Speaking of (kh, K) and (k, q)
Surjit Singh
Most hindi songs have many urdu words and their pronunciation is
important because many candidates lost points because of bad
pronunciation on Saregama when OPN and Khaiyyam were judges. Also, it
sounds bad.
So, let me try to help in learning how to pronounce q, in a reasonably
approximate way. If you know the difference between kh, K and k, it is
very easy to explain. The relationship between kh and K is the same as
between k and q. That's it!
Now let me elaborate. The letter kh (as in kharaa = true) is pronounced
with the tongue in a certain place. To go to K (as in Kaanaa =
compartment, Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom), we set up the tongue as if to
pronounce kh, but do not touch; make a small gap and rush the air
through. [It is called frication.] In both cases (kh and K), if you put
your hand in front your mouth you can feel the burst of air. [It is not
a continuous flow because these are not vowels, you can't sing them.]
How do you go from kh (kharaa = true) to k (kal = yesterday,
tomorrow)? Easy, kill the air!
How do you go from K (Kaanaa = compartment, Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom) to
q (qismat = fate)? Easy, kill the air!
In both cases (k and q), if you put your hand in front your mouth you
should not feel any air.
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html
Sudhir
Your efforts though laudable, are not going to make even an iota of
improvement in most of people's pronunciations.
Singers and many artists have been mispronoucing 'Khuda' and 'Khud'
for so many years that it is hard to keep track. The problem is more
acute with those who have Marathi and Bengali as their native
language. Best joint-effort in this regard is the song from:
Film: MEHNDI / Bedard Zamana Tera Dushman Hai To Kya Hai
Duniya Mein Nahin Jis Ka Koyi,
Us Ka Khuda Hai
Both Lata and Hemant Kumar had pronounced 'Khada' as 'Kuda'
Amol Palekar is another beauty. For him Khuda doesn't exists.
I was recently watching the film: DON. Helen's dialogue delivery,
which had Khuda and Khud words, was below the accceptable level.
REGARDING 'Q' and 'K'
========================
The difference is so minor, that in Hindi script no modification was
made, e.g. adding a small dot at the bottom for KH of Khuda.
Even in English script, many words (if transcribed from Urdu), which
should be written with 'Q' are written with 'K', e.g.: KISMAT
ERROR IN YOUR POSTING
====================
There is no word as: Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom
You have mis-spelled both of them.
It is: Gusal (pronounce 's' - half only, i.e.: without the a)
and Khana (similar to Musafir Khana - Waiting Room
or Rasoi Khana - Kitchen)
Sudhir
-------------------
Surjit Singh <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3DFF9AFF...@yahoo.com>...
> Hi RMIMers:
>
> Most hindi songs have many urdu words and their pronunciation is
> important because many candidates lost points because of bad
> pronunciation on Saregama when OPN and Khaiyyam were judges. Also, it
> sounds bad.
>
> So, let me try to help in learning how to pronounce q, in a reasonably
> approximate way. If you know the difference between kh, K and k, it is
> very easy to explain. The relationship between kh and K is the same as
> between k and q. That's it!
>
> Now let me elaborate. The letter kh (as in kharaa = true) is pronounced
> with the tongue in a certain place. To go to K (as in Kaanaa =
> compartment, Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom), we set up the tongue as if to
=======================
Sanjeev Ramabhadran
"Sudhir" <maild...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e32c7906.02121...@posting.google.com...
> Mr. Singh:
>
> Your efforts though laudable, are not going to make even an iota of
> improvement in most of people's pronunciations.
They can and will, if people bother to read them closely. He's hit it pretty
well on the nose.
>
> Singers and many artists have been mispronoucing 'Khuda' and 'Khud'
> for so many years that it is hard to keep track. The problem is more
> acute with those who have Marathi and Bengali as their native
> language.
Not true. This particular problem is fairly evenly distributed throughout
India. The Marathi and Bengali folks are typically subject to more obvious
slips that give them away, particularly in their speech.
> ERROR IN YOUR POSTING
> ====================
>
> There is no word as: Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom
>
> You have mis-spelled both of them.
>
> It is: Gusal (pronounce 's' - half only, i.e.: without the a)
If you look carefully, the "s" followed immediately by the "l" actually does
a decent job of showing that.
Sanjeev
Surjit Singh
Sudhir wrote:
According to a modern standard Hindi dictionary, both Gusl and Gusal are
acceptable. However, in Persian/Arabic the spelling is Gusal. Of course,
I am using iTrans, in which G and K stand for the appropriate sounds.
Surjit Singh
Let us continue with some more fricatives. (By the way, in Hindi
phonetics they are called sa.ngharshhii).
There are three more in urdu: G, z, and f. They are obtained from g, j
and ph by following exactly the same procedure as before, by trying to
pronounce the latter, but leaving a small gap and exerting some effort.
Examples of words are g (gaanaa = song), j (jaanaa = to go), ph (phuul =
flower); G (Gam = sadness), z (zaraa = little bit) and f (faujii = soldier).
Since English is also used in hindi songs, let us discuss some English
fricatives. English f is almost the same as the urdu f discussed above.
The only difference is that while the urdu f is pronounced by bringing
the two lips near each other, the (standard) English f is pronounced by
bringing the lower lip near the upper teeth! Subtle but real difference.
English z is indistinguishable from the urdu z as explained above.
English sounds of "th" in the words thing (chiiz) and there (vahaa.N)
are quite different. The one in thing is obtained by trying to pronounce
the hindi/urdu th as in thaanedaar (police chowki incharge) and turning
it into a fricative. Try it or watch your English-speaking friends do
it. Of course, we indians pronounce it like the th in thaanedar.
