Re: safal banaam saphal (was Re: Pyaasa(1957) bhajan, aaj sajan mohe a.ng lagaalo - lyric corrections)

[Warning: Very long post]

UVR wrote:
[Warning: Long post]

Vinay wrote:
UVR wrote:
Vinay wrote:

A Hindi speaker now learns that there are two sounds 'pha' and 'fa' but
his ears are still not very accustomed to the difference in the sound
and he keeps making mistakes.

What "now"? These words have been in the common vernacular for
many many years -- at least over a century, if not more.

You detached it from the context. Read it after the previous para
"Enter foreign words (especially from Arabic and Persian) and now there
was a need to differentiate... ". "Now" means when people first knew
that they have to differentiate between 'pha' and 'fa'.


Okay, (sorry for that and) let us speak with reference to the context,
then.
You're saying "fa" was as "phoren" a sound (and hence as 'hard' as 'q',
'Kh', 'Gh' etc for the natives to get accustomed to) --

I never said that 'fa' was a "phoren" sound. What I said was this -
before foreign language words with 'fa' sound started entering into the
language, there was *no differentiation needed between pha and fa*. In
other words, one could have pronounced 'fa' or 'pha' depending upon
one's accent and still mean the same word. Hindi and most Indian
languages did not have words that used 'pha' and 'fa' sound for
different purposes. I hope I am clear now.

I am surprised you missed this, because this was the very basic point I
was trying to make.

Incidentally, the same thing is true for 'za' (in Marathi for
instance). As for qa, Kha, or Ga sounds, AFAIK these were alien sounds
for most, if not all, Indian languages, and certainly for Hindi.

if that's so,
how come
we hear "fa" more often than not these days? Not only in Hindi, but
also
in languages like Marathi and Telugu? How do you explain the relative
ease with which the hoi polloi have accepted this sound? [1]

This phenomenon became more powerful as
fewer educated people read in Hindi/Urdu script, which could help them
identify the difference better. A part of blame for 'safal' should go
to the widespread practice of non-standard romanization of Hindi words.

BTW this logic is patently wrong. Even if we ignore, for a moment,
the question of how the "uneducated" people can know how a word is
to be spelt, leave alone what is standard and non-standard, we can't
go around asserting that problem arises because people are *reading
wrong spellings things and THEN perpetuating the incorrectness in
their pronunciation*. It's nearly always the _other_ way around --
the words are first pronounced wrongly, then the error carries over
when the words are written.


Firstly, I said "A *part* of the blame..". Secondly, I don't think it
is a one-way process. Although for the most part, it is the
pronunciation that leads to spellings, you can find examples that point
to the reverse phenonmenon. Would you say that the fact that Urdu
script does not have a letter for the "Na" sound has nothing at all to
do with why almost all Urdu speakers replace 'Na' with 'na' in words
like kiraN, praaN, hiraN, etc.?

Have you never spoken a word that you first read and not listened to?

There are people in Hindi speaking areas (read
a widespread area of UP Bihar and MP) who are very much aware of
what the difference between ph and f is, and not only that, what 'q' is
and how it differs from k, and which words have Kh and Gh and so
on. And these people have existed for a long time before you and I
were born. What is the proof that the number of people who are NOT
aware of the difference is greater than the number of people who *are*
aware of the difference? Don't go by popular pronunciation. I can

You ask for the proof of numbers and then say "Don't go by popular
pronuciation"! And why not go by popular pronunciation?

Because it is not really important what people actually pronounce as
much as what they "think they are saying". For example, the real
number of people who pronounce "q" correctly is smaller than the
number of people who KNOW that the 'q' is not the same as the 'k'.
E.g., the Deccani (say, Hyderabadi) pronunciation of 'q', sounds a
lot like "qh" or "Kh", depending on who's speaking it, but make no
mistake, the fellow who is pronouncing it knows that 'q' is a different
sound than 'k' as well as from 'Kh'. If you went by the pronunciation

alone, you could end up with incorrect numbers.


Right. But just knowing that q is a different sound than k is not
sufficient. One also has to know, which word uses which sound. So as
far as getting the right numbers is concerned, one has to take both in
the account.

Do you really think that there are more people who know the difference
between a k and q or, kh and Kh? I don't. I believe otherwise. You need
proof? The proof is on the road. Do a simple expriment. Go to any city
in Hindi speaking region, take 10 random persons who say they speak
Hindi, and ask them to speak qalam and kitaab, or Galat and agar. Most
out of them (my personal guess is 7 and if you are in Jaipur then 9 :)
) would pronounce qa and ka or ga and Ga similarly. And they wouldn't
know the difference.


"Road surveys" of 10 people are about as reliable as a Gallup
poll with the same sample size. You can get enough "data" to
support just about any position you want. For example, it
depends (as you have yourself noted) which "road" you are
conducting your survey on. If I conduct it on the one leading
to the Urdu Studies department of the Jamia Millia Islamia
in Delhi, you will get vastly different results from the ones you
are expecting :-)


I said people who say they speak *Hindi*. You would be looking on the
wrong road :). Also, it's not about 10 or 100 or 1000. I am saying most
people wouldn't know the difference. I was just trying to be
considerate of you because I thought it may be hard on you to survey
1000 people on road.

