Jump to content

Talk:Rupee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

It seems like this page should become a disambiguation page (and there should be pages for the Indian Rupee, Pakistani Rupee, "Hyrule" Rupee, etc...)

Japan also used Rupees in the past. Not sure of the timescale but certainly during WW2.

The Japanese issued Rupees, but these were for the Japanese occupation of Burma (1942-45). - (Aidan Work 01:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Caps

[edit]

Why are some "rupees" capitiolized and some not? shouldn't all be non-caps? Joe I 21:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I reckon all currency units should be capitalised anyway. - (Aidan Work 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
But seriously, reckoning aside, which is it?
Has Wikipedia adopted a particular style-guide? That would be the best way to answer questions like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.219.97.230 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 5 December 2006

Currency unit should be lower case per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. User:Aidan Work is banned --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has had since 2005 to speak their mind. The currency should not be capitalized. I just fixed it. Blue Rasberry 16:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rupee

[edit]

Images and infomation about other variants of the rupee in other countries should be noted in this article (User:71.116.94.54 12:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Worth now

[edit]

It mentions it used to be worth about six dollars in current currency, but I see no indication of current worth. -Iopq 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers were wrong. I corrected it. The amount of silver of the "original" rupee is worth US$4 today. In the late 19th and early 20th century, 1 rupee was a little less than 1/2 of USD. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with History of the rupee

[edit]

I think the fact that there's a specific page for the history of the rupee is a little unnecessary, since the original rupee article doesn't seem long enough to be split off into pages about categories such as "History". Plus, and I suppose this is a minor complaint, but the addition of "History of the rupee" seems to add an enormous amount of white space to the rupee template. El Cid 06:54, 13 October 2009(UTC)

I too think a merger with History of the rupee is not required, that article is on the Indian rupee, whereas this one in on rupees of various countries.--PremKudvaTalk 09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I support under these condition
  1. History of the rupee merged into rupee as a section
  2. Part of History of the rupee that is too Indian specific to me moved to Indian rupee
  3. National specific details permitted in the merged rupee only if it has significance, e.g. comparison of the decemalisation of varous countries.
  4. Images of various rupee stays, even if a higher percentage will be Indian

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the rupee is completely India specific and should not be merged with Rupee--PremKudvaTalk 06:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThe rupee might be primarily used in India, but mention should be made of all the other countries using it, one back/front image if possible. The history of the rupee is directly tied to which countries use it, whether they be large or small. --87.194.21.101 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC) *edit, forgot to sign in first! =) --IceflamePhoenix 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article is too long to be a single section of any other article. Especially, since other articles are small, adding this to them will make them almost entirely about history of the rupee, whereas they are supposed cover all aspects, not just history. I agree that this article, which I wrote almost entirely, is mostly about the Indian rupee. We could rename it as History of the Indian rupee if a need is felt. PS: "This article"" refers to History of the rupee. deeptrivia (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol

[edit]

Tahoma renders ₨ as Rp. Is this an error? Also, XE.com’s graphic has a crossbar through the R. Are these ever used? Wiki Wikardo Bedtime, 5 January 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:5000rupiah2001.JPG

[edit]

Image:5000rupiah2001.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PKR 5000 Front.jpg

[edit]

Image:PKR 5000 Front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Indonesian Rupiah is not a Rupee

[edit]

The map in the main article needs to be altered to remove Indonesia. Indonesia is not Rupee territory. Although the word Rupiah may have the same etymology as Rupee, the Rupiah is not a Rupee. The Rupiah is actually descended from the Dutch two and a half silver Guilder coins that corresponded to the Spanish silver dollars in the Netherlands East Indies. David Tombe (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, but the Indionesian word 'Rupiah' is descended from the same sanskrit term as Rupee. Additionally, the hindi word for Rupee, 'Rupiya' is pronounced the exact same way. Rupee is an anglicized version of our currencies, and can be used for Indonesia as well. I actually saw an IMF picture depicting Turkey and (formerly) Italy as 'pound' territory on the basis that 'lira' is simply pound in another language, so Rupiah will definately qualify for Rupee status. Here in India we barely use the word 'Rupee' in English conversation, we denote sums like 'lakh' or 'Crore' and for small sums, we simply us the ubiquitous term, 'buck'. (Totaldutchacess (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hindi pronunciation

[edit]

