Project India centric Localisation of IPA

If real purpose of using these standard is know correct pronounciation of the word and checking up possibilities of automatic transalations then source of a sound whether it is tounge or teeth or lips or throat and how sound is being produced and that to be written in standard uniform format to its purest form is necessary then why do we dilute standards from IPA to IAST just for convinience.Factualy I am not comfortable with IPA not because it is defficult but because 1) is best in internationalisation but still not comprehensive enough to take care of all Indian pronounciations 2) and secondly we would be more comfortable with its IPA's Bramhi/Devanagari based Indian version (Mahitgar १८:१७, २ नवम्बर २००७ (UTC))

Some time ago I was proposing a phonetic Devanagari system similar to ITRANS/IAST for Roman, for Indic pronunciations. In India-related pages in the English wikipedia, they use both IPA and ITRANS so that people who don't know IPA can get the correct pronunciation easily. Though Devanagari is more or less phonetic, yet there are some issues, like different pronunciation in Hindi and Sanskrit, and also lack of some letters used in other Indian languages. Please see this page- http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stone-catend/trind.htm . It gives ISO standards. So can we go ahead with this? Maquahuitl

Dear Maquahuitl

Actualy I have not understood what you meant by ध्वन्यात्मक देवनागरी clearly .Here at Hindi,Marathi,Sanskrit and Nepal Bhasha Wikipedia this terminology is used for Devanagari Input system to be used for atual typing in local languages here.

But IPA is a different concept and this different concept also can be reffered as ध्वन्यात्मक देवनागरी so what exactly do you mean by ध्वन्यात्मक देवनागरी

If you mean the first option as you want to add devenagari input system like what is here at Hindi Wikipedia ,Frankly I will request you to hold on your proposal for a while until Marathi Wiktionary and SanskritWikipedia become fully comfortable and indipendant to include their suggestions .Marathi Wikipedia is still not fully comfortable and some of the devanagari input problems faced by Marathi and Sanskrit writers are not properly comprehended by people with Hindi background

If you meant the second thing that is a system equivalent to IPA then let every language system let be different like ध्वन्यात्मक हिन्दी , ध्वन्यात्मक मराठी, ध्वन्यात्मक नेपालभाष, ध्वन्यात्मक संस्कृत and not the comon heading ध्वन्यात्मक देवनागरी the practical reason being while we all four use same script accent and pronounciations differe widely in practice with all these four languages.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar १५:५२, २६ अक्टूबर २००७ (UTC)

Friend, I am sure that you know about IPA. Now IPA is pretty complex and so it is not easy to learn it fully. So the linguists devise local methods to represent regional sounds in the Latin alphabet. Eg. Pinyin for China and ITRANS for India. I am talking about the pronunciation help that we give at the beginning of an article.

In the same way, in Hindi articles, we give the IPA pronunciation, but for easy understanding we can also have a notation in Devanagari to represent almost all Indian sounds, many of which might not be in Hindi. This system was what I was trying to call ध्वन्यात्मक देवनागरी। Maquahuitl

Maquahuitl

Thanks atlast I got to know fellow Inian WIkipedian who knows concerned and interested on this subject.First of all let me admit I apreciated philosophy behind IPA but could not comprehend the same fully.

If I go wrong please do correct my impression that IPA format is most advanced as per latest linguistic progress.

I would love we have devanagari based system rather than Latin based system for IPA format , But it must remain compatible and progressive with each latest development in International IPA format should take care of not only all Indian linguistic nuances/charecterstics but also all world languages in the same way of IPA.

One of my concerns with ISO code] suggested by you is that

the same is too old and not updated since 2002
Does not give exact compatibility with IPA
Does not take enough care about difference and uniqueness in some of Marathi Languae Charecterstics , takes many indian dialects and accents for granted.
I personally belive Wikimedia Foundation should have Indian Chapter that will invest in technology and support Indian Wikipedia projects on priority.
Untill then we should carry out discussion in creating and improving Devanagari based IPA code which takes also a clue from ISO code suggested by you.

I am not a linguist by any level so please do parden and guide me if I go wrong some where in my perceptions.

