For the last two decades incorrect pronunciation of Gurbani text is being preached by some persons under the garb of so-called correct pronunciation, and efforts are being made to prove such pronunciation as correct. The reason is that such persons do not have the requisite knowledge of history of the language. They have assumed that the language as we speak today, has been spoken for ever. Side by side, therefore, some enthusiasts have a tendency to take liberties with spellings also, which can lead to gross distortion in Gurbani in the future. The fear is not baseless. A few years ago Hindi gutkas of Japu ji Sahib with "correct pronunciation" appeared in the market. In these gutkas final siari ( f ) and aunkar ( [) were done away with in the words of Gurbani text alongwith some other alterations under the pretext of the so-called correct pronunciation. The reasons given were _ "Two types of vowel-signs have been used with the letters in the writing of Gurbani. The vowel-signs of one type are used for pronunciation, while those of the other type are meant for the interpretation of meanings and intentions, and not for pronunciation."

Such like thoughts have been expressed by many advocates of so-called correct pronunciation. But these thoughts are wrong and betray one's nescience about the language, its history, linguistics, phonemics and phonetics. Neither any vowel-sign nor any other mark has been used in the Gurbani for the sake of the interpretation of the meaning and import alone. All the vowel-signs and the script-marks have to be pronounced.

It is a matter of surprise that only two vowel-signs have been picked up for this purpose. According to them, these signs coming at the end of a word, are not to be pronounced. And these two vowel-signs are, the siari and the aunkar. It is also true that these days most of us do not pronounce the siari and the aunkar at the end of a word. But, it is absolutely wrong to say that we are not required to pronounce these vowels when they occur at the end of the words used in the Gurbani, and to assume that these vowel-signs are meant only for the purpose of interpreting the meanings of such words.

Let us deliberate a bit on this point. Generally, we read nkfd ;u[ as / nkd ;u /, but will anybody explain which meaning the siari in the word 'nkfd' here has been used to convey ? In fact, the siari has been used here as a part of the original form of this word which was used and also pronounced as such in Sanskrit. The form of the word 'nkfd' remained unchanged in the later vernacular languages, and the final siari was also pronounced therein. During the times when Gurbani was written, these final short-vowel-signs were certainly pronounced.

Now the question arises, why do we not pronounce them these days ? Let us understand the reason. During the course of the past two or three centuries, the Hindi and the Punjabi speakers have developed some peculiar linguisitic tendencies, one of which is that we have lost the ability to pronounce short vowels (viz. the siari and the aunkar) that come at the end of a word. For instance, the original words are r[o[, ;kX[; but we pronounce them either as / r[o{ /, / ;kX{ / or as / r[o /, / ;kX /. Similarly, we pronounce ikfs, p[fX as / iksh /, / p[Xh / or / iks /, / p[X /. It is also a matter of regret that instead of accepting this acquired disability of ourselves, our scholars are advocating that these signs of the short vowels are not to be pronounced at all when they come at the end of a word. The clear conclusion that emerges from what our scholars are advocating, is that the written form of such words (at the end of which we encounter siari and aunkar) is wrong and that the correct form of such words is as we pronounce them today (i.e., by leaving out the terminal siari or aunkar). This conclusion is illogical, and violates the fundamentals of the disciplines of the language, the linguistics, and the history of language.

Let us now carefully watch the following lines from the Japu ji :

j[ewh j'tfB ihn j[efw fwb? tfvnkJh ..

j[ewh T[sw[ Bhu[ j[efw fbfy d[y ;[y gkJhnfj ..

In these lines the word 'j[ewh' means 'by the hukam', and the word 'j[efw' also has exactly the same meaning. And according to the opinion of the advocates of so-called correct pronunciation, we have to pronounce the biari (i.e., the final long vowel sound) of the word j[ewh, but we have to ignore the pronunciation of the siari (i.e., the final short vowel sound) of the word j[efw. But why ? When both the vowel-signs (i.e., biari and siari) have been used to convey the same meaning, why is it that the one is to be pronounced and the other ignored ?

Let us take another example :

Grfs eos Bkwk gefo T[mkfJnk .. _ Guru Granth Sahib, p. 1164

According to the advocates of so-called correct pronunciation, we should ignore the siari and pronounce the word Grfs as / Grs /. But bhagat is one who practises bhagti. Then what will be the meaning of the above line under reference ? If we observe carefully then we find that the siari with the 's' of 'Grfs' is part of the original form of this word which comes from the Sanskrit word bhakti (Gefs). If we do not pronouce the final siari here, then the meaning of the word undergoes a complete change. Then why is the siari not to be pronounced here ? There are numerous other words in the Gurbani wherein the final siari or the final aunkar is retained as a part of their original form or spellings. Examples are, ridhi, sidhi, nidhi, ravi, koti, jati, sangati, sadhu, guru, setu, vastu, etc. Decidedly, therefore, these vowel-endings have no relationship whatsoever with their meanings as such; then why are they not to be pronounced ?

We should remember that Gurbani has been correctly written in accordance with the pronunciation prevalent during those times. The suggestion of non-pronunciation of the vowel-signs written in the Gurbani is as unfortunate as it is unscientific. The correct thing is to learn to pronounce these short vowels, and not to ignore them.