Pronunciation intolerance
Malini
observations:
1. We let the americans twist the pronunciation of our names in whichever
way is convenient for them.
2. For the non-urdu knowing masses, there is too subtle a difference between
how 'Q' and 'K' (or for that matter 'kh' and 'Kh' or 'g' and 'G' )
pronounced in Urdu to even bother making that differentiation.
3. For the non-Hindi-grammar-knowing masses, it becomes difficult to
distinguish when to end hai with a nasal sound and when to not.
4. Non-south indian masses don't bat an eyelid before saying 'Vaijantimala'
for 'Vaijayanthimala'(or 'Vyjayanthimala' or 'Vyjayantimala') ? It was
shocking to hear this wrong pronunciation coming from Pallavi Joshi while
hosting the 'Antakshari' program on Zee-TV. That too not once but four times
the same mistake.
5. Asha Bhonsle has made ghastly pronunciation mistakes in some songs. The
two songs I have noted so far both are penned by Sahir. Did Sahir's lyrics
intimidate Asha so much that she faltered at simple words:
'Mai.n jab bhii akelii hoti huu.n' - Dharamputra
in the line:
haalaat ke tapate tuufaa.n me.n jazbaat kii kashtii khetii huu.N,
she sings 'Kheti' instead of 'kheti'
and recently, I discovered this one while listening to 'abhii na jaao
chho.D kar'
when she starts 'sitaare jhilamilaa uThe...', the very next line she
sings:
'charaag jaGamagaa uThe' instead of 'charaaG jagamagaa uThe'
listen to this song again if you haven't noticed this before.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
These are only a few observations regarding pronunciation issues.
Lets be more tolerant towards pronunciations just like we are towards
religions. Correct them if they are willing to be corrected. Forgive them if
they are too adamant for they know not what they are doing and they want
to remain ignorant. A note of caution though for those who rise at the first
opportunity to correct others. Are you taking care to not make any mistakes
with others' languages in the same way that you are expecting from others ?
Now I'm going to shut down my newsreader for a few months :)
thanks,
Malini
Surjit Singh
>
> 4. Non-south indian masses don't bat an eyelid before saying 'Vaijantimala'
> for 'Vaijayanthimala'(or 'Vyjayanthimala' or 'Vyjayantimala') ? It was
> shocking to hear this wrong pronunciation coming from Pallavi Joshi while
> hosting the 'Antakshari' program on Zee-TV. That too not once but four times
> the same mistake.
>
In This Is Your Life, oops, Jina Isika Nam Hai, Farukh Sheikh did the
same thing, Vyjayanti promptly corrected him!
> Malini
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
Visit my home page at
http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html
Satish Kalra
news:LIGdncgw74E...@giganews.com...
> In the light of recent pronunciation intolerance on RMIM, I have made some
> observations:
>
> 1. We let the americans twist the pronunciation of our names in whichever
> way is convenient for them.
Yes, but the underlying condition is if we let them. If we make it known to
them how it is to be pronounced, they do make the effort, and will also
apologize for the erroneous pronunciation.
>
> 2. For the non-urdu knowing masses, there is too subtle a difference
between
> how 'Q' and 'K' (or for that matter 'kh' and 'Kh' or 'g' and 'G' )
> pronounced in Urdu to even bother making that differentiation.
>
> 3. For the non-Hindi-grammar-knowing masses, it becomes difficult to
> distinguish when to end hai with a nasal sound and when to not.
For 2 and 3, I agree with you about the vocal part(s).
>
> 4. Non-south indian masses don't bat an eyelid before saying
'Vaijantimala'
> for 'Vaijayanthimala'(or 'Vyjayanthimala' or 'Vyjayantimala') ? It was
> shocking to hear this wrong pronunciation coming from Pallavi Joshi while
> hosting the 'Antakshari' program on Zee-TV. That too not once but four
times
> the same mistake.
Isn't that the reason we see so many posts from various people whenever
someone's name is mis-spelt on this ng's posts?
...Asha Bhosle's mis-pronunciation part snipped...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> These are only a few observations regarding pronunciation issues.
>
> Lets be more tolerant towards pronunciations just like we are towards
> religions. Correct them if they are willing to be corrected. Forgive them
if
> they are too adamant for they know not what they are doing and they
want
> to remain ignorant. A note of caution though for those who rise at the
first
> opportunity to correct others. Are you taking care to not make any
mistakes
> with others' languages in the same way that you are expecting from others
?
Couldn't agree with you more, on the tolerance issue. And yet, should one
not continue also with the effort to make the corrections, more on how a
particular word is written!
Maybe I myself misused the word "pronunciation" in my original post re.
"hain" Vs. "hai". I should rather have been referring to the correct
written usage. My angst originates from film titles such as "Rehna HaiN
Terre Dil Mein", etc. That is what propogates the incorrect usage among the
masses.
--
Happy Listenings.
Satish Kalra
Sudhir
Khud and Khuda
2 Quite a number of Bengali and Marathi speaking artists get struck
at these words.
Many months ago, there was a long discussion on Bengali speaking artists and
the sounds associated with:
B for Victory
B for Wedding or Bedding
Sudhir
------------------
"Malini" <malin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<LIGdncgw74E...@giganews.com>...
UVR
> "Malini" <malin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the light of recent pronunciation intolerance on RMIM, I have made some
>>observations:
>>
>>1. We let the americans twist the pronunciation of our names in whichever
>>way is convenient for them.
>
> Yes, but the underlying condition is if we let them. If we make it known to
> them how it is to be pronounced, they do make the effort, and will also
> apologize for the erroneous pronunciation.
There are other kinds of Americans too. There are those who,
as you say, will make an honest effort, and there are those who
don't care what your name is supposed to sound like. Actually,
they not only do not care, they even boast about their inability,
as if it were something to be proud of. I can't tell you how
often I have been introduced as, "this is Ravindra. And don't
ask me to say the rest of his name ... ha ha ha!". This, with
a disgustingly palpable sense of pride, all the while not even
realizing that he hasn't even said this part of my name correctly!
Then again, I've myself experienced the "Vyjayanthimala" problem,
having heard a lot of Indians also mess up my name (all 3 parts
of it), and not just when they are reading it written in English,
so what am I complaining about? :)
So I guess Malini is right. It's a lost cause. We ought to
just give it up and let our language go to hell in a handbasket.
Nobody cares.
-UVR.
Abhay Jain
> observations:
>
> 1. We let the americans twist the pronunciation of our names in whichever
> way is convenient for them.
>
This reminds me of a friend named Sudhir,
who was called Sudar, Sidur, etc by the
secretary named Nancy. Being tired of this
constant distortion of his despite telling her
the correct prononciation, he called her Linda.
She snapped back, "my name is not Linda,
it is Nancy". Sudhir shot back saying "my name
is Sudhir". She humbly asked how do you pronounce
it. From that day she always prononced it corerectly.
Moral of the story is that we let them pronounce
it incorrectly.
Abhay Jain
>
> thanks,
> Malini
>
>
>
>
Ket...@att.net
>There are other kinds of Americans too. There are those who,
>as you say, will make an honest effort, and there are those who
>don't care what your name is supposed to sound like. Actually,
>they not only do not care, they even boast about their inability,
>as if it were something to be proud of. I can't tell you how
>often I have been introduced as, "this is Ravindra. And don't
>ask me to say the rest of his name ... ha ha ha!". This, with
>a disgustingly palpable sense of pride, all the while not even
>realizing that he hasn't even said this part of my name correctly!
>
>Then again, I've myself experienced the "Vyjayanthimala" problem,
>having heard a lot of Indians also mess up my name (all 3 parts
>of it), and not just when they are reading it written in English,
>so what am I complaining about? :)
>
>So I guess Malini is right. It's a lost cause. We ought to
>just give it up and let our language go to hell in a handbasket.
>Nobody cares.