The English th in there is obtained from the hindi/urdu soft d as in
duur (= far) but making a fricative out of it. Of course, we pronounce
it as the usual soft d.
That should be enough for now. For homework try to find the relationship
between the marathi ch as in aamachaa (=ours) [but not aamachii] and a
hindi sound.
All of what I have discussed above can be found in standard books on
phonetics found in a average University library in US. That's how I
started learning these things!
Abhay Jain
> Hi RMIMers:
>
> Let us continue with some more fricatives. (By the way, in Hindi
> phonetics they are called sa.ngharshhii).
>
> There are three more in urdu: G, z, and f. They are obtained from g, j
> and ph by following exactly the same procedure as before, by trying to
> pronounce the latter, but leaving a small gap and exerting some effort.
> Examples of words are g (gaanaa = song), j (jaanaa = to go), ph (phuul =
> flower); G (Gam = sadness), z (zaraa = little bit) and f (faujii =
soldier).
> Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
I have always seen Gam(=sadness) written as Gham. I always wondered
which is correct pronounced? By the sound of it, it should be Gam.
Abhay Jain
UVR
> "Surjit Singh" <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3E001F60...@yahoo.com...
>
>>Hi RMIMers:
>>
>>Let us continue with some more fricatives. (By the way, in Hindi
>>phonetics they are called sa.ngharshhii).
>>
>>There are three more in urdu: G, z, and f. They are obtained from g, j
>>and ph by following exactly the same procedure as before, by trying to
>>pronounce the latter, but leaving a small gap and exerting some effort.
>>Examples of words are g (gaanaa = song), j (jaanaa = to go), ph (phuul =
>>flower); G (Gam = sadness), z (zaraa = little bit) and f (faujii =
>>soldier).
>
> which is correct pronounced? By the sound of it, it should be Gam.
>
> Abhay Jain
Well ... "Gh" is a fricative. To use Dr. Singh's terminology
"the relationship between gh and Gh is the same as the rela-
tionship between kh and Kh". To further use his 'feel the air'
technique, when you want to say Gh, make like you're going to
say gh, "but do not touch; make a small gap and rush the air
through ... In both cases (gh and Gh), if you put your hand in
front of your mouth, you can feel the burst of air."
If for no other reason than that they are fricatives, it makes
FAR more sense (to me) to write Kh/KH instead of the iTrans-K
and Gh/GH instead of the iTrans-G.
-UVR.
Surjit Singh
UVR wrote:
> Abhay Jain wrote:
>
>> "Surjit Singh" <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3E001F60...@yahoo.com...
>>
>>> Hi RMIMers:
>>>
>>> Let us continue with some more fricatives. (By the way, in Hindi
>>> phonetics they are called sa.ngharshhii).
>>>
>>> There are three more in urdu: G, z, and f. They are obtained from g, j
>>> and ph by following exactly the same procedure as before, by trying to
>>> pronounce the latter, but leaving a small gap and exerting some effort.
>>> Examples of words are g (gaanaa = song), j (jaanaa = to go), ph (phuul =
>>> flower); G (Gam = sadness), z (zaraa = little bit) and f (faujii =
>>> soldier).
>>
>>
>> I have always seen Gam(=sadness) written as Gham. I always wondered
>> which is correct pronounced? By the sound of it, it should be Gam.
I think the word I have heard mispronounced most often is begam as in
shamamshaad bagam. People pronounce it as beGam.
>>
>> Abhay Jain
>
>
> Well ... "Gh" is a fricative. To use Dr. Singh's terminology
> "the relationship between gh and Gh is the same as the rela-
> tionship between kh and Kh". To further use his 'feel the air'
> technique, when you want to say Gh, make like you're going to
> say gh, "but do not touch; make a small gap and rush the air
> through ... In both cases (gh and Gh), if you put your hand in
> front of your mouth, you can feel the burst of air."
>
> If for no other reason than that they are fricatives, it makes
> FAR more sense (to me) to write Kh/KH instead of the iTrans-K
> and Gh/GH instead of the iTrans-G.
>
>
> -UVR.
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
cricfan
>
>
> Sudhir wrote:
>
> > There is no word as: Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom
> >
> > You have mis-spelled both of them.
> >
> > It is: Gusal (pronounce 's' - half only, i.e.: without the a)
> >
> > and Khana (similar to Musafir Khana - Waiting Room
> > or Rasoi Khana - Kitchen)
>
> According to a modern standard Hindi dictionary, both Gusl and Gusal are
> acceptable. However, in Persian/Arabic the spelling is Gusal. Of course,
> I am using iTrans, in which G and K stand for the appropriate sounds.
Interesting how Platt's lists it..
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/ddsa/getobject_?UNICODE.a.10:2061./projects
/artfl0/databases/dicos/philologic/platts/IMAGE/.737870
See the "unicode installed" version.
Cheers
Arun
cricfan
>
> There is no word as: Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom
>
> You have mis-spelled both of them.
>
> It is: Gusal (pronounce 's' - half only, i.e.: without the a)
>
> and Khana (similar to Musafir Khana - Waiting Room
> or Rasoi Khana - Kitchen)
>
Btw, is Rasoi Khana correct? I always thought that it was Rasoi OR
bawarchi khAna. I've not heard Rasoi KhAna before. But then, I've been wrong
many times before :-)
Cheers
Arun
Surjit Singh
cricfan wrote:
> "Surjit Singh" <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3DFFFED6...@yahoo.com...
