Hunterian transliteration


The Hunterian transliteration system is the "national system of romanization in India" and the one officially adopted by the Government of India. Hunterian transliteration was sometimes also called the Jonesian transliteration system because it derived closely from a previous transliteration method developed by William Jones. Upon its establishment, the Sahitya Akademi also adopted the Hunterian method, with additional adaptations, as its standard method of maintaining its bibliography of Indian-language works.

History

The original precursor to the Hunterian system was a transliteration method developed by Charles Wilkins, who is sometimes called the "father of Devanagari typography" because he was also the creator of the first Devanagari typeface. William Jones, who also founded the Asiatic Society, further developed the transliteration method. It was given a more complete form in the late nineteenth century by William Wilson Hunter, then Surveyor General of India. When it was proposed, it immediately met with opposition from supporters of the phonetic Dowler system, which climaxed in a dramatic showdown in an India Council meeting on 28 May 1872 where the new Hunterian method carried the day. The Hunterian method was inherently simpler and extensible to several Indic scripts because it systematized grapheme transliteration, and it came to prevail and gain government and academic acceptance. Opponents of the grapheme transliteration model continued to mount unsuccessful attempts at reversing government policy until the turn of the century, with one critic calling appealing to "the Indian Government to give up the whole attempt at scientific transliteration, and decide once and for all in favour of a return to the old phonetic spelling."

Additional languages and adaptations

Over time, the Hunterian method extended in reach to cover several Indic scripts, including Burmese and Tibetan. The Hunterian system was used to establish writing systems that used the Latin alphabet for some Indian languages that were previously not associated with a written script, such as Mizo. In the case of Mizo, the Hunterian-based writing system "has proved hugely successful." Provisions for schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages were also made where applicable, e.g. the Hindi कानपुर is transliterated as kānpur but the Sanskrit क्रम is transliterated as krama. The system has undergone some evolution over time. For instance, long vowels were marked with an accent diacritic in the original version, but this was later replaced in the 1954 Government of India update with a macron. Thus, जान was previously romanized as ján but began to be romanized as jān. Additional diacritics have been proposed for various purposes, such as disambiguating Nastaʿlīq letters which map to a single Devanagari grapheme. Some languages of the region are tonal, such as Mizo and Punjabi, and accent marks over vowels have been repurposed to indicate tone for some of them.

Vowels

Main Hindustani vowels with their various representations:
DevanagariUrdu Nastaliq Typical IPAHunterianProposed diacritic formsNotes
əaa
ā, aā
ɪii
ī, iī
ʊuu
ūū
ee
ɛː, æaiai, rarely in Standard Hindi, but diphthongal pronunciation in Bihari/Eastern Hindi
oo
ɔːauaupronounced like house in Bihari/Eastern Hindi
अंŋ or mm or nṃ or ṅDifferentiation between labial and dental anusvara
अःhh
riṛĭ
riṟĭ
ɛ--No Hunterian symbol defined; sound occurs in words such as कह/کہہ, but almost never written phonetically in Hindi except for loanwords; more rigorous usage in Nepali
ɒ--No Hunterian symbol defined; sound occurs in words like गौना/gona, but never written phonetically except for loanwords

Consonants

In the Hunterian system, implicit schwas are denoted by the transliterated schwa vowel in Devanagari, a, and excluded as necessary under schwa deletion rules. Aspirations are represented by h. Retroflex graphemes are often represented by a diacritic dot under the Latin consonant that represents the equivalent dental graphemes in proposals, though this has not officially been accepted by the Indian government. Halants are indicated by either leaving out a vowel after the transliterated consonant or, in new proposals, with a period after the applicable consonant. Initially, italics were sometimes used to differentiate consonants such as ख and ख़, but later macrons and diacritics began to be used more extensively.
DevanagariUrdu Nastaliq Typical IPAHunterianProposed diacritic forms Notes
kkk
khkh
ggg
ɡʱghgh
ŋn
chch
tʃʰchhcẖ, čh
jj
dʒʱjhjh
ɲnñ
ʈt
ʈʰthṭh
ɖd
ɖʱdhḍh
ɳn
tt
t̪ʰthth
dd
d̪ʱdhdh
nnn
ppp
phph
bbb
bhbh
mmm
jyy
rrr
lll
v, ʋ, ww, vvIn Marathi, w, except v before i; v, ʋ, w allophony in Hindi
ʃshshIn Nepali, s or sh can be used
ʃ, ʂshṣhpronounced ʃ or श in Hindi; ʂ in Sanskrit
sss
ɦhh
क़qqq
ख़xkhḳh, k͟h
ग़ɣghg͟h
ड़ɽr
ढ़ɽʱrhṛh
फ़fff
ज़zzz
झ़ʒzhzh
क्षkʃ, kʂkshkṣh
त्रt̪rtrtr
ज्ञgjgygyjñ for Sanskrit
श्रʃrshrshr

Examples

Example: मैं अपने संबंधी से कारख़ाने में मिला और उसने मुझे चाय पिलाई। वह बारिश के कारण फ़सलों को हुए नुक़सान की वजह से चिंतित था। मैंने उसे अपनी ख़बर सुनाई। क्योंकि मुझे निकलना था, इसीलिए कुछ देर बाद मैंने क्षमा माँगी और वहाँ से रवाना हुआ ।
With diacritics: maiṅ apne saṃbaṅdhī se kārk͟hāne meṅ milā aur usne mujhe chāy pilāī. vo bārish ke kāraṇ fasloṅ ko hue nuqsān kī vajah se chintit thā. maiṅne use apnī k͟habar sunāyī. k.yoṅki mujhe nikalnā thā, isilie kuchh der bād maine kṣhamā māṅgī aur vahāṅ se ravānā huā.
Without any diacritics: main apne sambandhi se karkhane men mila aur usne mujhe chay pilayi. wo barish ke karan faslon ko hue nuqsan ki vajah se chintit tha. maine use apni khabar sunayi. kyonki mujhe nikalna tha, isilie kuchh der bad maine kshama mangi aur vahan se ravana hua.
Notes: संबंधी can interchangeably be written several different ways in Hindi: संबंधी, सम्बंधी, संबन्धी or सम्बन्धी.
Example: इस साल ग्रीष्मकालीन वर्षा ज़्यादा होने से अमरूद और बेर की क़िल्लत देखी गई। मज़े की बात यह है कि सेब और ख़ुबानी की क़ीमतें कम हैं क्योंकि उत्तराखंड में गोदाम भरें हैं.
With diacritics: is sāl g.rīṣh.mkālīn varṣhā zyādā hone se amrūd aur ber kī qil.lat dekhī gayī. maze kī bāt ye hai ki seb aur k͟hubānī kī qīmteṅ kam haiṅ k.yoṅki ut.tarākhaṇ.ḍ meṅ godām bhareṅ haiṅ.
Without any diacritics: is sal grishmkalin varsha zyada hone se amrud aur ber ki qillat dekhi gayi. maze ki bat ye hai ki seb aur khubani ki qimten kam hain kyonki uttarakhand men godam bharen hain.

Criticism

The Hunterian system has faced criticism over the years for not producing phonetically accurate results and being "unashamedly geared towards an English-language receiver audience." Specifically, the lack of differentiation between retroflex and dental consonants has come in for repeated criticism and inspired several proposed modifications of Hunterian, including using a diacritic below retroflexes or capitalizing them.