Extracted from Gita Today (2004 publication)
Expert live in a dream world of their own
Experts have their own reasons. Those reasons are of theoretical value. Time and again it has been proved that their theory does not work in practice.
Common people are not interested in theory. They do not want to reach out for an expert to find out how a Sanskrit term should be pronounced, every time they have to do so.
They use their common sense. And, that is good enough. They look at the written word. They feel it, and they pronounce it. The look and feel of the written word is important to them, not the theory of some expert.
For them, it is simple. If experts want to design transliteration for their own use, that is fine and they can merrily go ahead doing that. But then, they cannot make common people follow that if their approach does not meet the basic requirement of common sense.
Common people want their needs and limitations be understood by experts and be respected. Their needs are simple. They want to look at written word as it should be pronounced. They do not want to turn pages of an expert compiled dictionary to find out how the term should be pronounced, every time they have to do that.
Their limitations are obvious. They are not experts indulging in theoretical concepts. They believe in common sense plain logic. Therefore, a written word should look closer to how it should be pronounced. That is all they ask for. Hope, someday experts will understand that. (4 March 2010 They will understand that only when they finally decide to climb down from their elevated status of "learned" and try to get back their "common sense" which they left long behind in their hunt toward attaining the "learned" status)
28 Feb 2010
Funniest thing is: when so-called experts themselves pronounce the word, they somehow manage to forget the true Sanskrit pronunciation, and copy the common accent—why it happens— simple—experts too pronounce a word as they see it—but then these very experts begin to argue in favor of writing the corrupt spelling in English giving some untenable argument just because they must uphold blindly what everyone does—these experts do not even bother to critically look at their empty arguments by cross-examining them—all they do is repeat dutifully what their so-called gurus have taught them—and those so-called gurus too had been copying their own respective gurus without application of mind.
Visually phonetic approach
Visually phonetic spelling is that which, by its look and feel, prompts a reader to pronounce the term as close to the intended pronunciation, as possible.Blending English and Sanskrit phonetic traditions
Proper blending of desired Sanskrit phonetic traditions with current English phonetic traditions is necessary; ignoring either of them won't help.English alphabet/Sanskrit alphabet
English alphabet has roughly half the number of letters in its treasure, as compared to Sanskrit alphabet. As a result, at times, it becomes pretty difficult to find an English equivalent of a Sanskrit letter. Given this limitation, we have to work around the situation, and with simplicity and practicality.Long-a short-a
Sanskrit has two visually distinguishable syllables, one for short 'a' अ as in 'rural', and the other for long 'a' आ as in 'arm'.Arjuna/Arjun
Writing as Arjuna encourages distorted pronunciation अर्जुना. Sanskrit term is अर्जुन. We will not write Arjuna अर्जुना, we will write Arjun अर्जुन.Tailing-a
Use of tailing-a is of nuisance value. It has distorted pronunciation of many-many Sanskrit terms. Sanskrit has a phonetically scientific alphabet. Despite that, their pronunciations have been thoroughly distorted by use of tailing-a.Avatara/Avataar
In Avatara single-a appears 4 times. Every reader will not know that 'va' व should be pronounced as short-a अ, but at the same time, 'ta' ता should be pronounced as long-a आ. Here, use of double-a can help. In Avataar, 'taa' ता will provide necessary clue to the reader that this needs to be pronounced with an added emphasis, as long-a. Writing as Avatara encourages distorted pronunciation अवतारा. Sanskrit term is अवतार. We will not write Avatara अवतारा, we will write Avataar अवतार.
Double-a
Use of double-a is useful in the circumstances mentioned above. However, its use at the end of a word does not seem to be necessary. For example: Gita. Here, be it Gita or Gitaa, does not matter. Readers, in general, seem to carry a common impression. That is, tailing-a should be read as long-a of arm, not as short-a of rural. For this reason, you will find us using single-a at the end of a word to signify long-a. Contrary to this, you will find us using double-a in any other place of a word, including the beginning of a word, to hint at long-a emphasis. Hope, the logic is clear to you.
