Arabic script not suited for Urdu, Punjabi???
Umar
Its a question that's been bothering me for a long time. I hear people
talk about this script not being suited for this or that language. My
question is: What are the qualifications for a script to be declared
"not suited"?
Nusrat Rizvi
The Punjabis of Pakistan would go to any length to distance
themselves from their glorious Sikh forefathers. Every conceivable
effort has been made to erase this stigma from their nationhood. Some
steps taken along these lines border on ridicule such as attempt to
swap Punjabi for Urdu. It is far too funny to see the poor idiots
struggling to find the proper word and phrase to express their
feeling or ideas in Urdu though it would be second nature to say
so in Punjabi/Gormukhi. Gormukhi unfortunately can not be written
in Persian/Urdu script and Paki rulers are in no mood to spend a
penny to reeducate the masses to learn their mother tongue as it was
supposed to be written and taught.
Seeker
news:mkakbukdms00ta7vg...@4ax.com...
If you can't answer his question, don't pollute the thread with your nasty
thoughts. Frankly, you stink.
Umar
Thats what I was trying to get at. Exactly what objections do you have
against the Arabic script, specifically as it pertains to written
Punjabi? What are the advantages of the Gurmukhi script, as opposed to
the Arabic or Devanagri script used to write Punjabi? I'm familiar
with all three, so feel free to illustrate your answer.
I'm of the opinion that Punjabi can be written equally well, if not
better in Shahmukhi (Arabic) script. As this discussion advances
further, I can present some examples, assuming you also know the
Shahmukhi script.
M. Ranjit Mathews
I've seen a claim that there are one or two phonemic distinctions that
can be made in Gurmukhi but not in Shahmukhi which uses one letter to
represent what are two letters in Gurmukhi. Here is the Gurmukhi
script. I can't remember which of its characters was claimed to be
unavailable in Shahmukhi.
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf
Chacha Chaudri
You can't handle the truth, half-sikh boy.
Besides the phoenetics in Punjabi are same/similar to
Sanskrit/Prakrit. Arabic is a foreign language. Writing punjabi in
arabic is like writing english in Korean script.
Which is why paki-punjabis sound so funny. These
half-sikhs-wannabe-arabs are totally confused.
I would suggest that Paki-punjabis butt lift to Amritsar instead of
Mecca. After all they have a lot to thank the sikhs for their genes
than any arab ever did.....
Umar
> > ...Shahmukhi which uses one letter to
represent what are two letters in Gurmukhi.
I believe you have these two switched. It is Shahmukhi that has two
letter representations for what is represented by one letter in
Gurmukhi. For example "bha" is written Ba (U+0628) Ha (U+06BE) in
Shahmukhi, whereas it is written Bha (U+0A2D) in Gurmukhi.
Relevant Unicode Charts:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U32-0600.pdf (Arabic)
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf (Gurmukhi)
As far as I can see, all the sounds present in Gurmukhi are present in
Shahmukhi.
-----------------
While I'm waiting for someone to present an argument against Shahmukhi
(pointing out its faults, and not the faults of the poor Pakistani
Punjabis who, according to some, are being forced to use Shahmukhi),
I'll point out what I think are shortcomings of Gurmukhi.
Take for example the Punjabi words Poli (soft), and (P-holi or Pohli)
(naive). In Gurmukhi, there's isn't a way to represent the p-h sound
of P-holi in writing, whereas in Shahmukhi, there most definitely is.
Pa (U+067E) He (goal) (U+06C1). Instead of writing P-holi, one has to
write "Bholi" to represent the sound P-h, which I think is incorrect
if Gurmukhi claims to be a phonetic way of writing Punjabi. Same goes
for the word Jhumka (ear rings). It is pronounced Ch-humka in Punjabi.
The Ch-h sound can be represented in Shahmukhi whereas it cannot be
represented in Gurmukhi.
Some other words that fall within the same category are Bhai (brohter,
"P-hai"), and Dhol (drum, "T-hol").
I'm just guessing that many critics of Shahmukhi don't even know it,
which is very saddening.
--------------
Chacha Chaudri,
> > Writing punjabi in
arabic is like writing english in Korean script.
You're missing the point. The "original" language is irrelevent when
it script is adapted to write another, totally unrelated language.
Vietnamese is written in Roman (English) characters, and Kazakh is
written in Cyrillic (Russian) characters. If Korean script can be well
adapted to write English, I have no objections whatsoever against it.
The point is: How well can the script be adapted? How "suited" is it
for a certain language? What determines the "suited-ness"?
The point I will defend is that Shahmukhi (Arabic) is equally, if not
better suited to represent Punjabi, because Gurmukhi lacks the ability
to represent certain crucial sounds (which I have demonstrated above).
So what do you have to say about "that"?
Umar
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > > ...Shahmukhi which uses one letter to
> represent what are two letters in Gurmukhi.
>
> I believe you have these two switched. It is Shahmukhi that has two
> letter representations for what is represented by one letter in
> Gurmukhi. For example "bha" is written Ba (U+0628) Ha (U+06BE) in
> Shahmukhi, whereas it is written Bha (U+0A2D) in Gurmukhi.
No; what I remember reading was that there are two different sounds
that share the same letter in Shahmukhi whereas they have different
letters in Gurmukhi.
> Relevant Unicode Charts:
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U32-0600.pdf (Arabic)
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf (Gurmukhi)
>
> As far as I can see, all the sounds present in Gurmukhi are present in
> Shahmukhi.
Do all the sounds with nuktas in Gurmukhi have a distinct character in
Shahmukhi? For example, do LA (0A32) and LLA (0A33) have distinct
characters in Shahmukhi?
> -----------------
> While I'm waiting for someone to present an argument against Shahmukhi
> (pointing out its faults, and not the faults of the poor Pakistani
> Punjabis who, according to some, are being forced to use Shahmukhi),
> I'll point out what I think are shortcomings of Gurmukhi.
>
> Take for example the Punjabi words Poli (soft), and (P-holi or Pohli)
> (naive). In Gurmukhi, there's isn't a way to represent the p-h sound
> of P-holi in writing, whereas in Shahmukhi, there most definitely is.
> Pa (U+067E) He (goal) (U+06C1). Instead of writing P-holi, one has to
> write "Bholi" to represent the sound P-h, which I think is incorrect
> if Gurmukhi claims to be a phonetic way of writing Punjabi.
Isn't 0A2B Pha?
> Same goes
> for the word Jhumka (ear rings). It is pronounced Ch-humka in Punjabi.
> The Ch-h sound can be represented in Shahmukhi whereas it cannot be
> represented in Gurmukhi.
Isn't 0A1B Chh?
> Some other words that fall within the same category are Bhai (brohter,
> "P-hai"), and Dhol (drum, "T-hol").
Most interesting; thank you for continuing in the vein of trying to
inform.
Himmat
> (naive). In Gurmukhi, there's isn't a way to represent the p-h sound
> of P-holi in writing, whereas in Shahmukhi, there most definitely is.
> Pa (U+067E) He (goal) (U+06C1). Instead of writing P-holi, one has to
> write "Bholi" to represent the sound P-h, which I think is incorrect
> if Gurmukhi claims to be a phonetic way of writing Punjabi. Same goes
> for the word Jhumka (ear rings). It is pronounced Ch-humka in Punjabi.
> The Ch-h sound can be represented in Shahmukhi whereas it cannot be
> represented in Gurmukhi.
First It is nice to see something which is miles away from the usual
filth which we write on these NGs
secondly in my opinion u dont seem to have much knowledge about
gurmukhi script
you can prove me wrong and I would be pretty pleased to be corrected
In Gurmukhi, there's isn't a way to represent the p-h sound
> of P-holi in writing
there is a letter 'f' or 'ph' in Gmukhi thats how we write 'phul'
(flower) or 'ph'one or ;) 'f'auza singh
no one writes 'Bholi' if one has to write 'pohli'
i dont see any logic in writing it that way in Gurmukhi or, for that
matter, devnagari.
> Some other words that fall within the same category are Bhai (brohter,
> "P-hai"), and Dhol (drum, "T-hol").
Not correct again. 'Bhai' word is in fact used very frequently in
Gurmukhi as it is also used to address a sevadar or priest in a
gurudwara.
in Dnagari, however, they sometime use 'Paaji' when trying to write
'bhaji' (as in elder brother). I think it is cuz they get the
pronunciation wrong.
but you may have a point when u say that you cannot write 'dhol' in
gurmukhi but i am not too sure cuz we do write 'thug' 'thekedar'
'thanedar' and ;) 'tharki' in Gurmukhi. but their 'th' sounds diff
from 'dh' of 'dhol'
hmmmm I need second opinion.
as far as 'criticism' of so-called shahmukhi is concerned its very
simple opposition of an alien script.
why u want to use a foreign script while your native land is blessed
with so many of its own? Bangladeshis are cleansing their country of
Hindus and Buddhists but they are clinging to their Bangla language
and script.
so ask yourself WHY Arabic script for your very own Punjabi????????
Himmat
is, according to unicode chart, OA22
Nusrat Rizvi
>> Take for example the Punjabi words Poli (soft), and (P-holi or Pohli)
>> (naive). In Gurmukhi, there's isn't a way to represent the p-h sound
>> of P-holi in writing, whereas in Shahmukhi, there most definitely is.
>> Pa (U+067E) He (goal) (U+06C1). Instead of writing P-holi, one has to
>> write "Bholi" to represent the sound P-h, which I think is incorrect
>> if Gurmukhi claims to be a phonetic way of writing Punjabi. Same goes
>> for the word Jhumka (ear rings). It is pronounced Ch-humka in Punjabi.
>> The Ch-h sound can be represented in Shahmukhi whereas it cannot be
>> represented in Gurmukhi.
>
>
>First It is nice to see something which is miles away from the usual
>filth which we write on these NGs
The filth mongers are about 5 Pakis/Punjabis who post idiotic and
childish nonsense self serving to the interests of Punjab. Being a
nation of cowards they never expose their name or location, so for all
anyone knows it maybe just one idiot doing his silly bit for Punjab.
Umar
few more responses.
Umar
> I believe you have these two switched. It is Shahmukhi that has two
> letter representations for what is represented by one letter in
> Gurmukhi. For example "bha" is written Ba (U+0628) Ha (U+06BE) in
> Shahmukhi, whereas it is written Bha (U+0A2D) in Gurmukhi.
> > No; what I remember reading was that there are two different sounds
> > that share the same letter in Shahmukhi whereas they have different
> > letters in Gurmukhi.
There is a misunderstanding here. I was talking about Shahmukhi using
two words to represent a sound which is represented by one word in
Gurmukhi.
It is true that Shahmukhi uses one letter to represent many related
sounds based on the context. For example, Wao (U+0648) is used to
represent the sounds Va (U+0A35), OO (U+0A13) etc. Choti Ye (U+0649)
is used to represent I (U+0A07), II (U+0A08), etc. BaRi Ye (U+06D2) to
represent AI (U+0A10), EE (U+0A0F), etc. So, yes, Shahmukhi has two or
more sounds represented by one word based on context.
> > Do all the sounds with nuktas in Gurmukhi have a distinct character in
Shahmukhi? For example, do LA (0A32) and LLA (0A33) have distinct
characters in Shahmukhi?
Most if not all do. I'm not so sure about LLA. Can you use it in a
word or sentence so its pronounciation is clearer to me?
> Take for example the Punjabi words Poli (soft), and (P-holi or Pohli)
> (naive). In Gurmukhi, there's isn't a way to represent the p-h sound
> of P-holi in writing, whereas in Shahmukhi, there most definitely is.
> Pa (U+067E) He (goal) (U+06C1). Instead of writing P-holi, one has to
> write "Bholi" to represent the sound P-h, which I think is incorrect
> if Gurmukhi claims to be a phonetic way of writing Punjabi.
---------------------
> > Isn't 0A2B Pha?
and
> Same goes
> for the word Jhumka (ear rings). It is pronounced Ch-humka in Punjabi.
> The Ch-h sound can be represented in Shahmukhi whereas it cannot be
> represented in Gurmukhi.
> > Isn't 0A1B Chh?
Do you know Punjabi? The word P-holi requires a sort of (I'm not sure
if I'm using the correct word here) inflection or a change of tone
which corresponds to something between Pa and Pha sounds. It starts
out with a Pa sound, but then the sound is more "throatized" along
with a slight, but not complete Ha sound. I put it down as P-h but
some people may prefer to write it as Poh. As far as I know, there is
no word "Pholi". If there is, it doesn't mean "naive". In Gurmukhi, it
is written as "Bholi" and one has to quickly substitute "P-h" sound in
place of the "Bh" (U+0A2D) sound. Which I think is wrong, unless
someone can correct me.
Same case with Jhumka. Jhumka is an Urdu/Hindi word, which I see as an
unnecessary Urdu/Hindi-ization of written Punjabi. The punjabi
equivalent is "Ch-humke". I think people who are a little confused by
what I'm saying will have a better idea of what I'm talking about if
they listen to a Jazzy B song entitled "Jumke" or "Jhumke". As it is
pronounced, the sound is nowhere near "Jha" (U+0A1D). Instead it is
close to "Ch" (U+0A1A) combined with a slight, non-aspirated (sp?)
"Ha" sound. "Ha" being something close to "uh" and "hu". Well,
whatever the case may be, it is clear to me that the dominant sound is
"C" as in Gucci, and not "J". What do other Punjabis have to say about
this?
--------------
Himmat,
> > > u dont seem to have much knowledge about
> > > gurmukhi script you can prove me wrong and I would be pretty pleased to
> > > be corrected
I think I have a good idea of what Gurmukhi and its mechanics are. I
am however a little unclear on certain sounds represented by the
Gurmukhi letters, and I'm here to make that clear to myself.
> > > no one writes 'Bholi' if one has to write 'pohli'
The "Pohli" or "P-holi" I'm talking about is what is "Bholi Bhali"
(nanni munni) in Urdu/Hindi. In Punjabi it is pronounced very
differntly. In Urdu/Hindi, the "Bha" (U+0A2D) sound is explicit. In
Punjabi however, the "Bha" is replaced with (what appears to me as)
something of a "p-h" sound. I have explained it in the above section.
I think discussion of the intial sound in "Jhumke" would be more
appropriate since we have a sample which is readily downloadable from
Kazaa (or it can be bought).
> > > Not correct again. 'Bhai' word is in fact used very frequently in
> > > Gurmukhi as it is also used to address a sevadar or priest in a
> > > gurudwara.
As far as I understand Punjabi, the word "Bhai" is pronounced with the
same intial sound ("p-h") as in "Bholi Bhali". Here's another example
to make clear what I mean. When one says "He is my brother" in Punjabi
"E mera p(-h)raa ve", the "P" sound is explicit. There is no "Bh"
sound. "Bhai" is pronounced "p-hai", as in "p(-h)ai jaan". You get
what I'm saying? Or am I confusing you even more? My point is that
there is no "Bh" sound in the Punjabi word for "brother".
> > > but you may have a point when u say that you cannot write 'dhol' in
> > > gurmukhi but i am not too sure cuz we do write 'thug' 'thekedar'
> > > 'thanedar' and ;) 'tharki' in Gurmukhi. but their 'th' sounds diff
> > > from 'dh' of 'dhol'
> > > u can write 'Dhol" in gurmukhi if you use the letter ddha which
is, according to unicode chart, OA22
You're right. One can write "Dhol", but thats not the way the Punjabi
word for "Drum" is pronounced. As you pointed out in the examples of
the words, its pronounciation is similar to TTa (U+0A1F) or TTHa
(U+0A20). In my words, keeping in mind the previous explanations of
p-h and ch-h, the intial sound of "Drum" would be written "T-h"
((U+0A1F) followed by a lower tone non-aspirated "ho" or "oh" sound).
In other words, the Punjabi word for "drum" is not pronounced the same
way it is written, in Gurmukhi, and I think Gurmukhi cannot represent
the T-h sound. In Shahmukhi, T-h, can be written (I'm not saying it
is) TTa (U+0679) Heh Goal (U+06C1 or U+06D5).
My whole argument against Gurmukhi is that it is deficient and
inadequate when it comes to representing certain essential and
distinguishing sounds of Punjabi.
> > > as far as 'criticism' of so-called shahmukhi is concerned its very
> > > simple opposition of an alien script.
Well, a script that some sikhs came up with to write down the
teachings of the Guru does not make it the "only" legitimate script
for Punjabi or Punjabis. Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi: Two Punjabs, Two
ideologies, two scripts.
> > > why u want to use a foreign script while your native land is blessed
> > > with so many of its own? Bangladeshis are cleansing their country of
> > > Hindus and Buddhists but they are clinging to their Bangla language
> > > and script.
A "bless[ing]"? Sure, diversity is "exciting" (which is one of the
reasons I've learned to atleast read Gurmukhi), but so is the ability
to read a different language without having to learn a new "script".
> > > so ask yourself WHY Arabic script for your very own Punjabi????????
Why Arabic script, you ask? Well, there are several reasons (in no
particular order).
1. Availability. The Arabic script is used to write most if not all
languages.
2. Utility. With the alphabet being the same, one has to teach only
one script (hence decreasing the load on an already overburdened and
underfunded educational system).
3. Intelligibility. Shahmukhi can represent Punjabi sound system just
as well, if not better than, Gurmukhi.
4. Efficiency. Shahmukhi can be written and read faster than Gurmukhi.
That is only my opinion, until proven through experiments. I'm very
confident that my hypothesis is correct.
Plus, as I pointed out earlier, Gurmukhi doesn't "own" Punjabi.
Umar
> 1. Availability. The Arabic script is used to write most if not all
> languages.
Correction: I meant to say "most if not all languages in Pakistan."
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > I believe you have these two switched. It is Shahmukhi that has two
> > letter representations for what is represented by one letter in
> > Gurmukhi. For example "bha" is written Ba (U+0628) Ha (U+06BE) in
> > Shahmukhi, whereas it is written Bha (U+0A2D) in Gurmukhi.
>
> > > No; what I remember reading was that there are two different sounds
> > > that share the same letter in Shahmukhi whereas they have different
> > > letters in Gurmukhi.
>
> There is a misunderstanding here. I was talking about Shahmukhi using
> two words to represent a sound which is represented by one word in
> Gurmukhi.
>
> It is true that Shahmukhi uses one letter to represent many related
> sounds based on the context. For example, Wao (U+0648) is used to
> represent the sounds Va (U+0A35), OO (U+0A13) etc. Choti Ye (U+0649)
> is used to represent I (U+0A07), II (U+0A08), etc. BaRi Ye (U+06D2) to
> represent AI (U+0A10), EE (U+0A0F), etc. So, yes, Shahmukhi has two or
> more sounds represented by one word based on context.
So, it would seem that Shahmukhi is less precise, phonetically
speaking, than Gurmukhi.
> > > Do all the sounds with nuktas in Gurmukhi have a distinct character in
> Shahmukhi? For example, do LA (0A32) and LLA (0A33) have distinct
> characters in Shahmukhi?
>
> Most if not all do. I'm not so sure about LLA. Can you use it in a
> word or sentence so its pronounciation is clearer to me?
I don't know Punjabi. I can only give examples in Malayalam and Tamil,
which would not mean anything to you.
> > Take for example the Punjabi words Poli (soft), and (P-holi or Pohli)
> > (naive). In Gurmukhi, there's isn't a way to represent the p-h sound
> > of P-holi in writing, whereas in Shahmukhi, there most definitely is.
> > Pa (U+067E) He (goal) (U+06C1). Instead of writing P-holi, one has to
> > write "Bholi" to represent the sound P-h, which I think is incorrect
> > if Gurmukhi claims to be a phonetic way of writing Punjabi.
> ---------------------
> > > Isn't 0A2B Pha?
>
> and
>
> > Same goes
> > for the word Jhumka (ear rings). It is pronounced Ch-humka in Punjabi.
> > The Ch-h sound can be represented in Shahmukhi whereas it cannot be
> > represented in Gurmukhi.
>
> > > Isn't 0A1B Chh?
>
> Do you know Punjabi?
No, but I find its phonology interesting.
> The word P-holi requires a sort of (I'm not sure
> if I'm using the correct word here) inflection or a change of tone
> which corresponds to something between Pa and Pha sounds. It starts
> out with a Pa sound, but then the sound is more "throatized" along
> with a slight, but not complete Ha sound. I put it down as P-h but
> some people may prefer to write it as Poh. As far as I know, there is
> no word "Pholi". If there is, it doesn't mean "naive". In Gurmukhi, it
> is written as "Bholi" and one has to quickly substitute "P-h" sound in
> place of the "Bh" (U+0A2D) sound.
The Gurmukhi letter named BHA is pronounced as P-h(a) just as the
English letter named "double u" is pronounced [w]. This means that
P-holi is written correctly (with a P-h) in Gurmukhi.
> Which I think is wrong, unless
> someone can correct me.
>
> Same case with Jhumka. Jhumka is an Urdu/Hindi word, which I see as an
> unnecessary Urdu/Hindi-ization of written Punjabi. The punjabi
> equivalent is "Ch-humke". I think people who are a little confused by
> what I'm saying will have a better idea of what I'm talking about if
> they listen to a Jazzy B song entitled "Jumke" or "Jhumke". As it is
> pronounced, the sound is nowhere near "Jha" (U+0A1D).
