Tulwar ... or talwar

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by RobT

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

Very interesting question Fernando.

Extremely nicely explained Rob ! Thank you so much

All the best,
Jim

[RobT]

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

[fernando]

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

[roshan]

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.

[fernando]

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