# The Town That Learned to Write

*Gurmukhi, the tailless scripts, and what a record owes the person whose words it keeps*

Kanwar Partap Singh Gill, MD · November 6, 2026 · Roots

The first letter of the Gurmukhi alphabet has no sound of its own. It is ੳ, *ūṛā*, a rounded stroke with a hook at the top, and it heads the chart of thirty-five letters that Punjabi children have long recited row by row: ੳ ਅ ੲ ਸ ਹ, then five rows of consonants arranged from the back of the mouth to the lips, then a last row of five. The chart is called the ਪੈਂਤੀ, *paintī*, which means simply "the thirty-five." Of its first three letters, the vowel-bearers, only the second can stand alone and be read. ੳ and ੲ are never written without a further mark beside, above or below them, a sign that tells the reader which vowel to make. Left to itself, ੳ is not silent so much as undecided. It is a mark waiting to be told what sound it carries.

Historians of the script record that when the Sikhs took it up, this unsayable letter was moved to the front of the alphabet. I find that arrangement more eloquent than anything I could add to it. An alphabet that begins with a letter which cannot be spoken until another mark completes it has decided, from its first stroke, that a written sound should be specified, not guessed.

My family's roots are in [Khadur Sahib](../../roots/khadur-sahib/index.html), the small town in the Majha that Sikh memory associates with Guru Angad, the second Guru, and Sikh tradition remembers Khadur as the place where the script now called Gurmukhi received its settled form. This essay is about that script: what the historical record says about its making, what its design was for, and who was able to use it. It is also, more narrowly, about a physician's working document. I have come to think that a faithful script and a faithful chart answer the same question, which is whether a reader who was not present can recover what was meant, and whose meaning it was. The essay does not reconstruct anyone's first lesson in the letters, mine included; it is about the letters themselves, and about what they ask of anyone who writes down another person's words.

## Invention and Agreement

Sikh tradition credits Guru Angad with the creation of Gurmukhi, and the attribution is old and widely held. Historians of the script put it somewhat differently, and the difference is worth stating precisely, because it concerns what kind of achievement is being remembered.

The letters are older than Sikhism. Gurmukhi descends, through a series of regional forms, from Śāradā, the script of the north-west, which by the fifteenth century had developed in Punjab into shapes that epigraphists give names of their own. An inscription of about 1470 to 1490, on a tomb at Hathur in Ludhiana district, already shows a hand that specialists call proto-Gurmukhi. Alongside these ran the mercantile scripts of Punjab, which traders used for accounts and letters. Guru Nanak was born into that mercantile world and would have known such scripts. One of his hymns in the Guru Granth Sahib, the Patti in Raag Asa on Ang 432, is an acrostic that runs through the letters of an alphabet one by one and makes each the beginning of a reflection. That hymn's existence tells us that letters were already part of the community's devotional life before 1539. Sikh scholars themselves, Kahn Singh of Nabha in 1930 and G. B. Singh in 1950 among them, documented forms of the script from before the Gurus. The likeliest account, in the scholarly summaries I have read, is that Guru Angad standardised and refined scripts already in use and adapted them to the recording of the hymns.

Some devout readers hear a statement like that as a demotion. I hear the opposite. Inventing letters is not especially difficult; schoolchildren invent alphabets for secret notes every year. What is difficult is getting a community to agree on one set of shapes and one set of rules, and then to keep agreeing across distance and generations, so that a hymn written down in one town can be sung correctly in another by people who never met the scribe. Agreement is the harder technology. It needs teachers, copies, patience and authority, and it fails quietly whenever any of them is missing.

The settling, moreover, took time. Among the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Sikh hymns are the Goindval pothis of the late sixteenth century, and a portion copied by Sahansar Ram, a grandson of Guru Amar Das, shows a Gurmukhi that still has visible affinities with the mercantile hands. Specialists who have compared the early documents report that several letters changed their shapes in small ways before about 1610, that two changed more substantially, that one, ਬ, is a later creation, and that some shapes were still shifting in the first half of the nineteenth century. "Settled form" is a phrase for a process that continued for generations after the Guru who began it. That is not a correction of the tradition so much as a description of how any standard actually works. It is set by someone, and then it has to be kept, by scribes who copy carefully, by teachers who insist, by readers who notice when a shape begins to drift. The first act is remembered. The keeping is usually anonymous.