That's possibly because they are influenced by Devanagari and assume
that a Punjabi word written in Nagari Punjabi is supposed to be
pronounced like a word written in Nagari Hindi. Nagari Punjabi and
Nagari Hindi use the same Devanagari letters, but their pronunciations
are different just like English and German use the same alphabet but J
is pronounced differently - it's pronunced as 'j' in English and as
'y' in German. That is, they mispronounce it Jhumke" because they
don't understand Gurkmukhi (or Nagari Punjabi) incorrectly, not
because Gurmukhi doesn't have Ch-h. Likewise, if someone pronounce a
Swedish name Jan as "Jan" rather than "Yan", they are doing so because
they understand the sound of J in Swedish incorrectly, not because
there's no letter with the sound Y in the Swedish alphabet.
Gurmukhi can represent the T-h sound; it is represented using the
character named DHA.
> In Shahmukhi, T-h, can be written (I'm not saying it
> is) TTa (U+0679) Heh Goal (U+06C1 or U+06D5).
>
> My whole argument against Gurmukhi is that it is deficient and
> inadequate when it comes to representing certain essential and
> distinguishing sounds of Punjabi.
>
It is inadequate in its facitlities for representing tones (Shahmukhi
too is inadequate in this respect) but it is not inadequate in the
areas you point out. Read up on the phonology of Punjabi and its
phoneme inventory and how its phonemes map onto Gurmukhi letters.
> Why Arabic script, you ask? Well, there are several reasons (in no
> particular order).
>
> 1. Availability. The Arabic script is used to write most if not all
> languages.
It's certainly not used to write "most if not all" languages. Consider
the official languages of the UN for starters: Arabic, English,
French, Mandarin, Russian, Spanish and Swahili. The only one of these
languages that's written in Arabic script is Arabic.
> 3. Intelligibility. Shahmukhi can represent Punjabi sound system just
> as well, if not better than, Gurmukhi.
As I pointed out above (multiple sounds sharing the same letter in
Shahmukhi), it doesn't seem as precise as Gurmukhi.
> Plus, as I pointed out earlier, Gurmukhi doesn't "own" Punjabi.
Right.
Umar
I have replied to your posts in my post numbered 9. I don't know why
these things keep getting messed up or why they have to be this slow.
Azad Khayal
M. Ranjit Mathews
> azad_...@hotmail.com (Umar) wrote ...
> > 1. Availability. The Arabic script is used to write most if not all
> > languages.
>
> Correction: I meant to say "most if not all languages in Pakistan."
Yes.
Umar
> It is true that Shahmukhi uses one letter to represent many related
> sounds based on the context. For example, Wao (U+0648) is used to
> represent the sounds Va (U+0A35), OO (U+0A13) etc. Choti Ye (U+0649)
> is used to represent I (U+0A07), II (U+0A08), etc. BaRi Ye (U+06D2) to
> represent AI (U+0A10), EE (U+0A0F), etc. So, yes, Shahmukhi has two or
> more sounds represented by one word based on context.
> > So, it would seem that Shahmukhi is less precise, phonetically
> > speaking, than Gurmukhi.
It would seem to be so, but that is not the case. This is the reason I
emphasized "context". The context makes clear what sound the character
is supposed to represent, plus there are diacritical marks that can
clear up any remaining confusion. The following example may not be of
much use to you (unless you also happen to know Hindi), but it will
put some substance in my claim (for anyone who knows Shahmukhi as well
as Gurmukhi).
Take for example the words "Koi" (anyone), and "Kavita" (name of a
person). In Gurmukhi the O sound in Koi is represented by U+0A4B, and
the V sound by U+0A35. In Shahmukhi both are represented by U+0648.
The way one Waw is distinguished from another is by its context. "Koi"
in Shahmukhi is written Kaf (U+0643) Waw (U+0648) Hamza Yeh (U+0626)
and Yeh (U+06CC), and "Kavita" is written Kaf, Waw, Yeh, te (U+062A),
Alif (U+0627). The defining difference in the sound of Waw is the
presence of Hamza Yeh or Yeh after it. The Hamza Yeh makes it O, and
the Yeh makes it V.
There are other similar rules based on the context of the words. These
rules are mostly intuitive. There are some exceptions however, such as
the Urdu word "A'laa" (great, superior, advanced) in which the last
Yeh is silent (a lot like the seemingly unnecessary "r"s in French).
So, in summing up, Shahmukhi is complex, yes; imprecise, no.
> Do you know Punjabi?
> > No, but I find its phonology interesting.
I thought so.
> The word P-holi requires a sort of (I'm not sure
> if I'm using the correct word here) inflection or a change of tone
> which corresponds to something between Pa and Pha sounds. It starts
> out with a Pa sound, but then the sound is more "throatized" along
> with a slight, but not complete Ha sound. I put it down as P-h but
> some people may prefer to write it as Poh. As far as I know, there is
> no word "Pholi". If there is, it doesn't mean "naive". In Gurmukhi, it
> is written as "Bholi" and one has to quickly substitute "P-h" sound in
> place of the "Bh" (U+0A2D) sound.
> > The Gurmukhi letter named BHA is pronounced as P-h(a) just as the
> > English letter named "double u" is pronounced [w]. This means that
> > P-holi is written correctly (with a P-h) in Gurmukhi.
Ok, but everywhere it is written, it is written "bha" and never "p-ha"
or something other than bha. I get your point about different
pronounciation standards being used in different languages and that
may be enough to explain it.
Just to make sure, can someone look at the following Gurmukhi,
transliteration as well as tranlation (into English) and tell me if
all the "Bha"s sound the same (i.e. "p-h(a)"):
http://www.sikhpoint.com/religion/downloads/pdf/Laavaan,%20in%20Gurmukhi%20with%20English%20translation%20%20transliteration.pdf
For example the "Bha"s on the following page(s):line(s). Page 1:
Gurmukhi line 6 (from the top of the page), 2:1, 2:4, 3:2, etc. I
suspect they are not all pronounced the same, but I may be wrong.
Here's another problem. If the "Bha" is pronounced "p-ha", that leaves
no room for the real "Bha" sound to be incorporated into Punjabi,
while still assigning one sound to one gurmukhi letter. Where would
"bha" go? In order to incorporate it into the written language, one
would have to give two sounds "p-ha" and "bha" to U+0A2D, wouldn't
one?
And, if that's the case, how would one distinguish between "Bhai" and
"P-hai" in Gurmukhi? Wouldn't that lead to imprecision and confusion
as to how to pronounce U+0A2D?
Take for example "Bhutan" (name of a country). Does it get pronounced
as "Bh"uTan, or "P-h"utan? Or has the "Bh" sound vanished from Punjabi
(here right in front of my eyes)?
> My whole argument against Gurmukhi is that it is deficient and
> inadequate when it comes to representing certain essential and
> distinguishing sounds of Punjabi.
> > It is inadequate in its facitlities for representing tones (Shahmukhi
> > too is inadequate in this respect) but it is not inadequate in the
> > areas you point out. Read up on the phonology of Punjabi and its
> > phoneme inventory and how its phonemes map onto Gurmukhi letters.
I will surely read up on the tones of Punjabi. I think Shahmukhi can
represent the tones of Punjabi properly, but I will comment on that
later. Right now, I better start crawling toward the bed.
> 3. Intelligibility. Shahmukhi can represent Punjabi sound system just
> as well, if not better than, Gurmukhi.
> > As I pointed out above (multiple sounds sharing the same letter in
> > Shahmukhi), it doesn't seem as precise as Gurmukhi.
It may not seem so to you (I suspect you don't know Urdu or
Shahmukhi), but it is not so. The context very precisely determines
the sounds of characters. Again, I would like to stress that
Shahmukhi, although complex, is not imprecise or inadequate. If
needed, I can explain this point better.
Himmat
> Himmat,
>
> > > > u dont seem to have much knowledge about
> > > > gurmukhi script you can prove me wrong and I would be pretty pleased to
> > > > be corrected
>
> I think I have a good idea of what Gurmukhi and its mechanics are. I
> am however a little unclear on certain sounds represented by the
> Gurmukhi letters, and I'm here to make that clear to myself.
>
> > > > no one writes 'Bholi' if one has to write 'pohli'
>
> The "Pohli" or "P-holi" I'm talking about is what is "Bholi Bhali"
> (nanni munni) in Urdu/Hindi. In Punjabi it is pronounced very
> differntly. In Urdu/Hindi, the "Bha" (U+0A2D) sound is explicit. In
> Punjabi however, the "Bha" is replaced with (what appears to me as)
> something of a "p-h" sound. I have explained it in the above section.
well it is still spelled and pronounced as 'Bholi' in the Indian
Punjab as far as I know.
I know this as a number of Pbi girls have this nickname same with
'Bholu'.
> I think discussion of the intial sound in "Jhumke" would be more
> appropriate since we have a sample which is readily downloadable from
> Kazaa (or it can be bought).
well if Jazzy is calling Jhumke ch-umke then there is something wrong
with his pronunciation. well i would pronounce it as Jhoomke as in
"ghatta aayee Jhoom, Jhoom-ke" original prnciation i m sure is a bit
diff.
as you pointed out, anyway, Jhumka is not a part of Punjabi jewelery
so anyway whosoever try to pronounce this word would do it with
his/her limitations and according to his/her regional dialects. And
punjabis have peculiar habit of distorting original words.
How many in Pakistan still call Peshawar the way it should be. I bet
95 % call it as Peshor. same with amritsar. Its ambarsar for those
living in punjab.
what I want to say is dont base your argument on Jazzy's
pronunciation.
> > > > Not correct again. 'Bhai' word is in fact used very frequently in
> > > > Gurmukhi as it is also used to address a sevadar or priest in a
> > > > gurudwara.
>
> As far as I understand Punjabi, the word "Bhai" is pronounced with the
> same intial sound ("p-h") as in "Bholi Bhali". Here's another example
> to make clear what I mean. When one says "He is my brother" in Punjabi
> "E mera p(-h)raa ve", the "P" sound is explicit. There is no "Bh"
> sound. "Bhai" is pronounced "p-hai", as in "p(-h)ai jaan". You get
> what I'm saying? Or am I confusing you even more? My point is that
> there is no "Bh" sound in the Punjabi word for "brother".
well punjabi 'bhai' does incline towards 'p-hai' a bit but he still
maintains his individuality (unless he is too drunk to know what he is
saying).
No u are not confusing me. bhai is pronounced the same way on this
side of Ravi as Bharat. same with Bhra which is i m sure prounced in
diff way in Jhang Multan than Lahore. Jhangis i believe put more
stress on Bhh(ra) as in 'bharat' (hindi pronunciation) or, even,
'Bra'. but your point would find some support if u are in Indian malwa
punjab. they call 'Bhai' as 'Bai'. not that they would jump out of
their skins if you call them 'Bhraji'. in Majha area (amritsar,
gurdaspur)'bhai' is called 'bhaoo' but in doaba it is simple Bhaji. so
, in short, its wrong assumption that there is no 'bh' sound in
punjabi word for "brother".
>
> > > > but you may have a point when u say that you cannot write 'dhol' in
> > > > gurmukhi but i am not too sure cuz we do write 'thug' 'thekedar'
> > > > 'thanedar' and ;) 'tharki' in Gurmukhi. but their 'th' sounds diff
> > > > from 'dh' of 'dhol'
>
> > > > u can write 'Dhol" in gurmukhi if you use the letter ddha which
> is, according to unicode chart, OA22
>
> You're right. One can write "Dhol", but thats not the way the Punjabi
> word for "Drum" is pronounced. As you pointed out in the examples of
> the words, its pronounciation is similar to TTa (U+0A1F) or TTHa
> (U+0A20). In my words, keeping in mind the previous explanations of
> p-h and ch-h, the intial sound of "Drum" would be written "T-h"
> ((U+0A1F) followed by a lower tone non-aspirated "ho" or "oh" sound).
> In other words, the Punjabi word for "drum" is not pronounced the same
> way it is written, in Gurmukhi, and I think Gurmukhi cannot represent
> the T-h sound.
????????
I thinbk you can easily represent this letter in gurmukhi and, also,
Devnagari!! there is a specific letter 'tha' to write Thekedar or
Thanedar. where is the problem?
In Shahmukhi, T-h, can be written (I'm not saying it
> is) TTa (U+0679) Heh Goal (U+06C1 or U+06D5).
so you need two letters to wwrite just 'th' ??
>
> My whole argument against Gurmukhi is that it is deficient and
> inadequate when it comes to representing certain essential and
> distinguishing sounds of Punjabi.
in my opinion Gurmukhi is perfect to write Punjabi as its (Gmukhi's)
sheer existance is just because of just this one language!!!
Punjabi language already existed and the creators of the script just
moulded Gurmukhi accordingly.
what do you call it, tailor-made?
But we cannot say the same for both Arabic and devnagri scripts.
devnagari would be even more easier to wwrite Punjabi but Arabic would
need to make some basic changes to write punjabi w/o losing its pure
ethis.
Just my opinion.
> > > > as far as 'criticism' of so-called shahmukhi is concerned its very
> > > > simple opposition of an alien script.
>
> Well, a script that some sikhs came up with to write down the
> teachings of the Guru does not make it the "only" legitimate script
> for Punjabi or Punjabis. Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi: Two Punjabs, Two
> ideologies, two scripts.
Now you are talking about politico-religious reasons for opposing or
supporting a particular script.
Two or three Punjabs, maybe five ideologies or scripts but punjabi,
like Bangla, ONE.
>
> > > > why u want to use a foreign script while your native land is blessed
> > > > with so many of its own? Bangladeshis are cleansing their country of
> > > > Hindus and Buddhists but they are clinging to their Bangla language
> > > > and script.
>
> A "bless[ing]"? Sure, diversity is "exciting" (which is one of the
> reasons I've learned to atleast read Gurmukhi), but so is the ability
> to read a different language without having to learn a new "script".
>
> > > > so ask yourself WHY Arabic script for your very own Punjabi????????
>
> Why Arabic script, you ask? Well, there are several reasons (in no
> particular order).
you should have put 1. as Religion whether we like it or not but
Islam also means propagation of Arabic culture and language.
I may have sounded a bit too 'naipaulesque' but it is true. Look how
Pakistani Punjabis are trying to disown their very own mother tongue
in favor of Urdu.
Its almost criminal.
>
> 1. Availability. The Arabic script is used to write most if not all
> languages.
that was my original query WHAT ARABIC SCRIPT IS DOING IN PAKISTAN
which is so far away from there??????
>
> 2. Utility. With the alphabet being the same, one has to teach only
> one script (hence decreasing the load on an already overburdened and
> underfunded educational system).
Let madrassa students learn and speak Arabic, come back to ur own
language and scripts guys. if you do not want gurmukhi or devnagari
then for goddasake create another script which could be as Pakistani
as Indus Civilization!!
>
> 3. Intelligibility. Shahmukhi can represent Punjabi sound system just
> as well, if not better than, Gurmukhi.
I wont contest as I cannot read Arabic script for simple reasons If i
have to I would learn another Indian script or language
>
> 4. Efficiency. Shahmukhi can be written and read faster than Gurmukhi.
> That is only my opinion, until proven through experiments. I'm very
> confident that my hypothesis is correct.
I am not
>
> Plus, as I pointed out earlier, Gurmukhi doesn't "own" Punjabi.
who says that? no community owns any language I would say.
Umar
> The "Pohli" or "P-holi" I'm talking about is what is "Bholi Bhali"
> (nanni munni) in Urdu/Hindi. In Punjabi it is pronounced very
> differntly. In Urdu/Hindi, the "Bha" (U+0A2D) sound is explicit. In
> Punjabi however, the "Bha" is replaced with (what appears to me as)
> something of a "p-h" sound. I have explained it in the above section.
> > well it is still spelled and pronounced as 'Bholi' in the Indian
> > Punjab as far as I know.
> > I know this as a number of Pbi girls have this nickname same with
> > 'Bholu'.
I beg to differ. It is spelled "Bholi" in Gurmukhi, but it isn't
pronounced with a "Bh" sound. Perhaps using it in a sentence will make
it clearer.
"Woh laRki bohot Bholi Bhali hai" (Urdu/Hindi), as compared to "O kuRi
bRi p-holi p-hali e" (Punjabi). As you may know Punjabi is a tonal
language, and "p-holi" (written "Bholi" in Gurmukhi) is pronounced
with a lowering of the tone. It is written "Bholi" because Gurmukhi
cannot represent tones. It is not pronounced "Bhol[i]" as you claim.
Punjabi is a tonal language and its tones are NOT represented in the
Gurmukhi script. This point is very important to understand before
this discussion can advance any further.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/gurmuki.htm (4th bullet)
> I think discussion of the intial sound in "Jhumke" would be more
> appropriate since we have a sample which is readily downloadable from
> Kazaa (or it can be bought).
> > well if Jazzy is calling Jhumke ch-umke then there is something wrong
> > with his pronunciation. well i would pronounce it as Jhoomke as in
> > "ghatta aayee Jhoom, Jhoom-ke" original prnciation i m sure is a bit
> > diff. as you pointed out,
and
> > what I want to say is dont base your argument on Jazzy's
> > pronunciation.
How Jazzy pronounces what is written as "Jhumke" is irrelevant. What
is important, and what I was trying to point out, is that "Jhumke" is
pronounced "ch-humke" in both Punjabs. In other words, Gurmukhi can
not represent certain sounds, thus it has to use "Jha" (Jhujja),
instead of "Ch-h(a)". In short, it can't represent tones.
> > anyway, Jhumka is not a part of Punjabi jewelery
> > so anyway whosoever try to pronounce this word would do it with
> > his/her limitations and according to his/her regional dialects. And
> > punjabis have peculiar habit of distorting original words.
Are you serious? The Punjabi word "Ch-humke" is a distortion of the
Urdu/Hindi word "Jhumka", but "Ch-humka" is an authentic Punjabi word.
> > well punjabi 'bhai' does incline towards 'p-hai' a bit...
and
> > bhai is pronounced the same way on this
> > side of Ravi as Bharat. same with Bhra which is i m sure prounced in
> > diff way in Jhang Multan than Lahore. Jhangis i believe put more
> > stress on Bhh(ra) as in 'bharat' (hindi pronunciation) or, even,
> > 'Bra'. but your point would find some support if u are in Indian malwa
> > punjab. they call 'Bhai' as 'Bai'. not that they would jump out of
> > their skins if you call them 'Bhraji'. in Majha area (amritsar,
> > gurdaspur)'bhai' is called 'bhaoo' but in doaba it is simple Bhaji. so
> > , in short, its wrong assumption that there is no 'bh' sound in
> > punjabi word for "brother".
If you say so, but here's the sticking point. As you have acknowledged
above, there IS an element of "p-h" in Bha (depending on the situation
or the dialect). That means that "Bha" (U+0A2D) would be used in
Gurmukhi to represent two seperate and distinct sounds. One
corresponding to "Bha" in Bharat, the other corresponding to "P-h(a)"
in P-hraa Jee. But I thought one word of Gurmukhi corresponded to one
sound? How will one be able to decide whether to pronounce U+0A2D as
"Bh" or "P-h"? Here, Gurmukhi is lacking. What do you say?
> You're right. One can write "Dhol", but thats not the way the Punjabi
> word for "Drum" is pronounced. As you pointed out in the examples of
> the words, its pronounciation is similar to TTa (U+0A1F) or TTHa
> (U+0A20). In my words, keeping in mind the previous explanations of
> p-h and ch-h, the intial sound of "Drum" would be written "T-h"
> ((U+0A1F) followed by a lower tone non-aspirated "ho" or "oh" sound).
> In other words, the Punjabi word for "drum" is not pronounced the same
> way it is written, in Gurmukhi, and I think Gurmukhi cannot represent
> the T-h sound.
> > ????????
> > I thinbk you can easily represent this letter in gurmukhi and, also,
> > Devnagari!! there is a specific letter 'tha' to write Thekedar or
> > Thanedar. where is the problem?
In other words, "Dhol" is pronounced as: TTA, Lowering of tone (-h),
O, L.
Dhol is an Urdu/Hindi word. TT-hol or T-hol is a Punjabi word, and
Gurmukhi cannot write it.
T-hol has an initial sound that is neither "Dh", nor "TTh". An example
of a Punjabi word beginning with "Dh" would be "Dholna" (friend,
lover). A Punjabi word with "TTh" would be "TThekedar" as you have
said. The Punjabi word for Drum (T-hol) begins with neither "Dh" nor
"TTh". It starts out somewhere close to TTA. In other words, people
replace the "Dh" sound of "Dhol" with "TTa", which goes back to the
problem that, contrary to Gurmukhi's claim, there are multiple sounds
associated with a single character (maybe because of a lack of ability
to represent tones).
> In Shahmukhi, T-h, can be written (I'm not saying it
> is) TTa (U+0679) Heh Goal (U+06C1 or U+06D5).
> > so you need two letters to wwrite just 'th' ??
There is a distinction to be made here. Yes, the Gurmukhi letter
"TTha" (retroflex) is written with TTa and Heh Dochashmi in
Urdu/Shahmukhi. I'm proposing that the "T-h" of "T-hol" can be written
with TTa and Heh Goal, with the Heh Goal representing the tone.
> My whole argument against Gurmukhi is that it is deficient and
> inadequate when it comes to representing certain essential and
> distinguishing sounds of Punjabi.
> > in my opinion Gurmukhi is perfect to write Punjabi as its (Gmukhi's)
> > sheer existance is just because of just this one language!!!