As it often happens, if pronunciation of some loan word troubles a
large number of native population, that word over time organically gets
changed/modified to suit the local tongue. It does not necessarily mean
that the original becomes invalid. But simultaneously another form that
is simpler to pronounce comes into currency. Initially it may be called
vulgar or colloquial, but it becomes a valid part of the language.
Isn't that how all 'tadbhav' words of Hindi (which form the largest
part of the vocabulary) got formed? So why is it so unbelievable that
people who have difficulty pronouncing Galat and zaruur have used their
galat and jaruur forms? What's so wrong if these are valid Hindi
variants of their original words same as bharam, karam, garam are
valid, in-use variants of bhram, karm, and garm respectively?


FYI, the word karam (as in Ghairo.n pe karam apano.n pe sitam)
is NOT a variant of the word karm!

FYI, I was not talking about karam as in 'Ghairo.n pe karam', but as in
'ai maalik tere bande ham, aise ho.n hamaare *karam*'.

And 'garm'? It's not even
(originally) a Hindi [as in born in India] word :P


Who said anything about 'garm' being of Indian origin? Why does it have
to be originally Hindi? I said that 'garam' is a variant of 'garm'. And
both are in use in Hindi.

Look, I don't disagree with your point that words change over time.
But we are not talking here about how words have changed. We
are talking about words that HAVE NOT changed (at least haven't
changed so far, e.g., saphal). I do not see a pressing need to run
and modify their spellings and/or correct pronunciation just because
because you or someone else feels that they are "hard to pronounce"!
Or, worse, because, like some louts in some political parties say,
these are "foreign" words.


I don't think you are reading me properly. In your haste to club me
together with Ek Bharatiya, you are probably confusing his thoughts
with mine. Besides, by unnecessarily bringing "some political parties"
into it, IMO, you are close to be invoking a version of the Godwin's
law.

I never said one should write or speak 'safal'. I am actually against
it. I never even in a hiddlen line suggested that one should use it. If
you had time to see my blog entry, that is the first point in my list
of common mistakes to avoid.

I am not changing any spellings. I am not telling people to pronounce a
word in a certain way. I am not the one to do it. I am just going to
accept what grammarians, editors, and linguists suggest, who are
supposed to have a better pulse on public usage of words than you and
me.

BTW, it's not like it is seriously hard to pronounce garm or karm!
I have noticed that many of the same people who say "garam" also
say "Khud-garz" or "(swarg-) nark". So, why can't they say "narak"?
And, ok, if you really can say "nark", can't you say "garm"? See,
I fail to understand the logic in this argument that "X is hard to
pronounce" from people who have no problem pronouncing other
similar words perfectly well! That's why I think it all boils down to
lethargy, apathy and/or (bad) habits. Of course, I will gladly
agree that these are amongst the hardest vices to give up!


It's not about just being hard to pronounce. There are other unenforced
factors that drive whether a word remains in use or not and if yes then
in what form(s). These kind of changes are rarely done in an organized
manner. It is not like habitants of some mohalla or city gather one
evening and decide that since pronouncing za.njiir is difficult,
henceforth everyone will say janjiir (or zanziir for that matter).
Generally it happens over time and without any formal intervention.

Also, it's not always about apathy. With issues like speech, if a
significant number of people have issues with something (especially
loan words or non-native sounds), there is a possibility of some
genuine trouble than just public's apathy.

I never talked about dropping anything. I am not the one to decide what
should be dropped and what not. I am the user. Besides I think no one
person should be able to dicate that. I am just saying that I am a
native speaker of the language. Don't just keep telling me to go
against my instict all the time. It's a general theory in linguistics
that the native speaker is seldom wrong, even if he doesn't know that
he is right.

As I said above, what you call 'instinct', I call 'bad habit'. Same
difference? Perhaps, perhaps not.

One fact to remember is that language is not an "instinct". It is
an acquired skill. It's something you learn from your parents
and the people around yourself. What they speak, you learn --
and THEN it becomes a habit. And habits can be changed,
provided there is a desire to change them.

But let me tell you this, if my language gives me the choice to choose
between maqaam and makaam and still be right, I will choose the latter
without a hitch. The day I see the word 'makaam' in a reputed Hindi
dictionary or in writings of a few reputed writers, I would start using
makaam instead of maqaam. And that's my whole point.


Okay, but I sincerely hope you are not going to ignore the possibiltiy
that the 'makaam' is there because some idiotic printer made the
error of dropping the nuqta, and the tired eyes of a proof-reader
failed to note the absence of it :)


I most definitely take that into consideration. Or else, I would have
started writing 'makaam' already :).

But seriously, the point is, if we assume that you were unfortunate
enough to have an ignoramus for a teacher and he taught you
that 'makaam' is correct (even though it is not), would you or would
you not give up your 'instinct' when you eventually found that it
wasn't actually? From what you have written previously, I suspect
your answer may well be "no, I won't give up my instinct". That,
to me, is where the "apathy" starts.