@Bmurthy --> Hindi and Urdu (i.e. Hindustani) pronounce it as Rupiya or Rupp-yaa. Ru-pa-ya is incorrect. The most common pronunciation has a soft 'i'. Hindi-Urdu have a general [y -> soft i + y] tendency. Similarly, Zyada (more) is pronounced ziyada, with a soft 'i'. Buffalo (भैंस) is bhains but Brother (भैया) is bha-i-ya. Words like these can be used to tell native and non-native speakers of Hindi apart. Another example is पालतू (tame, as in Shaikh Paltu), which in strict Nagri reading would be Pa-la-too but is pronounced as Paal-too by native speakers. 'Devanagri' (देवनागरी) iself is an example - non-native speakers often say Day-va-na-ga-ree. Native Hindi speakers say Dev-naag-ree, and will often transcribe it as Devnagri in English lettering. This process of how Nagri spelling came to be standardized slightly differently from actual pronunciation is described in http://books.google.com/books?id=0X1jAAAAMAAJ (Hindi and Urdu since 1800: a common reader) if you are interested. Hindi speakers still understand non-native speakers perfectly if strict Nagri-based pronunciation is followed, but they know instantly that the speaker is non-native. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing up spoken Hindi/Urdu with written Hindi/Urdu. While in Urdu alphabet the letter ye doubles up for the ya and i (and e for that matter) sounds, Devanagari has distinct letters for the all of them (I know you know all this, but putting it down for clarification if someone else is interested). Which is why a native Urdu speaker would be right in pronouncing the word as Rupiya (as written in Urdu), but a Hindi speaker (pronouncing the word as written in Devanagari) would not. And you are absolutely right in asserting that in colloquial Hindi a word like Devanagari would indeed be pronounced in most Hindi Speaking parts of India as Devnaagri, is not right to transliterate it as Devnaagri. I also have no quarrel with you over the evolution of Khad(r)i Boli as the spoken Hind/Urdu and its divergence from the written word (and there are many more other from the implied hal for last sound in a syllable), but that is a separate topic, and I also do not agree with all your examples in entirety, e.g. in most of the Hindi speaking parts of India zyada would indeed be pronounced as zyaadaa, or worse jyaadaa :). Coming specifically to the issue of Rupiya vs Rupaya, however, there is no confusion, there is no i sound (implied or otherwise) as written in Devanagari/Devnaagri. In any case, what is being put into this article is the rendering of the word (and only by implication pronunciation). The word in question is *rendered* as Rupaya and not Rupiya in Devanagari/Devnaagri (the script for Hindi). I will let you respond before making any changes. Bmurthy (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)bmurthy[reply]
Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani pronunciations of words do not differ. They are identical because they are two standardized registers of the same language with the difference being vocabulary. When a so-called Hindi speaker says a word and a so-called Urdu speaker says the same word, you cannot identify which register-affiliation exists in either one of them. Is it your contention that you can tell them apart? You can't have rupiya in one language and rupaya in another. No native Hindi speaker I know would say rupaya in natural speech (just as no one will say palatu for पालतू unless it is for dramatic effect as in "AA-MAAZE-INGG"). It's rupyaa or rupiya or (often in song) rupaiya - this is how native Hindi speakers usually transcribe it also. If you'd like to put down an entry for Devnagri that says Devnagri: Rupaya, I'd be fine with that. Otherwise it's misleading. BTW you aren't correct on zyada, unless you're talking about Bihari languages (part of Eastern Indic languages - which had a huge debate - see Hindi in Bihar - and are, by consensus, non-Hindi languages that influence the way Hindi is spoken there). I tried to find a song with it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw614Cpd4Iw at 2:05) - people usually say zaadaa or ziyaada, zyaada is rare.
