by: Madhav P PokharelPosted on:

Issues in Nepali spelling

  1. 1.    Proficiency in Nepali vs. English spellings

If you dictate a single paragraph of Nepali to ten professors of Nepali, they will write it in at least ten different ways. On the other hand, if ten primary school students are asked to write a single paragraph of English for dictation, they should write it in a single way. This contrast clearly shows that experts have not been successful to standardize Nepali spelling.

 

  1. 2.    Inconsistency in English spelling

Bernard Shaw once said to have asked people to read a nonsense word of English spelt <ghuti>. Nobody could satisfy him, because in fact he meant to write the English word ‘fish’. Shaw explained that he was spelling <gh> as they are pronounced in the word ‘rough’, <u> as it is pronounced in the word ‘busy’ and he was spelling <ti> as they are pronounced in the word ‘nation’. Shaw simply meant to show that English spelling is illogical and not phonemic. Compared to English, Nepali spelling is more phonemic; however, Nepali pundits have become inapt compared to the English ones in the standardization of spelling.

 

  1. 3.    Role of Indian Sanskrit scholarship in the nonphonemicity of Nepali spelling

The reason why those first grammarians could not think phonemic spelling to be appropriate for writing Nepali was that almost all of them were students of Paninian Sanskrit grammar. The Paninian Sanskrit scholarship in India is paradoxical so far as the correct pronunciation of the language is concerned. None of the Sanskrit universities in India teaches Sanskrit phonetics in sharp contrast with the fact that the science of phonetics was born in India before Panini (Firth, 1934 [1975]) in the form of Pratisakhyas. Phonetics was one of the six components of the Vedas. In fact, the word शिक्षा simply meant phonetics or teaching correct pronunciation of the language in the Vedic scholarship. Correct pronunciation of the Vedic scriptures was a must (Varma, 1929 [2nd edition 1961]; Allen, 1953) before Panini (पाणिनि, 500 BC [1950]). Panini’s grammar is so mechanical that a student can master Sanskrit even without knowing how to pronounce the phonemes and intonation patterns of Sanskrit correctly. The result is that the Sanskrit pundits recite even the Vedic texts ‘correctly’ using the phonemic inventories and intonation patterns of their own native languages. However, ironically, they do not even feel so. The same rule applies even to Nepal, because Nepalese Sanskrit scholarship is simply an extension of the Varanasi ‘gurukula’. Today there is no standard pronunciation of Sanskrit in the Indian peninsula. For Sanskrit pundits the logic of Nepali spelling is very simple, ‘If you can spell Sanskrit correctly by practice even without being able to pronounce it, why cannot you apply the same rule to write Nepali correctly by totally ignoring phonology?’

 

  1. 4.    Futile attempts to  standardize spelling with unscientific rules

4.1 First grammarians

It is not that there has been no attempt to standardize Nepali spelling. Ayton (1820) and Turner (1931) have used only short /i/ and /u/ finding that there is no phonemic contrast of vowel length in Nepali, but the first era of Nepali grammarians (अर्ज्याल, 1980; अर्ज्याल, 2001; सिंह, 1912; पण्डित, 1912; दीक्षिताचार्य, 1913; सिग्द्याल, 1919; राणा, 1944 (२००१); जबरा, 1935 (१९९२)) could not realize the importance of phonemicity in spelling.

 