Apparently it isn't perfect. It doesn't represent the three tones of
Punjabi (which by the way, are a unique feature of the Punjabi
language, as compared to other similar languages).
> > But we cannot say the same for both Arabic and devnagri scripts.
> > devnagari would be even more easier to wwrite Punjabi but Arabic would
> > need to make some basic changes to write punjabi w/o losing its pure
> > ethis.
> > Just my opinion.
Here's my opinion, not that it really matters.
As M. Ranjit Mathews has said, different languages have different
pronounciations. The 'Ain of Arabic is not pronounced in Urdu as it is
in Arabic. Instead is is pronounced as a, as in Abdul. Same case with
British English pronounciation of "Better", and American English
"Better".
Do you think the pope is worried about the mutilation of the Latin
characters by Turkish, Malay, Afrikaans, to name only a few. Its not
such a big deal! Use what is available and useful.
> Well, a script that some sikhs came up with to write down the
> teachings of the Guru does not make it the "only" legitimate script
> for Punjabi or Punjabis. Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi: Two Punjabs, Two
> ideologies, two scripts.
> > Now you are talking about politico-religious reasons for opposing or
> > supporting a particular script.
That is only secondary. My primary objection was: Why should I feel
obliged to use a script, or think of it as being "authentic", when it
was invented by someone, somewhere, at sometime?
Ok, I'll let you tell me the reasons for which I should use the
Gurmukhi script, or rather, why are you using the Gurmukhi script?
> > Two or three Punjabs, maybe five ideologies or scripts but punjabi,
> > like Bangla, ONE.
Yes, but which one? Why?
> > > > so ask yourself WHY Arabic script for your very own Punjabi????????
> Why Arabic script, you ask? Well, there are several reasons (in no
> particular order).
> > you should have put 1. as Religion whether we like it or not but
> > Islam also means propagation of Arabic culture and language.
Its just that I see, in general (ofcourse anyone can come up with
exceptions), no truth in the proposition. But for now, I would like to
keep the focus on the script(s), and not on the baggage.
> > that was my original query WHAT ARABIC SCRIPT IS DOING IN PAKISTAN
> > which is so far away from there??????
What is a script that a Sikh guru came up with doing in Punjab? I'm
not trying to disrespect the Guru, just allowing you to see your
prejudices as well.
> 2. Utility. With the alphabet being the same, one has to teach only
> one script (hence decreasing the load on an already overburdened and
> underfunded educational system).
> > Let madrassa students learn and speak Arabic, come back to ur own
> > language and scripts guys. if you do not want gurmukhi or devnagari
> > then for goddasake create another script which could be as Pakistani
> > as Indus Civilization!!
Urdu/Shahmukhi/Pashto/Sindhi/Balochi, etc. is as "Indian" as it gets.
Try getting an Arab to read some Urdu and you'll see. It is not that
the Arabic script is "swallowed whole". For one, Nastaliq is a form of
Arabic script "invented" in or near the "Indian" part of the world,
specifically to write Farsi and Urdu, and now Punjabi.
butler
>
>
> > > that was my original query WHAT ARABIC SCRIPT IS DOING IN PAKISTAN
> > > which is so far away from there??????
>
> What is a script that a Sikh guru came up with doing in Punjab? I'm
> not trying to disrespect the Guru, just allowing you to see your
> prejudices as well.
I have not been following the whole discussion, so I cannot say much.
But I think Himmat already answered your question in his previous
post. Gurmukhi script was not "invented" by Guru Angad Dev ji. Infact
it was an old script (I think it was called 'Sharda' lipi), and Guru
ji modified it. And so Arabic is a 'foreign' script for Punjabi
language whlie Gurmukhi is very much 'Punjabi'.
That said, I accept that Urdu is as Indian (or South Asian, if you
object to my use of word 'Indian' for Urdu) as any other Indian
script. And it was invented in Indian part of the world to write Farsi
and Urdu. BUT still Gurmukhi is much closer to Punjabi then Arabic.
Here I would like to add that my dad was grew up in west Punjab
(before partition) and hence he studied urdu (being from old school,
he is more fluent in urdu than in hindi!!!), and the other day I was
talking to him, and in his opinion also using Urdu for writing Punjabi
is like using english script (or roman or whatever english script is
called )for writing hindi (as nowadays we do for our emails and
stuff). Again, may be being a Sikh, he is just biased towards Gurmukhi
(like me!! :-))
For me, I prefer Gurmukhi just for one most relevant reason (atleast
for me), that my guru gave this language to me, and although my family
has been out of Punjab for last almost 50 years now, but still because
of Punjabi language (and Gurmukhi script) I feel I am as much a
Punjabi as you are (if you are!!!!)..
- butler
Himmat
> azad_...@hotmail.com (Umar) wrote in message news:<62b1381a.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > Himmat,
> >
> >
> > > > that was my original query WHAT ARABIC SCRIPT IS DOING IN PAKISTAN
> > > > which is so far away from there??????
> >
> > What is a script that a Sikh guru came up with doing in Punjab? I'm
> > not trying to disrespect the Guru, just allowing you to see your
> > prejudices as well.
well my friend/Baiji/Praji/Bhau/Bhaji/Bhraji,
you seem to have got provoked for all the wrong reasons.
Not my objective to join this thread.
as far as what is a script that a Sikh...
As Butler pointed out, no Sikh guru came up with this script.
Like other major regional scripts, Gurmukhi has evolved over the
centuries
Gurmukhi is an 'improved' version of, to quote Butler Singh again,
Sharda script.
in 'desi' zuban, this script is called 'landey' which is still used by
old arhatias or Mandi traders/munims in Indian Punjab/haryana
(mahaPunjab.
your 'opposition' seems to be entirely driven by the fact that it is
'Gur'mukhi and associated with Sikh gurus.
You would be really suprised to know that Punjab still has three
widely circulated urdu newspapers. Hind Samachar, Partap and Milap.
All owned by Jalandhar based Hindu arya smaji families called Mahashas
as in 'Mahashya' (hindi way of saying 'Janab').
Hind Samachar is in fact also the name of the press group which owns
one of India's largest circultion hindi daily Punjab Kesari.
Ye Thats a totally different story.
My point is there is no opposition to Urdu in Punjab even though there
is no Muslim population there (except small pockets in malerkotla and
Kadian near Gurdaspur).
Any Gurmukhi, Devnagri publication/press/newsletter published in
pakistan?
my point is you guys have pushed yourself in one tight xenophobic
corner in your opposition to 'Sikh' gurmukhi and 'Hindu' devnagari.
in your (collectively speaking) zeal you have decided to opt for a
absolutely foreign script instead of the native ones.
I do not see any harm in Pakistanis developing their very own script.
call it Pakmukhi
kidding
regards
Himmat
Umar
> > Gurmukhi script was not "invented" by Guru Angad Dev ji. Infact
> > it was an old script (I think it was called 'Sharda' lipi), and Guru
> > ji modified it. And so Arabic is a 'foreign' script for Punjabi
> > language whlie Gurmukhi is very much 'Punjabi'.
According to some, Gurmukhi script was "invented"
(http://www.gurudwara-cjsa.org/guruangaddevji.htm and
http://www.ruchiskitchen.com/festivals/gurulegend.htm among others) by
Guru Angad Dev ji. But some insist that it wasn't invented by the Guru
(http://members.pgonline.com/~mpurewal/chapter04.html Question #7). I
was under the impression that it was invented, hence my comment. I do
understand that it was "derived" from an earlier script, and that Guru
Angad ji made additions to incorporate the vowel sounds.
> > BUT still Gurmukhi is much closer to Punjabi then Arabic.
Ofcourse, but Punjabi written in Shahmukhi isn't any less authentic.
> > For me, I prefer Gurmukhi just for one most relevant reason (atleast
> > for me), that my guru gave this language to me, and although my family
> > has been out of Punjab for last almost 50 years now, but still because
> > of Punjabi language (and Gurmukhi script) I feel I am as much a
> > Punjabi as you are (if you are!!!!)..
Yes, I'm a Punjabi.
I prefer Shahmukhi for its practicality and advantages, which I have
outlined in my previous posts. The script I use to write the language
is part of my identity, and I'm sure its the same for you too.
ਆਜ਼ਾਦ ਖ਼ਯਾਲ آزاد خيال Azad Khayal (Just in case
the Gurmukhi and Arabic characters don't show up)
Umar
> > that was my original query WHAT ARABIC SCRIPT IS DOING IN PAKISTAN
> > which is so far away from there??????
> What is a script that a Sikh guru came up with doing in Punjab? I'm
> not trying to disrespect the Guru, just allowing you to see your
> prejudices as well.
> > well my friend/Baiji/Praji/Bhau/Bhaji/Bhraji,
> > you seem to have got provoked for all the wrong reasons.
> > Not my objective to join this thread.
> > as far as what is a script that a Sikh...
> > As Butler pointed out, no Sikh guru came up with this script.
> > Like other major regional scripts, Gurmukhi has evolved over the
> > centuries
> > Gurmukhi is an 'improved' version of, to quote Butler Singh again,
> > Sharda script.
> > in 'desi' zuban, this script is called 'landey' which is still used by
> > old arhatias or Mandi traders/munims in Indian Punjab/haryana
> > (mahaPunjab.
Provoked? Rest assured I wasn't.
Guru Angad ji modified ("improved") and adopted the script that was
available to him. Pakistani Punjabis have adopted a modified version
of a certain script available to them. I was pointing out how scripts
came to be used for Punjabi. Provocation is not exactly the right word
for what I was trying to do.
By the way, Gurmukhi did not evolve over the centuries. Guru Angad
ji's modification of Sharda or Landha script came to be known as
Gurmukhi.
> > your 'opposition' seems to be entirely driven by the fact that it is
> > 'Gur'mukhi and associated with Sikh gurus.
Does it really? I would like it to not seem so, so I'll provide a few
reasons (complementing those I have given before) for why I oppose the
use of Gurmukhi in Pakistan.
1. Availability. Practically no one knows Gurmukhi in Pakistan, while
an overwhelming majority of literate Pakistanis know the Arabic
script.
2. Waste of time and resources. Teaching a new script (in place of an
adequate, already existing script) is surely a waste of time and
resourses.
3. Unity. Having a unified script goes a long way in helping unite a
country. Apparently all the different scripts of the Indian languages
are a source of concern for some
(http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=galt.language.hindi&hl=en&th=22329169f180402
Second and Third post).
> > my point is you guys have pushed yourself in one tight xenophobic
> > corner in your opposition to 'Sikh' gurmukhi and 'Hindu' devnagari.
> > in your (collectively speaking) zeal you have decided to opt for a
> > absolutely foreign script instead of the native ones.
I disagree. I think Pakistanis have unified their scripts in order to
unify themselves, or maybe it is because they were unified that they
united their scripts.
> > Any Gurmukhi, Devnagri publication/press/newsletter published in
> > pakistan?
Yes.
http://www.dawn.com/2001/03/02/nat26.htm
http://www.dawn.com/2001/03/02/fea.htm (In Internet Explorer, hit
"Ctrl" F, enter "Gurmukhi" to find the relevant info quickly)
Plus, I had also read about the publication of Sikh Literature (maybe
Guru Granth Sahib but I can't recall exactly) in Shahmukhi. I wasn't
able to find the URL. Sorry.
Ofcourse the above listed publications are not "enough", but they are
being published.
> > I do not see any harm in Pakistanis developing their very own script.
We have already developed our own script. It is known as "Nastaliq".
It is among the most complex of the complex scripts and only a few
have been able to make fonts for it. It is a caligraphic (hence very
beautiful) script, and very easy to read.
Since this is a thread about the merits of certain scripts, how about
a reply to my critique of Gurmukhi?
Vijay S. Bajwa
in the Shahmukhi script. Punjabi can also be (and is) written
just as well in Devanagari.
"Umar" <azad_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62b1381a.0204...@posting.google.com...
Umar
are used in Urdu/Shahmukhi to represent one sound,
http://www.geocities.com/sikmirza/arabic/arabic.html#
http://www.geocities.com/sikmirza/arabic/urdu_alph.html (especially
relevant)
It has an interesting one by one comparison of Arabic characters and
their Devanagri equivalents.
-Azad Khayal
Vijay S. Bajwa
"th" in "thali" is a combination of 't' and 'h'. The only thing which
puzzles
me is how in Shahmukhi you write the "N" sound in "jana" to go. "Noon"
is not quite the sound we want here.
All the stuff about "phraji" etc. is trivial, you just write "bhraji" in
Shahmukhi
and you just know, that since it is Punjabi, it has to be pronounced as
"phraji".
Vijay
"Umar" <azad_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62b1381a.02042...@posting.google.com...
Umar
> > Nothing surprising about it, they are compound consonants. Like
> > "th" in "thali" is a combination of 't' and 'h'.
It wasn't meant to be surprising. I found this link and thought it
might be of some use to a few people here. That link is useful
especially when a distinction is being made between He (dochashmi) and
He (goal). Dochashmi combined with ta, Ta, da, etc. gives tha (as in
thali), Tha (as in Thug), dha (as in Dhol), whereas the Goal He
combined with these letters gives t-ha (as in t-ho "wash"), T-ha (as
in T-hol "drum"), d-ha etc.
> > The only thing which puzzles me is how in Shahmukhi you write the "N" sound > > in "jana" to go. "Noon" is not quite the sound we want here.
Relevant links: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf (Arabic)
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf (Gurmukhi)
http://www.geocities.com/sikmirza/arabic/afghan.html#
I believe you're refering to the Gurmukhi Retroflex NNA (U+0A23),
right? I have never seen that sound being written in Shahmukhi, but
there is a need for it. Frankly, I didn't notice this sound until I
learned Gurmukhi. In the third link, you will see an Arabic character
whose "Pronounciation" is described as "Retroflex N" (Its the fourth
one from the bottom). In Unicode it is U+06BC. That character
correctly represents the "N" in jaNa. So, simply add a circle below
the "Noon" to make it into a retroflex Noon. Problem solved!
U+06BC is currently not being used in Shahmukhi. I advocate its use
which I think will go a long way in "defining" Shahmukhi. Currently
only Urdu characters are used in Shahmukhi. When Shahmukhi has its own
characters distinct from Urdu, it will go a long way in helping it
gain its own identity.
> > All the stuff about "phraji" etc. is trivial, you just write "bhraji" in
> > Shahmukhi and you just know, that since it is Punjabi, it has to be > > prounced as "phraji".
Did you mean "Gurmukhi"?
Just in case you didn't, currently the same convention ("P-ha" for
"Bha") is being used in Shahmukhi as well. I am against its use, and
by criticizing Gurmukhi, I am also criticizing the current conventions
of Shahmukhi.
It may be trivial, but my of criticism of Gurmukhi (directly) and
conventions of Shahmukhi (indirectly) does have a point. I believe it
isn't trivial. Some of my reasons for believing it isn't trivial are:
1.) Punjabi has both Bha (U+0A2D) and Pha (U+0A2B) sounds. It
(Gurmukhi) is said to have one character for one sound. Using Bha to
represent "p-ha" destroys this one to one correspondence (in
Gurmukhi).
2.) It creates ambiguity. How would one know whether to pronounce
"Bha" as "Bha" or "p-ha", since both are used in Punjabi. In
Shahmukhi, this distinction CAN be made, whereas it is impossible to
make any such distinction in Gurmukhi.
3.) Using "Bha" to also represent "p-ha" makes no sense (atleast to
me). For me, the major thing that turns me away from reading Punjabi
(in either script) is having to "invent" sounds.
4.)Punjabi is tonal and its script MUST reflect that fact.
Thank you for criticizing the Shahmukhi script. It has made me aware
of a sound which is not currently represented in Shahmukhi. Do you
have any other criticisms? I would love to know about them.
I have another question which may lead us towards less "trivial"
criticism of Gurmukhi.
Take for example the Punjabi words for "wash" and "from (name of
place)". "Wash" is "t-ho" (kapRe t-ho ke sukne pa), and "from (name of
place)" is "(Pakistan) toN" (maiN Pakistan toN aaeya vaN). In
Shahmukhi "t-ho" can be written "te", "He (goal)", "wao", and "toN" is
written "te", "wao", "Noon (Ghunna)". How will these two words be
written in Gurmukhi? It is quite obvious how "toN" is written. As far
as I can tell, "t-ho" can't be written in Gurmukhi because it is
unable to represent tones. So, please tell me how "t-ho" is written in
Gurmukhi.
Thanks,
-Azad Khayal
Seeker
news:gXKw8.31594$7e5.8...@news02.optonline.net...
> Shahmukhi you write the "N" sound in "jana" to go. "Noon"
> is not quite the sound we want here.
Interesting. I think this is the first real exception I have heard.
Vijay S. Bajwa
"Umar" <azad_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62b1381a.02042...@posting.google.com...
> Vijay S. Bajwa,
>
> > > Nothing surprising about it, they are compound consonants. Like
> > > "th" in "thali" is a combination of 't' and 'h'.
>
> It wasn't meant to be surprising. I found this link and thought it
> might be of some use to a few people here. That link is useful
> especially when a distinction is being made between He (dochashmi) and
> He (goal). Dochashmi combined with ta, Ta, da, etc. gives tha (as in
> thali), Tha (as in Thug), dha (as in Dhol), whereas the Goal He
> combined with these letters gives t-ha (as in t-ho "wash"), T-ha (as
> in T-hol "drum"), d-ha etc.
Pardon my ignorance. Are you saying it is standard to use the "gol he" ( as
in
"nigah" ) in Shahmukhi to denote Punjabi specific sounds like Dal+gol-he
= T-hol ? Is this standard Shahmukhi practise, or, as you say later, this is
what
you think Shahmukhi _should do? I have not much read much literature either
in
Gurmukhi or Shahmukhi. Some years ago I made a stab at reading Heer-Ranjha
in Gurmukhi, but read only scattered pieces here and there.
> > > The only thing which puzzles me is how in Shahmukhi you write the "N"
sound > > in "jana" to go. "Noon" is not quite the sound we want here.
>
> Relevant links: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf (Arabic)
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf (Gurmukhi)
> http://www.geocities.com/sikmirza/arabic/afghan.html#
>
> I believe you're refering to the Gurmukhi Retroflex NNA (U+0A23),
> right? I have never seen that sound being written in Shahmukhi, but
> there is a need for it. Frankly, I didn't notice this sound until I
> learned Gurmukhi. In the third link, you will see an Arabic character
> whose "Pronounciation" is described as "Retroflex N" (Its the fourth
> one from the bottom). In Unicode it is U+06BC. That character
> correctly represents the "N" in jaNa. So, simply add a circle below
> the "Noon" to make it into a retroflex Noon. Problem solved!
What do all these accents and other diacritical marks do for word
processing,
not to mention typing on a type-writer! To some extent Devanagri and
Gurmukhi
also suffer from the same need to add lots of such accents. Urdu to a lesser
extent, only because it implies "matras" like zer, zabar and pesh, or
emphasis
(tashadud?)
> U+06BC is currently not being used in Shahmukhi. I advocate its use
> which I think will go a long way in "defining" Shahmukhi. Currently
> only Urdu characters are used in Shahmukhi. When Shahmukhi has its own
> characters distinct from Urdu, it will go a long way in helping it
> gain its own identity.
>
> > > All the stuff about "phraji" etc. is trivial, you just write "bhraji"
in
> > > Shahmukhi and you just know, that since it is Punjabi, it has to be
> > prounced as "phraji".
>
> Did you mean "Gurmukhi"?
>
> Just in case you didn't, currently the same convention ("P-ha" for
> "Bha") is being used in Shahmukhi as well. I am against its use, and
> by criticizing Gurmukhi, I am also criticizing the current conventions
> of Shahmukhi.
>
> It may be trivial, but my of criticism of Gurmukhi (directly) and
> conventions of Shahmukhi (indirectly) does have a point. I believe it
> isn't trivial. Some of my reasons for believing it isn't trivial are:
>
> 1.) Punjabi has both Bha (U+0A2D) and Pha (U+0A2B) sounds. It
> (Gurmukhi) is said to have one character for one sound. Using Bha to
> represent "p-ha" destroys this one to one correspondence (in
> Gurmukhi).
I don't think Punjabi has the "bha" sounds like in "bhai". Maybe some
dialects
like Saraiki or Multani pronounce it like that. If you have heard the
saraiki songs
of Abida Parveen, you'll know what I'm talking about.
> 2.) It creates ambiguity. How would one know whether to pronounce
> "Bha" as "Bha" or "p-ha", since both are used in Punjabi. In
> Shahmukhi, this distinction CAN be made, whereas it is impossible to
> make any such distinction in Gurmukhi.
Shahmukhi can make this distinction only by complicated rules of making
compound consonants. You will still have to judge from the context which
sound is meant. Take an example of writing "bahar" (spring) in Urdu. You
would write it as be-squiggly he-alif-re. You could equally write it as
be-dochashmi he- alif-re. In the latter case you could confuse it with
"bhar"
or weight.
> 3.) Using "Bha" to also represent "p-ha" makes no sense (atleast to
> me). For me, the major thing that turns me away from reading Punjabi
> (in either script) is having to "invent" sounds.
> 4.)Punjabi is tonal and its script MUST reflect that fact.
How will you accurately represent the tonal sound of "la-h" (take off)
in either script? Some tones _are implied.
> Thank you for criticizing the Shahmukhi script. It has made me aware
> of a sound which is not currently represented in Shahmukhi. Do you
> have any other criticisms? I would love to know about them.
