<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 31 2008, 08:18 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 31 2008, 08:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Hindi it is written and said as "sach". So the evolution from "sath" to "sach" is one facet of the matter. In telugu how is it written, and is it sounded differently from what is written? And why only some have the pronunciation I mentioned? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In Telugu, it is not written "sachyam" only as "satyam", only some say "sachyam" most pronounce it as "satyam".
But in writing I have never seen "sachyam", as for write or wrong, i don't think there is such a thing although these so called Telugu teachers will mark you wrong if you write it as "sachyam", all languages have tadbhavas, Tamizh has many in particular.
Another example of this strange difference between written and spoken Telugu is the word "artham" for meaning, it's always written as that but most Telugu speakers pronounce it as "ardham".
Telugu also lacks a letter that Sanskrit has, i don't know how to put it in Roman script, so that is why shatru in Sanskrit becomes setruvu (enemy) and shava becomes sevam (deadbody).
[right][snapback]77868[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you are saying technically it is incorrect, but it is prevalent among some telugu speakers.
01-31-2008, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 01-31-2008, 09:56 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So you are saying technically it is incorrect, but it is prevalent among some telugu speakers. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally don't consider it incorrect but yes in writing it is considered incorrect to write it as sachyam (for example in exams etc).
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 31 2008, 11:24 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 31 2008, 11:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So you are saying technically it is incorrect, but it is prevalent among some telugu speakers. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally don't consider it incorrect but yes in writing it is considered incorrect to write it as sachyam (for example in exams etc).
[right][snapback]77875[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the problem on hand, I too do not consider it incorrect or correct, but just a way of how some people pronounce certain sounds. But my friend is looking at this from a stricter sense.
Some others argue that a correct pronunciation is necessary for people to understand, and audience who are not exposed to such diverse pronunciation can get confused. Hence they argue that it is incorrect.
Like you say, in exams the teacher might mark it wrong; but in a non-academic setting we can not look at it as a right or wrong. On second thoughts, even in an academic setting wouldn't lingual experts have insights on how dialects and languages evolve and rise?
What I am trying to do is to see if I am wrong in the position that I have taken.
01-31-2008, 11:17 PM (This post was last modified: 01-31-2008, 11:27 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some others argue that a correct pronunciation is necessary for people to understand, and audience who are not exposed to such diverse pronunciation can get confused. Hence they argue that it is incorrect.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is not a big issue, a non Telugu person might not know it, even until a week ago I have never heard "sachyam", someone said that recently to me and I understood it as "satyam" as soon as he said it.
Afterall that is how dialects are formed, in Rayalaseema they say Pendli for marriage while in Andhra they say PeLLi but both understand each other.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Like you say, in exams the teacher might mark it wrong; but in a non-academic setting we can not look at it as a right or wrong. On second thoughts, even in an academic setting wouldn't lingual experts have insights on how dialects and languages evolve and rise?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But do you really think these so called teacher's have such deep linguistic knowledge, if they did Telugu wouldn't be in the pathetic state it is today with the morons using English half the time (the teacher should emphasise purity of language at least in the Telugu class).
The reality is that many of them are not such experts which is why they mark it as wrong. I know because I had such a bunch of pathetic teachers for my Hindi and Telugu classes.
Your friend is wrong, because I asked people about "sachyam" and they say some people use it, so it's not like some individual person mispronouncing it in which case it would make sense to say it's wrong. The only reason people claim it is wrong is because it is not used in writing, it is no different from Sanskrit Brahmana becoming Baapana/BEmmadu (Paarppanan in Tamizh is related to this) in Telugu but those are considered right because they can be used in writing.
The reason for some of these dual forms are the prAkR^it. Both Telugu and Tamil were, right from their early history, influenced by southern prAkR^its. The closest literary relative of these prakR^its is maharAShTri prAkR^it. This prAkR^it shares several derived transformations with the northern prAkR^its that eventually formed the base for the Hindi dialects.