Whatever happened at Khadur, tradition remembers it as a matter of teaching, of a Guru sitting with children and their letters. A small inscription is claimed to have been written in his own hand to teach the glyphs from ūṛā to ṇāṇā. The claim is a claim, and I state it as one. But the picture it preserves, of a teaching that was meant to outlive its teacher being put into a form children could learn, describes exactly what a standard script is for.

The name tells part of the same story. *Gurmukhī* is commonly rendered "from the mouth of the Guru." Linguists more often explain it as the script of the *gurmukh*, those who face the Guru, the script of the Guru's followers, which came to be named after the people who used it and the hymns it carried. Either way the name points away from the letters and toward speech and the people who keep it. The script is named for a use.

## Without a Tail

The mercantile scripts against which Gurmukhi defined itself are known by a revealing name. *Laṇḍā* means, in Punjabi, without a tail: the letters lacked most of the vowel signs that hang above, below and beside the consonants of other Indic scripts. There were at least ten varieties in Punjab. The most popular was called Mahājanī, the script of the *mahājan*, the merchant and moneylender, and it was taught to boys of trading families for business. These scripts did their work well enough for people who already knew what the words were. A merchant reading his own ledger knows which customer is meant by three consonants and whether the figure beside them is owed or paid. Scholars who describe these scripts note that they were liable to misreading, and that local proverbs mocked them as useful only to the person who wrote them.

A script that only its writer can read with confidence is not a neutral instrument. It concentrates the authority to interpret in one pair of hands. In the Punjab of the moneylender and the indebted cultivator, the account book, the *bahī*, was kept by the creditor, often in a hand the debtor could not read at all. Dhani Ram Chatrik, one of the poets who carried Punjabi verse into its modern period, wrote a poem, learned by heart by generations of Punjabi schoolchildren, about a Jat farmer setting off for a fair once the harvest is in. Before he goes, with a new turban and an oiled staff and a flute tucked into his waistband, the poem lists what he has had to finish first. One line records that he has settled up with the village headmen and the moneylenders:

> ਲੰਬੜਾਂ ਤੇ ਸ਼ਾਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਹਿਸਾਬ ਕੱਟ ਕੇ

*Lambṛāṅ te shāhāṅ dā hisāb kaṭṭ ke*: having squared his reckoning with the headmen and the moneylenders, in my rendering. The line is cheerful in context, the start of a holiday, and I do not want to load it with more than it carries. But the word ਹਿਸਾਬ, *hisāb*, account or reckoning, sits in it like a stone. The reckoning was something done to the farmer as much as by him, and the document on which it rested was usually not his to read.

Chatrik knew the other side of that transaction. Born in 1876, he grew up partly at Lopoke in Amritsar district, left formal schooling early for want of money, and at fifteen took up ਵਸੀਕਾ-ਨਵੀਸੀ, *wasīqā-navīsī*, the trade of writing deeds and documents for people who could not write them themselves. Later he went to Bombay to learn Gurmukhi typography, and he is credited with standardising the typefaces in which Gurmukhi was printed. I find it moving that the same man began by writing other people's legal papers and went on to help fix the shapes of the letters for print. Both are the work of someone who stands between a person's speech and the record of it, and whose fidelity the speaker may not be in a position to check.

The decisive design choice in Gurmukhi was to make the vowel signs obligatory. The scholarly summaries say it plainly: in contrast to the tailless scripts, Gurmukhi required its vowel marks for the sake of accuracy, because words without them were hard to decipher. That may sound like a typographer's detail. It is a moral one. A script with obligatory vowels transfers authority from the writer to the reader. The reading no longer depends on the writer's memory of what he meant; it is there on the page for anyone who has learned the letters. A text written that way can travel. It can be read correctly in a town the writer never visited, by someone born after the writer died, without asking him.

That is also the best definition I know of a faithful clinical record. A chart exists so that someone who was not in the room can act on what happened there: the colleague on call at night, the specialist in another city, the physician a decade from now, the patient herself. A note written in the medical equivalent of a tailless script, legible with confidence only to its author, fails at the one thing it is for. Medicine has its own *laṇḍā*, and it has learned about it the hard way. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices keeps a list of abbreviations, symbols and dose designations that have been reported, through its error-reporting programme, as misinterpreted in harmful or potentially harmful medication errors, and it asks that they never be used, whether by hand or on a screen. Some of them are notorious. *Q.d.*, for once a day, has been mistaken for every other day and for four times a day. *U*, for units, has been read as a zero or a four. The Joint Commission requires the organisations it accredits to keep a "Do Not Use" list that includes the worst of them. Every item on such a list was perfectly clear to the person who wrote it. That was exactly the trouble. The clarity was private.