Unless you can produce an unambiguous reference that explicitly says "rupiya" is wrong and "rupaya" is right in Hindi, please leave it the way it is. I can produce a number of refs that say rupiya, and I am sure there are plenty that say rupaya (incorrectly). Script and language are different things. Classic example: ष and श which, in Devnagri are ʂ and ɕ respectively. No such distinction is made in Hindi at all though, by convention, Sanskrit spelling is conserved. These are NOT colloquialisms. These are specific conventions in how the script has come to be used. In this case, documented conventions. I do not disagree with you on what the Devnagri should imply here - रुप्या or रुपिया should have been standardized on. In Hindi magazines and books, you can actually see writers struggling with words like this: रुप्या, रुपिया, रुपैया, पाल्तू all show up. BTW, don't want to complicate it, but the actual colloquial tendency is [ya -> ia], so Rupia, Ziada, Siar (for fox - Siyar). That, however, IS a colloquialism, and not uniform among native Hindi-speakers. I await your response. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are muddling the issue here by bringing in extraneous issues. Are you disputing what the value in Hindi (Devanagari) script is written as? Can you provide a specific reference which states that the letter ya (in Devanagari) actually contains the i sound, I would love to see it? Are you disputing that in every Indian banknote the name of the currency is written in both Hindi and Urdu scripts (along with a host of other languages)? Ergo, the two are different!! You are bringing the ambiguity of Urdu script (as I have pointed earlier) as an ambiguity in Hindi. In fact, I would assert that the word can be ru-pa-ya in Urdu as well, but because of the ambiguity of the script gets pronounced differently, no such issue exists in Hindi. And as for the "colloquial tendency" as you put it is, there are enough regional variations in most languages to negate that factor anyway. However, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the written word, which is the point here. रुपया and रुपिया are two different words in Hindi, which when transcribed in the Roman alphabet are ru-pa-ya and ru-pi-ya respectively. The one which is correct is the former. I do not have to provide a reference, you see it *is* the written word. Unless you can provide a reference that explicitly states that the latter rendition is actually the correct one instead of the former, there is no argument here at all. If you can dig up a reference which explicitly states that ru-pi-ya is an acceptable alternative pronunciation for रुपया, feel free to mention it so and provide the citation.
I would be glad to take you up on the difference between Urdu and Hindi as larger issue separately, feel free to engage outside of this forum.
Bmurthy (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not muddling any issue. The point here is to convey to readers how Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani) speakers say the word, not the formal rules of how Devnagari letters are pronounced. 'gh' in normal Roman script shouldn't make the sound 'ff' which it does in cough. English transcription is extremely non-phonetic, so stuff like this is rife. In Hindi transcription, there are also a limited set of systematic deviations from Sanskritic phonetic use of Devnagri. One is where the original Sanskrit lettering is preserved, even though virtually all Hindi speakers pronounce the word differently. Another is the halant issue, another is ष and श. The rupee case is actually an instance of the halant issue, just as paltu is - except in this case the halant is inside the word rather than at the end. Rupyaa (with the soft i), not Rupaya. Devnagri is just a script that is used to write Hindi. Tomorrow, Hindi could be written in Perso-Arabic (i.e. drop Nagri and use only that for its standard script), Roman, Brahmi, Cyrillic, whatever. The script doesn't dictate how a word is pronounced. You are applying Sanskrit pronunciation rules to Hindi. Same deal with Urdu. Just because the sira letter can indicate i or y or e doesn't mean it's any of them. There is no ambiguity in native-speaker pronunciation. It is the way native speakers say it - rupiya or rupya. On references, you can find many (as I said, either way) -
I can find many, many more because the word really *is* pronounced Rupiya/Rupya. I didn't create the pronunciation, and I can't help you change it. Again, we are talking about HINDI here, not Devnagri. I have no dispute with you making an additional entry for Devnagri, as long as you don't replace the Hindi entry with something that is incorrect. No interest in Hindi-Urdu issues on this specific topic. There is no pronunciation difference between them. This discussion is a little unreal BTW. It's like if I started insisting that the Nashik article be renamed Nashika. It can't, because that is not the name - Sanskritic Nagri pronunciation rules notwithstanding. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I absolutely cannot agree with you at all. First of all, you have not provided a single reference which asserts that there is an (implied or otherwise) i sound accompanying the ya letter. That's because that is simply not true. Let's consider some examples, जया/जिया, पयाम/पिया, हया/हिया, नया/नियाज़ amply demonstrate that where appropriate the words are written explicitly with the i vowel. No one, including you would pronounce the former word in each pair with a soft or any i sound at all. Note that all of them include the elongated form of yaa as in rupayaa, and there are words that do not originate from Sanskrit.
