User talk:نعم البدل/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Apisite (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! نعم البدل (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Urdu question

Since you seem to know Urdu, I was wondering if you could help clear up what the correct male equivalent of Mosammat is. Specifically, what would it be in Urdu script and what would be the most common romanization (if it can be attested in English documents)? I tried looking up Musammi which I got from [1] but there wasn't much on Google Books using it as a title. Rekhta has Musammaa (مُسَمّیٰ), but I couldn't find anything using this as a title either. Is it only used for women? 70.172.194.25 01:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

राझ

Hello. Regarding your recent creation of Hindi राझ (rājh) as an alternative form of राज़ (rāz), it does not seem attested when I checked for it. You need to provide three quotations in compliance of WT:CFI to have it kept, otherwise it will be deleted. Thanks, —Svārtava (t/u) • 07:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava2 Hi. I'm not sure whether I can satisfy the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. I can give YouTube title/links, blogs etc - but I don't know whether they can be counted as quotations. It seems to be a misspelling or alternative form of राज़ (rāz). نعم البدل (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

YouTube titles, blogs, etc. do not count as attestation; google books is the best and the most reliable place to search for CFI-compliant citations. If the term cannot satisfy the attestation requirement, it should be deleted. —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

DSAL Shahmukhi Punjabi Dictionary

In case you didn't know already, there's a monolingual Shahmukhi Punjabi Dictionary at DSAL with 3113 pages:

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/salah-ud-din/

Perhaps it might be of use to you especially in comparison with {{R:pa:Punjabi University}}. For example, searching for ਤੰਬੋਲੀ (tambolī) in {{R:pa:Punjabi University}} to find the Shahmukhi equivalent does not show any results, but this dictionary does have an entry for تنبولی (tnbolī). Although it is not shown at

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/

it was apparently released in December 2021. Kutchkutch (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Wow!! Thank you so much for this. This will be very helpful! I'll be turning this into a reference, if that's okay. نعم البدل (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Requests for verification in Old Punjabi entries

Rather than individually verifying these terms, perhaps it would be better to discuss them as a whole instead.

For historical Indo-Aryan languages such as Prakrit, Sanskrit, Old Marathi, etc. it has been the norm to assume that if a term is attested in one script then it also exists in other valid scripts rather than verifying each script individually. The reason for this is that if a term that is attested in one script, this verifies that the term exists in the language, and the script is merely a way to represent the verified term. Therefore, it would be reasonable to represent that term in another valid script even if it not directly attested in that script. For example, even though there may be no direct Shahmukhi attestation of a term such as ਖਰਚੁ (kharacu), it would be reasonable to assume that the term can also be written in Shahmukhi even if there is no direct attestation in Shahmukhi since the existence of the underlying term kharacu in the Old Punjabi language is verified.

I did not transliterate from Gurmukhi to Shahmukhi myself. I obtained the Shahmukhi equivalents of the Gurmukhi terms from

https://archive.org/details/SriGuruGranthSahib-ShahmukhiWithGurmukhi/

This document is the Guru Granth Sahib in Shahmukhi with the conversion done by Kirpal Singh Pannu. Although I have tried to use the spellings as they are given in that document as much as possible, some minor changes may necessary. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Thank you for your response. I understand your reasoning behind theoretical lemmas, however I feel that there is a flaw in this logic.

Your example of ਖਰਚੁ (kharcu), maybe valid for Gurmukhi, because it is a corrupted borrowing of Persian خرچ (xarač), but that's not to say that the exact corruption will be taken on in Shahmukhi. In fact Shahmukhi lemmas tend to retain the Perso-Arab spelling, even in Old Punjabi. In Modern Punjabi, I've only encountered a few lemmas which retain the corrupted spelling (like کَھجَل (khajal).

Same can be said for بیسُمار (besumār) - it's unlikely that these kinds of lemmas would have existed in Shahmukhi Punjabi, just because Persian بی‌شمار (baySHumâr) in Gurmukhi became ਬੇਸੁਮਾਰ (besumār), and then to also state that the Modern Punjabi بے شُمار (be śumār) / بیشُمار (beśumār) is a descendant of the Old Punjabi lemma is also be bizarre.

I also have issues with lemmas such as اَدِھکار (adhikār), but I'm not sure where I stand on this. نعم البدل (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I could stop making Shahmukhi Old Punjabi entries from this document until there is a systematic way to handle them.

