Mai.N anuvaad madad karnaa chaahatii huu.N
EmrldAnkh
|
Maine khat dost se parh rahaa thaa. Mai.N thooRaa samajhtii nahii.N hai.
Is shabd kaa kyaa matlab hA?
Maherabaanii महेरबानी
Badhiya बधिया
thoda थोदा
Dular दुलारा
Tarah तरह
Dhanyvaad, for any help
Peggy | ||
|
|
Yogendra Joshi
Hello Peggy,
Is shabd kaa kyaa matlab hA?
1. Maherabaanii महेरबानी (Corrected: meharbaanii मेहरबानी )
2. Badhiya बधिया (Corrected: badhiya बधिया)
3. thoda थोदा (Corrected: thoDa थोड़ा)
4. Dular दुलारा (Corrected: dulara दुलारा OR dular दुलार?)
5. Tarah तरह (Corrected: tarah तरह)
1. meharbaanii = favour
2. badhiya = castrated (animal)
3. thoDa = a little, some, in a small amount (noncountable) ( thoDa for masculine and thoDii for feminine; thoDe थोड़े would mean a few - countable) (Here D stands for ड़)
4. dular = affection, love; dulara = dear, loved one
5. Tarah = like (usakee tarah = like him); sort (wah kis tarah kaa aadamee hai = what sort of man is he); tarah-tarah indicates variety (tarah-tarah kee cheejeN = things of different types)
NOTE: I understand that there has not been developed any standard for writing Hindi text in Roman script. It is therefore hard to write Hindi correctly in Roman.
In fact there are some inherent problems too. An imporatant point is that Hindi is much richer than English in phonemes. The Roman script cannot faithfully represent them. Thus we cannot assign differing spellings to ऋतु and रितु, both being written as 'ritu'. Similarly कोश and कोष are written 'kosh or kosha', and there is no way distinguishing between रामः and रामह्. And ङ, ञ, ण and न are all represented by using 'n', and so on.
Secondly, Hindi script (Devanagari) is based on the principle of a uniquely defined correspondence between a word as spelt and the associated pronunciation (a phonetic language). In English the pronunciation is definitely based on spellings, but it is not defined unambiguously. The rules are relatively vague. In German things are less problematic and French poses a serious challenge to a non-native speaker!
- योगेन्द्र (ब्लॉग: http://hinditathaakuchhaur.wordpress.com/)
narayan prasad
Yogendra Joshi
To all,
I agree that diacritical marks do exist there to correctly represent the Devanagari script, and I believe that such marks are applied to the 'Romanised' script of perhaps all the major world languages. Many European languages have adopted Roman script with diacritics and people there invariably use them as an integral part of their written text.
But my experience is that practically hardly a few persons use them for Indian languages. It is more confined to academic purposes and can be found in printed books, where diacritical marks become necessary, for example, in Sanskrit books of serious nature. But in practice people are not well acquainted with it, and I am almost sure a vast majority of Indians acquainted with English may not even understand which mark stands for what. The commonly available type-writers have no provision for these marks. I do not think that such Standard has ever been well publicised. Today in my opinion this script is as foreign as the phonetic script, or the correction marks of a 'proof reader'. Even Indic Unicodes are not known to people.
By standard I meant that script that people normally use, when they have to express in Hindi/Indian languages, but use the Roman script. And there, they have their own equivalents for the Indian letters. Thus the आ of Hindi would be simply written 'a' by the majority, while others would write 'aa' and still others like 'A'. There is thus no standard being followed in practice.
Well, I should humbly confess that perhaps the term 'STANDARD' I used in my comments herein, was incorrect. I, in fact, meant a script that is popularly used by one and all, and which thus is free from any confusion ! You could call that a 'Script-in-Vogue'.
- योगेन्द
Akshay BAKAYA
Hamza
so would be equally "rich" in this sense.
Certainly, the script commonly used for Hindi is more phonetic than the
Roman script as applied to English. However, the virtues and deficits of
a script bear no relation to the "richness" of a language the script
records.
Rose Alford
I agree with you, for practical purposes most people don't differentiate the phonemes in Hindi with roman letters. They use "t" for त and ट without a thought and that is just one example. Some use "gh" for the gutteral "غ" "ग़" spelling of Urdu, when they would be better off just using "g" alone. Most don't bother to differentiate the long and short vowels in a word at all. It can be so bad that I don't have a clue what they are writing half the time.
I doubt if anyone can impose any kind of standard for the ordinary user of roman Hindi/Urdu on the internet. Most of these people have very little awareness of how bad they are representing the Hindi/Urdu and as long as what they are doing remains functional for their own purposes I don't think they would even care. --- On Mon, 11/10/08, Yogendra Joshi <yogendr...@gmail.com> wrote: |
Anunad Singh
आपने दबी जुबान से कुछ कहने की कोशिश की है; कुछ आधे-आधूरे तथ्य दिये हैं और पूर्णत: गलत निष्कर्षों की ओर चर्चा को धकेलने की कोशिश की है।
दुनिया यूनिकोड से भी आगे निकल गयी और आप लगता है कि अभी भी मैकाले-युग में पड़े हुए हैं। कम्प्यूटर पर दुनिया की सभी लिपियों को समर्थ करती हुई यूनिकोड सरपट दौड़ रही है और आप उसको देख नहीं पा रहे हैं। यूनिकोड के कारण दुनिया की कमजोर से कमजोर भाषाएँ भी जीवन्त हो उठीं हैं - हिन्दी तो विश्व की सर्वाधिक बोली जाने वाली भाषाओं में से एक है।
आप दबी जबान से हिन्दी के लिये 'रोमन' की वकालत करते नजर आ रहे हैं। जब यूरोप के सभी देश एक सर्वमान्य 'रोमन' वर्णमाला नहीं अपना पाये हैं तो सबसे वैज्ञानिक वर्णमाला से समृद्ध हिन्दी को कौन सी मजबूरी है? क्या हजार-दो हजार विदेशी ' हिन्दी शिक्षार्थियों ' की सुविधा को ध्यान में रखते हुए पचासों करोड़ भारतीय रोमन अपना लें? रोमन तो स्वयं अंग्रेजी के लिये उपयुक्त नहीं है; हिन्दी तो बहुत दूर की कौड़ी है। (अंग्रेजी के लिये उपयुक्त लिपि सम्बन्धी जार्ज बर्नार्ड शा की वसीयत तो याद कीजिये!)
--अनुनाद सिंह
=====================================================
