Hindi: ऋ not pronunced as रि?

[tonyspeed]

In another thread, the claim was made:
"As for the ऋ, many Hindi speakers do pronounce it correctly, and even if not always correctly, they pronounce it differently from रि."

This statement is the exact opposite of everything I have ever read on the matter before. And I have never heard the claim that ऋ is in fact pronounced according to Vedic Sanskrit in Hindi or that we even know what the Vedic Sanskrit pronunciation is.

If anyone has heard this before, please explain to me how the Hindi speaker's pronunciation differs from ri or ru or some corruption of the two.

 

[Qureshpor]

Tony, in addition to the valuable contribution by Illuminatus in an another thread, here is a quote from William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894)'s renowned Sanskrit Grammar (published in 1879).

24. The vowel ऋ ṛ is simply a smooth or untrilled r-sound, assuming a vocalic office in syllable-making — as, by a like abbreviation, it has done also in certain Slavonic languages. The vowel ऌ ḷ is an l-sound similarly uttered — like the English l-vowel in such words asable, angle, addle.
a. The modern Hindus pronounce these vowels as ri, rī, li (or even lri), having long lost the habit and the facility of giving a vowel value to the pure r- and l-sounds. Their example is widely followed by European scholars; and hence also the (distorting and altogether objectionable) transliterations ṛi, ṛī, ḷi. There is no real difficulty in the way of acquiring and practising the true utterance.
b. Some of the grammarians (see APr. i. 37, note) attempt to define more nearly the way in which, in these vowels, a real r- or l-element is combined with something else.
25. Like their corresponding semivowels, r and l, these vowels belong respectively in the general lingual and dental classes; the euphonic influence of ṛ and ṝ (189) shows this clearly. They are so ranked in the Paninean scheme; but the Prātiçākhyas in general strangely class them with the jihvāmūlīya sounds, our “gutturals” (39).
26. The short ṛ is found in every variety of word and of position, and is not rare, being just about as frequent as long ū. Long ṝ is very much more unusual, occurring only in certain plural cases of noun-stems in ṛ (371 b, d, 375). The ḷ is met with only in some of the forms and derivatives of a single not very common verbal root (kḷp).

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sanskrit_Grammar/Chapter_II

 

[nineth]

24. The vowel ऋ ṛ is simply a smooth or untrilled r-sound, assuming a vocalic office in syllable-making — as, by a like abbreviation, it has done also in certain Slavonic languages.

That is exactly how I think I pronounce it (I thought about how I pronounce ऋतु, ऋषि). I don't pronounce it like ri, ru, nor do I start it with the flap that starts my ra. But then I studied Sanskrit from my 5th grade to my 12th grade (but have forgotten most of it).

 

[lcfatima]

I wondered about this. I have a friend whose son's name is Rishikesh and no one says his name as ऋषिकेश, it is always with a रि. However, I have only heard ऋतिक रोशन as hritik. Also know a Hritika and her name is always said correctly with hr. Perhaps there is some variation.

 

[tonyspeed]

heard ऋतिक रोशन as hritik. Also know a Hritika and her name is always said correctly with hr.

Thanks for that observation. Never realised this before now.


I found a quote from another group: "तीन ध्वनियां ऋ (ह्रस्व तथा दीर्घ), ज्ञ (संयुक्ताक्षर, ज्+ञ) एवं
विसर्ग (ः), जो हिंदी में प्रयुक्त संस्कृत मूल के तत्सम शब्दों में आज भी
विद्यमान् हैं, का सही उच्चारण कम ही लोगों को पता होगा, कदाचित् हर
संस्कृत-अध्येता को नहीं"

"Three sounds that are used in Hindi in tatsama, Sanskrit-based words (ऋ, ज्ञ,(ः)) - very few people will know the correct pronunciation of and hardly all Sanskrit students will either. "


So it looks like I need to get to work.

 

[souminwé]

I have never heard ऋ pronounced "correctly" - only as ri or ru. If I did, I think I would confuse the speaker's pronunciation for an English accent. In fact, I would like to hear an audio clip from this speaker who claims that they pronounce it as Sanskrit (as they would say it daily of course) as this sounds overwhelmingly incredulous to me.

 

[marrish]

I have never heard ऋ pronounced "correctly" - only as ri or ru. If I did, I think I would confuse the speaker's pronunciation for an English accent. In fact, I would like to hear an audio clip from this speaker who claims that they pronounce it as Sanskrit (as they would say it daily of course) as this sounds overwhelmingly incredulous to me.

I can only subscribe to this.

 

[nineth]

I have never heard ऋ pronounced "correctly" - only as ri or ru.

