Template talk:as-pronun

Template

@DerekWinters Hi, can you make the template for Module:as-pronun Msasag (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Msasag Hello! I'd love to, but I have absolutely no idea how to. I wanted to make one for Gujarati, but I got stumped there too. Sorry about that. :( DerekWinters (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Help

Why can't I see this template? It always just shows up as an empty tiny box with nothing in it.

• You can only see its contents by editing it (be careful not to change it). To find out how to use it, you need to look at its documentation page - but nobody has yet written one. I suggest copying its use (mutatis mutandis) from another entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

@Msasag, could we get rid of this template? {{as-IPA}} is the only legitimate templet… ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Ok. I wanted to make it similar to the {{my-IPA}} (for example, လုံချည်) or the {{th-pron}}, to include a simplified spelling as Assamese uses many extra letters. Plus adding spelling variations in romanizations used by people. But I rarely used this template. Msasag (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Msasag: So do you have any objections if I nominate it for deletion? Afterall, Assamese is not any national language like Thai or Burmese, and displaying all romanisations would clutter up the entry. And above all, we have no such templates for other South Asian languages.

But then, I think we can display the simplified orthography using {{as-IPA}} itself, if you wish. I have read that missionaries had devised a phonemic alphabet for Assamese, but ’twas rejected by Hemkosh. What do you think? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Yeah surely you can nominate it for deletion (btw is that really a Wiktionary rule that the language has to be a national language in order to have such templates?). It's a good idea if a simplified romanization can be shown by the {{as-IPA}} itself. Since, like you mentioned, such an orthography did exist I think it's a bit important to show a simplified spelling. However not exactly like the orthography standardised by the missionaries since it uses the orthographic retroflex series: ট, ঠ, ড, ঢ along with their dental counterparts: ত, থ, দ, ধ. Assamese however doesn't need it as much as Burmese or Tibetan does, or even English, French etc since Assamese orthography is highly phonetic, only that it has multiple spellings for the same sounds. Msasag (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Msasag: Re: ‘is that really a Wiktionary rule that the language has to be a national language in order to have such templates?’— ah no, it’s just that I personally felt Burmese and Thai being national languages received so much attention that they of got multiple standard romanisation schemes, LOL. Anyways, so would you like to have the phonetic respelling to be displayed? So I guess we will omit the following letters: ঈ (=ই), ঊ (=উ), ঋ (=ৰি), ছ (=চ), ঝ (=জ), ট (=ত), ঠ (=থ), ড (=দ), ঢ (=ধ), ণ (=ন), য (=জ), ষ (=শ), স (=শ), ঢ় (=ড়), as well as redundant letters like ক্ষ, ঞ, ৎ, ং, ্য . If you do not wish to, then we can of course abandon the project. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Ah. There are various reasons for such attentions, but yeah being a national language, especially from well-known countries is a major one. And yes, these letters can be omitted. But keep ঝ as /zʱ/ is used in many dialects and subdialects, and many standard speakers use it (including me). I prefer keeping স and omitting শ, ষ. Keep the ঢ়, or it can be replaced by ৰ্হ (rho) as it makes /ɹɦ/ sound. Omit ড় because it's same as ৰ. ঞ has the same value as য়ঁ, except in conjuncts where it's /n/. Like the "x" (শ, ষ, স) which are /s/ in conjuncts (the rule is there in {{as-IPA}}). Make it based on IPA transcription, but keep it editable. Some changes need to be done with IPA transcription module also. Like /ɔ(C)u/ > /o(C)u/, /ɔ(C)i/ > /o(C)i/ etc. Msasag (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Msasag: Alright, then ঝ and ঢ় should be kept. I would prefer শ because the /x/ of Assamese came from /ʃ/ of Māgadhi Prakrit; why do you want to have স ? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Because স is the most basic one, and is called dontia xo, and we are using other dontia letters, শ looks odd. It was the one used in the missionary orthography, and in manuscripts also it was the one which was most commonly used. Also I like the way স looks. Msasag (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Msasag: How would you distinguish between /x/ and /s/ as in স্পৰ্শ (sporxo)? If we are to show /x/ as স, then the respelling would be স্পৰ্স (spors) (showing bad transliteration). Are you treating the /s/ as an allophone of /x/ in consonant clusters?— if so, then I think using the same letter for both is fine. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī I think it's better to treat it as an allophone. Msasag (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)