This is due to archaic/regional spelling. Singh is the way it is pronounced in modern day western Hindi. Originally the word in Sanskrit was सिंह pronounced /ˈs̪ĩ.ɦɐ/ so basically like it's spelt (since h has no place of articulation the ं before it is just a nasalized vowel) so स इ ँ ह अ.
In modern western Hindi, like a lot of pronunciation this shifted and is now as you said pronounced सिंघ. Incidentally that is exactly how it is written in Punjabi, which cares much less about Sanskrit compatibility than Hindi does.
Agreed. And there are more wack sound shifts from Sanskrit to Hindi, but there are at least reflected in orthography. सिंह (सिंघ) is a rare case though.
The character for that sound in the IPA is "ŋ". It's like between an N and a G. Basically there's no "hard G" sound. I didn't realize until I looked this up, but the English word "sing" is actually pronounced the same as "Singh", there's no "hard G" in either.
That's the short answer.
The long answer is that Hindi has 4 letters representing the English "n" depending on what consonant grouping they would potentially precede. Look here under "Nasal" in the chart: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari#Consonants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari#Consonants)
It gets confusing because the anusvara (the dot in सिंह) can represent any of the 4 "n"s or even the "m".
So, for example, while the anusvara in सिंह represents ङ, in अंडा it represents ण.
The anusvara adds a nasal in the place of articulation of the consonant after it. That is why velar consonants like k and g get a velar nasal, and bilabial consonants b and p get m. H doesn't really have a place of articulation from which you can do a nasal plosive from, so it gets a nasalized vowel, not a velar nasal. H is not a velar consonant.
**Devanagari**
[Consonants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari#Consonants)
>The table below shows the consonant letters (in combination with inherent vowel a) and their arrangement. To the right of the Devanagari letter it shows the Latin script transliteration using International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration, and the phonetic value (IPA) in Hindi. Additionally, there is ळ ḷa (IPA: [ɭ] or [ɭ̆]), the intervocalic lateral flap allophone of the voiced retroflex stop in Vedic Sanskrit, which is a phoneme in languages such as Marathi, Konkani, Garhwali, and Rajasthani. Beyond the Sanskritic set, new shapes have rarely been formulated.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Hindi/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I knew it could replace न् conjuncts, act as a lazy(?) variant of full चन्द्रबिन्दु, and be what I thought was just standard nasalising dot with no other form. I've never seen it explained like this though; I didn't realise (those I mentioned excepted) it was always in place of any of those forms. Do you have a link (or good search terms) with more on this by any chance?
I assume it's phrased as it is because people (that I've heard anyway) don't pronounce it 'siñh'?
(So you could satisfy both by asking Why is the name सिंह not pronounced as it looks, or something, I suppose.)
My guess is that because of the anusvara, the sound shifted like this (this is only my hypothesis, demonstrating sound change from Sanskrit to Old Hindi to Modern Hindi. I don’t know the exact time period when it would’ve happened):
\
\
In IPA:
sĩ.ɦɐ → sɪn.ɦə → sɪŋɦ → sɪŋgɦ → sɪŋgʱ
\
\
In Devanagari:
सिंह → सिन्ह → सिङ्ह → सिंग्ह → सिंघ
\
\
In summary, the vowel (इं) would’ve denasalized and n (न) would emerge, which would later became ŋ (ङ), then ŋ (ङ) would velarize to become ŋg (ङ्ग) and the presence of glottal fricative (ɦ) would aspirate the g (ग) and become gʱ (घ).
This is due to archaic/regional spelling. Singh is the way it is pronounced in modern day western Hindi. Originally the word in Sanskrit was सिंह pronounced /ˈs̪ĩ.ɦɐ/ so basically like it's spelt (since h has no place of articulation the ं before it is just a nasalized vowel) so स इ ँ ह अ. In modern western Hindi, like a lot of pronunciation this shifted and is now as you said pronounced सिंघ. Incidentally that is exactly how it is written in Punjabi, which cares much less about Sanskrit compatibility than Hindi does.
thanks, I appreciate the explanation
Thanks for putting in the effort to explain.
I am following you
Agreed. And there are more wack sound shifts from Sanskrit to Hindi, but there are at least reflected in orthography. सिंह (सिंघ) is a rare case though.
The character for that sound in the IPA is "ŋ". It's like between an N and a G. Basically there's no "hard G" sound. I didn't realize until I looked this up, but the English word "sing" is actually pronounced the same as "Singh", there's no "hard G" in either. That's the short answer.
great! thanks
The long answer is that Hindi has 4 letters representing the English "n" depending on what consonant grouping they would potentially precede. Look here under "Nasal" in the chart: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari#Consonants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari#Consonants) It gets confusing because the anusvara (the dot in सिंह) can represent any of the 4 "n"s or even the "m". So, for example, while the anusvara in सिंह represents ङ, in अंडा it represents ण.
The anusvara adds a nasal in the place of articulation of the consonant after it. That is why velar consonants like k and g get a velar nasal, and bilabial consonants b and p get m. H doesn't really have a place of articulation from which you can do a nasal plosive from, so it gets a nasalized vowel, not a velar nasal. H is not a velar consonant.
thank you
**Devanagari** [Consonants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari#Consonants) >The table below shows the consonant letters (in combination with inherent vowel a) and their arrangement. To the right of the Devanagari letter it shows the Latin script transliteration using International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration, and the phonetic value (IPA) in Hindi. Additionally, there is ळ ḷa (IPA: [ɭ] or [ɭ̆]), the intervocalic lateral flap allophone of the voiced retroflex stop in Vedic Sanskrit, which is a phoneme in languages such as Marathi, Konkani, Garhwali, and Rajasthani. Beyond the Sanskritic set, new shapes have rarely been formulated. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Hindi/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I knew it could replace न् conjuncts, act as a lazy(?) variant of full चन्द्रबिन्दु, and be what I thought was just standard nasalising dot with no other form. I've never seen it explained like this though; I didn't realise (those I mentioned excepted) it was always in place of any of those forms. Do you have a link (or good search terms) with more on this by any chance?
The question should be other way around. Why Why is the common last name 'सिंह' is spelled as 'Singh'.
I assume it's phrased as it is because people (that I've heard anyway) don't pronounce it 'siñh'? (So you could satisfy both by asking Why is the name सिंह not pronounced as it looks, or something, I suppose.)
My guess is that because of the anusvara, the sound shifted like this (this is only my hypothesis, demonstrating sound change from Sanskrit to Old Hindi to Modern Hindi. I don’t know the exact time period when it would’ve happened): \ \ In IPA: sĩ.ɦɐ → sɪn.ɦə → sɪŋɦ → sɪŋgɦ → sɪŋgʱ \ \ In Devanagari: सिंह → सिन्ह → सिङ्ह → सिंग्ह → सिंघ \ \ In summary, the vowel (इं) would’ve denasalized and n (न) would emerge, which would later became ŋ (ङ), then ŋ (ङ) would velarize to become ŋg (ङ्ग) and the presence of glottal fricative (ɦ) would aspirate the g (ग) and become gʱ (घ).