Talk:Devanagari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

If you can read this script, you may add yourself to Category:User Deva by using Template:User iso15924.

Contents 1 Aramaic? 2 Initial talk 3 Reverting unexplained, AFAICS unnecessary move to Devanagari_alphabet 4 fatter tables 5 fatter table, attempt two 6 Pictures needed 7 conjuncts 8 speaking of conjuncts... 9 Devanagari/Tamil text support? 10 Ligatures 11 Ligatures vs. Conjuncts 12 article content (too computer/Unicode oriented) 13 Bhujimol 14 Article title should use usual English spelling 15 another table 16 pronunciation/transcription of the name (long final i? which language?) 17 Transcription 18 Transliteration 19 IPA is wrong 20 images 21 give each letter an article 22 Hindi-centric attitude on ळ? 23 Pronounciation Info 24 Relevant Link 25 Superfluous Sentence 26 I need help. 27 Seeking help and contribution 28 New Wiktionary logos 29 Vowel table 30 To all the contributors involved in this Project 31 Saccidānanda vigraha 32 IPA vowels 33 Normalization of use of IAST tag 34 pha? 35 Sound of य़ 36 :[ 37 Pronunciation variations 38 english "th" sound? 39 english "f" and "v" sounds? 40 the top bar? 41 A "how to" referral 42 Devanagari request 43 Handwriting 44 size 45 Common and uncommon letters 46 Fair use rationale for Image:Devanagari-qwerty-layout-option.jpg 47 Fair use rationale for Image:Devanagari-qwerty-layout.jpg 48 Requested Move 49 Font 50 The table in Devanāgarī#Conjuncts 51 fix the infobox

[edit] Aramaic?

Everything about "aramaic" in the langage tree is highly disputable.

[edit] Initial talk

Article does not say if this script is writen left-to-right or right-to-left. I am assuming this is because of cultural bias on the part of the writer and it is left-to-right, only implied. But it would be nice if someone knowledgeable edited the entry and deleted this comment (or left a changelog in its stead).

---

I grew up speaking Hindi, but oftentimes a native speaker cannot explain the subtleties of a language and its pronunciation as well as a scholar can. To that end, can someone confirm whether the following explanation of the ण sound (as the "t" in "hunter") is accurate? ण (ṇ) / ɳə /; American Eng: hunter

As far as I know, there's nothing in English that can approximate the ण sound; the best way that I could transliterate it (since I don't know IPA) is "rdna." This is weak, at best, but I'm not quite sure how else to write it.

--vedantm

---

Added alternative spellings for keyword searches.

---

I removed "Devnagiri" because I've never seen it being used and it's wrong anyway. -- Soam Vasani

---

I moved the entry to the more common spelling which is more in accord with lossless transcription (disregarding vowel length) -- HJH

---

It would be nice to have some elaboration on the [ITRANS notation]? transliteration scheme. Some information is at [1] -- HJH

The official site is [2] and many examples can be found at [3]. -- Soam Vasani

---

Added Unicode representations of the letters, formatted everything into tables hopefully preserving the meaningful columns/rows for the consonants. I don't speak or read Hindi; for letters where I wasn't 100% certain, they are without Unicode representations. A native speaker should fix that. -- Nate Silva

---

What's the difference between halant and virama? -phma

According to Unicode, they are the same. - Nate Silva

---

Why was this renamed to Devanagari script from the simple title Devanagari? --Brion 01:25 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

It seemed like a good idea for consistency's sake. In most cases a script and a language share a name, e.g. Gujarati language and Gujarati script. Of course in this case there is no ambiguity, so move it back if you like - I don't have my heart set on it or anything. User:Mkweise 01:50 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ;) Where there is no ambiguity, the clearest and simplest name is generally preferred. Just plain Devanagari will be perfectly consistent with katakana, hiragana, kanji, hangul etc. --Brion

Alright then, what is the preferred way of dealing with existing links pointing to e.g. Devangari_alphabet? #Redirect or find and change all the links? The article Alphabet blindly links to Xyz alphabet, which in many cases is not strictly correct. Sanskrit terms generally seem to require lots of #redirects, as there are so many possible ways to transliterate (e.g. Devanagari vs. Devangari.) Mkweise 04:08 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

I've fixed the 'Devangari alphabet' redirect to work. The only thing that presently uses it (other than the mention here and a mention in Wikipedia:Editing bug reports) is Alphabet, which as you say could use some general cleaning up. However, until that's done that link does get here, so there's no rush. (Some people like to get rid of all uses of redirects in links from other pages in the wiki; I don't think it's a very pressing issue, as long as one ensures they all work properly.) --Brion 05:01 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

I moved the external link for fonts to the "External Links" section, where such things belong, but User:Mkweise moved it back. I don't think this is correct, as the "External Links" section is there for a reason. I would like to move the link to its rightful place.- Kricxjo 09:30 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You had separated the link from the instructions requiring it; that's why I'd moved it back. But if it really bothers you *that* much there, I'll just move the instructions to a new article at How to get Wikipedia pages containing Devanagari characters to display correctly in your browser. Mkweise 19:54 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems (ed. Florian Coulmas, 1996) says about Devanagari (p. 125) that it has 48 letters, 13 vowels and 35 consonants. Where does the difference to the WP article come from? --Hirzel 13:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

>> 'u' as in put / 'oo' as in soot << These vowels are identical in English.