I didn't mean to criticise, in fact I have said in this forum that some of
the best Punjabi works were written by people writing in shahmukhi.
Whatever the script, you have to use some heuristics.
> I have another question which may lead us towards less "trivial"
> criticism of Gurmukhi.
>
> Take for example the Punjabi words for "wash" and "from (name of
> place)". "Wash" is "t-ho" (kapRe t-ho ke sukne pa), and "from (name of
> place)" is "(Pakistan) toN" (maiN Pakistan toN aaeya vaN). In
> Shahmukhi "t-ho" can be written "te", "He (goal)", "wao", and "toN" is
> written "te", "wao", "Noon (Ghunna)". How will these two words be
> written in Gurmukhi? It is quite obvious how "toN" is written. As far
> as I can tell, "t-ho" can't be written in Gurmukhi because it is
> unable to represent tones. So, please tell me how "t-ho" is written in
> Gurmukhi.
Easy. The "Thadda" in Gurmukhi is that exact sound. Which ofcourse means,
that
you can't write "dho" (as in hindi), but my point is, you can't in
persio-arabic script
either, except by complicated arrangement.
> Thanks,
>
> -Azad Khayal
Umar
> > Are you saying it is standard to use the "gol he" ( as
> > in "nigah" ) in Shahmukhi to denote Punjabi specific sounds like Dal+gol-he
> > = T-hol ? Is this standard Shahmukhi practise, or, as you say later, this is
> > what you think Shahmukhi _should do?
I'm suggesting this is how it should be done.
In standard Shahmukhi, "drum" is written Daal (U+0688), dochashmi He
(looks like U+0647), Wao (U+0648), Laam (U+0644). Dhol.
I suggest it be written Te (U+0679), gol He (U+06C1), Wao (U+0648),
Laam (U+0644). T-hol. That will allow people to write it the same way
it is pronounced.
I, being a native Urdu reader and Punjabi speaker, have trouble
reading "Dhol" as "T-hol", since "drum" is written exactly the same
way in Urdu and standard (Urdu-ized) Shahmukhi, but it is pronounced
very differently in these two languages. I, and I believe many others,
wish to be spared of having to invent "Ta" out of "Da". One of the
many reasons Pakistani Punjabis don't usually write Punjabi is because
of this "goofy-ness". I believe the Urdu-ization of Punjabi is wrong
and illegitimate. My suggestions would make Shahmukhi phonetically
sound.
> > I have not much read much literature either
> > in Gurmukhi or Shahmukhi. Some years ago I made a stab at reading Heer- > > Ranjha in Gurmukhi, but read only scattered pieces here and there.
This time you can try reading some Shahmukhi. I have typed some of
Bulle Shah's kafiaN here: http://azadkhayal.tripod.com/baba.htm You
will need the BBC's Urdu font
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/urdufontinstaller/asiatypeu.exe) if you
don't have Windows XP.
If you read it, you will notice the Urdu-ized spellings of certain
words. I wish to correct that, as soon as I can.
> I believe you're refering to the Gurmukhi Retroflex NNA (U+0A23),
> right? I have never seen that sound being written in Shahmukhi, but
> there is a need for it. Frankly, I didn't notice this sound until I
> learned Gurmukhi. In the third link, you will see an Arabic character
> whose "Pronounciation" is described as "Retroflex N" (Its the fourth
> one from the bottom). In Unicode it is U+06BC. That character
> correctly represents the "N" in jaNa. So, simply add a circle below
> the "Noon" to make it into a retroflex Noon. Problem solved!
> > What do all these accents and other diacritical marks do for word
> > processing, not to mention typing on a type-writer! To some extent > > Devanagri and Gurmukhi also suffer from the same need to add lots of such > > accents. Urdu to a lesser extent, only because it implies "matras" like > > zer, zabar and pesh, or emphasis (tashadud?)
Like Urdu, Shahmukhi implies a lot of "matras" (can't recall what
they're called in Urdu or Punjabi). I think the "emphasis" is called
"Shud".
As computers advance, the problems associated with complex word
processing should become a thing of the past (much like the
typewriter). Learning to type Urdu/Punjabi (Shahmukhi) is just as easy
as typing English (atleast for me). I'm sure its the same for
Devanagri/Punjabi (Gurmukhi).
The only real problem I've had typing Urdu/Punjabi is the interference
of the QWERTY keyboard (which was to be expected). While typing Urdu
in the Arabic script, I start typing Urdu as I would on a QWERTY
keyboard. Other than that, I haven't had any noticable problems.
> 1.) Punjabi has both Bha (U+0A2D) and Pha (U+0A2B) sounds. It
> (Gurmukhi) is said to have one character for one sound. Using Bha to
> represent "p-ha" destroys this one to one correspondence (in
> Gurmukhi).
> > I don't think Punjabi has the "bha" sounds like in "bhai". Maybe some
> > dialects like Saraiki or Multani pronounce it like that. If you have heard > > the saraiki songs of Abida Parveen, you'll know what I'm talking about.
I especially noticed the "Bha" sound her "Mahi Yaar di GhaRoli
ChaRhdi". She used the word "Bhan saTTaN" (toR phainkuN). I would have
pronounced it as "P-han saTTaN", and I wondered whether she pronounced
it as "Bhan" because of the way it was written, or whether it is
pronounced that way in her dialect.
I don't know of any dialects of Punjabi that pronounce "Bha" as it is
in "Bhai", but there may be some. Using Bha creates ambiguity (which
is my second point), because "Bha" is used to denote two distince
sounds, I have no way of telling whether Abida Parveen was confused
when she used "Bhan" or whether its the way it is pronounced in her
dialect. I can't make that distinction in Shahmukhi, Gurmukhi or
Devanagri. My suggestion of using Pa, gol He, for the "p-h" sound
would clear this ambiguity, atleast in Shahmukhi. I have yet to see
how it would be cleared in Gurmukhi or Devanagri. How would Gurmukhi
or Devanagri make this distinction (i.e. how would we know that the
word is to be pronounced in a certain dialect)?
> 2.) It creates ambiguity. How would one know whether to pronounce
> "Bha" as "Bha" or "p-ha", since both are used in Punjabi. In
> Shahmukhi, this distinction CAN be made, whereas it is impossible to
> make any such distinction in Gurmukhi.
> > Shahmukhi can make this distinction only by complicated rules of making
> > compound consonants. You will still have to judge from the context which
> > sound is meant. Take an example of writing "bahar" (spring) in Urdu. You
> > would write it as be-squiggly he-alif-re. You could equally write it as
> > be-dochashmi he- alif-re. In the latter case you could confuse it with
> > "bhar" or weight.
Yes, Shahmukhi can make this distinction.
In Urdu, writing "spring" as "bhar" (ba, dochashmi he, alif, re) is
incorrect and is considered a spelling mistake. I suggest that Abida
Parveen's "Bhan" be considered a spelling mistake as well (if it isn't
used in her dialect).
> 3.) Using "Bha" to also represent "p-ha" makes no sense (atleast to
> me). For me, the major thing that turns me away from reading Punjabi
> (in either script) is having to "invent" sounds.
> 4.)Punjabi is tonal and its script MUST reflect that fact.
> > How will you accurately represent the tonal sound of "la-h" (take off)
> > in either script? Some tones _are implied.
Well, in Shahmukhi you can represent it with a gol He. Laam, Alif, gol
He. Without the gol He it would mean "stick" as in "Tasveer knd/deevar
te la de" (stick the picture to the wall).
In Gurmukhi it is implied, but if "I" were simply to "read without
understanding" (which I do more often than I should), "I" wouldn't
have a clue as to what tone its supposed to represent. Gurmukhi puts
the burden of actually understanding what one's reading on the reader.
Shahmukhi can make the pronounciation explicitly clear, which I think
makes it more efficient than Gurmukhi.
Or, how would one distinguish "la" from "la-h" in a Gurmukhi
dictionary? How would the reader know which one has a tone and which
one doesn't? I don't own a Punjabi dictionary in either script so I
don't know if they also clarify the pronounciation of the word. The
Urdu dictionary I have doesn't, so I'm thinking the Punjabi
dictionaries don't either.
Or how about this: If Punjabi dies tomorrow, how will its phonetic be
reconstructed from Gurmukhi?
> > I didn't mean to criticise, in fact I have said in this forum that some of
> > the best Punjabi works were written by people writing in shahmukhi.
I meant that in a good way.
> > Whatever the script, you have to use some heuristics.
The less heuristics the better.
> Take for example the Punjabi words for "wash" and "from (name of
> place)". "Wash" is "t-ho" (kapRe t-ho ke sukne pa), and "from (name of
> place)" is "(Pakistan) toN" (maiN Pakistan toN aaeya vaN). In
> Shahmukhi "t-ho" can be written "te", "He (goal)", "wao", and "toN" is
> written "te", "wao", "Noon (Ghunna)". How will these two words be
> written in Gurmukhi? It is quite obvious how "toN" is written. As far
> as I can tell, "t-ho" can't be written in Gurmukhi because it is
> unable to represent tones. So, please tell me how "t-ho" is written in
> Gurmukhi.
> > Easy. The "Thadda" in Gurmukhi is that exact sound. Which ofcourse means,
> > that you can't write "dho" (as in hindi), but my point is, you can't in
> > persio-arabic script either, except by complicated arrangement.
Which would be U+0A25 on the Unicode chart right? Again the tone is
implied in Gurmukhi, which makes it not as efficient as Shahmukhi.
I wouldn't call insertion of gol He a "complicated arrangement". What
makes it seem so complicated to you? Instead of a dochashmi He (which
would be present in the transliteration of U+0A25 in Shahmukhi), there
is a gol He. Simple as that!
-Azad Khayal
Vijay S. Bajwa
news:62b1381a.02042...@posting.google.com...
> Vijay S. Bajwa,
> Bulle Shah's kafiaN here: http://azadkhayal.tripod.com/baba.htm You
> will need the BBC's Urdu font
> (http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/urdufontinstaller/asiatypeu.exe) if you
> don't have Windows XP.
>
> If you read it, you will notice the Urdu-ized spellings of certain
> words. I wish to correct that, as soon as I can.
Thanks. Read some of it today. Like the Farhang you appended after each
piece.
> Like Urdu, Shahmukhi implies a lot of "matras" (can't recall what
> they're called in Urdu or Punjabi). I think the "emphasis" is called
> "Shud".
To a stickler who insists that nothing should be left to context or implied,
this
should not sit well with you then....? Unless you're advocating that all
matras
be added everywhere, in which case we'll loose the easy flow, one of the
things
I like about Urdu/Shahmukhi. In Devanagri/Gurmukhi, there's no getting away
from matras, they're integral to the script. Which makes them more exact.
I think you're making way too much of an issue with this "bha" vs. "pha"
thing.
Standard Punjabi only has the "pha" sound for which both Gurmukhi or
Shahmukhi have equivalents. Someone from Amritsar or Lahore will read the
Abida Parveen song as "Phann saTTaN" while a Saraiki speaker will pronounce
it as "bhann saTTaN". I don't think there's a need for a super-script to
subsume
such minute variations between dialects. Reading it either way conveys the
same
meaning, gives the same pleasure, and keeps the lyrical quality of the kafi.
.
> I don't know of any dialects of Punjabi that pronounce "Bha" as it is
> in "Bhai", but there may be some. Using Bha creates ambiguity (which
> is my second point), because "Bha" is used to denote two distince
> sounds, I have no way of telling whether Abida Parveen was confused
> when she used "Bhan" or whether its the way it is pronounced in her
> dialect. I can't make that distinction in Shahmukhi, Gurmukhi or
> Devanagri. My suggestion of using Pa, gol He, for the "p-h" sound
> would clear this ambiguity, atleast in Shahmukhi. I have yet to see
> how it would be cleared in Gurmukhi or Devanagri. How would Gurmukhi
> or Devanagri make this distinction (i.e. how would we know that the
> word is to be pronounced in a certain dialect)?
It is not important. See comment above.
> > 4.)Punjabi is tonal and its script MUST reflect that fact.
>
> > > How will you accurately represent the tonal sound of "la-h" (take off)
> > > in either script? Some tones _are implied.
>
> Well, in Shahmukhi you can represent it with a gol He. Laam, Alif, gol
> He. Without the gol He it would mean "stick" as in "Tasveer knd/deevar
> te la de" (stick the picture to the wall).
>
> In Gurmukhi it is implied, but if "I" were simply to "read without
> understanding" (which I do more often than I should), "I" wouldn't
> have a clue as to what tone its supposed to represent. Gurmukhi puts
> the burden of actually understanding what one's reading on the reader.
> Shahmukhi can make the pronounciation explicitly clear, which I think
> makes it more efficient than Gurmukhi.
>
> Or, how would one distinguish "la" from "la-h" in a Gurmukhi
> dictionary? How would the reader know which one has a tone and which
> one doesn't? I don't own a Punjabi dictionary in either script so I
> don't know if they also clarify the pronounciation of the word. The
> Urdu dictionary I have doesn't, so I'm thinking the Punjabi
> dictionaries don't either.
Sorrt, my mistake. "Lah" (take off) is probably written in Gurmukhi as with
a
"Haaha" at the end.
I'm looking forward to reading more Bulle Shah on your site.
Himmat
> > Bulle Shah's kafiaN here: http://azadkhayal.tripod.com/baba.htm You
> > will need the BBC's Urdu font
> > (http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/urdufontinstaller/asiatypeu.exe) if you
> > don't have Windows XP.
> >
> > If you read it, you will notice the Urdu-ized spellings of certain
> > words. I wish to correct that, as soon as I can.
Oye Azad babbey
eh saade naal dhaka hai
just coz cant read your friggin Urdu doesnt mean we should be deprived
of 'Lutf'
hahaha
Our music industry (both sides of the border) is really weird
You can find poetry of every eekee, dukee (teekee) in a consilidated
form but not of all time Babbas like Bulla
I tried every other punjabi music shop but they simply do not have any
Bulla only audio cassette or CD
any sufi CD u try u would not find mor than two of bulley dian kafian
on it.
wadalis, Nusrat, Abida, whats-his-name Khan (shafqat?)of Sham chaurasi
Gharana, etc.
they have all sung Bulla then why we cannot find these numbers in one
consolidated version?
Anyway, a request to you p-haji
pls also write these divine Kaafis in Roman script so everyone could
read Bulley shah
it would help
as I could also mourn my neighbor who has shifted to some other place
in a more (poetic manner (not that she would understand it)
"uth gaye gawando yaar, Rabba hun ki kariye"
i hope it was not Baba farid who wrote this kaafi
:)
Umar
> > Thanks. Read some of it today. Like the Farhang you appended after each
> > piece.
I'm glad to hear that. I have skipped the farhang towards the end, but
that shouldn't be too much of a problem.
> Like Urdu, Shahmukhi implies a lot of "matras" (can't recall what
> they're called in Urdu or Punjabi). I think the "emphasis" is called
> "Shud".
> > To a stickler who insists that nothing should be left to context or implied,
> > this should not sit well with you then....? Unless you're advocating that > > all matras be added everywhere, in which case we'll loose the easy flow, > > one of the things I like about Urdu/Shahmukhi. In Devanagri/Gurmukhi, > > there's no getting away from matras, they're integral to the script. Which > > makes them more exact.
Oh come on now. Why call me a stickler just because I insist that a
script should be "accurate" to be considered better?
BTW, I never said that "nothing" should be left to context or implied.
Shahmukhi/Urdu uses context to distinguish the many sounds a single
character represents. In Shahmukhi/Urdu, many more matras can be left
to the context, which makes it just as accurate as Gurmukhi/Devanagri
but with a lot less effort.
> > I think you're making way too much of an issue with this "bha" vs. "pha"
> > thing. Standard Punjabi only has the "pha" sound for which both Gurmukhi or
> > Shahmukhi have equivalents. Someone from Amritsar or Lahore will read the
> > Abida Parveen song as "Phann saTTaN" while a Saraiki speaker will pronounce
> > it as "bhann saTTaN". I don't think there's a need for a super-script to
> > subsume such minute variations between dialects. Reading it either way > > conveys the same meaning, gives the same pleasure, and keeps the lyrical > > quality of the kafi.
So, you're saying that more than one sound is represented by one
Gurmukhi letter? Doesn't that destroy its "claim to fame": One sound
per letter? If it does, it is a big deal, well, atleast to me.
> > I'm looking forward to reading more Bulle Shah on your site.
Enjoy.
-Azad Khayal
Umar
> > just coz cant read your friggin Urdu doesnt mean we should be deprived
> > of 'Lutf'
Is that enough of a motivation for you to start learning some
Shahmukhi? Perhaps not.
> > Anyway, a request to you p-haji
> > pls also write these divine Kaafis in Roman script so everyone could
> > read Bulley shah
Why not in Gurmukhi? Anyone whose going to read them to get some
"Lutf" out of them, is most likely to want them in Gurmukhi or
Shahmukhi. Roman script is for the tasteless!
Just let me know which ones you want to transliterated and I'll have
them on the web by the end of the week (if I have them in my book).
> > it would help
> > as I could also mourn my neighbor who has shifted to some other place
> > in a more (poetic manner (not that she would understand it)
> > "uth gaye gawando yaar, Rabba hun ki kariye"
> > i hope it was not Baba farid who wrote this kaafi
That _was Bulle Shah, but the version I have says "uTh challe gwanDhoN
yaar". Maybe its your pain that has affected your understanding of the
tense. From the looks of it, it seems to have been a life changing
event (sorry, I'm not really good at comebacks).
-Azad Khayal
Umar
especially the "Gurmukhi true Punjabi, Shahmukhi foreign" crowd.
"Despite the modern day usage of Gurmukhi, the first Panjabi
literature was first written in Shahmukhi..."
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0844201855/reader/5/002-3975530-6704815#reader-link)
[Panjabi (Teach Yourself), on Page 4, first Paragraph on the page]
What would that mean for the argument presented by Himmat, Nusrat
Rizvi, etc.? Doesn't that make Shahmukhi the "real" Punjabi? I would
like to get your comments on that.
Thanks,
Azad Khayal
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews and other who may be puzzled by how two characters
> are used in Urdu/Shahmukhi to represent one sound,
> http://www.geocities.com/sikmirza/arabic/arabic.html#
Wow! This site is superb!
M. Ranjit Mathews
> Vijay S. Bajwa,
>
> > > Nothing surprising about it, they are compound consonants. Like
> > > "th" in "thali" is a combination of 't' and 'h'.
>
> It wasn't meant to be surprising. I found this link and thought it
> might be of some use to a few people here. That link is useful
> especially when a distinction is being made between He (dochashmi) and
> He (goal). Dochashmi combined with ta, Ta, da, etc. gives tha (as in
> thali), Tha (as in Thug), dha (as in Dhol), whereas the Goal He
> combined with these letters gives t-ha (as in t-ho "wash"), T-ha (as
> in T-hol "drum"), d-ha etc.
>
> > > The only thing which puzzles me is how in Shahmukhi you write the "N" sound > > in "jana" to go. "Noon" is not quite the sound we want here.
> I believe you're refering to the Gurmukhi Retroflex NNA (U+0A23),
> right?
Alveolar, not retroflex. In Malayalam, Nagari and (apparently)
Shahmukhi, the dental and alveolar n are the same letter. In Tamil,
the dental and alveolar n's have different letters.
> I have never seen that sound being written in Shahmukhi, but
> there is a need for it.
Apparently, it can be written.
http://www.geocities.com/sikmirza/arabic/afghan.html#
M. Ranjit Mathews
> It may be trivial, but my of criticism of Gurmukhi (directly) and
> conventions of Shahmukhi (indirectly) does have a point. I believe it
> isn't trivial. Some of my reasons for believing it isn't trivial are:
>
> 1.) Punjabi has both Bha (U+0A2D) and Pha (U+0A2B) sounds. It
> (Gurmukhi) is said to have one character for one sound.
It is phonemic, not phonetic, so it doesn't have one character per
sound.
> Using Bha to
> represent "p-ha" destroys this one to one correspondence (in
> Gurmukhi).
> 2.) It creates ambiguity. How would one know whether to pronounce
> "Bha" as "Bha" or "p-ha", since both are used in Punjabi.
Presumably by following phonological rules that determine how the
letter is to be pronounced in various contexts..
> In Shahmukhi, this distinction CAN be made, whereas it is impossible to
> make any such distinction in Gurmukhi.
> 3.) Using "Bha" to also represent "p-ha" makes no sense (atleast to
> me). For me, the major thing that turns me away from reading Punjabi
> (in either script) is having to "invent" sounds.
> 4.)Punjabi is tonal and its script MUST reflect that fact.
>
> Thank you for criticizing the Shahmukhi script. It has made me aware
> of a sound which is not currently represented in Shahmukhi. Do you
> have any other criticisms? I would love to know about them.
>
> I have another question which may lead us towards less "trivial"
> criticism of Gurmukhi.
>
> Take for example the Punjabi words for "wash" and "from (name of
> place)". "Wash" is "t-ho" (kapRe t-ho ke sukne pa), and "from (name of
> place)" is "(Pakistan) toN" (maiN Pakistan toN aaeya vaN). In
> Shahmukhi "t-ho" can be written "te", "He (goal)", "wao", and "toN" is
> written "te", "wao", "Noon (Ghunna)". How will these two words be
> written in Gurmukhi? It is quite obvious how "toN" is written. As far
> as I can tell, "t-ho" can't be written in Gurmukhi because it is
> unable to represent tones. So, please tell me how "t-ho" is written in
> Gurmukhi.