Of these we have:
(truth) satya>sachya>saccha (hence even in tamil we hear both satyaM and sachyaM)
(Brahmin) brAhmaNa>bAbhan or bAman
(the daal) mudga>mU~ng>mUg
(anger) krodha>kOdha>koha
(auspicious) shubha>subha>suha
(nail) nakha>naha
(sharp) tikShNa>tIkkha
(black) kR^iShNa>kaNha
These are some cases where both the older saMskR^ita and prAkR^ita forms are seen in the base of Hindi-s, Maharatti, and the Dravidian languages of the South.
Tamil has a tendency (mainly in literary form) to reintroduce some tendencies similar to hyper-sanskritization:
Thus bAbhAn>pApAn>pArpAn
or even purely drAviDa words:
(daal) pappu>paruppu
02-01-2008, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2008, 07:23 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
For sometime a few words have come into my mind that could be equivalent to the English words we use in Telugu, these include:
1) Internet = Antarvala (Antar = Inter, Vala = Net)
2) Radio = MinnuvaaNi, NingivaaNi
3) Answering Machine = Badulu Yantram
4) Antibody = EdhuroLLu
5) Mouse (of computer) = Eluka
6) Washing Machine = Uthuku Yantram
7) University = Ilabadi (I am aware that Viswavidyalayam is already used in writing but that maybe too long, Ila = Earth, Badi = School)
8) Website = ValachOtu, Valathaavu (Web should actually be goodu but that's also used for nest, so i avoided it)
9) Volcano = Nippukonda, Nippumala (Agniparvatam is used but that may soon become too long, so these could be added to the vocabulary)
10) Submarine = DongOda (I found this here http://www.sahiti.org/dict/index.jsp?engWord=submarine )
11) Camera = BommagrahiNi (this I feel is a bit long and can be shortened)
12) Sea lion (the animal) = Kadali singham
13) Printer = Mudrakam, Acchari (the 2nd word I am not sure is valid gramatically, i simple extrapolated from the fact that teerpari used for Judge while teerpu is used for judgement)
14) Lie Detector Test = Kalla Kanugonu/Pasikattu Pareeksha
15) Football = Kaalbanthi
16) Beach = Isakoddu (the words in Telugu are for sea shore, not specifically for a beach and beaches exist without sea, so isaka = sand and oddu = shore could be used)
17) Trustee = Nammakari/Nammari (modeled on teerpari)
I will add any more that may come into my mind later by editing this post.
No language can survive without some borrowal, but to me borrowal should only be done when your own language (and then Sanskrit also) cannot be relied upon to create an equivalent word that is usable in speech (for example due to being too long).
In coming up with those words, i decided that the words have to be very short (translating printer as mudraNa yantram is no good because it will never catch on for being too long, so a shorter word has to be found) and Telugu words that are used in speech have to be used since simply copying from Sanskrit will only make it harder for them to catch on.
Finally the idea that Telugu cannot create words is nonsense and an excuse for lazyness and inaction of the so called Telugu "scholars", as I have shown above it's very much possible if only people apply their brains a little and stop worshipping English.
Hauma Hamiddha:
What you and Bharatvarsh are doing is explaining the evolution of languages. But when one writes 'Satyam Computers', is it considered right or wrong for someone to say 'Sachyam Computers'?
An argument from my friends is that when one is conversing in English, then one needs to stick to the commonly accepted and understandable pronunciations from the English language's framework. Hence 'Sachyam' is wrong as it is written in Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil and in English as 'Satyam'.
For example the standard spelling for the lanuage tamil is "TAMIL". Is it right or wrong to pronounce it as tamizh with the 'zha' sound?
02-02-2008, 03:51 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2008, 04:03 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What you and Bharatvarsh are doing is explaining the evolution of languages. But when one writes 'Satyam Computers', is it considered right or wrong for someone to say 'Sachyam Computers'?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That again depends on the person, I do not consider it wrong but some might, there is no unanimous answer to that question.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An argument from my friends is that when one is conversing in English, then one needs to stick to the commonly accepted and understandable pronunciations from the English language's framework. Hence 'Sachyam' is wrong as it is written in Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil and in English as 'Satyam'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But your friends don't seem to realise that within English itself there are so many differences in pronounciation, in UK they say "zero" but in NA they say "O", in Bharat they say "zed" here they say "zee", how can one be right and the other wrong?
