User talk:Kutchkutch

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page 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.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --Ivan Štambuk 06:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Marathi

Marathi does not use the Latin script. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Where possible, foreign entries should have an English translation (e.g. bhaji) rather than a definition. SemperBlotto 22:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hindi words

None of your recent entries have ==language== sections. They may get deleted. SemperBlotto 08:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

माकड (mākaḍ)

Thanks for all the changes! —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 10:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I was curious how you were able to obtain the Maharashtri Prakrit word when you first made this page and Prakrit words on other pages such as those in this category [1] and especially in the Brahmi script. Did you find them in old Prakrit books on archive.org or Google Books such as [2] [3] and transliterate them into Brahmi from Latin script? Doing so appears to be hard since the books are so old and sometimes hard to understand. It is much easier to use digitised and searchable dictionaries from [4] but it does not seem to have any Prakrit resources. It does have an Old Marathi dictionary though. Kutchkutch (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That website does have Prakrit in Turner's dictionary: [5]. It says:

Pk. makkaḍa -- m., °ḍī f., maṁkaḍa -- , °kaṇa -- m.

I think Turner only gives Maharashtri Prakrit. Some other sources: [6], [7] which give other Prakrit lects. For typing in Prakrit I use Module:typing-aids, so {{subst:chars|m|pra-sau|makkaDa}} gives 𑀫𑀓𑁆𑀓𑀟 (makkaḍa). [8], [9] have some pre-transliterated Prakrit texts too. Great to have another Indian-language editor! User:माधवपंडित is another one, he speaks Konkani, Kannada, and Hindi (and apparently some Marathi). —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this! It seems that ‘Prakrit’ on its own is not a single language, and the word ‘Prakrit’ collectively refers to Middle Indic languages. If a source (Turner in this case) mentions a word in Prakrit without specifying the lect (Ardhamāgadhī, Mahārāṣṭrī, Śaurasenī, etc), would it be fair to say that the word exists in all lects with identical forms each worthy of its own Wiktionary entry? Or would more research or judgement be necessary to say which lects have the word and in what form as you did when you said ‘I think Turner only gives Maharashtri Prakrit [in this case]’? And in this case it appears Turner gives a feminine version of the first word with the ending °ḍī f. and two additional masculine words maṁkaḍa -- , °kaṇa -- m. Would all of these words be worthy of their own Wiktionary entries?

With regard to script, there appears to be a convention for which script to be used for each language on Wiktionary. For example, the consensus in a section on your talk page [10] is that Prakrit lects should be in the Brahmi script and Pali should be in the Latin script with the Template:pi-alt being a nice way to show the alternate scripts. According to Wikipedia, Konkani can be written in various scripts and it appears all Konkani lemmas on Wiktionary are in the Devanagari script. Marathi used to be written in the Mōḍī script and Mōḍī script is now in Unicode so should Old Marathi lemmas on Wiktionary be in the Modi script? Or not since there are few Modi Unicode fonts?

Is there no such thing as a Mahārāṣṭrī Apabhraṃśa (or Ardhamāgadhī Apabhraṃśa) just like Gurjar Apabhramsa (Category:Gurjar_Apabhramsa_language) and Sauraseni Apabhramsa (Category:Sauraseni_Apabhramsa_language)? Kutchkutch (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: The consensus here is to treat Prakrit as a class of middle Middle-Indo-Aryan languages (the old MIA languages are Pali, the younger MIA languages are Apabhramsas). So there is a CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit language, CAT:Ardhamagadhi Prakrit language, etc. I have suggested merging them because of how regular they are in spelling differences, and the fact that they were pretty much mutually intelligible (many medieval Indian plays used different Prakrit lects for different characters), but User:DerekWinters disagreed (he too knows quite a bit about Prakrit).

By Turner using Maharashtri Prakrit, I mean he usually gives the standard Maharashtri Prakrit spelling, e.g. I've noticed for verbs he always drops consonants in the ending, e.g for भवति "to become" he gives Prakrit bhavaï, where the spelling for Sauraseni is bhodi.

All those words do merit an entry as alternative spellings if they pass WT:CFI, basically there should be at least 3 durable citations (if it's obvious that a word is citable, you don't actually need to provide the citations).

Old Marathi could be given in the Modi script, but since there is such patchy Unicode support idk if that would be a good idea. Same for Prakrit, I'd rather have it use the Latin script (like Pali) or Devanagari so people can actually search for the entries. But, our support for Prakrit in etymologies is already pretty good with Brahmi. Finally, I'm not sure about Apabhramsa for Marathi, but since Old Marathi is like early 1000's to 1400ish, and Prakrit is like 100 BC to 500 CE, perhaps there is a Marathi Apabhramsa. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

कसे आहात? इकडे मराठी बोलणारांची उणीव आहे। भेटून आनंद झाला। -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

धन्यवाद! उणीव खरंच आहे। मला पण भेटून आनंद झाला। Kutchkutch (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

^मैं यह बिल्कुल नहीं समझा... मैंने एक मराठी शब्दावली ढूंढ डाली है, [11], क्या आप इन मूलभूत शब्द को add कर सकते हैं? धन्यबाद —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

इस निवेदन के लिए बहुत धन्यवाद! अब तक मैंने इतना बड़ा काम नहीं किया और थोड़ा समय लगेगा लेकिन कोशिश तो ज़रूर करूंगा!

Even though I’ve been learning Hindi for many many years and perfectly understood what you’ve written, I don’t consider myself completely fluent in it yet but it’s probably good enough for English Wiktionary but maybe not for Hindi Wikipedia [12] :-)

I’ve noticed (as you must have too) that some of the words on that list are English words transliterated/borrowed into Devanagari/Marathi. Furthermore, some of those words must already have entries as Hindi and other languages even if the Marathi entry may not exist yet. Kutchkutch (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

हिंदी विकिपीडिया पर सिर्फ़ शुद्ध हिंदी का इस्तेमाल करते हैं, जो वैसे बहुत कम सुनी जाती है। मैं भी वहां उतना edit नहीं करता… मुझे हिंदी आती है, संस्कृत नहीं! English borrowings are fair game still, see CAT:Hindi terms borrowed from English (but they can wait for now, since they're very simple to translate). We're in serious need of Marathi lemmas, thank you so much for your contributions! —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 10:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh I don't know Arya angrezi shabdon leads to code switching which ends up breaking the whole bhasha. I'm not fluent yet but I prefer not to use them if I don't have to. 46.216.225.118 12:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Babel

You should add {{Babel}} to your userpage btw, maybe {{Babel|mr|en-4|hi-4}}?

—Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I found another great resource : [13], It has 27,000 Marathi example sentences! —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and the link! Kutchkutch (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@AryamanA Do you know if the example sentences at [14] and Tatoeba can be used in their entirety or in a modified way without mentioning the source? Some example sentences have audio files and the author for the Marathi audio files has stated that Tatoeba needs to be attributed if the audio files are used, but there is perhaps no need to mention the source if only the text is used with some possible modifications. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Their licence requires attribution to be provided. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 11:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Ok thanks for answering! I was just looking for a place to look for inspiration, if it's too complicated to properly attribute Tatoeba perhaps it shouldn't be used yet. Creativity is not as easy as I thought. Sometimes I write a usage example and then think it's not very effective in showing the word's meaning.

Also, when should {{uxi}} be used instead of {{ux}}? Should it be used when a usage example is too short to occupy several lines? I was also wondering why {{hi-usex}} is is used for Hindi instead of the default {{ux}} or {{uxi}}. Is {{hi-usex}} customised in some way or is it simply a shortcut for {{ux|hi|यह एक उदाहरण है।}}? Kutchkutch (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Right now, it automatically makes it inline ({{uxi}}) for short examples, and it highlights the word to make it more visible. Otherwise, it is pretty much the same as {{ux}}/{{uxi}}. And yes, {{uxi}} is for short phrases or sentences usually, but I've noticed some languages like Greek only use {{uxi}}, for stylistic reasons. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello..

Hello.. Happy to see fellow Indian on Wiktionay. Just curiously land here knowing that Kutch is a region in Gujarat state of India. So I found your name interesting. Regards,--Nizil Shah (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah Thanks for saying hello and it's nice to meet you! You are correct about my username; it does refer to the Kutch region of Gujarat. Using this region for my username was a random choice. Unfortunately, I do not know much about Kutch or its language other than what can be found at Wikipedia. I see on your talk page that you have posted some links about the Kutchi language in a discussion with User:DerekWinters.

I can see that User:DerekWinters and you are both Gujarati-language editors. I have not had the chance to interact with User:DerekWinters yet.

I have a Gujarati-related question that I wanted to ask you (or User:DerekWinters if I ever get the chance to interact with him). I wanted to add 'અમદાવાદ, વડોદરા, સુરત, રાજકોટ અને મુંબઈથી પ્રગટ થતું દૈનિક.' as a usage example for the entry અને. I was unsure what the words 'પ્રગટ' and 'થતું' mean so I decided to remove the usage example. Is the correct translation of that Gujarati phrase 'Presented daily from Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, Rajkot and Mumbai'? If you can confirm this translation I might consider re-adding this usage example to the the entry અને. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

'પ્રગટ થતું' mean 'published' here. That translation was incorrect. The correct translation: 'A daily published from Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, Rajkot and Mumbai'. Such tag is used on the top of newspapers/dailies. Feel free to ask whenever you have any question regarding Gujarati. I am native Gujarati speaker.

Kutch is a wonderful place to live or visit, I can say. I can understand Kutchi partially but could not read it if written in Sindhi script. Regards,--Nizil Shah (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah:Thanks! As you pointed out, I saw that phrase on the top of the front pages of Gujarati newspapers.

All the Kutchi words in Category:Kachchi lemmas appear to be in the Gujarati script so far. Although the Sindhi Perso-Arabic script has similarities with the Urdu script, it appears to have a letter corresponding to almost every Devanagari letter, which Urdu does not have. Wikipedia's language family tree suggests that Kutchi is closer to Sindhi than Gujarati, but below it says 'Kutchi is often thought to be a mixture of Sindhi, Gujarati, and Rajasthani'. Kutchkutch (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch:, Kutch has been part of Gujarat since its foundation in 1960. Gujarati is a primary language taught across all schools in Gujarat (except large number of English Medium schools where it is taught as a secondary language). As far as I know, no school in Kutch teach Kutchi language. Kutchi is written in Sindhi and Gujarati scripts as it has not single standard Kutchi script. As there is not much support for Sindhi script, most writers prefers Gujarati script. You are right that Sindhi script has corresponding letter for Devnagari script. It is somewhat similar to the case of Western and Eastern Punjabi: similar language but different scripts due to international borders. Kutchi origin people living is Pakistan uses Sindhi script while living Kutchi people in Kutch, Gujarat, India uses Gujarati script. Same applies to Sindhi language too: Sindhi living in India uses Devnagari/Gujarati script while Sindhis living in Pakistan uses Sindhi script. Sorry for very late reply. I had missed this conversation. @DerekWinters, pinging you for inputs on "technical" linguistic knowledge which I have none.--Nizil Shah (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

love button

Hello. I'm amazed that there are so many words for "clitoris" in Marathi (see the translation table there). Do you vouch for all of them? And would you mind creating the most common? Thank you! --Barytonesis (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Yes, it is a bit unusual that there's so many words listed there! I think what happened was there was a user on Marathi Wikipedia that made a glossary of English to Marathi terms related to female anatomy [15] and transferred those translations to Wiktionary. The reason for making such a list might be because since it's a taboo topic many resources such as dictionaries don't even mention them. (In that discussion, one user even suggested it's not suitable to include such topics on Marathi Wikipedia). Those words look like real words. Most of those words could be Sanskrit borrowings and compounds, and since they're not in dictionaries it could be hard to find information about them. Kutchkutch (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Dardic