Since Shahmukhi lemmas tend to retain the Perso-Arab spelling, even in Old Punjabi. کَھرَچُ (kharacu) could be moved to خَرَچُ (xaracu), or the historically justified x could be indicated with the |ts= parameter as:

{{inc-opa-noun|gur=ਖਰਚੁ|head=کَھرَچُ|ts=xaracu}}

so that it displays

کَھرَچُ (kharacu /xaracu/)

For Old Marathi, Old Hindi, Old Gujarati, etc. the historical spellings are usually not the exact historical pronunciations (see User_talk:Inqilābī#Regarding_etymologies...). Therefore, Persian ś becoming Old Punjabi s and then back to ś in modern Punjabi may seem strange, but it is not unexpected. Gurmukhi ਸ਼ (śa) is composed of ਸ (sa) with the nuqta diacritic, and the nuqta diacritic did not exist in Old Punjabi. Similarly, Shahmukhi ش (ś) and س (s) only differ with respect to the three dots. Either Old Punjabi s was pronounced as ś but written as s or Old Punjabi s was reinforced/reborrowed as ś in modern Punjabi through continued contact with the Persian term (see User_talk:Smettems#diff). The historically justified ś could be indicated with the |ts= parameter as:

{{inc-opa-adj|gur=ਬੇਸੁਮਾਰੁ|head=بیسُمَارُ|ts=beśumāru}}

so that it displays

بیسُمَارُ (besumāru /beśumāru/)

Since there are Urdu terms borrowed from Sanskrit through Old Hindi such as

Urdu اُدَاس (udās) from Sanskrit through Old Hindi उदास (udāsa),

the existence of Shahmukhi Old Punjabi اَدِھکَارُ (adhikāru) from Sanskrit as the equivalent of Gurmukhi Old Punjabi ਅਧਿਕਾਰੁ (adhikāru) that led to modern Shahmukhi Punjabi اَدھِیکار (adhīkār) would not be unexpected. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Roman Urdu

Hello, getting your input on this since you seem like an Urdu speaker, or at least one well versed in Urdu culture, and are quite productive on Urdu sections.

I'm wondering in what capacity adding Roman Urdu can be done on Wiktionary. As far as I'm aware, Roman Urdu - a Latinized form of Urdu - is very much a real thing and has been so since the 19th century because of the influence of the British who patronized Urdu above all other languages because of its prestigious Persianate tradition and connection to the traditional noble-borne Muslim elite. There are communities of Urdu speakers who use Roman Urdu over it's traditional Indo-Persianate form, for various reasons. In Pakistan under Ayub Khan, Roman Urdu nearly became the standard form of written Urdu, and today in the age of the internet Roman Urdu has become even more of visible because of the hegemony of Latin script in media and technology. Again, showing that it's very much a "real thing" as opposed to something recent and informal like Latinized Hindi.

Getting your thoughts on this, I personally think adding Roman Urdu under "alternative forms" would be decent enough?

Thanks, let me know.

Eranvez1414 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Eranvez1414

Hi Eranvez! Personally speaking, I'm opposed to Roman Urdu, as would any other 'Urdu-dan' be. It is true that Roman Urdu is used a lot digitally, but it's usually due to the lack of support for the Nastaliq font, or because a user just isn't used to the Urdu keyboard. Plus, Roman Urdu would be hard to incorporate in Wiktionary, as there is no standard of Roman Urdu, or at least one that is unanimous. It would just be a huge list of "alternative spellings", and I assume the same goes for Latinized Hindi or for that matter any other South Asian language. نعم البدل (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Old entries with non-standard transliterations

There are old Urdu entries that use romanizations that doesn't correspond with the Wiktionary standard, can you go to fix them if you can? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Is there a category for them, or could you please let me know which ones they are? Thanks. نعم البدل (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I found a couple, احتجاجاً چھوڑ کر چلے جانا and احتجاجی, but there are many more. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of them were made or last edited by @شہاب Rodrigo5260 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Arabic entries for Indian/Pakistani states

Hey,

Please do not create such entries unless they are provided with three durably-archived quotes. I am going to RFV the ones you created so far. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 08:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, for تِلَنْغَانَة (tilanḡāna), here are my sources:

• Osmania University
• Telangana State board
• ICCR India

نعم البدل (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@نعم البدل: This looks good then, you actually seem meticulously checking for actual use and not just copying from ar.Wikipedia which totally includes ad-hoc transcriptions oftentimes. Oftentimes there is nothing more to expect than tourist sites (as for a random Romanian county like أَرْجِيش (ʔarjīš), which of course Arabs get printed on paper when they book a trip thither).