>
>>
>>Sudhir wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is no word as: Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom
<GONE>
>
>
> Interesting how Platt's lists it..
>
> http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/ddsa/getobject_?UNICODE.a.10:2061./projects
> /artfl0/databases/dicos/philologic/platts/IMAGE/.737870
>
> See the "unicode installed" version.
>
I have the book at home. He writes it as Gusl. I usually go to this book
for word origins or archaic words, as it is very old. For Modern
Standard Hindi/Urdu I fall back on Dr. Bahra's dictionary.
>
> Cheers
> Arun
Surjit Singh
cricfan wrote:
> "Sudhir" <maild...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e32c7906.02121...@posting.google.com...
>
>
>>There is no word as: Gusla Kaanaa = bathroom
>>
>>You have mis-spelled both of them.
>>
>> It is: Gusal (pronounce 's' - half only, i.e.: without the a)
>>
>> and Khana (similar to Musafir Khana - Waiting Room
>> or Rasoi Khana - Kitchen)
>>
>>
>
> Btw, is Rasoi Khana correct? I always thought that it was Rasoi OR
rasoI is a very interesting word. In Panjab where I grew up, it means
the place to cook food (and a Modern Panjabi Dictionary confirms this
meaning). In the Hindi-speaking world it means food! (and a Modern
Standard Hindi dictionary confirms it). So in Hindi rasoIghar (or
rasoIKaanaa) is needed if you want to talk about the kitchen whereas in
Panjabi rasoIghar would mean kitchen-house (?).
It is possible that under the influence of all those Panjabis rasoI has
come to mean kitchen in Delhi too. UPwalls, MPwallas, Biharis, etc.
speak up.
> bawarchi khAna. I've not heard Rasoi KhAna before. But then, I've been wrong
> many times before :-)
>
> Cheers
> Arun
>
>
>
Vish Krishnan
> If for no other reason than that they are fricatives, it makes
> FAR more sense (to me) to write Kh/KH instead of the iTrans-K
> and Gh/GH instead of the iTrans-G.
Do we really have to lean on such fricative reasoning? How about
intuitive extensions? How about the fact that transliterators have
been using kh and gh (and some even Kh and Gh) since the time such
transliteration has been in existence?
Granted, these informal transliterators are guilt of grave
inconsistency. But even if one weeds out the obvious deviations, it IS
possible to see a de facto standard usage of kh and gh. And further,
even though one does not see prevalent usage of Kh and Gh, they are,
to the long-standing reader of transliterated Hindi, a far more
intuitive and logical extension of kh and gh than the now-in-vogue K
and G.
I say all this with due respect to the iTrans protagonists. Their work
is simply remarkable. But traditional usage has be respected too.
It was bad enough with uu and ii. To make matters more interesting,
Prof "tuufaanii Taarazana" Singh now insists on transliterating even
proper nouns, and that too, in writing that will probably never see
the shadow of an iTrans engine.
Now if he will just borrow an "a" back from Mr Taarazana, and put it
back in "dyaar-e-madeena", where it REALLY belongs...
cheers
vish
Surjit Singh
Vish Krishnan wrote:
> UVR <u...@usa.not> wrote in message news:<3e009...@nopics.sjc>...
>
>
>>If for no other reason than that they are fricatives, it makes
>>FAR more sense (to me) to write Kh/KH instead of the iTrans-K
>>and Gh/GH instead of the iTrans-G.
>>
>
<GONE>
>
> It was bad enough with uu and ii. To make matters more interesting,
> Prof "tuufaanii Taarazana" Singh now insists on transliterating even
> proper nouns, and that too, in writing that will probably never see
> the shadow of an iTrans engine.
Dear Vish Gurujii:
Two "reasons".
1. It's a habit.
2. The paganis argument. Is he paganis or paaganiis? or, paagaanis? You
get the idea.
3. I just enjoy typing those extra a's. I like jalaalaabaadii a lot. It
is probably very annoying to other people. Also, to put A instead of aa,
I have to use more than one finger for typing. I don't like that.
>
> Now if he will just borrow an "a" back from Mr Taarazana, and put it
> back in "dyaar-e-madeena", where it REALLY belongs...
>
> cheers
> vish
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
Vish Krishnan
Surjit Singh <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> 1. It's a habit.
No argument there.
> 2. The paganis argument. Is he paganis or paaganiis? or, paagaanis? You
> get the idea.
Yes, but this my point exactly. Informal transliterators are not high
bastions of standards-compliance (by the way, I really don't know the
answer to your question. Time to consult some true-blue Puneri(i) to
resolve the matter. If I had to guess, it would be paagnees, or
paaganees, if you insist. But not paagniis, please).
> 3. I just enjoy typing those extra a's. I like jalaalaabaadii a lot. It
> is probably very annoying to other people. Also, to put A instead of aa,
> I have to use more than one finger for typing. I don't like that.
I have no argument with the use of the double "a", or even the
upper-case single A. It does not violate my sense of intuition, i.e.
it does not hamper in any way my reading of transliterated matter. In
fact, the absence of the double "a" causes major confusion, as
illustrated by "pagnis" and variants thereof.
I do however have trouble with the "ii" and the "uu". Nothing one
cannot get used to. But what prompted that decision in the first
place? Too late to ask that question, I know. Let me ask anyway.
The simplest of transliteration rules would seem to suggest this. If
the host language (English in this case) has a convention to represent
the intended sound, be it a vowel or a consonant, then that convention
should get priority. By that rule, "oo" and "ee" get preference over
the corresponding "uu" and "ii".
