Help talk:IPA/Hindi and Urdu/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reversions

Austronesier, please discuss your objections here.-1Firang (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang: It is good practice not to reinstate your proposed changes when another editor has substantial objections (see WP:BRD), so I recommend to self-revert to the previous version of this help page and seek consensus for your proposed changes to the long-standing version here in the talk page.

My main objection is that apparently, you take a South Asian pronuncation as a starting point for the approximation. Otherwise, I cannot explain why you would use kettle and pot as examples for [k] and [p], or hot as an example for [ɔː].

There are two good reasons not to implement this:

1. All IPA keys make use of approximations based on the two best-known native English varieties, general American English (AmE) and general southern British English (RP or modernized variations of it). In these varieties (and also in many types of other "World Englishes"), voiceless stops are aspirated, so we can use words like kettle and pot as examples for [kʰ] and [pʰ]. In order to approximate unaspirated [k] and [p], the safest way is to use initial clusters with s, which block aspiration of the following stop (hence scab and stop). Also, the "voiced" stops/affricates of English are often unvoiced in the two major native English varieties, and truly voiced only in medial position (hence budging rather that jail). Modelling the help key based on a World English variety that greatly differs from these best-known varieties of English is of little help for a large portion our global readership.
2. Most speakers of South Asian English will be familiar with the pronunciations of Hindi and Urdu sounds, whereas most English speakers (native or non-native) all over the world beyond the subcontinent usually don't have clue. So obviously, it's the latter that is our target group for this key.

Some errors include:

• Putting the glottal stop under the vowels. It's a consonant. And it's not the u in the Cockney pronuncation of butter, but the medial T's.
• Changing bang to bang for [ŋ]. It's the digraph that represents the nasal, not just the n (unless you speak a British Midlands accent)
• Using prime as an approxiation for [ɛː]. [ɛː] is a monophthong (unless you speak an easterly Hindi variety), while the vowel in prime is a diphthong in most varieties of English.
• Using hot as an approxiation for [ɔː]. [ɔː] is a long vowel monophthong, while the vowel in hot is short in most varieties of English (and much lower than [ɔː] in those varieties that have a drawl in hot).
• Changing the ISO-transliteration of चोर and छोड़ना (c → ch, ch → chh). This is simply wrong. Check for yourself in ISO 15919.

Pinging also @Aeusoes1, @Nardog, @Idell, @Broman178 and @Sol505000, who made significant contributions in building the stable version of this key. –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Austronesier, I invested a lot of time making those changes. I will make changes to whatever you are objecting to instead of reverting everything. If there's a problem, please bring it up here on the Talk page again.-1Firang (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

In a collective project like Wikipdiaa, hard work by one editor is never a guarantee for inclusion. Aren't you aware that your changes likewise wipe out the hard work (which includes consulting sources and discussing improvements) of multiple editors (in fact, 170) who painstakingly built up this key?

When almost everything is either wrong, questionable or controversial, a wholesale revert is certainly a legitimate measure. Need more?

• Using say and pain as approxiations for [eː]. [eː] is a monophthong, while the vowel in say and pain is a diphthong in many varieties of English.
• We deliberate include the r in shrew to approximate the retroflexion in [ʂ]. Otherwise, it will be identical to [ʃ].
• Clapham is spelled with an H, but actually is pronounced with a plain /p/ [pʰ] as if spelled **Clappam. In this position, it has even less aspiration than P in pot, and is thus less ideal to represent [pʰ]. Which does not mean that I recommend to use Clapham to approximate [p] :)
• Khanate has the same initial sound as kettle. So both are good in principle, but obivously, kettle is the more familiar word for most of our readers.