No, you suspected wrong. My answer would be 'yes'. But if you insist
that only 'maqaam' is correct and only that should be used, even if
some other Hindi grammarians also consider 'makaam' an acceptable
version (whenever that happens, if it does), then I don't think there
is much difference between my ignoramus teacher and you.

Secondly, I care when I want to be correct. But hey, I don't want to be
correct all the time.


I certainly can't take away, nor do I want to, your right to be wrong.
As long as you want to be wrong by yourself. Where my problem
begins is when you take issue with me if I try to correct Someone
Else! :-) I am pretty sure you wouldn't bat so much as a solitary
disinterested eyelash if I were telling someone that "colo(u)r" is
spelt with a 'c' and not with a 'k'. So then why is it your problem
if I (or, Asad, as was the case with the thread that "seeded" your
'banaam' post) tell someone else that it's "saphal" and not "safal"?
And all this while you have nary a shred of literary, lexicographic
or any other kind of support for 'safal' being the correct or even
an acceptable spelling. What gives?

I am sure you didn't read my post well. I have no problems when you
correct someone for writing safal. If I had, I would not have corrected
people myself for this. 'safal' is not correct, acceptable, or even
remotely acceptable spelling AFAIK. Find me where I mentioned
otherwise.

My post was about a little theory of mine which provided some reasons
why some people may be getting confused about 'safal'. Did that make
'safal' correct? Nobody thinks so, so far. Not me certainly. Is
'jaruur' and 'galat' acceptable in Hindi? AFAIK, yes. Is 'zaruur' and
'Galat' are considered wrong in Hindi? AFAIK, no.


I mean, look: you know full well what the difference between 'q' and
'k' is, yet you insist on saying only 'k' and when challenged, you say,
when it is not ambiguous WHY MAKE THE EFFORT? That to me
is clearly demonstrative of apathy. There, I said it.


I was not clear. *I* am not saying that. I am just repeating what the
more experienced people in these matters say. I was just conveying a
general consensus among Hindi intellegensia. Now you can go after them
because it doesn't suit what you think.

I *will* go after them. References please. Where is it documented
that the "general Hindi intelligensia" are recommending this kind
of despicable apathy exist amongst the people who speak their
language? I think we need to topple those fellows from their thrones.

At the same time, as far as my personal efforts are concerned, I do try
to differentiate between q and k in my writings. I would like everyone
to do that, except when the non-nuqtaa version is in wide-use and is
generally acceptable by writers and academics.

Are words like jaruur, galat, majaa, jindagi, khushii, etc amongst
the words that are "generally acceptable by writers and academics"?
Where are these academicians teaching and why is nobody there to
kick their comfortable behinds when they spout Khuraafaat like this?

Again, I see a great deal of apathy here. The reason to spell
words correctly isn't only because they could be mistaken for
other words; there is a greater overriding concern of correctness.
But you could care less. "When it is not confusing, why bother".
= Apathy.


You are assuming that all non-nuqtaa versions (of nuqtaa-yukt words)
are incorrect. It is a wrong assumption in many cases, as far as Hindi
is concerned.

Examples, please, of words (in Hindi) that are the same whether
or not you use the nuqta. Don't say "kalam". It's not valid.


Read current and past Hindi writings by respected writers/editors.
There may be many words to list here including majaa, khushii, galat.
There need not be any document or one proof for that. If a sufficient
number of eminent writers use these forms consistently, it's proof
enough of acceptance. But since you are looking for a "documented"
evidence, here's something:

This is from a report produced by 'Varani Samiti', a committee of Hindi
academicians and grammarians in 60s. I have shared this with you before
but here's the link again:
http://www.giitaayan.com/hindispelling.asp

<Excerpt begin>==================
13. Words of Arabo-Persian origin which have been adapted in Hindi
vocabulary should continue to be used as such; e.g. जरूर. But
where their use in innate form is desired, dots (नुक़्ते)
must be used to denote alien origin; e.g. राज़, नाज़.

[...]

Rule 13 and 14 dealing with spellings of Hindi words of English,
Arabic, Persian or any other foreign origin and their peculiar sounds,
do not require explanation. However, it is not out of context to
reproduce here the recommendation on transliteration of international
terms into Devanagari Script, made by the Seminar on the Linguistics of
Scientific Terminology organised by the Commission for Scientific and
Technical Terminology in August-September, 1962 which runs thus:

"The transliteration of English terms should not be made so complex as
to necessitate the introduction of new signs and symbols in the present
Devanagari characters. The Devanagari rendering of English terms should
aim at maximum approximation to the standard English pronunciation with
such modifications as are prevalent in the educated circle in India."

The same recommendation may apply to words adopted from other languages
also.
<Excerpt end>==================

Have a nice weekend.

Vinay

-UVR.

[1] I actually know the reason why this happens -- 'fa' is a much
"easier" sound to make than 'pha'.

.

Loading