4.2  Institutional and organized efforts

When the government owned publishing institution called Gorkha Bhasa Prakasini Samiti (which was renamed Nepali Bhasa Prakasini Samiti during the Rana rule and Sajha Prakasan after the Panchayat system) was formed, Puskar Shamser designed a style sheet of spelling based on pragmatic rules rather than following phonemic writing. Puskar Shamser JBR (जबरा, 1935 (१९९२)) was first to initiate the tradition of formulating spelling rules (for Nepali Bhasa Prkasini Samiti) rather than following the phonemic spelling. Sajha Prakasan (1969) tried another futile attempt to standardize Nepali spelling by supplementing further rules. Ballabh Mani Dahal, Basudev Tripathi, Mohan Raj Sharma, Thakur Prasad Parajuli, Krishna Prasad Parajuli and Hemanga Raj Adhikari (दाहाल, त्रिपाठी, पराजुली, शर्मा, & अधिकारी, २०३४-२०४६) tried again in 1973 through workshops and conferences of university teachers teaching Compulsory Nepali on different campuses. The resolutions thus passed were documented by Bal Krishna Pokharel (पोखरेल, नेपाली बृहत् शब्दकोश, 1983 (२०४०)) in the form of Nepali Brihat Sabda Kos with notes on Nepali spelling in the preface. Chuda Mani Regmi (रेग्मी, 2009 (२०६६)) also issued another manifesto on the reforms of Nepali spelling. Nepal Academy tried another attempt to change spelling in 2010. Hemanga Raj Adhikari has been the major advocate of the 2010 spelling reforms. A few months ago Bal Krishna Pokharel (पोखरेल, नयाँ नेकशुले २०६९, 2012) issued a new set of retrospective rules of Nepali spelling in which he (पोखरेल, नयाँ नेकशुले २०६९, 2012) is standing against himself (पोखरेल, नेपाली बृहत् शब्दकोश, 1983 (२०४०)).

 

  1. 5.    Options to standardize spelling

There are three options to standardize Nepali spelling:

 

5.1 Adopting phonological principles

The most scientific way to standardize spelling is adopting phonemic principles. This option rules out from Devanagri the following convention of writing which have no phonmic status in Nepali

  1. the use of the letters (ञ,ण,श,ष)
  2. the letter (ऋ) and its diacritic (ृ) for the Sanskrit syllabic < r̩ >,
  3. the three conjuncts (क्ष,त्र,ज्ञ) that respectively show the neutralization of sibilants as retroflex <ʂ> after <k> (क्ष), neutralization of liquids after the dental <t> as <r> (त्र) and the neutralization of nasals after the palatal voiced affricate <j> as the palatal nasal <ɲ> (ज्ञ)
  4. the diacritics (ी,ू) and letters (ई,ऊ) to distinguish vowel length,
  5. the diacritics for anusvara (ं) and visarga (ः)

 

We are sure Nepali users, mediocres and so called experts (including grammarians and a few linguists who do not have expertise in phonology) are not happy to adopt this option which otherwise would be the most scientific strategy.

 

5.2 Adopting corpus linguistics and frequency as criterion

When we leave out the most scientific option we think we should better choose the option given by corpus linguistics. The Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya  has built the Nepali National Corpus. Using that corpus or if we like, by enriching that corpus with necessary supplements we can take the variant spellings of every word, choose frequency as the criterion and decide

  1. the more frequent variant as the correct spelling for that word
  2. Experts’ opinions may be taken if the standard deviation of the variance is not significant
  3. We should make a new dictionary or incorporating change in the Nepali Brihat Sabdakos we should permanently lock up the spellings as standard Nepali spellings
  4. The mockery of teaching spelling by rules in the classroom should be stopped
  5. The ongoing change in spellings should be completely stopped
  6. Every Nepali teacher should not be given the license of making their on logics and teaching the logics of spelling rules for word after word
  7. Spellings in the dictionary may be changed institutionally in course of time following change in frequency and secondarily taking experts’ opionions
  8. The practice of spelling change should not be started from a textbook
  9. Nobody should be given authority to change a spelling without institutionally producing a dictionary (supported by the consensus of experts) to support the change
  10. Tribhuvan University, Nepal Academy or a permanent body of ‘real’ experts should be given the authority to change spellings of a dictionary if necessary

 

  1. 6.    Methodology of teaching spellings

Spellings should be dictated by drills and practice as they are taught in English rather than the way they are being taught in Nepali where basically two strategies are adopted:

  1. Sanskrit borrowings are taught by drills and practice.
  2. Native Nepali words are taught following a set of so called ‘rules’ which are very unscientific, incoherent and inconsistent.
  3. Borrowings from sources other than Sanskrit (especially from foreign languages)
    1.                                                           i.    Were used as they appeared in Hindi before the Jharrobadi’s Ballabh Mani Dahal (दाहाल, त्रिपाठी, पराजुली, शर्मा, & अधिकारी, २०३४-२०४६) and Bal Krishna Pokharel (पोखरेल, नेपाली बृहत् शब्दकोश, 1983 (२०४०)) initiated a quantal change.
    2.                                                         ii.    Anivarya Nepali Siksan Nirdesika (दाहाल, त्रिपाठी, पराजुली, शर्मा, & अधिकारी, २०३४-२०४६) and Nepali Brihat Sabdakos (पोखरेल, नेपाली बृहत् शब्दकोश, 1983 (२०४०)) stopped the strategy of adopting foreign borrowings as they appeared in Hindi and declared to follow the strategy used for Nepali native words
    3.                                                        iii.    Naya NeKaShuLe (पोखरेल, नयाँ नेकशुले २०६९, 2012) issued from the Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya by Sharad Chandra Wasti and Bal Krishna Pokharel advocated the retrospective move of writing foreign words again as they appear in Hindi.
    4.                                                        iv.    In this way at present Bal Krishna Pokharel (पोखरेल, नयाँ नेकशुले २०६९, 2012) is in conflict with Bal Krishna Pokharel (पोखरेल, नेपाली बृहत् शब्दकोश, 1983 (२०४०)) himself to complicate the issue.

Bibliography

Allen, W. S. (1953). Phonetics in ancient India. London: OUP.

Ayton, J. A. (1820). A grammar of the Nepalese language. Calcutta: Philip Peraira.

Firth, J. (1934 [1975]). The word ‘phoneme’. In J. Firth, Papers in linguistics. London: OUP.

Pokharel, B. K. (Ed.). ((२०४०)). नेपाली बृहत् शब्द कोश. काठमाडौँ: नेपाल राजकीय प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठान.

Turner, R. L. (1931). A comparative and the etymological dictionary of the Nepali language. London: Trubner.

Varma, S. (1929 [2nd edition 1961]). Critical studies in the phonetic observations of the Indian grammarians. London [2nd edition New Delhi]: Royal Asiatic Society [2nd edition Munshiram Manoharlal].

अर्ज्याल, व. (1980). प्राकृत व्याकरण. In J. R. Acharya, Traditional grammars English and Nepali: a study. Kathmandu: Author.

अर्ज्याल, व. (2001). प्राकृत व्याकरण. In प. खरेल, वीरेन्द्रकेसरी अर्ज्यालका व्याकरणको परिचय. काठमाडौँ: खराल, लक्ष्मण.

जबरा, प. श. (Ed.). (1935 (१९९२)). नेपाली कसरी शुद्ध लेख्‍ने? काठमाडौँ: नेभाप्रस.

दाहाल, ब., त्रिपाठी, व., पराजुली, ठ. प., शर्मा, म., & अधिकारी, ह. (Eds.). (२०३४-२०४६). अनिवार्य नेपाली शिक्षण निर्देशिका. काठमाडौँ: पाठ्यक्रम विकास केन्द्र, त्रिभुवन विश्व विद्यालय.

दीक्षिताचार्य, व. (1913). गोरखा व्याकरण बोध. डिल्ली बजार: लेखक.

पण्डित, ह. (1912). गोरखा-भाषा व्याकरण चन्द्रिका. काठमाडौँ: ढोका टोल.

पाणिनि. (500 BC [1950]). अष्टाध्यायी. वाराणसी: चौखम्बा.

पोखरेल, ब. (2012). नयाँ नेकशुले २०६९. काठमाडौँ: मदन पुरस्कार पुस्तकालय.

पोखरेल, ब. (Ed.). (1983 (२०४०)). नेपाली बृहत् शब्दकोश. काठमाडौँ: नेपाल राजकीय प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठान.

राणा, प. श. (1944 (२००१)). नेपाली सजिलो व्याकरण. काठमाडौँ: नेभाप्रस.

रेग्मी, च. (2009 (२०६६)). चन्द्रगढी घोषणा पत्र. चन्द्रगढी: रेग्मी, चूडामणि.

सिंह, ज. (1912). प्राकृत व्याकरण. काठमाडौँ: गोर्खापत्र छापाखाना, उपेन्द्रबहादुर.

सिग्द्याल, स. (1919). मद्ध्यचन्द्रिका. काठमाडौँ: लेखक.

Leave a Reply