Would "'oo' as in root" not be a better illustration of the second vowel? -- EiA

---

"devanagaarii" was written as "devanaagari" in the devanagari script title, I have corrected it. I have added also an external link to the unicode chart.

---

In the "etymology" section, deva was translated as "divine, deity". However, in classical Sanskrit (as opposed to Vedic) deva is in general use as a noun; the corresponding adjective would be daiva. Hence "divine" was deleted.

---

Any reason why this sentence is in the past tense?

"In Sanskrit, words were written together without spaces, so that the top bar is unbroken, although there were some exceptions to this rule."

Sanskrit is still very much alive.

Also, wouldn't it be appropriate to mention the rules of sandhi? This seems to imply that the reason behind the 'unbroken top bar' is aesthetic or something.

What's meant seems to be that in early history of Devanagari, no spaces were used, but once the concept of words being separate came via English, it became more common to use spaces in Sanskrit (or something like that). I think sandhi is mentioned, but I'll check.--Siva 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The rules for this are clearly defined in Panini, which predates any contact with the English language by more than 2000 years, and they still apply today. Whether or not these rules are observed in Hindi is another issue. My main objection is that the original statement refers to Sanskrit in the past tense.

[edit] Reverting unexplained, AFAICS unnecessary move to Devanagari_alphabet

Devanagari is technically not an alphabet - so if you see a need to disambiguate Devanagari, the proper place to move this article would be Devanagari_script. If you do see such a need, please discuss it here before moving things about. Mkweise 00:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is too an alphabet:

• http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=devanagari&x=15&y=15
• List of alphabets
• List of writing systems
• Alphabet

The reason I felt it necessary to move it there was because that is where I expected it to be:

• Latin alphabet
• Greek alphabet
• Cyrillic alphabet
• Arabic alphabet
• Hebrew alphabet
• Kannada alphabet
• Malayalam alphabet
• Tamil alphabet
• ...
• Devanagari alphabet

etc. And it's not really a question of disambiguation, it's a question of clarity. It's clear in an instant that this is or isn't the article in question if you use the full name "Devanagari alphabet" Nohat 02:07, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

Scroll up a bit, and you'll see how I was educated by Brion when I made a very similar arguement 14 months ago.

Devanagari consonants have an inherent vowel, so it's technically an abugida rather than an alphabet (phonemic script). Some sources, such as omniglot, use the term alphasyllabary instead of abugida. Mkweise 03:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] fatter tables

I am trying to make a table which organised the devanagari phonetically, while still retaining the dictionary order. however, this is my first time making a table, and i don't think it looks so good. what do you think?

Devanagari constants

	Unvoiced	Voiced	Nasal
Velar Palatal Retroflex Dental Labial	unaspirated aspirated क KA k k ख KHA kh kh च ChA c tʃ छ CHhA ch tʃh ट TTA ṭ ʈ ठ TTHA ṭh ʈh त TA t t̪ थ THA th t̪h प PA p p फ PHA ph ph	unaspirated aspirated ग GA g g घ GHA gh gɦ ज JA j dʒ झ JHA jh dʒɦ ड DDA ḍ ɖ / ɽ ढ DDHA ḍh ɖɦ / ɽɦ द DA d d̪ ध DHA dh d̪ɦ ब BA b b भ BHA bh bɦ	ङ NGA ṅ ŋ ञ NYA ñ ɲ ण NNA ṇ ɳ न NA n n̪ म MA m m

I'm having trouble getting the Velar/Palatal/Retroflex/Dental/Labial column to align with the other columns properly. grr...

[edit] fatter table, attempt two

so i read a bit about tables, and learned about COLSPAN. how about this table?

consonants

	unvoiced		voiced
	unaspirated	aspirated	unaspirated	aspirated	nasal
velar	क KA k	ख KHA kh	ग GA g	घ GHA gɦ	ङ NGA ŋ
palatal	च CA tʃ	छ CHA tʃh	ज JA dʒ	झ JHA dʒɦ	ञ NYA ɲ
retroflex	ट TTA ʈ	ठ TTHA ʈh	ड DDA ɖ / ɽ	ढ DDHA ɖɦ / ɽɦ	ण NNA ɳ
dental	त TA t̪	थ THA t̪h	द DA d̪	ध DHA d̪ɦ	न NA n̪
bilabial	प PA p	फ PHA ph	ब BA b	भ BHA bɦ	म MA m

[edit] Pictures needed

I wonder if it might be more useful to include pictures of the glyphs, rather than depending on the user having the proper Unicode fonts installed? Presumably the people most in need of the information would be the ones least likely to have the right fonts installed. -Mark