Prayer, Shlok
However, you will find us using double-a or double-e, everywhere, including end of the word, when we write in English, a Sanskrit Mantr or Shlok. There we do not wish to leave any scope for doubt. Those should be pronounced precisely. Double-a makes Sanskrit terms look cumbersome. But we can live with that in Mantr, Shlok. However, we do not wish to spread this approach everywhere. That will feel cumbersome to readers. Therefore, in all other places, single tailing-a or single tailing-e should suffice.
BhagavadGita
Sanskrit texts do not show Bhagavad-Gita भगवद-गीता with a hyphen. Sanskrit texts do not show Bhagavad Gita भगवद गीता as two separate words without a hyphen. Sanskrit term is भगवद्गीता as one word without a hyphen. We will therefore write it without a hyphen and as a composite word like BhagavadGita.
Bhagavad Gita
Bhagavad Gita, written as two separate words without a hyphen, conveys wrong message. It tells the reader that Bhagavad with 'd' द is an independent word. But this is not correct because Bhagavat with 't' त is an independent word.
Bhagavad-Gita
Bhagavad-Gita, written with a hyphen, conveys wrong message. It tells the reader that Bhagavad with 'd' द when joined with Gita, make the composite word Bhagavad-Gita. But this is not correct because Bhagavat with 't' त when joined with Gita, becomes Bhagavad with 'd' द
Brahman/Brahm
Brahman is also correct, but if we look at any BhagavadGita printed in Sanskrit script, we find it printed as ब्रह्म Brahm, not as ब्रह्मन Brahman. We will, therefore, use Brahm only because our work is either on BhagavadGita, or is inspired by BhagavadGita. Another example would be the recitation printed on the first page of this book under salutation, where you find use of ब्रह्म, not ब्रह्मन.
Short-e short-a
Sanskrit has two visually distinguishable syllables, one for 'i' इ as in 'pin', and the other for short 'a' अ as in 'rural'.
Brahmin/Braahman
Writing as Brahmin encourages corrupt pronunciation ब्रह्मिन or ब्राह्मिन. Sanskrit term is ब्राह्मण. We will not write Brahmin ब्रह्मिन, we will write Braahman ब्राह्मण. Here, 'n' is required to be pronounced with a harder tone, of which we have no English equivalent.
Ganges/Ganga
Writing as Ganges encourages thoroughly corrupt pronunciation गैंजेस. Sanskrit term is गंगा. We will not write Ganges गैंजेस, we will write Ganga गंगा.
Need based approach
Wherever we find significant deviation from original pronunciation, caused by the way it is spelt in English, there we can look for an alternative spelling. Elsewhere, we can live with the current approach. It is the phonetic integrity of a phonetically scientific language Sanskrit that we want to protect. We do not want to design another parallel scheme of transliteration. Nor, do we wish to blindly follow the expert job.
Short-e long-e
Sanskrit has two visually distinguishable syllables, one for short-e इ like 'i' in 'pin', the other for long-e ई like 'ee' in 'meet'.
Geeta/Gita
It is written with long 'e' in Sanskrit original, like Geeta गीता. If we look at the pronunciation habits of people, we find that Gita serves the purpose well, as it does not seem to offer any significant distortion. People generally seem to pronounce Gita as गीता. Therefore, we will continue with the popular approach Gita.
Jnana/Gyaan
Writing as Jnana encourages thoroughly corrupt pronunciation ज्नाना. Sanskrit term is ज्ञान. We will not write Jnana ज्नाना, we will write Gyaan ज्ञान. But there is a problem. ज्ञ 'gya' is pronounced with a nasal tone, of which we have no English equivalent. Jnana Jnana prompts a reader to pronounce 'Jn' ज न as in 'Jack' and 'Norman'. Experts did not want it to happen, but it does happen because that is how it looks to common people. (see footnote)
Gnyan
If written as Gnyan, it would prompt readers to pronounce 'Gn' ग न as in 'God' and 'Norman'. This helps not. And, single-a in Gnyan does not convey to the reader that it requires long-a आ emphasis.