Considering I have heard Bongs say "Billiam" for William, Gujjus say "Braynt"
for Brent, Ghaats say "Virzinia" for Virginia, and Madrasis say "Annna"(as in
Annadurai) for Anna, I am not sure why we complain. Educated Indians are atleast
are far more familiar with Western names than the Americans are with Indian
ones.
Ketan
PS: If I have omitted offending any Indian linguistic or ethnic groups, I
apologize for the oversight.
Afzal A. Khan
Sudhir wrote:
> 2 Quite a number of Bengali and Marathi speaking artists get struck
^^^^^^
> at these words.
>
> Sudhir
Can you vouch for it ? !!!
Afzal
Vinay
In general, I agree with what you are saying, especially the spirit of
your post. Just have minor disagreements on some specific points. All
of which are my personal and humble opinions only.
First, I feel that you are putting different issues together. For
instance, speaking "hai" as "hai.n" is a grammar issue (mentioned by
yourself), while your point two (about nuqtaa) is about the
vocabulary. And there's a difference between the two. Same about
pronunciation and spelling. I will try to make myself more clear.
IMO, using wrong grammar is a bigger "crime" than merely using wrong
"spelling". For example take a sentence like "wah aa rahaa hai.n." It
would be equal to saying "he are coming" in English. It's not just a
wrong spelling. It is wrong grammar. Grammar is basic, especially this
much elementary stuff (is/are, hai/haiN type). To me, the
incorrectness in this department simply goes into not-acceptable
category.
Talking about vocabulary, there are things that are generally
acceptable, and then there are those that are not. And then there are
words which have variant forms/spelling/pronunciations. I would take
all these into account when I determine the incorrectness. AFAIK,
nuqtaa is really not a big issue in Hindi. I mentioned this in another
thread also recently that as long as the ambiguity does not creep in
due to its non-usage, I would be able to use the non-nuqtaa variant of
a word "safely". The nuqtaa variant is still the preferred one, but
not using it would not necessarily make the word incorrect. My point
is that for the sake of correctness/incorrectness determination, the
words having nuqtaa sounds are special and can be put aside because
almost all of them are borrowed from foreign languages and their
pronunciation is neither enforced strictly nor yet naturalised (as it
seems) in a consistent manner.
Then there's an issue of the mode of usage. This is whole lot of IMOs.
I feel that the conversational language is pretty loose and I would
not really mind wrong pronunciation in a casual talk that much (native
speakers including). Even in cases of wrong grammar usage, I may not
want to point the error to the speaker every time. Especially not if
the user is not interested in learning. Moreover, if the speaker is
not a native speaker of the language, I would not be much concerned
about the wrong pronunciation, much less get offended. If he/she
wants, I may point out to him the correction, but I would certainly
understand the problems he/she might have in pronouncing a particular
sound. For that matter, I don't feel *offended* at all when an
American or a Bengali or for that matter anyone else with a different
tongue pronounce my name in another way. Why, I do the same in case of
many English words or words from other languages, which my tongue find
difficult to pronounce, even after a bit of practice. IMO, a
non-native speaker should always be given extra consideration. You
say, "It was shocking to hear this wrong pronunciation coming from
Pallavi Joshi." Aren't you being cruel to her for the same reason that
you want people to not care about?
But that said, I give a different and higher weightage to the written
word. And that's because I feel the user has time and means to correct
the mistakes while writing. I would find the written "ve jaa rahe hai"
as much annoying as I would find, "they is going." At the same time,
however, I would give a benefit of doubt to the casual postings on the
RMIM (or for that matter on any usenet or discussion forum on the
Internet). In many cases, the posts are written in a hurry (just
enough time given to put across the point) and mostly without any
helps of spelling/grammar-checkers. And more importantly these posts
are not meant as any reference for spelling or grammar.
But I have a different yardstick for something more formal like the
ISB or song transcriptions. Here's a resource that people are going to
refer to, and that too for correctness. I would certainly put much
more emphasis on the correctness of the grammar/spelling/transcription
in such a case.
Same for a performance scenario, where everything is scripted and can
be corrected. This particularly includes dialogues and songs in the
movies. I feel it is the responsibility of the performers (actors,
singers) to not make errors in pronunciation unless it is intended
(for several reasons including regional characterizations). In such
cases, though any generally *acceptable* variant is normally fine, the
*writer's* intent or acceptance of the version used should be the
yardstick.
I agree to you wholeheartedly when you say, "Lets be more tolerant
towards pronunciations just like we are towards religions. Correct
them if they are willing to be corrected. Forgive them if they are too
adamant for they know not what they are doing and they want to remain
ignorant."
But when you say, "A note of caution though for those who rise at the
first opportunity to correct others," I again want to emphasise the
point I made above. In a general post on RMIM, I would not point out
the corrections (surely not for mere typos or for grammar), but when
someone posts a song lyric, especially but not necessarily, for the
ISB, the poster automatically asks everyone to correct the errors of
spelling or transcription, AFA I understand.
Another important thing to note is that a song lyric is like quoting
someone else, in this case, the lyricist (thru the singer). And I
don't think I would not like to be corrected myself if I quote someone
wrongly. Further, I shouldn't feel bad if someone corrects me on that.
Regards,
Vinay
"Malini" <malin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<LIGdncgw74E...@giganews.com>...
Surma Bhopali
>
> Considering I have heard Bongs say "Billiam" for William, Gujjus say "Braynt"
I don't think any Bengali would say "billiam", they are more likely to
say "uilliam" in this case. Note that not every "w"/"v" sound is
pronounced as "b" by Bengalis. This issue is a bit complex. A typical
"v" coming from an English source is usually pronounced as "bh" (as in
Virginia --> "bhaarjiniyaa"). That is also the reason why many
Bengalis prefer the spelling Avijit for Abhijit. A "w" coming from an
English source is pronounced as "w" in a weird manner which depends on
the vowel that follows "w". Example, Web will be pronounced as "oyeb",
Waqar as "oaakaar", Wood as "uuD". A "v" originating from
Sanskrit-based languages will most likely be pronounced as "b".
Example, vivek --> "bibek", jiivan --> "jiiban". It is a different
matter that ITRANS uses "w"/"v" for transliterating the same Hindi
consonant.
> for Brent, Ghaats say "Virzinia" for Virginia, and Madrasis say "Annna"(as in
> Annadurai) for Anna, I am not sure why we complain. Educated Indians are atleast
> are far more familiar with Western names than the Americans are with Indian
> ones.
>
I agree completely with this spirit. I can't understand why people get
intolerant about something that they themselves can't do. To cite an
OT example, most Indians living in Australia aggresively supported
India in an India-Aus match in Sydney, but many among them will not
hesitate to point out how some people living in India support Pakistan
during Indo-Pak matches. My apologies for bringing in something not
related to music at all.
Afzal A. Khan
I do believe that you penned (or typed) your thoughts with
the best of intentions. And since all of us are supposed
to "tolerate" so many things, one should be prepared to
"tolerate", or at least listen to, some comments and
observations from others on this subject. So why should
the newsreader be shut down ? And I am ignoring the
"smiley".
The first point (about the Americans) is not at all
relevant to this discussion, even though UVR and others
have offered pertinent comments on that point --- pertinent
to the point, but not for purposes of an RMIM debate.
The second point, to my mind, is an oversimplification.
The difference may not be all that subtle. And I am not
even referring to people like UVR and Prof. Surjit Singh
who know Urdu quite well. Most RMIMers are familiar with
the letters "G" and "K" which they use for the correpond-
ing Urdu letters/sounds. I personally prefer to use
"GH", "Q" and also "KH" (all capitals) even if the sound
occurs in the middle of a word. Letters like these would
not be in vogue in RMIM, if these people did not distinguish
between these sounds and the other sounds represented by
"k" etc. It is quite possible that some people from the
South may not be able to make such a distinction, but as far
as Urdu/Hindi lyrics are concerned, I am mostly thinking
about people who are more or less familiar with BOTH
languages and their pronunciation. The reverse is also
true. Most, if not all, of the "Northerners" feel quite
non-plussed with certain South Indian (or perhaps Tamil)
pronunciations. Examples : the "L/zh" sound as in
"Pazhamum". Also the seemingly interchangeable pronunciation
of "g" and "h". I have heard people speaking of the same
town as either "Nagore" or "Nahore" --- or "Nagapattinam"
and "Nahapattinam". The Marathi "ch" is another such
sound. When I first heard a Bengali friend use the word
"JeeBaun", I didn't get it at first. Then I realised that
he meant "jeevan".
