________Devanagari - The Perfect Script____________
M. Jagadesh Kumar
-------------------------------
"Nagari script is simple, scientific and a sure vehicle for national
integration", declared Dr. Mullick Mohammed, a recipeint of Padmasri and
All-India President of Nagari Lipi Parishad, New Delhi while inaugurating the
17th All India Nagari Sammelan at Bangalore on 19 March 1994. Nittor Srinivasa
Rao, ex-Chief Justice of Karnataka presided.
One book each in Kashkmiri, Telugu and Kannada languages and Devanagari script
was realeased on the occasion. Shri Ejasuddin, Chief Guest lighted the
traditional lamp and declared that the Devanagari script was not realted to any
particular language. It is connected with India's culture.
Nagar Lipi Parshad was founded by Acharya Vinobha Bhave in Wardha. Its aim is
to spread the use of Nagari as a national link script. The Parishad gives
awards to institutions and individuals for promoting this work. Last year the
institutional award was given to Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti and the
individual award was won by Lipikar L. S. (Bapu) Wakankar of Pune who was
instrumental in adopting Nagari script on the conputers.
This 17th Sammelan discussed the follwoing subjects in its two-day session at
Bangalore.
1) Use of Devanagri script as a link script for promotion of national
integration.
2) Use of Nagari script for southern languages.
3) Devanagari for languages wihtout their own scripts.
4) Use of Devanagari in computers.
Shri L. S. Wakankar dwelt at length on how the Devanagari script has been the
mother script. A question-answer session followed.
Question: Does the study and discovery made by phonography prove that Aryans
did not come to this country from outside.?
Answer: The Vedic Maheshwari phonography has come into light in the last 40-45
years and has confirmed by use of words coined from the root "taksha" meaning
"to incise" which was possibly done or clay tablets or incised on palm leaves.
The phonological background is detai;ed in Panini's Rigvedic texts.
Simultaneous studies in Vedic texts reveals the use of the phoneme and graphine
of ZH-(L a) which occurs in many places in the Rigveda Samhita including the
first sukta of the first mandal and the last sukta of the tenth mandal and in
many places in between. Linguists are aware that this phoneme exists only in
south Indian languages which determines that over 33 important Vedic rishis
were from south India. This phoneme does not occur in north Indian languages
Afghan and Persian. Thus the hypothesis of Vedic Aryans comig down from Central
Asia is proved to be baseless.
Question: What are the benefits of using Devanagari script for all Indian
languages?
Answer: In depth graphic studies of the Devanagari script is based on logical
evolution of the letters to which there is no parallel in any other script of
the world. Sir William Jones in 1889, wrote that he chose Devangari as the
standard for his transcription scheme as Devanagari is more regular than any
other Indian script. Nagari is known to a larger percentage of readers in
India, the structure of ther Indian scripts is identical with that of Nagari
but the forms have diversified in the last one thousand years. This is why
Nagari was recommended to be the link script by Acharya Vinoba Bhave without
replacing the regional scripts. If regional language literature is transcribed
into Nagari, most of the burden of knowing several regional language scripts
could be avoided.
Question: In spite of the fact that Devanagari script is more beneficial, why
has it not been possible to make its universal use a success?
Answer: A script by itself does not get weightage simply because it is near
perfect phonography. The insufficiency of Roman letters and the practice of
artificial spelling are the drawbacks of Roman letters but their wide
circulation is due to the power and dominance of the Anglo-American forces in
today's world. Nagari, though it is more complete and scientific, will not
replace the Roamn script until the Indian Nation becomes strong and effective.
Savarkar had pointed out that no one gives credence to the faculties of weak
nations. Our people need to unite and organise themselves to become a force.
__
Courtesy: The Organiser, New Delhi
--
Srikant Sridevan
In article <CosMF...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca (M. Jagadesh Kumar) writes:
> Devanagari - The Perfect Script
In all the article, there's no mention of why it is the perfect script.
I for one, would like to know. Please do not give reasons like "it
promotes national integration" and so on. I am inquiring purely from a
linguistic(?) point of view.
Srikant
--
--
Bierwissenschaftenstudent
e-mail : s...@apollo.psrc.ncsu.edu
Vijay Fafat
>ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca (M. Jagadesh Kumar) writes:
>> Devanagari - The Perfect Script
>
>In all the article, there's no mention of why it is the perfect script.
>I for one, would like to know. Please do not give reasons like "it
>promotes national integration" and so on. I am inquiring purely from a
>linguistic(?) point of view.
>>>>jee jee, shame on you, Srikant. Asking such irrelevant
questions like, "scientific proof on perfectness of Devnagari",
esp. after having seen it appear in that esteemed journal, "The
Organiser"? Bladdy psoodosecoolarist. Such issues are minor in front
National Integration, dammit!
You have been warned. You will *not* question the wisdom of the
RSS mouthpiece.
FFT #1 fan of Jagadesh Kumar's scanner on SCI
Sudhi
>ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca (M. Jagadesh Kumar) writes:
>
>> Devanagari - The Perfect Script
>
>In all the article, there's no mention of why it is the perfect script.
>I for one, would like to know. Please do not give reasons like "it
>promotes national integration" and so on. I am inquiring purely from a
>linguistic(?) point of view.
>
I remember reading a report where it was mentioned that the Sanskrit
language, which is written in Devanagari script, was the language most
suited for natural language processing applications in computers, because
the constructs of Sanskrit are always unambiguous. I don't have any more
details on this. Perhaps somebody with ready access to the information
would let us know ?
>Srikant
>
>Bierwissenschaftenstudent
>
>e-mail : s...@apollo.psrc.ncsu.edu
Regards,
--Sudhi.
PS : I hope that this thread does not degenerate into the usual
"pseudo-secularist" vs. "non-pseudo-secularist" fight.
--
"I am a Muslim and a Hindu,
a Christian and a Jew.
And so are all of you."
---- Mahatma Gandhi.
Srikant Sridevan
In article <1994Apr25.0...@usl.edu>, sgs...@ucs.usl.edu (Sudhi)
writes:
>In article <2pfer2$j...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> s...@eos.ncsu.edu (Srikant
>Sridevan) writes:
>>
>>In article <CosMF...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca (M. Jagadesh Kumar) writes:
>>
>>> Devanagari - The Perfect Script
>>
>>In all the article, there's no mention of why it is the perfect
>script.
>>I for one, would like to know. Please do not give reasons like "it
>>promotes national integration" and so on. I am inquiring purely from
>a
>>linguistic(?) point of view.
>>
>
>I remember reading a report where it was mentioned that the Sanskrit
>language, which is written in Devanagari script, was the language most
>suited for natural language processing applications in computers,
>because
>the constructs of Sanskrit are always unambiguous. I don't have any
>more
>details on this. Perhaps somebody with ready access to the
>information
>would let us know ?
You will of course agree that this is independent of the "quality" or
perfectness of the script.
Seriously, what does one mean when one says "A script is perfect."? That
it can represent all sounds in its language unambiguously? in which case
I can think of 3-4 other scripts/languages, or that it can represent all sounds
unambiguously? in which case Devanagari is most certainly not perfect.
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
: nations. Our people need to unite and organise themselves to become a force.
: __
: Courtesy: The Organiser, New Delhi
: --
If thEvanaagiri was so great why do not you
write your PhD thesis on semiconductors
(Waterloo) in thEvanaagiri. Give a break.