I reckon overall you're probably correct, even accounting for text-only browsers. I can't imagine anyone's particularly keen on the actual work of re-doing it in PNG/GIF, thought. Meanwhile I'll look into whether the Devangari font I'm using is IP-encumbered; providing a link to download a copylefted font would be the neatest solution of all, don't you think? Mkweise 02:09 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

It should be simple enough to take screen snapshots and upload them to replace the current tables. --Brion

I suggest we keep the tables as they are, but add a PNG image showing a sample of text at the top of the article, just to give an idea -- maybe part of a screenshot of http://hi.wikipedia.org/ -- Tarquin 12:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] conjuncts

does anyone think it's a good idea to make a comprehensive list of conjuncts in Devanagari? It would be pretty long, and a couple of them probably have more than one form. But it still might be useful, right? -lethe ^talk

Yes! It should be on its own page linked to here. If it's really long it could have a couple of pages if there's a neat way to divide them.

Due to the fact that many older OSes, fonts, and rendering systems (Uniscribe, Pango, Worldscript) have shoddy support for Devanagari, it would be very nice to provide a table with both Unicode and images - at least for the conjuncts themselves. — Hippietrail 23:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It could be done via a .gif image file as here http://nagari.southindia.ru/fonts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasuns (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speaking of conjuncts...

have you noticed that in the text in the screenshot, conjuncts don't work? And the short i is on the wrong side of its consonant? Whoseever computer it was that took that screenshot ain't displaying devanagari correctly. Maybe I make one myself and upload? -lethe ^talk 23:36, Aug 24, 2004

we could maybe get an image af a slightly more significant sample? a mantra? An image of a handwritten sample, even, maybe? dab 22:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which conjuncts? The short i does seem to be displaying on the correct side of the consonant (the left side), so I'm wondering what it is that I'm missing. Ambarish | Talk 16:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check out the screenshot that used to be there (removed). The reason it looks OK now, is because I replaced the old screenshot months ago, after I made the comment above. -lethe ^talk

Thanks, although I feel a little stupid! I assumed that since User:Dbachmann responded on 1 Nov, your post must have been recent. Ambarish | Talk 04:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's partly my fault, I didn't timestamp my signature. oops. I have retro-added a timestamp to my complaint. -lethe ^talk 07:48, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Devanagari/Tamil text support?

I've been looking around for a way to be able to view Devanagari and Tamil texts under UNICODE, but apparently Windows 98 doesn't support them. I found a modified version on Internet Explorer which supposedly works, but IE is a horrible browser, and I'd prefer a method of viewing them which would work across browsers (for what it's worth, I'm in Opera). Does anyone have any ideas for what I might do? Thanks. - Vague | Rant 06:39, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ligatures

Hi, I'm the Vijayl who created all those ligatures. Hindi/Devanagari is not my native language. The original article said: च् + छ = च्छ and suggested adding all ligatures.

I added all possible combinations.

I'm sure that the set of ligatures will be a subset of what is currently there. I hope I've helped more than done harm. விஜய் லக்ஷ்மிநாராயணன் 15:01, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think this list is very helpful -- the "ligatures" section should explain the concept, and draw attention to particular cases, such as the r- and -r ligatures, the j~n and ktv cases, etc. Maybe we can have a list article giving all ligatures, but they should be in a table or something. dab (ᛏ) 17:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur. For the most part they are no-brainers: drop the inherent -a stem. See what I did at Wikitravel's Hindi-Urdu phrasebook for examples of how I treated ligatures. And than there are those superfluous Sanskrit ligatures no longer used. Anyone who has seen Snell's chart in TYS: Hindi or the TYS Sanskrit book especially will realize such exhaustive charts are best left to pedantic reference. For our purposes, listing the general rules/concepts/peculiarities would be quite sufficient. Khirad^talk 09:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ligatures vs. Conjuncts

This is my first edit/discussion here on wikipedia so if I'm messing up, please let me know. Anyways...here goes...I am wondering why the term ligature is being used? I believe that ligatures combine two letters without changing their meaning. Whereas the conjunct is to symbolize that the vowel has been suppressed. I don't think they are the same thing. So unless somebody has a good reason I will be changing all the ligatures to conjunct.

A ligature is a graphical representation of a consonant conjunct, which is a phonological element. Ligatures can refer to a graphical representation of consonant + vowel sign and to consonant + consonant. There is nothing inherent about the semantics of letters in the definition of a ligature in Indic writing systems. In Latin alphabets, perhaps (as in older ligatures created from 'ct', 'sh', 'ss', etc). Sarayuparin 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with dab above, that just having a very lengthy list of conjuncts isn't probably that useful. I will get something together that perhaps illustrates it better. Okay I want to sign this, but when I click the button that I would guess puts in the signature it does nothing. So this is Rothrock at May 1, 2005, 1:07 EST