## Who Was Taught

A script can make reading possible without making it common. The formal virtues of Gurmukhi, its regularity and its close fit to the sounds of the language, describe what a learner would be able to do. They do not say who got to learn.

The figures that survive from colonial Punjab are sobering. The census of 1868 counted about 380,000 literate people in the province, around two per cent of the population, most of them men. For most of its history the script of the hymns was carried by small schools attached to gurdwaras and by the teachers who kept them. A photograph from 1908 shows a class held in the open in the Golden Temple complex at Amritsar, with a poster of the thirty-five letters pinned to a tree. Official institutions were slow to follow. In 1882 the Lahore Singh Sabha petitioned the province's lieutenant-governor, Charles Aitchison, to adopt Gurmukhi as a medium of instruction in schools, at least for Sikhs, and was refused; in 1895 a school in Amritsar adopted it for the first grade. The letters had been settled for more than three centuries. The schooling that would make them common was still being argued for.

The census figures for Khadur Sahib itself make the same point at the scale of a single town. In the 2011 census its literacy rate was a little below the state's, with a gap between men and women of about eight percentage points: some seventy-seven per cent of men and sixty-nine per cent of women. Those are not bad figures for a rural town in Punjab, and I do not cite them to diminish it. I cite them because the title of this essay could be read as a past tense, as though a town that once learned to write had completed the lesson. The record says otherwise. The town associated with the script's settled form is still, like every town, deciding who is taught.

Access, in other words, has layers. There is the formal accessibility of a writing system, its learnability. There is the social accessibility of instruction: whether a girl, or a labourer's son, or a child from a caste that others kept at a distance, will be sat down in front of the letters by someone who expects her to succeed. And there is the accessibility of texts: whether, once a person can read, there is anything in her hands worth reading, in the script she has learned. A script can be designed so that any patient learner could master it and still be possessed, in practice, by the few who are given the time.

Medicine has its version of this. A record written in perfect, unambiguous English is perfectly inaccessible to a patient who does not read English, however well designed the screen that displays it. Patients in many places can now read their own notes, and that is a real gain. It is not evenly distributed, and a physician should be careful not to mistake the openness of a document for the openness of its meaning.

## What the Letters Remember

A writing system keeps more than its users intend. Punjabi is a tonal language, unusual among its relatives in using pitch to tell words apart, and linguists explain the tones as the residue of a sound change. The old voiced aspirated consonants, which Gurmukhi writes with letters of their own, lost their breathiness in most Punjabi speech and left a rise or fall of pitch in its place. So ਘਰ, the word for home, is spelled with the letter for *gh*, but in most Punjabi mouths it begins with something close to a plain *k* and carries a falling tone, while ਕਰ, *do*, begins with the same *k* and stays level. Because the script was fitted to the language as it was spoken in the sixteenth century, scholars think the change in pronunciation, and the tones that came of it, probably developed afterwards. The spelling of *home* records how the word was once said. The mouth has moved on; the letter has stayed; and a Punjabi reader converts the one into the other without noticing, much as a reader of English says *knight* without its *k*. (The same feature appears, from another direction, in [Punjabi as a First Language of Medicine](../punjabi-as-a-first-language-of-medicine/index.html).)

That conservatism has a scholarly dividend. Because the hymns were recorded in Gurmukhi, philologists today know a great deal about the pronunciation and grammar of Old Punjabi that would otherwise be lost. A script made to keep a teaching kept, almost incidentally, a language's history. It also means that a script is never a simple picture of speech. It is a negotiated record, partly of how people talk and partly of how they used to.