Let others live with whatever they have.
If you suggest the linguistic pluses and why
others should be using, I would appreciate.
People like you have caused problems in
Assam, TN and Punjab.
anban
kathir
tarpaulinwalla, dinyar shyavaks
s...@eos.ncsu.edu (Srikant Sridevan) writes:
>
>In all the article, there's no mention of why it is the perfect script.
>I for one, would like to know. Please do not give reasons like "it
>promotes national integration" and so on. I am inquiring purely from a
>linguistic(?) point of view.
Isn't it a bit naive to look for reasons? Have faith in the Organ-
resizer, son, and quaff the delicious mandarin juice overflowing from its
pages.
The usual organizer propagandoos will basically mumble something
about it being a "perfectly phonetic" script. This is utter bullshit. It is
in no way accurate as a phonetic script for any existing and growing Indian
language. These Nagari "reformers" might be better off retracting their long
imperialist probosces from foreign orifices and devote their horny energies
to improving the mess in Hindi and Marathi. If they can find some way of
disambiguating the vanishing schwa, they could go on with tackling the
long and short /o/ and /e/ in Kannada (for instance).
Neither is Nagari irredundant. To keep it looking decent you have
to add the highly time-consuming shirorekha, for one. Adding a 'ref' is done
in different ways to different consonants. Also, the short 'i' is in the most
illogical place (a fact that gets disguised due to the nonlinearity of the
script). dha/gha, ma/bha, ya/tha are too near for comfort. And so on and so
forth.
As for this constant trumpeting of the transcendant beauties of the
script, it's impossible for me to believe that Nagari, as it stands, is "more
beautiful" than any Dravidian or the Urdu script. A randomly chosen book or
magazine printed in Nagari looks so horribly ugly that the reader better have
a strong interest in the matter if he is to keep going. But what with the
organ-resized aestheticians, I wouldn't be surprised if they praised the
supple curves of typewritten Devanagari too. Only in the last ten years
or so has this shameful situation improved somewhat in Marathi.
The article, as expected, has some crap about Indologists' choices
of manuscripts to research. It takes an organ-resized bozo to believe and
propagand that the reliability of a recension is dependent on the "scien-
tificness" of a script, whatever that means. (Thus, for instance, the fact
that many Bengali recensions of the Vikramorvashiyam have huge interpolated
passages follows from some inherent property of the script, and if only the
too enthusiastic bong scribes had used the divine Nagari, its mystical
vibrations would have stopped their pens from adding their own stuff.) What
I don't understand as always with all propagandoo literature is: why have
the firangi Jones extoll its virtues when there are such heavyweights as
Vinoba Bhave, Rajarshi Tandon, and our friend Dr Malik Mohammad on Nagari's
side?
Sati says, with good intentions, that a Nagari letter is read the
same by everyone knowledgable in the language. How nice it would be if this
were true. As it is, we already have "backward SC/ST" teachers teaching
"wrong" things to upper-caste children, don't we? The famous supercilious
attitude of upper-caste parents would have lost its best justification if
the dialect of the newer teachers hadn't conflated n/N and l/L etc. As a
matter of fact, a large percentage of native speakers speak dialects which
are not correctly transcribed by Nagari (even if it were theoretically
possible to do so--an irrelevant fact). This naturally comes as a surprise
to the friendly circle of saffron langotiyaars, though how many of them
really distinguish between sh/.s themselves?
All in all, Nagari is perfect in no way. In its conception it's
far better than Roman, at the cost of sacrificing linearity. (Think about
the spectacularly ugly crowsfeet that would result from the suggestions of
Sawarkar-types to linearize Nagari). It's no better than many other Indian
scripts. In practice, it's become ugly and is in desperate need of many more
good fonts, new ways to accomodate acronymic contractions of words, perhaps
a start towards gracefully transcribing English/American vowels (none of this
Baink Aaf Nyuzilaind shit), certainly some more diacritical marks (e.g. to
denote accents in dictionaries--reclaiming vedic marks might do), and many
more things which I have missed.
And of course, when a PROPER uniform devanagari is decided upon for
just Hindi and Marathi, I don't want it to have crap, like the 'a' of Hindi
which looks like a 'gra', the stupid 'jha' which looks like a cross between
'bha' and 'ka', the lameass 'Na' which looks like 'e' spliced to 'aa', the
'ksha' which doesn't have an eye, the numerals 8 and 9 written confusingly,
etc etc.
I also demand that none of these improvements come by fiat from a
benevolent hindoo brahman-prince ruling over the glorious fatherland where
all castes are equal and happily keep to their respective stations.
-=om shanti=-
bc2...@bingsung.cc.binghamton.edu
_______________________________________________________
An unrelated point but still :
When someone claims that Devanagri is the best, there are
quite a few protests ( justified ) asking that others be
left alone.
No 'progressive' individual ever stops from flaming back,
which makes sense too.
But when the same thing comes to religion, all the progressives
are shit scared of openiong their mouths against any insults
to their religion as such by Islamic fanatics.
May I ask why ?
Sati Sadhal
>ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca (M. Jagadesh Kumar) writes:
>
>> Devanagari - The Perfect Script
>
>In all the article, there's no mention of why it is the perfect script.
>I for one, would like to know. Please do not give reasons like "it
>promotes national integration" and so on. I am inquiring purely from a
>linguistic(?) point of view.
>
>Srikant
>--
>--
For one thing, it is phonetically perfect, like many other Indian
languages. The vowel structure is such that sounds like
`aa' (like in far)
`i' (like in bit)
`ee' (like in seek)
`oo' (like in hook)
`OO' (like in bOOt)
`a' (like in late)
`A' (like in bAt)
`ao' (like in boat)
`aw' (like in straw)
appear as suffixes to consonants and the basic sound is not altered
by letters around a consonant-siffix combo.
There severe inconsistencies that we see in English:
For example,
pUt as compared with......... bUt
dO,as compared with......... gO
LEAk, wEAk, pEAk
as compared with........stEAk, brEAk
book, took, look
as compared with....... bOOt, tOOt, lOOt
paTIo as compared with......... raTIo
caTIon as compared with....... raTIon
Then there are phonetic absurdities such as
wOman and wOmen. The latter sounds like we-men.
Other complications exist, such as the use of CH. The letters
CH in the begining of a word sound different than when used
in the middle. For example,
CHeat as compared with.........maCHine
The use of `G' in English is also very tricky when followed by a
vowel. For example,
ranGEr ....... anGEr???
Also the use of `i' is very multipurpose. Look at
rIvers as compared with dIvers.
The old classic example is when you assemble the letters
GH-O-TI
and claim that it sounds like FISH!!
GH like in rouGH,
O like in wOmen,
TI like in staTIon.
The GH is another complication without any rules. We have
rouGH, touGH, couGH. Then we have tiGHt, fiGHt, liGHt.
Other absurdities are foreiGn, strenGth, etc.
In Devanagari [as well as in Punjabi and Gujarati among many other Indian
scripts], such phonetic absurdities do not exist. In addition, there is
an abundant choice of sounds. Many of the better European languages do
no accommodate many of the sounds that the Indian languages cover. The
Indian languages may be deficient in some specific sounds such as the
distinction between `V' and `W.' Some modifications have also been
introduced to take care of some of the Urdu-Arabic-Persian sounds. For
example the two kinds of `K' in Urdu.