Hey Kutchkutch, I just wanted to mention that Dardic is a descendant of Proto-Indo-Aryan, not Sanskrit. Also, when you add {{desc|inc-dar-pro}}, please don't null it out with |2=-, so we can see which entries need reconstructions. Thank and keep up the good work! --Victar (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: I remember reading in some paper that scholars do not consider that all "Dardic" languages to have descended from a single, "Proto-Dardic" language. This is why in spite of so many scholarly articles on Dardic languages, a Proto-Dardic language has not been reconstructed. These "Dardic" languages are instead clusters of groups of languages with similarities existing within the groups and not Dardic as a whole. So Kalasha and Khowar are from one group whereas Torwali and Shina are from the other. This is why I used to earlier null out the Proto Dardic level while listing the descendants and now I don't list it at all. In Kalasha there are some words that originate from Classical Sanskrit times. And nowhere in Kalasha has a linguistic feature been found which was lost in Sanskrit and is reminiscent of Proto-Indo-Aryan. Lastly, I have not seen Kutchkutch dabble in Dardic -- what's this about? -- माधवपंडित (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित: This probably isn't the right place for a whole conversation on the legitimacy of Proto-Dardic, but regardless of whether some entries are borrowed, influenced by, or straight-out descended from Sanskrit, I think we can both agree (along with publications on the subject) that Proto-Dardic does not belong below Sanskrit. I brought this up with Kutchkutch because he was adding {{desc|inc-dar-pro}} below {{desc|sa}} in trees. --Victar (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: I though Proto-Dardic was a descendant of Vedic Sanskrit... —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 16:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Some even think it might have been more closely related to Nuristani, but that's probably just due to areal influence. See {{R:iir-nur:Blažek:2010}}. --Victar (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: There is something seriously wrong with their divergence dates within Indo-Aryan. They claim Hindi and Punjabi diverged in 1650 CE, but Old Punjabi and Old Hindi had distinct literary traditions by 1300 CE. Their divergence date for Sinhala is 650 BCE (!!) is even before the existence of Pali and the dramatic Prakrits, obviously incorrect; Old Sinhala began in 200 CE. They classify Nepali, Marathi, Gujarati, and Sindhi in a single subfamily ("Northwest Indo-Aryan")... that's so clearly wrong. I'll read the rest, but I have serious doubts about the paper. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: I don't want to get into a whole discussion on this user talk page, but the paper gives the placement of Dardic is other publications as well (which I why I referenced it specifically), all not below Sanskrit. Here is a chart from Encyclopædia Iranica, so it's a pretty mainstream opinion. --Victar (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: As @माधवपंडित: mentioned, I don't recall any recent dabbling in Dardic (maybe it was a while ago?), but thanks for all the suggestions and the information. I'll keep it in mind if I dabble in Dardic. Kutchkutch (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

म्हणणे (mhaṇṇe)

Are म्हणून (mhaṇūn) and म्हणजे (mhaṇje) the same? —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: They could be similar in certain cases since they're both derived from the same verb, but they are not the same. म्हणून (mhaṇūn) can be synchronically analysed as म्हणणे (mhaṇṇe) + the completive aspect ऊन (compare conjunctive Hindi कहकर/कहके (kahkar/kahke)). म्हणजे (mhaṇje) is an archaic passive inflection (Old Marathi म्हणिजे (mhaṇije)). From those literal meanings they acquired figurative meanings such as:

Causal म्हणून: [clause X] म्हणून [clause Y]

[clause X] → [clause Y]

Dhongde & Wali conjunction example:

[माझ्याकडे पैसे नव्हते] म्हणून [मी चालत आलो].

[mājhyākḍe paise navhate] mhaṇūn [mī cālat ālo].

[I had no money] so [I came walking].

Emphatic negation म्हणून: "Preceded by an interrogative pronoun it expresses a strong negation"

Dhongde & Wali example: मी काय म्हणून जाईन ― mī kāy mhaṇūn j̈āīn ― I am not going to go at all. (literally, “Why should I go?”)

Named/Called म्हणून: Preceded by a noun

इसाक म्हणून आब्राहमाचा पुत्र होता.

isāk mhaṇūn ābrāhmāċā putra hotā.

There was a son of Abraham named/called Isaac.

Equality म्हणजे: X म्हणजे Y

X = Y [जल] म्हणजे [पाणी]. ― [jal] mhaṇje [pāṇī]. ― [जल] means [पाणी].

Conditional म्हणजे: [clause X] म्हणजे [clause Y]

[clause X] → [clause Y]

[तुम्ही बोलला] म्हणजे [माझं कार्य होईल].

[tumhī bollā] mhaṇje [mājha kārya hoīl].

[Should you speak], then indeed [my work will be done].

Causal म्हणून and Conditional म्हणजे appear to be similar. However, [clause X] in Conditional म्हणजे assumes a fact whereas [clause X] in Causal म्हणून states a fact. Kutchkutch (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Thank you so much! I've started using this Hindi-Marathi textbook to learn a bit more now. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Ideally this information would be in the entries in the usual entry layout and with any Dhongde & Wali "copyrighted" material rewritten.

I've already discovered [16], and it's been useful. Perhaps [17] is comparable to this list. Since there's so few Oriya lemmas perhaps [18] could be useful for creating a few. Kutchkutch (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Kutchkutch,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Kutchkutch,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Kutchkutch,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledging my (multiple) errors

Thanks for fixing the pronunciation at the Konkani entries! I don't know what I was thinking when I mistakenly entered kn-IPA in place of kok-IPA. And then the mistake was carried forward when I used copy-paste for other Konkani entries. Thanks again and sorry for the trouble. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Even I make such errors, and many of them are later corrected by you. Copy-pasting without a detailed scrutiny is probably why they happen. In this case, there were a few Konkani terms in CAT:Kannada terms with IPA pronunciation.

Since there's no senses related to cooking at RC:Proto-Indo-European/lendʰ-, should |id=to cook be added to {{PIE root|kok|lendʰ}} at रांद्चे (rāndce) and the other cognates? Kutchkutch (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's always better to do that with homonymous roots in PIE. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

User:शब्दशोधक

A hello from me + Sanskrit etymologies reconstruction

@Kutchkutch: Hello! I hope you don't mind if I add this topic on your talk page. I want to ask how much of Proto-Indo-Aryan Iranian and European do you know? Because I create a lot of Sanskrit entries but I don't know about their etymologies at all. So do you know about them and if you do, can I leave a ping for you in the edit summary so you can add it? Nice to meet you, शब्दशोधक (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Hello, and nice to meet you as well! I'm not familiar enough with Proto-Indo-Aryan (PIA), Proto-Indo-Iranian (PII) and Proto-Indo-European (PIE) (yet) to add Sanskrit etymologies, so you would always have to ask for favours from other users such as User:Bhagadatta, User:AryamanA, User:Victar, etc. User:Bhagadatta has been giving you good advice and resources on PIA, PII and PIE. If you eventually want learn how to add Sanskrit etymologies and reconstruct those languages on your own, it would require spending some time to study those resources. If you're motivated enough, hopefully you'll become more knowledgeable about PIA, PII and PIE and contribute what you learn. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Etymology for धन (dhana) coming real soon! -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 12:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Thanks for responding to my ping requesting for the etymology of धन (dhána). On internet, there are many resources for PIE reconstruction and the 2 dictionaries you mentioned are also great. But yeah, for now it seems really complicated to me. I get the point of what you advised me to not go dive into etymologies for now. Maybe, first we should have all Sanskrit words here (or aim to) and then go on to “Proto-” languages. शब्दशोधक (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I want to know how much Sanskrit do you know as there is no Sanskrit on your Babel but you have made many edits to Sanskrit entries as I see in your contributions. शब्दशोधक (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक Contributions, communication and collaboration are much better indicators of knowledge compared to Babel boxes. If it helps, I could add sa-1.

@Bhagadatta Thanks for letting us know! It will be very interesting to see the etymology that you put there. If you can improve and/or correct the following, it would help both User:शब्दशोधक and I.

I'm also interested in learning PIA, PII and PIE as well but learning about them requires a different approach. Although there's many resources available learning for PIE, many of primary sources such as IEW (Pokorny), LIV (Rix), etc. are all in German. While there are resources for PII, they're much fewer in number, and resources that focus on PIA are very hard to find. Thus, one could probably learn about PIE and avoid Wiktionary entirely, but searching for information about PIA inevitably leads to Wiktionary. Reconstructed languages focus on phonology and morphology rather than syntax and semantics.

Learning about PIE would require a basic understanding of language families such as Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Greek. PIE resources generally provide overviews of all these language families. The most important attested languages out of these language are Greek and Latin. Certain users can reconstruct Proto-Germanic and Proto-Balto-Slavic at an alarmingly fast speed.

When there are varying standards for notation, the About pages clarify which notation Wiktionary uses (such as *y and *w for *i̯ and *u̯). Although the focus of WT:About Proto-Indo-Aryan is notation, it's much more useful compared to Proto-Indo-Aryan language (the Wikipedia page was created by User:AryamanA with an inventory of consonants that was later removed by User:Rua).

Sometimes, there's multiple reconstructions possible for a single word depending on the time estimate, geographic estimate and the acceptance of various phenomena. For Indo-Iranian, some important phenomena appear to be Laryngeal theory, Grassmann's law, Pinault's law, Ruki sound law, Bartholomae's law, Brugmann's law and thorn clusters. User:Victar/Reflexes/Proto-Indo-Iranian, User:Bhagadatta/Rigveda in Proto-Indo-Aryan and Proto-Indo-Iranian, User:Bhagadatta/Indo-Iranian Vocabulary Innovations and User:Rua/Beowulf in Proto-Germanic are useful guides.

Learning about PII would require a basic understanding of Old Iranian languages along with Sanskrit. A important aspect to remember when learning about Old Iranian languages is that there's more than one. The most attested Old Iranian languages are Avestan and Old Persian. Avestan is religious, while Old Persian is inscriptional. When Old Iranian languages are not sufficient for reconstructing PII, one may need to consider Middle Iranian (RC:Proto-Indo-Iranian/dʰr̥ždʰás) and Modern Iranian languages. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: True! Now that you’ve already told me that your Sanskrit is sa-1, it won’t help me, but still it will help any other editor who doesn’t know this, so still consider adding it. शब्दशोधक (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch, शब्दशोधक:  Done. Also found quotations from the Rigveda for the two (slightly different) meanings. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 16:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Thanks a lot!! शब्दशोधक (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sanskrit references

@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: I saw that you replaced {{R:MW}} with <references /> on the entry धन (dhána) and {{R:MW}} was already their with accurate page also. When I tried the same on समय (samayá), it didn’t happen as I thought and I had to revert that edit. Can any of you explain this? Thanks! शब्दशोधक (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: If {{R:MW}} is in the body of the entry as an WP:Inline citation, then <references /> is placed in the references section (see Help:Footnotes). I don't know what the significance of the space is since deleting it doesn't make any difference.