The third point (Hai/haiN) : This is no doubt true, but
are we dealing with so many "non-Hindi-grammar-knowing"
folks ? Most of those who read, listen to and talk about
Urdu/Hindi film-songs are more or less familiar with
the relevant rules in the two languages. And, with a
little effort, it is not all that difficult for others
to understand the difference. This point is comparatively
less important. And it hardly figures at all in respect of
the song-database.
The fourth point has been well-taken. We should respect the
spelling and pronunciation of proper names, with reference to
what spellings/pronunciations are used by the concerned
persons. In another thread in RMIM (and prior to that, in
RMIC) I had referred to the spelling and pronunciation of
Ustaad Hafiz (pronounced 'Haafiz') Ali Khan, father of sarod
maestro Amjad Ali Khan.
Coming to the two Asha songs cited by you, I feel much
surprised. In all these years of listening, I do not
think I heard the relevant passages/words in the two songs
as "wrongly pronounced". And I think my ears have been
sufficiently well-attuned to detecting such glaring
mistakes. I am not sure whether any other responders
endorsed your view. I will give the two songs another
listen, but (as of now) I am convinced there is no mistake.
In 1960/61 (i.e. during the time-frame of the two films),
I seriously doubt whether Asha could have got away with such
mistakes. I am pretty sure it is "kheti" and "charaaGH".
If you recall, someone had mentioned about 5 years back that
Mohammed Rafi (of all the people !) had mispronounced the
word "GHam" as "gam" !
Also, I think the words used here "tolerance/intolerance"
are rather unfortunate. They indicate an undercurrent of
aggressiveness and even bigotry. It isn't as if everybody
is waiting and ready to pounce upon each and every instance
of typing errors and other mistakes. As Vinay has rightly
pointed out, most of the posts here are made by busy people
who don't have sufficient time to hone or polish their
thought-processes and/or use spell/grammar-check tools.
You have also used the word "recent" in your "preamble".
By that, if your reference is to the recent iTrans debate,
let me submit that the basic issue here is quite different.
I have voiced some thoughts (previously and even in the
recent threads) and, it need not be stressed, I am in a
minority. Now, you can examine all the post quite thoroughly
and minutely and then tell us which of the posts you find
more controlled or courteous in their tenor. Whenever any
issue is debated, it can be done either by resorting to
reasoned arguments or indulging in abuses. I don't think
I have ever indulged in the latter type of debates. Even
when people debate the relative merits (or demerits) of
their favourite/non-favourite MDs, I have always tried to
take the middle course --- I am sure you have been seeing
most of these threads, even if you do not participate in
them.
Vinay was right on another count. He clearly distinguished
between ordinary posts and specific posts (song databases
etc.) -- something that is not spoken off the cuff. And the
iTrans debate is also about the same type of posts. And
here too I am concerned about what the lyricists/poets have
actually penned over the years. We owe it to them that
their compositions are preserved in the manner and style
(and this very much includes spellings/pronunciations)
in which these were composed.
To conclude, I am in agreement with your view, generally
speaking, that all of us should be a little more "tolerant"
about all topics that we discuss in RMIM. Let us eschew
abuse. Let us instead rely on reasoned arguments and
dignified language.
Afzal
Surma Bhopali
calling Pratik as Patrick. But IMO your friend Sudhir would better not
mind such slight mis-pronunciations. At least they are not calling him
"Sue". :)
Sudhir
MEHNDI / Bedard Zamana Tera Dushman Hai to Kya Hai
Duniya Mein Nahin Jis Ka Koyi, Us Ka Khuda Hai
Both Hemant and Lata mis-pronunced the word 'Khuda'. But,
I have no complaint. The song is quite good and and they did
great job in rendering it.
ANARKALI / Zindagi Pyar Ki Do Char Ghadi / Hemant
in one of the paragraphs (probably the soundtrack
version, but not the 78 rpm version)
Amol Palekar, more or less can never say Khud or Khuda
properly. Listen to the dialogues, prior to the songs of GHARONDA.
Sudhir
----------------------------
"Afzal A. Khan" <me_a...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<40ACDD61...@privacy.net>...
Surjit Singh
>>
>
> The funniest name-transformation I have come across is a westerner
> calling Pratik as Patrick. But IMO your friend Sudhir would better not
> mind such slight mis-pronunciations. At least they are not calling him
> "Sue". :)
In a recent movie I heard a kid being compared with harii puttar (Harry
Potter!) by a Panjabi grandma. I thought that was brilliant!
Surma Bhopali
validating/contradicting previous opinions, they may be additional
opinions as well. Previous post not preserved entirely.
Vinay wrote:
> Malini:
>
> In general, I agree with what you are saying, especially the spirit of
> your post. Just have minor disagreements on some specific points. All
> of which are my personal and humble opinions only.
>
> First, I feel that you are putting different issues together. For
> instance, speaking "hai" as "hai.n" is a grammar issue (mentioned by
> yourself), while your point two (about nuqtaa) is about the
> vocabulary. And there's a difference between the two. Same about
> pronunciation and spelling. I will try to make myself more clear.
>
> IMO, using wrong grammar is a bigger "crime" than merely using wrong
> "spelling". For example take a sentence like "wah aa rahaa hai.n." It
> would be equal to saying "he are coming" in English. It's not just a
> wrong spelling. It is wrong grammar. Grammar is basic, especially this
> much elementary stuff (is/are, hai/haiN type). To me, the
> incorrectness in this department simply goes into not-acceptable
> category.
>
Agreed "hai"-->"hai.n" grammatically changes the sentence, but
phonetically speaking, how much apart they really are? I mean, how do
you rate the chances of people nasalizing "hai" so that it sounds more
like "hai.n". Or how often can a person actually miss the ".n" when
someone might have really said "hai.n". IMO they are not that
distinct. So I agree with Malini we better accept them as "nearly the
same" and determine whether it is "is" or "are" by the contextual
meaning. mujhe to un logo.n par bhii gussaa aataa hai.n jinhone
"haa.N" aur "naa" banaayaa. :-) duur se sunane par in dono.n me.n
bahut a.ntar nahii.n lagataa, magar inakaa arth ekdam vipariit hai.
Just imagine professionals who need to communicate in Hindi by
yelling(explorers, surveyors), how difficult their job would be if
they were to ask something whose anticipated response is yes/no.
>
> But that said, I give a different and higher weightage to the written
> word. And that's because I feel the user has time and means to correct
> the mistakes while writing.
This may not always be true. Time-constraint may still apply,
particularly when someone is writing/transilerating in one browser and
constantly switching between different windows becuase his boss can
actually see his screen.:-)
>
> But I have a different yardstick for something more formal like the
> ISB or song transcriptions. Here's a resource that people are going to
> refer to, and that too for correctness. I would certainly put much
> more emphasis on the correctness of the grammar/spelling/transcription
> in such a case.
>
Agreed here. But I still feel there are areas where "both versions"
should be deemed correct, particularly with issues involving
fine-lines such as use of anuswar and nuqtaa. What is wrong in making
your language more flexible as long as it does not lead to large-scale
ambiguities. I think English people were smart to allow such
flexibilities in their language making it more acceptable. Being too
rigid amounts to stopping evolution as well as discouraging acceptance
IMO.
"Kabar" may become "khabar" given such flexibility, but it cannot
become "kabar". "dil jal rahe hai.n" may become "dil jal rahe hai", it
cannot become "dil jal rahe haay". :-)
Even the present rigidity does not stop unambiguous words from
creeping in. Example "kashtii _khetii_ huu.N" and "mere baap kii
_khetii_ hai". But we quickly identify them as different from the
context.