Copying preserves letters. It does not, by itself, preserve a reading. Until well into the twentieth century the Sikh scriptures were written ਲੜੀਵਾਰ, *laṛīvār*, continuously, without spaces between the words, the way many ancient texts in many languages were written. The spaced form now familiar in printed editions is called ਪਦ ਛੇਦ, *pad chhed*, literally the division into words. Anyone who has read continuous script knows that dividing it is an act of understanding. The reader must decide where one word ends, and a different division can yield a different sense. A spaced edition makes that decision once, for every reader, and is a great convenience. A continuous text leaves the decision with each reader, and with the tradition of teaching that tells the reader how to make it. Neither is corrupt. They distribute interpretive responsibility differently, and a faithful copyist of continuous script is faithful precisely by declining to make a choice that is not his to make. (Medicine's version of scribal restraint, and the ways repetition can masquerade as confirmation, are the subject of [A Record Repeated Is Not a Record Corroborated](../a-record-repeated-is-not-a-record-corroborated/index.html). Here I want only the general principle: a copy can be faithful to every letter and still settle questions the original left open.)

Gurmukhi's phonetic precision had a pointed critic in Pakistan. After Partition some Pakistani Punjabi writers argued that Punjabi there should be written in Gurmukhi, which they thought phonetically more exact than the Perso-Arabic script and a living link with Punjabis across the new border. In 1953 a writer named Sardar Muhammad Khan answered them. Gurmukhi's phonetic character, he argued, would make a unified spelling hard to achieve, because people would spell words as they personally pronounced them; and since the uneducated were the majority, their spellings would come to dominate. His other reasons were partly partisan and partly practical, and I do not share his conclusion. But the core of the objection is honest, and it cuts. A script faithful to speech must decide whose speech. A standard that serves the reader in another town does so by overruling some speaker's way of saying the word. Majhi, Malwai, Doabi, Pothohari: a single spelling is a decision about which of them counts as the norm, and a dialect that never sees its own forms written down begins, slowly, to sound to its speakers like a mistake.

There is no clean resolution of this, only a discipline. A standard is a tool for transmission. It becomes a tool of exclusion when it is mistaken for the truth about how people ought to speak. A good record keeps the standard and still lets the particular speaker be heard.

## The Script of the Court

For much of the nineteenth century the people of Punjab were administered in a language most of them did not speak. After the annexation of 1849 the British adopted Urdu, in the Perso-Arabic script, for the courts and offices of much of the province. The reasons were administrative convenience and prejudice in roughly equal parts: officials trained in Urdu elsewhere in India, assistants who knew no Punjabi, a theory that Punjabi was a mere dialect, and a wish to dismantle structures associated with the Sikh state that had just been defeated. The official correspondence is frank. A report on the administration for 1851 to 1853 declared that "Goormookhee," though of sacred origin, was "now rapidly falling into desuetude." In 1862 the province's Director of Public Instruction, asked whether Punjabi might be used in the courts, replied that "Punjabee is merely a dialect of Urdoo," and that as a written language it appeared only in a character he dismissed as a debased form of Nagari. Yet the census of 1881 recorded Punjabi as the language of the great majority of the province. The records of their land, their debts and their offences were kept in a language and a script most of them could not read.

The finest dramatic account I know of what this does to a people is set in another country. Brian Friel's *Translations*, first performed in Derry in September 1980 as the inaugural production of the Field Day company, takes place in 1833 in Baile Beag, an Irish-speaking village in County Donegal whose hedge school teaches Latin and Greek. A detachment of Royal Engineers arrives to make the six-inch map of Ireland for the Ordnance Survey. With them comes Owen, the schoolmaster's son, home after six years in Dublin and employed to help render the local place names into English. Druim Dubh, the black shoulder, becomes Dromduff; Poll na gCaorach, the hole of the sheep, becomes Poolkerry. The English officers call Owen "Roland," mishearing his name, and for a long stretch of the play he lets it pass. That small mishearing, tolerated because correcting it seems more trouble than it is worth, is the play's argument in miniature. The person whose name it is has stopped insisting on it.

One scene stays with me more than any other. Owen and the young lieutenant, Yolland, come to a crossroads called Tobair Vree, and Owen explains the name. It was once Brian's well. A man named Brian, disfigured by a great growth on his face, came to believe that the water of a well near the crossroads could cure him, and went to bathe his face in it day after day; the growth stayed, and one morning he was found drowned there. The well is gone, nobody in the parish remembers Brian, and the crossroads still carries his name in a form worn past recognition. The question the scene raises is what a faithful name owes to a story nobody remembers. A physician cannot watch it without thinking of a chart: a diagnosis carried forward for years, its origin forgotten, its patient long past the condition that gave rise to it, preserved because nobody can now say who first wrote it down or why.