Second, let's look at a couple of dictionaries, since you seem to like them, as to how they represent the word in question रुपया in Roman alphabet. The first one is the respected Platt's dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English. Here is the entry
  • H رپيا रुपया rupayā, रुपिया rupiyā, rupyā, रुपीया rupīyā, रुपैया rupaiyā [Prk. रुप्पअं; S. रूप्यकं], s.m. A rupee (the silver coin so called); coin, cash, money, wealth (in Urdū the word is frequently written روپيا rupayā; but the و is inserted merely to indicate that the vowel of ر is u. (here is the link http://dsal1.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:3404.platts)
Second, the reference you yourself provided
There are 50 references to the representation rupaya, but only one for rupiya, look up for yourself
Some of the entries containing the representation rupaya
  • pp 161 - Currency, n. 2. sikka; chalta rupaya
  • pp 220 - dry-money, naqd rupaya, khalis rupaya
  • pp 234 - Earnest, n hundi ka rupaya
  • pp 413 - Money, n, rupaya; rupaya paisa
and on and on. The one entry for rupiya was actually bahu-rupiya which is obviously a red herring.
In short, if the original is written as रुपिया, by all means spell it as rupiya, however, if the source is रुपया the only way to put it in the Roman alphabet is rupaya. No two ways about it.
As for the other references, I do not attach any credence to Spink, their catalogs/publications often contain mistakes. As for the other references, please provide direct links, as I do not have the print versions and the search didn't yield any of references you mention (note however, that none of them even in your own notes mention rupiya).Bmurthy (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you can search inside a book from the google books link (usually a box on the left hand side). Just try it for http://books.google.com/books?id=H1LzD8-iipgC or http://books.google.com/books?id=nKaZmX9hdMkC or http://books.google.com/books?id=pntjAAAAMAAJ or http://books.google.com/books?id=ICylixhKK4QC - I can find many more. Like I said, rupiya and rupya are correct. You can find rupaya too - many people make this mistake when transcribing Hindi in Devnagri to Roman, because that is what the lettering would show. Just like people write Palatu. It's a milder form of someone writing 'cough' as कग़ or कघ. Looks stupid but you can understand why it would happen. The mistake is milder because Hindi speakers would still understand the word spoken erroneously that way if accompanied by proper context. They would immediately know you are a non-native speaker though. On your examples - जया/जिया, पयाम/पिया, हया/हिया, नया/नियाज़ - they are GREAT examples because they illustrate the precise linguistic reason why the 'i' comes in the first place. Your examples are looking at consonant+vowel followed by 'y', which makes it easy for the vowel+'y' to be pronounced. The soft 'i' gets introduced for ease of pronouncing it after a pure consonant. Note that 'z' in zyaadaa, 'p' in rupyaa (< रूप्य, the actual Sanskrit word from which rupiya is descended), 'p' in pyaadaa are consonants only. If it was jya instead of jaya, Hindi speakers would say jiya (with a soft 'i'), e.g. rajya sabha is pronounced rajya or rajiya, never rajaya. The original error in convention was to spell it as रुपया when the Sanskrit was रूप्य. If Rajya had been spelled as राजय instead of राज्य, Hindi-speakers would still say rajya or rajia/rajiya (c.f. rupya and rupia/rupiya) and you would be here insisting that Hindi-speakers say rajaya. Similarly, नया is naya but if न्याय had been rendered नयाय in Nagri for Hindi, it would still be pronounced Nyaya or Niyaya. Convention has caused the letter rendering to vary from native speaker pronunciation. Maybe if the Sanskrit word had been रुपय instead of रूप्य, Hindi-Urdu speakers would be saying rupaya today. It wasn't, and they aren't. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