>
> But when you say, "A note of caution though for those who rise at the
> first opportunity to correct others," I again want to emphasise the
> point I made above. In a general post on RMIM, I would not point out
> the corrections (surely not for mere typos or for grammar), but when
> someone posts a song lyric, especially but not necessarily, for the
> ISB, the poster automatically asks everyone to correct the errors of
> spelling or transcription, AFA I understand.
>
> Another important thing to note is that a song lyric is like quoting
> someone else, in this case, the lyricist (thru the singer). And I
> don't think I would not like to be corrected myself if I quote someone
> wrongly. Further, I shouldn't feel bad if someone corrects me on that.
Agree. Lyrics must be corrected.
Afzal A. Khan
Surjit Singh wrote:
>
> Surma Bhopali wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > The funniest name-transformation I have come across is a westerner
> > calling Pratik as Patrick. But IMO your friend Sudhir would better not
> > mind such slight mis-pronunciations. At least they are not calling him
> > "Sue". :)
>
> In a recent movie I heard a kid being compared with harii puttar (Harry
> Potter!) by a Panjabi grandma. I thought that was brilliant!
>
> --
> Surjit Singh
Maybe Ms. Rowling got inspired by the Punjabi grandma !
Shri P. N. Oak might have considered this proposition
quite seriously. !
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Sudhir wrote:
>
> The best example is:
>
> MEHNDI / Bedard Zamana Tera Dushman Hai to Kya Hai
> Duniya Mein Nahin Jis Ka Koyi, Us Ka Khuda Hai
>
>
> Both Hemant and Lata mis-pronunced the word 'Khuda'. But,
> I have no complaint. The song is quite good and and they did
> great job in rendering it.
>
> ANARKALI / Zindagi Pyar Ki Do Char Ghadi / Hemant
> in one of the paragraphs (probably the soundtrack
> version, but not the 78 rpm version)
>
> Amol Palekar, more or less can never say Khud or Khuda
> properly. Listen to the dialogues, prior to the songs of GHARONDA.
>
> Sudhir
I agree that HK's pronunciation was not perfect. He was
wont to say "mahefil" for "mehfil" and such like. But Lata
doing the same ? Maybe I too should listen to the two songs
again.......
But, Shri Sudhir-ji, my query was related to your use of the
word "struck". Can you vouch for this ? !!
Afzal
Vinay
> Note: Views expressed here may not necessarily be
> validating/contradicting previous opinions, they may be additional
> opinions as well. Previous post not preserved entirely.
> >
> phonetically speaking, how much apart they really are? I mean, how do
> you rate the chances of people nasalizing "hai" so that it sounds more
> like "hai.n". Or how often can a person actually miss the ".n" when
> someone might have really said "hai.n". IMO they are not that
> distinct. So I agree with Malini we better accept them as "nearly the
> same" and determine whether it is "is" or "are" by the contextual
> meaning. mujhe to un logo.n par bhii gussaa aataa hai.n jinhone
> "haa.N" aur "naa" banaayaa. :-) duur se sunane par in dono.n me.n
> bahut a.ntar nahii.n lagataa, magar inakaa arth ekdam vipariit hai.
> Just imagine professionals who need to communicate in Hindi by
> yelling(explorers, surveyors), how difficult their job would be if
> they were to ask something whose anticipated response is yes/no.
>
Your points reminded me of a funny piece that I read sometime ago. I
am posting it here.
=======================
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby
English will be the official language of the EU rather than German,
which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her
Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for
improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase-in plan that would be
known as "EuroEnglish"
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". This will certainly
make the sivil sevants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in
favor of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan
have 1 less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced by the "f". This will make words
like "fotograf" 20% shorter.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are
possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters,
which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre
that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is
disgraceful, and they should go away.
By the fourth yer, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing
"th" with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords
kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer
kombinations of leters.
After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be
no mor trubls or difikultis and evri vun vil find it ezi tu understand
ech ozer.
===============================
:)
Vinay
UVR
>
> Vinay wrote:
>
>>IMO, using wrong grammar is a bigger "crime" than merely using wrong
>>"spelling". For example take a sentence like "wah aa rahaa hai.n." It
>>would be equal to saying "he are coming" in English. It's not just a
>>wrong spelling. It is wrong grammar. Grammar is basic, especially this
>>much elementary stuff (is/are, hai/haiN type). To me, the
>>incorrectness in this department simply goes into not-acceptable
>>category.
>
> Agreed "hai"-->"hai.n" grammatically changes the sentence, but
> phonetically speaking, how much apart they really are? I mean, how do
> you rate the chances of people nasalizing "hai" so that it sounds more
> like "hai.n". Or how often can a person actually miss the ".n" when
> someone might have really said "hai.n". IMO they are not that
> distinct.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I, however, cannot
agree that 'hai' and 'hai.n' hai are "not that distinct from" or
"nearly identical to" each other.
If what you are saying is right, one should be hearing 'naak se
gaanevaale' singers mispronounce and mix up these two words all
the time, correct? Mukesh to phir bhi Hindi-bhaashii the, I
don't think even Kumar Sanu knowingly mixes these up!
Case closed!
> mujhe to un logo.n par bhii gussaa aataa hai.n jinhone
> "haa.N" aur "naa" banaayaa. :-) duur se sunane par in dono.n me.n
> bahut a.ntar nahii.n lagataa, magar inakaa arth ekdam vipariit hai.
> Just imagine professionals who need to communicate in Hindi by
> yelling(explorers, surveyors), how difficult their job would be if
> they were to ask something whose anticipated response is yes/no.
What!? Have these explorers, surveyors and other yellers of yours
never learnt the word 'nahii.n'? If so, they have no business
conversing in Hindi! :)
And, oh-btw, it's 'Gussaa' :P
>>But I have a different yardstick for something more formal like the
>>ISB or song transcriptions. Here's a resource that people are going to
>>refer to, and that too for correctness. I would certainly put much
>>more emphasis on the correctness of the grammar/spelling/transcription
>>in such a case.
>
> Agreed here. But I still feel there are areas where "both versions"
> should be deemed correct, particularly with issues involving
> fine-lines such as use of anuswar and nuqtaa. What is wrong in making
> your language more flexible as long as it does not lead to large-scale
> ambiguities. I think English people were smart to allow such
> flexibilities in their language making it more acceptable. Being too
> rigid amounts to stopping evolution as well as discouraging acceptance
> IMO.
Which English people have allowed flexibilities of the kind you are
suggesting we (Hindi people) should? Do you think the English find
it acceptable to drop the 'anuswaar' in words like "think, singing,
finger ..." or the 'nuqta' in words like "zoo, measure ..."? NO!
The sheer number of (software) spellcheckers available for English
indicates that wrong spelling is anything but acceptable. Every
word processing package comes with one. Almost every mail client
comes with one.
> "Kabar" may become "khabar" given such flexibility, but it cannot
> become "kabar". "dil jal rahe hai.n" may become "dil jal rahe hai", it
> cannot become "dil jal rahe haay". :-)
I see. So, if one can be cavalier about _dropping_ the nuqta, is
the converse action equally acceptable, too? I mean, _adding_ a
nuqta to words that have none? So, if mazaa and zindagii can become
'majaa' and 'jindagi', should it be acceptable to say 'zoom zoom
Dhalti raat', 'zooki zooki see najar', or (notwithstanding the
onomatopoeic sound of it) 'raat akeli hai, buzzzz gaye diye'?
> Even the present rigidity does not stop unambiguous words from
> creeping in. Example "kashtii _khetii_ huu.N" and "mere baap kii
> _khetii_ hai". But we quickly identify them as different from the
> context.
And removing the "rigidity" would solve this problem ... HOW?
-UVR.