• As explained in Wikipedia's article on ligatures, ligatures have nothing to do with pronounciation or meaning. They only deal with typography. So the use of this word in this context is accurate. BernardM 13:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Bernard – that is my point. Compare the entry about the Danish Æ – it is not a ligature because it is its own letter. It isn't just a combination of A and E. Or the part about the double vee " Hence VV developed into W, but the modern Latin letter W is not a true ligature, as it represents a different sound from VV/UU." The same is true of conjuncts. They are pronounced different and represent different sounds. So they require a different word to describe what they are. Additiionally in all my experience with different Hindi textbooks, learning guides, instructors, etc. I've never encountered anybody who called them "ligatures" – they have always been called "conjuncts." -rothrock
  • rothrock, you can sign by typing ~~~~ -- makes all of this much easier to read. Yes, this is a peculiarity of Devanagari being an abugida. However, as far as I know, "ligature" and "conjunct" are used synonymously, for the combined form of two or more aksharas, with no intervening vowel. The composition of aksharas with intervening vowels is straightforward, you just place them next to one another, and we don't need to discuss this in detail. Also, we should present the few unusual ligatures as images, since most browsers won't render them properly. Also, when discussing various variants of ligatures, we need images, since we don't know which variant will appear on the reader's screen if we just use unicode encoding. For these reasons, I am removing the lengthy list of ligatures for now. dab (ᛏ) 15:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] article content (too computer/Unicode oriented)

this article is too computer-oriented as it is. It should primarily be about the (handwritten) script and its 800 year history. Unicode and keyboard issues should be secondary. Or create specialized Devanagari keyboard layout, Devanagari digital encoding, Devanagari computer fonts or similar. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that the article has relatively little content on computer issues: just a couple of figures and a few links, neither of which encroaches on unusually disproportionate representation of a related subtopic in an article--nor is there enough material here for a separate article. Or are we referring to different edits of the article? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 14:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the writeup on Windows XP that was reverted earlier, and the list of ligatures (left to the reader's browser to render) posted even earlier. It's quite ok in its present shape, but if people want to add significant portions of IT stuff, I suggest specialized articles. dab (ᛏ) 15:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it has (as I can see now) computer-related information in inappropriate places. (But I don't think it's too much, I simply would move all computer-related things out of the first sections.) In my opinion, talking about the writing system as it has been used "on paper" shouldn't be intermixed with its Unicode implementation. Just tell about the writing system (without mentioning the Unicode names of characters, or even the word "Unicode"), and then tell about the computer-related issues, referring back to the sections with the main content. For example, now "Unicode" appears in the content of section Devanāgarī#Symbols of Devanagari, and it shouldn't. What do you think of this?--Imz 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bhujimol

What's the relationship between Bhujimol and Devanāgarī--is it derived from, or perhaps a "sister" of Devanāgarī? It's not clear at the Bhujimol article. Thanks --Dpr 05:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, its definately Brahmic, that's for sure. It resembles Sharda a little, and therefore could be called a sister to Devanāgarī; though I am not familiar with this writing system and am not able to ascertain its exact relation. Khirad^talk 09:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article title should use usual English spelling

I believe it is Wikipedia policy to use the usual spelling of the language of the wiki for article titles. AHD, Collins, Encarta, and M-W all list only "devanagari". "Devanāgarī" with diacritics is a transliteration of Sanskrit rather than the usual English word.

A similar change was recently made at Yoruba language. Agreement was also reached at Taíno though it has not yet been moved to the usual English spelling. — Hippietrail 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the form without diacritics is the usual spelling (indeed this form is almost universal). I checked the history and the reason for given for the change was "title lacks diacritics", but it did not state why diacritics were thought necessary. The person who made the change, although well meaning, was also not a native speaker of English. I propose to change the title back ot "Devanagari". If no-one objects within the next few days, I'll do this. - Martin.Budden 13:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I object :D. Firstly, although Wikipedia does have a blanket policy for using the common English names this in my opinion is not suitable for Indic scripts. Pretty much all other academic sources (including encyclopedias) use transliterations where appropriate. "Devanagari" isn't a term widly used outside of Indic research and it isn't a word that the normal English speaker will know anything about.

I think Wikipedia needs to develop a policy on the transliterations used for Indic text. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think using transliterations sparingly within the article for words which have normal English spellings, and copiously for words which have no normal English spelling is fine. But I think the current Wikipedia policy for the names of articles is sound. — Hippietrail 02:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sukh, could you explain why you think "Devanāgarī" is more suitable than "Devanagari" for the article title? "Devanagari" is the common English name. The use of diacritics is appropriate in a context where pronounciation is important (for example, a "Learning Hindi" book), but I don't think it is appropriate for the article title. Encyclopaedia Britanica uses "Devanagari". A web search returns returns almost exclusively "Devanagari" (including hits on university web pages). The Wikipedia article on transliteration says: "Transliterations in the narrow sense are used in situations where the original script is not available to write down a word in that script, while still high precision is required." and "Transliteration in the broader sense is a necessary process when using words or concepts expressed in a language with a script other than one's own." I just don't see a case for retaining the diacritics.Martin.Budden 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I, the champion of diacritics actually agree with dropping them in this particular case. However; I would limit this to the article title. You also see these arguments raging in the eastern asian pages where I am out of my depth. But I would agree, and have been saying the same thing as you ਸਰਦਾਰ ਸੁਖ ਜੀ, that there needs to be a policy on indic transliterations. If only to end the rampant use of "Bollyliteration" and decide whether, or how to use Itrans and IAST. Khirad^talk 11:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"ਸਰਦਾਰ ਸੁਖ ਜੀ" :D