For attested terms, inline citations are a way of pointing out something unusual that is mentioned in the academic literature. However, for reconstructed terms, inline citations are required (see WT:Reconstructed_terms#References_from_etymologies).

Nobody explained any of this to me, so I learned about this from observing other users (such as User:AryamanA at कच्चा (kaccā)). Kutchkutch (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Thanks for explaining :). So I get it that I have to always add {{R:MW}} because I am not at all familiar with quotations and citations so I never use it, which means I have to add {{R:MW|000}} with appropriate page number. Regards, शब्दशोधक (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way I have added sa-1 to your Babel and I have changed Wikipedia to Wiktionary. If you have any problem feel free to revert. Also I have used {{#babel:}} instead of {{User sa-1}}. Hope you don’t mind :) शब्दशोधक (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

So yeah, as Kutchkutch said, it's an inline reference which I used because I wanted to cite the MW dictionary for a specific part of the entry (in this case, the part of the etymology which claims that धन (dhana) literally means a running race) and not for the entry as a whole. In most cases, there's no need to inline it and you can put {{R:sa:MW}} in the usual manner. I don't know the reason for the space in the tag either; I picked up the habit from copying pre-existing PIE entries which had it that way. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 11:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: All right, my doubt is clear. Thank you very much both of you. And great to meet you, Kutchkutch, you are really patient explaining me all this. शब्दशोधक (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi,

I have nominated you for adminship. If you accept the nomination, please edit the acceptance section. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev Thanks for nominating both User:Bhagadatta and I! I've accepted your nomination. I'm really sorry about the late response. Regardless of exactly who and when it occurs, I definitely agree that there should more admins familiar with South Asian languages. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the Nomination

Hi! Just wanted to thank you for nominating me for the Autopatroller perms. It's the first time I've been given additional user group rights :) Also just out of curiosity, was that because of my edits on مسیت, where I kept getting warnings before publishing the edits?

-Taimoor Ahmed^{(گل بات؟)} 22:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: Although there's always room for improvement in specific instances (as with any user or entry), as a whole, your editing has been good and has been occurring regularly, so keep up the good work. User_talk:Metaknowledge#زمین_اور_آسمان should serve as reminder that widespread changes such as introducing a new romanisation system should be discussed first. If the spelling of an entry is to be corrected and the previous spelling is not desired such as from گانو to گاؤں, it would help if the page is moved rather than creating a new entry to preserve the edit history as explained here: w:Help:How to move a page. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I realised that I definitely shouldn't have made changes to the transliteration method without discussion, it was pretty ignorant of me in hindsight, I admit. When it comes to renaming pages, I didn't know it was preferred to just move pages, I didn't do that with گاؤں, just because I've never seen it written as گانو. Although, I will bear that in mind next time, so that the history can be preserved. Also, if let's say, I had moved the page rather than requesting a deletion and creating a new page, and a separate page was required for the word گانو, would it simply be a case of removing the redirect?
-Taimoor Ahmed^{(گل بات؟)} 10:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: If a a separate page had been required for گانو, and a soft redirect is needed that lets a reader know why there is a redirect, then see Wiktionary:Redirections and the templates listed at Category:Form-of templates. For example:

If the soft redirect is a common misspelling that meets Wiktionary:Misspellings, then {{misspelling of}} could be used

If the soft redirect is an alternative form that is not a common misspelling, then {{alternative form of}} could be used

If the etymology and references are the same as the primary entry, then the entry could look like:

उदहारण for a common misspelling

उस्मान for an alternative form

with only the headword(s), definition line(s) and possibly declension. And always remember to use w:Help:Show preview to minimise minor errors from showing up the w:Help:Page history. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Noted, thank you!
-Taimoor Ahmed^{(گل بات؟)} 12:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

MB entries

Hey, you need not mass-create Middle Bengali entries. I shall sooner or later be creating a module for Old & Middle Bengali pronunciations; if you go on creating entries like this then I would have a tough time manually adding the IPA in all entries (because the templets would need a parameter). Thank you. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī I'm surprised that you have perceived these entries to be mass-created because I felt that they were created at a very leisurely pace. Thanks for sharing that you plan to create pronunciation modules for Old and Middle Bengali.

From my experience with working on the phonological details of MOD:mr-IPA in collaboration with AryamanA, the entry creation and deployment of a pronunciation module even with manual intervention do not need necessarily have to be simultaneous especially since entry creation is a higher priority even if the pronunciation module is not on every applicable entry. (There are only 791 instances of T:mr-IPA out of 1,878 lemmas with some manual intervention).

There are currently 30 lemmas in Category:Middle Bengali lemmas.

Even if a handful are created every few days, would it really be a lot of work to maintain them?

Would it be possible for you to provide some of the phonological details that would be used for the testcases? Kutchkutch (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Page parameter

Hi. Just wanted to tell you that it’s unnecessary to add the page no. to a reference templet when there’s already a link to the reference entry. As far as I remember, @Bhagadatta also does not add it in such cases. And why this is unneeded, is simply due to the fact that the reader is already directed to the entry where the information is provided, it’s not worthwhile to lead the reader to the whole page, is it? ;) And more importantly, I do not think a reference templet is supposed to have multiple links (not counting a WP link), anyway. Have a good day. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Some reasons for having both the entry link and page link could include:

1. The entry link doesn't work or the output of the link may vary by device, operating system or IP address
2. Entries before and after the primary entry may be of relevance
3. If links are digitised versions of physical books, a reader with a hard copy or scanned copy that was used to create the digitised versions could use the page number to look up the entry in the physical book.

Does it actually say 'a reference templet is not supposed to have multiple links' on a page such as Wiktionary:Reference templates? Kutchkutch (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Haha, dictator mundi, enough of your weird ideas. FYKI, Bhagadatta also gave the page for CDIAL at राजपुत्र, so I request you to think before you say something like that! And I [j]ust wanted to tell you that it’s unnecessary to add [your strange ideas to discussions which keep popping up in your mind]. And mo[st] importantly, [it is you who] do[es] not think a reference templ[ate] is not supposed to have multiple links, so I do not think we all should follow that. Have a [nice] day. Svārtava² • 15:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Since you are the master of templates, I would like to ask one thing: is it a good idea to have multiple links to a single reference, as in the Turner reference at राजपुत्र? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Even if the master of templates thinks it isn't a good idea to have multiple links to a single reference, I'm not gonna follow it or tolerate their removal by you unless it [is] actually sa[id] 'a reference templ[ate] is not supposed to have multiple links'^{[in the words of Kutchkutch]}. —Svārtava² • 14:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• [In reply to diff:] To confirm, I am involved in this discussion as I also believe linking the page number is helpful, I have done that before, and am here to defend that. —Svārtava² • 06:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I am not interested in editwarring, but I feel bad that Sgconlaw has been scared away from this post because of your trolly comments. I was only wanting more input to this good discussion, not your silly words. By the way, your comment about Bhagadatta was misleading— if only you had cared to see things carefully instead of being overly eager to attack me! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

block please

Hi there! I'm Wonderfool (talk • contribs), everyone's favourite vandal. It's time to get rid of this account and get a ew new ones Wubble You (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Saraiki Writing Systems

Hi @Kutchkutch, hope you can help me in this. It seems Devanagari is listed as a writing system for the Saraiki language, and a user had even added some modified Devanagari characters as part of the "Saraiki Devanagari Alphabet" (which I have removed). The only thing I can't change is the Module:languages/data3/s. Would it be appropriate for you to remove this please?
-Taimoor Ahmed^{(گل بات؟)} 22:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: The scripts listed in the data modules Module:languages are intended to be all scripts that have ever been used for a particular language outside of experimentation. According to various statements online:

The Devanagari and Gurmukhi scripts, written from left to right, were used by Sikhs and Hindus

Though not used in present-day Pakistan, there are still emigrant speakers in India who know the Devanagari or Gurmukhi scripts for Saraiki

https://www.ethnologue.com/contribution/318286

In India Saraiki as native language is in

Rajasthan: Ganganagar district, Khajuwala and Pugal

Punjab: Firozpur district, Fazilka; Haryana: Sirsa and Fatehabad districts.

But as migrated from Pakistan are in Dehli, Punjab, Haryana

https://www.omniglot.com/writing/saraiki.htm

there were 109,000 speakers of Saraiki in the states of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan in northern India in 2011

Although there is no direct evidence and the accuracy of Omniglot's presentation is uncertain, this suggests that Saraiki was probably in written in Devanagari at some point in time, so perhaps the Devanagari script can remain at Module:languages/data3/s. However, entries for the modified Devanagari characters such as at ऱ and ॾ़ & Saraiki words in Devanagari should be omitted until direct evidence can be found.

@Kutchkutch Ah understood. I understand that Omniglot has the tendency to create their own alphabets for languages - I'm aware they also did this for Shahmukhi (though I can't find it right now), where they supposedly made an alphabet consisting of more characters than needed, hence why I don't consider it reliable.
-Taimoor Ahmed^{(گل بات؟)} 07:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Saraiki coverage:

Have you found any dictionaries that are more recent than Template:R:pnb:Jatki? Support for the Multani script (analogous to Khudawadi) should eventually be added such as a transliteration module, a typing aid and a script parameter for Template:srk-noun Template:skr-noun. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch Unfortunately I have not seen any recent dictionaries being published, at least not ones that I could find online. Everywhere that I've looked, I could only find Template:R:pnb:Jatki (which needs to be changed to Template:R:srk:Jatki).
-Taimoor Ahmed^{(گل بات؟)} 07:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Taimoorahmed11: Sorry about the typo above. The correct code for Saraiki is skr and not srk, which is the language code for Category:Serudung Murut language. Template:R:srk:Jatki has been moved to Template:R:skr:Jatki. Is Saraiki Education books of any use to you? Kutchkutch (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Duh! I should've seen that myself as well! No worries! Also I've come across the website before but didn't necessarily pay any attention to it, though it is definitely useful. I might start add Saraiki lemmas from the PDF files, since I'm trying to expand both Saraiki and Punjabi lemmas on Wiktionary.
-Taimoor Ahmed^{(گل بات؟)} 12:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Devanagari in Prakrit declensions

Hi. I would like the Prakrit declension templates be able to generate inflections for a given Devanagari form, similar to the {{pi-decl-noun}} can. [19] was my first try to make the module:pra-decl/noun workable for Devanagari script. It was able to do the job, but not show the transliterations, perhaps because pmh can't transliterate Devanagari ({{m|pra-mah|पुत्तो}} gives पुत्तो (putto) w/o translit). I tried changing that code to inc-pra at lines 103, 104, but apparently the hyphen in between was causing error (Error: [103:19] '(' expected near '-'). So could you improve the existing module or create a new module for Devanagari? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Svartava2 Ideally both/all scripts would be handled by a single module that detects the input script and treats it as a variable. However, until this is done, separate modules and perhaps templates for each script could be used. _ could be used as a substitute for - since - is not permitted for naming functions. You could try pinging the users who have edited Module:pi-decl/noun to see if they have any interest in improving the existing module. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(pinging Octahedron80, RichardW57) I'm not sure if inc_pra would be recognised as a valid language code. For now, a temporary solution would be to create modules like Module:pra-decl-mah-Deva etc. till more knowledgeable module coders like AryamanA, Benwing2 can step up. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 14:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried for a separate module for Maharastri Prakrit Devanagari declension, but that has errors and isn't working. Can you please see and fix? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: You've got all sorts of problems with how you're passing language around. The first problem is that language code, which is a string, needs to be quoted as a literal, so "inc-pra", not inc-pra. Hyphens aren't allowed in Lua variable names, so the latter will be treated as an expression using global variables, which if you are lucky will cause the parser to choke. The second, is that some of the functions, like full_link(), need a language object as an argument.