Mahitgar १७:३२, ३० अक्टूबर २००७ (UTC)

Friend, what I am recommending is not a replacement for IPA. Have a look at the English article Krishna. The first line is: "Krishna (कृष्ण in Devanagari, kṛṣṇa in IAST, pronounced /'kɹ̩ʂ.ɳə/ in classical Sanskrit)". See that they have written three spellings: Devanagari(basically of the language concerning the name), IPA(because it is the universal pronunciation language) and IAST(a unique Roman script coding only for Indic names so that people who don't know IPA can easily take it up and understand the pronunciation). In the same way, for a Hindi article, we will have three spellings along with the title: IPA(same as English),topic language(if it is a Malayalam city, then give the name in Malayalam script and so on) and a third one- phonetic devanagari which is parallel to IAST but in Devanagari instead of being in Roman. Again this will only be related to Indic names. So we need to collect as many Indian sounds as possible and define a convention of representing them in Devanagari. In fact it is already there; there is something called an ISO standard which represents a lot of sounds of other Indian languages in Devanagari using dots etc. I am just saying that we should finalise this. Maquahuitl

May be we start with what you are suggesting but even in that I do have a few querries

Does Unicode support the standard you are reffering to ?
What new things we may need to introduce if already not available and its unicode compatibility ?
How far it will get accepted inter Indian langage wikiprojects?
In case avarage Indian neither understands IAST nor ISO then why not to go over to IPA itself or else we will find some limitations with IAST and we will need to search anew wheel parellel to IPA?

Mahitgar १६:२४, १ नवम्बर २००७ (UTC)

1. Yes it does. Or else how will it get ISO certification.

2. Nothing is needed. A lot of letters are just typed using a dot below another existing letter. I use baraha and I can do it easily; eg. even below ट, that is ट़ etc.

3. I don't understand this question.

4. No. IPA is much difficult to learn. Compare that with this system where you just have to learn a few more letters in Devanagari, eg. ळ, ऴ, ज़ and so on. Pronunciation of the rest will be pretty much the same as in Sanskrit. Maquahuitl

Dear Maquahuitl,

I have lingustic point of difference and concern here ;With the new advancement in Marathi Language gramatical studies only adding of a nukta will not be sufficient enough to note differencesin pronounciation.

As you are aware इ s longer pronounciation is ई and उ s longer pronounciation is ऊ

But most of Modern Marathi gramarins agree that अ s longer pronounciation is not आ ; ए s longer pronounciation is not ऐ; ओ s longer pronounciation is not औ This technicality renders system being suggested by you in adequate , Why:

For example you take word "गवत" without having स्वर I can write and pronounce as ग् व् त् So this possible to write!

'अ' स्वरके एकही वर्ण चिन्ह होकर भी एक से अधिक उच्चारण होते है.

- "गवत" शब्दामे 'ग' मे 'अ' का पूर्णोच्चार होता है.
- 'व' मे 'अ' का उच्चारण लंबा होता है;
- 'त' मे 'अ' का उच्चारण अपूर्णोच्चार, निभृत स्वरुपाका होता है.यंहा 'त' मे 'अ' स्वर सम्मिलीत है लेकीन उच्चारण अपूर्णता का भासमान प्रतीत होता है
- "सहल","सफल","चपल" यह शब्द और ऐसेही औरभी शब्द विभीन्न उच्चारोसे प्रभावित है । इन फरको का प्रभाव बतलाने के लिए नुक्त चिन्ह का उपयोग संभव नही है क्यूंकी फ अक्षरके इस प्रकार पांच उच्चार हो सकते है

१)फ् जीसमे स्वर का अभाव है २) फ संपूर्ण उचार complete pronounciation 3) फ अपूर्णोच्चार, निभृत short pronounciation 4) फ दीर्घ लंबा long pronounciation 5) फ प्रदीर्घ अती लंबा very long pronounciation specialy happens on last alphabate in a word used in Indian Classical Music and also when some one calls a persons name this we write in Marathi "आरीफSSSSSS

simillerly above five separate and additional pronounciations will happen for फ़ with nukta

So effectively that means I do not have any sign in the system suggested by you for following two types

3) फ अपूर्णोच्चार, निभृत short pronounciation 4) फ दीर्घ लंबा long pronounciation

