Talk:Antakshari

Sounds a lot like the game geography where you try to think of a place name that begins with a letter that the last place ended with (

Naming of page

I've changed the article back to its original name because it seems to be a far more common spelling [1] compared to [2]. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 22:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to contest this because it isn't a big deal BUT native Hindi-Urdu speakers almost always say Antakshri (classic ə -> ø | VC_CV situation). Antakshari will come across as accented in Hindi - but very common to hear from people of Marathi, Bengali, Oriya backgrounds who are otherwise comfortable with Hindi-Urdu. This is *mandatory* deletion of the medial vowel in HU, not optional. I am not surprised that it outnumbers the correct rendering online because HU-speakers are likely underrepresented. Also, I guess you could also have Marathi and Bengali Antakshri, even though I believe it started as a Hindi-Urdu game and is far more prevalent there. It's like a hundred similar words that have a very similar pattern of native pronunciation vs non-native accents, actually -

Devanagari	Native Hindi-Urdu pronunciation	Non-native pronunciation (Hindi-proximate accent)	Non-native pronunciation (Hindi-remote accent)
अन्ताक्षर	Antakshar	Antakshar	Antakshara
अन्ताक्षरी	Antakshri	Antakshari	Antakshari
सक्षम	Saksham	Saksham	Sakshama
सक्षमी	Sakshmi	Sakshami	Sakshami
अदब	Adab	Adab	Adaba
अदबी	Adbi	Adabi	Adabi
बनावट	Banavat	Banawat	Banawata
बनावटी	Banavti	Banawati	Banawati

If you look at words like सक्षमी which are less commonly found romanized in Indian media, you'll easily uncover patterns like this one. Google them - you'll see that Sakshami tends to be for Marathi sources. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK schwa syncope is a pretty complex thing, and any formulization of it is bound to have exceptions. When the word antakshari is actually pronounced, there can be a clear schwa that is heard. Listen here: [3]. Although the actual pronunciation of this word is besides the point to renaming it, I don't think that schwa syncope occurs uncontroversially here. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 03:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope & you are precisely illustrating my point. That's Laxmikant Berde and he has a solid Marathi accent. Bengalis and Marathis will have a natural tendency to say this word (as well as the others I've listed above) with a medial schwa. Hindi-Urdu speakers will not. True that schwa syncope has exceptions but this is a pretty run of the mill phonetic situation and there are hundreds just like it. Once again, with due respect, your lack of native facility is getting in the way. You are of course free to believe whatever you wish :) Addition: Inspired by you, I did some tooling around on YouTube. There seems to be a persistent pattern. People who have native Hindi-Urdu (interestingly, if you have an ear, even in English you can pick out Marathi/Bengali vs HU accents depending on vowel and d/t/v annunciations), tend to say Antakshri and accented folks say Antakshari. HU natives also tend to spell it as Antakshri or Antaakshri and others as Antakshari. So, this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeW1RRnLloU at 0:40) says Antakshri. On the other hand, Non-HU speaker (distinctive voice - should be able to find his voice in other shots, Marathi accent detectable as he says "din bhar khelni" - sounds almost like Amol Palekar) says "Antakshari" in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71bur7c9_As at 0:35, but a native HU speaker probably titled the shot "aankhon ki antaakshri." BTW this tendency is not limited to HU words and clearly shows up as consistent error patterns in English words too. The same non-HU folks (if they aren't used to English diction - or, even if they are used to English, they are embedding the English word in Hindi speech and get into the lilt of how they'd speak Hindi) often stick in medial schwas in English words too where they don't belong, e.g. sərəvis instead of sərvis for service. HU speakers apply their medial schwa-syncope rules to English when that doesn't apply as well (in British English, which is what they are exposed too - turns out that American English likes to do medial schwa syncopes as well) - Cinderella becomes Cind'rella, Nɛsh'nəl instead of Nɛshənəl for National, Illit'rate instead of Illitərate, Dikshənri/Dikshnəri/Diskshnri instead of Dikshənəri for Dictionary. This last one is hilarious to watch hardcore HU-speakers (who are not too English familiar) do. It's a really tough word for them and they never seem to say it the same way twice in a row. It's almost like they're trying to decide subconsciously which medial schwa to get rid of in a VCəCəCV sequence. I suspect that there are several words like this which will systematically give them trouble. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't supplied an academic source which lays out the rules for schwa syncope in a way that could apply to antaaksh(a)ri. Also, I actually heard a schwa in the Youtube link you provide that was supposed to illustrate schwa syncope (you could could put it under praat if you want to be debate this but it's really not a big deal); and plus, it was clearly using within English, with the /r/ sounding like the AmE approximant more than a tap. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used praat and want to focus on the Hunterian stuff first, but you're welcome to try it. Obviously it will be near impossible to find an academic paper that mentions Antakshri out of all the words in Hindi, so you're setting up an impossible test. By this token you'll dispute medial schwa deletion for all Hindi words except those listed in academic papers - after all anything could be an exception :-) However, here's the Hindi-English dictionary entry Allied Chambers Hindi-English Dictionary, Pg 35: an.taksh.ri अन्ताक्षरी. I am not at all surprised by your hardline belief (totally sincerely held no doubt) based on your experience but will simply urge you to be more open minded and accepting of differences between languages. Pretty much any Hindi-Urdu native speaker who reads this exchange in the future will see this clearly. Earlier I engaged with another contributor who more or less denied the existence of schwa deletion all together based on his experience. Again, your assertions are racing out far ahead of your knowledge in a somewhat unfamiliar language to you. --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant (which I thought was clear, but maybe not) is that I wanted you to find a rule for schwa syncope that incorporates this word. If there's a legitimate rule, then it should be easy to find. Without it, your claims are baseless. I never said and never claim that I doubt you; I'm just asking you to find a source on this that describes the process instead of relying on your claim of being a native speaker. Anyways, this discussions a bit besides the point. You're welcome to bring it to my talkpage, or that of H-U phonology. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will look for the rule, though I think you have the main rule governing this (ə -> ø | VC_CV), so you're more looking for rules that govern exceptions to this rule and ensuring they do not trigger here. Failing this, I have developed a master plan laid out by year -

2012 launch massive survey with a team of 600 people in native HU areas for the word "antakshri"

2013 run prat on every one of these samples

2014 publish in a peer reviewed journal

2015 get this paper referenced in linguistic texts

You, my friend, are in for a rude shock in 2016. Prepare to be humbled! :-) Best --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]