Simplifying Nagari

By T. G. Aravamuthan, M.A., B.L.

THE Nagari alphabet,–rather, syllabary,–requires simplification. It is also easy to simplify. The simplification will be a potent impetus to national progress.

The accompanying Chart embodies an attempt at a simplification which proposes the minimum of modification. The present and the proposed characters are shown as pairs.

The majority of the characters have each a core–the essential element,–garnished with a stroke on top and another at the side. Both the strokes are needless. Knock these off and the cores emerge clear. Enlarge the cores, where needed, to the size of the characters made of core and strokes, and they become clearer still. The cores made up of fine combinations of straight and curved lines, had been doomed to insignificance and ugliness by the imprisoning strokes on top and at side: freed from those in cubuses, the cores come out bold and beautiful.

The symbols in Nagari for consonants are often run together into intricate combinations to make up conjunct-consonant symbols. The integration of the characters is on a method: when, for instance, three characters are to be integrated, the cores alone of the first two are taken and affixed to the third which, however, is taken in full,–strokes and all. Integration is, thus, effected by a certain amount of simplification. So, the reader does not find the conjunct-character difficult to decipher, and the scribe finds the character easy to write, notwithstanding transpositions in positions. The printer, however, has to provide himself with core-characters in addition to full-fledged ones and also to be at special pains to fit the different characters together. This is no small handicap to the printer.

The principle of making one scriptorial unit represent one syllable,–the basis of Nagari,–involves another complication,–the representation of the vowels. The same vowel takes two different shapes, according as it occurs initially in a word or it ‘animates’ a consonant. For instance, the vowel i (as pronounced in the English word it) is of one shape in writing it and of another shape in ti. Further, in the latter case the symbol takes its place not beside, but above, the consonant character. A variation is the case of a vowel like u (as in the English word put) which gets, below the consonant character. This double change,–in form and in position,–places no appreciable strain on the reader and imposes no special strain on the scribe. But, it does add to the difficulties of the printer. He has to compose two separate lines of characters and to adjust them meticulously to give the reader one line of reading matter,–not to mention his having to insinuate characters in almost impossible places.

The complexities of Nagari are, thus, more a problem to the printer than to the reader or the scribe. The printer’s problem will not arise if he has not to use types, for it is impossible to combine then into complex syllabic characters. Were he using processes such as that of photography, in which complex characters could be reproduced merely by superimposing the various constituent characters, the syllabary will present no difficulties. The present system of printing from type may at any time be superseded by a different method, such as photographic reproduction, and, if this happens, the present syllabic system will be found to be ideal,–with, perhaps, a few minor modifications. But, such an event is generally considered to be so remote that it is necessary to consider the problem of splitting up the composite characters into the component elements so as to serve for good types.

Let us first consider what, at first sight, looks a simple solution,–the discarding of one of the two sets of shapes in which the vowe1s occurred. The vowel-characters used initially may be used also for the animating of consonants, but, as they are not distinguishable from the consonants,–for they neither rise above nor fall below the line of consonants,–there is bound to be a great loss in legibility: for there will be disappearance of the vowel marks now affixed to the consonants, above or below. Alternatively, we may eliminate the initial vowel characters and adopt, uniformly, the superscript and subscript characters now used for the vowels that ‘animate’ consonants. While these ensure legibility, their shapes have no individuality, they having been designed merely as characters subsidiary to the consonants. Separating them from the consonants and using them as independent characters will lead to awkward results: the spaces below the superscript symbols and those above the subscript ones will be gaps which, glaring in themselves, will also divide two parts of the same word. A solution, however, is not hard to seek; each of the super or sub-script symbols may be combined with a vertical stroke which, covering the line of consonant symbols, will fill the gap and give an appearance of continuity to the writing. An attempt in this direction is illustrated in the chart. Slight changes in the shapes of the vowel-marks have been effected to eliminate awkward resemblance’s.