In Gurmukhi, the tone of a vowel is indicated by changing an adjacent
consonant; in this case, the change is possibly from t-ho to d-ho.
M. Ranjit Mathews
Most interesting!
It might not be adequate for a mixture of Punjabi and non-Punjabi
words. The way the Japanese handle this is to write foreign words in a
different script - Katakana.
>
> And, if that's the case, how would one distinguish between "Bhai" and
> "P-hai" in Gurmukhi? Wouldn't that lead to imprecision and confusion
> as to how to pronounce U+0A2D?
One of these (Bhai/P-hai) is presumably not a Punjabi word.
> Take for example "Bhutan" (name of a country). Does it get pronounced
> as "Bh"uTan, or "P-h"utan? Or has the "Bh" sound vanished from Punjabi
> (here right in front of my eyes)?
Bhutan is not a Punjabi word, so it might not be pronounced correctlu
when following Punjabi phonological rules. Gurmukhi has a Bh phoneme,
not a Bh sound. The pronunciation of the phoneme might be P-h in some
contexts and Bh in other contexts.
> > My whole argument against Gurmukhi is that it is deficient and
> > inadequate when it comes to representing certain essential and
> > distinguishing sounds of Punjabi.
>
> > > It is inadequate in its facitlities for representing tones (Shahmukhi
> > > too is inadequate in this respect) but it is not inadequate in the
> > > areas you point out. Read up on the phonology of Punjabi and its
> > > phoneme inventory and how its phonemes map onto Gurmukhi letters.
>
> I will surely read up on the tones of Punjabi. I think Shahmukhi can
> represent the tones of Punjabi properly, but I will comment on that
> later. Right now, I better start crawling toward the bed.
>
> > 3. Intelligibility. Shahmukhi can represent Punjabi sound system just
> > as well, if not better than, Gurmukhi.
>
> > > As I pointed out above (multiple sounds sharing the same letter in
> > > Shahmukhi), it doesn't seem as precise as Gurmukhi.
>
> It may not seem so to you (I suspect you don't know Urdu or
> Shahmukhi), but it is not so. The context very precisely determines
> the sounds of characters. Again, I would like to stress that
> Shahmukhi, although complex, is not imprecise or inadequate. If
> needed, I can explain this point better.
Please do. How do you distinguish between the following in Shahmukhi?
1) korà (horse), kora (whip), korá (leper)
2) cà (peep), ca (enthusiasm), cá (tea)
Himmat
> Himmat,
>
> > > just coz cant read your friggin Urdu doesnt mean we should be deprived
> > > of 'Lutf'
>
> Is that enough of a motivation for you to start learning some
> Shahmukhi? Perhaps not.
you are right. as I said earlier my friend, if I have this urge to
learn a new language I would learn Tamil or Malyalam as it would open
a whole new world to me.
>
> > > Anyway, a request to you p-haji
> > > pls also write these divine Kaafis in Roman script so everyone could
> > > read Bulley shah
I wrote "everyone". if in Gurmukhi then those devnagariwalas would
complain.
>
> Why not in Gurmukhi? Anyone whose going to read them to get some
> "Lutf" out of them, is most likely to want them in Gurmukhi or
> Shahmukhi. Roman script is for the tasteless!
>
> Just let me know which ones you want to transliterated and I'll have
> them on the web by the end of the week (if I have them in my book).
anything avbl would do for the time being
>
> > > it would help
> > > as I could also mourn my neighbor who has shifted to some other place
> > > in a more (poetic manner (not that she would understand it)
>
> > > "uth gaye gawando yaar, Rabba hun ki kariye"
>
> > > i hope it was not Baba farid who wrote this kaafi
>
> That _was Bulle Shah, but the version I have says "uTh challe gwanDhoN
> yaar". Maybe its your pain that has affected your understanding of the
> tense. From the looks of it, it seems to have been a life changing
> event (sorry, I'm not really good at comebacks).
Na not life changing
as some other baba said (in some other context, i kno)
sitaron se aage jahan aur bhi hain...
>
> -Azad Khayal
Umar
> I believe you're refering to the Gurmukhi Retroflex NNA (U+0A23),
> right?
> > Alveolar, not retroflex. In Malayalam, Nagari and (apparently)
> > Shahmukhi, the dental and alveolar n are the same letter.
U+0A23 is retroflex:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0844201855/reader/10/103-4738080-3732625#reader-link
or http://lookinside-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35ler6yTOWlkUTv578QSVE6tt21j/x3O+Dl8C+vBiweiTuMyD26s8bpvDt5AGXzYq+SCNS/C0dKVNReFHg/8Fs6A0fpuoVYx31DnIA25lEa3sxaaa6kKiO4A3oysRhBTzF7yI9j6LGkG/ilQ==
(Its the sixth letter from the bottom)
> > It is phonemic, not phonetic, so it doesn't have one character per
> > sound.
There are exceptions, but generally, it (Gurmukhi) does follow "one
letter-one symbol" principle:
(http://lookinside-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35ler6yTOWlkUTv578QSVE6tt2goCaSYTsvdHu66lAcffEm8MTvq2oNeFfer0Q2cUrqCzFhq0RASjfK6o6cPRjIQDjlsgeHU9fMKqt0WcU/SCVCpJ6DtzR6MMKLEEwKG/nyUxa8nKXv4aomg==)
> 2.) It creates ambiguity. How would one know whether to pronounce
> "Bha" as "Bha" or "p-ha", since both are used in Punjabi.
> > Presumably by following phonological rules that determine how the
> > letter is to be pronounced in various contexts..
Those rules don't work when one pronounces the same word in the exact
same context but in different dialects. Please refer to the example of
Abida Parveen's (Siraiki?) and my pronounciation (Lahori?) of the word
"Bhan". The context is exactly the same, but the pronounciation is
different. What Gurmukhi phonological rules are there which would
allow me to distinguish between the two equally valid pronounciations
(but either of which would be "wrong" in the other dialect)?
> > One of these (Bhai/P-hai) is presumably not a Punjabi word.
Both are Punjabi words, but they belong to different dialects.
> > The pronunciation of the phoneme might be P-h in some
> > contexts and Bh in other contexts.
Indeed, but there are instances where, even though the context is the
same, the phoneme is pronounced differently in different dialects.
That leaves an unresolvable ambiguity.
> > How do you distinguish between the following in Shahmukhi?
> > 1) korà (horse), kora (whip), korá (leper)
> > 2) cà (peep), ca (enthusiasm), cá (tea)
The standard way of distinguishing between these sounds in Shahmukhi
is:
1) GhoRa (gaaf, dochashmi he, wao, Ra, alif), koRa (kaaf, wao, Ra,
alif), koRa (kaaf, wao, Ra, alif). In the standard the whip and leper
would be determined by the context. There's another Punjabi word koRa
for bitter.
2) I have never seen cà written anywhere, so I don't know how its
written in standard Shahmukhi. (enthusiasm) is written Cha (che,
alif). (tea) is written the same way, and the context determines what
the word means and how it is to be pronounced.
That is the standard. This is how I suggest these words be written:
1) k-hoRa (kaaf, gol [choTi] he, Ra, alif), koRa (kaaf, wao, Ra,
alif), ko-hRa (kaaf, wao, gol he, Ra, alif). (bitter) would be written
k[a]oRa (kaaf, [zabar], wao, Ra, alif).
2) ch-ha (che, gol he, alif), cha (che, alif), cha-h (che, alif, gol
he).
Any objections?
> It may not seem so to you (I suspect you don't know Urdu or
> Shahmukhi), but it is not so. The context very precisely determines
> the sounds of characters. Again, I would like to stress that
> Shahmukhi, although complex, is not imprecise or inadequate. If
> needed, I can explain this point better.
> > Please do.
:a: alif, zabar.
:e: alif, zer, choTi ye.
:i: alif, zer (initial); choTi ye with hamza, choTi ye (final).
:o: alif, wao.
:u: alif, pesh.
:ai: alif, baRi ye (isolated); alif, choTi ye with hamza, choTi ye
(initial);
choTi ye with hamza, baRi ye (final).
:au: alif, wao with hamza.
:aa: alif with madd (initial); alif (final).
:ii: alif, zer, choTi ye.
:ee: choTi ye with hamza, choti ye.
Sounds of Wao:
(Here I'm just generalizing. It looks ok to me, unless it can be
contradicted by an example)
:v: wao followed by choTi ye.
:o: wao followed by any other character.
This is just a small table of sounds which can be represented by
Urdu/Shahmukhi, and it isn't as complex as it may seem. I came up with
it off the top of my head, and after "you" learn the script, "you"
should be able to do the same. There may be a few mistakes in it, and
if so, please point them out.
-Azad Khayal
Umar
उठ चल्ले गवांढों यार
उठ चल्ले गवांढों यार
रब्बा हुऩ की करिये
उठ चल्ले, हुऩ रैनदे नाहीं
होया साथ त्यार
रब्बा हुऩ की करिये
चारों त्रफ़ चल्लन दे चरचे
हर सू पै पुकार
रब्बा हुऩ की करिये
ढानड कलेजे बल बल उठदि
बिन देखे दीदार
रब्बा हुऩ की करिये
बुल्ला! शौह पयारे बाजों
रहे उरार नह पार
रब्बा हुऩ की करिये!
Kindly turn your encoding to Unicode (UTF-8), by going to (in Internet
Explorer) "View" ---> "Encoding" ---> "Unicode (UTF-8)".
Voila! Just in case you can't read the kafi (which is in Devanagri),
go to the BBC's Hindi site and download the Hindi font. That should
allow you to see it.
I didn't type it in Gurmukhi because I don't know a source from where
people can download a Gurmukhi font and see the text (unless you had
XP).
Sorry, Romanization goes against my philosophy. Just can't do it.
> Is that enough of a motivation for you to start learning some
> Shahmukhi? Perhaps not.
> > you are right. as I said earlier my friend, if I have this urge to
> > learn a new language I would learn Tamil or Malyalam as it would open
> > a whole new world to me.
Didn't think so, but you do know the difference between a script and a
language, right?
-Azad Khayal
Umar
Correction: 1) k-hoRa (kaaf, gol [choTi] he, Ra, alif)
should have been: "1) k-hoRa (kaaf, gol [choTi] he, wao, Ra, alif)".
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > I believe you're refering to the Gurmukhi Retroflex NNA (U+0A23),
> > right?
>
> > > Alveolar, not retroflex. In Malayalam, Nagari and (apparently)
> > > Shahmukhi, the dental and alveolar n are the same letter.
>
> U+0A23 is retroflex:
Yes, but the n in the Hindi word jana is alveolar. In typical Nagari
Hindi writing (as in most other scripts), no distinction is made
between a dental n and and alveolar n, but Unicode Devanagari does
have a letter NNNA (0929) to distinguish an alveolar n from a dental
or retroflex n.
> > > It is phonemic, not phonetic, so it doesn't have one character per
> > > sound.
> There are exceptions, but generally, it (Gurmukhi) does follow "one
> letter-one symbol" principle:
For an example of an exception, see the above, where I have pointed
out that in Gurmukhi, the same letter is used for a dental and
alveolar n.
> > 2.) It creates ambiguity. How would one know whether to pronounce
> > "Bha" as "Bha" or "p-ha", since both are used in Punjabi.
One would have to learn the phonological rules for the dialect of
Punjabi one wants to speak. Once they are known, one would know
whether to pronounce the phoneme /b<h>/ as the phone [b<h>] or as
[p<h>]. If both pronunciations are used in a given dialect, one would
have to learn the phonological rules that determine in which contexts
it is pronounced as [b<h>] and in which contexts it is pronounced as
[p<h>].
> > > Presumably by following phonological rules that determine how the
> > > letter is to be pronounced in various contexts..
>
> Those rules don't work when one pronounces the same word in the exact
> same context but in different dialects.
No; for that, one would need a phonetic script rather than a phonemic
script. The disadvantage of a phonetic script is that the spelling of
a word would change from one dialect to another. An advantage of a
phonemic script is that spelling can remain the same across dialects,
but a disadvantage of this is that but one has to learn the
phonological rules for a dialect (written in a given script) before
one can correctly pronounce words in that dialect.
> Please refer to the example of
> Abida Parveen's (Siraiki?) and my pronounciation (Lahori?) of the word
> "Bhan". The context is exactly the same, but the pronounciation is
> different. What Gurmukhi phonological rules are there which would
> allow me to distinguish between the two equally valid pronounciations
> (but either of which would be "wrong" in the other dialect)?
There would be different phonological rules for each dialect written
in Gurmukhi.
> > > One of these (Bhai/P-hai) is presumably not a Punjabi word.
>
> Both are Punjabi words, but they belong to different dialects.
>
> > > The pronunciation of the phoneme might be P-h in some
> > > contexts and Bh in other contexts.
>
> Indeed, but there are instances where, even though the context is the
> same, the phoneme is pronounced differently in different dialects.
> That leaves an unresolvable ambiguity.
How does Shahmukhi resolve this ambiguity? Sorry to make you repeat
yourself but I don't remember exactly how you answered this question
earlier in the thread.
Umar
> > One would have to learn the phonological rules for the dialect of
> > Punjabi one wants to speak. Once they are known, one would know
> > whether to pronounce the phoneme /b<h>/ as the phone [b<h>] or as
> > [p<h>]. If both pronunciations are used in a given dialect, one would
> > have to learn the phonological rules that determine in which contexts
> > it is pronounced as [b<h>] and in which contexts it is pronounced as
> > [p<h>].
Through this discussion, that part has become clear to me. Initially I
was assuming that there was strictly sound for one letter, but that is
not the case.
> Those rules don't work when one pronounces the same word in the exact
> same context but in different dialects.
> > No; for that, one would need a phonetic script rather than a phonemic
> > script. The disadvantage of a phonetic script is that the spelling of
> > a word would change from one dialect to another. An advantage of a
> > phonemic script is that spelling can remain the same across dialects,
> > but a disadvantage of this is that but one has to learn the
> > phonological rules for a dialect (written in a given script) before
> > one can correctly pronounce words in that dialect.
There are many advantages of writing certain words in a standardized
form, but in that case one has to know the dialect in which a certain
phrase/word is written in order to pronounce it that way. As you may
know, there are many words of Arabic in Urdu. Their spelling is
preserved "faithfully", but their pronounciation is not. Anyone who
knows Arabic as well as Urdu will have no trouble pronouncing Arabic
words (found in Urdu) as they would be pronounced in Urdu, because it
is a different language. In dialects within the same language, a
phrase may be written exactly the same way, but the pronounciation of
words is different.
Suppose a certain phrase is written exactly the same way in two
different dialects that exist within the same language. An example in
Punjabi would be "MaiN ainouN [i]Bhan saTTna[/i] cha-hna waN"
(translation to make clear what certain words are in my version of the
romanization: I want to break it and throw it away). In Gurmukhi, it
would be written the same way, but according to certain dialects, it
will be pronounced differently. In Shahmukhi, it _can_ be written so
that it makes the pronounciation explicitly clear.
Now, take the example of Ebonics and the "Standard" English. The
identity of these two dialects can be made explicitly clear in the
Roman script: "Whassup wit dat" and "Whats up with that". No one would
write in Standard English if what one is writing is Ebonics. The Roman
script is capable of displaying the different pronounciations.
I believe Gurmukhi lacks this ability (I may think so due to my
limited understanding of Gurmukhi, so please enlighten [anyone]).
Shahmukhi is capable of it, which makes it a more "suitable" script
for Punjabi than Gurmukhi. Compare it with the example of Ebonics and
English. No one would think that a certain script which is incapable
of letting people distinguish Ebonics from Standard English is
"suited".
> Indeed, but there are instances where, even though the context is the
> same, the phoneme is pronounced differently in different dialects.
> That leaves an unresolvable ambiguity.
> > How does Shahmukhi resolve this ambiguity?
By reserving the "Bha" phoneme exclusively for "Bha" sound, and by
being able to write the "P-ha" sound.
-Azad Khayal
Umar
> Initially I was assuming that there was strictly sound for one letter,
> but that is not the case.
Should have been:
Initially I was assuming that there was strictly ONE sound for one
M. Ranjit Mathews
Very well presented!
> > Indeed, but there are instances where, even though the context is the
> > same, the phoneme is pronounced differently in different dialects.
> > That leaves an unresolvable ambiguity.
>
> > > How does Shahmukhi resolve this ambiguity?
>
> By reserving the "Bha" phoneme exclusively for "Bha" sound, and by
> being able to write the "P-ha" sound.
I had to look at your rendition of
1) korà (horse), kora (whip), korá (leper)
2) cà (peep), ca (enthusiasm), cá (tea)
to see how you propose to do this. Yes, it is clear now. You propose a
change that uses a gol he for a P followed by a low tone and reserve
the Bh. Yes, you have a point, but it is not clear that this brings
out an inherent advantage of Shamukhi over Gurmukhi since such a
change in convention can be effected just as easily in Gurmukhi. For
example, one could take a Gurmukhi PA (0A2A), add a virama (0A4D) to
it followed by a HA (0A39) and call this combination a P-ha, leaving
the Gurmukhi letter BA and BHA reserved for voiced sounds.
Be that as it may, would you have newspapers in towns largely
populated by Bh speakers use the Bh letter and newspapers in other
towns use the P-h letter when they are printing the same speech or
would you have them follow the conventions of the dialect of Punjabi
the speech was made in? If a Lahori and a Multani politician have a
debate, would you like newspapers to print one speakers' sentences
with Ps and the other speakers' sentences with Bs?
> -Azad Khayal
M. Ranjit Mathews
> 2) ch-ha (che, gol he, alif), cha (che, alif), cha-h (che, alif, gol
> he).
>
> Any objections?
No, since this is similar (but not identical) to conventional tricks
in Gurmukhi for changing tone. Stylistically, however, I'd prefer to
modify the vowels for tone since this is the real difference between
the words in these sets. In Gurmukhi, one could add a virama to a
(consonant+vowel) syllable to lower its tone and to raise tone, one
could add a virama to a consonant (c in this case) and follow it up
with a vowel (a in this case). Following such a convention, (2) would
become
ca<virama> (peep), ca (enthusiasm), c<virama>a (tea)
i.e., 0A1A+0A3E+0A4D, 0A1A+0A3E, 0A1A+0A4D 0A05
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf
Umar
> > Yes, you have a point, but it is not clear that this brings
> > out an inherent advantage of Shamukhi over Gurmukhi since such a
> > change in convention can be effected just as easily in Gurmukhi. For
> > example, one could take a Gurmukhi PA (0A2A), add a virama (0A4D) to
> > it followed by a HA (0A39) and call this combination a P-ha, leaving
> > the Gurmukhi letter BA and BHA reserved for voiced sounds.
It would be nice if that was done.
It doesn't mean Gurmukhi is better than Shahmukhi, or vice versa. It
just means that they are equally well suited for Punjabi.
In my opinion, one advantage of Shahmukhi over Gurmukhi is that
Shahmukhi can be read and written faster/more efficiently and with
fewer mistakes (in reading) than Gurmukhi. I have yet to see any data
confirming or refuting my "guess".
> > Be that as it may, would you have newspapers in towns largely
> > populated by Bh speakers use the Bh letter and newspapers in other
> > towns use the P-h letter when they are printing the same speech or
> > would you have them follow the conventions of the dialect of Punjabi
> > the speech was made in? If a Lahori and a Multani politician have a
> > debate, would you like newspapers to print one speakers' sentences
> > with Ps and the other speakers' sentences with Bs?
Interesting question. I think it would be better to print one
speaker's "Bh" as "P-h", and the other's as "Bh". A parallel examples
of such "switch" in English: "Isn't" and "Is not". Both are written
and pronounced differently, but they signify the same thing.
Gurmukhi/Shahmukhi would be better off if such a convention was
adopted in Punjabi as well.
> 2) ch-ha (che, gol he, alif), cha (che, alif), cha-h (che, alif, gol
> he).
>
> Any objections?
> > No, since this is similar (but not identical) to conventional tricks
> > in Gurmukhi for changing tone. Stylistically, however, I'd prefer to
> > modify the vowels for tone since this is the real difference between
> > the words in these sets. In Gurmukhi, one could add a virama to a
> > (consonant+vowel) syllable to lower its tone and to raise tone, one
> > could add a virama to a consonant (c in this case) and follow it up
> > with a vowel (a in this case). Following such a convention, (2) would
> > become
> > ca<virama> (peep), ca (enthusiasm), c<virama>a (tea)
> > i.e., 0A1A+0A3E+0A4D, 0A1A+0A3E, 0A1A+0A4D 0A05
> > http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf
This (peep) is what people usually do with little infants in order to
make them giggle, right? Thats what I thought it was. If it is, then
the ca<virama> doesn't really represent that sound, plus in Gurmukhi,
virama is placed only under consonants. That invalidates the first
choice.
I think a better choice would be the one I used with Shahmukhi.
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf (Gurmukhi)
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf (Arabic)
1. ca (peep)
Gurmukhi: 0A1A+0A4D+0A39+0A3E (ca + virama + ha + a)
Shahmukhi: 0686+06C1+0627 (ca + he gol + alif)
2. ca (enthusiasm)
Gurmukhi: 0A1A (ca)
Shahmukhi: 0686+0627 (ca + alif)
3. ca (tea)
Gurmukhi: 0A1A+0A3E+0A39 (ca + a + ha)
Shahmukhi: 0686+0627+06C1 (ca + alif + he gol)
#4. ca (hand [to me]) <-- yet another ca!