The following snippet has several problems of style at the very least.

function export.show(frame, lang)
	local args = frame:getParent().args
	local g = args[1]
	local word = args[2] or PAGENAME
	
	local m_lang = require("Module:languages").getByCode(lang)

Firstly, the name lang is usually reserved for languages, and if often used as the name of the variable holding the language object. Similarly m_lang is normally the pointer to a module. So, unless your ambitions for this code extend beyond a single language, I would expect the last line to look like local lang = require("Module:languages").getByCode("inc-pra"). The value returned designates the language object - almost certainly a pointer to a relevant table. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In the snippet local word_tr = m_translit.tr(word, m_lang, "Deva"), the second argument should be a language code, not object. I think this won't cause you any problems yet. However, you should be using, using your current variable names, m_lang:transliterate(word, "Deva"). Prakrit is equipped with transliteration for Devanagari, Brahmi and Kannada.--RichardW57 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57: Thanks for the improvements. Would you be able to yourself edit module and make the corrections? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 08:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: Probably, though tonight I'm currently involved in some intensive editing on Wikipedia. Do you have a template to invoke the module? If I read your code right, you use, as the Pali module does, parameters passed to that script. Are you expecting the declension template to add parameters? Some of the Sanskrit templates with two layers of parameters - editor designed and fixed.

There seem to be some design issues that you haven't addressed:

1. Irregular declension. That's an issue for many languages, even Latin.
2. Multiple prakrits. You may need footnotes, and possibly even footnotes defined in the template invocation, for the previous point. I've been pondering how to provide them for Pali with an editor-tolerable interface.
3. Spelling coordination between stem and affixes. While at least Romanisation seems to be reversible (it isn't for all Pali scripts), are homorganic nasals (as in the ablative plural) always written with anusvara?

You may be planning to bolt them on later. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ RichardW57, RichardW57m The presentation of declension in Prakrit treatises is often very scattered, confusing and unstandardised. Until a way forward is determined for multiple lects & additional data, the improvement should probably be very similar to the current design, which is:

The module currently only supports regular declension for the Maharastri and Magadhi lects

Maharastri irregular declension can be entered manually using Template:pmh-decl-noun-irregular

There is template for Sauraseni a-stem masculine nouns at Template:psu-decl-noun-a-m

𑀅𑀕𑁆𑀕𑀺 is an example of an entry that shows the declension for both lects with two separate tables and templates:

{{pmh-decl-noun}} and

{{inc-mgd-decl-noun}}

The templates have a parameter for gender.

The data for each table located at:

Module:pra-decl/noun/pmh

Module:pra-decl/noun/inc-mgd

Someone should document how to list multiple accusative plurals. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding homorganic nasals, it seems to be the norm to use ṃ for hiṃto and m for mmi. Kutchkutch (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

But what if the stem is written with -nt- or -ṃm-? Norms aren't always followed.--RichardW57 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57, Kutchkutch: A template, {{pmh-decl-noun-Deva}} could be created once the module is made working. I have very little knowledge about modules, so it would be very nice if any of you could fix it. For now, I'm thinking of specific templates like {{psu-decl-noun-a-m}}. They can be replaced once we have the module working. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 11:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: I've got the module working for basic Devanagari functionality. For non-Devanagari functionality, you just need to determine the script and use function tr() in Module:sa-convert to convert from Devanagari to the target script. To test the changes, I knocked up a template Template:User:RichardW57/pra-decl-noun and invoke it in my sandbox. I reverted to the Pali habit of specifying gender as |g= rather than as the first parameter. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57: Thanks a lot!! I have used the already existing {{pmh-decl-noun}} for invoking the (new) module, and it will invoke the appropriate Brahmi or Devanagari declension module based on the page title's script. However for that I had to change the |g= back to |1= only for consistency: its strange to have to write {{pmh-decl-noun|m}} if Brahmi and {{pmh-decl-noun|g=m}} if Devanagari (now it is too late to change the parameter in the Brahmi module). Thanks again, it's a step towards making the Prakrit entries useful and improving Prakrit in Devanagari. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 14:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: One can always do a smooth switch-over by checking for the presence of |g=. It does seem wrong, though, to have three separate modules for Brahmi, Devanagari and Kannada. By the way, the language label in the output needs to be changed - you need to record the dialect. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

RichardW57 Are you referring to [20]? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: Yes, that was quick. Does it already make sense to delete my test rigs, i.e. template and section of sandbox? Getting rid of my template will need an admin to speedily delete it. Technically, I think you should have moved the module from user module space to main module space, rather than copy it, so as to preserve the attributions. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57: I think you can delete your test template and sandbox section. I did think of moving the module, but that's my sandbox with some bit of other history and it might not be preferable to have it on the actual module. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 07:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Spam

An anon added a link to the gentlemen's club page, you should hide the revision text. 37.110.218.43 09:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kutchkutch (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

ಬೋಲ್ಲಇ

Unlike Devanagari, Kannada distinguishes b/w the long and short o & e. Although all instances of Sanskrit ओ are written as ಓ in Kannada, would the Prakrit short o, preceding geminated consonants be written as ಒ? Would ಬೋಲ್ಲಇ then be ಬೊಲ್ಲಇ? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 11:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Bhagadatta Yes, according to prakrit.info/prakrit, and prakrit.info/prakrit is currently the only reference being consulted for the Kannada script (unless you can access the Kannada script dictionary that you mentioned at Template talk:pra-noun).

See line 394 of the Gāhā Sattasaī:

Kannada script:

ಮರಗಅಸೂಈವಿದ್ಧಂ ವ ಮೊ.ತ್ತಿಅಂ ಪಿಅಇ ಆಅಅಗ್ಗೀ.ವೋ. ಮೋ.ರೋ ಪಾಉಸಆಲೇ ತಣಗ್ಗಲಗ್ಗಂ ಉಅಅಬಿಂದುಂ

Module:kn-translit

maragaasūīviddhaṃ va mo.ttiaṃ piai āaaggī.vō. mō.rō pāusaālē taṇaggalaggaṃ uaabinduṃ

However, the Devanagari script at prakrit.info/prakrit also uses ऒ (o) instead of ओ (ō) for short o:

[…] मॊ […] आअअग्गीवो मोरो

Module:mai-translit

[…] mo […] āaggīvō mō.rō

For Devanagari, this would not conform to Wiktionary's current practice for Prakrit page titles. This is comparable to य़ for the hiatus filler at Template talk:pmh-decl-adj#Hiatus filler. Bhagadatta Could the additional precision provided by ऎ/ऒ and य़ be indicated in the |headword= parameter instead of the page title? Kutchkutch (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remember bringing it up in May! Yes, ऎ/ऒ and य़ could be shown in the headword. My reasoning for using the short o & e for Kannada but not for Devanagari is that ऎ and ऒ are not universal within Devanagari, only some languages that use Devanagari use it. On the other hand, Kannada script always makes the distinction between the long & short o. So that could be an argument in favour of using the short o & e for Kannada but not for Devanagari. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bhagadatta: Since Kannada script always makes the distinction between the long & short o, having ಎ & ಒ in page titles is fine. Several modules/templates may need to be edited to support this and using ऎ/ऒ & य़ in headwords. For example, they would need to be automatically transliterated as ĕ/ŏ & ẏ and be added to Module:typing-aids.

Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to indicate the hiatus filler in the Brahmi script. Could

the hiatus filler be represented in the Kannada script as ಯ಼ — ಯ + ಼ (U+0CBC KANNADA SIGN NUKTA) in headwords and

short e & o be represented in Brahmi as 𑁱 (U+11071 BRAHMI LETTER OLD TAMIL SHORT E) and 𑁴 (U+11072 BRAHMI LETTER OLD TAMIL SHORT O) headwords

? Kutchkutch (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose य़, it's weird and rare. Can you cite some instances of it? Most of the Maharastri Prakrit -y- are just hiatus fillers when they are in place of क/ग/च/ज/त/द > अ. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Svartava2 y and ẏ are differentiated as distinct characters in Woolner and Pischel.

See Woolner page 12:

In place of the omitted consonant was pronounced a weakly articulated ya (laghu-prayatnatara-ya-kāra). This was weaker than the य of Sanskrit or Magadhi, and was not expressed in writing, except in manuscripts written by the Jains, e.g., hiẏaẏa. = hṛdaya.

See Pischel page 51:

In places of consonants that drop inside a word, between two vowels, there develops as a glide sound ya, that is written in all the dialects in Jaina manuscripts, and it is a distinctive feature of AMg., JM. and JS. (§187), In this grammar it has been transcribed by ẏa.

See Pischel page 141:

In place of the consonants that have dropped off a weakly articulated (laghu-prayatnatara-ya-kāra) is uttered, that is indicated in this grammar by ẏa Except in the manuscripts written by Jainas this ẏa is not indicated. Hemachandra teaches that it comes in between a and ā only.

y is an integral character that cannot be omitted. However, ẏ is purely aesthetic. Since y and ẏ have two distinct purposes, and all the lects are merged as a single language, it would be helpful to make a prescriptive distinction between y and ẏ regardless of the attestation status of ẏ in Devanagari/Kannada/Brahmi.

It has an equivalent in Eastern Nagari as য় (ẏo). See Wikipedia_talk:Indic_transliteration#य़?:

this letter is simply the Devanagari equivalent of Bengali-Assamese য়, which is used to mark hiatus between vowels, or to mark [e] when in coda position. This is different from the Bengali-Assamese য, which is pronounced [dʒ] or [z] depending on the language, dialect, and speaker.

Also, observe Sanskrit y → Prakrit ẏ in Sanskrit indriya → Prakrit indiẏa. See य़ at https://aksharamukha.appspot.com/describe/Devanagari

This issue was first brought up at Talk:𑀯𑀅𑀁:

shouldn't the Brahmi orthography have something that indicates the ẏ?

The only possibility is a written regular y (but that wouldn't make sense, then it would be vayaṃ) or an unwritten glide i. I think the i makes sense, because e.g. Sauraseni is known to have vaaṃ.

Bhagadatta What the discussion at Talk:𑀯𑀅𑀁 and

Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to indicate the hiatus filler in the Brahmi script.

means is that

1. Template:hiatus-filler form of would only be used for Devanagari and Kannada-script terms with the hiatus filler य़/ಯ಼ in the headword
2. pages such as 𑀓𑀬 would not exist, and their Ardhamagadhi & Jain Maharastri contents would have to be moved to the 𑀬-less spelling and/or the corresponding Devanagari/Kannada-script pages containing the hiatus filler य़/ಯ಼ in the headword. Kutchkutch (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

But then, most of the -y-s are in fact hiatus-fillers! So most Brahmi 𑀬-containing spellings would be removed? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 08:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that writing a word containing a short vowel using a spelling that expressly marks this vowel as long constitutes a greater degree of wrongness than leaving off a diactritic that is anyway not in widespread use. But as Kutchkutch said, it'll also mean we will need to change several modules. I don't know of a good solution yet. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 08:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

left someone on read

An anon put some puerile crap into this entry...has since been undone but the revision should be hidden. 37.110.218.43 13:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Old punjabi is not an actual language

So stop altering the spellings of punjabi words and calling it old punjabi IMPNFHU (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@IMPNFHU: Old Punjabi is indeed an actual language. Compare Old Hindi, Old Marathi, Old Gujarati.