Friel was candid about his liberties. In a public debate with the historical geographer John Andrews, whose study of the Survey, *A Paper Landscape*, lay behind the play, he admitted to "tiny bruises inflicted on history." Andrews had pointed out, among other things, that anglicised names were already in wide use and that nobody was compelled by law to adopt the Survey's versions. I take the correction seriously, and it does not weaken the play's insight; if anything it sharpens it. Kevin Barry, who organised the debate, observed that Andrews's history privileged the records of those who had the authority to write, while the play tried to imagine the people who had none. The records that survive are disproportionately those made by people with the authority to make them. The people described are present in them only as their names were heard.

Punjab's own story contains a partial reversal. After the Punjabi Suba movement, the Panjab Official Language Act of 1967 made Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script the official language of the state, and the script was formally adopted for official use the following year. Across the border, Punjabi is written in Shahmukhi, the Perso-Arabic script whose very name was modelled on Gurmukhi. The same language has two alphabets. Two people from Lahore and Amritsar can talk to each other for an afternoon and be unable to read each other's letters. A border runs through the alphabet.

## A Name at the Front Desk

The commonest Punjabi words in an American medical record are not symptoms. They are names. Every Punjabi name that enters an English-language record has been transliterated by somebody, and the somebody is usually not the person whose name it is. ਗੁਰਪ੍ਰੀਤ can arrive as Gurpreet or Gurprit, ਹਰਜੀਤ as Harjeet or Harjit. A surname may be a family name, or Singh or Kaur, or both, or one at one clinic and the other at the next. Many Sikh men carry the name Singh and many Sikh women the name Kaur, and a registration system that leans on surnames to match one visit to another meets, in a Punjabi community, a population its designers did not picture. Two spellings of one person can become two records of two people, each holding half a history. Nothing in either record is false. The failure lies in the transcription, and in a system that cannot see that two Latin spellings are one Gurmukhi name.

The symptom problem is subtler. Imagine, as a hypothetical, an older woman who tells a clinician through an interpreter that ਸਰੀਰ ਟੁੱਟਦਾ ਹੈ, *sarīr ṭuṭṭdā hai*: the body is breaking, a common Punjabi way of describing the aching, beaten-down feeling that can come with a fever, with exhaustion, with grief, with many things. The interpreter, doing her job well, says "body aches." The clinician writes *myalgias*. A later reader, summarising the visit, records muscle pain. Each step was a reasonable translation. Each also narrowed the meaning, until a phrase that described the condition of a whole person became a statement about muscles. Nobody in the chain invented anything. Each selected, and each selection looked like fidelity.

The remedy is not elaborate, and it is the one Gurmukhi chose: keep the vowels. Preserve, that is, the features that let a later reader recover what was actually said, even at the cost of a little length. Put the patient's own phrase in the record, transliterated, inside quotation marks, and put the clinician's interpretation beside it, labelled as interpretation. Record her name as she writes it, and, where the system allows, in her own script as well. These habits mark the boundary between what a speaker said and what a listener concluded. A record that keeps that boundary visible can be corrected by the next reader. A record that erases it cannot, because nobody can see that anything was chosen. The broader question of carrying a patient's words for distress across languages belongs to another essay. The point here is narrower: a transcription is a decision, and a faithful one leaves evidence of having been made.

## The Price of a Vowel

Medicine has a ready answer to all this fuss over spelling. Abbreviations exist for a reason. Clinicians write under pressure of time, and the record has already grown so long that its important sentences are hard to find; I have written elsewhere about [the note that grew longer and said less](../the-note-that-grew-longer-and-said-less/index.html). A plea for fidelity can sound like a plea for more words, and more words are the last thing a tired reader at midnight needs. The tailless scripts survived for centuries because they were fast, and among the people who used them, they worked.

The answer, I think, lies in the size of a vowel sign. Gurmukhi did not achieve its precision by writing longer words. It added small marks, a stroke above, a hook below, a dot, at the points where ambiguity would otherwise enter. The cost of fidelity was placed exactly where the risk was, and nowhere else. That is a useful model for a record. The words that keep a note faithful are few: *per patient*, *per her daughter*, *in her words*, a pair of quotation marks, *not yet known*, *unclear whether*. They take seconds to write. What makes notes long is something different: text imported wholesale that nobody chose, templates that fill themselves, paragraphs carried forward that nobody reread. A faithful note can be shorter than an unfaithful one, because it does not have to carry everything. It has to carry the marks that tell the reader what kind of thing each sentence is.