When shown examples, you just seem to change your argument:). Let's see, if what you say is correct, then we wouldn't have separate words for क्या and किया, although in Urdu both are written identically. Everyone who is conversant in Hindi knows the correct way to pronounce these two. However, according to you at least one of them would be redundant. What rule of pronunciation would you invoke to prove that these two are same words and that they should be pronounced identically?
You see, the problem is once again, what I mentioned very early in the thread, those used to the Urdu spelling sometimes tend to pronounce the words ambiguously, e.g. iman for the raga yaman when a person who has seen the word in Devanagari will never make that mistake. I wonder if you will insist that it should be iman instead!! As for your other examples, I would never insist that राज्य be pronounced rajaya, for the simple reason that it is not, however, I will not accept either that it be pronounced as rajiya either since, it is not written that way. Coming back to the issue at hand, once again न्याय is nyaaya and not nayaay which would have to be written नयाय and certainly not niyaaya, which would have to be written नियाय. The confusion only occurs for people who have encountered the word through the Urdu script and do not know the correct pronunciation. Let me give you a different example, هندوستان can be pronounced Hindustan or Hindostan, but हिन्दुस्तान is Hindustan and हिन्दोस्तान is Hindostan. Why, because, Devanagari has the ability to represent the sounds differently, and in some cases the Urdu script doesn't. Just like رپيا is rupaya/rupiya but रुपया is rupaya.
Your only argument seems to be "trust me I know", but you do not support your arguments with any references, nor are you able to refute any examples? I have provided you with both written and spoken examples and shown you the distinction that exists in different scenarios. Provide me explicit references which say 1) that the letter य has an i sound, not 2) रुपया is pronounced is rupiya. You have provided neither, all you have shown is that there is a pronunciation rupiya for the word when the word is written رپيا/रुपिया, which I have no quarrel with. However, since the official spelling on all legal tender is रुपया and not रुपिया, there is absolutely no recourse but to spell it rupaya and not rupiya. If you want to create a separate entry for रुपिया specifying that there exists an alternate informal spelling and pronunciation go ahead and create with the stipulation that it is an informal/colloquial alternative, I would have no quarrel. Bmurthy (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is emphatically not "trust me I know". I have provided several credible sources that say it is rupiya. Unless you can provide sources that explicitly say it is not rupiya, you cannot change it. Script and language are two different things. Hindustani - the actual source language of which Standard Hindi and Urdu are registers - can be rendered in ANY script - Nagri, Perso-Arabic, Roman. The script does NOT dictate how a word is pronounced. Answer a blunt question: how do you pronounce पालतू? If you say Palatu, you are totally wrong and you know it. Hindi-Urdu speakers do not say rupaya. Only people who are non-natives do that because they also say things like palatu. BTW it isn't just Hindi. This is the pronunciation in all North Indian & Pakistani languages - Punjabi, Kashmiri, etc. This isn't colloquial. This is the correct pronunciation. I don't think you are a native speaker and you seem to be approaching this from a Devnagri-centric rather than Hindi-centric perspective. From your "alien to Hindi" perspective (no disrespect meant), I can understand the elementary mistake you are making. Again, feel free to create a Devnagri entry and be a purist about it. That's like someone insisting that cough is pronounced cugg-H in English because that is what the letters indicate. Hindi has several non-phonetic standardizations (including systematically missing halants, which is what this is a special case of too). How do you pronounce अनजान? According to you it would be anajaana, which would be totally wrong (actually sounds like many non-native speakers would mispronounce it). It is anjaan. Why? Because the standardization varies from Sanskritic Nagri use. It should be अन्जान् but that is NOT how it got standardized. I have given you a good book that explains how this process happens. Your Nagri dogmatism is all fine and dandy, but is isn't okay to put patently wrong content into an encyclopedia. Spanish uses Roman in a much more phonetic way than English, and Spanish-speakers will sometimes say "buku-et" for "bouquet." But English bends the phoneticism, just like Hindi does. The script doesn't dictate English pronunciation, the language does. The script tries to render it. Same with Hindi and Devnagri. Hindi/Hindvi/Hindustani was first composed into literature by Amir Khusro in Perso-Arabic, remember. Nagri was adapted to it afterwards. In North India, even Sanskrit was generally not written in Nagari in most of the land. That is all within the last 300 years or so. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