If you say you learnt Hindi in a native Hindi speaking area, and you only heard it as ri and ru, I find it incredible. I don't subscribe to the view that no one pronounces it correctly.

If I did, I think I would confuse the speaker's pronunciation for an English accent. In fact, I would like to hear an audio clip from this speaker who claims that they pronounce it as Sanskrit (as they would say it daily of course) as this sounds overwhelmingly incredulous to me.

I said "I think" I pronounce it like that. I don't know what the Vedic Sanskrit pronunciation is (nor do I care about getting my pronunciation match with it) - unless there is an audio clip somewhere, I can't confirm. I don't pronounce it like a ri or a ru, and I don't flap like ra. So, in all certainty, I think I'm pronouncing it correctly. I'll upload an audio clip if no other audio clip for it exists on the web.

 

[tonyspeed]

If you say you learnt Hindi in a native Hindi speaking area, and you only heard it as ri and ru, I find it incredible.

Nineth, not everyone in India has the privilege to be educated in Sanskrit from a young age. Of those that do, I would assume not every one of those has the courage to pronounce something in such a way to have a stark contrast with those around them.

I think this is where we need to make a division between 1) Sanskrit pronunciation and 2) Colloquial Hindi pronunciation as the two are different. Remember that after Vedic Sanskrit was Classical Sanskrit and then a long period of Prakrits in-between. The only people educated in Sanskrit were the rich and the Brahmins...Sanskrit was transmitted orally until relatively late in history (first inscriptions date to 1 B.C.E)! Therefore it is not suprising in my mind that few people have enough schooling to know the "correct" way or enough courage to use the Sanskrit way in Hindi.

 

[greatbear]

Nineth, not everyone in India has the privilege to be educated in Sanskrit from a young age. Of those that do, I would assume not every one of those has the courage to pronounce something in such a way to have a stark contrast with those around them.

I think this is where we need to make a division between 1) Sanskrit pronunciation and 2) Colloquial Hindi pronunciation as the two are different. Remember that after Vedic Sanskrit was Classical Sanskrit and then a long period of Prakrits in-between. The only people educated in Sanskrit were the rich and the Brahmins...Sanskrit was transmitted orally until relatively late in history (first inscriptions date to 1 B.C.E)! Therefore it is not suprising in my mind that few people have enough schooling to know the "correct" way or enough courage to use the Sanskrit way in Hindi.

Sanskrit education has nothing to do with it; I also studied Sanskrit for 5 years in school, but since I can remember, prior to Sanskrit in school as well, I have never pronounced ऋ as रि. As one imbibes the sounds of a mother tongue by hearing the people around, I of course never heard ऋ as रि, which is why my "incredulous" feat.

 

[souminwé]

If you say you learnt Hindi in a native Hindi speaking area, and you only heard it as ri and ru, I find it incredible. I don't subscribe to the view that no one pronounces it correctly.


I said "I think" I pronounce it like that. I don't know what the Vedic Sanskrit pronunciation is (nor do I care about getting my pronunciation match with it) - unless there is an audio clip somewhere, I can't confirm. I don't pronounce it like a ri or a ru, and I don't flap like ra. So, in all certainty, I think I'm pronouncing it correctly. I'll upload an audio clip if no other audio clip for it exists on the web.

I haven't learnt Hindi in India, and I have only been educated in Sanskrit by my parents. The Indian media and the speakers I interact with seem to support my conclusion on ऋ.
But as we know, the Indian media isn't the best gauge for how the masses speak, so I suppose I cannot speak for the situation in today's India. (I'm not sure if it changes anything, but the Hindi-speakers in my family are from areas around Himachal and Dehli).

From the sounds of it, when you said that ऋ is indeed pronounced uniquely, you did not mean Vedic [ɻ], which was my assumption, and which would be very marked if said by anyone.
Although I haven't personally heard anything other than ru or ri, this alternative seems probable. But in that case, I am still interested in hearing how you do say it.

 

[greatbear]

I don't know what a Vedic ऋ is supposed to sound like - the way I pronounce it is a kind of half "r", immediately merging into the next syllable. The Hindi speakers in my family are from western UP, if that matters.
Note that Gujarati speakers do pronounce ऋ as "ru" (which used to irritate me a lot).

 

[souminwé]

Vedic ऋ is like North American /r/, Tamil /zh/ or Mandarin /r/. Rather exotic sounds for Hindi. From your description, it sounds like you would pronounce vRkS as something like [ʋrkʂ] or [ʋrɨkʂ]. Both could actually easily be mistaken for [ʋrɪkʂ], so perhaps this is why it seems to me that I've never heard anything other than the "ri" pronunciation.

