Tulwar ... or talwar

roshan · 7th January 2008, 12:33 AM

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 · 8th January 2008, 12:04 AM

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

7th January 2008, 12:33 AM	#1
roshan Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 20	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.

8th January 2008, 12:04 AM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	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