I mean at least for states of India it should be obvious that any one has occurred in the Arabic language sufficiently and in her press in the past, as well as the states of the Federal Republic of Germany (before and after the refugee trend, compare the impression); it seems a bit biased to think otherwise, Fenakhay. There is as well this problem that about every place in the world gets an English entry (though people absurdly assumed that there could be unattested communities in the United States even, I don’t find this embarrassing discussion right now), and Geographyinitiative (talk • contribs) continuously proves that it works to actually provide the quotes even with multiple transcription schemes any Chinese place, but we don’t have enough zeal or manpower to extend this to this detail in other languages, especially countering the lesser digitization situation for languages written in more complex scripts. One needs to have some sense of proportion.

That being said, I can’t have many scruples for a world language as Arabic though in general the observation is correct that there more random-ass languages than not where we should have the opposite presumption that only the greatest things are attested and perhaps not even that – Armenian lacked a lot of things in China, it turned out, while Arabic probably has named all the internal organs in the PRC and the CCP and there must be documents in some Saudi or Emirati intelligence office where all is laid out. Fay Freak (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The best part of adding cites for the geographical terms is that there is a practical limit on how far I can go with geography entries. There really are geography terms that don't reach three cites, and they really should not be included. And the words with three cites are sometimes surprising. And the cites bring so much useful context to the word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

استنجا

I couldn't move Urdu below Persian because I use a phone (my laptop died in March and as for now I can't afford fixing it) Rodrigo5260 (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. My objection aside, perhaps you should try contributing with your phone. It's something that I'm used to doing for quite some time now. It's a bit difficult at first, but you get used to it! نعم البدل (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

اسکندریہ

Someone recently added this entry, but it lacks its respective transliteration, could you add it when you have time? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Done! نعم البدل (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Urdu/Hindi phrases

When I look at the Urdu and Hindi phrases, all the Hindi phrases are mostly derived from Urdu and that Urdu was created before Hindi, doesn't that mean for the entomology, the Hindi word should be derived from Urdu. Also a lot of Urdu words are not Hindi and for some reason there are entries for that. And also can you remove the Hindi and Urdu translation of words if they are not used in their respective language? Thank you. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@ImprovetheArabicUnicode: Your opinion will be considered quite controversial. I had a similar discussion only this week in regards to lemmas of Urdu origin. But apparently such discussions can be easily reduced to just "they are not different languages" and apparently you must put both scripts. Anyhow, the etymology of Urdu and Hindi lemmas are quite difficult to narrow down. The earliest form you can mention on Wiktionary is Old Hindi - which will need to be attested. If you'd like to state that the origin of a Hindi lemma is Urdu, then either references or a suitable explanation will be needed.