 

[tonyspeed]

Vedic ऋ is like North American /r/, Tamil /zh/ or Mandarin /r/. Rather exotic sounds for Hindi. From your description, it sounds like you would pronounce vRkS as something like [ʋrkʂ] or [ʋrɨkʂ]. Both could actually easily be mistaken for [ʋrɪkʂ], so perhaps this is why it seems to me that I've never heard anything other than the "ri" pronunciation.

Please describe the difference between [ɨ] and [ɪ].

 

[souminwé]

[ɨ] is the sound in roses (in most accents of English). It's a centralised , and is only slightly more central and closed than [ɪ].
It's merely allophonic in English, but it occupies a more distinguished position in Russian. You can hear the sound in the audio clip of the Russian word быть (byt’) (underlined vowel corresponds to [ɨ]):
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/быть#Russian

 

[marrish]

[ɨ] is the sound in roses (in most accents of English). It's a centralised , and is only slightly more central and closed than [ɪ].
It's merely allophonic in English, but it occupies a more distinguished position in Russian. You can hear the sound in the audio clip of the Russian word быть (byt’) (underlined vowel corresponds to [ɨ]):
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/быть#Russian

I agree with this description. I don't know if this sound should be employed in the position following the Sanskrit vocalic ''r'' because that ''r'' if pronounced correctly would not need any assistance from another vowel! Other Slavic laguages like Czech has it, why it is not pronounced like this? (discussed already on this forum with sound references).

 

[souminwé]

Well, we're still waiting on an audio clip, my suggestion that this sound might be what some Hindi speakers are producing is merely a hypothesis, and it could in fact be a completely vocalic r as well (like Czech).
As for should and should not, that's a different matter.

 

[lcfatima]

http://www.forvo.com/word/%E0%A4%8B/ Here is one. Is it accurate?

 

[souminwé]

Nuh-uh, that's very much a Gujarati/Marathi "ru".

 

[greatbear]

[ɨ] is the sound in roses (in most accents of English). It's a centralised , and is only slightly more central and closed than [ɪ].
It's merely allophonic in English, but it occupies a more distinguished position in Russian. You can hear the sound in the audio clip of the Russian word быть (byt’) (underlined vowel corresponds to [ɨ]):
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/быть#Russian

I do think that [ɨ] is how I pronounce it; I will try to record myself and upload a file in two weeks' time (after the winter vacations) if no one has still found a sound file till then.

 

[JaiHind]

In another thread, the claim was made:
"As for the ऋ, many Hindi speakers do pronounce it correctly, and even if not always correctly, they pronounce it differently from रि."

This statement is the exact opposite of everything I have ever read on the matter before. And I have never heard the claim that ऋ is in fact pronounced according to Vedic Sanskrit in Hindi or that we even know what the Vedic Sanskrit pronunciation is.

If anyone has heard this before, please explain to me how the Hindi speaker's pronunciation differs from ri or ru or some corruption of the two.

I don't know why you got so worked up that you call this a "claim"? I agree that "As for the ऋ, many Hindi speakers do pronounce it correctly, and even if not always correctly, they pronounce it differently from रि." in fact most Hindi speakers make a difference between the two.

I don't know how to make you hear, but tongue movement is different in the two ri's. In ऋ, it goes much behind while in रि it remains near the front (of the mouth). Do make more Indian friends and explore the language more. Please don't consider your own limited experience as the end of the world.

 

[nineth]

Well, we're still waiting on an audio clip, my suggestion that this sound might be what some Hindi speakers are producing is merely a hypothesis, and it could in fact be a completely vocalic r as well (like Czech).
As for should and should not, that's a different matter.

Czech R is an alveolar trill, and so it's definitely not what I described.

 

[nineth]

I don't know why you got so worked up that you call this a "claim"? I agree that "As for the ऋ, many Hindi speakers do pronounce it correctly, and even if not always correctly, they pronounce it differently from रि." in fact most Hindi speakers make a difference between the two.

I don't know how to make you hear, but tongue movement is different in the two ri's. In ऋ, it goes much behind while in रि it remains near the front (of the mouth). Do make more Indian friends and explore the language more. Please don't consider your own limited experience as the end of the world.

I agree with "JaiHind" here. In addition, there is no flap or trill. I think the following statement is accurate.
"As for the ऋ, many Hindi speakers do pronounce it correctly, and even if not always correctly, they pronounce it differently from रि, ru"

 

[greatbear]

I don't know how to make you hear, but tongue movement is different in the two ri's. In ऋ, it goes much behind while in रि it remains near the front (of the mouth).

I agree with this; the tongue touches the palate a little more behind when producing ऋ than it would have done with a रि; and thereafter it merges immediately with the next syllable, not letting it really be a complete "r". Please excuse my layman's terms to describe the pronunciation.

