Since this rant is not directed at any particular person, I hope my vehemence, nay even naked aggression, intemperance and vitriol, will be forgiven.

As some of you may be aware, I swing both ways : I have deep cultural roots in India and England [anticlimax emoticon]. As a result, in anglophone situations, while I stubbornly defend English traditions, I will usually allow them to be subject to the recognition of prior claims of possession by cultures from which the language has only recently borrowed words, phrases or ideas.

Gandhi, in my opinion, is one such recent borrowing, and should, therefore, be accorded the respect of:
a) following the Inidan orthography; and
b) following, as far as possible for anglophone tongues, Indian pronunciation (or more specifically, the mixed Hindi-Gujarati standard for pronunciation of the word).
Accordingly I will now now make the case for the former, and then try to explain the latter.

I have often heard people say that names are not real words, and hence there are no rules about how they should be pronounced or speeled. I find this reasoning inexplicable. The given names, as opposed to the taxonomic names, of living things are defined by the giver. In the case of a pet this is usually the owner, and in the case of a person it is usually a parent. Once defined, I feel, that name is fixed, and others do not have the option of treating it as if it were mere clay, mouldable to their orthographic or vocal whims.

[A digression: my animadversion in this regard is towards those who give, as proper names, diminutives, or logomorphs (changed or corrupted words, IMIU) and refuse to acknowledge or appreciate the difference between those and the originals. A person christened Dan has a different (and IMO inferior, connotatively and euphonically) name from one christened Daniel, even though the latter may most commonly also be referred to as Dan. The former can never be a Daniel come to judgement! Back to the topic at hand, however...]

When a name in a language that is not English is rendered in the Roman script, for English speakers, complications ensure. Is Atahualpa a fair rendition of the Inca emperor's name? Have we actually appropriated a Spanish rendition, itself a logomorph based upon Hispanic vocal paradigms? Here, I believe, we have to find a balance between our customs and practice, and respect for given names and cultural preferences of those named.

I have stated before my preference, in our times, for a 100 year amnesty. If a name has been rendered in our language in a particular, albeit inaccurate, way for over 100 years, let it be, I say. For any name more recently imported (or brought to our notice) we should make every effort to achieve some semblance of accuracy - either through as phonetic a rendition as possible, or through accpetance of the form favoured by the native users of that language and name. Ignorance, or neglect of this principle, is what led so many Indians in the early 1980s to be in awe of the English all-round cricketer they called Iron Bottom. (Ayleurs from cricket-playing countries should get the reference.)

My final defence of point a) relies, strangely enough, upon custom and practice in written Egnlish. If, in English texts, Gandhi is more common than Ghandi, then upon what grounds will the minority of Ghandi-ans base their usage, particularly if they are not even the Indian owners of the name?

"Norra lotta people know this" but the word's third largest English-language publishing industry is in India. It is behind only those of the US and the UK. So yes, it is larger than those of Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa. Given that the majority of these books are likely to be textbooks (I remember reading in the '80s that India turned out more science graduates than any country bar the US and the USSR), I presume that the word Gandhi appears many more times in print than the corruption Ghandi.

I have laid out my primary argument and would now like to supplement it with a description of the pronunciation of the word and, adventitiously, show why it too supports my case.

Whilst this may not represent phonetic best practice, I will split the word into five sounds: G, A, N, DH and I. I will describe their pronunciation, using where possible English equivalents. Finally, I will also attempt to show why, in terms of the English Roman script, this spelling is the most reasonable.

G is the sound of the g in garotte or goose. It is not the mildly aspirated gh in ghoul. In English, g is the most common way in which this sound is transcribed.

A is the sound of the first a in fart. Not the one in fat, or in fate. Nor even the one in fraught (those who pronounce Nepal in that way - beware). Again, in English, this sound is most commonly represented by a - the alternative aa being used, I suspect, only in words borrowed from languages that also use the Roman script: eg aardvark.

N is the sound of the n in anthrax. To Hindi or Gujarati speakers this is distinct from the n sound in under, anchor/angler or melange; and is, even to English ears, different from that in answer, unnecessary or unregenerate.

DH has no English equivalent. It is like a cross between the plosive d of Home Simpson's 'Doh' and the soft British (RP) th in 'the'. The combination dh is also rare (I think non-existent?) in English, so is unlikely to be confused with the d sound of bode or dog.

I is closest to the ee in feet, though it is flatter, not taking on the diphthongal quality it has in marked RP. To that extent, this is the one place in which the standard Indian orthography could be improved. In any case, it should never be pronounced like the i in fight or bite. The French i in vite is much closer.

My rant is nearly done. I promised, however, some vitriol and, besides the choice of examples in the prnunciation guide, here it is.

It is my opinion that those who spell Gandhi Ghandi, or pronounce it GAN-dye are suffering from either:
a) woeful ignorance; or
b) intolerable, culturally imperialistic, arrogance;
or a combination of the two.

I pause for a reply.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

ps. Many of these arguments also apply to my prefernece of Gujarat over Gujerat as the English-Roman rendition of the name of the Indian State that was M K ("Mahatma") Gandhi's home state. The vowel in question is closest to the English schwa ("the neutral, unaccented vowel"). Most Indian languages however, like Classical Greek, use syllabic length rather than stress for their rhythm. So the 'a' is simply the neutral vowel, and probably the commonest sound in Hindi.

pps. Apologies for any typos - am not using a word processor.