Gurmukhi: 0A1A+0A4D+0A3E (ca + virama + a) <--this one is a bit
problematic since there seems to be no need to cancel the inherent
vowel sound with a virama and then adding it later on, but it should
be acceptable if one wants to distinguish one "ca" from the other)
Shahmukhi: 0686+0627+0654 (ca + alif + superscript hamza)
What do native Gurmukhi readers think about this?
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > > Yes, you have a point, but it is not clear that this brings
> > > out an inherent advantage of Shamukhi over Gurmukhi since such a
> > > change in convention can be effected just as easily in Gurmukhi. For
> > > example, one could take a Gurmukhi PA (0A2A), add a virama (0A4D) to
> > > it followed by a HA (0A39) and call this combination a P-ha, leaving
> > > the Gurmukhi letter BA and BHA reserved for voiced sounds.
>
> It would be nice if that was done.
That would not be the best way to do it in Gurmukhi; that was just an
exercise to show that the same scheme as proposed for Shahmuki can
also be implemented in
Gurmukhi, but it is not the only scheme possible. A better way to do
it in Gurmukhi would be to use a nukta below the Bh letter in contexts
(eg. Bhutan) where it must be voiced and not pronounced as P-h. This
would leave current orthography unchanged and would add a nukta only
for foreign words and would allow Punjabis to pronounce the letter in
Punjabi words in whatever way their dialect requires and if someone
wants to write a text showing a Punjabi speaking a "voiced Bh" dialect
(like your ebonics example), he can always use nuktas to add detail to
the text such as to higlight this characteristic of the speakers
dialect or accent.
> It doesn't mean Gurmukhi is better than Shahmukhi, or vice versa. It
> just means that they are equally well suited for Punjabi.
In this particular instance, they are. The only thing that comes to
mind with respect to limitations of Shahmukhi is that it doesn't seem
to have some consonants of Gurmukhi (if I remember correctly, two ls,
two rs, and three gs - g, gh and ghh).
> In my opinion, one advantage of Shahmukhi over Gurmukhi is that
> Shahmukhi can be read and written faster/more efficiently and with
> fewer mistakes (in reading) than Gurmukhi. I have yet to see any data
> confirming or refuting my "guess".
Gurmukhi looks easier to me but that is presumably because I'm more
familiar with Brahmi derived scripts than with Arabic. One advantage
that comes to mind is the availability of the nukta to indicate
foreign pronunciations. Another is that, like in Nagari Kashmiri,
multiple vowel matras can be added to a consonant if
necessary for foreign vowels not present in the core vocabulary of
Punjabi. For
example, if a Dogri (Dogri is arguably a Punjabi dialect) uses some
borrowed Kashmiri words with an umlauted o (see below for a
description of this o), can he
write the word in Shahmukhi?
> > > Be that as it may, would you have newspapers in towns largely
> > > populated by Bh speakers use the Bh letter and newspapers in other
> > > towns use the P-h letter when they are printing the same speech or
> > > would you have them follow the conventions of the dialect of Punjabi
> > > the speech was made in? If a Lahori and a Multani politician have a
> > > debate, would you like newspapers to print one speakers' sentences
> > > with Ps and the other speakers' sentences with Bs?
>
> Interesting question. I think it would be better to print one
> speaker's "Bh" as "P-h", and the other's as "Bh". A parallel examples
> of such "switch" in English: "Isn't" and "Is not". Both are written
> and pronounced differently, but they signify the same thing.
> Gurmukhi/Shahmukhi would be better off if such a convention was
> adopted in Punjabi as well.
For a point of comparison, Pinyin /b/ is supposed to be an unaspirated
[p] whereas the Pinyin /p/ is supposed to be an aspirated [p<h>].
Likewise, /j/ is supposed to be an unvoiced palatalised affricate but
is, in practice, voiced to different degrees, and sounds like a [j] in
Shanghainese. Nevertheless, some Chinese voice these more than others
do. The Shanghainese pronunciation of Beijing is clearly beiZ'ing
whereas the Pekinese (Beijingese?) pronunciation is somewhere between
that and peiS'ing. (where Z and S are affricates, the latter somewhat
but not exactly like tz in anglicised German ' after them palatalizes
them).
When foreign words are introduced into Pinyin Mandarin, however, the
distinction between them is that b is voiced rather than that b is
unaspirated. I've looked into how these two sounds would have to be
Romanized in order for most Indians to pronounce them in a manner that
would be acceptable to most Chinese. What I came up with was "ph" and
"b" rather than "ph" and "p" was the way to ensure that the Pinyin /p/
and /b/ would be rendered distinctly by all Indians (or more
precisely, by Malayalis, Tamizhans and Hindiwalas). If they were "ph"
and "p" Tamils (and some Malayalis) wouldn't distinguish between the
two, which a Chinaman seems to find more irksome than if the Pinyin b
is voiced; since the only harm done by voicing Pinyin b (such that it
sounds like the English b) is that the pronunciatation sounds
Shangainese (or perhaps more voiced than Shangainese).
> > 2) ch-ha (che, gol he, alif), cha (che, alif), cha-h (che, alif, gol
> > he).
> >
> > Any objections?
>
> > > No, since this is similar (but not identical) to conventional tricks
> > > in Gurmukhi for changing tone. Stylistically, however, I'd prefer to
> > > modify the vowels for tone since this is the real difference between
> > > the words in these sets. In Gurmukhi, one could add a virama to a
> > > (consonant+vowel) syllable to lower its tone and to raise tone, one
> > > could add a virama to a consonant (c in this case) and follow it up
> > > with a vowel (a in this case). Following such a convention, (2) would
> > > become
>
> > > ca<virama> (peep), ca (enthusiasm), c<virama>a (tea)
> > > i.e., 0A1A+0A3E+0A4D, 0A1A+0A3E, 0A1A+0A4D 0A05
> > > http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf
>
> This (peep) is what people usually do with little infants in order to
> make them giggle, right? Thats what I thought it was. If it is, then
> the ca<virama> doesn't really represent that sound, plus in Gurmukhi,
> virama is placed only under consonants. That invalidates the first
> choice.
That a virama is used only under a Gurmukhi consonant currently
doesn't prevent
its being used under a syllable (consonant+vowel) in the future. For a
point of
comparison, in Nagari Hindi (as in most languages written in Nagari
script), only one vowel matra can be added to a consonant to make it a
syllable (eg. consonant k + matra u = syllable ku). Yet, in Nagari
Kashmiri, two matras can be added to a consonant to render vowels
peculiar to Kashmiri. For example, in Kas'miri, the word for
"Kashmiri" is Kös'{r where the ö is pronounced somewhat like the
German umlauted o in "danke schön. In Nagari Kashmiri, if I remember
correctly, it is written as K + o + u - the Nagari consonant k with an
o matra above AND a u matra below. Would it be in order to aver that a
consonant + two matras is not done in (Deva)Nagari; therefore,
Kashmiris may not do it?
> I think a better choice would be the one I used with Shahmukhi.
>
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0A00.pdf (Gurmukhi)
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf (Arabic)
>
>>
> 2. ca (enthusiasm)
>
> Gurmukhi: 0A1A (ca)
> Shahmukhi: 0686+0627 (ca + alif)
>
> 3. ca (tea)
>
> Gurmukhi: 0A1A+0A3E+0A39 (ca + a + ha)
> Shahmukhi: 0686+0627+06C1 (ca + alif + he gol)
Then, how would one pronounce câhtâ (chaahtaa), if some such borrowed
Hindi word
is used by some Punjabi speakers? If the ah is a high toned a as in
your convention, the h would be mispronounced as part of the vowel
before it and not be pronounced separately as the consonant [h].
> #4. ca (hand [to me]) <-- yet another ca!
>
> Gurmukhi: 0A1A+0A4D+0A3E (ca + virama + a) <--this one is a bit
> problematic since there seems to be no need to cancel the inherent
> vowel sound with a virama and then adding it later on, but it should
> be acceptable if one wants to distinguish one "ca" from the other)
>
> Shahmukhi: 0686+0627+0654 (ca + alif + superscript hamza)
>
> What do native Gurmukhi readers think about this?
Umar
> It doesn't mean Gurmukhi is better than Shahmukhi, or vice versa. It
> just means that they are equally well suited for Punjabi.
> > In this particular instance, they are. The only thing that comes to
> > mind with respect to limitations of Shahmukhi is that it doesn't seem
> > to have some consonants of Gurmukhi (if I remember correctly, two ls,
> > two rs, and three gs - g, gh and ghh).
There is only one l in Shahmukhi (U+0644), but I don't know what
Gurukhi l with nukta sounds like so I can't tell you if it is present
in Shahmukhi or not. There are two r's U+0631 and U+0691. There are 3
g's as well. 06AF, 06AF+06BE, 063A (gutteral sound).
> In my opinion, one advantage of Shahmukhi over Gurmukhi is that
> Shahmukhi can be read and written faster/more efficiently and with
> fewer mistakes (in reading) than Gurmukhi. I have yet to see any data
> confirming or refuting my "guess".
> > Gurmukhi looks easier to me but that is presumably because I'm more
> > familiar with Brahmi derived scripts than with Arabic. One advantage
> > that comes to mind is the availability of the nukta to indicate
> > foreign pronunciations. Another is that, like in Nagari Kashmiri,
> > multiple vowel matras can be added to a consonant if
> > necessary for foreign vowels not present in the core vocabulary of
> > Punjabi. For
> > example, if a Dogri (Dogri is arguably a Punjabi dialect) uses some
> > borrowed Kashmiri words with an umlauted o (see below for a
> > description of this o), can he
> > write the word in Shahmukhi?
If not he, then waw (0648) might appropriate in writing an umlauted (o
with two horizontal dots above) o.
> This (peep) is what people usually do with little infants in order to
> make them giggle, right? Thats what I thought it was. If it is, then
> the ca<virama> doesn't really represent that sound, plus in Gurmukhi,
> virama is placed only under consonants. That invalidates the first
> choice.
> > That a virama is used only under a Gurmukhi consonant currently
> > doesn't prevent
> > its being used under a syllable (consonant+vowel) in the future.
Surely not.
> > For a
> > point of
> > comparison, in Nagari Hindi (as in most languages written in Nagari
> > script), only one vowel matra can be added to a consonant to make it a
> > syllable (eg. consonant k + matra u = syllable ku). Yet, in Nagari
> > Kashmiri, two matras can be added to a consonant to render vowels
> > peculiar to Kashmiri. For example, in Kas'miri, the word for
> > "Kashmiri" is Kös'{r where the ö is pronounced somewhat like the
> > German umlauted o in "danke schön. In Nagari Kashmiri, if I remember
> > correctly, it is written as K + o + u - the Nagari consonant k with an
> > o matra above AND a u matra below. Would it be in order to aver that a
> > consonant + two matras is not done in (Deva)Nagari; therefore,
> > Kashmiris may not do it?
If it can be done in Nagri, it can be done in Gurmukhi too.
------------------------------
Ignore for now---> Shahmukhi has the choice between nuktas (one, two
three or four) above or below the letter, tah (U+0631) above a letter,
a circle attached to the letter, a right side up, or upside down V
placed on top of a letter (such as in 0692), hamza placed above or
below the letter, etc. etc. not to mention that you can remove the
nuktas from letters that previously had nuktas to represent different
letters/sounds.
Rest when I get back home.
Umar
> 3. ca (tea)
>
> Gurmukhi: 0A1A+0A3E+0A39 (ca + a + ha)
> Shahmukhi: 0686+0627+06C1 (ca + alif + he gol)
> > Then, how would one pronounce câhtâ (chaahtaa), if some such borrowed
> > Hindi word
> > is used by some Punjabi speakers? If the ah is a high toned a as in
> > your convention, the h would be mispronounced as part of the vowel
> > before it and not be pronounced separately as the consonant [h].
In Punjabi, it would be pronounced "cata" (first a is high toned)
[essentially ca (tea) with ta added to it]. Even though it is an
Urdu/Hindi word, since it is being used in Punjabi, it is pronounced
with a Punjabi accent (just as many Arabic words found in Urdu are
pronounced with an Urdu accent).
To absolutely clarify any confusion that may result from using chaahta
in Punjabi, one can add a jazm
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0658009494/reader/20/002-9086795-6596022#reader-link)
above the gol he. That would signify that there is no vowel sound in
the utterance of gol he, which would lead to it being pronounced as
"cata" (high tone on first a).
Conversly, if one wanted to emphasize the ha sound (as it is done in
Urdu/Hindi), one could use the do chashmi he, instead of gol he.
I liked your idea of putting a nukta underneath "Bha" to make sure its
pronounced as "Bha" and not "P-ha" in Gurmukhi. In Shahmukhi it is a
little more complicated; instead of one nukta of "Bha", there are
three nuktas of "Pa", and the dochashmi he is replaced with gol he.
BTW, earlier I had suggested 06BC as Shahmukhi's equivalent of
Gurmukhi 0A23. Now, I've come to find out there's already a character
in use, which is easier to write/better. It is not currently available
in Unicode (or I have been unable to find it). It looks something like
a noon ghunna (U+06BA) but with two vertical dots in it (like the dots
present on U+067A).
http://www.apnaorg.com/poetry/shive/ashive1.html (lines from top: 2,
4, etc.)
http://www.apnaorg.com/poetry/sassi/ (on page one, 3rd quatrain, third
line)
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > 3. ca (tea)
> >
> > Gurmukhi: 0A1A+0A3E+0A39 (ca + a + ha)
> > Shahmukhi: 0686+0627+06C1 (ca + alif + he gol)
>
> > > Then, how would one pronounce câhtâ (chaahtaa), if some such borrowed
> > > Hindi word
> > > is used by some Punjabi speakers? If the ah is a high toned a as in
> > > your convention, the h would be mispronounced as part of the vowel
> > > before it and not be pronounced separately as the consonant [h].
>
> In Punjabi, it would be pronounced "cata" (first a is high toned)
> [essentially ca (tea) with ta added to it]. Even though it is an
> Urdu/Hindi word, since it is being used in Punjabi, it is pronounced
> with a Punjabi accent (just as many Arabic words found in Urdu are
> pronounced with an Urdu accent).
I see; thanks. In that case, the appropriate solution might be to
leave [ah] as a high toned a as it is currently and add a nukta to the
h (ah<nukta>) in words where it is to be enunciated. For example, that
would make Ahmed ah<nukta>mad.
M. Ranjit Mathews
Whyever not? Why can't a virama, when added to a syllable, be defined
as having the effect of lowering the tone of the vowel in the
syllable.
BTW, some such effects are accomplished in Devanagari by using the
udatta and anudatta matras, which matras don't seem to be available in
Gurmukhi. For example, if we were to write the word for salt as
nama<udatta>k, it would mean that the second a must be stressed.
Tone diacritics are used in Devanagari only for Vedic pieces to be
chanted, most of which diacritics are not available (or even defined)
in most Devanagari character sets and are thus not available in most
typefaces (fonts in common parlance).
http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/vedic/vedic-accents.pdf
M. Ranjit Mathews
> Conversly, if one wanted to emphasize the ha sound (as it is done in
> Urdu/Hindi), one could use the do chashmi he, instead of gol he.
To (native) Arabic speakers, what is the differences between these two
[h]s ?
> I liked your idea of putting a nukta underneath "Bha" to make sure its
> pronounced as "Bha" and not "P-ha" in Gurmukhi. In Shahmukhi it is a
> little more complicated; instead of one nukta of "Bha", there are
> three nuktas of "Pa", and the dochashmi he is replaced with gol he.
With the nukta scheme, we get
1) a character which may be pronounced only as [b<h>], and
2) a character which can be pronounced either as [p<h>] or [b<h>]
depending on which dialect it is pronunced in.
Is it possible to implement such a scheme in Shahmukhi whereby current
spellings remain unchanged (where /bh/ is pronounced either as [p<h>]
or [b<h>] depending on the dialect spoken), but a new grapheme/
digraph /Bh/ gets added, that may be pronounced ONLY as [b<h>]?
Umar
> > > That a virama is used only under a Gurmukhi consonant currently
> > > doesn't prevent
> > > its being used under a syllable (consonant+vowel) in the future.
>
> Surely not.
> > Whyever not? Why can't a virama, when added to a syllable, be defined
> > as having the effect of lowering the tone of the vowel in the
> > syllable.
I meant there's nothing preventing Virama from being used that way. I
think you misunderstood.
> In Punjabi, it would be pronounced "cata" (first a is high toned)
> [essentially ca (tea) with ta added to it]. Even though it is an
> Urdu/Hindi word, since it is being used in Punjabi, it is pronounced
> with a Punjabi accent (just as many Arabic words found in Urdu are
> pronounced with an Urdu accent).
> > In that case, the appropriate solution might be to
> > leave [ah] as a high toned a as it is currently and add a nukta to the
> > h (ah<nukta>) in words where it is to be enunciated. For example, that
> > would make Ahmed ah<nukta>mad.
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf
The h in Ahmed is written with a different letter U+062D. The high
toned ah can be left as it is without any modifications.
> > Tone diacritics are used in Devanagari only for Vedic pieces to be
> > chanted, most of which diacritics are not available (or even defined)
> > in most Devanagari character sets and are thus not available in most
> > typefaces (fonts in common parlance).
> > http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/vedic/vedic-accents.pdf
Same is the case with some Urdu and Shahmukhi diacritics, such as
jazm, right side up Gurmukhi addak-like, and upside down addak-like
character, etc. etc.
Hopefully the next Devanagri chart will look like Everson's, and that
the extra Urdu/Shahmukhi characters will be available.
I had a question about Gurmukhi. I know there's a subscript ra in
Gurmukhi (it looks like the Devanagri ra in its normal form). I
remember seeing Gurmukhi subscript ha and subscript va. Do they really
exist in Punjabi or was it just my imagination?
Umar
> Conversly, if one wanted to emphasize the ha sound (as it is done in
> Urdu/Hindi), one could use the do chashmi he, instead of gol he.
> > To (native) Arabic speakers, what is the differences between these two
> > [h]s ?
The gol he doesn't exist in Arabic. It was evolved from an alternate
form of do chashmi he in Farsi/Urdu/Shahmukhi.
> I liked your idea of putting a nukta underneath "Bha" to make sure its
> pronounced as "Bha" and not "P-ha" in Gurmukhi. In Shahmukhi it is a
> little more complicated; instead of one nukta of "Bha", there are
> three nuktas of "Pa", and the dochashmi he is replaced with gol he.
> > With the nukta scheme, we get
> > 1) a character which may be pronounced only as [b<h>], and
> > 2) a character which can be pronounced either as [p<h>] or [b<h>]
> > depending on which dialect it is pronunced in.
> > Is it possible to implement such a scheme in Shahmukhi whereby current
> > spellings remain unchanged (where /bh/ is pronounced either as [p<h>]
> > or [b<h>] depending on the dialect spoken), but a new grapheme/
> > digraph /Bh/ gets added, that may be pronounced ONLY as [b<h>]?
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf
Yes. One can decide to add either a circle (as in U+067C), right side
up V (as in 0692), or one can add another dot underneath the dot of
bha (vertical dots as in 067B), among other things. I think the best
way of doing it will be to use 067B, instead of 0628 when one wants it
pronounced [p<h>].
In Shahmukhi, it will be better to reserve ba + dochashmi he
exclusively for [b<h>], and "BEEH" (067B) + dochashmi he as
exclusively [p<h>]. That will clear the confusion that Urdu
readers/Punjabi speakers (like me) feel when reading Shahmukhi.
A Shahmukhi script distinct from Urdu. Now that is exciting!
Vijay S. Bajwa
both the a's are short vowels) and distinguish it from "koi" (somebody)
in Urdu, or for that matter, Shahmukhi? By putting the slanted matra
above the 'kaaf' for the former case? Ocourse. But this would make it
very difficult for the novice reader. Do you ever encounter this kind of a
problem in reading Urdu? I often wonder if a matra is implied or is it some
other word. For example, I was reading Bulhey Shah on your site, and
came accross,
"Dhand kaleje bal bal uthdi, bin dekhe deedar"
While reading for the first time, I thought it prbably was "bil bil uthdi",
don't ask me why, maybe I was trying to be too smart. But isn't this
sort of confusion rampant? I have often heard many Pakistanis pronounce
"baahar" (outside) as "baahir". I attribute this mis-pronounciation to this
kind of pervasive ambiguity in Urdu (which kind of makes it charming, but
at the expense of exactness).
Vijay
"Umar" <azad_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62b1381a.02050...@posting.google.com...
M. Ranjit Mathews
Which Arabic characters are used for spelling the follwing in Urdu?
phal (fruit)
Bhagawan (God)
Umar
> > Just out of curiosity, how would you write "kavai" (fictitious word,
> > both the a's are short vowels) and distinguish it from "koi" (somebody)
> > in Urdu, or for that matter, Shahmukhi? By putting the slanted matra
> > above the 'kaaf' for the former case? Ocourse. But this would make it
> > very difficult for the novice reader. Do you ever encounter this kind of a
> > problem in reading Urdu?