The second step is to split up conjunct-consonants. They are now formed by representing the subsidiary consonants in their core-forms,–as already pointed out,–the last consonant alone being expressed in full. It having been already suggested that the liberated cores of the consonant characters may be accepted as equivalent to the full-fledged characters, the conjunct-consonants may be formed by ranging the several liberated components side by side. But, there is a catch. Each consonant character in Nagari is really a character ‘animated’ by the vowel a: it has an a inherent in it. For example, the character for m is really the character for the syllable ma, and that syllable is converted into the consonant for m by the affixing of a mark. So, the ranging of two consonant characters side by side, p and t for instance, will give us, not pt, nor even pta, but pata. This difficulty can be got over only by reverting to the system of core characters plus full-fledged ones, or by adding a mark to the liberated core character to write it down a consonant. Which device may be adopted depends on which will prove more convenient. There is a general impression that animation by the vowel a is commoner in Indian languages than animation by the other vowels. If this belief is well-founded, the system of accepting each consonant symbol as invariably animated by the vowel a,–that is, taking the consonant symbols k, g, for instance, as representing ka, ga, respectively,–may well be retained, and a separate symbol employed for representing what may be called the consonantization of the character. If there is no basis, however, for the belief, it will be convenient to treat the characters is representing only consonants. Statistics must decide the point: the printer should not have to set up two characters if one will do.

The simplification effected by these slight modifications brings about a great reduction m the number of types which a printer has to keep stock of. From few hundreds it is brought down to a few tens. Many of these modifications need not even be adopted in writing. The modifications being very slight, no difference will be noticed if, in writing,–as distinct from printing,–the vowel-marks are superscribed or subscribed, as before: even the telescoping of consonants together for conjunct-consonants may be reverted for the simpler combinations. There is no need to compel the scribe to follow the printer, merely to satisfy theory.

But, even when simplified thus, the number of characters is too many for employment in that great modern convenience,–the type-writer. Here, again, the difficulty will disappear if the present crude machine is improved on. This too appears, however, to be as far off as the introduction of a method of printing that dispenses with the present form of types. An attempt to bring down the number of the characters still further is, therefore, worth the making.

Distinct characters for consonants of the series kh, gh, ch, and so on, –what may be called the ‘aspirated’ consonants,–are unnecessary. They may be dispensed with and a symbol for ‘aspiration’ may be affixed to the basic symbols for the consonants, hard or soft. This suggestion eliminates the ten aspirated consonants and effects a reduction by nine characters.

The scheme as propounded here for the typewriter will need only a total of about 38 characters,–about 23 for the consonants, about 12 for the vowels–and about 3 for merely diacritical or symbolic purposes. We secure an economy of characters greater than even the Roman alphabet exhibits, and at the same time we retain the thoroughness which is the characteristic of the Nagari syllabary. Even if we retain the characters for the initial vowels and the ‘aspirated’ consonants, the aggregate number of characters will not exceed 55 in number.

With 55 characters we have an alphabet that deviates but slightly from the present syllabary, and with 38 characters we have a system that deviates sensibly, but not radically,–not even appreciably. In either case, the graphic system attains a legibility and simplicity that are remarkable.

Refinements in design and in other practical features may be introduced as further improvements. For instance, the symbols for ‘animating’ vowels like u may be made to descend below the lower line of the consonant characters so as to stand out more clearly. The consonant–characters may be all designed to the size of an ‘em’, while the vowel characters and the few diacritical symbols may be designed to the width of half an ‘em’. It should even be possible to ensure that where a diacritical mark and an animating vowel-mark occur side by side, they do not together occupy more than half an ‘em’ in width. These devices will secure quite a number of advantages, especially in typewriting. It should not be difficult to provide that the carriage of a typewriter moves one unit for a consonant and half a unit for an animating vowel, or for an animating vowel and diacritical mark together. Such details, however, being for the technician, need not be gone further into here.

It is hoped that this attempt,–which is all too tentative,–at a simplification of Nagari will focus attention on an important problem and will prompt efforts aimed at the bringing about of a much-needed reform.