 

[Qureshpor]

Professor Omkar N. Koul, the author of Modern Hindi Grammar (2008 Dunwoody Press) does not distinguish between ऋ and र in his book. Where in the Devanagri script ऋ and र words are accurately represented as one would expect, the Roman transcription gives the equivalent sounds as "ri" and "r", without any further explanation. The obvious conclusion that one can draw is that according to him, a linguist, who says that his book is based on "authentic data from spoken and written Hindi", Hindi speakers do not differentiate between the two sounds. For other consonants, I shall post in the "Use of the Bindi" thread.

 

[marrish]

I recall that I had heard some kind of tongue twisting by a couple of Hindi speaking people to pronounce Sanskrit words with ''r'' therein. It seemed very forced an attempt and they pronounced in a different manner each.
The idea to pronounce it as ''ru'' is alien to Hindi - like it has been mentioned earlier - it is Marathi and Gujarati way of speaking, not Hindi.

 

[marrish]

I don't know why you got so worked up that you call this a "claim"? I agree that "As for the ऋ, many Hindi speakers do pronounce it correctly, and even if not always correctly, they pronounce it differently from रि." in fact most Hindi speakers make a difference between the two.

I don't know how to make you hear, but tongue movement is different in the two ri's. In ऋ, it goes much behind while in रि it remains near the front (of the mouth). Do make more Indian friends and explore the language more. Please don't consider your own limited experience as the end of the world.

I understand that your point is a correct one, as to say that Hindi speakers can be divided in two groups with regard to ऋ.
The majority produces ''r+i'' while others try to differentiate it from ''r+i'' by producing strange sounds which you were so kind to describe. Nevertheless, it remains ''r+i'' as you gracefully admitted - in whichever manner one tries to change the value of "r" and of "i". ऋ is not pronounced correctly in Hindi, as a vowel, but as a consonant followed by a vowel ''i''.

 

[Dhira Simha]

I think that Slavonic languages, particularly Eastern Slavonic, like Russian, which preserve a remarkable affinity to Vedic, may provide some clues. Compare these cognates ( Rus. - Skr.):

vratar' - vartṛ "doorman, goal-keeper - one who keeps back or wards of"
dever' - devṛ " husband's brother"
dočer' - duhitṛ "daughter"
mater - mātṛ "mother"
pekar' - paktṛ "baker - who or what cooks"

grabitel' - grabhītṛ "robber - the one who seizes"
datel' - dātṛ "giver"
žratel' - jarayitṛ "eater - consumer"
merjatel' - mātṛ "one who measures"
pravitel' - prāvitṛ "ruler - protector, patron"
sušitel' - śoṣyitṛ "one who dries"

In all the above words the Srk. /ṛ/ is represented by either a palatalised (soft) /r'/ or /l'/. Palatalised vowels in Rus. contain a reduced /i/. This adds some proof that the primordial sound was /ri/ or, most probably a palatalised /r'/ because if it were a plain /ri/ there would not be a need to use a special sign for /ri/. In fact, in many cognates Russian "soft" consonants have corresponding "cerebrals" (which sound very similar):
rat' - rāṭi "army, battle - war, battle"
gat' - ghaṭ "log-path - march, passage"
ren' - reṇu "shoal, bank - sand"
bran' - braṇ "swearing - to sound"
brun' - bhrūṇa "bud, gemma - embryo"
goren'e - ghṛṇa "burning - heat, ardour"
drjan' - daraṇa "trash, shlock - tearing, splitting"

 

[learner_sam]

I think hindi need to get rid of ऋ .

 

[greatbear]

Could you elaborate on your reasons, learner_sam? I may think x, y, and z, but we are here to discuss more than our personal preferences, isn't it?

 

[Wolverine9]

If the usual Hindi pronunciation of ऋ (r^) is similar to ri, but in Gujarati/Marathi it is ru, then the Gujarati pronunciation of dr^shTi should be drushTi. However, there is a Gujarati actress by the name of Drashti (drashTi). Does this mean r^ is pronounced as both ra and ru in Gujarati or is there another explanation?

 

[Au101]

I have just discovered this thread, after Wolverine9 posted and thought some of you might be interested in this from Arthur Anthony Macdonell:

"The vowel ṛ, now usually sounded as ri (an early pronunciation as shown by the confusion of ṛ and ri in ancient inscriptions and MSS.), was in the Saṃhitās pronounced as a vocalic r, somewhat like the sound in the final syllable of the French chambre. It is described in the RV. Prātiśākhya as containing an r in the middle. This agrees with ərə, the equivalent of ṛ in Old Iranian."

