[12 / 1 / ?]
Hi frens. I have tried to prepare an alternate spelling system/orthography for the Urdu language to help remove homographs and the problem of ambiguity in reading for learners. This can be done by making it compulsory to use existing diacritics to represent short vowels, gemination and dead consonants, and also introducing new diacritics to represent the long vowels. I think we can achieve a phonemic orthography for Urdu by following these rules:>Compulsorily indicate the short vowels "i" and "u" in middle/final positions of a word using the diacritics zer ( ِ ) and pesh ( ُ ) respectively on the consonant after which they immediately occur. When there is no diacritic on a consonant in an initial/middle position of a word, it is assumed that the consonant is followed by the inherent short vowel "a", unless the consonant is followed by a long vowel or do chashmi ha (ھ). In those two cases, the consonant is treated as if dead. If there is no diacritic on a consonant in the final position of a word, it is treated as a dead consonant. >Represent the short vowels "a", "i" and "u" at the beginning of a word using the letter alif without any diacritic, with zer, and with pesh respectively, i.e. ا and اِ and اُ respectively. >Compulsorily indicate gemination wherever it occurs using the diacritic shad ( ّ ) over the geminated consonant. >Represent a dead consonant in an initial/middle position of a word by using the diacritic jazam ( ْ ) over the consonant. Note that this is not done when the dead consonant is at the final position of the word. A consonant without any diacritic at the final position of a word is usually automatically treated as dead. Also, sometimes seemingly dead consonants at the middle position of a word are not marked with a jazam (obligatory schwa deletion).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Using the rules discussed so far, we may write the word "Alhamdulillah" as الحمْدُلِلّہ. Now the seven long vowels in Urdu are written in reality using different combinations/expressions of the letters alif (ا), wao (و), bari ya (ے) and chhoti ya (ی), and also by using the superscript hamza ( ٔ ) over those letters when required (in words like لئے and تنہائی). The ways to write the seven long vowels in actual Urdu are listed as follows:>"aa" is written as آ (alif-mad) in the initial position of a word, and as ا (alif) in the middle/final position of a word. >"ee" is written as ای (alif+chhoti ya) at the initial position of a word, and as ی (chhoti ya) in the middle or final position of a word. >"oo" is written as او (alif+wao) in the initial position of a word and as و (wao) in the middle/final position of a word. >"e" is written as ی (chhoti ya) in the initial and middle positions of a word, and as ے (bari ya) in the final position of a word. >"ai" is written as اے (alif+bari ya) in the initial position of a word, as ی (chhoti ya) in the middle position of a word, and as ے (bari ya) in the final position of a word. >"o" and "au" are written the exact same way as "oo".
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Poo in loo Saged
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Now this system of representing long vowels often leads to homographs in the Urdu language. Examples include "main" (I) and "men" (in) which are both written as میں, "peer" (saint) and "pair" (foot) which are both written as پیر, etc. To remove homographs completely and make a completely phonemic one-to-one representation of long vowels in Urdu, I think we should make a completely new system rather than just make it mandatory to use already existing diacritics as we did for short vowels, gemination and dead consonants. I have decided to write each of the seven vowels in distinct ways, as follows:>"aa" should be written as آ (alif-mad) in the initial position of a word, and as ا (alif) in the middle/final position of a word, unless it is preceded by a short vowel in the case of which it is written as آ. That can be seen in the example "hu-aa" (happened) which by this principle should be written as ہُآ. This system is much the same as what is actually used in Urdu to represent "aa". >"ee" is always written as یٖ (chhoti ya with alif subscript) in all positions of a word. This is roughly borrowed from the Bosnian Arebica representation of the letter "i". >"oo" is always written as ۆ (this is a letter borrowed from Bosnian Arebica that is used to represent "u"; it can be thought of as wao with a diacritic like a caron) in all positions of a word. >"e" is always written as یٰ (chhoti ya with a superscript alif; the choice for this is arbitrary) in all positions of a word. >"ai" is always written as یٓ (chhoti ya with the diacritic maddah; the choice for this is arbitrary) in all positions of a word. >"o" is always written as ۉ (this letter is also borrowed from Bosnian Arebica where it is used to denote "o", and can be thought of wao with a diacritic like an inverted caron) in all positions of a word. >"au" is always written as وٓ (wao with a maddah; the choice for this is arbitrary) in all positions of a word.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
If this system were to be applied, superscript hamza ( ٔ ) and bari ya (ے) would lose their application in the representation of long vowels. However both would continue to find their normal application in the purpose of izafat. I think if the new orthography were strictly phonemic, many grammatical rules of writing Urdu would be disturbed, hence izafat should remain as it is. However it seems unusual to use the letter bari ya (ے) only for izafat, so I wonder if this letter could be got rid of completely from the orthography. Besides all the rules discussed so far, the usage of the diacritic maghnoona ( ٘ ) over the letter noon (ن) should be made mandatory when it represents the velar nasal sound instead of the normal dental/retroflex nasal; also note that jazam is not required in this case, since a velar nasal is always a dead consonant in Urdu. Using all these rules, let us try to write the following paragraph: Actual Urdu: تو نیل سمندر ہے، میں ریت کا ساحل ہوں۔ آغوش میں لے مجھے، میں دیر سے پیاسی ہوں۔ New orthography: تۆ نیٖل سمُنْدر ہیٓ، میٓں ریٰت کا ساحِل ہۆں۔ آغۉش میٰں لیٰ مُجھیٰ، میٓں دیٰر سیٰ پْیاسیٖ ہۆ۔
Anonymous
Quoted By:
The main problem with trying to make a phonemic orthography is that the spellings of many names would change. Abdullah, for instance would be عبْدُلّہ instead of عبداللہ, and this completely ruins the etymological significance of the name. Allah itself would be الّہ instead of اللہ. To solve these issues, a middle path of some sort has to be devised, in which the phonemic rules of writing are neglected from time to time to account for grammatical and etymological correctness of words that are not Subcontinental in origin. One way I think would be use diacritics without changing the actual fundamental spelling. That way, Abdullah would be عبْدْاُلْلہ and Allah would be الْلہ. But it does look odd. I wish I had a better knowledge of the Urdu language, and I could find a better way to deal with these issues.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>5415273 Arabic (Nasta'liq) script is for faggots and terrorists.
Try to use Cyrillic instead, it's much better.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>5415355 What posting these walls of text isn't rude?
Try /int/
Anonymous
Anonymous