પોતાના લેખન-વ્યવસાય સારુ ગુજરાતી ભાષા વાપરનારાઓ જોગ

[Satish Kumar]

બહેનો અને ભાઇઓ,
તમો એક યા બીજી ડીક્શનરીને કન્સલ્ટ કરતા હશો
જોડણીની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
શબ્દના આરથની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
દરેક પ્રયોજનના થોડા દાખલાઓ મને લખી મોકલશો તો ખુબખુબ આભારી થઇશ.
દયાશંકર જોશી
આ રીક્વેસ્ટને શક્ય તેટલી જાહેરાત આપવા વીનંતી.

Please repeat in devnagri script. It is a bolder script more pleasing
to the eyes. Besides it is a

[DMJoshi]

Post by Satish Kumar

બહેનો અને ભાઇઓ,
તમો એક યા બીજી ડીક્શનરીને કન્સલ્ટ કરતા હશો
જોડણીની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
શબ્દના આરથની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
દરેક પ્રયોજનના થોડા દાખલાઓ મને લખી મોકલશો તો ખુબખુબ આભારી થઇશ.
દયાશંકર જોશી
આ રીક્વેસ્ટને શક્ય તેટલી જાહેરાત આપવા વીનંતી.

Please repeat in devnagri script. It is a bolder script more pleasing
to the eyes. Besides it is a wider used script used even by the devas
(gods).

It is Gujarati script and language both. Devanagari cannot help if one
does not understand Gujarati.

You can use
http://www.dmjoshi.org/unicodewrit

[Myself, Mallu. Yourself?]

Post by Satish Kumar

બહેનો અને ભાઇઓ,
તમો એક યા બીજી ડીક્શનરીને કન્સલ્ટ કરતા હશો
જોડણીની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
શબ્દના આરથની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
દરેક પ્રયોજનના થોડા દાખલાઓ મને લખી મોકલશો તો ખુબખુબ આભારી થઇશ.
દયાશંકર જોશી
આ રીક્વેસ્ટને શક્ય તેટલી જાહેરાત આપવા વીનંતી.

Please repeat in devnagri script. It is a bolder script more pleasing
to the eyes. Besides it is a wider used script used even by the devas
(gods).

Here it is in Devanagari (misspelling and all).

बहेनो अने भाइओ,

तमो एक या बीजी डीक्शनरीने कन्सल्ट करता हशो

जोडणीनी खातरी करवा सारु

शब्दना आरथनी खातरी करवा सारु

दरेक प्रयोजनना थोडा दाखलाओ मने लखी मोकलशो तो खुबखुब आभारी थइश.

दयाशंकर जोशी

आ रीक्वेस्टने शक्य तेटली जाहेरात आपवा वीनंती.

However, as Romanise points out, the original script and language are
Gujarati. I don't know Gujarati, but I guess the drift of the the post
is that one should consult a dictionary for either spelling (jodani) or
meaning.

[DMJoshi]

On Oct 22, 4:16 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Post by Satish Kumar

બહેનો અને ભાઇઓ,
તમો એક યા બીજી ડીક્શનરીને કન્સલ્ટ કરતા હશો
જોડણીની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
શબ્દના આરથની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
દરેક પ્રયોજનના થોડા દાખલાઓ મને લખી મોકલશો તો ખુબખુબ આભારી થઇશ.
દયાશંકર જોશી
આ રીક્વેસ્ટને શક્ય તેટલી જાહેરાત આપવા વીનંતી.

Please repeat in devnagri script. It is a bolder script more pleasing
to the eyes. Besides it is a wider used script used even by the devas
(gods).