While I paraphrased and implied, your stand was pretty close to "trust me, I am right". Here is an example from an earlier response by you
"I can produce a number of refs that say rupiya, and I am sure there are plenty that say rupaya (incorrectly)"
However, the only reference which explicitly has the corresponding roman representations of different Hindi spellings was provided by me, which you conveniently ignored, here it is again
  • H رپيا रुपया rupayā, रुपिया rupiyā, rupyā, रुपीया rupīyā, रुपैया rupaiyā [Prk. रुप्पअं; S. रूप्यकं], s.m. A rupee (the silver coin so called); coin, cash, money, wealth (in Urdū the word is frequently written روپيا rupayā; but the و is inserted merely to indicate that the vowel of ر is u. (here is the link http://dsal1.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:1:3404.platts)
Are you saying that the above reference is not credible? You have provided a few references which spell the word rupiya in Roman but without the source spelling. Yet, even more of your references spell the word as rupya than rupiya, including one which actually has more instances of rupaya than rupiya.
However, let me take up the issue which according to you is the crux of the matter here, especially since you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about where I come from:). You say that pronunciation often differs from the written word in Hindi/Urdu. You are right, a language can be rendered using any script and often different scripts have different issues, so much so that sometimes a language may never be fully or accurately represented by the chosen script. I have no issue with this. Having said that, Hindi and Devanagari (Devnagri, if you please) have a pretty tight phonetic relationship, the Perso-Arabic script much less so, but still quite close. Roman alphabet is at the other end of the spectrum with respect to English, but using the conventions by Hindi/Urdu speakers much closer, although significant problems remain. I believe this is where our agreements end, and our differences are more in the specifics of the exceptions, especially with Hindi's relationship to Devanagari. And let us keep this to Hindi/Urdu Devanagari/Urdu scripts.
Where the spoken word differs is largely in how the neutral अ is pronounced. At the end of a syllable, it is typically not pronounced, like aanbaan or anjaan or yes paaltu; but there are variations, e.g. while someone with Panjabi background may pronounce अनुपमा as anupmaa, someone from a different Hindi speaking region of India would pronounce it anupamaa. No one can insist that the latter be written as anupma (some may choose to, but that's beside the point). The same vowel sometimes also has a more Persian like pronunciation, e.g. बहन, लहर, कह, सह, शय, जय etc which are pronounced behen/behan, leher/lehar, keh, seh, shey, jey etc. The vowel here sounds more like the Bangla e sounds but different from the normal Hindi e sound. Having said that, there are no cases where the vowel has an i sound and there are no variations in how any consonant is pronounced. There are no exceptions in case of any other vowel or a consonant. You may argue about श and ष, but that is just muddling the issue. Just because a good portion of the population cannot distinguish among the letter pairs isn't a good enough reason to say they are one and the same. Would you stipulate that फिर and फ़िर are same just because a lot of people pronounce the former like the latter?
In any case, Hindi and Devanagari have a very tight phonetic relationship and there are no (except for the above cases) pronunciations based on the context, either by position of a letter in a word or by combination of letters. On the other hand, in Urdu script not only is there a much looser relationship between the written and the spoken, a letter is also not only written different based on its position, there are rules about how to pronounce how them in different positions, not to mention an ambiguity in pronunciation even when the spelling is same in two cases, e.g. kya and kiya (BTW, which you again completely ignored in your reply).
Once again, people conversant only with Urdu script often say rupiya, but the only correct way to pronounce रुपया is rupaya. Let me once again pose this question to you, show me a reference which says रुपया is pronounced rupiya, which means the reference must include both representations (I have already shown a reference to the contrary) and show me a reference which explicitly states that the letter य has an explicit i sound preceding it(please do not insist that the Urdu letter ye is same as devanagari ya, they are not). Until then, all your arguments are to nought. As I have said before, you are welcome to create an entry for रुपिया, however, रुपया must be spelt rupaya. The issue is not dogmatic, it is one of accuracy. Bmurthy (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention one thing earlier. Just because the majority uses a wrong construct is no the reason to include patently wrong usage in an encyclopedia (to paraphrase you). For example, if the word is قسم you would not spell it kasam just because a majority of the population pronounces it such. You have to put the most correct and accurate representation. Not that this is the issue with the word रुपया, just pointing out another fallacy in your argument. Bmurthy (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say - "Hindi and Devanagari have a very tight phonetic relationship and there are no (except for the above cases) pronunciations based on the context, either by position of a letter in a word or by combination of letters." This is absolutely wrong. Much work has been written on schwa deletion in Hindi (of which the issue at hand is one example). There are clear instances when something that is spelled a given way in Devnagri is pronounced different ways in Hindi depending on context. One example (see paper at bit.ly/d7eKgA) is धड़कने which is pronounced dharkane aur dharakne depending on context. Dil धड़कने laga is Dil dharak.ne laga (heart started beating) while Dil ki धड़कने is Dil ki dhar.kane (beats of the heart; correction: there is a nasalization here, dharkanen, but the preceding sequence stays the same - the paper notes this). Another is नमक (pronounced namak) vs नमकीन (pronounced