Ritu
> >
> The funniest name-transformation I have come across is a westerner
> calling Pratik as Patrick. But IMO your friend Sudhir would better not
> mind such slight mis-pronunciations. At least they are not calling him
> "Sue". :)
Well I had some junk mail from some credit card company that used to
come in the name of 'Rahu Chandre' instead of 'Ritu Chandra'! Then
there is a chap I know called 'Shree Krishna' who got a mail under the
name of 'Free Krishna' (that's what we call him now :))
Somehow I think there is some desi having a good time whilst sending
out these junk mails :))
While on the issue of Westerners not pronouncing our names correctly,
I think we are being overtly harsh. Esp since we are in their country
and not vice-versa. Expecting someone who has been raised on a
completely different set of phonetics to be able to get a couple of
tongue twister Indian names (which even fellow Indians cannot
pronounce) is expecting too much. Infact even for a name like mine
which is as simple as it gets most westerners cannot get the soft 't'
right. I don't waste time trying to get them to get it right.
And to think of it forget the Americans most Indians I have know
cannot get a simple word like Ritu right. Most of my friends in Delhi
called me 'Rittu'. I have made it my life's mission to make sure
people say 'Phool' instead of 'fool'!..... so why blame outsiders when
we don't have our house in order. Also as Ketan pointed out, we
Indians murder their names royally too. In Bombay a friend of mine
knew a girl called Caroline. She inevitably got called 'Crowline'!!
Cheers
Ritu
Afzal A. Khan
UVR wrote:
> > Agreed "hai"-->"hai.n" grammatically changes the sentence, but
> > phonetically speaking, how much apart they really are? I mean, how do
> > you rate the chances of people nasalizing "hai" so that it sounds more
> > like "hai.n". Or how often can a person actually miss the ".n" when
> > someone might have really said "hai.n". IMO they are not that
> > distinct.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I, however, cannot
> agree that 'hai' and 'hai.n' hai are "not that distinct from" or
> "nearly identical to" each other.
>
> If what you are saying is right, one should be hearing 'naak se
> gaanevaale' singers mispronounce and mix up these two words all
> the time, correct? Mukesh to phir bhi Hindi-bhaashii the, I
> don't think even Kumar Sanu knowingly mixes these up!
What is the operative word here ? "Knowingly" ? !!!
Afzal
>
> Case closed!
> -UVR.
Srinivas Ganti
>"Surjit Singh" <surjit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h50thF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Surma Bhopali wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > The funniest name-transformation I have come across is a westerner
> > calling Pratik as Patrick. But IMO your friend Sudhir would better not
> > mind such slight mis-pronunciations. At least they are not calling him
> > "Sue". :)
>
> In a recent movie I heard a kid being compared with harii puttar (Harry
> Potter!) by a Panjabi grandma. I thought that was brilliant!
Well well one of my friends Murthy, got a mail addressing him as Murphy !!!
I heard that Yosemite becomes Yashomati and Subaru becomes Subba Rao
in desi circles :)
sg.
Vijay Kumar
> In Bombay a friend of mine
> knew a girl called Caroline. She inevitably got called 'Crowline'!!
>
>
My favorite is my friend, looking at her name tag and calling a newly
arrived nurse in the ER, PennyLope:-) Guess he never saw 'To the Manor
Born'.
Vijay Kumar
Hema
> I think we are being overtly harsh. Esp since we are in their country
> and not vice-versa. Expecting someone who has been raised on a
> completely different set of phonetics to be able to get a couple of
> tongue twister Indian names (which even fellow Indians cannot
> pronounce) is expecting too much. Infact even for a name like mine
> which is as simple as it gets most westerners cannot get the soft 't'
> right. I don't waste time trying to get them to get it right.
a hard time pronouncing hema right. I don't blame them, they never
learnt the soft t sound. They either call me heemaa or hemaa ("he" as
in "hell", not "hail"). :-) On my first day at work, I was pleasantly
surprised when my boss insisted that he wanted to pronounce my name
right and really made the effort to say it right; and then corrected
other people when he introduced me to them. The interesting thing is,
we recently had a new hire, a fellow desi, who told everyone that they
were pronouncing my name incorrectly - it should be Hemaa (remember
like in "hell").:) When I asked him if he had ever lived in India, he
said he grew up there and that, this is how it was pronounced in "our
side".:) BTW, "his side" was Ahmedabad! :-))
> And to think of it forget the Americans most Indians I have know
> cannot get a simple word like Ritu right. Most of my friends in Delhi
> called me 'Rittu'. I have made it my life's mission to make sure
> people say 'Phool' instead of 'fool'!..... so why blame outsiders when
> we don't have our house in order. Also as Ketan pointed out, we
> Indians murder their names royally too. In Bombay a friend of mine
> knew a girl called Caroline. She inevitably got called 'Crowline'!!
I have butchered many a name myself. When you don't know the language
well, it happens. I pretty much butchered every french name in Paris.
I had to carry a notepad and pen and write down the street names for
the cabbie. :-) I don't think I can still pronounce Champs-Elysees
right! :) And does the "sil" in "sil vu plait" use "bada e or chhota
e" ?:-) To my ears it sounded something in between. French has all
these rules about when a letter is silent or when the nasal sound is
preferred or when words run into eachother (no kidding)! Tough, very
tough!
Hema.
Srinivas Ganti
>"Hema" <hn...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> Not just soft t that people can't pronounce in Hemlata, they also have
> a hard time pronouncing hema right. I don't blame them, they never
> learnt the soft t sound. They either call me heemaa or hemaa ("he" as
> in "hell", not "hail"). :-) On my first day at work, I was pleasantly
> surprised when my boss insisted that he wanted to pronounce my name
> right and really made the effort to say it right; and then corrected
> other people when he introduced me to them. The interesting thing is,
> we recently had a new hire, a fellow desi, who told everyone that they
> were pronouncing my name incorrectly - it should be Hemaa (remember
> like in "hell").:) When I asked him if he had ever lived in India, he
> said he grew up there and that, this is how it was pronounced in "our
> side".:) BTW, "his side" was Ahmedabad! :-))
Reminds me of another incident where a friend of mine from Ahmedabad
was asking a ride from an American Friend.
The American was asking him where he wanted to go and he said
"Waist college". He was clueless as he knew no street by that name.
And we live in a small town. Finally it dawned upon the American
that the guy from Ahmedabad was referring to "West college" :)
sg.
Abhay Jain
"Ritu" <rc0...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:8777cccd.04052...@posting.google.com...
> nanhaf...@yahoo.co.in (Surma Bhopali) wrote in message
news:<622ae881.04052...@posting.google.com>...
>
> I think we are being overtly harsh. Esp since we are in their country
> and not vice-versa. Expecting someone who has been raised on a
> completely different set of phonetics to be able to get a couple of
> tongue twister Indian names (which even fellow Indians cannot
> pronounce) is expecting too much. Infact even for a name like mine
> which is as simple as it gets most westerners cannot get the soft 't'
> right. I don't waste time trying to get them to get it right.
>
I was corrected early on in this country
to say that Jose' is really pronounced Hose'.
So I started calling spanish people as Hose'.
Well we have a person whose name is Jose'
so I called him Hose'. He corrected me and
said I am not spanish, I am portugese and my
name is pronounced Jose'. You can't win them all.
While working at ITT where we had people from all over
the world my last has been pronounced Jain, Hain, Yain, Gain
and in their opinion they were all correct.
Abhay Jain (Gain, Yain, Hain)
> Cheers
> Ritu
Robin
"But that said, I give a different and higher weightage to the written
word. And that's because I feel the user has time and means to correct
the mistakes while writing...At the same time,however, I would give a
benefit of doubt to the casual postings on theRMIM (or for that matter
on any usenet or discussion forum on theInternet). In many cases, the
posts are written in a hurry (just enough time given to put across the
point) and mostly without any
helps of spelling/grammar-checkers. And more importantly these posts
are not meant as any reference for spelling or grammar.