• 2000, Gopal Haldar, Languages of India, →ISBN, page 149:

  The age of Old Punjabi: up to 1600 A.D. […] It is said that evidence of Old Punjabi can be found in the Granth Sahib.

• 2013, Tej Bhatia, Punjabi, →ISBN, page XXV:

  As an independent language Punjabi has gone through the following three stages of development: Old Punjabi (10th to 16th century). Medieval Punjabi (16111 to 19th many), and Modern Punjabi (19th century to Present).

• 2021, Zhanna Chalabayeva, Red Indian Sun, →ISBN:

  The Adi Granth is written in Old Punjabi language. [= Old Punjabi is the language of the Adi Granth]

So please stop removing valid and sourced Old Punjabi entries. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 04:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sikh scriptures are not written in punjabi IMPNFHU (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Old punjabi is not an actual language according to the punjabi university of patiala IMPNFHU (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no mention of it on punjabi language article on wikipedia either IMPNFHU (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion moved to User_talk:IMPNFHU#Reverting_and_Removal_of_inc-opa.

Svartava2 Should there be an entry for Old Punjabi similar to Middle Assamese and Middle Bengali using those quotations? 00:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of a revision

I think you intended to hide Special:MobileDiff/49152758 rather than Special:MobileDiff/63601797. I don't know if it's possible or not (since it's an earlier revision and other edits have been made after it) but the former is the promotional one and the latter seems okay AFAIR (also note that it hasn't been undone). —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Svartava2 Fixed Kutchkutch (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is still visible in permalinks. If possible, please remove it. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hindustani descendants by script?

Since we treat Hindi and Urdu as separate languages, I'm not sure

• Hindustani:

  Arabic:

  Devanagari:

  Kaithi:

is the best method to use in descendants section. I would prefer

• Hindustani:

  Hindi:

  Devanagari:

  Kaithi:

  Urdu:

Also, are the Kaithi forms you have recently added all attested? —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava Regarding the descendants section:

I agree with since we treat Hindi and Urdu as separate languages, it would be helpful to show Hindi and Urdu under Hindustani. Although Kaithi is a Brahmic script like Devanagari, it is not exclusive to Hindi and was also used for the Urdu register of Hindustani according to:

https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2008/08194-n3389-kaithi.pdf

Kaithi was used to write Urdu or the “Hindustani” lingua franca, although now the Perso-Arabic script is associated with Urdu

Kaithi was used for writing Urdu in the law courts of Bihar when it replaced Perso-Arabic as the official script during the 1880s. The majority of extant legal documents from Bihar from the British period are in Urdu written in Kaithi

See also Wiktionary:About Hindi:

Hindi on Wiktionary is any instance of Hindustani in the Devanagari script.

So would your preference change after evaluating these statements, or would your preference remain the same?

Regarding the attestation of Kaithi:

scribes propagated the script for both official and routine purpose

The use of Kaithi for administrative purposes is attested from at least the 16th century through the first decade of the 20th century.

Kaithi was also used for routine writing, commercial transactions, correspondence, and personal records.

Despite its characterisation as a secular script, Kaithi was also used for writing religious and literary manuscripts. It appears synchronically with Devanagari and Persian in administrative, literary, and religious manuscripts.

Therefore, as long as the conversion from Devanagari to Kaithi is accurate, attestation for every term seems unnecessary just like Brahmi and Modi. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kaithi script entries or even mentions seem unprecedented, though; and combined with the fact that a lot of Hindi and Urdu terms are attested after the first decade of the 20th century. So I don't think having (correct) Kaithi equivalents of all such terms is a good idea and I still think maybe the attested ones should only get an entry. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: See Talk:ঠাই:

AryamanA: Does Bhojpuri still use the Kaithi script?

DerekWinters: There are those who still use it, although it is not standard for government purposes. We can make it an alternate script for Bhojpuri.

and User_talk:AryamanA/2017:

AryamanA: all the Hindi belt languages used Kaithi to some extent until independence and government adoption of Devanagari.

There are several Kaithi script entries in:

Category:Bhojpuri lemmas

Category:Magahi lemmas

None of these terms appear to be specifically attested in the Kaithi script. So does

I don't think having (correct) Kaithi equivalents of all such terms is a good idea and I still think maybe the attested ones should only get an entry.

extend to these languages as well, or is this sentiment only for Hindi/Urdu? (User:Anisht dev) Kutchkutch (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally not concerned about the Magahi/Bhojpuri entries; what I am concerned about is creation of new Hindi/Urdu entries in Kaithi script for unattested Kaithi forms. By the way, what about joining Discord as in the section below? —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Discord

Would you like to join WT:Discord? —Svārtava (t/u) • 06:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

+1. It makes communications very easy. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 07:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Now that you are more available than you were back when asked, so perhaps you should consider this at least... For convenience I'll paste the link here: [21]. Svartava (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Old Punjabi, Old & Middle Bengali

I'm curious as to why you have stopped working in these languages. I used to really enjoy your work in archaic New Indo-Aryan. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 09:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Thanks for observing and appreciating the work that I have previously done in those languages. Sorry about the late response(s) (@Svartava2). Since I've been travelling, my internet connection has been less reliable than usual and I've had less spare time. I intend to continue editing more frequently soon, and I'll also consider taking a closer look at Discord.

Regarding Old Punjabi:

Other than the Shahmukhi equivalents, adding coverage of Old Punjabi using {{R:inc-opa:Glossary}} and {{R:inc-opa:SGGS}} is usually straightforward.

Regarding Old & Middle Bengali:

At User_talk:Kutchkutch#MB_entries Inqilābī said:

Hey, you need not mass-create Middle Bengali entries... if you go on creating entries like this then I would have a tough time manually adding the IPA in all entries (because the templets would need a parameter). Thank you.

And at User_talk:Inqilābī#Old/Middle_Bengali, I asked:

is it now okay to start creating them again, or do you still need time

However, Inqilābī has not responded (@Inqilābī). Kutchkutch (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh. I hadn't seen that discussion. But I fail to see how increasing the coverage for Old & Middle Bengali will increase the workload if and when the templates are completed; sure, they will require manual input of a parametre if the page already exists but if it doesn't then the task will be to create the page, including the pronunciation and the other info right? Surely the workload is more in the second case. In any event, there are many instances of not all lemmas of a language not having IPA, including Sanskrit and Hindi. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 10:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Bhagadatta, Inqilābī: I certainly agree with:

I fail to see how increasing the coverage for Old & Middle Bengali will increase the workload if and when the templates are completed:

if the entry exists, then the task will be to add new pronunciation info if it is missing or edit any existing pronunciation info

if the entry doesn't exist, then the task will be to create the entry with the pronunciation info

Surely the workload is more in the second case. In any event, there are many instances of not all lemmas of a language not having IPA, including Sanskrit and Hindi

because as I said in the first discussion:

[the process of] entry creation and [the process of the] deployment of a pronunciation module even with manual intervention do not need necessarily have to be simultaneous [processes] especially since entry creation is a higher priority even if the pronunciation module is not on every applicable entry.

Entry creation (that is done properly) even without the pronunciation info is useful because it demonstrates that the term exists and adds it to the Wiktionary database. When a user is confident about the pronunciation a term, it can always be added at a later time.

However, since Inqilābī is respectable contributor, I would be hesitant to proceed with increasing the coverage for Old & Middle Bengali without Inqilābī's input. Kutchkutch (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable Usernames

These should be blocked permanently- this is inherent in the account itself, rather than a temporary behavioral problem. Also, the general practice on Wiktionary is to permanently block spammers, though an argument could be made that some user-page spammers don't know it's against the rules.

Search-Engine Optimization spam consisting of links intended for the search engines to see, but camouflaged in innocuous-looking text, are an abomination. They should be deleted and the account blocked permanently (the perpetrators deserve far worse- I'm sure @Equinox would be happy to give you the full details...). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for the advice and reminder that unacceptable usernames should be blocked permanently and any search-engine optimization spam should be deleted. Kutchkutch (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Gujarati

How much do you know about the Gujarati language? This entry needs expansion. Apisite (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Apisite: Hello Apisite! Thanks for the message. My knowledge of Gujarati is somewhere between basic and intermediate. I've expanded the entry for વીર (vīr). Please have a look at it. Unfortunately, the most prolific Gujarati contributor to date User:DerekWinters / User:Smettems appears to have retired. Kutchkutch (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't the situation you talked about be some fair opportunity to improve your understanding of the Gujarati language? --Apisite (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, Master po00 (talk • contribs) seemed to have little to no idea what he or she was doing. --Apisite (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Apisite: Yes, the situation does suggest that this is a fair opportunity to both improve the coverage of Gujarati and my own understanding of the language. According to the quantitative statistics at Wikipedia and User:AryamanA/stats, it's the fifth most spoken Indo-Aryan language with 60 million speakers after Hindi-Urdu (c. 329 million), Bengali (242 million), Punjabi (about 120 million) and Marathi (112 million), and all of these languages (except Hindi) have less than 6,000 lemmas at Wiktionary. However, there are relatively very few resources available to learn these languages for non-native speakers (let alone the minority languages such as CAT:Parkari Koli language), which a significant impediment to expanding their coverage. In addition, my editing has been slower and more infrequent recently. Kutchkutch (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

IP address

Hi @Kutchkutch - I hope you're well. I believe you're an admin on Wiktionary. There's an IP address who contributes to Urdu lemmas, who doesn't add the wiki links to the definition like at عمومی and مدعی. Would there be any way to contact this user or what would be the appropriate way to fix this? نعم البدل (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @نعم البدل,

Sorry about the delayed response, and thanks for letting me know. Although the omission of wikilinks is inconsistent with the expected entry style, this alone would not justify any administrative actions. There is a talk page for this IP address at

User talk:2A01:CB06:806B:DCD2:8972:66E5:3F21:95B

Although we could try leaving a message there, IP addresses are unlikely to read or respond to any messages. The situation could be handled by:

asking a bot operator for an automated solution (see WT:Bots) or

manually monitoring recent changes related to Urdu and taking any necessary actions one at a time. See Recent changes for Urdu.

Kutchkutch (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you add a language code?

There isnt one for Old Telugu, Old Malayalam or Proto South Dravidian AleksiB 1945 (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@AleksiB 1945: See Wiktionary:Languages. Language codes are added by editing the data modules of Module:languages, which can only be edited by template editors & administrators. Since you are not a template editor or administrator, you would have to start a discussion justifying the need for the desired language codes, wait for an outcome of that discussion and then ask template editors & administrators to make the agreed upon changes. See the link below. Kutchkutch (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Category_talk:Proto-Dravidian_language#Old_Telugu_&_Old_Malayalam.

Transliteration for Dr langs

I had added translit for Gondi (te script), Kuvi (oriya script) and others but it isnt working, what else should be done? and languages like Gondi are written with multiple scripts and there is a module which shows the variants (same as the one used for Azeri but cant find the module page, its used in एनी) it shows Devanagari and Telugu but not the other scripts, what should be done? — This unsigned comment was added by AleksiB 1945 (talk • contribs) at 12:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC).