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf
"kavai" would be written with a "Zabar [slanted matra above]" (064E)
on both kaf and waw. The ending (choTi ye with hamza above [0626]+
choTi ye) would remain the same. If the "zabar"s are there, the reader
shouldn't be confused at all.
I might have been confused by it when I was learning to read from the
Qaida (NOT "Al-Qaida"), but not anymore. If a reader gets confused
about how to pronounce "kaf, zabar, waw, zabar, choTi ye with hamza
above, choTi ye", then that reader has yet to learn the basics of the
Arabic script.
I rarely have to read a word twice, even though the newspapers, etc.
don't usually make use of the diacritical marks. Whenever there's a
word which may be confused for something else, diacritical marks are
employed to clarify any confusion. You might know that Arabic
newspapers don't usually use diacritical marks (if at all), but anyone
not familiar with Arabic would have a lot of problem pronouncing the
words correctly. Same is the case with Urdu/Punjabi. Practice makes
the man perfect.
> > I often wonder if a matra is implied or is it some
> > other word. For example, I was reading Bulhey Shah on your site, and
> > came accross,
> > "Dhand kaleje bal bal uthdi, bin dekhe deedar"
> > While reading for the first time, I thought it prbably was "bil bil uthdi",
> > don't ask me why, maybe I was trying to be too smart.
Well, the "a" sound is inherent in the consonants, just like
Devangagri, Gurmukhi, etc. You wouldn't read devanagri "ba+la" as bil
would you?
> > But isn't this
> > sort of confusion rampant? I have often heard many Pakistanis pronounce
> > "baahar" (outside) as "baahir". I attribute this mis-pronounciation to this
> > kind of pervasive ambiguity in Urdu (which kind of makes it charming, but
> > at the expense of exactness).
I don't think it is as rampant as you may think. The different
pronounciations may be due to the different dialects people
speak/accents. The Arabic script can very adequately (if not
perfectly) represent Urdu sounds. If one wanted to write "baahar" one
would put a zabar on the gol he. For baahir, it would be "zair"
[slanted matra below]. Since Urdu is written without diacritics for
the most part, people pronounce words as they see fit. That doesn't
mean that Urdu cannot be "exact" if it has to be. Being "exact"
requires some work which people can do without.
I can't recall any examples now, but I have noticed different
pronounciations resulting from people writing in different scripts. I
usually find myself confused about "i" and "ii" (in
Devanagri/Gurmukhi). In Urdu, they are written with the same character
and sometimes it is hard for me to decide which "i" is the correct
spelling in Hindi/Punjabi. Is there a rule of thumb that would help me
out in this regard?
-Azad Khayal
Umar
> > Which Arabic characters are used for spelling the follwing in Urdu?
> > phal (fruit)
> > Bhagawan (God)
Phal = 067E+0647+0644 (Pa, dochashmi he, la)
Bhagawan = 0628+0647+06AF+0648+0627+0647 (ba, dochashmi he, ga, wa, alif, na)
Habshi
as phool .
M. Ranjit Mathews
Thanks. Now, I'm ready to comment on your proposed use of 067B. One
conceivable complication of using 067B for [p<h>] is that this
character might already be in use for [b`] (an implosive b) in
Siraiki/ Lahnda as it is in use in Sindhi. If so, is it possible for a
Siraiki speaker to be confused as to whether to pronounce 067B+0647 as
a variant of [b`] rather than as [p<h>]?
M. Ranjit Mathews
Kashmiri has 5 o phonemes that I write in phonemic Indakshari as ö, Ö,
o, O, w. In phonetic Indakshari, these are 7 sounds since the
pronunciation of the /w/ phoneme varies with context and can be [ø],
[wa], or [Ø], where the slashed o's are roughly the ones in mop and
morning.
A limitation of the Arabic script appears to be that it is difficult
to add such large numbers of vowels; one waw can carry one only so
far. Apart from a plethora of o's, there's also a plethora of other
vowels all (or nearly all) of which can also come in nasalised form.
Apart from vowels, 22 consonants come in both unpalatalized and
palatalized form and sibilants come also in affricate forms. I'm not
sure to what degree Arabic can be extended to cover all these
variantions; if the Punjabi dialect called Dogri uses many Kashmiri
words, I suspect that their pronunciations would have to be changed in
order for them to be writable in Shahmukhi.
They are writable in Devanagari. In order for them to be writable in
Gurmukhi, some unused slots in the current Unicode Gurmukhi table
would have to be filled in with letters and matras from the
corresponding slots in the Unicode Devanagari table.
Umar
If 067B fails, we still have 0680 available.
Umar
I don't have a clue how Kashmiri is written in the Arabic script, so I
can't comment on it.
If Arabic script can be extended to write such diverse languages as
Urdu, Malay, Kurdish, Uighur, etc. etc., I'm positive it can be
extended to adequately represent Kashmiri as well (especially if it
can be written in Devanagri).
An advantage of Arabic script is that it can represent many different
sounds with a single letter. One need not have a different letter for
every different sound.
(continuing from the previous post) If even 0680 fails, one can
substitute a ring in place of the nukta underneath "Ba", combine it
with dochashmi he and choose that to represent the "p-h" sound...among
other things.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> I don't have a clue how Kashmiri is written in the Arabic script, so I
> can't comment on it.
>
> If Arabic script can be extended to write such diverse languages as
> Urdu, Malay, Kurdish, Uighur, etc. etc., I'm positive it can be
> extended to adequately represent Kashmiri as well
I would have to see it to believe that this can be done, retaining
distinctions in pronunciations, without adding any characters to the
currently defined Unicode Arabic alphabet.
> (especially if it can be written in Devanagri).
Hmm, you don't seem to think very much of the flexibility of
Devanagari.
> An advantage of Arabic script is that it can represent many different
> sounds with a single letter. One need not have a different letter for
> every different sound.
This is also a disadvantage. When adding a new language, one might
want to retain the corpus of phonemes used for another language and
add the phonemes of the new language. Since retaining phonemes used
for other languages is often desirable or imperative, the preferred
way to add new sounds has been by adding new characters to Arabic.
Looking over Unicode Arabic, a weakness I percieve is that the script
has been able to support new phonemes of a variety of languages
primarily by adding large numbers of new characters rather than by
being able to reuse its existing characters.
> (continuing from the previous post) If even 0680 fails, one can
> substitute a ring in place of the nukta underneath "Ba", combine it
> with dochashmi he and choose that to represent the "p-h" sound...among
> other things.
I like this scheme much better that the previous one which relied on
the availability of a new character /b`/; it makes this scheme more
generally applicable than your previous one since this scheme can be
applied to any letter (eg. /gh/) rather than only to /bh/.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> I don't have a clue how Kashmiri is written in the Arabic script, so I
> can't comment on it.
>
> If Arabic script can be extended to write such diverse languages as
> Urdu, Malay, Kurdish, Uighur, etc. etc., I'm positive it can be
> extended to adequately represent Kashmiri as well (especially if it
> can be written in Devanagri).
To give an example of one limitation I perceive in Arabic, how would
you distinguish between hotter and hauteur in Arabic script, while
avoiding the use of the o in hotel (since the o in hotter and au in
hauteur are different from the o in hotel)?
If someone wants to retain the foreign vowels in these words rather
than Indianize them, he can do so in Nagari as:
hotter: hřTar (vowel ř is 0911 in Unicode Devanagari)
hauteur: hwTör (w is used* for an open o in Nagari Kashmiri;
Tö is written as T+u+(chandra)o
* coincinentally, the w used looks like an English o since it is the
half-form of the letter wa/va**.
** removing the vertical bar from the wa/va leaves only a circle,
making it look like an English o.
Habshi
instead of Police
M. Ranjit Mathews
> Actually Arabic doesnt have a P sound so they say Bolice
> instead of Police
derived from Perso-Arabic, which was the first time variant of Arabic
script used for non-Semitic languages. Persian was an Indo-European
language, so the adaptation of the Arabic script to this language
vastly expanded the utility of the script. Most, if not all, further
adaptations of the Arabic script were derived from Perso-Arabic.
Umar
> > I would have to see it to believe that this can be done, retaining
> > distinctions in pronunciations, without adding any characters to the
> > currently defined Unicode Arabic alphabet.
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/ksh.htm (Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in Kashmiri)
The declaration is available in many other languages as well.
The characters in the current Unicode Arabic chart are not complete.
Only a few languages have support as of now. Eventually more
characters will be added so that more languages which use the Arabic
script can be have Unicode support. I don't think Kashmiri is
currently supported because I noted two characters (ra with hamza
below, and ya with V above, among others I'm sure) which are not in
the current Unicode Arabic chart. Arabic Unicode has a long way to go
before it is complete.
As far as distinct pronounciations go, words unique to the language
have unique pronounciations, otherwise they're usually pronounced as
they are in other languages.
> > Hmm, you don't seem to think very much of the flexibility of
> > Devanagari.
Well, I only know of it being "officially" used for Sanskrit, Hindi
and Nepali. I know it is also being used to write Punjabi and Sindhi,
but not on as wide a scale. I'm sure it is very flexible, but I don't
think it is as flexible as Arabic, because it has a limited number of
ways which can be used to create new characters, namely nukta, whereas
Arabic script has circles, 1-4 dots above or below, hamza above or
below, super or subscript alif above or below, etc.
> An advantage of Arabic script is that it can represent many different
> sounds with a single letter. One need not have a different letter for
> every different sound.
> > This is also a disadvantage. When adding a new language, one might
> > want to retain the corpus of phonemes used for another language and
> > add the phonemes of the new language. Since retaining phonemes used
> > for other languages is often desirable or imperative, the preferred
> > way to add new sounds has been by adding new characters to Arabic.
Yes.
> > Looking over Unicode Arabic, a weakness I percieve is that the script
> > has been able to support new phonemes of a variety of languages
> > primarily by adding large numbers of new characters rather than by
> > being able to reuse its existing characters.
Well, that depends on your perspective. If you consider modifications
of existing characters "new characters", then it is so. I see the "new
characters" as utilizations of existing conventions for modifying
characters. There truly are no "new" characters in the Arabic script.
The characters used to write the Arabic language have been modified in
various ways.
> (continuing from the previous post) If even 0680 fails, one can
> substitute a ring in place of the nukta underneath "Ba", combine it
> with dochashmi he and choose that to represent the "p-h" sound...among
> other things.
> > I like this scheme much better that the previous one which relied on
> > the availability of a new character /b`/; it makes this scheme more
> > generally applicable than your previous one since this scheme can be
> > applied to any letter (eg. /gh/) rather than only to /bh/.
I think so too.
> > To give an example of one limitation I perceive in Arabic, how would
> > you distinguish between hotter and hauteur in Arabic script, while
> > avoiding the use of the o in hotel (since the o in hotter and au in
> > hauteur are different from the o in hotel)?
hotter: ha, alif, Ta, ra (0647+0627+0679+0631).
hauteur: ha, alif, waw with hamza and pesh above, Ta, choTi ye, waw
with hamza and pesh above (perhaps with a superscript alif above if
one wants to elongate the u), ra
(0647+0627+0677+0679+0649+0677+[0670]+0631).
hotel: ha, waw, Ta, choTi ye, la (0647+0648+0649+0644).
The above examples will be pronounced without what I would call
"Indian Subcontinizing" them. The "continental" versions will be a
little simpler.
The alif-waw, and ha-waw can be used to produce different versions of
similar sounds (o in this case) with the help of diacritics. There is
no specific "o", "au" or "O" letter in the Arabic script. Again, the
context (along with the specific diacritics used) determine the
"exact" pronounciation.
Umar
pronounciation. In the film "ASoka", the song is called "Raat ka
nasha". In the first stanza, the singer says:
raat ka nasha abhi
aankh se gaya nahin
She seems to be pronouncing the "kh" in aankh (eye) as 0959 instead of
0916. (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0900.pdf)
Later on she corrects herself.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> I don't have a clue how Kashmiri is written in the Arabic script, so I
> can't comment on it.
>
> If Arabic script can be extended to write such diverse languages as
> Urdu, Malay, Kurdish, Uighur, etc. etc., I'm positive it can be
> extended to adequately represent Kashmiri as well (especially if it
> can be written in Devanagri).
It has been extended to represent Kashmiri by adding three characters
(if I remember correctly. What is not clear is that it ADEQUATELY
represents Kashmir (ie., as well as Sharda does).
What I remember having noticed (by inference; of course, I might have
inferred incorrectly) is that there might not be a way to distingush
some pronunciations. For example, can louse be distinguished from
loves?
To consider a more complicated question, how would several
modifications to a consonant be represented in Arabic? For example.
c can be aspirated to give [ch] (che = 6)
c can be retroflexized to give [c.] (this can be done in Telugu too)
c can be palatalized to give [c']
In Kashmiri, all three modifications can be made simultaneously; thus,
we can have an palatalized retroflexized aspirated c. Now, c is itself
a called a palatal, so what is a palatalized palatal? The answer is
complicated and I'm an amateur on the subject, so I'll leave that
unexplained for the moment.
Unfortunately, you don't know how Arabic has been extended to
represent Kashmiri, so we can't discuss these questions.
Umar
> > What I remember having noticed (by inference; of course, I might have
> > inferred incorrectly) is that there might not be a way to distingush
> > some pronunciations. For example, can louse be distinguished from
> > loves?
I think you inferred incorrectly. "Louse" can be written atleast two
different ways, and distinguished from "loves".
Louse: 1. la, alif, waw with hamza and pesh above ("u"), sa
(0644+0627+0677+0633)
2. la, superscript alif (elongates the sound), waw with hamza
and pesh above, sa (0644+0670+0677+0633)
Love: la, zabar ("a"), waw, sukun/jazm (shortens the vowel associated
with the consonant) (0644+064E+0648+0652)
One interesting thing to note is that since "love" is written la+waw
in Arabic script, "love" can be easily confused with "lo" (accept,
take) if no diacritics are present.
> > To consider a more complicated question, how would several
> > modifications to a consonant be represented in Arabic? For example.
> > c can be aspirated to give [ch] (che = 6)
> > c can be retroflexized to give [c.] (this can be done in Telugu too)
> > c can be palatalized to give [c']
Palatalized: 0686
Aspirated: 0686+06BE
Retroflex: (several possible ways)
1. (the most likely/best way) Adding a superscript "tah"
above 0686 (as it is done in some Urdu retroflex characters such as
0679, 0691, 0688)
2. This convention is applied in Pashto: attaching a circle
somewhere on the character. I ranked this option second because I
don't see any "che form (without dots)" with a circle attached to it
(on the current chart).
> > In Kashmiri, all three modifications can be made simultaneously; thus,
> > we can have an palatalized retroflexized aspirated c. Now, c is itself
> > a called a palatal, so what is a palatalized palatal? The answer is
> > complicated and I'm an amateur on the subject, so I'll leave that
> > unexplained for the moment.
In the case of a palatalized retroflexized aspirated c, it would be
0686+0686+(superscript tah)+0686+06BE (all considered separately).
Just in case the aspirated c is retroflexized (is that even
possible?), one can move the superscript tah from the c to the
dochashmi he.
Now, I would be interested in knowing how it is done in Devanagri.
Specifically, how does Devanagri retroflexize c?
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > > I would have to see it to believe that this can be done, retaining
> > > distinctions in pronunciations, without adding any characters to the
> > > currently defined Unicode Arabic alphabet.
>
> http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/ksh.htm (Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights in Kashmiri)
>
> The declaration is available in many other languages as well.
>
> The characters in the current Unicode Arabic chart are not complete.
> Only a few languages have support as of now. Eventually more
> characters will be added so that more languages which use the Arabic
> script can be have Unicode support. I don't think Kashmiri is
> currently supported because I noted two characters (ra with hamza
> below, and ya with V above, among others I'm sure) which are not in
> the current Unicode Arabic chart. Arabic Unicode has a long way to go
> before it is complete.
OK; this is the basic weakness I'm alluding to. Devanagri is complete
- insofar as no new characters need to be added to it to support all
the languages written in it whereas in the case of Arabic, the
character set is huge and still has a way to go before it can be
complete.
Good. That might make written Arabic flexibile; if so, the flexibility
of written Arabic doesn't seem to have carried over to the computing
world.
> There truly are no "new" characters in the Arabic script.
> The characters used to write the Arabic language have been modified in
> various ways.
In Unicode Arabic, these modified characters have new binary codes, so
they are new characters.
M. Ranjit Mathews
Most impressive! It now seems to me that Arabic's shortcomings
primarily have to do with typesetting rather than lack of versatility
(except in the area of tones where it lacks versatility).
> Now, I would be interested in knowing how it is done in Devanagri.
> Specifically, how does Devanagri retroflexize c?
I was mistaken about the Kashmiri sounds; I just had the opportunity
to listen to realaudio clips of them and they are not the same as the
sounds in Telugu (and Marathi, I hear). To get the Telugu sounds in a
script without special characters for retroflexized c and j (such as
the Devanagari script), one constructs digraphs.
normal: c ch j jh
retroflex: Tc Tch Dj Djh
For comparison, in Pinyin Mandarin,
normal: c
retroflex: ch
palatal: q
The Kashmiri sounds on the realaudio clip are the roughly the Pinyin
Mandarin
z (affricate s) and zh (affricate sh); in Nagari Kashmiri, these are
written as c<nukta> and ch<nukta>; the palatalized version of the
first is c<nukta><virama>y. Actually, there is no virama; it is a half
c with a nukta.
In Indian history textbooks, the affricate s in Chinese names is
written as Ts (eg. Tsuen Tsang).
Umar
> > this is the basic weakness I'm alluding to. Devanagri is complete
> > - insofar as no new characters need to be added to it to support all
> > the languages written in it whereas in the case of Arabic, the
> > character set is huge and still has a way to go before it can be
> > complete.
A language specific Arabic Characterset is not as huge as the Unicode
chart may lead you to believe. Take the example of Urdu. It has 36
characters in its alphabet. You can add two more to that for Punjabi
(Shahmukhi).
Devanagri has atleast 34 consonants plus vowels (excluding the letters
with nukta and rarely used forms in Hindi). Gurmukhi has 35
characters, but 5 more were later added on to accomodate the Urdu
sounds in Punjabi. (see the links below)
The Arabic chart has lots and lots of characters, but only a select
number of them are used for specific languages. The "huge-ness" of the
Arabic chart is a testament to its richness, its ability to expand in
many directions.
> > That might make written Arabic flexibile; if so, the flexibility
> > of written Arabic doesn't seem to have carried over to the computing
> > world.
Not yet. In order to facilitate the cross over of Arabic script from
written to digital form, Unicode has started to introduce the dotless
forms. 2 have been introduced in version 3.2 (066E and 066F). In the
upcoming versions, all the other forms will be encoded as well. On top
of that, all the dots, and other marks will be given their own values
so that any possible form an Arabic letter might take can be specified
(such as dotless beh + two horizontal dots above, which would make
te), etc. etc.
> > In Unicode Arabic, these modified characters have new binary codes, so
> > they are new characters.
Sure.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
> The Arabic chart has lots and lots of characters, but only a select
> number of them are used for specific languages. The "huge-ness" of the
> Arabic chart is a testament to its richness, its ability to expand in
> many directions.
>
> > > That might make written Arabic flexibile; if so, the flexibility
> > > of written Arabic doesn't seem to have carried over to the computing
> > > world.
>
> Not yet. In order to facilitate the cross over of Arabic script from
> written to digital form, Unicode has started to introduce the dotless
> forms. 2 have been introduced in version 3.2 (066E and 066F). In the
> upcoming versions, all the other forms will be encoded as well. On top
> of that, all the dots, and other marks will be given their own values
> so that any possible form an Arabic letter might take can be specified
> (such as dotless beh + two horizontal dots above, which would make
> te), etc. etc.
Interesting! That would be an improvement; it was done for the
Malayalam script a long time back by typesetters.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
> > > That might make written Arabic flexibile; if so, the flexibility
> > > of written Arabic doesn't seem to have carried over to the computing
> > > world.
>
> Not yet. In order to facilitate the cross over of Arabic script from
> written to digital form, Unicode has started to introduce the dotless
> forms. 2 have been introduced in version 3.2 (066E and 066F). In the
> upcoming versions, all the other forms will be encoded as well. On top
> of that, all the dots, and other marks will be given their own values
> so that any possible form an Arabic letter might take can be specified
> (such as dotless beh + two horizontal dots above, which would make
> te), etc. etc.
I presume that this decomposition had not been done by typesetters/
printers before now (like it was done for the Malayalam script)
because Arabic script users were conservative in wanting to preserve
the aesthetics of Arabic calligraphy, and that this has become
possible only now because is only with computer technology that it has
become possible to decompose Arabic characters in the manner you
describe without losing their calligraphic appearance. In your
opinion, is my presumption correct?
Umar
> > I presume that this decomposition had not been done by typesetters/
> > printers before now (like it was done for the Malayalam script)
> > because Arabic script users were conservative in wanting to preserve
> > the aesthetics of Arabic calligraphy, and that this has become
> > possible only now because is only with computer technology that it has
> > become possible to decompose Arabic characters in the manner you
> > describe without losing their calligraphic appearance. In your
> > opinion, is my presumption correct?
I'd say "almost correct". To me it seems that it wasn't done because
it either very difficult, or not very efficient. It would have been
easy to maintain the basic shapes of characters (Isolated, Initial,
Medial, Final), but the main problem would have been placing the dots
and circles on the right spots. The circle attached to a kaf is much
higher than a circle attached to a te. The three dots on a kaf (with
hamza in it, used in old Malay I think) are higher than dots on tseh
(basic form "beh" with three dots above), etc. etc.