As for removing lemmas, if they can't be attested or satisfy WT:CFI then they must be removed. I'll keep a look out for such lemmas (or please let me know if you find any). نعم البدل (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Also in Hindi they do not pronounce the /x/ /q/ /ɣ/ /ʒ/ or /ɽ/ too. For some reason, its on there. In Urdu, people do not pronounce /ɳ/ /ʂ/ and (most of the time) /ʋ/. Can there be some consensus somewhere because it makes me question this Wiktionary's reliability. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The pronunciation is a bit more debatable, /ɽ/ is definitely pronounced in Hindi, /x/ and /q/ and /ɣ/ are very uncommon, while /ʒ/ is rarely, or close to never pronounced in Hindi. Hindi pronunciations/dialects are quite varied, which is why Module:hi-IPA lists all the various possible pronunciation. /ɳ/ /ʂ/ was removed for Urdu lemmas - so they shouldn't be showing that for Urdu IPAs. It's not that Wiktionary is unreliable, it's just that Hindi and Urdu can't be just lumped together, or assumed as one now - the differences between Hindi and Urdu sorta need to be outlined. نعم البدل (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but for that /ɽ/, it is only pronounced in Bollywood, but not in formal Hindi and is pronounced as /ɖ/. Its just that because most of the words that use them ( /x/ /q/ /ɣ/ /ʒ/ /f/ /z/) are only found in Urdu and not in Hindi. There needs to be difference somewhere so Hindi doesn't be exactly like Urdu. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:ImprovetheArabicUnicode, that assertion is incorrect. Those sounds are all found in Hindi are are represented with nuqtas. The text Dialect Accent Features for Establishing Speaker Identity, authored by Manisha Kulshreshtha and Ramkumar Mathur and published by Springer, states, with respect to Hindi that "A few sounds, borrowed from the other languages like Persian and Arabic, are written with a dot (bindu or nuktā). Many people who speak Hindi as a second language, especially those who come from rural backgrounds and do not speak conventional Hindi (also called Khariboli), or speak in one of its dialects, pronounce these sounds as their nearest equivalents." The educated class, native to the Hindi-Urdu heartland of Delhi and Lucknow, will always pronounce these sounds correctly and thus, there would be no pronunciation difference between Urdu and Hindi. You are welcome to view a Hindi movie or listen to a Hindi song to confirm this; Kismat Se Tum Humko Mile Ho is a good example, found here (lyrics). Professor Afroz Taj of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in this article explains the development of Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu, which is relevant to this discussion. This video is an example of a children's lesson teaching the aforementioned letters, which are indeed used by native Hindi speakers, always being pronounced correctly in Hindi media, such as by newscasters, actors, and singers. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In the child's lessson video, I can barely hear it and it is close to /kʰ/ then /x/ and /g/ as /ɡʱ/ and then movie is called Kismat Se Tum Humko Mile Ho and they do not the /q/ sound in the movie which is the only one I cannot find and as this movie looks Hindustani like Bollywood, but Bollywood is a better example of Hindustani, mixed Urdu and Hindi, but more Urdu, so the Urdu words can sometimes be heard. As for the Dialect Accent Features for Establishing Speaker Identity article, I know these sounds are used in Hindi, but are barely pronounced and many times not pronounced at all. And the article by Professor Afroz Taj, it uses the Kharboli dialect as "Hindi" and Hindi (modern) and several articles I found online claimed that Hindi was created by the British to "combat" Urdu as the language of Muslims or Hindus - [2], [3], [4]. As such, their is proof that Urdu and Hindi are different, but are sometimes joined with Hindustani language. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The first pronunciation of the word "qismat" in the song clearly uses /q/, perhaps not as intense as it is pronounced in Arabic, but nevertheless it is clearly audible. I disagree with respect to your analysis of the children's video as the constants are clearly audible; regardless of either of our listening skills, the fact that क़ qa /q/, ख़ xa /x/, ग़ ġa /ɣ/, ज़ za /z/, झ़ zha /ʒ/, and फ़ fa /f/ exist in Hindi and are being taught is evidence of their usage by trained native speakers. "Bollywood" is officially "Hindi cinema" and thus is reflective of the pronunciation of standard Hindi. I am pinging administrator (and linguist) User:AryamanA as he will be of help in this discussion. Kind regards, Anupam (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's proof that Bollywood is not entirely Hindi - [5] ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Bollywood is Hindi-language cinema, but the Hindi language includes Bazaar Hindustani spoken on a daily basis and used in films, as well as the Manak Hindi used exclusively in government speeches. The former includes the development of Hindi-Urdu organically, while the latter has more Persian loanwords replaced with tatsama Sanskrit ones. It is for this reason that the article you cited states that "Urdu and Hindi were not always seen as separate languages" and why Bollywood films can be called "Hindi films" or "Urdu films". This article from the Oxford International Relations Society expands on this and concludes: "According to linguists, Hindi and Urdu, whether spoken in Chandni Chowk in New Delhi, or the old Walled City of Lahore, are standardised registers of the same language." Kind regards, Anupam (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Also it matters which Urdu you are speaking. If you are speaking street Urdu (different varieties including Karachis), talking in a conversation, and giving speeches. The street Urdu's words have sometimes no etymology and are just made up words. In talking in a conversation with someone, you might use basic Urdu that you use at home with more literary word like when you talk about politics or economics. And last, talking in a speech or in a meeting, you may use very poetic or literary words that sometimes may come as close to being all non-Sanskrit nouns and phrases. Hindi from what I know is different in that. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that the technical vocabulary of Hindi and Urdu diverges. The colloquial vocabulary of Hindi and Urdu that is employed on a day to day basis (used in Bollywood films for example) is virtually identical. Anupam (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Because most words used in speeches or formal talk in Urdu is not found in Hindi, and sometimes even just greet talk. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)