@AleksiB 1945 Thanks for trying to improve the coverage of these Dravidian languages. For a transliteration module to be in effect, it has be added to the language's properties in the appropriate data submodule of Module:languages by a template editor or administrator. For languages with multiple scripts the preferred naming scheme is Module:LANG-SCRIPT-translit such as Module:gon-Telu-translit for Gondi in the Telugu script.

I would recommend adding language-specific testcases and customisations to these transliteration modules if they are known. For Telugu-script languages, it might have been easier to use MOD:te-translit if there are no language-specific testcases or customisations. However, now that these transliteration modules have been created they might as well remain. Also, the only difference for the transliteration modules for the Oriya-script languages appears to be a instead of ô. Some languages may write the glottal stop with ʔ or ’. An issue with the Oriya script is that there may be no straightforward way to distinguish the short & long forms of a, o and e. In a wordlist for Kui in the Oriya script, ଅ instead of ଓ is used for /o/. Thus, soḍu derived from Proto-Dravidian *col is written as ସଡୁ instead of ସୈଡୁ. In a wordlist for Kuvi in the Oriya script, ଏଏ is used for ē and ଓଓ is used for ō. Thus, ēyu is written as ଏଏଯୁ instead of the current spelling used at ଏଯୁ. In addition, a is written as ଆ, and ā is written as ଆଆ. A wordlist for Koya in the Oriya script follows the same transliteration as Oriya since there does not appear to be distinction between the short & long forms of o and e. The Gunjala Gondi script has no short o and e, and Masaram Gondi has no long o and e.

Usually alternate scripts are given on the headword line. Since there are five scripts for Gondi, using a template may be better. The Azeri template that you are referring to is T:az-variant. There is also T:ug-variant. Template:fa-regional exists as well, but using it as a guide it may be less helpful. I can try to look into Template:gon-variant, but I don't consider myself proficient at template editing so don't expect anything soon. Kutchkutch (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding them and its better to have different pages as many of the languages have phonemes which cant be represented by the Telugu, Odia and Devanagari scripts mainly the short and long a, e, o with Odia and Devanagari scripts as you mentioned. Its also hard to find their orthographies or words in their scripts, how did you find out ē is written as ଏଏ and so on? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that the modules were made, why arent you adding them to the Module:languages page? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@AleksiB 1945: Module:languages is a critical module for all of English Wiktionary, so it is important to take the time to ensure that edits to Module:languages are done carefully. I intend to add these transliteration modules to Module:languages as soon as possible.

ē written as ଏଏ, etc. is used in certain publications by the Government of Odisha and in the Kuvi-Oriya-English Dictionary by the Central Institute of Indian Languages. Since using this convention may not be universal even within the same document, perhaps it would be better to use head parameter |head= in the {{head}} template for ଅଅ, ଆଆ, ଏଏ, ଓଓ, etc. So for ଏଯୁ the page title could remain the same and {{head|kxv|noun|head=ଏଏଯୁ|tr=ēyu}} could display ଏଏଯୁ (ēyu) on the headword line. Kutchkutch (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch hey can you add kn-translit for malayalam and tamil to transliterate Byari and Sankethi AleksiB 1945 (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch, G0d0_2019: Should Odishan Dr langugage words with v be spelt with ଵ (va) or ୱ (wa)? w:Odia_script says ୱ is the common letter and ଵ has not gained full acceptance, while wikt's only word with them is ଵିଷ୍ଣୁ (vishṇu). AleksiB 1945 (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@AleksiB 1945 In my opinion, it depends on whether the Dr languages in question have (v) as a proper consonant (in which case it shall be ଵ) ; or is it like a semiconsonant/diphthong (w) (if so it should be ୱ).

(In the Odia language, both ଵ and ୱ were meant to represent "w" the semiconsonant and some Sandhis where diphthongs become this approximant w). But the way they are used today is that ଵ is used to represent foreign words with "v", which doesn't exist natively in odia; and ୱ for "w" which is native. In fact, ଵିଷ୍ଣୁ (viṣṇu) is a non-native word, the native is actually ବିଷ୍ଣୁ (biṣṇu). To explain the diphthong part, take for example the Odia word swāgôtô (welcome) comes from su (good) + āgôtô (arrival) or suāgôtô, and subtly it is also pronounced so.

It is also possible that these Dr languages have both the "w" and the "v", unlike Odia. In that case, we can still use the same logic, ଵ for the consonant; ୱ for the semi. Would we need a native speaker for this? or do we have enough linguistic works to come to a decision? Is the difference between "v" and "w" even that prominent in these languages?

Alternatively, we could forget all of the above and look at some orthography and see what they are doing. The limitation with this is that (as I understand) written versions of these tribal languages have usually been authored by outsiders, and for the native speakers these are predominantly spoken languages. G0d0 2019 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

July 2023 - October 2023

Can a bot add lemmas from dictionaries and ml wikt? There seems to be User:SinonquoiBot adding Burusho lemmas and User:Bot-Jagwar adding en wikt Malayalam lemmas to Malagasy wikt AleksiB 1945 (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that there are pages on Dravidian sub branches apart from Central and North (there arent much resources on them) and that most agree on naming Tamil-Tulu and South and Telugu-Kui as South-Central why arent the branches added? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch, Hey could you list Malayalamoid languages under Malayalam, Tamiloid languages under Tamil and Malayalam under Old Tamil? also having the code for proto South Dravidian (Tamil-Tulu), proto macro South Dravidian (Tamil-Telugu) and dv-IPA? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@AleksiB 1945: I am really sorry about the late reply. I am not familiar enough with bots to sufficiently answer the first question, so if an answer to that is needed, you could try asking elsewhere. My guess is that it is possible, but I have no idea how to do so. Also, see the policy about bots at Wiktionary:Bots. For the second question if you are referring to User_talk:AleksiB_1945#Proto-Dravidian_entries, It may be wise to see if Pulimaiyi has time for this since he said I will be adding the codes at User_talk:AleksiB_1945#Proto-Dravidian_entries. However, since a lot of time has passed since that discussion, I may try doing something about that. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch yes, Pulimaiyi has been inactive for over a month, also can you Malayalamoid languages under Malayalam, Tamiloid languages under Tamil and Malayalam under Old Tamil, now in pages like നങ്കൂരം (naṅkūraṁ) etymology cant be added AleksiB 1945 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Saraiki – Old Punjabi

@Kutchkutch Hi, could you please list Old Punjabi as an ancestor of Saraiki, and while you're there could you also set Module:pa-Arab-translit as the transliteration module for Urdu? نعم البدل (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل: I am really sorry about the late reply. As you probably already know, MOD:ur-translit is now being used for the translit module for Urdu (see diff by Benwing2 and diff by User:Fenakhay). In this diff by User:Theknightwho, the ancestor of the CAT:Lahnda language was changed to CAT:Old Punjabi language, which automatically made CAT:Saraiki language a descendant of CAT:Old Punjabi language. Although I have never opposed making Old Punjabi as an ancestor of Saraiki, please see what User:Taimoorahmed11 said at User_talk:IMPNFHU#Reverting_and_Removal_of_inc-opa

I'm not sure whether making Old Punjabi an ancestor of Saraiki is wise - from what I know, it's a pretty controversial issue, and I'm not a Saraiki speaker to even be able to give a solid opinion on this.

Shouldn't CAT:Lahnda language be deprecated like CAT:Western Panjabi language? Kutchkutch (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: No worries. Unless or until there's evidence of Old Saraiki that is in some way different to Old Punjabi, I don't see why it would be controversial to nominate Saraiki as a direct descendant of Old Punjabi. Also, yes – Lahnda should be a deprecated language, I don't even see the need for it. Existing pieces of 'Lahnda' should be integrated with Punjabi instead. نعم البدل (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@نعم البدل: Is CAT:Punjabi language really the apt replacement for CAT:Lahnda language? I always assumed that CAT:Saraiki language would be the replacement for CAT:Lahnda language since it is the most spoken Lahnda language and the one with the most coverage at Wiktionary. Neither CAT:Lahnda language nor CAT:Punjabi language are treated as macrolanguages at Wiktionary:Language treatment. According to Wikipedia, Lahnda collectively refers to Saraiki, Hindko, Pahari-Pothwari and Khetrani. The Wiktionary language family that corresponds to this grouping is CAT:Punjabi-Lahnda languages. So, when listing cognates or creating descendants trees, would CAT:Lahnda language be replaced be a single language such as CAT:Punjabi language / CAT:Saraiki language or would it be replaced by CAT:Punjabi-Lahnda languages similar to CAT:Hindustani languages? Kutchkutch (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch:

• I always assumed that CAT:Saraiki language would be the replacement for CAT:Lahnda language – Yeah Saraiki sorry. My point was merely that CAT:Lahnda language should be archived.
• So, when listing cognates or creating descendants trees – most of the descendants tree are sourced from Turner's dictionary, which also lists Pothwari as a separate dialect right? I've always taken Lahnda to be Saraiki, in fact most of the 'Lahnda lemmas' under descendant trees are more often than not, spelled incorrectly and while correcting them I've changed them to Saraiki previously. @Notevenkidding might have something to say on the matter, as a native Saraiki speaker.
• Hindko also needs to be sorted out – currently we have two language codes for it, a northern dialect and a southern dialect I believe, even though the language itself is not too different from Standard Punjabi. نعم البدل (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether we want to have a 'Lahnda'-like group as an ancestor of the 'Western' dialects, or would it suffice to merely list all the dialects as descendants of Old Punjabi? In any case, my opinion is that 'Lahnda' is Saraiki. نعم البدل (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @نعم البدل: Sorry about the late response.

• most of the descendants tree are sourced from Turner's dictionary, which also lists Pothwari as a separate dialect right?

– Yes, most descendants trees that pertain to inheritance rather than borrowing are sourced from Turner's dictionary. Pothwari is listed as a dialect of the 'Lahnda language' as poṭh. Poṭhwārī dialect of Lahndā at:

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/frontmatter/abbreviations.html

• most of the 'Lahnda lemmas' under descendant trees are more often than not, spelled incorrectly

– The reason why this may be the case is that those spellings were obtained by converting the romanisation in Turner's dictionary to the Perso-Arabic script.

• Hindko also needs to be sorted out – currently we have two language codes for it, a northern dialect and a southern dialect

– Yes, there are two language codes for Hindko. However, in the absence of more information about Hindko other than what is in A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki and the somewhat confusing description on Wikipedia, it is unclear to me whether two separate language codes are really needed or if they can be merged as a single language code.

The description on Wikipedia:

The central dialect group comprises Kohati ... and the three closely related dialects of Attock District, Punjab: Chacchi (spoken in Attock), Ghebi (spoken to the south in Pindi Gheb Tehsil) and Awankari (spoken in Talagang Tehsil, now part of Chakwal District)

Shackle, however, sees most of them as closely related to the urban variety of Peshawar City

The whole dialect continuum of Hindko is partitioned by Ethnologue into two languages: Northern Hindko (ISO 639-3 code: hno) for the dialects of Hazara, and Southern Hindko (ISO 639-3: hnd) for the remaining varieties.

Although the language described in Hardev Bahri's books Lahndi Phonology and Lahndi Phonetics is called Lahndi, it is actually the Awankari dialect of Hindko. I see that you have had a discussion about Hindko at User_talk:عُثمان#Hindko_Dictionary. Although books mentioned there may be of use for Wiktionary, obtaining Pakistani books from India may be difficult if not impossible.

