I agree.
I missed many of the details of the discussions of the last two days. But it is not important. The main issue here, as I see it, is WHY transliteration? Once that can be sorted out it will be a whole lot easier to come to terms with some of the conflicts and problems we have seen presented by the various participants. Saurav articulates the WHY part very well. There might be other reasons. Let us hear them. I also know that in the past some people active in the Oxom Xahityo Xobha have vehemently opposed the idea of transliteration altogether. Maybe there are good reasons for that too. And if there are, let us hear them. One thing is eminently clear: transliteration standards NEED NOT be the same as Assamese font keyboard standards. Why not? That is , as Saurav points out, if one ( the sender) knows how to use the Assamese keyboard, she has no need for transliteration, just like the receiver , because he knows how to read Assamese. On the issue of Assamese proper names written in a NEW transliteration format, something that riles some of our friends here in the net so, is a non-issue. If an individual prefers to or has been set in to a standard set by the British, it is his or her choice to follow it. For some one like myself, it is just not worth it to go change my name to sondon mohonto, even though sometimes I think it might help me get an idea thru if my name was not chandan mahanta :-). On the other hand, if it is a historically public person, like Xonkordev for example, there is no reason why we have to continue to follow how the British wrote his name. Personally, I have no need for following a Devnagari format to transliterate Assamese words. It is one thing for a computer keyboard standard, but a whole different thing as far as transliteration standards are concerned. That is exactly why I have a strong disdain for the practice of re-formating words from an Assamese form to a Sanskrtized form, before transliterating in Roman script; even if the root word is a Sanskrit one. Imagine all the popular English language words with Latin roots being transliterated in Assamese, or Hindi, in the Latin form! On the point of words transliterated without vowels could not be all that weird. The two semi-vowels, W and Y (right?) have a pretty safe spot in the English language. One should not have to ask WHY. cm At 9:26 AM -0400 7/25/03, Saurav Pathak wrote: >S Saikia said on AssamNet: > >+ >+ Hi sauravda, >+ >+ I guess we were talking at cross purposes all this while ! I wrote in my >+ very first post, > > >hmmm....maybe we aren't talking at cross purposes. i am trying to >emphasize one aspect of the problem. and we will have to find some >middle ground. otherwise the transliteration scheme will not become >a standard. > >what are the real needs of a transliteration scheme? and how big is >the demand? there exists a standard assamese keyboard, and an >encoding system, defined by iscii. fonts have been developed that >follow this encoding scheme, which will finally be accepted by the >unicode consortium. most of the assamese printed matter that exist >today are available in this scheme. daily newspapers, magazines and >books are being printed. these are typeset by professionals who >train on the iscii keyboard. the transliteration scheme, imo, >should have a one to one mapping with this. > >on the other hand, there exists a group of people who are used to >the roman keyboard, and who will never learn the iscii keyboard. >they are casual users. they are using the internet to write in >assamese -- emails and chats. imo, they are important users of the >assamese language too. the transliteration scheme should be able to >bring this brand of casual users closer to the real thing. > >the first step has been taken. you took the devnagri scheme and >modified it for assamese. my suggestion is that it has not been >modified enough. > >first, rajen-da has suggested that we forsake the horso e/ dirgho e >difference. this, imo, would be a bad idea. but rajen-da's scheme >can be made into a subset of the formal scheme by using "i"/"ii" and >"u"/"uu" in the formal system, for example. then rajen-da's scheme >can be easily read by a formal reader, and vice-versa. a similar >mapping can make "prothom so" and "ditiyo so", (eg. "c" and "cc" or >"s" and "ss"), so everyone can read each other's writings. this >would mean that with a little effort, a casual writer can easily >begin writing assamese with the correct spelling. this, imo, is >important if we want to attract young and inexperienced writers to >begin using the system. > >second, the "o" instead of "a" is important for the casual writer, >as well as those who wants to write naturally (e.g jugal kalita). we >should give a serious thought to this. jugal-da mentions there are >some technical difficulties. maybe we should try to solve them. > >"Chandra Kanta Bharali" and "condro kanto bhorali" is not a real >problem, because "condro kanto bhorali" is written in >transliteration, not in english. there is a difference. my name >would be "xourobh" or something like that. and i have no problem >with it. my guess is, if your transliteration scheme becomes >popular, many people will prefer to write their names in your scheme, >and not in the regular english spelling. my guess is, we will >increasingly see "xonjoi", "jugol", "sondon", "xoikia" etc. > >most importantly, this transliteration scheme will form a bridge >between the casual/opular users of the assamese language and >the traditional forms and spellings of the language, and also will >serve for the academic community. and this precisely is the job of >transliteration, imo. your scheme is clearly a start and should >evolve keeping these points in mind. what it should not do is add >one more scheme, and add to the profusion of schemes. i believe a >group in tezpur university has also evolved a scheme. are you >a part of it? if not, maybe you should be aware of their efforts >and needs too. > >finally, i think some common standard has to be imposed. >there are many oxom xahityo xobha members on this net. maybe you >can influence them to press the organization to evolve a common >standard. (does the xohityo xobha have a new media division? has it >done something about this?) > >saurav > > > > > > > > > > > >+ "This scheme is not meant for use in software program just becaue it is >too >+ complicated and scores of more practical systems can be figured out to do >+ the same ... " >+ When I prepared the scheme I did it so that we can write Assamese words >+ (esp names of people, places, songs etc) in Roman font without losing or >+ trying not tose their original phonetic quality so that even a person >+ inexperienced in Assamese can read it. I didnt think of writing down the >+ roman font and getting back the assamese fonts thru some software at that >+ time... But now your question seems to be how to MODIFY the phonetically >+ correct (really !?) scheme so that people can intuitively use it in >+ softwares, emails etc.. The 'o' u propose is DEFINITELY superior to my >+ paltry 'a' while typing for the layman... >+ >+ Now there are two things we can do about the 'a'/'o' perplexity.... >+ >+ 1. Change the original scheme and use 'o' as a Universal Standard. >+ 2. Use 'o' in "roman-input-to-assmese-font-output" softwares and use "a" >+ while writing Assamese words in english.. >+ >+ If we use the "o' as an universal standard we might face quite a few >+ problems ....e.g., as Mr. Rabin Deka pointed out .....we will write >Chandra >+ kanta Bharali or Chondro Kanto Bhorali ?? Thats why I guess using 'o' when >+ we r using "roman characters as input and want to get assamese characters >+ as output" and using 'a' when ' we start from assamese characters but >wanna >+ get roman characters as out put' should be a better suggestion.... >+ >+ Thanks for ur advice >+ >+ >+ Syamanta Saikia >+ >+ >+ >+ >+ >+ >+ >+ >+ ---------------------------------- >+ >+ Saurav Pathak Wrote: >+ >+ syamanta-da, >+ >+ i accept your arguments. but the purpose of suggesting "o" instead >+ of "a" was to make native speakers comfortable with the >+ transliteration, not foreign speakers. as jugal-da pointed out, the >+ "a" makes it uncomfortable. i use transliterated assamese sometimes >+ in my personal emails. and to me "o" came naturally. >+ >+ i am afraid that if the native speaker doesnot feel comfortable, he >+ will desist from using it, and then there will be no need for a >+ scheme anyway. >+ >+ on the other hand a standard, widely accepted scheme has many >+ advantages. >+ >+ saurav >+ >+ S Saikia said on AssamNet: >+ >+ + >+ + >+ + >+ >+ _________________________________________________________________ >+ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. >+ http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus >+ >+ _______________________________________________ >+ Assam mailing list >+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >+ http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam > >-- >saurav > >_______________________________________________ >Assam mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