In other words, even in ancient inscriptions and manuscripts the ऋ is sometimes written as रि reflecting the fact that this pronunciation of ṛ as /ri/ is ancient.

I was always taught to pronounce Classical Sanskrit ऋ as /rɪ/, which is how Madhav Deshpande introduces the sound and is also the reason why in English we write Sanskrit, rishi and Krishna. As far as I have ever heard /ri/ is old and as acceptable in Classical Sanskrit as modern Hindi. I like to pronounce ऋ as /r̩/ but purely because it makes more sense of saṃdhi.

 

[SouthGujarat]

If the usual Hindi pronunciation of ऋ (r^) is similar to ri, but in Gujarati/Marathi it is ru, then the Gujarati pronunciation of dr^shTi should be drushTi. However, there is a Gujarati actress by the name of Drashti (drashTi). Does this mean r^ is pronounced as both ra and ru in Gujarati or is there another explanation?

The vast majority of words with ઋ in Gujarati use the 'ru' sound, it's just that a select few words use the 'ra' sound like you mentioned, although for those particular words it is often acceptable to use both 'ra' and 'ru'.
E.g.
દૃષ્ટિ - 'drashti'
દૃઢ - 'dradh'
કૃષ્ણ - 'Krashna' or 'Krushna'
This 'ra' sound only applies to a few words though, as 'ru' is by far the most prevalent sound to represent ઋ.

 

[Pvitr]

Is the ऋ sound actually used in Modern Hindi?

I am trying to understand whether this is an issue about the sounds that the language Hindi uses or more to do with the Devanagiri script being used to write Vedic and Hindi.

(Just want to point out that I don't know Hindi or Vedic languages but have found this thread interesting)

 

[SouthGujarat]

Is the ऋ sound actually used in Modern Hindi?

I am trying to understand whether this is an issue about the sounds that the language Hindi uses or more to do with the Devanagiri script being used to write Vedic and Hindi.

(Just want to point out that I don't know Hindi or Vedic languages but have found this thread interesting)

Hi, the letter ऋ is in use in Modern Hindi, but the original retroflex ṛ sound in Sanskrit started to be pronounced as Ri in Hindi:
Examples:
Hindi - Sanskrit pronunciation - Hindi pronunciation
ऋषि - Ṛṣi - Rishi
ऋण - Ṛṇ - Rin
कृषि - Kṛṣi - Krishi
कृपा - Kṛpā - Kripa

 

[desi4life]

:
"The vowel ṛ, now usually sounded as ri (an early pronunciation as shown by the confusion of ṛ and ri in ancient inscriptions and MSS.), was in the Saṃhitās pronounced as a vocalic r, somewhat like the sound in the final syllable of the French chambre. It is described in the RV. Prātiśākhya as containing an r in the middle. This agrees with ərə, the equivalent of ṛ in Old Iranian."

This seems to suggest the Vedic pronunciation of ऋ is very similar to अर. Would the Vedic pronunciation of ऋषि then be approximately अरषि?

 

[pancyrus]

It's interesting to see that there's so much conflicting information about the sound ऋ represents, at least in Samskrt (Sanskrit), given that it's clearly spelled out in Panini's grammar: it's the voiced retroflex approximant; the sound file is on that page. It's almost exactly like the "r" in English in words like run, rake, road, etc. (assuming you have a native English accent). I say "almost exactly" because technically, the "r" sound in English is usually a post-alveolar approximant (in General American and Received Pronunciation), whereas the Samskrt/Indic one is a retroflex, but certain English accents realize the "r" as a retroflex one nonetheless.

It only sounds strange because it seems like almost no one is taught how to properly pronounce it these days, even including the people who are supposed Samskrt experts. It's classified as a vowel because it doesn't involve the tongue touching any part of the mouth (svara; स्वर), so there can't also be another vowel after it, such as "ru", "ri", "ra", "ro", and the like. It's simply r̥ (in ISO 15919). The reason most people write things like Sanskrit is because the British had their capital in Delhi, and they were the ones who formulated the Hunterian transliteration scheme to transliterate Indic languages to the Latin script (particularly the English alphabet), and their system had the Hindi bias creep in. This is why, for example, it's not written as Samskrut or Samskrat (at least, not anywhere that's standard).

This same bias crept in with the other sound (cluster) that no one seems to be able to pronounce correctly: ज्ञ (jña in ISO 15919). The Hunterian system seems to have a specific entry for this consonant cluster as "gya" (which is obviously incorrect) rather than just have people transliterate its component parts (ज् + ञ, which would amount to "jna"). But because Hindi speakers can't seem to pronounce it correctly (exacerbated by the fact that it's almost always written as a ligature rather than a consonant conjunct: ज्‍ञ), this bias has crept into the Hunterian scheme as well, which happens to be the official romanization scheme of India. Hence, you get words written as "gyan" and "Pragya" rather than the proper jnan and Prajna.