There were technical difficulties that prevented people from
decomposing the characters, plus it wasn't necessary for language
specific typewriters. I mean, a keyboard with 200 keys is not a very
practical or efficient keyboard.
There were, and probably still are Arabic typewriters.
The "caligraphic" appearence of the Arabic script would have been
preserved despite it being typed on a typewriter. What usually
happened with the typewriter was that the appearence of the script was
naskh-ized. Now with the computers, typing nastaliq is possible.
Eventually, instead of using JPEGs, people will use text (as it is
being done currently on some Arabic websites).
The advantage of decomposed characters is that it makes any possible
combination type-able. It is not very efficient however, and for that
defined characters are needed. Eventually all the languages using
Arabic script will have their own defined characters in Unicode.
Coming back to the topic, in which script do you (others please feel
free to jump in) think typing can be done faster? Which script
requires fewer keys to be pressed and still maintain its
"correctness"?
In my opinion, the answer most definitely is that (on average) the
Arabic script requires fewer key compressions. It is so because in the
Arabic script, one doesn't "have to" specify the vowels in order for
the writing to make sense (except in a few cases). It can have only
consonants and still make sense.
It is not so for the languages written in the Indian scripts (or
atleast in Devanagri and Gurmukhi). One has to specify the vowels,
which requires more key compressions, which leads to it being not as
efficient as the Arabic script.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> Coming back to the topic, in which script do you (others please feel
> free to jump in) think typing can be done faster? Which script
> requires fewer keys to be pressed and still maintain its
> "correctness"?
>
> In my opinion, the answer most definitely is that (on average) the
> Arabic script requires fewer key compressions. It is so because in the
> Arabic script, one doesn't "have to" specify the vowels in order for
> the writing to make sense (except in a few cases). It can have only
> consonants and still make sense.
Say what? Can one really type an Nastaliq Urdu word with fewer vowels
than the same word in Nagari Hindi?
Umar
> In my opinion, the answer most definitely is that (on average) the
> Arabic script requires fewer key compressions. It is so because in the
> Arabic script, one doesn't "have to" specify the vowels in order for
> the writing to make sense (except in a few cases). It can have only
> consonants and still make sense.
> > Say what? Can one really type an Nastaliq Urdu word with fewer vowels
> > than the same word in Nagari Hindi?
Yes. The Arabic script can rely strictly on consonants (except in the
case of choTi and baRi ye), whereas the Indian scripts can not. There
aren't fewer vowels in the word, just that they _do not have to be
specified. In the Arabic script, the vowels do not need to be
specified quite as often as they are in the Indic scripts (in which
they are required).
Fewer vowels lead to fewer key compressions required which lead to a
more efficient typing.
Consider the following examples:
"Tumhara": tmhara (Arabic)
"Tumhara": tumhara (Devanagri/Gurmukhi)
"Kutta": kt(shud)a (Arabic) [shud is the Arabic equivalent of Gurmukhi
Adhak]
"Kutta": kut(virama)ta (Devanagri)
"Kutta": ku(adhak)ta (Gurmukhi)
Devanagri HAS TO specify "u" whereas Arabic does not. Now, it is
important to remember the distinction I made: "On average" the Arabic
script requires fewer keystrokes for the rendering of specific words,
than the same words typed in Devanagri, and I have outlined the
reasons why.
(Its always good to have a back-up plan, just in case the first one
fails) Another factor working in Arabic script's favor is the
"conjuncts" (such as ksh, tr, shT, shr, etc.) used in Devanagri. One
has to use "Virama", which decreases the efficiency.
Let me make clear what I mean: For conjuncts in Devanagri, one has to
press 3 keys. First for the intital word (lets say k), then virama,
then the following word (even if its the same as the previous word
"k").
In Arabic script, k_k would be written with k plus another key for
shud. Conjucts don't exist in the Arabic script, so for a word that
wasn't the same before the virama as after it (lets say "tr"), it
would be typed with two keys, ta and ra.
In Gurmukhi, there is an adhak to take the place of shud but only if
the consonant before the virama is the same as after it. In case they
differ, one has to resort to virama (i.e. 3 strokes)
No such conjucts exist in the Arabic script, and now with the
computerized engines for rendering of the script, the specifying of
the placement of a certain word (isolated, initial, medial and final)
is no longer necessary.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > In my opinion, the answer most definitely is that (on average) the
> > Arabic script requires fewer key compressions. It is so because in the
> > Arabic script, one doesn't "have to" specify the vowels in order for
> > the writing to make sense (except in a few cases). It can have only
> > consonants and still make sense.
>
> > > Say what? Can one really type an Nastaliq Urdu word with fewer vowels
> > > than the same word in Nagari Hindi?
>
> Yes. The Arabic script can rely strictly on consonants (except in the
> case of choTi and baRi ye), whereas the Indian scripts can not. There
> aren't fewer vowels in the word, just that they _do not have to be
> specified. In the Arabic script, the vowels do not need to be
> specified quite as often as they are in the Indic scripts (in which
> they are required).
>
> Fewer vowels lead to fewer key compressions required which lead to a
> more efficient typing.
>
> Consider the following examples:
>
> "Tumhara": tmhara (Arabic)
> "Tumhara": tumhara (Devanagri/Gurmukhi)
>
> "Kutta": kt(shud)a (Arabic) [shud is the Arabic equivalent of Gurmukhi
> Adhak]
> "Kutta": kut(virama)ta (Devanagri)
> "Kutta": ku(adhak)ta (Gurmukhi)
>
> Devanagri HAS TO specify "u" whereas Arabic does not.
If the vowel is not specified, how does the reader know that it is
pronounced tumhara and not tamhara? If one writes atma in Arabic, how
does one prevent a reader from inserting a u between t and m (like
they are expected to do in order to read tmhara as tumhara) thus
mispronouncing it as atuma?
> Now, it is
> important to remember the distinction I made: "On average" the Arabic
> script requires fewer keystrokes for the rendering of specific words,
> than the same words typed in Devanagri, and I have outlined the
> reasons why.
>
> (Its always good to have a back-up plan, just in case the first one
> fails) Another factor working in Arabic script's favor is the
> "conjuncts" (such as ksh, tr, shT, shr, etc.) used in Devanagri. One
> has to use "Virama", which decreases the efficiency.
Unless one rigs up an input method which makes consonants viramised by
default but such an input method would require a vowels to be typed.
> Let me make clear what I mean: For conjuncts in Devanagri, one has to
> press 3 keys. First for the intital word (lets say k), then virama,
> then the following word (even if its the same as the previous word
> "k").
>
> In Arabic script, k_k would be written with k plus another key for
> shud. Conjucts don't exist in the Arabic script, so for a word that
> wasn't the same before the virama as after it (lets say "tr"), it
> would be typed with two keys, ta and ra.
This can be changed by devising an input method; the real difference
seems to be the fewer vowels typed in Arabic. I don't understand how
one knows which vowel it is if it is not typed in Arabic.
> In Gurmukhi, there is an adhak to take the place of shud but only if
> the consonant before the virama is the same as after it. In case they
> differ, one has to resort to virama (i.e. 3 strokes)
With an input method, it could be 2 strokes - the same character
twice. This input could be converted into character + addak.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
> Consider the following examples:
>
> "Tumhara": tmhara (Arabic)
> "Tumhara": tumhara (Devanagri/Gurmukhi)
>
> "Kutta": kt(shud)a (Arabic) [shud is the Arabic equivalent of Gurmukhi
> Adhak]
> "Kutta": kut(virama)ta (Devanagri)
> "Kutta": ku(adhak)ta (Gurmukhi)
>
> Devanagri HAS TO specify "u" whereas Arabic does not.
FYI, in case you're interested, in Nagari Kashmiri, the word for "no"
is /na/ just like in Hindi, but it has to be spelt with two letters -
the letter n followed by the letter a unlike in Nagari Hindi where the
syllable /na/ is one letter.
In Kashmiri, a stressed a is different from an unstressed a and a long
a; it would be interesting to know how Nastaliq handles stress
differences.
You might recall that I had borrowed from the Nagari Kashmiri
convention when I suggested a way that a high toned a could be spelt
in Gurmukhi without using an h. (I had suggested c<virama>a).
Habshi
Mathews) wrote:
>This can be changed by devising an input method; the real difference
seems to be the fewer vowels typed in Arabic. I don't understand how
one knows which vowel it is if it is not typed in Arabic.<
This is the problem with Urdu too , one has to guess from the
context and see you can only do that by reading further , if you watch
people reading Urdu or Arabic , they spend a lot of time gazing in one
direction and then back so reading speeds and comprehension are quite
slow . Far better to make a law to put the small vowels i and u in all
the time .
Umar
> > If the vowel is not specified, how does the reader know that it is
> > pronounced tumhara and not tamhara? If one writes atma in Arabic, how
> > does one prevent a reader from inserting a u between t and m (like
> > they are expected to do in order to read tmhara as tumhara) thus
> > mispronouncing it as atuma?
I don't know if I can explain it adequately, but the best explanation
I can come up with is that there is no such word as "tamhara" in Urdu,
and people familiar with Urdu do not need the diacritic specifying the
"u" sound. A comparison can be drawn between the Arabic written in the
Quran and the Arabic newspapers. People who read the Quran do not
necessarily know the Arabic language, thus they need a whole lot of
diacritics in order to specify which sound to utter. People who read
Arabic newspapers do not need diacritics (except for Shud) because
they know the language and how certain words are pronounced.
I think the diacritics were introduced into the Arabic script during
the reign of Uthman (3rd caliph). Before that, there were no
diacritics in the Arabic script. The diacritics needed to be
introduced because Islam was spreading to places where people didn't
know the Arabic language and thus were mispronouncing the words of the
Quran. This is the reason why Qurans from all over the world had to be
brought back and destroyed because of their potential for corruption
of the text. At that point a "standard" Quran was issued complete with
the diacritics to eliminate any possibility of mispronounciation of
the words of the Quran.
You might be surprised to know that at one point, there were no dots
etc. on the arabic characters. Only their basic forms were used.
In case of unfamiliar words such as "atuma", the "u" diacritic will be
needed, just as they were needed in the case of the Holy Quran.
> > In Kashmiri, a stressed a is different from an unstressed a and a long
> > a; it would be interesting to know how Nastaliq handles stress
> > differences.
Are these a's present in the Devanagri Unicode chart? Could you list
them if they are?
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > > If the vowel is not specified, how does the reader know that it is
> > > pronounced tumhara and not tamhara? If one writes atma in Arabic, how
> > > does one prevent a reader from inserting a u between t and m (like
> > > they are expected to do in order to read tmhara as tumhara) thus
> > > mispronouncing it as atuma?
>
> I don't know if I can explain it adequately, but the best explanation
> I can come up with is that there is no such word as "tamhara" in Urdu,
>
> the reign of Uthman (3rd caliph). Before that, there were no
> diacritics in the Arabic script.
What I've read about this is that this was first done when the
(Aramaic derived) Pahlavi script* of (greater) Persia was replaced
with Arabic script and diacritics were added in order to distinguish
the sounds in Persian, Avestan, and other written languages of
(greater) Persia.
* Suriyanis in Kerala still use this Aramaic script for sacred
writings (in what is called) the Syriac language. If you go to a
certain church in Kottayam, you can find a large cross standing in
front of the altar, that is inscribed completely in Syriac written in
the Pahlavi script.
> The diacritics needed to be
> introduced because Islam was spreading to places where people didn't
> know the Arabic language and thus were mispronouncing the words of the
> Quran. This is the reason why Qurans from all over the world had to be
> brought back and destroyed because of their potential for corruption
> of the text. At that point a "standard" Quran was issued complete with
> the diacritics to eliminate any possibility of mispronounciation of
> the words of the Quran.
>
> You might be surprised to know that at one point, there were no dots
> etc. on the arabic characters. Only their basic forms were used.
I've read about this, so I'm not surprised, but I haven't seen
examples of its usage.
> In case of unfamiliar words such as "atuma", the "u" diacritic will be
> needed, just as they were needed in the case of the Holy Quran.
I don't fancy this scheme even if it saves typing; I prefer to see the
vowel explicitly specified. Your preferences might differ.
> > > In Kashmiri, a stressed a is different from an unstressed a and a long
> > > a; it would be interesting to know how Nastaliq handles stress
> > > differences.
>
> Are these a's present in the Devanagri Unicode chart? Could you list
> them if they are?
A long a followed by an udatta is a stressed a (which may also be
thought of as a medium length a - between a schwa and a long a). I'm
not sure* what the rationale is for writing "na" in Kashmiri as /n//a/
(two characters) rather than /na/ (one syllabic character). Perhaps
the rationale is that if it were one character, it would/could be
pronounced as "ne" ([n@] in ASCII IPA) rather than "na" (short a).
* I haven't devoted enough effort to master the various conventions
that have been defined for writing various languages in Devanagari.
Umar
> I think the diacritics were introduced into the Arabic script during
> the reign of Uthman (3rd caliph). Before that, there were no
> diacritics in the Arabic script.
> > What I've read about this is that this was first done when the
> > (Aramaic derived) Pahlavi script* of (greater) Persia was replaced
> > with Arabic script and diacritics were added in order to distinguish
> > the sounds in Persian, Avestan, and other written languages of
> > (greater) Persia.
New characters were created by adding dots to Arabic characters. For
example, the ba in Arabic had two more dots placed under it to make it
into a pa. I was thinking of diacritical marks more along the lines of
specifying the vowels, elongating or shortening the vowels, etc.
> In case of unfamiliar words such as "atuma", the "u" diacritic will be
> needed, just as they were needed in the case of the Holy Quran.
> > I don't fancy this scheme even if it saves typing; I prefer to see the
> > vowel explicitly specified. Your preferences might differ.
Thats because you don't know the Arabic script. Not having to specify
everything and still preserving its integrity is just one of the
characteristics of the Arabic script which make it "more suited" than
Indian scripts for Urdu, Sindhi, Pashto, Punjabi, etc.
> > I'm not sure* what the rationale is for writing "na" in Kashmiri as /n//a/
> > (two characters) rather than /na/ (one syllabic character). Perhaps
> > the rationale is that if it were one character, it would/could be
> > pronounced as "ne" ([n@] in ASCII IPA) rather than "na" (short a).
That could be due to the influence of the Arabic script. Na in the
Arabic script is written with two characters.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
>
> > I think the diacritics were introduced into the Arabic script during
> > the reign of Uthman (3rd caliph). Before that, there were no
> > diacritics in the Arabic script.
>
> > > What I've read about this is that this was first done when the
> > > (Aramaic derived) Pahlavi script* of (greater) Persia was replaced
> > > with Arabic script and diacritics were added in order to distinguish
> > > the sounds in Persian, Avestan, and other written languages of
> > > (greater) Persia.
>
> New characters were created by adding dots to Arabic characters. For
> example, the ba in Arabic had two more dots placed under it to make it
> into a pa. I was thinking of diacritical marks more along the lines of
> specifying the vowels, elongating or shortening the vowels, etc.
When the Arabic script was extended to write Iranian languages, did
the resulting Perso-Arabic script not have all the vowels in the
Avestan alphabet?
Avestan alphabet
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/avestan.htm
M. Ranjit Mathews
>
> * Suriyanis in Kerala still use this Aramaic script for sacred
> writings (in what is called) the Syriac language.
Sorry; the writings are in the Syriac script, written from right to
left. I've seen the writings only from a distance (in the hands of a
Suriyani priest who was chanting from it).
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/syriac.htm
> If you go to a
> certain church in Kottayam, you can find a large cross standing in
> front of the altar, that is inscribed completely in Syriac written in
> the Pahlavi script.
... or rather, I've read that it was the Pahlavi script; I certainly
didn't try reading it.
Umar
The rest of the sounds were obviously available in the Arabic script,
except for some foreign sounds such as pa, etc. which had to be added
later.
----------------------------
So, any concluding remarks?
M. Ranjit Mathews
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews,
> > > I don't fancy this scheme even if it saves typing; I prefer to see the
> > > vowel explicitly specified. Your preferences might differ.
>
> Thats because you don't know the Arabic script.
I don't mind a vowel being left out when a consonant is syllabic.
Indeed, I even prefer it.
http://www.kith.org/logos/words/upper2/VVowels.html
For example, I'm not at all uncomfortable with "Alexander" being spelt
"Aleksandr" in Cyrillic and would not mind this being the spelling in
English. Likewise, I would not mind (or might prefer) "buttn" as an
alternative (or replacement) spelling for "button".
It is when the consonant is not syllabic and the vowel left out is not
a schwa that I find it conceptually difficult to insert the right
vowel in the right places; I find that hard to make second nature.
Be that as it may, I'm curious as to why it would be necessary to
spell the Kashmiri "na" as /n//a/ in Arabic script; if vowels can be
left out as you have just informed me, shouldn't it be writable as
just /n/?
> Not having to specify
> everything and still preserving its integrity is just one of the
> characteristics of the Arabic script which make it "more suited" than
> Indian scripts for Urdu, Sindhi, Pashto, Punjabi, etc.
Well, in Brahmi based scripts, the most common vowel (a) doesn't have
to be specified which vowel might need to be specified in many (but
not all?) words written in Arabic script. The advantage that I now see
in Arabic script, after your explanations, is that (1) it is used for
many languages, so one has to learn only this one script to read all
these languages and (2) once one gets used to the very different
(peculiar/odd to my eye) appearance of Arabic characters, Arabic seems
to have similarities to English in putting consonants and vowels
together to make syllables, and in its creative use of
context-sensitive interpretations of letters like waw to render
various sounds with one letter, which conventions seem relatively easy
for someone who's used to English to learn.
Umar
I've learned a lot from this discussion, and without your feedback it
would not have been possible. Many thanks to all others who
participated.
So, I guess in the conclusion one could say that the Arabic script is
just as well suited for Punjabi and Urdu as the Devanagri or Gurmukhi
script.
Thanks,
Azad Khayal
M. Ranjit Mathews
From what has been said so far, it would appear that they are equally
capable of rendering Punjabi and Urdu. There is, however, more to
scripts than what we have discussed. Only an unbiased person who is
well qualified in analysing the deep structure of scripts would be
able to comment on the limitations of these scripts in terms of
precision, extensibility cover other dialects or whatever else might
affect capability to render one of these languages.
As for suitability, often considerations other than capability might
dominate and thus, even a less capable script might turn out to be
more suitable in a given geographic area. The other consideration,
from a common sense point of view, is that there are advantages to
using the script that happens to be standard in the area where one
lives.
In Orissa, Urdu was written in the Oriya script with one letter (w)
added. This would have advantageous insofar as facilitating borrowing
words written in other languages written in Oriya script. At this
point in time, reproducing Urdu with an Oriya accent and with the
vocabulary peculiar to Urdu in Orissa might be awkward, even if not
impossible, in some script other than Oriya since the accent might
derive from the phonology as used for Oriya. For example, the letter
AU is typically pronounced as an open O by Hindi speakers but as the
diphthong oU in Oriya. One reason why a Muslim in Oriya might not
prefer Nastaliq for Urdu might be that he is used to Arabic phonology
for reading the Quran and might have to follow a different phonology
from that when speaking Urdu. So, it might well be that for a speaker
of an Urdu dialect peculiar to Orissa, continuing to use the Oriya
script for Urdu is the most suitable.
Likewise, there are various Dakhini dialects of Urdu. In the Arcot/
Wallajah/ Vellore area, there are Muslims who speak Urdu with many
Tamil words. They introduce Urdu phrases into Tamil sentences.
Especially in Vellore, one can't always tell whether they are speaking
Tamil with Urdu words and expressions or Urdu with Tamil words and
expressions. Tamil has 2 ls, 3 ns, 2 rs and 2 ys. If they use the
Arabic script, it is often just for sacred literature (i.e., the Quran
and friends), pronouncing the words with an Arabic phonology. The
Arabic vowel that can be used for both u and o might work elsewhere
but in Tamil, there are 2 u's and 2 o's and interchanging them can
have unfortunate side effects such as turning innocuous words into
swear words in Tamil. I'm not sure what script(s) these people use,
but given this much data, would you say that Nastaliq is necessarily
the most suitable script for their dialect of Urdu?
Consider the Syriac name Mutran written in Estrangelo (a script used
by the Syrian Christian Church in Kerala to write Syriac). It is
ambiguous enough in this script that it can be pronounced as Mootran
(which would mean urineseller in Malayalam).
> Thanks,
> Azad Khayal
M. Ranjit Mathews
Thank you very much for the links below. The following site is very
good too - for understanding the sounds of Arabic without knowing the
Arabic script. Unfortunately, what it explains is Darja (the Algerian
dialect of Arabic) and it is not clear to the uninitiated how it that
differs from Standard Arabic or Quranic Arabic.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
> azad_...@hotmail.com (Umar) wrote ...
> > M. Ranjit Mathews and other who may be puzzled by how two characters
> > are used in Urdu/Shahmukhi to represent one sound,
> > http://www.geocities.com/sikmirza/arabic/arabic.html#
>
> Wow! This site is superb!
>
> > http://www.geocities.com/sikmirza/arabic/urdu_alph.html (especially
> > relevant) It has an interesting one by one comparison of Arabic characters
> > and their Devanagri equivalents.
> > -Azad Khayal