If the title of this article is to be changed, so should Gurmukhi. Now, in regards to Indic transliterations - we really should follow some sort of convention. We can use ISO 15919:2001 [4] but I'm concerned about the transliteration of Bindis/Tippis as m with a dot above/below - seems a bit strange to me. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Britannica 2005 DVD that I've got uses Devanāgarī and Nāgarī ONLY. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a WikiWar going on about the whole subject of diacritics, see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). My personal view is that in general diacritics should be retained, but when transliterating from a non-latin alphabet there is little gain in "adding" them (especially since over time English tends to drop the diacritics ("general", "Mexico", "cooperate" etc). Anyway I'll refrain from moving this page until there is some kind of conclusion on the naming conventions page, but it doesn't look like there is going to be any consensus any time soon. Martin.Budden 19:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] another table

manner of articulation →	unvoiced		voiced		nasal
place of articulation ↓	unaspirated	aspirated	unaspirated	aspirated
velar	क	ख	ग	घ	ङ
palatal	च	छ	ज	झ	ञ
retroflex	ट	ठ	ड	ढ	ण
dental	त	थ	द	ध	न
labial	प	फ	ब	भ	म

lethe ^talk 17:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

See also: [5] deeptrivia (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation/transcription of the name (long final i? which language?)

Now, the final i in the transcription (in the first line of the article) is short:

Devanāgarī (देवनागरी —, pronounced [d̪e:vən̪ɑɡəɾi] ...)

I wonder whether it is correct; the sign is at least for the long i. And, actually, to speak about the correctness of the pronunciation transcription one should indicate the language! Should we explicitly refer to Sanskrit pronunciation? I'd suggest the following version of the first line, modified according to these remarks:

Devanāgarī (देवनागरी —, pronounced in Sanskrit [d̪eːvən̪ɑɡəɾiː] ...)

what does a specialist think about this?--Imz 02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

it would seem you are right. dab (ᛏ) 08:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transcription

How would one write meśta (Hibiscus sabdariffa) in Hindi? — Gulliver ✉ 04:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's an accurate IAST transliteration, then: मेश्त. If the final 'a' is long, then it's मेश्ता. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration

If we're going to use a transliteration in the title, should it not be 'Dēvanāgarī' with a long e? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The transliteration scheme should be fixed to make a decision on this question. At least at the current moment, IAST conventions are used throughout the article, and they prescribe plain e.

But, as to my opinion, a transliteration scheme where ē is used for a long e suits better an encyclopedia, which is for everyone (and not for indology specialists; they have the convention because it is more convenient for them and spares extra signs). On the other hand, it would imply a mismatch in transliteration with a huge number of other places.--Imz 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should use a unified scheme. Other Indic scripts (and indeed Devanagari) has a short E 'ऎ' and short O 'ऒ' and so if we're using a loss-less transliteration, this distinction needs to be preserved. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(Yes, I agree.) Also the point I had in mind writing the first comment that I didn't explicate: uniformly using the macron diacritic for marking every long vowel is much better for understandibility by novice readers ("novice" in Indic languages/scripts).

So, if there were a vote as to which transliteration scheme to adopt as the standard in Wikipedia, I would support the one with ē and ō.

And, the extra macrons on ēs and ōs is not a big deal for specialists who are used to read without them: simply ignore them when reading.

Actually, to be honest about your argument: one could adopt a transliteration scheme where the short counterparts of e and o are marked in a special way (by a breve, obviously: ĕ, ŏ). And, I would really always put the breves on these two, independently of the usage of macrons for long e and o— in order to avoid confusion. --Imz 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea. We should stick to the standard transliteration, and not 'arbitrarily' modify it as we see fit. Just as latin characters represent different sounds in e.g. English, French, Dutch, so it is only normal that the characters of transliterated Hindi may have a different soundvalue that one might expect at first. What standard sound value do Latin characters stand for anyway? There is no such (language independant) convention. (The IPA hasn't got anything to do with this.)

[edit] IPA is wrong

The IPA pronunciation information indicated that the "d" in Devanagari is the same as English "d", i.e. /d/. This is wrong - the "d" in Devanagari is closer to /ð/ than /d/. --Grammatical error 18:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, English d is alveolar whereas devanagari d is dental (at least for Hindi it is).