 

[Gop]

It's interesting to see that there's so much conflicting information about the sound ऋ represents, at least in Samskrt (Sanskrit), given that it's clearly spelled out in Panini's grammar: it's the voiced retroflex approximant; the sound file is on that page.

Are you really taliking about the pronunciation of the Sanskrit vowel ऋ? I listened to the audio file of wikipedia you have cited. It does not sound as the pronunciation of ऋ at all to me. Not by any stretch of imagination!

You are right about Panini’s grammar Astadhyayi. At the very beginning it sets out the sounds of Sanskrit in what is known as māheśvara sūtrān.i: अइउण्, ऋलृक् and so on. Traditionally Astadhyayi was required to be committed by the pupils to memory before the meaning of its sutras were explained to them. I can hardly imagine rlk being pronounced ri- lk and passing muster!

Quite possibly, as you point out, Romanisation of ऋ must have given rise to e.g. krsna being written and pronounced as krishna.

 

[Au101]

It's interesting to see that there's so much conflicting information about the sound ऋ represents, at least in Samskrt (Sanskrit), given that it's clearly spelled out in Panini's grammar: it's the voiced retroflex approximant; the sound file is on that page. It's almost exactly like the "r" in English in words like run, rake, road, etc. (assuming you have a native English accent). I say "almost exactly" because technically, the "r" sound in English is usually a post-alveolar approximant (in General American and Received Pronunciation), whereas the Samskrt/Indic one is a retroflex, but certain English accents realize the "r" as a retroflex one nonetheless.

It only sounds strange because it seems like almost no one is taught how to properly pronounce it these days, even including the people who are supposed Samskrt experts. It's classified as a vowel because it doesn't involve the tongue touching any part of the mouth (svara; स्वर), so there can't also be another vowel after it, such as "ru", "ri", "ra", "ro", and the like. It's simply r̥ (in ISO 15919). The reason most people write things like Sanskrit is because the British had their capital in Delhi, and they were the ones who formulated the Hunterian transliteration scheme to transliterate Indic languages to the Latin script (particularly the English alphabet), and their system had the Hindi bias creep in. This is why, for example, it's not written as Samskrut or Samskrat (at least, not anywhere that's standard).

This same bias crept in with the other sound (cluster) that no one seems to be able to pronounce correctly: ज्ञ (jña in ISO 15919). The Hunterian system seems to have a specific entry for this consonant cluster as "gya" (which is obviously incorrect) rather than just have people transliterate its component parts (ज् + ञ, which would amount to "jna"). But because Hindi speakers can't seem to pronounce it correctly (exacerbated by the fact that it's almost always written as a ligature rather than a consonant conjunct: ज्‍ञ), this bias has crept into the Hunterian scheme as well, which happens to be the official romanization scheme of India. Hence, you get words written as "gyan" and "Pragya" rather than the proper jnan and Prajna.

An interesting and learned reply, but I have to say I find your absolute certainty quite as puzzling as you find others' uncertainty

I would not be nearly so keen to dismiss the pronunciation of ज्ञ as gya as simply the result of Hindi speakers being unable to pronounce it correctly. I have heard (what sound to me like (though I won't flatter myself I have a great ear for these things and the recordings could be better)) gya, gña and (perhaps) gna in various recordings of Vedic chanting, including an authentic series of chants captured by the late Paul Thieme. Have a listen to this version of the Asyavāmīya-sūkta and see what you think. Unfortunately I don't know where it came from.

 

[pancyrus]

Are you really taliking about the pronunciation of the Sanskrit vowel ऋ? I listened to the audio file of wikipedia you have cited. It does not sound as the pronunciation of ऋ at all to me. Not by any stretch of imagination!

Indeed I am, though it should be noted that the audio file is pronouncing it with the long "ā" vowel after it (essentially ऋआ) since the sound is considered a consonant in most Western languages and in the International Phonetic Alphabet. But that kind of proves my point; people have been taught the mistaken pronunciation for so long that they find it hard to believe (or even imagine) that that's the correct pronunciation.

Another reason the ऋ can be corroborated as a retroflex approximant is due to the Sandhi rules: any sibilants/nasals that follow it (until the next stop consonant) must turn into their retroflex counterparts (for the purpose of "matching"). This is why, for example, it is ष्ण in कृष्ण; if the ऋ was not there (in a hypothetical scenario), it would be श्न instead (their dental equivalents). In more concrete example, रामायन becomes रामायण due to this rule in Sandhi (because र is a semivowel that is produced when transitioning from ऋ to अ).