Here it is in Devanagari (misspelling and all).
बहेनो अने भाइओ,
तमो एक या बीजी डीक्शनरीने कन्सल्ट करता हशो
जोडणीनी खातरी करवा सारु
शब्दना आरथनी खातरी करवा सारु
दरेक प्रयोजनना थोडा दाखलाओ मने लखी मोकलशो तो खुबखुब आभारी थइश.
दयाशंकर जोशी
आ रीक्वेस्टने शक्य तेटली जाहेरात आपवा वीनंती.
However, as Romanise points out, the original script and language are
Gujarati. I don't know Gujarati, but I guess the drift of the the post
is that one should consult a dictionary for either spelling (jodani) or
meaning.

Established Gujarati writers try to promote themselves through
spelling quaintly. One when challenged try to wriggle out of it by
quoting a dictionary and adding that because he does not respect the
alphabet of that dictionary he had to innovate. When asked why did he
have to consult the dictionary for a word that is very much in use of
ordinary Gujaratis he has gone silent.

I drafted this email and sent it to those who are on either side of
divide : For my simplified spelling (alphabet) one that tries to make
written Gujarati obtuse and unhelpful to children wanting to learn
through Gujarati. In fact I am trying the simplification that was
advocated by the author of Saraswatichandra over hundred years ago.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x110vm_phool-tumhe-saraswati-chandra_

[Myself, Mallu. Yourself?]

On Oct 22, 4:16 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Post by Satish Kumar

બહેનો અને ભાઇઓ,
તમો એક યા બીજી ડીક્શનરીને કન્સલ્ટ કરતા હશો
જોડણીની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
શબ્દના આરથની ખાતરી કરવા સારુ
દરેક પ્રયોજનના થોડા દાખલાઓ મને લખી મોકલશો તો ખુબખુબ આભારી થઇશ.
દયાશંકર જોશી
આ રીક્વેસ્ટને શક્ય તેટલી જાહેરાત આપવા વીનંતી.

Please repeat in devnagri script. It is a bolder script more pleasing
to the eyes. Besides it is a wider used script used even by the devas
(gods).

Here it is in Devanagari (misspelling and all).
बहेनो अने भाइओ,
तमो एक या बीजी डीक्शनरीने कन्सल्ट करता हशो
जोडणीनी खातरी करवा सारु
शब्दना आरथनी खातरी करवा सारु
दरेक प्रयोजनना थोडा दाखलाओ मने लखी मोकलशो तो खुबखुब आभारी थइश.
दयाशंकर जोशी
आ रीक्वेस्टने शक्य तेटली जाहेरात आपवा वीनंती.
However, as Romanise points out, the original script and language are
Gujarati. I don't know Gujarati, but I guess the drift of the the post
is that one should consult a dictionary for either spelling (jodani) or
meaning.

Established Gujarati writers try to promote themselves through
spelling quaintly. One when challenged try to wriggle out of it by
quoting a dictionary and adding that because he does not respect the
alphabet of that dictionary he had to innovate. When asked why did he
have to consult the dictionary for a word that is very much in use of
ordinary Gujaratis he has gone silent.
I drafted this email and sent it to those who are on either side of
divide : For my simplified spelling (alphabet) one that tries to make
written Gujarati obtuse and unhelpful to children wanting to learn
through Gujarati. In fact I am trying the simplification that was
advocated by the author of Saraswatichandra over hundred years ago.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x110vm_phool-tumhe-saraswati-chandra_music

Seen the movie (because of Nutan :-)). I did not know that Tripathi was
an advocate of language simplification.

[DMJoshi]

On Oct 23, 4:34 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
I did not know that Tripathi was
an advocate of language simplification.

In fact Gujarati writing, writing for imparting literacy, writing for
social reform started out with Gujarati that was simple at least with
respect to symbols for vowels i and u.
It was people who wished to make a buck with language, wished to show
off themselves as Pandits, wished to make written Gujarati difficult
to acquire like English was (and is) that were asserting themselves.
Tripathi made a feeble attempt to oppose that trend but could not
carry with him those who earned their living by teaching in Higher Art
and Humanities education.
A movement had to be started since about 25 years to have only one
representation for i and u vowel. In last decade the movement has
gathered some force around it.