The tailless scripts teach a quieter lesson as well, about shorthand inside a closed circle. Mahājanī worked among merchants who shared a context. It failed when a document left that circle and landed before someone who did not know what the writer knew. Clinical shorthand behaves the same way. An abbreviation that is safe within one team becomes a hazard once the note is read by a pharmacist in another building, by a covering physician who does not know the team's habits, or by a patient at her kitchen table. The test of a mark is not whether it is clear to the writer, or to the writer's colleagues, but whether it survives being read by a stranger. Gurmukhi was designed for strangers. That may be the most important thing about it.

## Where the Likeness Ends

I should be exact about what this comparison does not claim. The script of the Sikh scriptures and the chart of a clinic belong to different orders of things, and it would be a kind of vanity for a physician to borrow, for his own paperwork, the reverence owed to the first.

Their purposes differ. Scripture is copied in order not to change; its standing was fixed before any copyist took up a pen, and a faithful copyist adds nothing. A medical record exists in order to be revised. It is provisional by design. Today's working diagnosis should be overturned tomorrow if tomorrow brings better evidence, and a chart that cannot be corrected is a hazard, not a treasure. Their authors differ as well. Sikhs receive the hymns as the Guru's word. A clinical note is written by a fallible person who must sign it, answer for it and amend it when it is wrong. And their readers differ: a congregation that has gathered to listen, as against a dispersed and hurried set of strangers who need one fact quickly and may never meet the patient.

There is a risk in the analogy that runs the other way, too. Reverence for a written record is not always a virtue. Friel's play is partly about the authority a written map acquires over the people it names, and medicine has its own version: the chart believed over the patient, the old diagnosis repeated because it is written, the note whose confident sentences outrank a hesitant person in the room. A sacred text holds its authority within a tradition that receives it. A clinical record holds only the authority its evidence supports, and should be read with that in mind.

What survives the comparison is narrow, and I think it is enough. Both are attempts at accountable representation. Both ask whether a reader who was not present can recover what was meant, and know whose meaning it was. Both are tested at the point where the original speaker can no longer be asked. The script's answer was obligatory vowels, agreed letters and teachers who passed them on. The chart's answer has to be attribution, a clear line between observation and interpretation, plain words in place of private shorthand, and the patient's own phrases kept where they can be found.

## A Responsible Mark

I come back to the first letter. ੳ cannot be read alone. It needs a mark beside it to say which sound it bears, and the alphabet puts it first, as if to teach before anything else that a written sign is a promise to the reader, one the writer has to complete. The writer may not leave the reader to guess.

A clinical record is made of many such promises, small and hurried and written at the end of long days. Most of them are kept. The ones that are broken are rarely broken by lies. They are broken by marks that were clear to their writer and nobody else; by translations that chose without showing that a choice had been made; by names transcribed by the wrong hand; by confident sentences that left out the vowels of their own uncertainty. The remedy is a kind of documentary humility, which is not timidity but its opposite: the willingness to write *she said* and *I think* in separate places, to keep the patient's words where the next reader can find them, and to mark what is not yet known as not yet known.

Khadur Sahib is remembered for a teacher who made a teaching readable by people he would never meet. Whatever the exact share of invention and of standardisation in that work, its ethic is plain. The reading should not depend on the writer's presence. A town that learned to write, in that sense, learned something every physician has to learn again with each note: the person who will read this is not here, the person whose words these are may not be here either, and the page has to be honest on behalf of both.

