वार्ता:संयुक्त राज्य अमरीका

Spelling

Hey there Upamanyu! So I see you moved the page... I'm aware that Indians pronounce it a bit different than we do here... they say Uhmrika, and we say Uh-meh-ree-kuh. I suppose we should probably spell things over here the way that Hindi speakers will pronounce them... though I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia in Hindi spells it the way that I first created the page. But I leave the decision to you. - cacahuate / काकाहूआटे ०१:०४, १४ अप्रैल २००७ (EDT)

I am strongly against the distortion of English pronounciation but अमरीका is how it is spelt in news channels and other official things. Forget the hi wp, it's full of sp mistakes and grammatical errors, anyway. उपमन्यु ०१:३९, १४ अप्रैल २००७ (EDT)

they use वो and ये which are both incorrect. They never use a chandra-bindu (ँ), they use an anusvaar (ं) for everything.

eg. It's लन्दन is Hindi although it should be लंडन. उपमन्यु

Indians pronounce it a bit different than we do here. Only Hindiphonies. In the west, it is splelt as amerika. Dunno for south. And in Bengali USA is Maarkin Jukto Rashtro, which when transilerated to Hindi will be मार्किन युक्त राष्ट्र. उपमन्यु ०१:४२, १४ अप्रैल २००७ (EDT)

Re: pronunciation, I meant with my experience there... people say Uhmrika, where the m and r run together, which we don't. I'm all for following what you said above though.

Ya you're right, but only in Hindi-speaking areas. Not in say, MH or Bengal. उपमन्यु

And my understanding is that लन्दन and लंडन are both fairly correct... perhaps one is more proper or dates back further, but isn't it really common to sort of interchange the conjuct characters and bindus? And my Hindi teacher also taught me वो and ये... those are also pretty common, no? I don't think the goal should be to get to the most pure form of Hindi (or any language) as if this were a dictionary... if words and spelling are in common use by many people, I don't see why they can't be in use here. But what do I know  :) - cacahuate / काकाहूआटे ११:०५, १४ अप्रैल २००७ (EDT)

isn't it really common to sort of interchange the conjuct characters and bindus

Yup, provided the half-letter is the last letter of the varga of the following consanent. For eg, both सुंदर and सुन्दर are correct. In this case, the dot in the word stands for न् because the following consanent is द. That is a letter of the त varga (त थ द ध न). The last letter in the varga is न, therefore the bindu has come in for a न्. It is not as confusing as it may seem at first glance :) उपमन्यु

Well yes, वो has become very common. ये is often used as the plural of यह while वे is the plural of वह. उपमन्यु

You're misunderstanding the London bit. It's not to do with the anusvaara, it s to do with the ड vs द.

Sp. 1 : लन्दन/लंदन Sp. 2 : लण्डन/लंडन

Now, if we follow the English pronounciation it should be spelt लण्डन/लंडन. But in common usage and officially it is splelt लन्दन/लंदन so I'd opt for that. उपमन्यु १३:०५, १४ अप्रैल २००७ (EDT)

Cool, thanks for clarifying! - cacahuate / काकाहूआटे ०२:०९, १५ अप्रैल २००७ (EDT)