[Myself, Mallu. Yourself?]

On Oct 23, 4:34 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
I did not know that Tripathi was
an advocate of language simplification.

In fact Gujarati writing, writing for imparting literacy, writing for
social reform started out with Gujarati that was simple at least with
respect to symbols for vowels i and u.
It was people who wished to make a buck with language, wished to show
off themselves as Pandits, wished to make written Gujarati difficult
to acquire like English was (and is) that were asserting themselves.
Tripathi made a feeble attempt to oppose that trend but could not
carry with him those who earned their living by teaching in Higher Art
and Humanities education.
A movement had to be started since about 25 years to have only one
representation for i and u vowel. In last decade the movement has
gathered some force around it.

ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation. Without much background on
the proposal to simplifying spellings through the use of only ह्र्स्व
vowels, I cannot say how it is going to promote literacy. Would such a
move end of pidginizing the language - we have seen pidginized Sanskrit
here. :-) I would think that unifying spelling and pronunciation will
eliminate any ambiguity, and wouldn't have to infer from context.
Incidentally, I think all southern languages have both forms for all
vowels including 'e' and 'o'. Anyways, my opinion for what it is worth.

[DMJoshi]

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

All Indic languages have dialects which differe significantly in terms
of sounds that provide basic sounds of language, phonemes. There are
other sounds that need to be focused to get reasonably stable written
standard that children can be comfortable with and are not harassed by
teachers to keep their jobs.

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
Without much background on
the proposal to simplifying spellings through the use of only ह्र्स्व
vowels, I cannot say how it is going to promote literacy. Would such a
move end of pidginizing the language - we have seen pidginized Sanskrit
here. :-) I would think that unifying spelling and pronunciation will
eliminate any ambiguity, and wouldn't have to infer from context.
Incidentally, I think all southern languages have both forms for all
vowels including 'e' and 'o'. Anyways, my opinion for what it is worth.

[Myself, Mallu. Yourself?]

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Maybe it is a North-South thing. I think Sanskrit pronunciation is clear
and distinct in the South, but there is no lengthened 'e' or 'o' in the
language. I have trouble understanding shortening of 'aa' to 'a', esp.
in word endings. Then there is bhaiyyafied Sanskrit that I have seen
here. :-)

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

The process of change does not have to be contentious, if one is willing
to go in with an open mind. But it looks like there are very strong
opinions and rigid/uncompromising views.

In the end it should be a consensus that is arrived at in developing
spelling rules, etc. But more important than simply arriving at the
rules, is the implementation plan (based on consequences of changes).
Usually this bit is given the short shrift, and politics/egos get in the
way.

All Indic languages have dialects which differe significantly in terms
of sounds that provide basic sounds of language, phonemes. There are
other sounds that need to be focused to get reasonably stable written
standard that children can be comfortable with and are not harassed by
teachers to keep their jobs.

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
Without much background on
the proposal to simplifying spellings through the use of only ह्र्स्व
vowels, I cannot say how it is going to promote literacy. Would such a
move end of pidginizing the language - we have seen pidginized Sanskrit
here. :-) I would think that unifying spelling and pronunciation will
eliminate any ambiguity, and wouldn't have to infer from context.
Incidentally, I think all southern languages have both forms for all
vowels including 'e' and 'o'. Anyways, my opinion for what it is worth.

[DMJoshi]

On Oct 24, 8:54 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Maybe it is a North-South thing. I think Sanskrit pronunciation is clear
and distinct in the South, but there is no lengthened 'e' or 'o' in the
language. I have trouble understanding shortening of 'aa' to 'a', esp.
in word endings. Then there is bhaiyyafied Sanskrit that I have seen
here. :-)

Indic languages do not have word final a but it has word final aa.
a and aa are no more in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ relationship. It is tomgue
position just as in i/e and u.o
Speakers of South Indian languages, having short/long opposition in
vowels can be confident about short/long of i and u, but they do have
trouble with consonants.