Now I fully expect our Shavian dissenters to throw the book in my face
with the inconsistencies surrounding the English "oo" in particular.
That to me is a pointless discussion. An empirical test seems far
more useful and relevant. Simply present a native English speaker
(NOT familiar with Hindi or iTrans) with a sample of our
transliterated code and just ask them to read phonetically, as they
see it. Promise not to laugh, or else you will compromise the purity
of the experiment, for what it is worth.
It is different when the host language simply does not have the target
sound. An extreme case of this is "xh" from Southern Africa's xhosa.
Anyone who has seen THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY or heard Miriam Makeba's
delightful songs for children would know that sound.
It is also different if the host language has MORE THAN ONE OPTION for
our intended sound. I am not sure if that holds for "oo" and "ee", but
I am sure that "uu" and "ii" lead to unintended consequences,
intuitively speaking (e.g. vacuum and fungii).
THAT is the essence of my argument.
Are people aware of other transliteration products that have adopted
the "uu" and "ii" to represent the same sounds? There is strength in
numbers. No doubt about that.
And finally, before this gets too far, I do not mean to stick names
and labels on you or anyone else. Apologies for getting just a bit
carried away in my previous message.
cheers
vish
naniwadekar
"Vish Krishnan" <vishkr...@hotmail.com> wrote -
>
>
> I do however have trouble with the "ii" and the "uu". Nothing one
> cannot get used to. But what prompted that decision in the first
> place? Too late to ask that question, I know. Let me ask anyway.
>
I discussed this point with Avinash Chopde only yesterday.
He had used one existing iTransliteration system as guide.
He provided me with URL to that scheme. That scheme
used 'ii' and 'uu', so ii and uu it was. Alas, I have deleted
the email without saving the URL. Importantly, he did
not say that 'ee' and 'oo' were discarded because there
were problems with them. So 'ee' and 'oo' still may come
to play a role.
The 'ii' CAN and HAS become a habit. Example - 'potnis'
is actually 'potaniis'. It is never spelt 'potnees' in real life.
The argument in favour of 'pot(a)niis' is that it removes
the ambiguity between potnis and potniis without using
'potnees'. 'potnees' has a 'real-life' feel to it which is a bit
misleading because it is NOT used in real-life. 'potaniis'
side-steps that pitfall. (Still, I do prefer 'ee' and 'oo' over
'ii' and 'uu' in principle.)
The point about vacuum and fungii is well-taken but 'uu'
and 'ii' are rare enough in English for them not to weigh
too heavily on one's mind.
And, finally, the name is viShNupant paag(a)niis. The 1940s
hfgk has surprisingly got it wrong. It spells it 'pag(a)niis'.
Even more surprisingly, no one pointed out the error to
Hamraaz after its publication. And when the 1930s hfgk
came out a few years later, it repeated the mistake.
- dn
Devendra Sharma
>
> 3. I just enjoy typing those extra a's. I like jalaalaabaadii a lot. It
> is probably very annoying to other people. Also, to put A instead of aa,
> I have to use more than one finger for typing. I don't like that.
>
I use "aa" etc. even while writing personal romanised hindi
e-mails, and i noticed my friends dont seem to have problems,
sometimes they even try to follow this in their reply,
may be they like its consistency since otherwise there are no
rules that we follow for writing romanised hindi (OR may be they dont
know that it is 'iTrans' and develop some political opinion about it :)
anyway, thanks for starting this interesting thread.
devendra
naniwadekar
>
> And, finally, the name is viShNupant paag(a)niis. The 1940s
> hfgk has surprisingly got it wrong. It spells it 'pag(a)niis'.
> Even more surprisingly, no one pointed out the error to
> Hamraaz after its publication. And when the 1930s hfgk
> came out a few years later, it repeated the mistake.
>
Now that we are at it, the Kosh has got Shanta Apte's name
wrong as well. Its correct itrans would be 'aapaTe'. It is
pronounced with a very short, almost indiscernible pause
between p and T. But for ears tuned to hearing the word,
the pause is there. HFGK writes it with a p-T ligature (aapTe).
More on matters Prabhat. The Gramophone Company
of India Ltd had released an 8-CD Marathi Millennium set
in 1999 in their Millennium Series. CD #2, song #5 is 'don
ghaDii.nchaa Daav' from the film Ram Shastri (1944).
Its MD was Keshavrao Bhole, sometimes mentioned as K Bhole.
(MD of the Hindi version was G Damle, brother of the founder
Vishnupant Damle.) The CD jacket mentions the MD to be
(fasten the seatbelts at this point) : Krishnarao Bhole !!
But at least they did not tell us that K Bhole was Korgaonkar
Bhole or Khemchand Bhole or Kalyanji Bhole , right?
Song #1 on the same CD is Lata's first-ever non-film release.
It's a song tuned by Datta Davjekar, 'tuJ swapnii paahile re
gopaaLaa'. The song was recorded around 1948. (I have seen
the 78 but don't remember exact details now.) The CD notes
place its year to be 1941 !! How can anyone be so fucking
stupid so frequently? Lata wasn't 12 until September of 1941.
The sheer improbability of Lata cutting a disc in 1941 and that
too in a voice unlikely to be that of a 12-year-old girl
ought to have alerted someone about the mistake.
Song #3 on CD#1 is a natyageet by Keshvrao Bhosle (no relation
of Asha's and Varsha's). The jacket mentions the singer's name
as just 'Keshav Rao'. It is possible that is how the name had
appeared on the 78, but still...