Simillarly there are 2 more स्वर in Marathi which usualy go unrecognised by people who donot have deep gramatical background there is word देव' can be pronounced as dev so also it can be pronounced as in deo this pronounciation of deo in Marathi in between देव ,देऊ and देओ but actualy it is none of them and is indipendant स्वर. Smiller one more स्वर in Marathi Language comes in word pao which is usualy written as in पाव

but is actual pronounciation of pao' (eg.देवा मला पाव; हे ईश्वर मुझसे प्रसन्न हो) is different स्वर than that of वडापाव ; here in pronounciation of पाव as in वडापाव व is pronounced completely and there is no स्वर

The system proposed by you is not only missing on above aspects there are several unanswered aspects that includes issues of

संयूक्त स्वर
issue of sankrit two different prononciations of कंस where devnagari script is in adequate to write both prononciations of कं separately
Usualy where anusvara is there common perception is that it is वर्णसंधी of respective alphabate and alphabate म् but actualy that may be a वर्णसंधी with ङ or ञ so How do you depict these pronounciations in system proposed by you
How system suggested by you will inform me that the pronounciation is coming from which of the following उच्चारस्थानः कंठ ,जीव्हा ,टालू ,ओष्ठ etc.

आघात: जिन अक्षरोपर बात करते समय अधिक वजन दबाव या अक्षर जोर से बोले जाने की संभावना होती है। यह संभावना ौसी अक्षरके लिए अलग शब्द मे अलग हो सकती है।
काळ in Marathi has got three totally meanings which are only understood from different pronounciation of ळ in काळ.These pronounciations are ळ are different than length of pronounciation one काळ

means black colour second काळ means time and third one काळ means death । तोंड काळ कर ; काही काळ-वेळ नाही ;काळ आला होता पण वेळ आली नव्हती

In MarathI language previous to 1962 people used to write words like काळ as काळं (as colour) to differentiate specific pronounciation but this practice had to be stopped because काळं (as colour) pronounciation had no anunasik अं in the same but was being written and used to create confusion.
Another problem while denoting old Marathi and to quite a big percentage about kokani language is that quite a number of word are spoken through nose but does not have anunasik per say .As a writing practice they give anusvara but this does create a new person trying to read the devenagari of konkani although it is as same as Marathi or Hindi .A kokani person will write word बेळगाव as बेळगांव while writing he is writing anusvara in strict gramatical sense it is not anusvara but a nasal tone

I would have more no of querries and concerns ,I will return back soon on the same with proper Marathi Gramatical authority refferenc book with pronounciations involving ह ख् घ् छ झ थ ध य र ळ् and also be reddy for more querries may be coming from people with different Indian dialects.

All this is not to discourage you but if we have to implement a new system that needs to be taking care of all possible concerns for better apeal uasge and practice.

Now one will say is realy that why do we need a pure phonetic standardisation and why wikipedians need to be cconcerned about the same.

My answer is with wikipedia technology transalations from across the world languages are becoming just easily possible a reader who wants to know exact pronounciationshould get to know exact pronounciation but not only that if standardisation can make me know three different meanings of say marathi word काळthen only to and fro automatic translation would be possible so we do have need of standardisation.

If real purpose of using these standard is know correct pronounciation of the word and checking up possibilities of automatic transalations then source of a sound whether it is tounge or teeth or lips or throat and how sound is being produced and that to be written in standard uniform format to its purest form is necessary then why do we dilute standards from IPA to IAST just for convinience.Factualy I am not comfortable with IPA not because it is defficult but because 1) is best in internationalisation but still not comprehensive enough to take care of all Indian pronounciations 2) and secondly we would be more comfortable with its IPA's Devanagari based Indian version

thanks and regards

Mahitgar १८:१७, २ नवम्बर २००७ (UTC)

Are you sure the above indic notation is supported by unicode? If so, can you type some of the characters here? when one system exists in latin script (be it IPA or ITRANS). I dont see any need for devanagari based notion because that requires people to learn to devanagari script. I agree IPA is a bit complex. Hence for the sole reason ITRANS was developed to give it an indian touch.

Even if you develop such a notation. It is highly unlikely to be included in unicode as they wont entertain newly developed characters (see unicode inclusion policies) --Dunnob 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ए and ओ is not ह्रस्व

ए s longer pronounciation is not ऐ; ओ s longer pronounciation is not औ

ए and ओ are not itself a short pronunciation(ह्रस्व), to consider ऐ and औ as longer pronunciations.

Ujjwol

ए and ओ is not ह्रस्व

See Also