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

The process of change does not have to be contentious, if one is willing
to go in with an open mind. But it looks like there are very strong
opinions and rigid/uncompromising views.

Making Sanskrit the ideal of languages has not helped. Children with
significantly different language need to be familiarized with whatever
standard or in many cases second language that is used as the medium.

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
In the end it should be a consensus that is arrived at in developing
spelling rules, etc. But more important than simply arriving at the
rules, is the implementation plan (based on consequences of changes).
Usually this bit is given the short shrift, and politics/egos get in the
way.

English having gained such a focus the problems of Indian languages
are not going to be attended to in the short run.

[Myself, Mallu. Yourself?]

On Oct 24, 8:54 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Maybe it is a North-South thing. I think Sanskrit pronunciation is clear
and distinct in the South, but there is no lengthened 'e' or 'o' in the
language. I have trouble understanding shortening of 'aa' to 'a', esp.
in word endings. Then there is bhaiyyafied Sanskrit that I have seen
here. :-)

Indic languages do not have word final a but it has word final aa.
a and aa are no more in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ relationship. It is tomgue
position just as in i/e and u.o
Speakers of South Indian languages, having short/long opposition in
vowels can be confident about short/long of i and u, but they do have
trouble with consonants.

Not all southerners have trouble with consonants. The only one that have
that problems are the ones that have the same letter for both aspirated
and unaspirated consonants, or worse yet a single letter for several
consonants. It is quite non-vetic [sic].

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

The process of change does not have to be contentious, if one is willing
to go in with an open mind. But it looks like there are very strong
opinions and rigid/uncompromising views.

Making Sanskrit the ideal of languages has not helped. Children with
significantly different language need to be familiarized with whatever
standard or in many cases second language that is used as the medium.

I don't know what the solution is to this vexing problem of multiple
official languages and 'classical' languages. To me a good starting
point is a common script to cover all possible sounds, and letting each
language pick the subset best suited to it.

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
In the end it should be a consensus that is arrived at in developing
spelling rules, etc. But more important than simply arriving at the
rules, is the implementation plan (based on consequences of changes).
Usually this bit is given the short shrift, and politics/egos get in the
way.

English having gained such a focus the problems of Indian languages
are not going to be attended to in the short run.

Indian languages are the victims of 'globalization'. Knowing English is
necessary, but not sufficient.

[DMJoshi]

On Oct 25, 4:50 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 8:54 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Maybe it is a North-South thing. I think Sanskrit pronunciation is clear
and distinct in the South, but there is no lengthened 'e' or 'o' in the
language. I have trouble understanding shortening of 'aa' to 'a', esp.
in word endings. Then there is bhaiyyafied Sanskrit that I have seen
here. :-)

Indic languages do not have word final a but it has word final aa.
a and aa are no more in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ relationship. It is tomgue
position just as in i/e and u.o
Speakers of South Indian languages, having short/long opposition in
vowels can be confident about short/long of i and u, but they do have
trouble with consonants.

Not all southerners have trouble with consonants. The only one that have
that problems are the ones that have the same letter for both aspirated
and unaspirated consonants, or worse yet a single letter for several
consonants. It is quite non-vetic [sic].

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

The process of change does not have to be contentious, if one is willing
to go in with an open mind. But it looks like there are very strong
opinions and rigid/uncompromising views.

Making Sanskrit the ideal of languages has not helped. Children with
significantly different language need to be familiarized with whatever
standard or in many cases second language that is used as the medium.

I don't know what the solution is to this vexing problem of multiple
official languages and 'classical' languages. To me a good starting
point is a common script to cover all possible sounds, and letting each
language pick the subset best suited to it.

To make Devanagari palatable I think it was Vinoba who started it
without शीरोरेखा.

Real problem is language elitism. It was mainly the Nagar Brahmins of
Gujarat at the beginning of last century who brought in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ
back in Gujarati having written it too good effect in the later half
of previous century.