## Evidence and Editorial Note

**Documented findings.** Public biography: family roots in Khadur Sahib; Sikh; Punjabi as first language; family physician practising in California since 2010. Gurmukhi's thirty-five letters (*paintī*) in seven rows of five; the three vowel-bearers, with ūṛā and īṛī never written without a vowel sign; the movement of ūṛā to the head of the alphabet on its adoption by the Sikhs; descent from Śāradā; the late sixteenth-century Goindval pothi copy by Sahansar Ram with Laṇḍā affinities, minor and major changes to letter shapes before 1610, ਬ as a later invention, and nineteenth-century changes; the proto-Gurmukhi inscription of c. 1470–1490 at Hathur, Ludhiana; Guru Angad popularly credited with the script's creation and standardisation, with Kahn Singh of Nabha (1930) and G. B. Singh (1950) among Sikh scholars documenting pre-Sikh forms; Guru Nanak's mercantile background; the etymologies of *Gurmukhī*; *laṇḍā* as "without a tail," at least ten Laṇḍā scripts in Punjab with Mahājanī the most popular, and obligatory vowel diacritics in Gurmukhi for accuracy; tones arising from the loss of aspiration in voiced aspirates, with the script predating the tonal change; Gurmukhi's preservation of Old Punjabi pronunciation and grammar; *laṛīvār* and *pad chhed*; the 1851–53 administration report and A. R. Fuller's letter of 22 July 1862 (quotations as reproduced from Nazir Ahmad Chaudhry's 1977 compilation); Urdu's adoption after 1849; the 1868 literacy figure and the 1881 figure for Punjabi speakers; the 1882 Lahore Singh Sabha petition and the 1895 Amritsar school; the 1908 photograph of a class at the Golden Temple complex; the Panjab Official Language Act of 1967 and adoption in 1968; Shahmukhi's name modelled on Gurmukhi; Sardar Muhammad Khan's 1953 argument: Wikipedia articles "Gurmukhi," "Punjabi language," "Laṇḍā scripts" and "Mahajani," and the scholarship they cite. Guru Nanak's Patti in Raag Asa (Ang 432) as an alphabetical composition: SriGranth.org (described, not quoted). The claimed Guru Angad teaching inscription: Wikipedia, "Guru Angad." Khadur Sahib's 2011 census literacy figures (male 77.46 per cent, female 69.08 per cent): Wikipedia, "Khadur Sahib," citing the Census of India. Dhani Ram Chatrik (1876–1954): birth, Lopoke, *wasīqā-navīsī* at fifteen, typography training in Bombay, credit for standardising Gurmukhi typesetting, and the text of the quoted line and the poem's subject: Punjabi and English Wikipedia articles on Chatrik; the line is quoted once and rendered by the author. Moneylenders' account books in colonial Punjab: standard reference knowledge. The ISMP List of Error-Prone Abbreviations, Symbols, and Dose Designations (2024) and its relation to the Joint Commission's "Do Not Use" list (standard IM.02.02.01): the ISMP website; the misreadings of *q.d.* and *U*: Wikipedia, "List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions." Brian Friel's *Translations* (first performance 23 September 1980, Guildhall, Derry; Field Day; setting, characters, the place names, "Roland," Andrews's *A Paper Landscape*, the 1983 debate and Kevin Barry's comment): Wikipedia, "Translations (play)"; the Tobair Vree scene is paraphrased from the play's text as standard literary reference knowledge. Gurpreet/Harjit spelling variants, Singh and Kaur as common names, and *sarīr ṭuṭṭdā*: standard Punjabi usage. **Vendor representations.** None.

**Recollection and tradition.** The author's family roots in Khadur Sahib are his published biography. Guru Angad's work on the script at Khadur, the meaning of the name Gurmukhi and the claimed inscription are Sikh tradition and scholarship as summarised above; no claim is made about what all Sikhs believe. No remembered lesson, teacher, school or scene is described. The older woman, her phrase and the chain of translations are a hypothetical illustration, introduced as such; the name-matching problem is described in general terms and does not refer to any particular office or system.

**Analysis and forecast.** The reading of ūṛā's position, the distinction between invention and agreement, the reading of obligatory vowels as a transfer of authority from writer to reader, the comparison with medical abbreviations, the readings of Chatrik and Friel, the account of layered access, the reply to Sardar Muhammad Khan's objection, and the limits of the analogy between scripture and chart are the author's interpretation as of November 7, 2026, offered alongside, not in place of, the script's meaning within Sikh tradition. **Independence.** This essay is not sponsored by any institution, company, health system or technology developer. It is personal reflection, not medical advice; readers seeking care should contact their own physician's office.



## Related reading

- [Khadur Sahib: Where the Story Begins](https://personal.kpsgill.com/essays/khadur-sahib-where-the-story-begins/)
- [Mata Khivi’s Kitchen](https://personal.kpsgill.com/essays/mata-khivis-kitchen/)
- [The Wrestling Ground](https://personal.kpsgill.com/essays/the-wrestling-ground/)