The fundamental advantage of the Devanagari-type languages is that
a basis assembly of letters and vowel suffixes makes a sound that is
consistently read by nearly all those knowledgeable in the language.
Even unfamiliar sounds (such as foreign names) when put together in
an Indian language are read with consistence. However, in English
my own name has been mispronounced in four different ways.
I have one solid data point. My daughter started learning Punjabi
at age 5 and English at age 4. Reading, that is. She has spent one
hour per week on Punjabi and 10 times as much on English. At age
6 she could correctly spell much in Punjabi than in English.
This is in spite of English being her primary language of communication.
Even I cannot spell in Englisch sumtymes.
For that matter, a spelling bee in Devanagari would be quite useless.
Everybody would get it right. Another thing; in an English dictionary,
when you luk up a word, it is immediately followed by its correct
pronunciashun. Well, in Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, etc. dikshnurys
these are totally nonexistent. The word as you read (reed, not red)
*IS* the pronunciation.
>
>Bierwissenschaftenstudent
I have heard that Jermun is much better than inglish
for pronunciation. I am not very (k)nowledgeable about that.
Perhaps somebody who (k)nows can shed lite on that.
------ Satwindar Singh Sadhal
sad...@alhena.usc.edu
>
>e-mail : s...@apollo.psrc.ncsu.edu
Srikant Sridevan
In article <2ph7c5$5...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, s...@eos.ncsu.edu (Srikant
Sridevan) writes:
>However, Devanagari does not have the 3 "ay" sounds and the 3 "ou"
>sounds. To wit, "bet", bate", "bite" and "got", "goat", and "gout". I
Sorry for following up to my own article. Devanagari has the last two of
each set of three sounds mentioned. It does not have only the first
sound.
C. R. Selvakumar
M. Jagadesh Kumar <ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Devanagari - The Perfect Script
> -------------------------------
> integration.
>2) Use of Nagari script for southern languages.
>3) Devanagari for languages wihtout their own scripts.
>4) Use of Devanagari in computers.
>Courtesy: The Organiser, New Delhi
[ written in jest ]
[1] For a large country such as India it is fair to have two langauges
as national langauges. Let Hindi and Malayalam be the National langauges.
( largest and smallest )
Let Hindi and north indian langauges be written in malayalam script and
south indian langauges be written in devanagari. National integration
will be more secure.
[ pundit mahaburudaa had shown this method in 3000 B.C itself; please
note that at that time malayalam was called tamil]
[2] Two is better than one ( when one is dead the other can be used)
[ this great principle was expounded by Guruji Goalmaalkar in
in a speech which appeared in Rashtra-udaippu magazine
sometime in 1969; it should be noted
that he also said we should not be merely content in breaking
mosques for attaining national integration but we should
dismantle carefully letter-by-letter or phoneme-by-phoneme
our national languages and only then patriotism will glow
brighter which is our final goal ]
[3] True patriots will sign 'proud raashtra-udaippaaLi'
( because tamil 'zha' in uzhaippaaLi will appear as
'da' in devanagari as decreed by Guruji Goalmaalkarar)
( to be written in devanagari) anbudan -Selvaa
( to be writen in malayalam ) dhanyavad -Selvaa
Suresh Kolichala
>
> integration.
> 2) Use of Nagari script for southern languages.
> 3) Devanagari for languages wihtout their own scripts.
> 4) Use of Devanagari in computers.
While without accepting or denying anything mentioned in the above
article, nor going into the details of proof/disproof of
Aryan invasion theory, I would like to make few comments, in reference
to using dEva nAgari script for south indian languages:-
1. All the South indian languages have elongated vowels ("dheerga"s)
for "ae-tvam" and "O-tvam". As neither hindi nor sanskrit has
distinction, nAgari script does not have two different symbols
viz., for "ae-tvam and dheerga of ae-tvam (the elongation of "e"), and
"O-tvam and dheerga of O-tvam". These are apart from the letters
peculiar to each of the languages like (ZH in tamizh), which sure,
cannot be represented by nAgari script (unless extended with new symbols).
For instance, look at the following pairs of words very commonly
used words in telugu, each of the two words in-a-set has a different
pronunciation, different meaning and different representation
in telugu script, which if were written using nagari script
would have the same representation.
chera - jail chEra - to join (as in "nannu chEra raa" - )
vela - price vEla - (of) thousand (vEla tArakala nayanAlatO ...
-- A popular song goes )
oDi - body ODi - being defeated
teli - white tEli - being floated
( As used in "teli nali talupulu teraci moosukoni"
- mahaa prasthanam / SrISrI)
Incidentally, I have been reading a book titled "spiritual heritage
of tyAgarAja" for past one week where the compositions of saint tyAgarAja
are transcribed in naagari script. I face the above mentioned problem
and I have to make out from the context, whether the word has an
elongated-vowel or a short, whenever the combination with the vowels
of "ae" and "o" is used (or the vowels themselves).
This is just to show that the current naagari script, unless expanded
cannot represent the south indian language words completely phonetically.
2. Also, the representation of hindi - I am saying hindi not the sanskrit -
words is not in total correspondence with its pronunciation.
It is implicitly assumed that the consonant at the end of the word, unless
added by another vowel is assumed to be 'halant'. (Rather than to use
the symbol put at the bottom of the letter to indicate it as halant - which
is used for writing sanskrit texts). Thus if I write "kamala" in naagari
script, my hindi friends read it as "kamal" and they write "kamalaa"
to represent "kamala", making no distinction between "kamalaa" and "kamala",
which south indian language scripts do make.
3. Also, the words like "akbar" is mostly written in a way, which if
pronounced following the rules correctly, would make it "akabar".
(Hope I am making myself clear, while explaining these things).
4. Though, kannada and telugu have almost similar scripts with very few
differences (it is said that until 15th century these two languages had
a common script) the efforts to merge both the scripts to arrive at
a common script have been at best described as futile.
(The latest (as far as I know) of the efforts was the vijaya-lipi
suggested by a team from Mysore univ. which is supposed to have got
the approval of both the state govts, but I don't hear about it after that).
If this would be the case with the efforts for merging two almost identical
scripts, then imagine the efforts of making every one use naagari script !
5. Finally, it should be remembered that any any major change would result
in an opposition. I, for myself, who have got used to reading telugu in
telugu script for last twenty years, now can read a telugu book of 200
pages probably in two hours. The same book if transcribed in naagari script
would probably take me more than double that time. And it might take me
some years of practice to attain the same reading-speed.
What about the efforts and finances involved in re-printing all the
important books in these languages in naagari script ?
In this regard, I would like to quote a paragraph from an article written by
Krishnamurthy Raghunandan (nan...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com). This he mentioned,
when there was a discussion going on in SCIT and ACK groups on a related
topic - common script for telugu and kannada.
Krishnamurthy Raghunandan (nan...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com) wrote:
<CAzM2...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
> Any major shift gets opposed. Look at the old FPS system being used in USA.
> A recent survey reported in PBS said that 67% of Amercians thought that
> Metric system is MORE CONFUSING than FPS and did not want to change to the
> MKS or SI system; that would look stupid to us but not to them though ... :-)
(I haven't taken Krishnamurthy.Raghunandan's permission for quoting.
Hope this quoting hasn't misrepresented any of his views).
Regards,
Suresh.
--
Suresh Kolichala e-mail: sur...@gator.bocaraton.ibm.com
IBM, Boca Raton (On assignment with IBM) Phone: (407)-443-6585
===============================================================================
What man does not learn from history is that man does not learn from history.