• it depends on whether we want to have a 'Lahnda'-like group as an ancestor of the 'Western' dialects,, or would it suffice to merely list all the dialects as descendants of Old Punjabi?

– Since there is not much coverage for other Lahnda languages other than Saraiki, I just wanted to see what your stance on this matter if it arises in the future. I am also of the opinion that 'Lahnda' is Saraiki when there is no further information about the other Lahnda languages. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Transliteration module for Kru

Hi kutchkutch, I see that you have helped include transliteration modules for Gondi and Kui. I need your help in establishing a transliteration module for the Kurukh language in Devanagari script. I have made some changes to this Module:kru-Deva-translit, but I am new to how transliteration modules work. I have tried to make the module based on this Kurux Phonetics and Transliteration by the CIIL, see pages 26-30. The only thing I have added is the ' for glottal stops. Can you please check the module and see if it is possible to structure it according to the standard? If it is good to go, can you please include it? Or will I have to stick to manual transliteration? G0d0 2019 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@G0d0 2019: Sorry for the delayed response, and thanks for noticing my edits to the modules related to Gondi and Kui. For now I have put MOD:hi-translit as the transliteration module for Kurukh in Devanagari script as a fallback. More testcases are needed at MOD:kru-Deva-translit to determine whether having a Kurukh-specific transliteration module that is separate from MOD:hi-translit is needed. It seems Kurukh has schwa-dropping like Hindi, which I do not know how to implement. Kutchkutch (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The only differences are the apostrophe for glottal stop and – for long e/o like ए–न for ēn as used in these Kurux websites [22] [23] AleksiB 1945 (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The module is failing ‍with ख़​, which should be x, instead returns kh. Also, all the 5th nasal consonants are being returned as ṃ, instead of ṅ,ñ,ṇ,n. This seems like a dead end. But, I thankyou both for your efforts. G0d0 2019 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

कुंड़ुख़ (kũṛux), कींदा (kīndā), एँड़ (ẽṛ), खंजपा (khañjpā) it works? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

چھہتر

Your edit to Module:number list/data/ur left this entry with a module error. You need to fix either the module or the entry. My best guess is that the {{number box}} template should be removed from the entry, but what do I know? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for letting me know. I forgot that this data module can cause module errors, and I should have checked CAT:E afterwards. The error was caused by an invisible character in the data module. Kutchkutch (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Kolami/kolava swadesh list devnagari text transliteration issue

Hello sir theirs a problem in wiki page kolami swadesh list, while telugu transliteration is available, theirs no devanaagari transliteration, available, so sir please can you add it for kolami/kolava swadesh list in original sanskrit word structure style so i can use the words like ñ,

ङ्, ञ्, पान(pāna), पान्(pān).thank you, hope you accept the request. Ganesudu (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Dravidian May 2024

@Kutchkutch can you add the translits for the smaller languages like the 3 kannada kurumbas? there are a few entries with them like in *mūnṯu. also can you list Malayalamoid and Tamiloid under old tamil for adding the etym section AleksiB 1945 (talk) — This unsigned comment was added at 07:36, 26 May 2024‎.

@AleksiB 1945: Which languages still need automatic transliteration? Regarding the three Kannada Kurumbas, see if you can resolve the issues in:

CAT:Jennu Kurumba terms with non-redundant manual transliterations

CAT:Betta Kurumba terms with non-redundant manual transliterations

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Most Tamiloid, Malayalamoid, Kannadoid and Gondoid languages dont have it like Pattapu, Koya, Malasar, Mala Malasar, Eravallan, Aranadan, Kanikkaran, Paniya, Mullu Kurumba, Badaga etc and Duruwa while they have entries like in *mūnṯu and *ñān AleksiB 1945 (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Apabhramsas

Apabhramsa Merger

In continuation to your message, I think at this time we can possibly think of merging the Apabhramsas similar to the Prakrits, as was also considered at Category talk:Prakrit languages. In recent times I too have frequently observed that dictionaries/books like Sheth, Pischel, etc. also commmonly assign terms as "Apabhramsa". It's probably worth giving a thought. Svartava (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava: Yes, a potential Apabhramsa merger is worth thinking about again. The lack of specifying the exact lect is even more prevalent for Apabhramsa than it is for Prakrit. We should at least ask a few more users to see what they think about it from both a conceptual and a technical standpoint. Hopefully, the response won’t be that there is insufficient coverage of Apabhramsa, and thus there is no need for a merger. Just like the situation with Prakrit before the merger, the lack of a merger appears to discouraging any interested users from adding any information about Apabhramsa. The smaller coverage of Apabhramsa on Wiktionary might mean that an Apabhramsa merger would be easier to perform from a technical standpoint.

Since the Apabhramsas are also Middle Indo-Aryan languages, it seems that even they can have the pleonastic affixes according to pages 180 to 187 of {{R:inc:CGMIA}}. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is true that the lack of merger is discouraging for users to contribute. It also seems to be much easier to implement than Prakrit merger. At that time my knowledge and interest for Middle Indo-Aryan was significantly lesser and I've learned more while adding/editing entries, so I'm not dismissive this time round. Pinging other MIA-Prakrit editors @Pulimaiyi, Dragonoid76, Quadmix77 who are apparently the only active ones at the moment. Svartava (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Prakrit merger was done for convenience. Most works only mention "Prakrit" without referring to the specific lect, so this was a hindrance to an editor if they were very methodical and would be hesitant to create an entry as "Maharashtri" if there was a possibility that it could instead be "Shauraseni".

I feel that Apabhransha faces a similar issue currently so I Support the merger but I want the lect distinctions to be preserved. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pulimaiyi I want the lect distinctions to be preserved

That was implied (at least for me), but thanks for stating this explicitly. If the lect of an Apabhramsa term can be specified, then

the lect name should be shown on the entry just like Prakrit

and each lect would have its own etymology-only code.

Regarding CAT:Takka Apabhramsa language,

The two entries in CAT:Takka Apabhramsa lemmas are specified as Takka in {{R:inc:Pischel}}, so they would have {{tlb|CODE|Takka}}.

Regarding, CAT:Sauraseni Apabhramsa language:

Since Sauraseni Apabhramsa (also known as Nāgara Apabhramsa) is the ‘default’ lect (just like Maharastri Prakrit is the ‘default’ lect for Prakrit), perhaps the the entries in CAT:Sauraseni Apabhramsa lemmas should only have {{tlb|CODE|Sauraseni}}, if this lect is specified in a source so that it is not confused with another lect.

Regarding, CAT:Gurjar Apabhramsa language:

Svartava sent सोण्णउं to RFV (see Talk:सोण्णउं) and passed it after I shared an excerpt from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica on Wikisource. However, that RFV was more about verifying that the term exists in Apabhramsa to avoid deleting it rather than verifying that it is the Gurjar lect. We can continue calling it the Gurjar lect to maintain the status quo, but it would be better if there was more direct evidence.

Regarding, CAT:Vracada Apabhramsa language:

CAT:Vracada Apabhramsa language is an interesting case since there are no lemmas, but there is at least one Arabic borrowing as a result of Talk:قنبيل.

Regarding the names of the lects:

Some sources such as Tagare’s Apabhramsa grammar name the lects as Western, Southern, Eastern, etc. However, the names used by Wiktionary (Takka, Sauraseni, Gurjar, Vracada) are more descriptive compared to cardinal points.

A problem with these descriptive names (Takka, Sauraseni, Gurjar, Vracada) is that Tagare’s Apabhramsa grammar calls the work quoted at दूण (Nayakumara-Chariu) as ‘Southern Apabhramsa’ since it was composed at Mānyakheṭa, and there is no descriptive name for ‘Southern Apabhramsa’. Kutchkutch (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Maharastri Apabhramsa might be the name for it, as in [24], [25], which also use the term "Magadhi Apabhramsa" likely for the Eastern one. Alternatively we can choose Eastern, Western, Southern too in line with our accepted ideal style for descendants. Svartava (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Svartava Alternatively we can choose Eastern, Western, Southern too in line with our accepted ideal style for descendants

Naming the lects after cardinal points would have the advantage of aligning it with the subfamilies of Indo-Aryan. However, it would be preferable not to merge Sauraseni Apabhramsa and Gurjar Apabhramsa as ‘Western Apabhramsa’ to maintain the status quo.

Regarding the names of the lects,

In The Classification of Apabhraṃśa, Tomoyuki Yamahata says:

The medieval grammarians Kramadīśvara, Puruṣottama, Rāmaśarman and Mārkaṇḍeya identified Nāgara, Upanāgara, and Vrācaḍa. They treated Nāgara as the principal Apabhraṃśa…Jacobi found some differences between the Nāgara texts Bhavisattakahā and Nemināhacariu, so he named the former northern Apabhraṃśa and the latter Gurjara Apabhraṃśa…the texts of Kashmir group have significantly different contents from Jain narrative literature. Hence, these works are newly classified by the provisional name of Kashmiri Apabhraṃśa

This is the reason why Sauraseni Apabhramsa and Gurjar Apabhramsa are merged as ‘Nāgara Apabhramsa’ in the medieval classification and are merged as ‘Western Apabhramsa’ in Tagare’s classification but are distinct languages on Wiktionary. Upanāgara collectively refers to the remaining lects that are not covered by the aforementioned lects such as Takka.

Maharastri Apabhramsa might be the name for [Southern Apabhramsa]

This is an acceptable name for ‘Southern Apabhramsa’, and I would like to proceed with it. ‘Maharastri Apabhramsa’ is used in the front matter of {{R:omr:Tulpule}} where it says:

According to Pischel, there was one Māhārāṣṭra Apabhraṃśa, whence has developed the modern Marāṭhī…on the completion of his Linguistic Survey of India, Grierson agreed that [Marathi is from] Māhārāṣṭra Apabhraṃśa

[23], [24] use the term "Magadhi Apabhramsa" for the Eastern one

Yes, ‘Magadhi Apabhramsa’ is used by some sources, but according to User_talk:Msasag#Avahattha, ‘Magadhi Apabhramsa’ is unattested. So, would a better term be Abahattha since it is attested? In An Enquiry into Eastern Apabhramsa, S. N. Ghosal says:

Jacobi is the staunchest advocate of Eastern Apabhramsa. While discussing the language of the PP he has said that the work has been composed in Avahatta

Would CAT:Kamarupi Prakrit language be excluded in the proposed Apabhramsa merger since it is a dialect of Magadhi Prakrit according to User_talk:Msasag#Avahattha?

Kutchkutch (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Abahatta does seem to be the Apabhramsa of the east, so it is probably same as Magadhi Apabhramsa. It is also more common than "Magadhi Apabhramsa" but on the other hand a bit inconsistent with the naming of the others. I'm fine with it. Kamarupi Prakrit has also been called an Apabhramsa and is contemporary with the others, but will it cause issues with the script and all (same for Abahatta, it was most likely written in Eastern Nagari rather than Northern Nagari scripts)? Svartava (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava Regarding the name ‘Avahatta/Abahatta’,

• This name is inconsistent with the names of the other Apabhramsa lects since it is not a geographical name followed by the word ‘Apabhramsa’. However, it says ‘Magadhan Apabhramsa is not the ancestor of Bengali, Maithili and Oriya’ in Tagare’s grammar. In {{R:inc:Cardona}}, it says ‘The late stage of MIA (fifth to twelfth centuries) is represented by writings in Apabhramsa and Avahatta’
• For the name of the category generated by the label, perhaps it would not be appropriate to have ‘Avahatta/Abahatta’ followed by the word ‘Apabhramsa’ as ‘Avahatta/Abahatta Apabhramsa’.
• A decision would need to be made about whether the primary spelling would be ‘Avahatta’ or Abahatta’. Using the spelling with ‘b’ instead of ‘v’ would be reflective of the tendency of Eastern Indo-Aryan languages to consider ‘v’ as ‘b’.
• This name is surely not as confusing as ‘Kashmiri Apabhramsa’ since ‘Kashmiri Apabhramsa’ would not even be the ancestor of the Kashmiri language despite having the word ‘Kashmiri’ in its name.