To give the devil its due, the collection is excellent but for a slight
overdose of Mangeshkars and even Sudhir Phadke. I think
only two songs by Vasant Prabhu have been included, both
from films, and that doesn't do justice to his genius. But overall
the spread of talent is managed nicely. Especially the choice of
singers and songs on the first CD is utterly brilliant. It features
a lovely duet (naTalii chaitraachii navalaa_ii) by Snehprabha
and 'Baby Lata', tuned by Dada Chandekar, from Lata's first
ever 'released' film, 'Pahilii MangaLaagaur' in 1942. She had
recorded a song before that, in the same year, for 'kitii hasaal',
a film MDed by Sadashivrao Nevrekar. The song was 'naaCHuu
yaa gaDe kheLuu saarii, manii haus bhaarii'. But it wasn't included
in the film. So far as I know, the song is lost to the world for ever.
(This has been quite a digression but I am enjoying writing
this, so let me continue for a bit longer.)
The first CD tells us just how much classical singers in general
and Kirana gharana in particular contributed to the light(er) scene
in the 1930s. Govindrao Tembe, Vinayakrao Patwardhan and
Mallikarjun Mansur can be heard on CD #1. Abdul Karim,
Suresh Babu (Mane), Hirabai Badodekar and Gandhari
Hangal are all there, too, with songs of surpassing excellence.
- dn
UVR
> UVR <u...@usa.not> wrote in message news:<3e009...@nopics.sjc>...
>
> > If for no other reason than that they are fricatives, it makes
> > FAR more sense (to me) to write Kh/KH instead of the iTrans-K
> > and Gh/GH instead of the iTrans-G.
>
> Do we really have to lean on such fricative reasoning? How about
> intuitive extensions? How about the fact that transliterators have
> been using kh and gh (and some even Kh and Gh) since the time such
> transliteration has been in existence?
Whenever *I* have tried make the "it's intuitive" argument, I have
invariably come up against the Surajit Bose argument: "but K/G is
intuitive to me!" This is like, say, the Mathematics professor who
skips a few steps while solving a complex integral calculus problem
on the blackboard saying, "it is obvious" :)
But I really had no intention of turning the discussion into one of
transliteration. Sorry about that, Dr. Singh. Allow me, therefore,
to make amends by trying to veer it back to the original topic --
pronunciation.
Surjit Singh <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3E001F60...@yahoo.com>...
>
> Let us continue with some more fricatives. (By the way, in Hindi
> phonetics they are called sa.ngharshhii).
>
> There are three more in urdu: G, z, and f.
[...]
> That should be enough for now.
For the sake of completeness, it must be stated that there is yet
another fricative (in Urdu): 'zh'. It is the sound of the 's' in
the English "measure/pleasure" or that of the 'j' in the French
'je pense, donc je suis.' :D
One well-known word that has this sound is "mizh_gaa.N" (eyelash).
Looks like Mirza Ghalib loved this word: he once used it not one
or two but THREE times in the same Ghazal!
chaahe hai phir kisii ko muqaabil me.n aarazuu
surme se tez dashnaa-e-mizh_gaa.N kiye hue!
(dashnaa-e-mizh_gaa.N = palako.n kii kaTaar)
No prizes for guessing which Ghazal this is from, or which famous
couplet from that Ghazal was recently discussed on RMIM.
While the Urdu (Persian) script has a separate character for this
sound, there is no character for this sound in Nagari. Often, it
is just represented, erroneously, using the 'za' (ja+dot). A few
fastidious transliterators have used "sha+dot" for it, which IMO
is a brilliant idea, but one that does not seem to have caught on.
> All of what I have discussed above can be found in standard books on
> phonetics found in a average University library in US. That's how I
> started learning these things!
-UVR.
Balaji A.S. Murthy
says...
>
>For the sake of completeness, it must be stated that there is yet
>another fricative (in Urdu): 'zh'. It is the sound of the 's' in
>the English "measure/pleasure" or that of the 'j' in the French
>'je pense, donc je suis.' :D
>
>
>sound, there is no character for this sound in Nagari. Often, it
>is just represented, erroneously, using the 'za' (ja+dot). A few
>fastidious transliterators have used "sha+dot" for it, which IMO
>is a brilliant idea, but one that does not seem to have caught on.
Wouldn't "jha+dot" be a more intuitive representation of this?
- Balaji
Surajit A. Bose
In article <9c085b63.02121...@posting.google.com>,
u...@usa.net (UVR) wrote:
> Whenever *I* have tried make the "it's intuitive" argument, I have
> invariably come up against the Surajit Bose argument: "but K/G is
> intuitive to me!" This is like, say, the Mathematics professor who
> skips a few steps while solving a complex integral calculus problem
> on the blackboard saying, "it is obvious" :)
Actually I don't find "K" intuitive. I find "G" intuitive.
But my pronunciation and accent, in every language that I know, has
always been shaky. So perhaps I've been mispronouncing "G" all my life.
I have been pronouncing it as a voiced form of the plosive "q". From
what Dr Singh says, it's actually a voiced form of the fricative "K".
To be more explicit:
The native Hindi consonants k, kh, g, and gh are as follows:
k = velar plosive, voiceless, unaspirated
kh = velar plosive, voiceless, aspirated
g = velar plosive, voiced, unaspirated
gh = velar plosive, voiced, aspirated.
