This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Writing systems B‑class High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sikhism B‑class This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page should mention that Punjabi is also written in the shahmukhi script, related to the Urdu, Persian, and Arabic scripts; and also in devanagari. — Hippietrail 01:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is a bit lacking so I've taken it upon myself to update it. I'm using the information on my own web site at http://guca.sourceforge.net/resources/introductiontogurmukhi/ to add more information. Please feel free to contribute any other information too! Sukh 18:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia policy is that page titles use the most usual English spelling. Both Collins and Encarta online dicionaries only list "Gurmukhi" as a possible spelling. I believe "Gurmukhī" with the macron is more a transliteration of the native name. — Hippietrail 14:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Also, what else can Gurmukhi refer to, besides a script? I think it should just be at Gurmukhi. —Wiki Wikardo 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be the IPA symbols for the consonants, as well? I have no knowledge of Punjabi, but someone with some knowledge should probably fix that. 66.165.31.200 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA for the consonants is available in Wikipedia:Indic_transliteration_scheme, except you should note that it (apparently) can't be described in a simple table. you need some notes to explain some special cases, particularly the letters for aspirated consonants that are apparently used to mark tonal changes. unfortunately my knowledge of this is too limited to feel confident doing it, but most of the information should be in that big table in the article. --Doviende (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just switched the pronunciations between "Fuffa" and "Fuffay paer'ch bindi" to give the unmarked consonant the straightforward "F" pronunciation and "Ph" for the modified letter. This is trivial, but I believe it is correct, being proficient in Gurmukhi/Punjabi myself and consulting with others. Does anyone have an opinion on this and, for example, "Shusha" and "Sussay paer'ch bindi," which is another pair with near-negligible difference (Many Punjabis make no distinction phonetically with such pairs; many will even ignore more distinct "paer bindi" sounds, like sticking with "Ja" even when it should technically be the "loansound" "Za.") Any thoughts?3swordz (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct. The pairin bindi letters should be labelled with their unmarked consonant, and pronounced as if they are marked. A Pha with a dot makes a Fa (A Fa with a dot makes a Pha with two dots!). And yes, many Punjabis pronounce them without the dot - but this is incorrect in "proper" Punjabi. 188.28.108.142 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The names in the table of consonants and the pairin bindi table are different for the same letter. Confusing to this English only speaker. DennisStork (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section seems out of place to me:

• it's unsupported by references;
• it has a lot of weasel wording, particularly the second paragraph;
• a lot of the reasoning is faulty, or simply absent - especially the contention that the script is the most important distinguishing feature of a language, when several languages (eg Malay, Serbo-Croat) have abandoned one script for another or have multiple writing systems.

Even if it does remain, it needs to be made more neutral and to be presented as an expression of a particular point of view - and should come far lower down in the overall article, after the discussion of the characteristics of the script.DrDaveHPP (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article provides the Roman transliteration for vowels but not for consonants. Should this be added? --Joseph Yanchar (User page/Talk page) 04:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article titled "Gurmukhī alphabet" when it is an abugida. The article title should be just "Gurmukhī" as there is no other use for the word Gurmukhī.Filpro (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abugidas are alphabets, as are abjads, and this is common WP usage, so that's not an argument. CONCISE is a legitimate argument, though a quick GBooks search suggests that "Gurmukhi" is normally used in combination with either "script" or "alphabet". (For our purposes, "script" would be used for the Gurmukhi writing system in general, and "alphabet" for the Panjabi Gurmukhi alphabet specifically.) — kwami (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nukta – is a combining character that alters the way a preceding consonant (or matra) is pronounced.

The section on other signs omits any subsection about the nukta sign. This should be added with suitable explanation.

Unicode normalization and the nukta

The nukta symbol ਼ (ੑU+0A3C) is equivalent to the sign part of each of these precomposed characters:

ਲ਼(LLA), ਸ਼(SHA), ਖ਼(KHHA), ਗ਼(GHHA), ਜ਼(ZA), ਫ਼(FA).

Unicode normalization separates out the nukta sign as a diacritic, leaving one of these letters respectively:

ਲ(LA), ਸ(SA), ਖ(KHA), ਗ(GA), ਜ(JA), ਫ(PHA).

All four normalization forms (NFC, NFD, NFKC, NFKD) do the same!

DFH (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain precomposed Indic letters that decompose but do not recompose under any normalization form. The list of these characters is given here. The decomposed forms are preferred over the precomposed forms as indicated here. DFH (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]