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
In the end it should be a consensus that is arrived at in developing
spelling rules, etc. But more important than simply arriving at the
rules, is the implementation plan (based on consequences of changes).
Usually this bit is given the short shrift, and politics/egos get in the
way.

English having gained such a focus the problems of Indian languages
are not going to be attended to in the short run.

Indian languages are the victims of 'globalization'. Knowing English is
necessary, but not sufficient.

[Myself, Mallu. Yourself?]

On Oct 25, 4:50 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 8:54 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Maybe it is a North-South thing. I think Sanskrit pronunciation is clear
and distinct in the South, but there is no lengthened 'e' or 'o' in the
language. I have trouble understanding shortening of 'aa' to 'a', esp.
in word endings. Then there is bhaiyyafied Sanskrit that I have seen
here. :-)

Indic languages do not have word final a but it has word final aa.
a and aa are no more in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ relationship. It is tomgue
position just as in i/e and u.o
Speakers of South Indian languages, having short/long opposition in
vowels can be confident about short/long of i and u, but they do have
trouble with consonants.

Not all southerners have trouble with consonants. The only one that have
that problems are the ones that have the same letter for both aspirated
and unaspirated consonants, or worse yet a single letter for several
consonants. It is quite non-vetic [sic].

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

The process of change does not have to be contentious, if one is willing
to go in with an open mind. But it looks like there are very strong
opinions and rigid/uncompromising views.

Making Sanskrit the ideal of languages has not helped. Children with
significantly different language need to be familiarized with whatever
standard or in many cases second language that is used as the medium.

I don't know what the solution is to this vexing problem of multiple
official languages and 'classical' languages. To me a good starting
point is a common script to cover all possible sounds, and letting each
language pick the subset best suited to it.

To make Devanagari palatable I think it was Vinoba who started it
without शीरोरेखा.

Yes, Vinoba Bhave did indeed attempt it. Here is an interesting link
(all in Hindi) in this regard

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Gw6UWw0TOUC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%BE+%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE&source=bl&ots=1wOptHueK3&sig=EV6jiBNW6zp1gqPKg8MA22kjF-s&hl=en&ei=_6LFTIrlHIemsQPijdHUCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE&f=false

The book titled 'भाषा विज्ञान प्रवेश एवं हिंदी भाषा' by भोलानाथ तिवारी
(किताबघर प्रकाशन, २००९) seems to be very interesting. In the page from
the point (the link should lead to it) there is discussion about matras,
etc.

Real problem is language elitism. It was mainly the Nagar Brahmins of
Gujarat at the beginning of last century who brought in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ
back in Gujarati having written it too good effect in the later half
of previous century.

I don't know if I want to call it elitism, but every language does have
its 'purists' who are the most vocal, and perhaps most powerful (via
connexions, awards, etc), when it comes to language change. A concern in
wholesale simplification is the impact on religious texts. IMO, one
cannot simplify things here as one has to retain the original spellings.
One area that one shouldn't muck about, I think.

Anyways, 'purists' of a language will also oppose (even more so) the
idea of a common script for _all_ Indian languages - since some see
'beauty' and 'art' in the letters. IMO, Indian scripts are not
particularly suited for calligraphy and/or running hand (like the old
Modi script). :-)

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
In the end it should be a consensus that is arrived at in developing
spelling rules, etc. But more important than simply arriving at the
rules, is the implementation plan (based on consequences of changes).
Usually this bit is given the short shrift, and politics/egos get in the
way.

English having gained such a focus the problems of Indian languages
are not going to be attended to in the short run.

Indian languages are the victims of 'globalization'. Knowing English is
necessary, but not sufficient.