But I have a different yardstick for something more formal like the
ISB or song transcriptions. Here's a resource that people are going to
refer to, and that too for correctness. I would certainly put much
more emphasis on the correctness of the grammar/spelling/transcription
in such a case."..
--------
Absolutely outstanding post, Vinay. I have preserved the entire length
of it: as a piece of great writing, a reflection of the generous mind
and attitude of tolerance in such matters, and lastly, as a crutch and
rationalization of my own spelling errors and lack of 'formal' (as per
RMIM) form when citing lyrics.
Regards..Robin
Malini
into such a passionate debate! Also causing some miscommunication. I did not
intend to suggest that correct pronunciation/language usage should never be
a consideration. A piece of literary work or a radio/TV program or any mass
communication item needs to go through rigorous review before finally
appearing before general public. And that review needs to include the
language usage and pronunciation correctness among other things. That is why
it was shocking to hear Pallavi Joshi make that mistake. The fault would not
be entirely hers. Gajendra Singh is also at fault for not paying due
attention during editing. Movie name RHTDM is an equally grave mistake.
Similarly, for transliteration of songs for ISB, where we are trying to
represent the lyrics as close to the original as possible, it is very
important that correct lyrics be paid due attention.
However, in day to day communication on discussion forums like RMIM where
there are people from all regions, it is unwise to expect everyone to be
perfect in Hindi/Urdu usage, just like we don't expect everyone to
understand lyrics of a non-hindi song. The common area of interest here is
the indian music. Some people care about both melody and lyrics/language,
some people care only for melody. Following up a post merely for
language/lyrics correction where the discussion point of the original post
is something altogether different would be nothing more than just language
fanaticism. If the original post intends to discuss language/pronunciation
etc. then its a different story.
thanks,
Malini
Surma Bhopali
That was funny. :)
Surma Bhopali
possibility the other person hears that as a "naa" and makes a
completely wrong decision. It is not likely to occur to him that the
other person always uses "nahii.n" for "naa". That's what I meant.
This was not the main point though.
> And, oh-btw, it's 'Gussaa' :P
>
> >>But I have a different yardstick for something more formal like the
> >>ISB or song transcriptions. Here's a resource that people are going to
> >>refer to, and that too for correctness. I would certainly put much
> >>more emphasis on the correctness of the grammar/spelling/transcription
> >>in such a case.
> >
> > Agreed here. But I still feel there are areas where "both versions"
> > should be deemed correct, particularly with issues involving
> > fine-lines such as use of anuswar and nuqtaa. What is wrong in making
> > your language more flexible as long as it does not lead to large-scale
> > ambiguities. I think English people were smart to allow such
> > flexibilities in their language making it more acceptable. Being too
> > rigid amounts to stopping evolution as well as discouraging acceptance
> > IMO.
>
> Which English people have allowed flexibilities of the kind you are
> suggesting we (Hindi people) should?
About a year ago I read the book "The Story of English" published by
BBC. It was full of examples of how English evolved by allowing
flexibility in pronunciation, spelling and usage. If I find that book
again from a library, I will present some quotes. But why we need
that? We all know we have so many different standard English versions
like US English, UK English, Aus English and they all represent
standardization of popular distinct versions of English. We may soon
have a standard Indian English who knows. This itself shows English
has allowed flexibility. Even the worldwide acceptance of
abbreviations like OTOH, LOL, ASAP, etc is because of flexibility. It
will sound boring if I start quoting examples like "colour->color",
"utilise->utlize",...
> Do you think the English find
> it acceptable to drop the 'anuswaar' in words like "think, singing,
> finger ..." or the 'nuqta' in words like "zoo, measure ..."? NO!
I didn't suggest dropping anuswars and nuqtas anywhere in my post.
What I asked for is to let people use both the versions: "gussaa" as
well as "Gussaa". I am all for flexibility as long as it does not lead
to large-scale ambiguity.
> The sheer number of (software) spellcheckers available for English
> indicates that wrong spelling is anything but acceptable. Every
> word processing package comes with one. Almost every mail client
> comes with one.
>
And you get the option to choose which version of English you would
like to have your spellings checked against.
> > "Kabar" may become "khabar" given such flexibility, but it cannot
> > become "kabar". "dil jal rahe hai.n" may become "dil jal rahe hai", it
> > cannot become "dil jal rahe haay". :-)
>
> I see. So, if one can be cavalier about _dropping_ the nuqta, is
> the converse action equally acceptable, too? I mean, _adding_ a
> nuqta to words that have none? So, if mazaa and zindagii can become
> 'majaa' and 'jindagi', should it be acceptable to say 'zoom zoom
> Dhalti raat', 'zooki zooki see najar', or (notwithstanding the
> onomatopoeic sound of it) 'raat akeli hai, buzzzz gaye diye'?
>
If that is how a large section of people say it, yes. Why not?
> > Even the present rigidity does not stop unambiguous words from
> > creeping in. Example "kashtii _khetii_ huu.N" and "mere baap kii
> > _khetii_ hai". But we quickly identify them as different from the
> > context.
>
> And removing the "rigidity" would solve this problem ... HOW?
>
What problem?
Vinay
news:622ae881.04052...@posting.google.com...
> UVR wrote:
> > Surma Bhopali wrote:
> > >
> > > Vinay wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >>But I have a different yardstick for something more formal like the
> > >>ISB or song transcriptions. Here's a resource that people are going to
> > >>refer to, and that too for correctness. I would certainly put much
> > >>more emphasis on the correctness of the grammar/spelling/transcription
> > >>in such a case.
> > >
> > > Agreed here. But I still feel there are areas where "both versions"
> > > should be deemed correct, particularly with issues involving
> > > fine-lines such as use of anuswar and nuqtaa. What is wrong in making
> > > your language more flexible as long as it does not lead to large-scale
> > > ambiguities. I think English people were smart to allow such
> > > flexibilities in their language making it more acceptable. Being too
> > > rigid amounts to stopping evolution as well as discouraging acceptance
> > > IMO.
> >
> > Which English people have allowed flexibilities of the kind you are
> > suggesting we (Hindi people) should?
>
> About a year ago I read the book "The Story of English" published by
> BBC. It was full of examples of how English evolved by allowing
> flexibility in pronunciation, spelling and usage. If I find that book
You said it - "pronunciation, spelling and usage." Not grammar; grammar has
very little updates. And as far as the other three are concerned, you don't
know how flexible Hindi has already been in this department. In fact, I will
go this far to say that Hindi has been a victim of being over-flexible
rather than the other way round.
> again from a library, I will present some quotes. But why we need
> that? We all know we have so many different standard English versions
> like US English, UK English, Aus English and they all represent
> standardization of popular distinct versions of English. We may soon
So what. By the same criteria we may also have Indian Hindi, Fijian Hindi,
Mauritian Hindi, Caribbean Hindi, etc. All these variants have as many
differences of usage and vocabulary as the said English variants do. But
does that necessarily mean that they *have to be* named differently as well?
Or may be it does, and it is just a matter of time and resources.
> have a standard Indian English who knows. This itself shows English
> has allowed flexibility. Even the worldwide acceptance of
> abbreviations like OTOH, LOL, ASAP, etc is because of flexibility. It
> will sound boring if I start quoting examples like "colour->color",
> "utilise->utlize",...
>
Do you know about usage like "chaahiye/chaahie," "dobaaraa/dubaaraa," or
"dharm/dharam," in which both versions are acceptable in Hindi? Actually,
Hindi must be having more variations in its single form (i.e. just Hindi -
not US or UK Hindi) than English has in all its variants.
Also, I don't see how abbreviations/acronyms can be shown as signs of
flexibility of a language. LOL is still Laughing Out Loud and OTOH is still
On the Other Hand - very much normal English. These are more a matter of
convenience. It is just that a new medium (Internet - newsgroups/chat),
because of its informal nature, made these versions more popular or even
coined them anew. In fact, a better example would have been the addition of
the word "google," which is now considered a verb in the language. But this
is simply an example of adding new popular coinage into a language. And all
living languages do that all the time. Hindi is no different. Words from
popular usage regularly find their place in the standard language
dictionaries, with due criteria met. At the same time, every language has
its own nature of evolving. For example, in English it is easier to add new
verbs, in Hindi it is not (though people from Bihar have proven this wrong
with new verbs like 'narbhasaanaa' :)).