Please self-revert. –Austronesier (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Please let me know what is better than "prime" as an approxiation for [ɛː], what is better than "hot" as an approxiation for [ɔː] and what is better than "say" and "pain" as approxiations for [eː]?-1Firang (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I think, "horse" is a better approxiation for [ɔː] and shall change that but I will need your help for better approxiations for the other two International Phonetic Alphabets.-1Firang (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There is also दौरा/دورہ which may find an approxiation in "bout" - what International Phonetic Alphabets should be used for that (probably a diphthong)?-1Firang (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This mentions the IPA for "bout".-1Firang (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

So, the diphthong for it should be "aʊ"!-1Firang (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

For your information, I have changed the IPA for कैसा/کیسا to a diphtong (in which case, the IPA of prime matches).-1Firang (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Anupam, I hope you can also read all the above and comment.-1Firang (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding my two cents ^{(though I was not pinged)} and I agree. If the agreed transliteration standard is ISO 15919, then it should be followed. Having said that, there are some minor differences between the Hindi and Urdu forms (letters which can't be directly mapped to each other), and the ISO 15919 doesn't work for Urdu (though it supposedly does?). I'd love to get other users' opinions on this. I essentially swap to the ALA-LC standard where needed, for the Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have incorporated everything that Austronesier objected to. Can you go through this entire list once please?-1Firang (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well for one:

• Changing the ISO-transliteration of चोर and छोड़ना (c → ch, ch → chh) – that's not in accordance with the ISO 15919 standard. I'm not sure what the approximation debate is about, but I will leave that between you guys. نعم البدل (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done - 1Firang (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Mid vowels

Let's specifically discuss here the best way to approximate the close-mid and open-mid vowels [eː]/[ɛː]/[oː]/[ɔː]. Following the sources we also use in Hindustani phonology (which inspite of its name is a synoptic description of both Standard Hindi and Urdu), all of these are monophthongs, including [ɛː]/[ɔː]. There is some regional variation with the latter two, and diphthongs like [əi̯]/[əu̯] are also often heard, but not in the variety we describe here following Kachru, Ohala and many others. I presume that you have tried to emulate these diphthongs with the approximations prime and bout. But please do not take your personal pronunciation as a starting point, but rather the phonetic transcriptions and description from reliable scholarly sources. And obviously the monophthong [ɛː] is not the vowel sound in prime in any natively-spoken variety of English that I can think of.

So how to approximative them properly? That's a big problem in all keys for languages that distinguish close-mid vowels from open-mid vowels, since there are no ideal monophthongs in English for that purpose. E.g. the vowels in horse and fairy can range from close-mid to open-mid depending on accent. In contemporary southern British accents, they are pretty close, while in General American English, they are quite open. I'd rather wait for input from other editors, but one thing should be clear: English diphthongs as in prime and bout don't work. –Austronesier (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

And of course, نعم البدل, your input is very welcome here. –18:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Austronesier (talk)

@Austronesier: I will not restore what you removed because it will become an edit war but I protest. There is a diphthong "aʊ" which is used in दौरा/دورہ dourā in Hindi and Urdu and the best approximation for it is bout. With this edit, you changed, "prime" to "fairy" but did you not see the diphthong preceding the same (ʌi̯ )? That diphthong makes "fairy" a wrong approximation (and "prime" more appropriate).-1Firang (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In the Nepali IPA, the diphtong, "ʌu̯" with the example मौका (maukā) with the approximation, "about" has been used and we can use the same here (मौका) as it is used in Hindi and Urdu also in the same way (instead of दौरा/دورہ /dourā).-1Firang (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I missed that you had tampered with [ɛː].

The point is: this is not the Nepali key. Nor is it the Awadhi or Bhojpuri key. It's the key for Delhi-based Modern Standard Hindi, as well as for Urdu (which don't differ in their realization of the open-mid monophthongs). See Kachru (2006) and Ohala (1999). –Austronesier (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: कैसा is pronounced as kʌi̯saː and not kɛːsaː (ɛː is pronounced like in this article).-1Firang (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

कैसा is pronounced with an [ɛː]. I have already presented two reliable scholarly sources, and here is a third one by Mishra & Bali (2021):[1]. On page 1392 the authors write:

"In standard Hindi, historically two diphthongs /əi/ and /əu/ have transformed to monophthongs /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ respectively."