The article says that द is pronounced / d̪ə /, which is a dental d. This is correct. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant at the start of the article where the pronunciation of the word Devanagari was indicated. i've changed it now anyway. --Grammatical error 07:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images

This article used to have an image of an example of Devanagari writing. First it was a screenshot, then later it was some old scroll or something. What happened to those? I think they're especially important as some people will come to this page without Indic script enabled computers -lethe ^{talk +} 04:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that it was removed on Feb 21 by anonymous user 216.130.100.210 (talk · contribs) with no edit summary. It was that user's only contribution. I guess I'll restore. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] give each letter an article

So the Latin alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet, Arabic alphabet, Hebrew alphabet, Greek alphabet, all have devoted articles for each letter. Hiragana and Katakana do too, though they share the articles. I think Devanagari feels left out. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew and Arabic also share articles (together with Phoenician and Syriac). If you have enough information on each Devanagari letter by all means do it, but make sure you don't just create 40 empty stubs with no information beyond what is already here, and leave them lying around for the next year. dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindi-centric attitude on ळ?

The article says:

Another consonant is ळ is not used in Hindi.

This is the Devanagari article, not the Hindi article. Why is this consonant not in the consonant table? Why is its pronunciation not defined? --DavidConrad 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

because so far nobody bothered adding it? I think it is the intervocalic variant of ड in Vedic orthography. dab (ᛏ) 11:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation Info

The pronounciation table is not accurate in some instances ("v" is a glottal approximant?) and it would be nice to link each sound to its appropriate page where there should be a recording of the sound, for example Voiced labiodental fricative. I would change it myself, but I don't know what sounds they are actually supposed to make, and the sounds given might not necessarily match up to the sounds they make (I'm not sure, but is the "kh" actually a plosive, like "cat" or is it more a velar fricative?). Could someone more familiar with the language try to fix it up?

---Then if the "v" is a labiodental approximant as indicated by the symbol choice, why not make a new column for it, I will do it myself if someone will confirm that it is, in fact a voiced labiodental approximant as opposed to a voiced labiodental fricative. Also, would anyone oppose moving the "nasal" column to the "sonorants" table from the "plosive" table? Would that switch more accurately reflect the actual consonant?

Nasals are not plosives. --Siva 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant Link

http://bhashaindia.com/Downloadsv2/Category.aspx?ID=1 this is relevant link for the subject given .Please do restore back the same at apropriate place. Mahitgar 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous Sentence

I removed this sentence: "Languages written with Devanāgarī require no case distinction" from the Principles section; it was the last sentence in the paragraph discussing breaks in the upper line and breath groups. It was out of place, bringing up a morphological point in the midst of a discussion of interaction between phonology and orthography, and in any case, it seems to be false. I'm an amateur linguist, and I do know that Hindi, among other New Indo-Aryan languages, has at least three case distinctions, and Sanskrit has eight. Doonhamer 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read that sentence in context, but perhaps it was about case as in uppercase (ABC) and lowercase (abc)? Wikipeditor 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need help.

Does Hindi use ळ?There is lots of speculation going on at belgaum:Talk.Plz give ur suggestion at Belgaum talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Belgaum#.22.E0.A4.B3.22_in_Hindi.3F (Look for the subtopic "ळ in Hindi?" mahawiki 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Hindi does not use ळ. It is, however, part of the Marathi phonetic repertoire. Sarayuparin 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking help and contribution

Dear Wikipedians,

We apreciate your valuable contribution in article named Wikipedia:Indic transliteration scheme on english WIkipedia.

We at Marathi Language wikipedia do not have enough expertise to update IPA related info in our article, specialy we have been unable to import/update IPA templates and do not know how to use IPA symbols.Please click here-this link- to provide help to update "IPA transliteration for Indic Languages" article for Marathi wikipedia

We seek and request for help in updating above mentioned article and would like to know relevant resources and refferences in respect of Devanagari and IPA .

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Wiktionary logos

See meta:Image:Wiktprintable.svg for the new logo design. Note that the श's left half does not have a horizontal line. Is that ok? If not, please suggest a change at meta:Talk:Wiktionary/logo. Thank you! 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vowel table

The diacritic marks for इ and ई were wrong. I've changed them to िप and पी respectively.--Osprey39 08:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please fix your web browser. The correct spelling is पि. See the box at the top of the article about Indic scripts rendering. BernardM 11:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Turns out you're right. Sorry about that. --Osprey39 08:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To all the contributors involved in this Project

Thank you very much for your considerable effort and endeavour in this Wiki-entry. This is truly beautiful and inspiring work. :-D B9 hummingbird hovering 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saccidānanda vigraha

I would like some learned advise on whether I should create an article entitled "saccidananda" or "sat-cit-ananda" or any other such vrddhi derivation, evolution or involution... ... i have asked Ekajati for assistance related to this item as well...as well as the German Wikikins to help with a translation of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Sat-Chit-Ananda so the wheel is not re-created. Wheels within wheels in the spirit of Ophanim!

Thanking you in anticipation; namaste in agape and walking my talk in beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering [B9_hummingbird_hovering] 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be advised that an article Satchitananda already exists. You are welcome to improve it. Variations in spelling ought to redirect to the same article. Variations in topic, for example a person or place with the Proper name Saccidananda, should be in a separate article. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 17:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

BostonMA: ThanX for your prompt throughput...with sincerity... MUSING: sincerity is truly rare but oft-proffered...i trust ur sincerity is not lipservice and signed with integrity. NB: saccidananda, sat-cit-ananda & sat_cit_ananda did not redirect to "satchitananda". Would you please be able to learn me how to make this so?