The growth of a language is organic. If there are enough people who think,
for example, that let's accept both 'me.n' and 'me' as same words, may be we
*will* have the change. After all, in the long journey from Sanskrit to
Prakrit to Apbhransh to Khadi Boli to Hindi, we have actually *acquired* the
nasalization. Sanskrit doesn't even have nasalization/anunaasik/chandrabindu
(someone correct me if I am wrong). da.nt has become daa.Nt; muchchh,
muu.Nchh, in Hindi. The point is that it's not going to happen because you
say it or I say it or even some people in the government say it. It will
happen when the actual users of the language, in general consensus, accept
it. And I am sure we are pretty far from that time yet, as far as removal of
nasalization (making 'hai.n' and 'hai' same) is concerned. By the way, why
do I have this feeling that most people who recommend changes in Hindi
aren't even the regular users of the language? They don't even seem to be
reading a Hindi newspaper/magazine/book on a daily (even weekly) basis. They
wouldn't have issues like hai/hai.n, if they did.
<snipped>
> > The sheer number of (software) spellcheckers available for English
> > indicates that wrong spelling is anything but acceptable. Every
> > word processing package comes with one. Almost every mail client
> > comes with one.
> >
> And you get the option to choose which version of English you would
> like to have your spellings checked against.
>
That actually shows the lack of flexibility of English. Within one version,
both color and colour are not allowed. Hindi would gladly accomodate, for
example, both 'chandan' and 'cha.ndan' in its single version.
<nuqtaa discussion snipped, as it is a different beast IMO>
To conclude, here's an example of English's "flexibility." In a recent book
about English punctuations, writer Lynne Truss recommends that anyone
putting an apostrophe in a possessive "its"--"as in "the dog chewed it's
bone"--"should be struck by lightning and chopped to bits.
And you know what - this is not an "airii-gairii" book. It is currently US
bestseller #1 (yes 1 - actually it has been there for quite some time now.
See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/549066/ref=b_tn_bh_be/102-9264659-4740110)
and has remained UK#1 as well. I am not saying whether the writer is right
or wrong (of course, there's the humor part in the statement) , but I think
this serves as an example that English, like any other language, has enough
people who are concerned about correctness of grammar (at least in the
written/formal form).
Vinay
Ashok
>Also, I don't see how abbreviations/acronyms can be shown as signs of
>flexibility of a language. LOL is still Laughing Out Loud
>Vinay
That is a very recent usage. For decades, LOL has meant
"little old lady", a very popular expression in duplicate
bridge. Lot of top players have approached a table occupied
by two LOLs very condescendingly and, after three hands,
left the table highly chastened.
Ashok
Ashok
>(someone correct me if I am wrong).
You are wrong on many levels. To begin with you are confuting
speech requirement (nasalization), script design feature
(anunaasik) and a mark (chandrabindu).
Sanskrit has nasalization, implemented through anuswaara, which
is represented in the Devanagari script by the bindu mark.
Sanskrit does not use the bindu as a short-cut for "the right
anunaasika vyan~jana as the case may be". The marker for the
actual anunaasika is used. The only time I have seen chandrabindu
in written Sanskrit is in the ligature for "OM".
Very few people know that "sanyaasin" is wrong. It should be
"sa.nnyaasin".
>To conclude, here's an example of English's "flexibility." In a recent book
>about English punctuations, writer Lynne Truss recommends that anyone
>putting an apostrophe in a possessive "its"--"as in "the dog chewed it's
>bone"--"should be struck by lightning and chopped to bits.
>
>And you know what - this is not an "airii-gairii" book. It is currently US
>bestseller #1 (yes 1 - actually it has been there for quite some time now.
>See
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/549066/ref=b_tn_bh_be/102-9264659-4740110)
>
>and has remained UK#1 as well. I am not saying whether the writer is right
>or wrong (of course, there's the humor part in the statement) , but I think
>this serves as an example that English, like any other language, has enough
>people who are concerned about correctness of grammar (at least in the
>written/formal form).
>
>Vinay
Most best-sellers in the U.S are worthless books. I recommend that
you read Theodore Bernstein's classic "Miss Thistlebottom's
Hobgoblins" to get an idea of flexibility in English.
Ashok
Surma Bhopali
Before I go into specific points below, let me say here that all I
wanted is acceptance of both forms and not dropping one in preference
to the other.
"Vinay" wrote:
>
> You said it - "pronunciation, spelling and usage." Not grammar; grammar has
> very little updates. And as far as the other three are concerned, you don't
> know how flexible Hindi has already been in this department. In fact, I will
> go this far to say that Hindi has been a victim of being over-flexible
> rather than the other way round.
>
As I see it, grammar just hypothesizes usage so that future users can
follow certain standards. So if usage changes, grammar needs an
update. A clarification again, all I wanted is to have subtle
differences forgiven. In the specific case of hai/hai.n, let they both
mean the same and the plurality be implied by the rest of the
sentence.
>
> So what. By the same criteria we may also have Indian Hindi, Fijian Hindi,
> Mauritian Hindi, Caribbean Hindi, etc. All these variants have as many
> differences of usage and vocabulary as the said English variants do. But
> does that necessarily mean that they *have to be* named differently as well?
> Or may be it does, and it is just a matter of time and resources.
>
They evolved because of separation from mainland. In the same spirit,
I would like to see recognition of Bihari Hindi, UP Hindi, Rajasthani
Hindi – to name a few – each ornamented with its own set of colours.
Instead what we see now is some small region's dominance over the
language of Hindi and subjugation of other variants as "improper
usage", "language of illiterates", etc. Can some pundit from Delhi now
dare visit Fiji and tell them "You are speaking improper Hindi. Your
Girmitiya Hindi is full of grammatical errors."? No, because they know
they will be immediately asked to shut up.
> Do you know about usage like "chaahiye/chaahie," "dobaaraa/dubaaraa," or
> "dharm/dharam," in which both versions are acceptable in Hindi? Actually,
Precisely as "chaahiye/chaahie" mean the same thing and are both
allowed, why can't we have "hai/hai.n" mean the same thing? I know
they are not the same as of now. But that is something I would like to
see in an evolved Hindi.
>
> Also, I don't see how abbreviations/acronyms can be shown as signs of
> flexibility of a language. LOL is still Laughing Out Loud and OTOH is still
> On the Other Hand - very much normal English. These are more a matter of
> convenience.
True, and that is where I think English scores over modern
Hindi/Bengali. It allows more space for convenience in the usage of
the language and therefore is evolving faster than Indian languages
IMO.
>
> The growth of a language is organic. If there are enough people who think,
> for example, that let's accept both 'me.n' and 'me' as same words, may be we
> *will* have the change. After all, in the long journey from Sanskrit to
> Prakrit to Apbhransh to Khadi Boli to Hindi, we have actually *acquired* the
> nasalization. Sanskrit doesn't even have nasalization/anunaasik/chandrabindu
> (someone correct me if I am wrong). da.nt has become daa.Nt; muchchh,
> muu.Nchh, in Hindi. The point is that it's not going to happen because you
> say it or I say it or even some people in the government say it. It will
> happen when the actual users of the language, in general consensus, accept
> it. And I am sure we are pretty far from that time yet, as far as removal of
> nasalization (making 'hai.n' and 'hai' same) is concerned.
I repeat again, I did not suggest "removal of nasalization" or
anything like that. I wanted both "hai" and "hai.n" to be accepted as
meaning the same. If we had very distinct words representing "is" and
"are", as distinct as they themselves are, I would have been happy
with the current usage. "hai" and "hai.n" are way too close and their
distinct usage is at best good for satisfying ego of "know-all"
pundits than serving any practical purpose.