But since you obivously don't care about published scholarly sources (NB all sources are from Indian scholars), here's a blog page from an Indian scholar specialized in computational linguistics and who is also an expert on ancient and modern Indo-Aryan languages:[2]. He writes:

"The vr̥ddʰi vowels ऐ and औ were always diphthongs /äi̯ äu̯/ in Sanskrit. In Hindi we have reduced them to new monophthongs /ɛ ɔ/ that never existed in Sanskrit. The diphthong realisation is only retained before glides in MSH (e.g. भैया, कौवा). Bhojpuri keeps the diphthongs!"

So MSH (= Modern Standard Hindi) doesn't have these diphthongs (with the exception of words like भैया and कौवा). I am aware that dialectal realizations as diphthongs in all environments (i.e. not just before the corresponding glide/continuant) are very common, up to the point that people use them in Hindi pronunciation tutorial videos. But not in the standard variety that underlies this pronunciation key. –Austronesier (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I could find this for the correct pronunciation of कैसा - I will now leave it to you to change or not change the monophthong used for it at present, to the diphthong I had used for the same (with "prime" as an approximation).-1Firang (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The audio doesn't work(?) In any case, "correct" is a matter of definition. Here are two that conform with the standard pronunciation that is described in umpteen reliable sources: wikt:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/कैसा#Pronunciation, https://forvo.com/word/कैसा. I will make the change only if you can present a modern scholarly description that considers the realization as diphthong to be representative of the standard Hindi pronunciation. –Austronesier (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The audio (by 1firang) is TTS/machine-generated, and too fast – even Google Translate doesn't have the claimed pronunciation, neither with the Hindi TTS or Urdu TTS – or as the standard overall. I think it's fair to say the standard pronunciation doesn't involve a diphthong in words like کیسا / कैसा. نعم البدل (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Austronesier I found these on Wiktionary: wikt:kaisa and wikt:कैसा - the latter has an audio. It is beyond my abilities to find "scholarly sources" but if you give me a hint, I can try and search (you probably want only books).-1Firang (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:reliable sources, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But there's no need to try too hard when things are pretty clear from the literature gathered so far. And please don't start to fiddle with Help:IPA/Finnish...or why do you mention wikt:kaisa? –Austronesier (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Austronesier, for the monophthong "d", I prefer retaining the "the" as an approximation but changing "ado" to "derriere".-1Firang (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Quoting myself: Also, the "voiced" stops/affricates of English are often unvoiced in the two major native English varieties, and truly voiced only in medial position (hence budging rather that jail). To which I can add: hence ado rather than derriere. –Austronesier (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh! I just saw this reply by you. Okay, I will accept what you say. Can you look at the Nepali IPA talk page and reply there?-1Firang (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I suggest we replace "ado" with other (but dental) for the monophthong "d". What is your view?-1Firang (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You did not respond even after 3 days, so I have changed it.-1Firang (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This has an audio for you to hear.-1Firang (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This is another.-1Firang (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Austronesier, can we add भैया and कौवा with appropriate diphthongs to this Hindi+Urdu IPA help page?-1Firang (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've found that FACE is pretty much the only good option for the approximation to monophthongal [e] that contrasts with [ɛ]. For Help:IPA/French I advocated for using KIT, which can often be even lower than cardinal [e], especially in NAmE, but people found it too confusing. And for this key KIT is a non-option because there's also [ɪ]. FWIW NAmE speakers often perceive their FACE as monophthongal, though I rarely do except before velars (especially in "[for X's] sake").