[DMJoshi]

On Oct 25, 5:33 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 25, 4:50 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 8:54 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Maybe it is a North-South thing. I think Sanskrit pronunciation is clear
and distinct in the South, but there is no lengthened 'e' or 'o' in the
language. I have trouble understanding shortening of 'aa' to 'a', esp.
in word endings. Then there is bhaiyyafied Sanskrit that I have seen
here. :-)

Indic languages do not have word final a but it has word final aa.
a and aa are no more in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ relationship. It is tomgue
position just as in i/e and u.o
Speakers of South Indian languages, having short/long opposition in
vowels can be confident about short/long of i and u, but they do have
trouble with consonants.

Not all southerners have trouble with consonants. The only one that have
that problems are the ones that have the same letter for both aspirated
and unaspirated consonants, or worse yet a single letter for several
consonants. It is quite non-vetic [sic].

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

The process of change does not have to be contentious, if one is willing
to go in with an open mind. But it looks like there are very strong
opinions and rigid/uncompromising views.

Making Sanskrit the ideal of languages has not helped. Children with
significantly different language need to be familiarized with whatever
standard or in many cases second language that is used as the medium.

I don't know what the solution is to this vexing problem of multiple
official languages and 'classical' languages. To me a good starting
point is a common script to cover all possible sounds, and letting each
language pick the subset best suited to it.

To make Devanagari palatable I think it was Vinoba who started it
without शीरोरेखा.

Yes, Vinoba Bhave did indeed attempt it. Here is an interesting link
(all in Hindi) in this regard
http://books.google.com/books?id=1Gw6UWw0TOUC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=%...
The book titled 'भाषा विज्ञान प्रवेश एवं हिंदी भाषा' by भोलानाथ तिवारी
(किताबघर प्रकाशन, २००९) seems to be very interesting. In the page from
the point (the link should lead to it) there is discussion about matras,
etc.

Real problem is language elitism. It was mainly the Nagar Brahmins of
Gujarat at the beginning of last century who brought in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ
back in Gujarati having written it too good effect in the later half
of previous century.

I don't know if I want to call it elitism, but every language does have
its 'purists' who are the most vocal, and perhaps most powerful (via
connexions, awards, etc), when it comes to language change. A concern in
wholesale simplification is the impact on religious texts. IMO, one
cannot simplify things here as one has to retain the original spellings.
One area that one shouldn't muck about, I think.
Anyways, 'purists' of a language will also oppose (even more so) the
idea of a common script for _all_ Indian languages - since some see
'beauty' and 'art' in the letters. IMO, Indian scripts are not
particularly suited for calligraphy and/or running hand (like the old
Modi script). :-)

I believe Tamulnadu does not teach Hindi in its schools. Elsewhere it
is being taught at least for 4 years. Instead if every child is taught
for two years to write the main language in various Indian scripts it
could help towards mobility.

[Myself, Mallu. Yourself?]

On Oct 25, 5:33 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 25, 4:50 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 8:54 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Maybe it is a North-South thing. I think Sanskrit pronunciation is clear
and distinct in the South, but there is no lengthened 'e' or 'o' in the
language. I have trouble understanding shortening of 'aa' to 'a', esp.
in word endings. Then there is bhaiyyafied Sanskrit that I have seen
here. :-)

Indic languages do not have word final a but it has word final aa.
a and aa are no more in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ relationship. It is tomgue
position just as in i/e and u.o
Speakers of South Indian languages, having short/long opposition in
vowels can be confident about short/long of i and u, but they do have
trouble with consonants.

Not all southerners have trouble with consonants. The only one that have
that problems are the ones that have the same letter for both aspirated
and unaspirated consonants, or worse yet a single letter for several
consonants. It is quite non-vetic [sic].

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

The process of change does not have to be contentious, if one is willing
to go in with an open mind. But it looks like there are very strong
opinions and rigid/uncompromising views.

Making Sanskrit the ideal of languages has not helped. Children with
significantly different language need to be familiarized with whatever
standard or in many cases second language that is used as the medium.

I don't know what the solution is to this vexing problem of multiple
official languages and 'classical' languages. To me a good starting
point is a common script to cover all possible sounds, and letting each
language pick the subset best suited to it.