===============================================================================
Srikant Sridevan
In article <2pgv6a$4...@alhena.usc.edu>, sad...@alhena.usc.edu (Sati
Sadhal) writes:
>For one thing, it is phonetically perfect, like many other Indian
>languages. The vowel structure is such that sounds like
>
> `aa' (like in far)
> `i' (like in bit)
> `ee' (like in seek)
> `oo' (like in hook)
> `OO' (like in bOOt)
> `a' (like in late)
> `A' (like in bAt)
> `ao' (like in boat)
> `aw' (like in straw)
>
>appear as suffixes to consonants and the basic sound is not altered
>by letters around a consonant-siffix combo.
However, Devanagari does not have the 3 "ay" sounds and the 3 "ou"
sounds. To wit, "bet", bate", "bite" and "got", "goat", and "gout". I
believe the European languages are much richer in vowel sounds
(diphthongs and vowels) than the Devanagri languages. However,
Devanagari has more consonant sounds as you pointed out. OK, but it does
not make it the perfect script as the OP alleged.
>
>There severe inconsistencies that we see in English:
>For example,
Several million inconsistencies of English deleted. :) However, you'll
agree that this is a quirk of the language and not of the script.
>The fundamental advantage of the Devanagari-type languages is that
>a basis assembly of letters and vowel suffixes makes a sound that is
>consistently read by nearly all those knowledgeable in the language.
>Even unfamiliar sounds (such as foreign names) when put together in
>an Indian language are read with consistence. However, in English
>my own name has been mispronounced in four different ways.
This again is a problem with English. It is not a problem with the Roman
script. German is pretty much phonetic. There is only one way to read a
word although a sound may be written in more than one way.
> I have heard that Jermun is much better than inglish
> for pronunciation. I am not very (k)nowledgeable about that.
> Perhaps somebody who (k)nows can shed lite on that.
So Satwinder, I agree with you almost completely. However, your
statements do not prove the OP's allegation that Devanagari is the
perfect script. (I don't think you were trying to prove it either but
merely listing out the many good points of Devanagari.)
Once again, what does one mean by "a perfect script"?
swaminathan,kashi r
Sati Sadhal <sad...@alhena.usc.edu> wrote:
>In article <2pfer2$j...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> s...@eos.ncsu.edu (Srikant Sridevan) writes:
>>
>>In article <CosMF...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca (M. Jagadesh Kumar) writes:
>>
>>> Devanagari - The Perfect Script
>>
>languages. The vowel structure is such that sounds like
>
It along with all the Indian languages, including the Dravidian
languages (except Tamil which cannot express certain sounds
phonetically) are perfect in the sense Mr Sadhal has discussed.
So, why single out devnagari script?
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
: But when the same thing comes to religion, all the progressives
: are shit scared of openiong their mouths against any insults
: to their religion as such by Islamic fanatics.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hinduism is not my religion.
I have not seen a single fanatic in our street
(Akbar St). You might be talking about
somebody in Arabia.
anban
kathir
: May I ask why ?
J.H.H. Thoden van Velzen
>The word as you read (reed, not red)
>*IS* the pronunciation.
`dzynya' instead of `gya'? And what is the exact pronunciation of `ai'. As
in Skt. `devaih'-by the gods, or Hindi `hai'?
Jeroen.
J.H.H. Thoden van Velzen
Sanskrit (for which it was devised), it was adapted to accomodate Hindi (
dots added to denote Arabic and Persian sounds), and it's not fit to express
South Indian languages. What's its perfection?
Jeroen.
C. R. Selvakumar
swaminathan,kashi r <swa...@troy.cc.bellcore.com> wrote:
>In article <2pgv6a$4...@alhena.usc.edu>,
>Sati Sadhal <sad...@alhena.usc.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2pfer2$j...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> s...@eos.ncsu.edu (Srikant Sridevan) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <CosMF...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>>ku...@caddac1.uwaterloo.ca (M. Jagadesh Kumar) writes:
>>>
>>>> Devanagari - The Perfect Script
>>>
>>For one thing, it is phonetically perfect, like many other Indian
>>languages. The vowel structure is such that sounds like
>>
>
>It along with all the Indian languages, including the Dravidian
>languages (except Tamil which cannot express certain sounds
>phonetically) are perfect in the sense Mr Sadhal has discussed.
Devanagari can not express certain Tamil sounds including
a vowel ( short e ).
The point is not that any given script
can be used for transliterating another langauge words
( ronman letters are better, in fact I would even welcome it,
though I've some reservations, now that we have such great
advances in technology), but why nagari.
The tamil sounds which can not be expressed in devanagari
occur quite frequently. But a few symbols can be created
in devanagari to accomodate it. Similarly tamil too can accomodate
a few sounds in devanagari and then it can be adopted for
national use :-) [ I don't mean the last sentence except to
taunt the mischief makers ]
>So, why single out devnagari script?
Good question. I would recommend roman then we can work for
world integration :-)
anbudan -Selvaa
Sitaram Yadavalli
IF ANYTHING IS BETTER, IT IS TELUGU, and perhaps KANNADA OR MALAYALAM SCRIPTS.
WHY? BECAUSE :
Devanagri goes : a, aa, e, ee, u, oo, ae, i, o, au, am, (an), a:
It misses the vowels aeae and O.. (elongated versions like aa or ee)
which are there in the Telugu script. Apart from that there are 2 other vowels
called alu, aloo (not potato!) and aru, aroo in the original telugu script which
became obsolete since there are not too many words. aru is there in Devanagri
also and is used to write Rishi as we spell in English. (Marathi people will
pronounce it Rushi, or Rutu, or Ruta - some names for eg.). That Ru is actually
a vowel and hence we have ri (ru) ki matra in krishna (krushna).
I really don know of any words using aruu, alu, aluu which occur in
Sanskrit and pure Telugu.
Telugu also borrowed a few consonants from tamil which are absent in Hindi lang
or Devanagri script. They are L as it occurs in neeLLu (for those who
understand). (cant be explained in English or Hindi) (it is not l as in lok or
lauki.)
Another consonant is rrrrrr used in Gurrrrramu (meaning horse).
Actually, no script is perfect. It is a function of the language which uses
it. Dont tell me that humans can produce only some 300 odd sounds! English is the
best example to clarify this statement. You can write anything in English and
map it to anything you want to say!
There are plenty of phonemes which Indian languages or a union of them do not
contain.
But still we do pretty well.
So much for Devanagri.
Sati Sadhal
>
>In article <2pgv6a$4...@alhena.usc.edu>, sad...@alhena.usc.edu (Sati
>Sadhal) writes:
>
>>For one thing, it is phonetically perfect, like many other Indian
>>languages. The vowel structure is such that sounds like
>>
>> `aa' (like in far)
>> `i' (like in bit)
>> `ee' (like in seek)
>> `oo' (like in hook)
>> `OO' (like in bOOt)
>> `a' (like in late)
>> `A' (like in bAt)
>> `ao' (like in boat)
>> `aw' (like in straw)
>>
>>appear as suffixes to consonants and the basic sound is not altered
>>by letters around a consonant-siffix combo.
