Module talk:Tibt-translit

Trying to transliterate ཐོ་ཁེ་ཡོ། (Tokyo): [MODULE CALL REDACTED]. The result is "0" at the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Works well: {{l|bo|ཐོ་ཁེ་ཡོ།}} - ཐོ་ཁེ་ཡོ། (tho khe yo). (Final punctuation marks are preferably removed) Wyang (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Dzongkha

Will this module work for Dzongkha? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Wyang (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Not always... Wyang (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I rename it to Module:Tibt-translit, as it will be shared by more than one language, also? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Dzongkha one of the Tibetan languages? We seem to treat at least the three major varieties of Tibetan - Ü-Tsang, Kham and Amdo as one language. Wyang (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a separate code for Kham: WT:LOL#kjl. — Keφr 10:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wyang I don't know. I have added this module to Dzongkha, Sikkimese and Ladakhi. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's an old discussion, but I support the rename to Tibt-translit. We should probably be using Wylie for all Tibetic languages, no? I suppose Balti might be an exception (all our entries are in Arabic script except one, which uses a different notation). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  This module cannot cover Dzongkha with full accuracy yet. Written Dzongkha is regulated independently by the Bhutan government, and there are many syllables in Dzongkha which would violate Tibetan spelling rules, such as ལཱཔ (lāp, “workman”), ལགཔ (lgap, “hand”), དམརཔ (dmarp, “red”), མནྜལ (mnḍal, “mandala”) and མེནམ (menm, “negative”), which were not taken into account when the module was written. Either the module has to be amended, or it may be better to design one for Dzongkha from scratch. I'm not sure yet. Wyang (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Whatever you think best for where to put the logic is fine by me. That said, you make it sound as if there are currently Dzongkha entries with bad translit, in which case this really ought to be dealt with. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  This is a very old discussion, but I have finally done this. Theknightwho (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Handling a tsheg on its own

Currently if ་ is the input, the module produces a. I think that this not a result we particularly want, and it would be better not to produce anything for punctuation marks at all, in any situation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the result should be empty. Fixed. Wyang (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect (Extended) Wylie Transliteration of Sanskrit+Reversed Letters (i.e. ལོག་ཡིག་དྲུག & མཐུག་ཡིག་ལྔ)

(Extended) Wylie transliteration specifies T(a), Th(a), D(a), N(a), Sh(a), k+Sh(a) for the ལོག་ཡིག་དྲུག, ཊ་ཋ་ཌ་ཎ་ཥ་ཀྵ, respectively, and similarly Dh(a) for the མཐུག་ཡིག ཌྷ (q.v. https://www.thlib.org/reference/transliteration/#!essay=/thl/ewts/all/). Yet, this module transcribes these letters/stacks using diacritics, with ṭ(a), ṭh(a), ḍ(a), ṇ(a), ṣ(a), kṣ(a), and ḍh(a).

As diacritics are distinctly not part of the Wylie nor Extended Wylie transliteration systems, I would like to go ahead and emend this module. I will leave this post here for a week before modifying the module, in case anyone wants to argue the case for this bastardized hybrid transliteration system. Seeing as I am probably the only active Tibetan entry editor at the moment on Wiktionary, I think I would probably be waiting a long time if I waited indefinitely.

Side note:

What is up with the section on Tibetan Pinyin at Wiktionary:About Tibetan#Tibetan_Pinyin, where it claims Pinyin is used to transliterate Lhasa Tibetan? The scheme is clearly based on Wylie. Perhaps they mean the phonetic transcriptions given in Module:bo-pron, which does use Pinyin? I frankly find this incredibly offensive, given that Tibetan Pinyin is mere political technology of the CCP, employed in their genocidal campaign to sinicize and disneyfy Tibetan culture. No one in academia or even the popular Tibetan language learning press, except the CCP and their sycophants, uses Tibetan Pinyin for transliteration, let alone for serious linguistic/phonetic transcription. If zh.wiktionary.org wants to use Tibetan Pinyin, that makes sense, but for en.wiktionary.org this is the wrong system. I am a developer with 25+ years of experience and an advanced-level Tibetan translation student at Lotsawa Rinchen Zangpo Translator School in Dharamsala, and I am more than happy to make and capable of making these changes, so if you have a strong counterargument, please let it be known!

ལྗགས་ཀློག་གནང་བར་ཐུགས་རྗེ་ཆེ་ཞུ་གི་ཡོད། བོད་རྒྱལ་ལོ།

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hermes Thrice Great That's mostly an aesthetic choice, because strict extended Wylie looks terrible, and isn't widely loved. We could make the change, but I don't feel very enthusiastic about doing so.

Pages like Wiktionary:About Tibetan are sometimes very out of date, so they probably shouldn't be taken at face value. Theknightwho (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho, thanks for your response—I honestly wasn’t sure if anyone would respond.

It’s true that extended Wylie is not very aesthetically pleasing. I’m not sure how strong of an argument that is, however. It reminds me a bit about what Nathan W. Hill wrote regarding cold critical reception to Nicholas Tournadre’s proposed system of transliteration in The Manual of Standard Tibetan (2003):

However, for authors such as Tuttle (2005: xvii) and Kapstein (2006: xvii) among others the symbol 'ä', although it represents a sound in Modern Standard Tibetan quite distinct from 'e', is too confusing and ugly (Tournadre and Dorje 2003: 431). Such authors replace 'ä' with 'e', rendering the system no longer phonetically accurate. Inexplicably, the symbols ü and ö, just as familiar from German and just as odd looking in English, these authors embrace.

—Nathan W. Hill, A note on the history and future of the 'Wylie' system, in Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 23, Avril 2012, pp. 103-105.

The trouble I have is that the use of diacritics within a Wylie context is nonstandard and thus makes Wiktionary a singular source that doesn’t offer its users with the standard transcriptions they encounter in pretty much every other context (outside of China), and it means that words that employ these diacritics lose their ability to show up in searches conducted with Wylie keywords. Moreover, these specific retroflex diacritics are not as well-known and universally understood as something like an umlaut/diaeresis.

If not proper extended Wylie, I might be in favor of using the aforementioned transliteration system developed by Tournadre (), which is very easy on the eyes and relatively phonetically accurate (at least for English speakers, which is fine given this is en.wiktionary.org). However, I am still hesitant to use something like this for the same reasons given above, although in general I feel that the Wylie system as a whole is rather outdated (part of the reason it was created was to be more “typeable”, i.e. with a typewriter or early computer keyboards, and the Unicode standard basically pushed it into obsolescence, although the extended Wylie system does use some Unicode characters for punctuation and miscellaneous textual marks).

As far as the phonetic transcriptions provided by Module:bo-pron, these should obviously be given in IPA, like all other phonetic transcriptions on this platform.

I will hold off on making any immediate changes and see if anyone else has any additional input on these matters.

Best,

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hermes Thrice Great We could follow the method used by Chinese entries of showing multiple transliteration systems - obviously it has the various lects, but within that there are no less than 7 systems given for Mandarin and 4 for Cantonese. We don't have to go overboard, but I think there would be value in giving more than one system.

That would give us the liberty to use the system of our choice as the "standard" transliteration in links, while also making sure that (Extended) Wylie is given on the entry itself. Theknightwho (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response—that sounds like a wise choice to me. I like it.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)