To make Devanagari palatable I think it was Vinoba who started it
without शीरोरेखा.

Yes, Vinoba Bhave did indeed attempt it. Here is an interesting link
(all in Hindi) in this regard
http://books.google.com/books?id=1Gw6UWw0TOUC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=%...
The book titled 'भाषा विज्ञान प्रवेश एवं हिंदी भाषा' by भोलानाथ तिवारी
(किताबघर प्रकाशन, २००९) seems to be very interesting. In the page from
the point (the link should lead to it) there is discussion about matras,
etc.

Real problem is language elitism. It was mainly the Nagar Brahmins of
Gujarat at the beginning of last century who brought in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ
back in Gujarati having written it too good effect in the later half
of previous century.

I don't know if I want to call it elitism, but every language does have
its 'purists' who are the most vocal, and perhaps most powerful (via
connexions, awards, etc), when it comes to language change. A concern in
wholesale simplification is the impact on religious texts. IMO, one
cannot simplify things here as one has to retain the original spellings.
One area that one shouldn't muck about, I think.
Anyways, 'purists' of a language will also oppose (even more so) the
idea of a common script for _all_ Indian languages - since some see
'beauty' and 'art' in the letters. IMO, Indian scripts are not
particularly suited for calligraphy and/or running hand (like the old
Modi script). :-)

I believe Tamulnadu does not teach Hindi in its schools. Elsewhere it
is being taught at least for 4 years. Instead if every child is taught
for two years to write the main language in various Indian scripts it
could help towards mobility.

Each script has its own peculiarities that it is probably tall order to
teach several scripts, even if it is to children when they are at a very
receptive stage. IMO, it is better to have a single script for all
languages. However, there are 'classical language' chauvinists (all
southerners) who will go ballistic at the mere suggestion, Urdu speakers
who are saddled with Perso-Arabic R-to-L baggage, Punjabis who'll have
to be convinced that Gurmukhi is not necessarily 'divine', and the
'poet-philosophers' who might find a script change to be way beyond
revolutionary and a conspiracy of the bourgeois. Then we would have the
baying of the 'complex culture' folks baying about the 'principle' of
script change. :-)

[DMJoshi]

On Oct 26, 5:16 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 25, 5:33 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 25, 4:50 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 8:54 pm, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

On Oct 24, 4:04 am, "Myself, Mallu. Yourself?"

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ have their usefulness, esp. since there are words where
clear distinctions are made in pronunciation.

As for speaking it is what two sounds distinguish two words everyother
sound in two words remaining same.
In Indic languages such opposition of ह्र्स्व and दीर्घ for i and u
was totally lost some 6 centuries back. It was very tenuous in
Sanskrit too.

Maybe it is a North-South thing. I think Sanskrit pronunciation is clear
and distinct in the South, but there is no lengthened 'e' or 'o' in the
language. I have trouble understanding shortening of 'aa' to 'a', esp.
in word endings. Then there is bhaiyyafied Sanskrit that I have seen
here. :-)

Indic languages do not have word final a but it has word final aa.
a and aa are no more in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ relationship. It is tomgue
position just as in i/e and u.o
Speakers of South Indian languages, having short/long opposition in
vowels can be confident about short/long of i and u, but they do have
trouble with consonants.

Not all southerners have trouble with consonants. The only one that have
that problems are the ones that have the same letter for both aspirated
and unaspirated consonants, or worse yet a single letter for several
consonants. It is quite non-vetic [sic].