As for the non-native consonants, imported from Arabic / Persian, my
understanding, subject to correction, is that they are as follows:
q = uvular [back velar] plosive, voiceless, unaspirated. [I'm reasonably
sure it's not a fricative counterpart of "k", though this is possible]
K = velar fricative, voiceless [I'm reasonably sure it's not an
aspirated counterpart of "q", though assuming that "q" is a back velar
plosive, this is possible; if "q" is a velar fricative, then of course,
"K" couldn't be its aspirated counterpart, coz there's no such thing as
an aspirated fricative]
G = ?
Dr Singh says "G" is the voiced counterpart of K / the fricative
counterpart of gh. I have up until this point assumed and based my
pronunciation on the belief that it's the voiced counterpart of q / the
back velar counterpart of g.
If I have indeed been mistaken all my life about this, which is entirely
likely, then yes, I will agree that G is not as intuitive as Gh for that
sound.
Oh, and btw: Nani's contention that the difference between "j" and "z"
is an implicit "y" in the former has no basis in linguistics. "j" is an
affricate, "z" a fricative. Two completely different sound mechanisms.
And speaking of subtle differences, [e.g. Dr. Singh's example of /f/ in
English being labiodental while in Urdu it's bilabial]: /h/ in English
is voiceless. In the Indian languages that I know, it's voiced.
-s
(who has actually studied linguistics, but is no good at languages; he
is much more comfortable reading 'em than speaking 'em)
Surajit A. Bose
Define "intuitive". "zh" is the voiced counterpart of "sh". It is a
voiced palatal fricative. "jh" is a voiced alveolar aspirated plosive.
So linguistically, at any rate, "sha + nukta" is closer. 8-)
-s
UVR
I aspiratedly, alveolarly, plosively, palatally and fricatively
friggree ... I mean, agree, with Surajit.
-UVR.
Surjit Singh
Ultimately it boils down to what one is comfortable with and that varies
from person to person. There are other transcription schemes that use ii
uu. Too many to mention. [Type Hindi ii uu in Yahoo search.] Do not know
how many before-Avinash, though. Nani has answered the paaganiis
question. No need to apologize. I plan to get carried away in another post!
I repeated my Two-but-really-3 PJ here. I remember when you were driving
me from the Denver airport to Dr. guri's house, I said, so there are
three famous RMIM bachelors, you, Vish and Ashok. I said that with a
straight face. With equally staright face, you replied. No, there are
two, you counted me twice. Then we continued our conversation without
further comment. But whenever Rajdeep (my younger son) remembers this
excahnge, he comes to tears with laughter.
Vish Krishnan wrote:
Surjit Singh
naniwadekar wrote:
> I had written -
>
>>And, finally, the name is viShNupant paag(a)niis. The 1940s
>>hfgk has surprisingly got it wrong. It spells it 'pag(a)niis'.
>>Even more surprisingly, no one pointed out the error to
>>Hamraaz after its publication. And when the 1930s hfgk
>>came out a few years later, it repeated the mistake.
>>
I just love the way lata shows her marathiness in early songs by saying
things like laala (with DaNDaa). Of course it is written as such but is
pronounced as laal (hala.nt). Sadly she lost it too soon.
<GONE>
>
> - dn
Surjit Singh
UVR wrote:
> vishkr...@hotmail.com (Vish Krishnan) wrote in message news:<3a4cea23.0212...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>UVR <u...@usa.not> wrote in message news:<3e009...@nopics.sjc>...
>>
>>
>>>If for no other reason than that they are fricatives, it makes
>>>FAR more sense (to me) to write Kh/KH instead of the iTrans-K
>>>and Gh/GH instead of the iTrans-G.
>>>
>>Do we really have to lean on such fricative reasoning? How about
>>intuitive extensions? How about the fact that transliterators have
>>been using kh and gh (and some even Kh and Gh) since the time such
>>transliteration has been in existence?
>>
>
> Whenever *I* have tried make the "it's intuitive" argument, I have
> invariably come up against the Surajit Bose argument: "but K/G is
> intuitive to me!" This is like, say, the Mathematics professor who
> skips a few steps while solving a complex integral calculus problem
> on the blackboard saying, "it is obvious" :)
>
> But I really had no intention of turning the discussion into one of
> transliteration. Sorry about that, Dr. Singh.
No apologies needed. We are all friendly neighbourhood RMIMers!
Allow me, therefore,
> to make amends by trying to veer it back to the original topic --
> pronunciation.
<GONE>
>
> -UVR.
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
Amit Malhotra
I think you are right on this one!! I was going to say that too when i
read the "sha+dot" from UVR sahib. I think "jha+dot" should be able
to represent this sound much better than sha+dot. :)
Amit
"je t'aime, je suis fou, je n'en peux plus, c'est trop!!
ton nom est dans mon coeur, comme dans un grelot
et chaque fois mon amour, quand je frisonne (ca arrive souvent au
Canada)
le grelot s'agite, et le nom sonne..."
> - Balaji
Surjit Singh
In view of the overly linguistic and non-music related nature, I suggest
we correspond privately after this.
I am not complaining, but just expressing my opinion here.
I wanted to do 2 things in my post: 1. Avoid overly heavy linguistic
terms 2. Express my strong preference for "spoken" languages.
Enter at your own risk. I am going to get carried away.
Surajit A. Bose wrote:
> Warning: no musical content in this post. Entirely for linguistics geeks.
>
> In article <9c085b63.02121...@posting.google.com>,
> u...@usa.net (UVR) wrote:
>
>
>>Whenever *I* have tried make the "it's intuitive" argument, I have
>>invariably come up against the Surajit Bose argument: "but K/G is
>>intuitive to me!" This is like, say, the Mathematics professor who
>>skips a few steps while solving a complex integral calculus problem
>>on the blackboard saying, "it is obvious" :)
>>
>
> Actually I don't find "K" intuitive. I find "G" intuitive.