nam.keen - the 'a' in म is gone). Also (see paper at bit.ly/aRNOal), रचना is rachana in Sanskrit but rach.na in Hindi. This is all quite important because it complicates text-to-speech efforts and also makes it harder for Devnagri-Familiar yet Non-Native speakers to sound fluent/unaccented in Hindi. They need to unlearn something they have always taken for granted, like you do in this case. The entire core of your argument is this - "Because a Sanskritic Devnagri interpretation says something, it must also apply to Hindi." This contention is provably incorrect and I have proved it (many refs on Hindi phonology, including these two papers). Before we proceed any further, you really have to clarify your stance on this one basic fact which undermines your whole thesis about this so-called tight relationship between Hindi and Devnagri. How do you explain धड़कने being pronounced two different ways in Hindi depending on context? Do you admit that Hindi pronunciation varies from what you would expect in Nagri? If you do (and I don't see how you cannot), no number of lectures on "this is what the Nagri says, so this is what must be the pronunciation" are of any avail.
As far as sources are concerned, your own source lists rupiya as a legit Hindi alternative for rupee, does it not? It is also listing the Sanskritic Nagri transliterations. Why do you think these multiple renderings in Nagri exist? It is because रुपया is variant from the Sanskritic sense, but became convention. Native Hindi-speakers don't stumble here or care too much about this because schwa-deletion exists in Hindi and is used extensively, though it does make Nagri script usage non-phonetic. Would it make you happy if we just changed the Nagri spelling for Hindi to रुपिया and listed that as rupiya? That would be fine by me, as long as rupaya isn't listed as a Hindi pronunciation, simply because it is wrong. Also, you said "You may argue about श and ष, but that is just muddling the issue. Just because a good portion of the population cannot distinguish among the letter pairs" - this is just plain wrong. There is no difference in Hindi pronunciation between श and ष - it's got nothing to do with good portion of the population (this "percentage of population" stuff is your concoction, not mine). This, again, is a typical error that results from assuming Skt rules in Nagri apply to Hindi unchanged. They don't. From bit.ly/cpz9UJ, "The retroflex sibilant ष has lost its identity in modern Hindi and is invariably pronounced as the palatal sibilant श."
The -ya -> -ia/-iya transition is actually pretty old in the OldIndoAryan->MiddleIndoAryan evolution. From "A grammar of the Hindi language" (bit.ly/ac7tYx) - "The termination ya in Prakrit became ia, whence, eg, from Sk chalya, Pr chalia". From "Historical grammar of Apabhraṁśa" (bit.ly/a0Uv1e) - "According to Pischel -i, -ia (and its WSAp. cognates -iu, -iya (-ya<pleonastic -ka) developed out of OIA suffix -ya". Hindi is littered with words that have [consonant]+ya -> [consonant]+ia/ya. However, as I have said before, BOTH pronunciations co-exist in standard speech, and I am fine with either one. However, Namakeen and Palatu are wrong. Just as कुरसी is kursi (wrong: kurasi). You consistently dodge these obvious examples BTW. Again, answer this direct question: are you claiming that नमकीन is namakeen and पालतू is palatu for Hindi-speakers? Look at your own statement - "'Where the spoken word differs is largely in how the neutral अ is pronounced. At the end of a syllable, it is typically not pronounced." रुप in रुपया is a syllable, i.e. you yourself are saying it should be rupya. If Rupya works for you, I'd be fine to change both Hindi and Urdu to Rupya. روپيا is consistent with that. This reference - bit.ly/aDJnaw - specifically talks about the rule with rupya as a specific example along with रुपया in Nagri. Works for you? --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Addition] By the way, there are Arabic-centered purists (just as there are Sanskritic Devnagri-centered purists) who insist that ض (as in رمضان) should be pronounced 'dh' because in Arabic ض and ز are different. However, not in Urdu-Hindi, they are *not*. رمضان is Ramzaan in Urdu and Hindi, not Ramadhaan. It's a good analogy to the श and ष situation. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Addition2] Realized I didn't address - "we wouldn't have separate words for क्या and किया, although in Urdu both are written identically". The fact they're written identically in Urdu is irrelevant. This (same sequence of letters being pronounced differently) could happen in any non-fully-phonetic script, including Nagri as used by Hindi (धड़कने , dharakne or dharkane - note these words are different but are written similarly in Hindi-Nagri where Roman would write them distinctly). क्या is, in fact, interchangeably pronounced two different ways by native Hindi speakers - kya and kɨya (I will use ɨ to denote the 'soft i' sound - found it in the IPA list). किया is pronounced kiya. In everyday speech, these can, in fact, collide - but rarely so due to additional context. क्या usually accompanies a questioning tone, while किया is more a statement. However, if only one word is used as a question - "क्या? kɨya (what?)" versus "किया? kiya (did you do it?)", they can (and do) cause confusion. You're unfamiliar with this, clearly, and I'd like to give you an analogy (for -ya <-> -ɨya), but can't think of anything exact. Maybe the situation with 'v' and 'w' in Hindi? Both sounds exist in Hindi-Urdu and native Hindi speakers use both, but use them as allophones (see: bit.ly/aSmraY - Implications of Hindi Prosodic Structure). The same Hindi speaker will pronounce इतवार as 'itvar' one minute and 'itwar' the next. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Addition 3] Thought you'd get a chuckle out of this. Just google "taja mahala" or "kitaba book hindi" or "uttara pradesha" or "kanapura" or "kurasi chair" or "namakina salty". You'll agree all these are wrong pronunciations, correct? Yet see how many people transliterate it this way. They're all basically complying with Devnagri. They are correct Sanskritically for Nagri, but are all wrong for Hindi. Just like all the times "rupaya" shows up. --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Rupee