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Teachers of Gujarati, Hindi etc use this opposition to justify their
jobs. They would put a red line on િ ી ુ ૂ arbitrarily.
Spelling dictionaries जोडणीकोष have to be made with rules that attempt
to tell the user where to put these मात्रा and they cannot get it
right.
Gandhi pushed for Gujarati standard in twenties. In charge were those
Pandits who opposed Tripathi. The जोडणीकोष which they spell as
जोडणीकोश has not been able to give unequivocal rules for ह्र्स्व and
दीर्घ in 80+ years that have passed. Gujarat Vidyapith has claimed
monopoly on written Gujarati. Last spirited plea to heed realities was
made by a Gujarati linguist in 1942. He was silelenced 22 years on by
Umashankar by bribing him with professorship. I raised my voice in
1983. I got Gujarati Sahitya Parishad appoint a committee in 1987
which recommended for simplification, but Umashankar managed to get it
shelved.

The process of change does not have to be contentious, if one is willing
to go in with an open mind. But it looks like there are very strong
opinions and rigid/uncompromising views.

Making Sanskrit the ideal of languages has not helped. Children with
significantly different language need to be familiarized with whatever
standard or in many cases second language that is used as the medium.

I don't know what the solution is to this vexing problem of multiple
official languages and 'classical' languages. To me a good starting
point is a common script to cover all possible sounds, and letting each
language pick the subset best suited to it.

To make Devanagari palatable I think it was Vinoba who started it
without शीरोरेखा.

Yes, Vinoba Bhave did indeed attempt it. Here is an interesting link
(all in Hindi) in this regard
http://books.google.com/books?id=1Gw6UWw0TOUC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=%...
The book titled 'भाषा विज्ञान प्रवेश एवं हिंदी भाषा' by भोलानाथ तिवारी
(किताबघर प्रकाशन, २००९) seems to be very interesting. In the page from
the point (the link should lead to it) there is discussion about matras,
etc.

Real problem is language elitism. It was mainly the Nagar Brahmins of
Gujarat at the beginning of last century who brought in ह्र्स्व/दीर्घ
back in Gujarati having written it too good effect in the later half
of previous century.

I don't know if I want to call it elitism, but every language does have
its 'purists' who are the most vocal,

Purism in languages more often than not about preserving older version
but more about beefing up language with borrowed features including
sounds and letters. I know Hindi trying to accommodate Farsi that way
and Gujarati inventing ઍ ઑ to accommodate English vowels for which
English itself does not care to have special letters.

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?

Post by Myself, Mallu. Yourself?
and perhaps most powerful (via
connexions, awards, etc), when it comes to language change. A concern in
wholesale simplification is the impact on religious texts. IMO, one
cannot simplify things here as one has to retain the original spellings.
One area that one shouldn't muck about, I think.
Anyways, 'purists' of a language will also oppose (even more so) the
idea of a common script for _all_ Indian languages - since some see
'beauty' and 'art' in the letters. IMO, Indian scripts are not
particularly suited for calligraphy and/or running hand (like the old
Modi script). :-)

I believe Tamulnadu does not teach Hindi in its schools. Elsewhere it
is being taught at least for 4 years. Instead if every child is taught
for two years to write the main language in various Indian scripts it
could help towards mobility.

Each script has its own peculiarities that it is probably tall order to
teach several scripts, even if it is to children when they are at a very
receptive stage. IMO, it is better to have a single script for all
languages. However, there are 'classical language' chauvinists (all
southerners) who will go ballistic at the mere suggestion, Urdu speakers
who are saddled with Perso-Arabic R-to-L baggage, Punjabis who'll have
to be convinced that Gurmukhi is not necessarily 'divine', and the
'poet-philosophers' who might find a script change to be way beyond
revolutionary and a conspiracy of the bourgeois. Then we would have the
baying of the 'complex culture' folks baying about the 'principle' of
script change. :-)

A lot of Sanskrit got written in Bengali script instead of in
Devanagari.
Sindhis in India still do not want to give up the perso-arabic script.
In Gujarat there were some in 19th century who considered it high
class to write poetry in Brij of Vrindavan.
Although the Anand University at the start made Hindi a medium of
instructi right at its inception.
Quantum of Hindi in Gujarati schoo and colleges to an extent has made
education of Gujarat sub standard.