Furthermore, yet another reason (which sort of brings it all together) is that it is a vowel. Vowels are meant to not have your tongue touch any part of the inside of your mouth, and a litmus test for them is to be able to elongate them to any length. Pronouncing ऋ as "rī" (री) or "rū" (रू), where the r (र) is a dental flap, makes it clear at the end of that pronunciation that the core sound that remains is the ī (ई) and ū (ऊ), respectively. This means that those pronunciations fail the test. On the other hand, pronouncing ऋ as a retroflex approximant (as defined in the grammar) passes this test when the sound is elongated to any length. This is why there are short and long versions of the vowel: ऋ and ॠ.

I have to say I find your absolute certainty quite as puzzling as you find others' uncertainty

Well that's the great thing about a language like Samskrt; it is so scientifically described and precisely outlined that it takes all of the guesswork out. There is no concept of "spelling" that has to be learned in Samskrt because what you see is what you pronounce, and what you pronounce is what was written.

As for ज्ञ specifically, it seems like the person chanting in that video is from the South (particularly from a Telugu-speaking region), where they do have a tendency to pronounce ज्ञ (jña) as ग्ञ (gña) instead, but I will admit that it's hard to tell over audio, especially when the fidelity isn't the best in cases like these. This is likely why the proper pronunciation of the consonant cluster is so hard to come by these days: it's quite easy to mishear. That's why having the written text to go along with it helps quite a bit.

 

[Au101]

It's clear to me that you really know your stuff, although I do not quite share your certainty. I do agree with your description of ऋ however, at least, I think it's one of the best description of the likely original pronunciation I have ever seen and I like to pronounce it that way myself as it makes so much more sense of the grammar. However I don't believe in writing off traditional pronunciations which have been around for centuries as outright mistakes, there are apparent differences between the Classical and the Vedic and phonological and phonetic texts can be hard to interpret at times. But I appreciate the clarity of your understanding.

On this point, though, I can't agree:

This is why, for example, it is ष्ण in कृष्ण; if the ऋ was not there (in a hypothetical scenario), it would be श्न instead (their dental equivalents). In more concrete example, रामायन becomes रामायण due to this rule in Sandhi (because र is a semivowel that is produced when transitioning from ऋ to अ).

स् is changed to ष् after ऋ, but श is not, e.g. ददृशे I saw.

श् becomes ष् before त्, hence दृष्ट्वा having seen, but that is a separate phenomenon.

कृश् is a valid root in Sanskrit, and you will find such forms as कृश्यति, चकर्श and अकृशत्.

(Edit: Oh and of course we know that श blocks the usual effect ऋ/र would have on न, as in प्रश्न not प्रष्ण and पृश्नि not पृष्णि.)

 

[pancyrus]

On this point, though, I can't agree:

Ah yes, you are quite right that there are cases where that is not true; I was oversimplifying what is actually quite a complex set of Sandhi rules for the cases I was pointing out. In the original hypothetical case I pointed out, since it's a consonant cluster, the न becomes a ण, but since it would difficult to pronounce the cluster श्ण, the श becomes a ष, resulting in ष्ण. The same does not apply for the cases you mentioned; hence, the transformation not taking place in those.

On the whole, I'd go further than to say that it is merely the "original pronunciation", since so much of and in Samskrt is based on accurate pronunciations. You are right that Vedic and Classical Samskrt have diverged in pronunciation a bit, but those are more like losing the pitch accent, ए and ऐ changing from ai and āi to ē and ai, respectively, and ओ and औ changing from au and āu to ō and au, respectively. They don't involve changes in the pronunciation of ऋ or ज्ञ as far as I'm aware. So regarding "traditional pronunciations", I don't know when they started or how old they are (especially with respect to Hindi), but I just find it a bit counterproductive to still be promoting such pronunciations when we have evidence that points to the contrary.

 

[Au101]

Ah yes, you are quite right that there are cases where that is not true; I was oversimplifying what is actually quite a complex set of Sandhi rules for the cases I was pointing out. In the original hypothetical case I pointed out, since it's a consonant cluster, the न becomes a ण, but since it would difficult to pronounce the cluster श्ण, the श becomes a ष, resulting in ष्ण. The same does not apply for the cases you mentioned; hence, the transformation not taking place in those.

I'm sorry but again this is not quite right, consider the examples I added later in the edit (I couldn't think of them at the time I first posted!): प्रश्न question not *प्रष्ण and पृश्नि variegated, dappled, spotted not *पृष्णि.