Swami Jnanananda
Beauty of this theoretical approach is that Swami Jnanananda gets called as स्वामी ज्नानानन्दा, whereas his true name is स्वामी ज्ञानानन्द. If you know the difference between the sound these two names produce, you will realize what I am saying. The two sound as totally different names to someone who listens to them for the first time.
Karma/Karm
Writing as Karma encourages distorted pronunciation कर्मा. Sanskrit term is कर्म. We will not write Karma कर्मा, we will write Karm कर्म.
Krishna is a female name
Krishna is a female name; it was Paandav queen Draupadi's name. Krishn is a male name, it was the name of Bhagawaan Shri Krishn. In Sanskrit, Krishna is written as कृष्णा, whereas Krishn is written as कृष्ण.
Krishna/Krishn
Writing as Krishna promotes distorted pronunciation कृष्णा. Writing as Krishn will promote pronunciation कृष्ण We will not use Krishna कृष्णा, we will use Krishn कृष्ण.
Mantra/Mantr
Writing as Mantra encourages distorted pronunciation मंत्रा. Sanskrit term is मंत्र We will not write Mantra मंत्रा, we will write Mantr मंत्र.
Rama/Raam
Writing as Rama encourages distorted pronunciation रामा. Sanskrit term is राम We will not write Rama रामा, we will write Raam राम.
Rama, in Sanskrit, means a woman of low origin
Rama रामा = (a) beautiful woman, a charming young woman (b) a beloved, wife, mistress (c) a woman in general (d) a woman of low origin (e) vermilion (f) Asa Foetida. Vaman Shivram Apte, p 468
Ram, in English, means a male sheep
Ram रैम = male sheep
Shiva/Shiv
Writing as Shiva encourages distorted pronunciation शिवा. Sanskrit term is शिव. We will not write Shiva शिवा, we will write Shiv शिव.
Short-u long-u
Sanskrit has two visually distinguishable, different syllables for short 'u' उ as in 'put' and long 'oo' ऊ as in 'boot'.
Shudra/Shoodr
Writing as Shudra encourages distorted pronunciation शुद्रा. Sanskrit term is शूद्र with long-u. We will not write as Shudra शुद्रा. We will write Shoodr शूद्र so that our readers do not pronounce शूद्र with an undue emphasis at the end as शुद्रा and at the same time, do not miss the required emphasis of shoo शू
Veda/Ved
Writing as Veda encourages distorted pronunciation वेदा. Sanskrit term is वेद. We will not write Veda वेदा, we will write Ved वेद.
Yajna/Yagya
Writing as Yajna encourages thoroughly corrupt pronunciation यजना. Sanskrit term is यज्ञ. We will not write Yajna यजना, we will write Yagya यज्ञ. But, there is a problem. ज्ञ 'gya' is pronounced with a nasal tone, of which we have no English equivalent.
Yajna
Yajna prompts a reader to pronounce 'Jn' ज न as in 'Jack' and 'Norman'. Experts did not want it to happen, but it does happen because that is how it looks to common people.
Yagy
Yagya, however, presents another difficulty. Tailing-a needs to be ignored but readers won't know that. If we drop the tailing-a, it would look like Yagy, and reader will pronounce it like 'y' in 'pretty'. That will be worse. Yagya is better than Yagy or Yajna.
Helping young Hindus with better Sanskrit pronunciation
Our newer generations do not have the benefit of learning Sanskrit terms by looking them at Sanskrit original script. Most English educated Hindus today learn to pronounce Sanskrit terms by looking at their English spellings. Use of visually phonetic English spellings for Sanskrit terms may help them understand 'relatively' correct pronunciation. Such pronunciations may then come into practice over a period of time through repetition.
Helping Westerners with better Sanskrit pronunciation
Living in the West has brought me the awareness that in today's world Westerners have been becoming increasingly conscious of pronouncing Eastern names the way Easterners themselves would want to pronounce. It is up to us to take advantage of this growing consciousness and correct the situation by ourselves adopting correct pronunciations. That can be put in to practice when we ourselves start writing Sanskrit terms in English alphabet differently. Different aspects of this issue have been dealt with in different works