Talk:इसबगोल

I think the pronunciation of nuqtaless form should use the nuqta'ed respelling forms but again, I think some are inconsistent. This entry uses both ġ and g for variant pronunciations but probably need to to do the same for z/j, (ज़रूरी/जरूरी), etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Many of these nuqta-ed letters have alternative pronunciations, because the sounds represented by the nuqta'ed letters, e.g. ġ, aren't native to Hindi. I think this is fairly systematic and we should use the nuqta variant in transliteration. Benwing2 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about nuqta form in translit. Both variants (automated) in pronunciations for all pairs? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Will add z/j alteration. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 04:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what about फ़/फ (f/ph)? There are seven nuqta letters क़, ख़, ग़, ज़, फ़, ड़, ढ़. Should all of the variants be treated equally? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Added f/ph too. The last two are standard Hindi, so not those. They're allophones of ड, ढ, technically speaking, but they are always indicated in writing these days. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 04:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are all nuqtaless alt forms with ड, ढ (from ड़, ढ़) non-Hindi or old, e.g., ? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They're spelled that way only due to lack of proper typesetting, bad keyboards etc. They are still pronounced always with ṛ and ṛh in those words. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)