> do I have this feeling that most people who recommend changes in Hindi
> aren't even the regular users of the language? They don't even seem to be
> reading a Hindi newspaper/magazine/book on a daily (even weekly) basis. They
> wouldn't have issues like hai/hai.n, if they did.
>
>
> To conclude, here's an example of English's "flexibility." In a recent book
> about English punctuations, writer Lynne Truss recommends that anyone
> putting an apostrophe in a possessive "its"--"as in "the dog chewed it's
> bone"--"should be struck by lightning and chopped to bits.
>
Well, to me this again proves flexibility of English. That it not only
doesn't mind short-cuts, but eventually legitimises it so that two
words ("it is" or "do not") can be represented as one word ("it's" or
"don't") as is usually spoken. Now that "it's" comes very close to
another word "its" is a different matter. That's where context comes
in to resolve the issue.
Vinay
> In article <6Pcsc.7170$o97....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, v...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >Sanskrit doesn't even have nasalization/anunaasik/chandrabindu
> >(someone correct me if I am wrong).
>
> You are wrong on many levels. To begin with you are confuting
> speech requirement (nasalization), script design feature
> (anunaasik) and a mark (chandrabindu).
>
> Sanskrit has nasalization, implemented through anuswaara, which
> is represented in the Devanagari script by the bindu mark.
> Sanskrit does not use the bindu as a short-cut for "the right
> anunaasika vyan~jana as the case may be". The marker for the
> actual anunaasika is used. The only time I have seen chandrabindu
> in written Sanskrit is in the ligature for "OM".
>
When I said "nasalization/anunaasik/chandrabindu," I was referring to
the *vowel* nasalization that is depicted in Hindi by anunaasik symbol
- chandrabindu (and at times anuswaar). The one that you see in
'nahii.n' and 'me.n' and 'daa.Nt'. I am well aware of the
panchamaakshar (~N, ~n, N, n, m) rule of Sanskrit for the nasal half
sounds, and that is not what I was talking about. In any case, my
point was that many Sanskrit words have *acquired* nasalization in the
journey to their Hindi forms (some more examples being
puchchh->puu.Nchh, nidraa->nii.nd).
> Very few people know that "sanyaasin" is wrong. It should be
> "sa.nnyaasin".
>
>
> >To conclude, here's an example of English's "flexibility." In a recent book
> >about English punctuations, writer Lynne Truss recommends that anyone
> >putting an apostrophe in a possessive "its"--"as in "the dog chewed it's
> >bone"--"should be struck by lightning and chopped to bits.
> >
> >And you know what - this is not an "airii-gairii" book. It is currently US
> >bestseller #1 (yes 1 - actually it has been there for quite some time now.
> >See
> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/549066/ref=b_tn_bh_be/102-9264659-4740110)
> >
> >and has remained UK#1 as well. I am not saying whether the writer is right
> >or wrong (of course, there's the humor part in the statement) , but I think
> >this serves as an example that English, like any other language, has enough
> >people who are concerned about correctness of grammar (at least in the
> >written/formal form).
> >
> >Vinay
>
> Most best-sellers in the U.S are worthless books. I recommend that
> you read Theodore Bernstein's classic "Miss Thistlebottom's
> Hobgoblins" to get an idea of flexibility in English.
>
I was of course not recommending the book. The fact that a book is a
bestseller does not tell me that it is good or bad or worthless. But
it sure tells me that a lot of people are buying it and have interest
in the subject. And that exactly was my point. BTW, thanks for the
recommendation.
Regards,
Vinay
> Ashok
Ashok
>
>> >Sanskrit doesn't even have nasalization/anunaasik/chandrabindu
>> >(someone correct me if I am wrong).
>>
>the *vowel* nasalization that is depicted in Hindi by anunaasik symbol
>- chandrabindu (and at times anuswaar). The one that you see in
>'nahii.n' and 'me.n' and 'daa.Nt'.
>Vinay
What do you think the "n" in Sanskrit is?
Ashok
V S Rawat
> About a year ago I read the book "The Story of English"
> published by BBC. It was full of examples of how English
> evolved by allowing flexibility in pronunciation,
> spelling and usage. If I find that book again from a
> library, I will present some quotes. But why we need
> that? We all know we have so many different standard
> English versions like US English, UK English, Aus English
> and they all represent standardization of popular
> distinct versions of English. We may soon have a standard
> Indian English who knows. This itself shows English has
> allowed flexibility. Even the worldwide acceptance of
> abbreviations like OTOH, LOL, ASAP, etc is because of
> flexibility.
If abbreviations like OTOH, LOL, ASAP, etc are examples of
flexibility of a language, then Indian languages are not far
behind.
some examples:
i.nkaa, bhaajapaa, jadaa, rakaa.npaa, sapaa, basapaa......
are used not just in hindi newspapers, but also in spoken
news, and also in discussions.
Bhopal area has an abbreviated gaalii maaka.Daa for some
derivative of motherf...
> It will sound boring if I start quoting
> examples like "colour->color", "utilise->utlize",...
If they had replaced all such combinations giving that sound
with one single letter, then it was a good development, but
if they are using ou also and o also to give the sound of o,
it is more likely that some lazy person dropped one letter,
more lazy people picked it up and it became a nationally
accepted trend.
>> I see. So, if one can be cavalier about _dropping_ the
>> nuqta, is the converse action equally acceptable, too?
>> I mean, _adding_ a nuqta to words that have none? So,
>> if mazaa and zindagii can become 'majaa' and 'jindagi',
>> should it be acceptable to say 'zoom zoom Dhalti raat',
>> 'zooki zooki see najar', or (notwithstanding the
>> onomatopoeic sound of it) 'raat akeli hai, buzzzz gaye
>> diye'?
>>
>
> If that is how a large section of people say it, yes. Why
> not?
Some five year ago, kid of my friend used to sing "aatii
kyaa khaNDaalaa" as haathii kaa aNDaa laa. That is what he
understood by reading the lyrics.
Even if large number of unlearned kids or grownups start
pronouncing like that, it is just there laziness that they
are not ready to put effort in finding the correct thing and
use it.
Schools can't start giving full marks for such mistakes.
-Rawat
V S Rawat
> To conclude, here's an example of English's
> "flexibility." In a recent book about English
> punctuations, writer Lynne Truss recommends that anyone
> putting an apostrophe in a possessive "its"--"as in "the
> dog chewed it's bone"--"should be struck by lightning and
> chopped to bits.
What I understand:
it's = it is (as in, it is a cat, it is raining,....)
its = possessive pronoun ( its feet, its name).
In the above example
> the dog chewed its bone
means
the dog chewed the bone that he found or that which was
given to it (the dog).
> the dog chewed it's bone
means
the dog chewed it is bone.
that is essentially wrong. No such construction is possible.
What the author is saying is 100% correct.
> And you know what - this is not an "airii-gairii" book.
> It is currently US bestseller #1 (yes 1 - actually it has
> been there for quite some time now. See
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/549066/ref=-
> b_tn_bh_be/102-9264659-4740110) and has remained UK#1 as
> well. I am not saying whether the writer is right or
> wrong (of course, there's the humor part in the
> statement) , but I think this serves as an example that
> English, like any other language, has enough people who
> are concerned about correctness of grammar (at least in
> the written/formal form).
I could not see the humour or mistake part in what the
author was saying.
But, In india, its a very common problem.
It's rectification is very much needed.
-Rawat
PS: How many of you noticed that in the last two sentences,
its should be it's, and it's should be its?
That might give some idea of gravity of the situation.
V S Rawat
> has allowed flexibility. Even the worldwide acceptance of
> abbreviations like OTOH, LOL, ASAP, etc is because of
> flexibility. It will sound boring if I start quoting
> examples like "colour->color", "utilise->utlize",...
do emoticons (like smileys, assicons, etc ) also give some
indication of flexibility of language?
-Rawat