Don't they themselves pronounce many words in English like other Indians, while in N.America they are said differently, does that mean they & the British are mistaken in their English and only the Americans are right?
To take an example, many in Bharat say "environment" but here they also use "en+y+ronment", ask them which is right.
Actually rather than ask them, tell them that they are pronouncing it wrong and that they should learn to pronounce things as they do in America and see their reaction.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For example the standard spelling for the lanuage tamil is "TAMIL". Is it right or wrong to pronounce it as tamizh with the 'zha' sound? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 2nd way is also a valid way to say it (I cannot myself pronounce that alphabet, to me it sounds like soft "d", that is why Chozha became Choda in Telugu). Many Tamizh's also cannot seem to be able to say it, they convert it into "L" like me.
HH, I was wondering if you could invite me to your blog which I've been following for a long time until the problems you had with it. My email for approval is jaihindurastra1 @ yahoo dot com
02-02-2008, 11:25 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2008, 11:26 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
Swamy- I am in agreement with BV 's take on this issue. I think the possessor of a proper name like a company or a personal name can insist on or demand a particular pronunciation. But enforcing it is not possible for dialect differences are a fact of a languages. Of course in the case of literary languages like Tamil one can point to a correct standard as opposed to a vulgar dialect. But the latter is still a natural development and likely to prevail among its speakers.
However, due to lacking certain consonants Tamil tends to develop pronunciations that are largely unacceptable in other languages (e.g. ka/kha/ga/gha all merging). So such words if pronounced outside of Tam in that style are wrong in the context of the other language.
As for the "zh" in Tamil (or Tamizh) it is part of the peculiar linguistic evolution in the sub-continent cutting across linguistic superfamilies:
The following sounds are homologized in the sub-continent and may acquire any of the given values:
R*<->Dha/Da<->La<->zha
* a sound as in Hindi laDka=boy
In the R^igvedic dialect we have La as in iLA. In the yajurvedic dialect it is IDA. In the Nambuthiri RV and SV recitation we here zha for La as in Tamil.
Pandyan The blog will remain in wordpress until any change is announced.
02-02-2008, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2008, 01:17 PM by Bodhi.)
I feel puzzled about some particular predominant consonents missing in some of the languages.
Like 'h' in Tamil - becomes 'g'. (mahesh becomes magesh)
At times as it comes out, even some tamil friends of mine find it hard to really pronounce the sound of 'h', like I find it hard to pronounce 'Zh' of Tamil/marathi.
in Bangla, likewise 'va' is *kind of* missing. not really missing, but it dominated by either 'ba', 'bha' or most commenly 'u+a'
other is, pronounciation of the first varna of the last name of Sachin Tendulkar amongst telugu-s. 'T' as in number <b>t</b>en is the common telugu pronounciation of Ten-dulkar that I come across amongst telugu friends, whereas rest of us pronounce it as 't' like in <b>t</b>elugu. they even pronounce 'Tamil' with hard 'T' (à¤) instead of 't' (त) as in '<b>t</b>elugu'.
I feel all of these are part of the accent related phonetic deviations from one place to the other. as they say in awadhi: 'sATha kosa pai pAnI badalai, ATha kosa pai vAnI' : ground-water changes every 60 kosa (1/3 of a mile?), whereas accent changes at every eight kosa.
02-02-2008, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2008, 07:23 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->other is, pronounciation of the first varna of the last name of Sachin Tendulkar amongst telugu-s. 'T' as in number ten is the common telugu pronounciation of Ten-dulkar that I come across amongst telugu friends, whereas rest of us pronounce it as 't' like in telugu. they even pronounce 'Tamil' with hard 'T' (à¤) instead of 't' (त) as in 'telugu'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right about the Tendulkar name pronounciation.