>
>However, Devanagari does not have the 3 "ay" sounds and the 3 "ou"
>sounds. To wit, "bet", bate", "bite" and "got", "goat", and "gout". I
>believe the European languages are much richer in vowel sounds
>(diphthongs and vowels) than the Devanagri languages. However,
>Devanagari has more consonant sounds as you pointed out. OK, but it does
>not make it the perfect script as the OP alleged.
>
My above interpretation of the matras (that I wrote)
is based on my own limited use of the Hindi language,
which I often see through Punjabi. Assuming that the
above pronunciation key for
`aa' `i' `ee' `u' `oo' `a' `A' `oa' `aw' etc
is correct, then we can do the bet bate bite. That
is, if you want to create the sounds
bet, bay-it, bite
you can do it.
The first one, bet, may be written as bA-ht, where A is
as if in bAt, and h,t are half letters. Something like
it is done in some Punjabi words. The half h ends up
shortening the A vowel somewhat.
The other two words, bay-it and bite are easy to construct.
But having read some of the other posts on the interpretation
of the matras, I AM am bit lost. Some of the posts indicate
that the matras go like
`aa' (like in far)
`i' (like in bit)
`ee' (like in week)
`oo' (like in book)
`OO' (like in bOOt)
`a' (like in late)
`I' (like in bIte)-------this is the one that my own learning
tells me differently. I have thought of this
as `A' as in bAt.
`oa' (like in boat) ......etc.
If this is correct as opposed to my earlier key, then
I feel that the `I' is redundant, because the sound can
be constructed otherwise.
>>There severe inconsistencies that we see in English:
>>For example,
>
>Several million inconsistencies of English deleted. :) However, you'll
>agree that this is a quirk of the language and not of the script.
>
[redundant stuff (mostly mah own) deleted]
>So Satwinder, I agree with you almost completely. However, your
>statements do not prove the OP's allegation that Devanagari is the
>perfect script. (I don't think you were trying to prove it either but
>merely listing out the many good points of Devanagari.)
>
>Once again, what does one mean by "a perfect script"?
>
>Srikant
>--
>--
If we speak of total perfection, we do not have it in
Devanagari. It seems that people have different regional
interpretation of some of the matras [correct me if I'm
(w)rong].
But I thought all along that the argument was for the script
packaged with all its rules for pronunciation. If we argue
purely for the script, without any consideration for the
rules, the discussion is meaningless.
So, I believe that a "perfect script" would be one that
has the phonetic consistence and at the same time has
unique spellings for different sounds.
I hold the opinion that Devanagari along with all the
other Indian languages is very, very good as compared
with the many European languages, when it comes to
phonetics. On that note, Srikant, you mentioned that
you know (of) some European languages that have the
phonetic perfection. Which ones are they?
>
>Bierwissenschaftenstudent
>
>e-mail : s...@apollo.psrc.ncsu.edu
If I (SSS) may reply to Theoden van Valzen, right here
In article <2pgv6a$4...@alhena.usc.edu> sad...@alhena.usc.edu (Sati Sadhal) writes:
>The word as you read (reed, not red)
>*IS* the pronunciation.
A slight nuance perhaps: How many people do still pronounce `jNa' as
`dzynya' instead of `gya'? And what is the exact pronunciation of `ai'. As
in Skt. `devaih'-by the gods, or Hindi `hai'?
Jeroen.
Jeroen:
Reply: This (gya) is indeed an inconsistency as it progresses
from Sanskrit to modern usage Hindi. I was always confused by
its position in the Hindi alphabet. Since it is a combination
of j and nnnn, the position has become clear to me, but not
the sound.
I am not clear about the question on `ai' and
`hai.'
----- SSSadhal
I believe that if we work at it and form a hybrid Indian script, we
can accommodate almost all the sounds of Northern and Southern India.
There should be no problem including most of the European languages.
We may have great difficulty agreeing on a base script.
----- Satwindar Singh Sadhal
Srikant Sridevan
In article <2pk50b$c...@alhena.usc.edu>, sad...@alhena.usc.edu (Sati
Sadhal) writes:
>In article <2ph7c5$5...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> s...@eos.ncsu.edu (Srikant
>Sridevan) writes:
>>
>>In article <2pgv6a$4...@alhena.usc.edu>, sad...@alhena.usc.edu (Sati
>>Sadhal) writes:
> My above interpretation of the matras (that I wrote)
> is based on my own limited use of the Hindi language,
> which I often see through Punjabi. Assuming that the
> above pronunciation key for
> `aa' `i' `ee' `u' `oo' `a' `A' `oa' `aw' etc
>
I was using the matras as they are pronounced in Sanskrit. Using them as
in Hindi:
a, aa, i, ee, u, oo, ay, A, O, aw :
you'll agree that late can be accurately represented by "layt" (to lie
down) and bat (well, not quite but I won't quibble) by "bAt" but there's
clearly nothing for let. The short "e" sounds as clearly absent. I am
not well versed in Punjabi to clearly understand the modification you
were proposing, but any "h" sound defeats the purpose as then we will be
reduced to "Baink aaf Nyuzilaind" as Theo's new avatar points out.
> But having read some of the other posts on the interpretation
> of the matras, I AM am bit lost. Some of the posts indicate
> that the matras go like
>
> `aa' (like in far)
> `i' (like in bit)
> `ee' (like in week)
> `oo' (like in book)
> `OO' (like in bOOt)
> `a' (like in late)
> `I' (like in bIte)-------this is the one that my own learning
> tells me differently. I have thought of this
> as `A' as in bAt.
> `oa' (like in boat) ......etc.
>
> If this is correct as opposed to my earlier key, then
> I feel that the `I' is redundant, because the sound can
> be constructed otherwise.
Once again, the "bite" and "bout" sounds can be reconstructed using
ba-it and ba-ut. But not the short "e" and "o" (as in pop).
> If we speak of total perfection, we do not have it in
> Devanagari. It seems that people have different regional
> interpretation of some of the matras [correct me if I'm
> (w)rong].
>
> But I thought all along that the argument was for the script
> packaged with all its rules for pronunciation. If we argue
> purely for the script, without any consideration for the
> rules, the discussion is meaningless.
>
>
> So, I believe that a "perfect script" would be one that
> has the phonetic consistence and at the same time has
> unique spellings for different sounds.
This again, as someone pointed out is not as absolute in Hindi as it
seems. I think it is pretty much absolute in Sanskrit though. This is
because Skt. insists on the "halanta" which Hindi has made away with in
the main. E.g. (I quote someone else) Akbar could be read as Akabar or
Akabr. Even a rule such as the second consonant does not have an "a"
sound following it would be contradicted by "garajna"( or is it garjana
- to roar) or "surakshan", to point out a few. I must add that noone
pointed out any such rule to me when I was learning Hindi and I had to
learn through experience.
>
> I hold the opinion that Devanagari along with all the
> other Indian languages is very, very good as compared
> with the many European languages, when it comes to
> phonetics. On that note, Srikant, you mentioned that
> you know (of) some European languages that have the
> phonetic perfection. Which ones are they?
German is pretty phonetic. I think French is too. So I suspect, are
Spanish and Italian. I think the randomness of English pronunciation is
because its a motley collection of sounds and words from all languages
which of course have their own pronunciation rules.
S. Rajeev
that was referred to by Mr. Yadavalli in regards to Telugu:
this is the word "kLptham" meaning "Company Limited" -- the
equivalent of "Inc". Admittedly an obscure word and vowel.
--
S. Rajeev <raj...@rahul.net>
Sumitro Samaddar
>ba-it and ba-ut. But not the short "e" and "o" (as in pop).