For [o] we usually use NORTH/FORCE, as the horse/hoarse distinction is now rare and the quality tends to be between [o] and [ɔ], if not closer to [o] (as in modern RP). For [ɔ] we usually use CLOTH (and for [ɔː] a word with voiced coda and a nucleus with similar distribution to CLOTH, such as dog) because it's the closest to cardinal [ɔ] in both RP and various NAmE (the cot–caught merger typically results in [ɑ~ɔ]). Nardog (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog: I guess the realization of the FACE-vowel before a voiceless obstruent would be the least diphthongish one (as in "face") compared to the one heard in "name" or "day", or won't it make much of a difference? –Austronesier (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if so, it might be a good approximation to [e] but certainly not to [eː], because of pre-fortis clipping. FWIW I also try to avoid vowels adjacent to (especially before) nasals in approximations to (prototypically) oral vowels. Nardog (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: With this revert, you restored "tub (but dental)" as an approximation for the Hindi alphabet थ but it is wrong, while the other approximation that was there is correct, so please self revert your edit or provide a reliable source for the same.-1Firang (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No. — kwami (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: With this edit, Kwamikagami has restored "table (but dental)" as an approximation for "tʰ" (which I feel is wrong) but I think that it is more like an approximation for "ʈʰ". Any comments?-1Firang (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, that should be removed as an approximation (the other approximation, "thought" is fine).-1Firang (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Please provide one RS that the Hindustani sound is a fricative. — kwami (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Please listen to the pronunciation of the second word of the second audio at Hindustani_phonology and wikt:थ.-1Firang (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they're reliable sources, but I found this and this online.-1Firang (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Fricative. Do you know what a fricative is?

Do you even read the sources that you cite? Because they all contradict your claims. I'm starting to think that you must be a troll. — kwami (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I did read and understand the meaning of "fricative" when you mentioned it first. A troll according to this means, "someone who intentionally antagonises others" which I am not.-1Firang (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Then I don't understand why you would present to a sound recording showing that थ is a plosive as evidence that it is a fricative. You either don't understand what you're saying, or you're a troll. — kwami (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

According to this a plosive is similar to a fricative. If you want me to read something else, let me know. The point I am trying to make is that "tub (but dental)" as an approximation for the Hindi alphabet थ is wrong.-1Firang (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang: kindly tell us what are the place and manner of articulation of the following sounds:

1. The sound of Hindi थ.
2. The sound of "t" in "table/tub" in the major US/UK English varieties that we base our approximations on.
3. The sound of "th" in "thought" in the major US/UK English varieties that we base our approximations on.
4. The sound of "th" in "thought" in regional varieties English that have TH-stopping

Then tell us based on these observations which approximations come close or not, and why. –Austronesier (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

is how I think "t" is pronounced and

is how I think all the rest are pronounced. We have thought (with th-stopping but more plosive) now which I want to retain but I want to remove "table (but dental)" as an approximation for the Indic alphabet/glyph थ -1Firang (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't bring this discussion down to subjective guesswork. Just stick to phonetic features like the place and manner of articulation. It's not a quiz, but the only way to enable to maintain a descent level of objectivity. For place, the features are dental, alveolar, retroflex etc., for manner there are fricatives and plosives (among other things), and the latter further divided into aspirated and non-aspirated.

In the ANI thread, an editor aptly compared the attempt of contributiting to phonetic topics without knowledge of the universal transcription system IPA to doing chemistry without an understanding of the periodic table (you can still succeed by saying a certain element is yellow and stinks, but this method clearly has its limits).

So please tell us, what are the features of the four sounds listed above? –Austronesier (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Kwamikagami typed above that थ is a plosive (manner) and I also saw in other IPA help pages that it is "dental (place)", so it is both (pronounced in a fricative manner with a dental placement).-1Firang (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: So can we (preferably you) remove the "tub (but dental)" as an approximation for the alphabet/glyph थ ?-1Firang (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Why? Three points remain unanswered, including point 2 which is crucial in order to determine why "tub (but dental)" is bad/wrong/inaccurate (spoiler: it isn't). –Austronesier (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"tub (but dental)" would be like त not थ - do you perceive the difference?-1Firang (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