>
> But my pronunciation and accent, in every language that I know, has
> always been shaky. So perhaps I've been mispronouncing "G" all my life.
> I have been pronouncing it as a voiced form of the plosive "q". From
> what Dr Singh says, it's actually a voiced form of the fricative "K".
>
> To be more explicit:
>
> The native Hindi consonants k, kh, g, and gh are as follows:
>
> k = velar plosive, voiceless, unaspirated
> kh = velar plosive, voiceless, aspirated
> g = velar plosive, voiced, unaspirated
> gh = velar plosive, voiced, aspirated.
>
To the uninitiated, velar is a position marker in the mouth, just as
labial, dental, uvular etc. To see these positions, go to the WWW or a
good library. To feel the voicedness, keep your hand on the outside of
your throat while saying k ang g. You will feel the difference.
Aspirated is a technical term that just means with air as mentioned in
my earlier posts.
> As for the non-native consonants, imported from Arabic / Persian, my
> understanding, subject to correction, is that they are as follows:
>
> q = uvular [back velar] plosive, voiceless, unaspirated. [I'm reasonably
> sure it's not a fricative counterpart of "k", though this is possible]
You are right. The sound of q is exactly uvular, plosive etc. as you
described. In Arabic.
You have hit on a topic on which I used to have and still have heated
arguments with my friends. Some of them are purists; they believe that
just becuase some letters are written in Arabic and Persian notation
they "should" be pronounced as such. I vehemently disagree.
I believe that urdu pronunciations of these symbols are not the same as
Arabic; they have been Indianized. As examples, I offer the many
incarnations of the z sound (ze, za'ad etc.). In urdu they are all
pronounced as z. Similary, I believe that the sounds of q, K, G, are
pronounced with the tongue closer to their Hindi counterparts, rather
than the very-far-back uvular Arabic/Persian cousins. I have done
experiments with people who know how to speak urdu. I asked them to
pronounce their version of k and q. Then inquired at length about the
tongue position, breath etc. Then I concluded what I did.
This is all unpublished, anecdotal stuff based on my personal
experience. Believing in the principle of descriptive (rather than
prescriptive) speech, I advise my non-urdu knowing friends the way I
have done here.
Take it or leave it.
>
> K = velar fricative, voiceless [I'm reasonably sure it's not an
> aspirated counterpart of "q", though assuming that "q" is a back velar
> plosive, this is possible; if "q" is a velar fricative, then of course,
> "K" couldn't be its aspirated counterpart, coz there's no such thing as
> an aspirated fricative]
There are aspirated fricatives, in Taiwanese (Island Chinese) and Korean.
>
> G = ?
>
> Dr Singh says "G" is the voiced counterpart of K / the fricative
> counterpart of gh. I have up until this point assumed and based my
> pronunciation on the belief that it's the voiced counterpart of q / the
> back velar counterpart of g.
>
> If I have indeed been mistaken all my life about this, which is entirely
> likely, then yes, I will agree that G is not as intuitive as Gh for that
> sound.
>
> Oh, and btw: Nani's contention that the difference between "j" and "z"
> is an implicit "y" in the former has no basis in linguistics. "j" is an
> affricate, "z" a fricative. Two completely different sound mechanisms.
Agreed.
>
> And speaking of subtle differences, [e.g. Dr. Singh's example of /f/ in
> English being labiodental while in Urdu it's bilabial]: /h/ in English
> is voiceless. In the Indian languages that I know, it's voiced.
True.
>
> -s
>
> (who has actually studied linguistics, but is no good at languages; he
> is much more comfortable reading 'em than speaking 'em)
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
Surjit Singh
Surajit A. Bose wrote:
I completely agree. In fact, I use this notation in my private writings.
In addition I use tha+dot (thing) and da+dot (them) for the two "th"
symbols in English also.
>
> -s
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
Surajit A. Bose
Surjit Singh <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I repeated my Two-but-really-3 PJ here. I remember when you were driving
> me from the Denver airport to Dr. guri's house, I said, so there are
> three famous RMIM bachelors, you, Vish and Ashok. I said that with a
> straight face. With equally staright face, you replied. No, there are
> two, you counted me twice.
So I guess I don't count as a famous RMIM bachelor! Darn. 8-)
-s
Surjit Singh
Surajit A. Bose wrote:
You have to show up in Dr. guri's house; then.
>
> -s
Surajit A. Bose
am...@zonecom.com (Amit Malhotra) wrote:
> "je t'aime, je suis fou, je n'en peux plus, c'est trop!!
> ton nom est dans mon coeur, comme dans un grelot
> et chaque fois mon amour, quand je frisonne (ca arrive souvent au
> Canada)
> le grelot s'agite, et le nom sonne..."
Ah, Rostand!
Disez-moi, mon ami (si je vous peux appeller mon ami), comment
traduise-t-on le mot "grelot"? Ce n'est pas dans mon dictionnaire.
Votre ligne "ça arrive souvent au Canada" m'a fait rire.
-s
Surajit A. Bose
Surjit Singh <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Surajit:
>
> In view of the overly linguistic and non-music related nature, I suggest
> we correspond privately after this.
Fine, except for two things that I want to bring up online, since the
question of how to pronouce q, K, and G started us on this topic here:
I had written:
> > But my pronunciation and accent, in every language that I know, has
> > always been shaky. So perhaps I've been mispronouncing "G" all my life.