The short "o" sound is sometimes written in Hindi with a half-circle over
"aa". "Doctor" is often written in Hindi like that. The short "e" sound
is written with the half-circle over the consonant itself. This usage is
not very common, though. I'm not sure if these changes are recent.
My hassle with North Indian scripts (I'm not very familiar with South Indian
ones) is that they are not strictly 1-dimensional in the sense english is. The
matras for vowels sometimes are above and sometimes below the consonant. In
addition, they sometimes precede the consonant event though the sound for them
comes after the consonant. This makes their use with computers more difficult.
- sumitro
Sati Sadhal
In article <2pke1f$4...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> s...@eos.ncsu.edu (Srikant Sridevan) writes:
>
>In article <2pk50b$c...@alhena.usc.edu>, sad...@alhena.usc.edu (Sati
>Sadhal) writes:
>
>>In article <2ph7c5$5...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> s...@eos.ncsu.edu (Srikant
>>Sridevan) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <2pgv6a$4...@alhena.usc.edu>, sad...@alhena.usc.edu (Sati
>>>Sadhal) writes:
>
>> `aa' `i' `ee' `u' `oo' `a' `A' `oa' `aw' etc
>>
>
>I was using the matras as they are pronounced in Sanskrit. Using them as
>in Hindi:
>
>a, aa, i, ee, u, oo, ay, A, O, aw :
>
>you'll agree that late can be accurately represented by "layt" (to lie
>down) and bat (well, not quite but I won't quibble) by "bAt" but there's
>clearly nothing for let. The short "e" sounds as clearly absent. I am
>not well versed in Punjabi to clearly understand the modification you
>were proposing, but any "h" sound defeats the purpose as then we will be
>reduced to "Baink aaf Nyuzilaind" as Theo's new avatar points out.
>
But I have never understood that using the above key for
matras, why can we not write it as
bA-nk aw-f nyuzi-lA-nd.
I shall not dwell on the half-h sound, and I agree
the the short e (like in let) is impossible to duplicate
in devanagari. All I am saying is that we can construct
a shortER A and come up with something in between bAt and
bet by writing as bA-ht, where the h is almost silent.
>>
>> So, I believe that a "perfect script" would be one that
>> has the phonetic consistence and at the same time has
>> unique spellings for different sounds.
>
>This again, as someone pointed out is not as absolute in Hindi as it
>seems. I think it is pretty much absolute in Sanskrit though. This is
>because Skt. insists on the "halanta" which Hindi has made away with in
>the main. E.g. (I quote someone else) Akbar could be read as Akabar or
>Akabr. Even a rule such as the second consonant does not have an "a"
>sound following it would be contradicted by "garajna"( or is it garjana
>- to roar) or "surakshan", to point out a few. I must add that noone
>pointed out any such rule to me when I was learning Hindi and I had to
>learn through experience.
>
I am not clear about the ambiguity (I do not have formal
education in Hindi). If I was to write Akbar, as the majority
seem to pronounce it, I would join the kb. If I really want to
say Akabar, then I would have separate k and b. And the last
one (Akabr), I am not sure exactly what sound is being emulated.
Whether it is Akabbar or Akabr(a), it can be written down
almost exactly as you want it.
>> I hold the opinion that Devanagari along with all the
>> other Indian languages is very, very good as compared
>> with the many European languages, when it comes to
>> phonetics. On that note, Srikant, you mentioned that
>> you know (of) some European languages that have the
>> phonetic perfection. Which ones are they?
>
>German is pretty phonetic. I think French is too. So I suspect, are
>Spanish and Italian. I think the randomness of English pronunciation is
>because its a motley collection of sounds and words from all languages
>which of course have their own pronunciation rules.
>
Does this mean that in `...let' `des...' `..ot' (French,
like in Dirichlet, Descartes, depot), the seeming
redundancies (mostly the `t' and the `s') have a
serious meaning?
Do we always ignore the t after a vowel?
Do c and k consistently have different meanings?
Is ch always pronounced as k?
In Spanish, j has the h sound. But not so when you
say Majorca, or Major. The ll is Spanish has the
y sound. But many times j takes the place of ll.
I have seen spelling of Majorca as Mallorca. But
j also has the h sound.
And, why do we need both g and j? Why don't we write
Jorge as Jorje? Both are pronounced as HorHey.
We say Guadalajara. Here, G has a different sound
than in JorGe.
In the old maps of Mexico, they write Texas as Tejas.
Some of them also write Mexico as Mejico.
Then, some people write Alexandro, while others write
as Alejandro.
Does this mean that x and j are the same in Spanish?
If that is true, then we have a redundancy.
These are my observations without any study of
these languages. Therefore, I do not make any broad claims.
I agree that Spanish, French and German phonetics may be
much superior than English. But I have doubts if they
match the Indian languages for consistency. Also, Indian
languages have a minimum of redundancies. Admittedly,
we do have weaknesses with the short vowels in devanagari.
------ Satwindar Singh Sadhal
>Srikant
Sitaram Yadavalli
>>>>>>>>>>>>Mr. Tarpaulinwalla wrote:
Because they are in the Telugu language. There is no phonemic
difference between short and long e in Marathi (for instance), and so
devanagari vowel-symbols are generally good enough. It's the claim that
it's a ready-to-use phonetic transcription system that is false, even
for Marathi.
>>>>>>>>
That is what I said earlier. Script you write is a function of language you speak.
You can write stuff a particular way and use it (read it) in a way that conforms
to the language used.
Nothing is complete. Try writing a dog's bark in any language you know.
You will need doggy language script!
tarpaulinwalla, dinyar shyavaks
sit...@shadow.eng.uiowa.edu (Sitaram Yadavalli) writes:
>DEVANAGRI IS NOT PERFECT.
Nothing is.
>IF ANYTHING IS BETTER, IT IS TELUGU, and perhaps KANNADA OR MALAYALAM SCRIPTS.
>
>WHY? BECAUSE :
... because they do a better job for Telugu and Kannada.
>Devanagri goes : a, aa, e, ee, u, oo, ae, i, o, au, am, (an), a:
>
>It misses the vowels aeae and O.. (elongated versions like aa or ee)
>which are there in the Telugu script.
Because they are in the Telugu language. There is no phonemic
difference between short and long e in Marathi (for instance), and so
devanagari vowel-symbols are generally good enough. It's the claim that
it's a ready-to-use phonetic transcription system that is false, even
for Marathi.
>Apart from that there are 2 other vowels called alu, aloo (not potato!)
>and aru, aroo in the original telugu script which became obsolete since
>there are not too many words. aru is there in Devanagri also and is used
>to write Rishi as we spell in English.
All these vowels can be represented in devanagari.
> I really don know of any words using aruu, alu, aluu which occur
>in Sanskrit and pure Telugu.
Standard examples in sanskrit:
"aruu" ---> pit/r../n
"alu" ---> k/L/pta
By the way, it's better not to call a particular dialect "pure
Telugu". It is misleading.
-=om shanti=-
Dorai Sitaram
approval of Devanagari. Actually, several Westerners
have recorded their fascination with Indian scripts.
One that net.people can readily identify is the
admiration with which Douglas Hofstadter, in one of his
books, enumerates several "curvilinear scripts" (?!