I'm not quite sure how Pāṇini did it, but Madhav Deshpande gives the rule for न् to ण् as:

Dental न् changes to retroflex ण्, if within the same word, न् is preceded by र्, ऋ, or ष्, and is followed either by a vowel or by व्, न्, म् or य्. This rule applies despite the intervention of the following sounds: vowels, semi-vowels (except ल), k-series, p-series, and anusvāra. If any other sounds intervene, the rule does not apply.

William Dwight Whitney, meanwhile, puts it:

189. The dental nasal न् n, when immediately followed by a vowel or by न् n or म् m or य् y or व् v, is turned into the lingual ण् ṇ if preceded in the same word by the lingual sibilant or semivowels or vowels—that is to say, by ष् ṣ, र् r, or ऋ ṛ or ॠ ṝ—: and this, not only if the altering letter stands immediately before the nasal, but at whatever distance from the latter it may be found: unless, indeed, there intervene (a consonant moving the front of the tongue: namely) a palatal (except य् y), a lingual, or a dental.

Palatals, such as श्, block the normal conversion of न् to ण्.

However, if what you meant to say was that it would have been स्न with dental s, that would be different. The standard ruki rule would have स् become ष् and that would in turn result in ण. And I believe that that is indeed the correct derivation of कृष्ण

 

[pancyrus]

I'm sorry but again this is not quite right, consider the examples I added later in the edit (I couldn't think of them at the time I first posted!): प्रश्न question not *प्रष्ण and पृश्नि variegated, dappled, spotted not *पृष्णि.

Palatals, such as श्, block the normal conversion of न् to ण्.

However, if what you meant to say was that it would have been स्न with dental s, that would be different. The standard ruki rule would have स् become ष् and that would in turn result in ण. And I believe that that is indeed the correct derivation of कृष्ण

Quite right again. I guess I was describing the phenomenon backwards with the way I had learned it when, in fact, it is the sibilants which have the ability to block the retroflexion. What I meant to say is that you would never find the consonant cluster श्ण or ष्न (at least, that I'm aware of) because of its pronunciation difficulty, and that the Sandhi rule for the transformation of न to ण is predicated upon it being preceded by ऋ or र due to their retroflex qualities, which indeed corroborate the fact that ऋ is a retroflex.

I will say, though, that पृश्नि is downright difficult to say! In the case of प्रश्न, you would at least find a "release" or "break" with the र which is a flap, but not so when it is in its vowel form ऋ in पृश्नि.

 

[Au101]

What I meant to say is that you would never find the consonant cluster श्ण or ष्न (at least, that I'm aware of) because of its pronunciation difficulty,

I quite agree, you would not.

I will say, though, that पृश्नि is downright difficult to say! In the case of प्रश्न, you would at least find a "release" or "break" with the र which is a flap, but not so when it is in its vowel form ऋ in पृश्नि.

I find the combination of ट and त as in, for example, षट्त्रिंशत् thirty-six extremely difficult! The fact that त् does not become ट् has always struck me as very odd.

You are aware of course that श्न is a very common combination and ऋश् is by no means rare (ऋश्न is very rare!)

If you pronounce your श as a true palatal with the body of the tongue raised up against the roof of the mouth (try pronouncing a य् and then pull the tongue a little bit closer until you start to hiss) there is no real difficulty in doing whatever you like with the tip of your tongue. ऋश् is thus relatively easy, the front of your tongue is pulled back and up for the ऋ from which position it is quite easy to pull the middle of your tongue up for the श्. Whilst articulating the श् there is ample time to move the tip of your tongue in position for the न.

and that the Sandhi rule for the transformation of न to ण is predicated upon it being preceded by ऋ or र due to their retroflex qualities, which indeed corroborate the fact that ऋ is a retroflex.

Absolutely yes. I would have approached the matter by comparing, say, कूपेन with रामेण where we see the र has converted the न of एन to ण. We then see quite the same thing with नृपेण thus demonstrating that ऋ like र is a retroflex sound which causes न to become itself retroflex.

 

[Au101]

Another reason the ऋ can be corroborated as a retroflex approximant is due to the Sandhi rules: any sibilants/nasals that follow it (until the next stop consonant) must turn into their retroflex counterparts (for the purpose of "matching"). This is why, for example, it is ष्ण in कृष्ण; if the ऋ was not there (in a hypothetical scenario), it would be श्न instead (their dental equivalents). In more concrete example, रामायन becomes रामायण due to this rule in Sandhi (because र is a semivowel that is produced when transitioning from ऋ to अ).

Of course it's just now occurred to me that if ऋ were pronounced रि then the so-called ruki rule would still take effect and see स् become ष्. However, with न्, we know that इ has no effect on न्, but र does cause the change to ण्.