In+love+ing

B9_hummingbird_hovering [B9_hummingbird_hovering] 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPA vowels

"House" and "put" uses /aʊ/ and /ʊ/ respectively, not /au/ and /u/. I was going to change them, except I find that they are specified as close back rounded vowels, rather than the Near-close near-back vowel of /ʊ/. I don't know Sanskrit - which is it? If the IPA transcription is correct, then the English examples are wrong. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The IPA and description for इ also conflict with each other. The transcription is given as /i/, but "i as in bit" would be /ɪ/. I don't know which is more accurate. 74.100.92.251 08:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ajrw

[edit] Normalization of use of IAST tag

The category for articles containing IAST just disappeared because apparently people did not think it was of value. [6] I am wondering if this is a good time to review principles for use of the IAST tag. I have been trying to develop some consensus around use of IAST [[7]]. I will raise the subject again on the talk page for the IAST article. Buddhipriya 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pha?

फ (ph) /pʰə/; English: pit

I dont think this is correct. pit is not spelt as phit. Maybe the linguists can check--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

it's the closest we have in English, I suppose /pit/ really closer to [pʰit] than [pit], but it's subphonematic and as such not very helpful. The linguists say, remove these "English:" similes altogether, they are flawed, giving the IPA is fully sufficient. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right . In English ph is cumpolsorily turned to f. Any other European Language from whih we can take a similar sound? It would be more helpful. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

no, my point is that there may really be a [pʰ]:[p] contrast in /pit/ vs. /spit/, but it is subphonematic. Of course we can take examples from other languages, German /p/ is clearly [pʰ], for example, but what is the point of this? It is really enough to give the IPA. This is Wikipedia, the interested reader can click on the link and learn about the sound in question in a dedicated article. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 12:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, German /p/ is not [pʰ] after s, either. Wikipeditor 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sound of य़

If य़ is the sound of s as in english "Measure", it should really be a voiced palatal fricative. I have changed it therefore. Kartheeque

[edit]  :[

In my opinion this article is in need of a sort of rewrite. It is just way too Sanskrit and Hindi oriented, and if anything it's more of a phonology article than script. Also, there are no direct references... one would think that to be important, right? Anyway, I am currently studying Indo-Aryan, and once I've done that to an adequate level I hope to be doing the rewriting on this article I consider necessary. Tuncrypt 03:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be working on the vowel chart in here for now. It is difficult to be exact, as the sources I have don't explicitly write down the IPA symbols for each language. Tuncrypt 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the vowel table. The consonants will be modified someday as well. Tuncrypt 00:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, working on consonants... Tuncrypt 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done consonants, woot. Tuncrypt 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation variations

I think pronunciation variations of क्ष and ज्ञ shouldn't appear in this article, but only in respective articles about Hindi, Marathi, etc. This article should be as general as possible and shouldn't talk much about differences between languages. Just imagine how the article about Latin alphabet would look if it worked this way! BernardM 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The conjunct table follows the same logic as the vowel tables, with a select few representative languages showing the different pronunciations of the characters. Unlike the latin-script languages, there aren't a huge variations in pronunciation of consonants, so just Sanskrit (Old IA), Hindi (Central IA), and Marathi (Southern IA) can be comprehensively representative. The table shows three things: the status of L, the change in pronunciation of kSha from old to modern (which the consonant table already shows), and most importantly, the innovations of the j~na (even Gujarati has its own way: ɡɲə). Tuncrypt 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This article's tables are currently about Hindi, Western Hindi (what's that?), Sanskrit, Marathi and Bhojpuri. Not present in tables but refered to in text are also Sindhi and Rajasthani. I think that's confusing for the readers. This article should deal with what Devanagari is supposed to be, and specific articles about all these languages should explain the variations. One sentence warning about the fact that differences in pronunciation could exist between languages is sufficient in my opinion. BernardM 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] english "th" sound?

What is the devanagari letter for the English sound "th" as in the, there, that or thing, theatre, ether? I believe it's called a dental fricative (voiced or unvoiced). MrHumperdink 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC) These sounds don't exist in languages that use Devanagari so there's no letter that fit them, but when really needed people usually use थ for the unvoiced one and द for the voiced one. BernardM 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] english "f" and "v" sounds?

similar to the previous question, how would one transliterate the english "f" and "v" sounds? 24.203.110.218 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"fa" is the फ with a dot under the left side, and "va" is व nightpotato

[edit] the top bar?

"In Sanskrit, words were written together without spaces, so that the top bar is unbroken..."

Some information on the origins the the top bar here would be insightful. I have searched about and can't find any reference to its history or development. Ancesteral scripts don't have the bar and while Sharada shows some semblance of a line within characters they are still separate. Does anyone have any information on this?