Was he contrasting them with runes?) --- Devanagari,
Tamil, and Telugu being some of them. Others are taken
with the fact that the Devanagari alphabet (varnamala)
lists the vowels and consonants _separately_. This
possibly appeals to the taxonomist in people.
This is not to say that these same people would not
freak if they had to _use_ rather than just _admire_
Indian scripts. The vowel vs. consonant categorization
that looks so neat at first blush is a disappointing
fraud once anyone starts using the alphabet. Unlike
with the Roman, learning Indian vowel and consonant
letters (#{letters} = #{vowels} + #{consonants}) is not
enough to recognize the letterforms encountered in the
language. One also has to know how to combine vowels
and consonants, and often consonants with other
consonants before one can do other things --- thus
swelling the number of graphemes one has to master,
_without_ an attendant increase in information. This
is both additional learning effort as well as
additional typesetting effort, and is a shameless
squandering of the original alleged advantage in
separating vowels from consonants.
I don't want to add anything to the halant problem of
Hindi in Devanagari except point out one of the
historical reasons for this script convention. Hindi
Devanagari often mimics the Arabo-Persian script of
Urdu for many words. However, Devanagari and A-P give
different weightage to what they consider letterworthy.
Many of the short vowels are presented as optional
diacritical marks in A-P, i.e., they are often not
presented at all. Devanagari, OTOH, has no such
optional marks. Thus, what is meant as a widely
accepted short form in A-P is given additional
nonoptional markings in Devanagari. E.g., writing
Akbar as a<k+a><b+a><r+a> in Devanagari is like saying
the value of pi is 3.1514234987324761287687. All those
extra digits give a spurious sense of accuracy, when in
fact they are worse than the simple round-off of 3.14.
(This reminds me of a Usenet flame where the flamer
accused the flamee of being irrational, "like 22/7,
bub"!)
IMO, diacritical Roman (or the related Cyrillic) is
still the best among the pack for any language. The
fact that we need diacritics is not all that much of a
black mark. Indian scripts use multiple-tiered
graphemes _anyway_, so a system of diacritics can't be
worse. Indeed, one can think of a
letter-with-a-diacritic as a distinct single letter (no
one thinks of i as a letter + diacritic, or of w as a
<v+v> ligature). Many languages employing the Roman
alphabet do precisely this.
Of course, no one is going to fall in line and start
using Roman. They don't have to. They can keep using
their own scripts. They just can't claim with a
straight face that their script is perfect. The best
they can say is that their script looks really neat to
themselves, and perhaps, on an off day, to Jones and
Hofstadter.
--d
tarpaulinwalla, dinyar shyavaks
> A slight nuance perhaps: How many people do still pronounce `jNa' as
>`dzynya' instead of `gya'?
In Marathi it becomes a 'dnya', in Gujarati, frequently 'gna'.
The first voiced consonant is almost the same for all of these and the
"correct" jna. The different pronunciations hence reflect the variations
in "n~" in the various languages.
> And what is the exact pronunciation of `ai'. As
>in Skt. `devaih'-by the gods, or Hindi `hai'?
Yes, respectively.
U22...@uicvm.uic.edu
devanagari is always associated with hindus. for example, take Punjab, where
everyone speaks Punjabi, but the Sikhs use Gurmukhi Script, the hindus use
devanagari, and the muslims use arabic. They will never change. I think that
people should use what they like, and not be forced to use one. This is my
observation.
Zaker
Srikanth Bandi
In article <94118.164...@uicvm.uic.edu> <U22...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>devanagari can never be the written language of india for one reason.
>
>devanagari is always associated with hindus. for example, take Punjab, where
>everyone speaks Punjabi, but the Sikhs use Gurmukhi Script, the hindus use
>devanagari, and the muslims use arabic.
What about Tamilians, Andhras etc. Do you think they are all non-Hindus?
They have been one of the most vociferous opponents of Devanagari/Hindi
impositions. Your view again, by not taking South into account,
is a North-centered view with which Devanagari proponents are afflicted.
It is true that Hindutva-vadis are spearheading Hindi/Devenagari campaign
but don't attribute this muddle headedness to all of the Hindus
in your enthusiasm to find an excuse for Hindu bashing.
>They will never change. I think that
>people should use what they like, and not be forced to use one. This is my
>observation.
Yes.
-srikanth
>
>Zaker
swaminathan,kashi r
C. R. Selvakumar <selv...@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>languages. The vowel structure is such that sounds like
>>>
>>
>>It along with all the Indian languages, including the Dravidian
>>languages (except Tamil which cannot express certain sounds
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>phonetically) are perfect in the sense Mr Sadhal has discussed.
>
> Devanagari can not express certain Tamil sounds including
> a vowel ( short e ).
> taunt the mischief makers ]
A few examples of sounds that give problems when expresses in Tamil
Bharathi --> parathi
Brahmin----> piramanar
Cho -------> So
>
> anbudan -Selvaa
>
Srikant Sridevan
In article <2pm5bn$h...@alhena.usc.edu>, sad...@alhena.usc.edu (Sati
Sadhal) writes:
>>German is pretty phonetic. I think French is too. So I suspect, are
>>Spanish and Italian. I think the randomness of English pronunciation is
>>because its a motley collection of sounds and words from all languages
>>which of course have their own pronunciation rules.
>>
> Does this mean that in `...let' `des...' `..ot' (French,
> like in Dirichlet, Descartes, depot), the seeming
> redundancies (mostly the `t' and the `s') have a
> serious meaning?
>
> Do we always ignore the t after a vowel?
> Do c and k consistently have different meanings?
> Is ch always pronounced as k?
Unfortunately, your questions are about exactly those languages I have
not learnt. :-) However, I will go out on a limb and try to explain. Would
someone with some knowledge on this step in and confirm or correct what
I have said?
In French, the 't' is there to ensure the long vowel sound at the end.
So Dirichlet will be Dirichlay while Dirichle will be just Dirichle.
There are quite definite rules in French pronunciation. These are just
very contrary to those in English. The 't' would be pronounced if there
was a vowel following it. I think the 's' works likewise. I am quite
ignorant in Spanish so I will not attempt to answer your queries. I also
have seen the duplication of the 'h' sound in Spanish but maybe there
are some nuances I am unaware of.
In German, v and f are duplicate. As are some diphthong sounds. So I
guess they are not quite as unique/consistent as Indian languages.
tarpaulinwalla, dinyar shyavaks
ba...@di.epfl.ch (Srikanth Bandi) writes:
><U22...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>devanagari can never be the written language of india for one reason.
>>
>>devanagari is always associated with hindus. for example, take Punjab, where
>>everyone speaks Punjabi, but the Sikhs use Gurmukhi Script, the hindus use
>>devanagari, and the muslims use arabic.
>
>What about Tamilians, Andhras etc. Do you think they are all non-Hindus?
>They have been one of the most vociferous opponents of Devanagari/Hindi
>impositions. Your view again, by not taking South into account,
>is a North-centered view with which Devanagari proponents are afflicted.
Yes, but he does, unwittingly, hit the nail on the head about
why there is so much Organizer interest in the script. By the way,
Zaker, Devanagari can easily become more widespread as a script: namely
if a large number of Muslims and Sikhs begin using it. Rejecting it
because it is associated with Hindus is ridiculous (even if this asso-
ciation had any justification in the first place).
C. R. Selvakumar
True. I was not disputing these. Tamil does not
have kh and gha and such sets and many other
phonemes.