> > I have been pronouncing it as a voiced form of the plosive "q". From
> > what Dr Singh says, it's actually a voiced form of the fricative "K".
You didn't comment, nor did anybody else. So tell me (I'm pleading to
the world at large): which *is* it? is G = voiced K, or is G = voiced q?
AND:
> > q = uvular [back velar] plosive, voiceless, unaspirated. [I'm reasonably
> > sure it's not a fricative counterpart of "k", though this is possible]
>
>
> You are right. The sound of q is exactly uvular, plosive etc. as you
> described. In Arabic.
Correction: I specifically said "uvular / back velar." Pedantically
speaking, it's uvular. In common usage, it's back velar. So I agree with
you that
> the sounds of q, K, G, are
> pronounced with the tongue closer to their Hindi counterparts, rather
> than the very-far-back uvular Arabic/Persian cousins.
But q is still back velar, unlike K. It is not front velar, as K, k, kh,
g, and gh are. In fact I cannot see how one could possibly distinguish q
from k, pronunciation-wise, if they are both considered front velar.
More offline.
-s
UVR
>
>>>But my pronunciation and accent, in every language that I know, has
>>>always been shaky. So perhaps I've been mispronouncing "G" all my life.
>>>I have been pronouncing it as a voiced form of the plosive "q". From
>>>what Dr Singh says, it's actually a voiced form of the fricative "K".
>
> You didn't comment, nor did anybody else. So tell me (I'm pleading to
> the world at large): which *is* it? is G = voiced K, or is G = voiced q?
In Urdu, it is definitely not the voiced version of "q".
That is, this identity is false: "G:q :: g:k".
This identity is true: Gh:Kh :: zh:sh
-UVR.
PS: If Dr. Singh and you don't mind doing so, please add me
to the recipient list of your off-RMIM e-mails on this
topic. Thanks.
Amit Malhotra
ah bien oui! Rostand! Bon Vieux Rostand!!
vous n'avez pas un bon dictionnaire mon ami , a tout cas, voici la
traduction du mot "grelot"
grelot = bell, sleigh-bell
et j'ai verifie les lignes dans un livres, c'est pas ce que j'ai ecrit
avant, les exactes lignes sont:
je t'aime, je suis fou, je n'en peux plus, c'est trop;
Ton nom est dans mon coeur comme dans un grelot,
Et comme tout le temps, Roxane, je frissone,
Tout le temps, le grelot s'agite, et le nom sonne!
i remember i had modified the third line when i was in college to meet
my needs ;-) taking the name Roxane out, but those lines stayed in my
mind and the exact lines were not the ones i wrote.
and before ppl tell me to take it to a french newsgroup.. i'll stop
:-|
Amit Malhotra
P.s. the reason why i thought that "jh" with a "nuktaa" sounds better
than "sha" with a "nuktaa" is because if the sound "zh" is like the
"je" in french, then i have always been transliterating "je" as "Jh"
in hindi and putting a dot under it to represent the slight difference
in the sound... but upon saying it again and again, "Zh" sound is much
closer to "sha" sound then "jha" sound :)
>
> -s
Surjit Singh
Will discuss in email; yes UVR will be included.
For others, Summary:
My suggestion is to ignore the jargon and stick to the recommendations
in my 2 posts.
Surajit A. Bose wrote:
Surjit Singh
UVR wrote:
> Surajit A. Bose wrote:
>
>>
>>>> But my pronunciation and accent, in every language that I know, has
>>>> always been shaky. So perhaps I've been mispronouncing "G" all my
>>>> life. I have been pronouncing it as a voiced form of the plosive
>>>> "q". From what Dr Singh says, it's actually a voiced form of the
>>>> fricative "K".
>>>
>>
>> You didn't comment, nor did anybody else. So tell me (I'm pleading to
>> the world at large): which *is* it? is G = voiced K, or is G = voiced q?
>
>
> In Urdu, it is definitely not the voiced version of "q".
> That is, this identity is false: "G:q :: g:k".
>
> This identity is true: Gh:Kh :: zh:sh
>
> -UVR.
>
> PS: If Dr. Singh and you don't mind doing so, please add me
> to the recipient list of your off-RMIM e-mails on this
> topic. Thanks.
Will do. This is best done by email.
>
>> AND:
>>
>>>> q = uvular [back velar] plosive, voiceless, unaspirated. [I'm
>>>> reasonably sure it's not a fricative counterpart of "k", though this
>>>> is possible]
>>>
>>>
>>> You are right. The sound of q is exactly uvular, plosive etc. as you
>>> described. In Arabic.
>>
>>
>> Correction: I specifically said "uvular / back velar." Pedantically
>> speaking, it's uvular. In common usage, it's back velar. So I agree
>> with you that
>>
>>> the sounds of q, K, G, are pronounced with the tongue closer to their
>>> Hindi counterparts, rather than the very-far-back uvular
>>> Arabic/Persian cousins.
>>
>>
>> But q is still back velar, unlike K. It is not front velar, as K, k,
>> kh, g, and gh are. In fact I cannot see how one could possibly
>> distinguish q from k, pronunciation-wise, if they are both considered
>> front velar.
>>
>> More offline.
>> -s
>
>
Surajit A. Bose
am...@zonecom.com (Amit Malhotra) wrote:
> vous n'avez pas un bon dictionnaire mon ami , a tout cas, voici la
> traduction du mot "grelot"
>
> grelot = bell, sleigh-bell
Merci beaucoup. Je cherchais le mot dans plusieurs dictionnaires sur
l'Internet, mais je ne l'ai trouvé pas.
-s