[edit]

I have edited and moved the information regarding the new symbol for Indian rupee from the top of the intro page to under the 'Indian Rupee' section. The intro should be about the definition and other such facts. --ifesvr (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Rupee

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rupee's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Redy":

  • From History of the rupee: Redy. "AIndia.htm". Worldcoincatalog.com. Retrieved 2013-06-20.
  • From Indian rupee: Redy. "AIndia.htm". Worldcoincatalog.com. Retrieved 2013-06-20.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rupee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rupee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs to add

[edit]

Abbreviation in Kannada

[edit]

The table has Telugu రూ (ru) and Sinhala රු (ru), but Kannada ರ (ra). Should this be ರೂ (ru)? If I plug ರೂ into Google Translate, it gives me "Rs" as the English equivalent. Do they really use just ra in Kannada or is this a typo? Pelagic (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: split article to create a separate Rupee sign article

[edit]

A large part of this article is taken up with a section on the symbol. Elsewhere we have Dollar sign, Euro sign, Yen sign, Indian rupee sign, Ruble sign and so on. So unless anyone objects, I would like to spin off the #Symbol section of the article into a new Rupee sign article, leaving just a {{main|Rupee sign}} and a short summary here. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As no objections have been raised in over a week, I will go ahead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Value section: column giving "value" (actually price) v US dollar

[edit]

Is this column really worth having? It seems to me to contrary to WP:NOTGUIDE. It is always out of date. The individual articles each have a section giving links to forex rate sites if anybody wants to know. Does it have any useful purpose, or is it just yet another proxy for the India/Pakistan rivalry? Is there any convincing reason to keep it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11.66 g, .917 fine silver)

[edit]

11.66 g, .917 fine silver)

What the fuck does this mean?

Either the coin weighs 11.66 grams and the purity is 11/12, fine, that makes sense. Why not just say so?

OR the coin contains exactly 11.66917 g of pure silver but we don't know how much alloy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:b730:5800:449e:676d:f348:8e41 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article fineness explains the meaning of standard usage like ".917 fine". Fractions like 11/12 are never used. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded that sentence so that it now says: The original silver rupee (.917 fine silver, 11.66 grams (0.375 troy ounces)) was divided .... Does that hit the spot? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Rupee

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rupee's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rbi-c-mogul":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European powers minting coins

[edit]

"The European powers started minting coinage as early as mid-17th century, under patronage of Mughal Empire."

IIRC, coins were minted in Europe by the 4th millennium BCE (Crete, Minoan civilisation), and not by authority of the Mughal empire, which did not exist until the Middle Ages. If this sentence is meant to say that the European powers started minting coinage within the Mughal Empire under patronage, please explicitly say so as the sentence as it stands is misleading IMO. I don't right now have the time to chase down the sources on this matter, which is why I won't make the edit myself at this time, hoping somebody who does, will. Thanks. --Stizzleswick (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupee&oldid=1199029974"