
-- at least in the way it is used in modern Hindi. The issues of
nuktas, anuswaar, halant, all lend multiplicity of spelling
combinations to most words. Then there is the question of individual
accents too. For example, when we transcribe "New York", should we
write it as न्यू यॉक as a Britisher would say it, or
न्यू यॉर्क as an American would? How will you
transcribe "her" with a silent "r"?
- Raman
narayan prasad wrote:
> No. Plenty of bakvaas is in only English; that type of bakvaas is minimal in case of Hindi. What efficiency you have got in Hindi so far, you would not have got more than one fourth of that in English, had your mother tongue been Hindi and you were to learn English under the same conditions. In case of English you have to mug up the spelling as well as pronunciation of almost each word which is too much for a learner. That is not the matter in case of Hindi.
>
> --- Narayan Prasad
>
> Rose Alford <oml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are absolutely right. It seems there is plenty of bakvaas on both ends. Some day they might grow wise and fix the English spelling system as it is totally bakvaas, but probably not in our lifetimes....
>
> I guess we all have to suffer unnecessarily for some reason or other.
>
>
>
> dhanyavaad
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.
> --0-1422943270-1166761035=:53277
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1421
>
> <div>No. Plenty of bakvaas is in only English; that type of bakvaas is minimal in case of Hindi. What efficiency you have got in Hindi so far, you would not have got more than one fourth of that in English, had your mother tongue been Hindi and you were to learn English under the same conditions. In case of English you have to mug up the spelling as well as pronunciation of almost each word which is too much for a learner. That is not the matter in case of Hindi.</div> <div> </div> <div>--- Narayan Prasad<BR><BR><B><I>Rose Alford <oml...@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <DIV>You are absolutely right. It seems there is plenty of bakvaas on both ends. Some day they might grow wise and fix the English spelling system as it is totally bakvaas, but probably not in our lifetimes....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess we all have to
> suffer unnecessarily for some reason or other.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>dhanyavaad<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><p> 
> <hr size=1>
> The <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/nowyoucan/free_from_isp/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40565/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html">all-new Yahoo! Mail</a> goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.
> --0-1422943270-1166761035=:53277--
Rose Alford
Roman script not being fully phonetic in nature has some advantages
too, IMO. The spelling and the pronunciation are delinked, and the
learner has to figure out a way of learning each separately, without
expecting their complete interdependence. This also means that a word
will always be spelt the same way no matter what its pronunication or
your accent is (with some exceptions). This may create some confustion,
but takes a lot of confusion out too.
The fact that devanaagarii is expected to be a phonetic script gives us
a lot of advantage, but puts extra pressure on the script, and
sometimes also results in this type of confusion that Rose experienced
-- at least in the way it is used in modern Hindi. The issues of
nuktas, anuswaar, halant, all lend multiplicity of spelling
combinations to most words. Then there is the question of individual
accents too. For example, when we transcribe "New York", should we
write it as नॠयू यॉक as a Britisher would say it, or
नॠयू यॉरॠक as an American would? How will you
transcribe "her" with a silent "r"?
- Raman
narayan prasad wrote:
> No. Plenty of bakvaas is in only English; that type of bakvaas is minimal in case of Hindi. What efficiency you have got in Hindi so far, you would not have got more than one fourth of that in English, had your mother tongue been Hindi and you were to learn English under the same conditions. In case of English you have to mug up the spelling as well as pronunciation of almost each word which is too much for a learner. That is not the matter in case of Hindi.
>
> --- Narayan Prasad
>
> Rose Alford wrote:
> You are absolutely right. It seems there is plenty of bakvaas on both ends. Some day they might grow wise and fix the English spelling system as it is totally bakvaas, but probably not in our lifetimes....
>
> I guess we all have to suffer unnecessarily for some reason or other.
>
>
>
> dhanyavaad
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.
> --0-1422943270-1166761035=:53277
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1421
>
>No. Plenty of bakvaas is in only English; that type of bakvaas is minimal in case of Hindi. What efficiency you have got in Hindi so far, you would not have got more than one fourth of that in English, had your mother tongue been Hindi and you were to learn English under the same conditions. In case of English you have to mug up the spelling as well as pronunciation of almost each word which is too much for a learner. That is not the matter in case of Hindi.You are absolutely right. It seems there is plenty of bakvaas on both ends. Some day they might grow wise and fix the English spelling system as it is totally bakvaas, but probably not in our lifetimes....I guess we all have to
> suffer unnecessarily for some reason or other.dhanyavaad
>
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.
> --0-1422943270-1166761035=:53277--