Tulwar ... or talwar
 

This is probably a largely discussed issue, but still an enigma for me.
Could anyone post some input on what the term actualy means, and its correct spelling ... tulwar or talwar.
Thanks a lot in atecipation.
Fernando

TulVar.
Or.. TalVar :D :D
It's no different than trying to spell a Chinese word in French, or Russian in Urdu.
No transliteration is perfect.

Ariels right,

its the same as kukri , kukhri, khukri, kukeri ,khukuri etc. etc.

Or even Ghurka, Gurka, Gurkha, Goorkha, Gorkha etc.

Translation of spelling can not be exact. It sounds, phonetics, interpritations etc. some spellings are more accepted than others but true correctness is only possible in the original language.

Spiral

Thanks for the answers.
I see the point, but i didn't put it the right way.
Forget the spelling. What i am actualy puzzled with, is the sounding.
Now, if i well understand Ariel, the w sounds like v
Still they ought to sound either tulvar or talvar.
Or do they sound something in between ?
Maybe in english terms this looks more like a false case, but in Portuguese u and a have very distinct sounds, and there should be no ambiguity.
Do i make any sense ?

Hi Fernando,

Maybe the sound is like "uh" (click on the speaker icon to hear the pronunciation) a sound that has no letter in English. I think it's the same with khukri, pronounced kuk-uh-ri maybe. If I were to spell the name of these swords in Romanian it would probably be tâluar or tâlvar, depending on whether the w is pronounced "W" or"V". I guess we could phonetically transliterate the sounds as pronounced in Hindi or Nepali, but simply tulwar seems so much easier and generally accepted.

All the best,
Emanuel

who's standard?
 

Hi fernando,
In some parts of Texas "help" is pronounced as almost two syllables (hailp) and in New England "stop" is also almost two syllables (sto-op). Boston's beloved Sox have a similar sound. To accurately spell these sounds without a host of diacritical marks and other notations would be impossible and even if it were possible, the Texas pronunciations differ markedly from those in New England. Go to my native Manhattan and these three words are pronounced entirely differently again. Imagine what it would be like for a native of India, not well versed in English, to come to the United States and try to figure out the correct pronunciation of "help", "stop", and "Sox". Especially after having traveled around the country. Further imagine what it would be like for him to try to spell those words in his native language. There are some that might argue there is a standard American English pronunciation. To them I say in my best Manhattan, "ooz steandid? I would imagine that a word like tulwar that has passed into many languages has a raft of pronunciation variants.
Sincerely,
RobT

Yes, you do. Sorry for missing your meaning right away. Do we use "u" because in a closed syllable in English it is pronounced as open "a" (as in "must") or because we want to signify sound "u" ( as in "put") using as correct a letter as possible? ? Do we use "a" because we hope that even a dumb English-speaking clod can figure out that it should sound as in "parson"?
For the answer we need a native speaker of a multitude of "Indian" languages, and professor Higgins with his phonetic alphabeth. I guess he will go bananas ( bununahs?)in a jiffy.
Remember Shaw quipping that in English " fish" should be spelled "ghoti"?"
Enough. Women. Ambition. :D :shrug:

Thank you for your answers, Gentlemen.
The particularity in posting at this Forum is that one often gets comprehensive answers from highly educated people, having to go browsing the "netpedias" or "netctionaries" to learn the meaning or the extent of their lectures.
From Bernard Shaw i only remembered he had a beard; now i know about ghoti ... and both his and Ariel's interpretations of the term :eek:
Ignorantly i didn't connect him with professor Henry Higgins, although i lightly remember seeing the first version of Pygmalion in the cinema; i am an old specimen. I love that playing with phonetics, from which i keep a fresher memory from Rex Harrison in My fair lady.
I also like "bununahs", although in portuguese it wouldn't function, as we have distinct phonetics. While in english the u may sound three different ways, must, put and cute, in portuguese it only sounds as put, or it doesn't sound at all, like in kilogram ... we write quilogram bu we pronounce qilogram.
I understand your point Rob T. I live in a country with the size of a courtyard and the accents are by the thousand. It's easy to detect the inhabitants of a certain town close ( actually glued ) to mine, after they speak up a couple phrases. Not to mention that i can easily understand a downtown Londoner and i get troubles with cocknies.
Emanuel sugests that the uh has no letter in english, although it has a phonetic symbol, same as used for cut ( from cutting ).
On the other hand, the a in portuguese may either sound like banana or laugh.
On what concerns the w, we practicaly don't use it in our native writing but, when have to read it or atribute it, we consider u like in english, and not v, like in german. But i see from Ariel that the idea is sound it like v, in the case of the sword's term.
I come to the conclusion that, if the question of all publicized variations ( there are three or four out there ) is to aproach the various language phonetics to the original sound in India, i still find it hard to adopt one as a portuguese version.
One of these days i will have dinner at an Indian restaurant in Braga, twenty five miles away from my home town. The owners are Sikh ... i know they are from different regions. If until then i don't find the term in a phonetic web site, i will have these guys to pronounce it for me ... just for curiosity sake.
Thanks again for your enlightenings.
Fernando

Very interesting question Fernando.

Extremely nicely explained Rob ! Thank you so much :)

All the best,
Jim

Thanks for the kind words
 

Hi Jim Mcdougall,
Thanks for the compliment. How the sound, phrasing, and rhythm of spoken English varies around the world is remarkable to me but what I really find amazing, and perhaps unmatched, about the language is its ability (one might even say eagerness) to absorb foreign words. Witness how "juke", "pizza", and "chutzpah" have effortlessly entered the lexicon.
Happy New Year,
RobT

The absortion of foreigner words into one's language has been an inexorable fact through all times, this not meaning that one culture is therefore dominating the other, but only a question of utility, to put it that way. It is indeed a strong example when a certain product is introduced in a country, the nationals having a tendence to call it by its original name and often end up adopting it in the local official language, eventually with alterations caused by the local phonetic way to sound such term.
It is amazing how the Japanese have adopted several portuguese words that corresponded mainly to products introduced there in the XVI century, some of them sounding so peculiar due to a Japanese phonetic touch.
It is also interesting that Japan is not how the nationals call their country, but a term comenced by other Asian peoples ( Malay ) and brought to Europe by Portuguese at the same period.
Quite an interesting theme, this of languages.
Fernando

The V or W in talwar/talvar is basically a voiced labiodental approximant. Now the letter V in English is a voiced labiodental (pronounced with the teeth touching the lips) fricative, while the letter W is a voiced labial-velar (pronounced with the lips touching each other, and the back of the tongue raised) approximant. So you could describe the Indian sound as a V, but without a strong buzzing sound to it. Or you could describe it as a W, but with the top teeth touching the lips instead of the lips touching each other.

However this letter depending on the context can sound more like a V or more like a W. Also, depending on the region, it can be pronounced slightly differently, but no south Asian language distinguishes a V from a W.

So, it does not matter what it is transcribed as. But standardized schemes for transcribing Indian languages always use the letter V.

Now the first "a" in talwar is basically a very short a sound. The closest sound in English is the sound of the letter u in "funk". The second a sound is a longer version of this sound, similar to the sound of a in "park".

So, the most accurate transcription of tulwar in English without the use of diacritics would be "talvaar". Using diacritics, it would be talvār.

Thank you very much indeed Roshan, for your comprehensive input.
I am coming to the conclusion that, for obvious reasons, modern or recent
western transcription of this ( and other ) indian term/s follows english phonetics. I guess the application of an u in tulwar only makes sense in english, as in such language it may sound like in must, as Ariel first reminded us. Such resource would be not possible in many other languages, due to their distinct phonetics. I have been this evening at a Tandoori restaurant, where the staff are Sikh, namely one from the Punjab.
He pronounced the term the way i would put it in portuguese as TALUAR. To express these sounds in english i woul say the first a like in english "about" , and the u like in "put".
The second a did not sound delayed as sugested, but quick and open, close to "hat".
Time i end up pleased with this problematic, and thank everybody envolved.
Fernando