But for Tamizh though all the people I know use "t" including myself, maybe others don't but I haven't heard it yet.
Also from what I heard the "Dravidianist" nutters done some crappy reforms with the Tamizh script where they took out certain words as not native to Tamizh, so sundar is now written as chundar or something, i don't know how true this is but maybe Swamy G can enlighten us.
Also HH, is the "zha" unique to Tamizh and Malayalam as far as you know or did the other South languages have it but dropped it in course of time?
Bharatvarsh:
Believe me I tried convincing them and used certain examples from English. It is just that I am doing a poor job.
They accept there are variances in English pronunciation, for example the famous "go" and "do". But it is the standard way, and an English speaking person understands it.
Hauma:
The core differentiation that my friends are making is that they understand that such pronunciations exist and will prevail, but fundamentally it is wrong.
All:
I always used to wonder by "Balaram Jakkadd" was written in English as "Balaram Jakkar". Why does the "d" sound is sometimes written as "r" in English?
Bodhi:
Your Tendulkar example could be a "vara prasadam" for me :-). As a tamilian I say it as "Ten"dulkar because that is how I see it written in English and hear many pronounce it. Do you know how a Maharashtrian would say it? Do they say it as (त)ndulkar or (à¤)ndulkar?
Bodhi can you enlighten me about this person?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The early twentieth century also marked the deliberate creation and crystallization of Hindi speakers' identity mediated through Hindi curriculum and texts. At this point, the contribution of Acharya Ramchandra Shukla, a teacher at the BHU, is worth mentioning. For, he not only shaped the format of the syllabi of Hindi but also "defined the heritage of Hindi language and literature in a manner that few have dared to quarrel with" (Kumar 1990: 180). His book Hindi Sahitya Ka Itihas ('History of Hindi Literature'), first published in 1929, gave a distinct Hindi identity to the Hindi heritage:
It is my opinion that Hindi and Urdu are two very different languages. The Hindus of this country speak Hindi, while Muslims and those Hindus who have studied Persian speak Urdu. Sanskrit words abound in Hindi as Arabic and Persian words abound in Urdu. There is no necessity to use Arabic and Persian words in speaking Hindi, nor do I call that language Hindi, which is filled with Persian and Arabic words (Ramchandra Shukla, quoted in King 1994: 23).
The deliberate construction of Hindi-Hindu identity has been rightly highlighted by Kumar, when he says:
Shukla went well beyond the territory of the literary historian, and took a strong ideological position indicating the irrelevance of the Urdu-Persian tradition for the development of modern Hindi. He ignored major Urdu poets of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in his otherwise meticulous chronology⦠In an autobiographical essay, Shukla had written that his father had good knowledge of Persian and he used to enjoy mixing lines of Persian poetry with the lines written by Hindi poet. Ramchandra Shukla gave no signs, either in his history or in his other prolific works of literary criticism, of having either taste or tolerance for this kind of mixture. By denying the literary works written in the mixed Hindi-Urdu tradition a valid place and status in Hindi's literary history, he performed a decisive symbolic act in shaping the cultural identity of college/educated men and women for generations. The identity Shukla gave to the Hindi heritage was a distinct Hindu identity. His appreciation of a Muslim poet like Jaisi, and his acknowledgement of the achievement of Premchand, who symbolized the confluence of Hindi and Urdu at a time when the two had traveled far apart, made little difference to this. (Kumar 1990:180)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Feb 2 2008, 07:22 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Feb 2 2008, 07:22 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also HH, is the "zha" unique to Tamizh and Malayalam as far as you know or did the other South languages have it but dropped it in course of time?
[right][snapback]77954[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BV,etc., I remember reading this somewhere on the web: the last alphabet in Telugu (called the bandee-raa) comes from the zha in Tamil. Today we pronounce it as identical to the "ra", but it was not always the case.
As always, please do not take my word as authoritative.