According to this a plosive is similar to a fricative. Which part of the link made you think that? Nardog (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It says: "a consonant sound that is made by stopping air flowing out of the mouth, and then suddenly releasing it" and at fricative, it says, "A fricative is a consonant produced by forcing air through a narrow channel made by placing two articulators close together.[1] These may be the lower lip against the upper teeth, in the case of [f]; the back of the tongue against the soft palate in the case of German [x] (the final consonant of Bach); or the side of the tongue against the molars, in the case of Welsh [ɬ] (appearing twice in the name Llanelli). This turbulent airflow is called frication." which I think is similar.-1Firang (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on your replies above, you seem to think that a sound can be both a plosive and fricative at the same time. If you in fact do, please tell us why. Nardog (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I said they seem to be similar (not the same) as the first says, "stopping air flowing out of the mouth, and then suddenly releasing it" and the second says, "consonant produced by forcing air through a narrow channel.....This turbulent airflow is called frication". Please let me know the difference.-1Firang (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Nardog, and Kwamikagami: The point I am trying to make is that the "th" of 'thought' is a good enough approximatiin for the alphabet/glyph थ - we don't need the "tub (but dental)" which should be removed as it may be confusing.-1Firang (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think that? [ʈʰ] and [ʂ] are also an aspirated plosive and a fricative at the same place of articulation. Do you think worship is a good enough approximation for the first sound in ठंड? Nardog (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog: Obviously, they pronounce "thought" with initial [t̪ʰ] in their northern Indian English accent and take this as a starting point for their approximation, apparently entirely unaware about the fact that the initial sound of "thought" is pronounced differently in all other varieties of English in the world (including southern Indian English where [t̪] is more frequently heard). That's also why they have come up with things like "English IPA" as if it were something different from the one and only IPA. The reason for this is that English teachers in India use UK accent-based IPA symbols, but exemplify them with Indian English sounds. E.g., English textbooks have [ð] for "they", but teachers pronounce it with a [d̪] as in दाल. So many people believe that IPA [ð] stands for a dental voiced stop (as witnessed in many amateur blogs and pronunciation tutorials on Youtube). It's a bit analogous to the common misuse of ⟨ʌ⟩ to transcribe [ɐ], but much more far-reaching. –Austronesier (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should do exactly that: फ is like fish, थ like thing, ठ like shrimp, and ख is like Chanukkah. That will be much clearer. Then 1Firang can move on to the mission they were called for: proselytizing to speakers of Urdu and Marathi that they pronounce their languages wrong, because they don't use those sounds like they're supposed to. (Actually, Marathi speakers do pronounce फ correctly, so we just need to teach Urdu (i.e. "Hindi") speakers that it should be pronounced as in Marathi.) — kwami (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

फ should have the approximation "pot" as it is now with the IPA "pʰ", फ़ should have the approximation "fuss" as it is now with the IPA "f", थ should have the approximation "thought" as it is now with the IPA tʰ, ठ should have the approximation "anthill" as it is now with the IPA ʈʰ, ख with the IPA "kʰ", should have the approximation "loch" as it is now used for the ख़ (IPA "x").-1Firang (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Nardog, and Broman178: Please comment about my suggestion above (7hrs 20minutes have passed and nobody has responded yet).-1Firang (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

7hrs 20minutes have passed and nobody has responded yet Wikipedia is an all-volunteer project. There is no set time for eliciting an answer. Implicitly putting up "deadlines" won't entitle to do unilateral changes after the "deadline" has elapsed. I don't know if that's your intention but I pre-emptive inform you about it.

As for your response request, here is my reply: If you don't substantiate your proposals with anything better that "I think, I want, it should, etc.", there is little to answer even after 7 days or 7 months. I'm getting tired of repeating it over and over again. There is a minimum standard of competence required for editing these IPA keys. –Austronesier (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Why don't you answer the question (which I asked above)?-1Firang (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted to before the recent edit-war, with a couple improvements since. Whatever further changes y'all think would be best ... — kwami (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References