I was trying to point out that any given langauge,
as given, is capable of expressing only a sub-set of possible
phonemes. For your information, all the sanskrit
sounds can be expressed in Tamil but it is not
popular ( read Maraimalai AdigaL's work on this).
In short it uses the 'three-triangular-dots' 'aayutha
ezhuththu' along with soft consonants like 'nN' etc.
For example kh will be k+ayutham and gha will be
nk+ayutham. Similarly for other consonants and it is
well explained by Maraimalai adigaL.
Just as we accept a two or three letter combination
in English one can do in most languages, I think.
Hindi or other langauges can add 'L' and 'zh' and
also vowels 'e' and 'o'. I can quote large lists
of tamil words which Devanagari can not represent as it
stands, but that is not my point.
Theese debates about 'the ability of expressing larger
or all phonemes' are well known in Tamil. The tamils
used to point out to sanskrit enthusiasts of yester years
the futility of such arguments. How will they
represent the sound the fellow who tends the cattle
says like 'kLtrkk kLtrkk' ( impossible to transcribe the
clacking sound unless by some convention is used and tamil has names
for these. Such words as these and the sound made by
lizards are classified in the 'ezhuththilla Osai' and known
by different words. These were pointed out in olden days
to sanskrit enthus to ridicule that skt can not even
say a simple sound of an uneducated cowboy why do you so
pride yourselves dear fellows.).
I think there were many good arguments advanced in this thread
by others to show that Devanagari is not a 'perfect script'
and suitable for all indian languages, certainly not Tamil.
It is an ill conceived idea. If at all any script change is
needed ( I don't believe one is needed given the present
technology) it is undoubtedly wiser to adopt the roman like
so many people have done in modern times.
anbudan -Selvaa
U22...@uicvm.uic.edu
(tarpaulinwalla, dinyar shyavaks) says:
>
> -=NAMASTE=-
>
>ba...@di.epfl.ch (Srikanth Bandi) writes:
>><U22...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>>>devanagari can never be the written language of india for one reason.
>>>
>wher
>>>everyone speaks Punjabi, but the Sikhs use Gurmukhi Script, the hindus use
>>>devanagari, and the muslims use arabic.
>>
>>What about Tamilians, Andhras etc. Do you think they are all non-Hindus?
>>They have been one of the most vociferous opponents of Devanagari/Hindi
>>impositions. Your view again, by not taking South into account,
>>is a North-centered view with which Devanagari proponents are afflicted.
>
> Yes, but he does, unwittingly, hit the nail on the head about
>why there is so much Organizer interest in the script. By the way,
>Zaker, Devanagari can easily become more widespread as a script: namely
>if a large number of Muslims and Sikhs begin using it. Rejecting it
>because it is associated with Hindus is ridiculous (even if this asso-
>ciation had any justification in the first place).
>
Dear Friend,
Adopting another language and give up your own in very unlikely, why don't
the Hindus give up devanagari and use urdu or Gurumukhi.
Ravi Sundaram
script could be labelled "Perfect". The main argument
seems to be that it is phonetic script.
But all the Hindi newsreaders call a state kEraL.
(One irritated malayaaLee friend said "I am going
to call Haryana, HaryaN") So much for phonetics.
Others with more knowledge more valid points. But
one minor point seem to have been missed by them.
There is an amibiguity in the letter "kha" which
looks just like two other letters side by side.
"khal thE hai?" can be pronounced as "raval thE hai?"
It is similer to the confusion regarding "au" in
Tamil. "kauthami" and "keLathami" will look
identical.
English and French have many silent letters and
ambiguous prounciation, All the Indian languages
have much less ambiguity in pronounciation.
To claim a particular script Perfect shows the
bias of the proclaimer than anything else.
.--. o o
.____ ___| .| .___ .___ .___ .____ . __
| | ( / || |_|__ | |_ |_|_ | | | | |
| | O L__| (__) | | _) (_./ ) | | |__|__|
/ / /
UTA
(The University of Texas at Arlington)
___________________________________________________________________________
C. R. Selvakumar
Ravi Sundaram <sund...@utacfd.uta.edu> wrote:
> I was amused by the suggestion Devanagari (or any other)
> script could be labelled "Perfect". The main argument
> seems to be that it is phonetic script.
I agree with your points. But whatif they come along and said
'yes, it is imperfect but it is a useful enough start. we will
correct those shortcomings you kindly pointed out
taking this pan-indian need as
an opportunity to increase the perfection of devanagari'.
There is more to it than the 'claim of perfectness'. This
'more' is a kind guesture by the 'patriotic indians'
to dismantle other langauges carefully phoneme-by-phoneme or
letter-by-letter for building a glorious hindu script.
In this technological age these reforms are not needed.
If at all a reform should be brought about such that all
indian langauges should have the same script and conventions,
it is better to adopt Roman and I would welcome it ( though
very reluctantly for the reason that much of what is available
already in various forms such as books, magazines, pamphlets,
hand-written letters etc. will become arcane. the other
reason is I find tamil letters beautiful and other langauge
speakers might find their script beautiful and significant.
Some of the tamil letters have their inner significance too..)
> .--. o o
> .____ ___| .| .___ .___ .___ .____ . __
> | | ( / || |_|__ | |_ |_|_ | | | | |
> | | O L__| (__) | | _) (_./ ) | | |__|__|
> / / /
> UTA
> (The University of Texas at Arlington)
anbudan -Selvaa
Shiva Shivakumar
> I was amused by the suggestion Devanagari (or any other)
> script could be labelled "Perfect". The main argument
> seems to be that it is phonetic script.
>
> But all the Hindi newsreaders call a state kEraL.
> (One irritated malayaaLee friend said "I am going
> to call Haryana, HaryaN") So much for phonetics.
> Others with more knowledge more valid points. But
A non-Indian friend once asked me if 'Indian' didn't have the sound
'Z'. The reason shwe asked was that her professor (from NI) used to say
'jero' and not 'zero'. My reply was that his language had the 'Z' sound
but mine didn't. And god knows why I say zero and he 'jero' !!!
> one minor point seem to have been missed by them.
>
> There is an amibiguity in the letter "kha" which
> looks just like two other letters side by side.
> "khal thE hai?" can be pronounced as "raval thE hai?"
>
> It is similer to the confusion regarding "au" in
In Telugu, draw the circle little bigger, you get 'ya' instead of 'ma'
(example given since somoone claimed Telugu was superior to Devanagari !)
> Tamil. "kauthami" and "keLathami" will look
> identical.
>
> English and French have many silent letters and
> ambiguous prounciation, All the Indian languages
> have much less ambiguity in pronounciation.
> To claim a particular script Perfect shows the
> bias of the proclaimer than anything else.
>
> .--. o o
> .____ ___| .| .___ .___ .___ .____ . __
> | | ( / || |_|__ | |_ |_|_ | | | | |
> | | O L__| (__) | | _) (_./ ) | | |__|__|
> / / /
> UTA
> (The University of Texas at Arlington)
>___________________________________________________________________________
regards,
Jagadisan Shivakumar
Dipak Mane
- 'Ganesh -Vidya' The traditional Indian approach to Phonetic Writing Script Study Group, Bombay 1968 by L. S. Wakanka.
- Typography of Devanagari Vol. 1, 2 & 3 by B. S. Naik.
- Devanagari Mudran Lekhan Kala by B. S. Naik.
I'm sure these books will be helpful.
Regards,
Dipak Mane