[edit] A "how to" referral

Could someone direct me to information on how to use the Devanagari and Sanskrit fonts that are used on this page? A character map or "look up" table would be helpful. thank you. Ayuved 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devanagari request

• Can someone kindly add Devanagari for the name of Pandit Pran Nath, at the Pandit Pran Nath article? Badagnani (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone kindly add Devanagari at Karonda? Badagnani (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Handwriting

There is no information in the article on how each character is formed by hand. What is the order by which each stroke in each syllabe is made? How is a young Indian taught to write Devanagari (supposing they already know how to read)? AugustinMa (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

that's true Tuncrypt (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] size

hey kwami can the letters be bigger? i dunno lol, they look cooler that way. Tuncrypt (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought they looked ridiculously large on my browser. Revert if you like.

We need to work out something for displaying nagari and its transcription properly on Firefox. I've asked at the Indic template pages, but haven't gotten a response. The Unicode template doesn't force a consistent font, so it looks terrible. I tagged the transcriptions with the IPA template, but that isn't right. I could customize it through my CSS page, but casual readers can't do that. Also, the nagari diacritics get decomposed. They look great in the edit window, but in the article they expand and overlay the English text. I can get them to work in a table, but not in in-line text. Any ideas? kwami (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

i don't know anything about that sort of stuff :( Tuncrypt (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common and uncommon letters

1. Which letters of Devanagari script are used by all the languages that use the script?

2. Which letters of Devanagari script are used by only some of the languages that use the script? We need a tble here.

3. Which letters of Devanagari script have different renderings/shapes/styles in the languages that use the script? We need a tble here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourplay (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Devanagari-qwerty-layout-option.jpg

Image:Devanagari-qwerty-layout-option.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Devanagari-qwerty-layout.jpg

Image:Devanagari-qwerty-layout.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

[edit] Font

Now that we've got a bunch of people here, does anyone know how to render Indic fonts in FireFox? For me, they render in center-aligned tables, but not in other tables or in regular text. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean "देवनागरी" doesn't render for you? It works just fine here — Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Slackware Linux. What version/OS are you using? Time to upgrade?  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Well, it does now, in the edit window, but not on the preview window — There, I see rendered and non-rendered simultaneously. I'm using FF 2.0.0.12 on Windows XP, last update in December. But it's been a problem for some time. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That happened with me on my old computer with Windows 98, but my new computer with Windows Vista displays Devanagari correctly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, upgrading to the latest Firefox won't help, since that is 2.0.0.12. Nor dare I suggest you upgrade to Slackware Linux, lest I start a flame war. It sounds like a Windows-specific Firefox bug, and skimming, I can't see it in the list of known issues. Report it? — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like several bugs have been reported. Linux is supposed to have the same problem if san-serif fonts are chosen as default. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd. I have now selected Sans-Serif as the overall default font, as well as for both Western and Devanagari (sic!), and everything looks just fine. That's just the way of bugs, I suppose. (I'll stick with my serifs though; I kinda like them.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a Wikipedia bug. It's only a problem on English Wikipedia. I've never noticed it outside Wikipedia, and it's not a problem on Hindi, French, etc. Wikipedia. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Perhaps it's a skin thing? I'm using the default MonoBook (and no CSS of my own). If you're using something else, could you try the MonoBook skin? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out! If you justify paragraphs under your prefs, it screws up rendering. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The table in Devanāgarī#Conjuncts

• The table in Devanāgarī#Conjuncts does not include the consonant cluster ख्ख (khkha), which occurs in Rigveda book 7 hymn 103 verse 3 line 3 in the word [akhkhalīkŗtya] = "having made a croak" (gerund); the unusual consonant sequence arose as onomatopoeia for some Indian species of frog croaking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fix the infobox

Devanāgarī देवनागरी
Type	Abugida
Spoken languages	Several Indo-Aryan languages, including Sanskrit, Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, Bihari, Bhili, Konkani, Bhojpuri, Newari and sometimes Sindhi and Kashmiri
Time period	c. 1200–present
Parent systems	Proto-Canaanite alphabet [a]  → Phoenician alphabet [a]   → Aramaic alphabet [a]    → Brāhmī     → Gupta      → Nāgarī       → Devanāgarī देवनागरी
Child systems	Gujarati Moḍī Ranjana Canadian Aboriginal syllabics
Sister systems	Eastern Nāgarī
Unicode range	U+0900–U+097F
ISO 15924	Deva
Rigveda manuscript in Devanāgarī (early 19th century)
[a] The Semitic origin of the Brahmic scripts is not universally agreed upon.
Note: This page may contain IPA phonetic symbols in Unicode.

How do I remove the देवनागरी that appears in the last line of the Parents Systems table? (refer to the table on the right) Can that be fixed? I tried and nothing works -_- Kotakkasut (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to remove it from the 'name' parameter. kwami (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the देवनागरी from the 'name' parameter, but can you or anyone help me with another problem? Where should I put the देवनागरी in the infobox? sorry for asking lots of questions -_- Kotakkasut (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)