Regarding the Siddham script,

• Using the Siddham script for the Eastern Apabhramsa would be inconsistent with the Devanagari script that would be used by the other lects.

The consequence of this would be that even if there is a word that has the same spelling in Eastern Apabhramsa and another lect, another page would be required for the Siddham-script spelling.

• Perhaps this is comparable to including the northwestern lects, Mansehra and Shahbazgarhi, written in the Kharoshthi script within Ashokan Prakrit.

Regarding which works are considered Eastern Apabhramsa,

There are two works that are considered as Eastern Apabhramsa in Tagare’s grammar, in {{R:inc:Cardona}} and in The Classification of Apabhraṃśa by Tomoyuki Yamahata. The works are:

• Dohākoṣa of Kāṇha
• Dohākoṣa of Saraha

In Tagare’s grammar, it says that the Dohākoṣa of Kāṇha is a small collection of 32 dohās, and that Dohākoṣa of Saraha is ‘a continuation of the dialect used in the Dohākoṣa of Kāṇha.

Wikipedia also includes Somprabha's Kumarpala-pratibodha dated to 1195 CE.

Since Wiktionary has already decided to treat the Charyapada as CAT:Old Bengali language, the Charyapada would not be included in Eastern Apabhramsa despite being treated as Eastern Apabhramsa in some sources.

Kutchkutch (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to include Eastern Apabhramsa in the Eastern Nagari scripts because this [is] comparable to including the northwestern lects, Mansehra and Shahbazgarhi, written in the Kharoshthi script within Ashokan Prakrit. Similarly, should the Northwestern Apabhramsas be in their respective scripts like Sharada script as well? Svartava (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava [S]hould the Northwestern Apabhramsas be in their respective scripts like Sharada script as well?

Yes, having the northwestern Apabhramsa lects, Takka and Vracada, in the Sharada script is reasonable since the northwestern languages have traditionally been written in the Laṇḍā scripts, which are descended from the Sharada script. This includes

• Gurmukhi and Multani for Punjabi-like languages,
• Khudabadi and Khojki for Sindhi-like languages

So, as a result

• Takka जिध would be moved to 𑆘𑆴𑆣 (jidha)
• Takka तिध would be moved 𑆠𑆴𑆣 (tidha)
• Vracada कमल would be spelled as 𑆑𑆩𑆬 (kamala)

Since the northwestern Takka and Vracada lects are barely attested compared to the Eastern Apababhramsa, this situation probably won’t arise very often.

By the same reasoning, the northern Kashmiri Apabhramsa would also be written in the Sharada script since the Western Pahari languages have traditionally been written in variants of the Takri script, which are also descended from the Sharada script. This includes

• the Dogra script for the Dogri language

Unlike the scarcely attested Takka and Vracada lects, the northern Kashmiri Apabhramsa is attested in

• Tantrasāra by Abhinavagupta in the 10th or 11th century at Kashmir
• Āgamadambara
• Bhavisattakahā according to Jacobi

they are similar to Western Apabhraṃśa. However, the texts of Kashmir group have significantly different contents from Jain narrative literature

Although there also existed a Nāgarī script and a southern Nandinagari script, the Sauraseni, Gurjar and Maharashtri lects can remain in Devanagari since there isn’t a better script for them (that is already encoded in Unicode). Kutchkutch (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: In that case, if in some source only "Apabhramsa" is mentioned, then what do we do? Do we have to fall back on assuming Sauraseni/Gurjat/Maharastri Apabhramsa and using Devanagari? If this is getting too complicated, I also have no problem in maintaining the status quo, i.e. Devanagari entries only under a unified "Apabhramsa" header - also since Devanagari is read much more than Sharada script. Svartava (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava Regarding multiple scripts,

If the lect is not known to the editor, then the script can assumed to be Devanagari without any label. If a term already exists in Devanagari and if it is later determined that the term only belongs to a lect that uses a different script, then the entry can be moved to the appropriate script. If a term is determined to belong to multiple lects that use different scripts then each script can have its page with non-Devanagari pages perhaps redirecting to the Devanagari spelling.

Regarding this being too complicated,

Although there are some difficulties involved in writing the Kashmiri language in the Sharada script, using the Sharada script for classical languages such as Sanskrit and Apabhramsa seems straightforward. How complicated using multiple scripts really is can only be known when we try it out. I suggest that we try it out first, and if we agree that it is too complicated, then we can fallback to Devanagari entries only under a unified "Apabhramsa" header. To me, Sharada script just looks like a modified form of Gurmukhi.

Kutchkutch (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarifications. My thought was that this idea shouldn't collapse just because of multiple script issue. Devanagari as the default script shouldn't be much of a problem since sources like {{R:pra:Sheth}} do just that. It will be interesting to see it plays on after the merging. Svartava (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch, Svartava, Pulimaiyi: BTW, I support this merger just as I did the Prakrit merger. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 07:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Questions about Apabhramsa

A few questions:

• Is the Apabhramsa mentioned in [26] same as Avahattha?
• What is to be done of the inflections of kanta? They were created with attestation from A Grammar of Apabhraṃśa but then can we safely say that they are Avahattha and not the "undefined lect", because even महु कन्तहो (mahu kantaho) gets Google hits in texts. So:

1. Move all to Avahattha
2. Move all to anusvara form as inflections of the "undefined lect"
3. re-add Apabhramsa कन्त (kanta) because even महु कन्तहो (mahu kantaho) gets Google hits in texts and thus set the convention of having anusvara-panchamakshara variants as alt forms in Apabhramsa (possibly this is where this was first attested and carried on to Hindi?)
4. Delete them.

I wanted to have atleast 1 good set of inflections for Apabhramsas with origins of the endings documented in etymology sections so that's why I created them (and was intending to add etymologies after more research).

• How should the declension tables handle the lect differences? I thought they were similar enough to be taken into one table showing the different terms since according to the source each lect uses the different versions in varying quantity of usages), but (Northern) Kashmiri Apabhramsa seems to have instrumental plural -aiṃ from Sanskrit -ais per the source.

--Svartava (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava Regarding Hemachandra’s grammar सिद्ध-हेम-शब्दानुशासन,

• The language of this work is Sanskrit rather than Prakrit or Apabhramsa. Therefore, Prakrit or Apabhramsa words that are used in this work would probably be spelled how they would be spelled in Sanskrit.

• Moreover, Hemachandra’s grammar should be considered as a secondary source rather than a primary source. Although a second secondary does has value, it would not be as important as a primary source for making inferences about the spellings of Prakrit and Apabhramsa words.

• So, for these reasons, quotations from Hemachandra’s grammar should not be used to determine whether the Devanagari spelling should कंत or कन्त if primary sources are available.

Regarding whether the Devanagari spelling should be कंत or कन्त,

To determine whether the Devanagari spelling should be कंत or कन्त, it would be better to look at whether primary sources use the anusvara or the homorganic nasal consonant. For example,

• Nayakumara-Chariu VIII.1.9 has अब्भंतर
• Jambu-Sami-Chariu 4.6.2 has धगधगंत and जलंत
• Jambu-Sami-Chariu 9.15.4-5 has मंदिरु

Although कंत / कन्त itself has not been found in a primary source. since the anusvara is used in Nayakumara-Chariu and Jambu-Sami-Chariu, the Devanagari spelling would similarly be expected to be कंत.

How should the declension tables handle the lect differences?

• The Middle Indo-Aryan declension tables provided in many resources do not make any distinctions between the lects. All the declined forms in such a treatment are in a single table (perhaps with some explanatory notes).

• Using a single table for all the lects is the historical equivalent combining the declension tables of Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Marathi etc. as a single language called “Hindustani”, “Hindi” or “(North) Indian”. If there is not enough information available to make lect distinctions, then this is understandable. However, if lect distinctions can be made, then declension for the Apabhramsa lects can be handled just like Prakrit since the lects are essentially different languages.

• The declension for Maharashtri is provided in pages 50-60 of Apabhramsa of Svayambhūdeva’s Paümacariu. The declension for the Northern lect unified with Kasmiri is discussed in pages 17-26 in the document about the Bhavisattakahā by Dalal and Gune.

• The Avahattha declension paradigm on pages 51 and 52 in the document for Dohākoṣa of Saraha on archive.org is very blurry in some places. However, this is what I am able to read (please correct this if you can understand it better than I can):

प्रथमा

-उ (मणु)

-ओ from Prakrit (कहाणो)

द्वितीया

∅ [null]

तृतीया

-ए (बज्झे)

-एहि (खबणेहि, अइरियेहि)

-एण (कम्मेण)

चतुर्थी ॰ [ditto]

पंचमी

-ए (दोसे)

-ह (आयेसह)

-हि (भबणिब्बाणहि)

षष्ठी

[space]␣केरो (राक्खस केरो)

-केर (जणकेर, माआकेर)

[space]␣तणअ (कालहु तणअ)

सप्तमी

-ए (हत्थे, घरे, कोले)

-एहि (जलेहि)

-हि (काणहि, बरहि, देहहि)

संबोधन

अरे, रे, ये (माइ ये), हले, हे

बहुवचन (इसका बहुत कम प्रयोग होता है)

प्रथमा द्वितीया तृतीया चतुर्थी

-आ (बुधा, जडा)

-ए (बाले)

• The declension for the “unspecified lect” or default lect is probably “Sauraseni Apabhramsa”. As mentioned before, “Sauraseni Apabhramsa” could be considered as the default lect since the Apabhramsa period coincides with when Saurasena and the surrounding areas including Delhi became a important political centre.

• Since “Gurjara Apabhramsa” has been split from “Sauraseni Apabhramsa” and Hemachandra is from Gujarat, the declension for the “unspecified lect” is probably applicable to “Gurjara Apabhramsa” as well. Therefore, it might make sense to have the declension table for the “unspecified lect” to be used for Sauraseni and Gurjara until a distinction between the two can be made.

• Thus, the action to take now would be to move [the current declension] to anusvara form as inflections of the "undefined lect" and add the information about the other lects in the appropriate data modules.

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: OK. Can you comment on the first question as well as Special:Diff/80983711/80983723?

The declensions given for Apabhramsa in different sources seem to be massively inconsistent somehow. So far, I added the forms mentioned in either of the two sources consulted for the data at MOD:inc-apa-decl/noun/data, to be inclusive (as there is no harm in potentially unattested form in declension as opposed to creating an entry for it, and this is always happening for long tables listing a number of forms). Corpus-based Analysis and Diachronic Linguistics quite clearly implies that the declension table given in it is for all lects and it also mentions below which lect uses which form more and which less. And the table in it is quite different from the above Avahattha declension you have given.

If a source mentions declension in a certain specific lect that is very different and not manageable by adding a few terms along with a note in the unified declension table, then a lect-specific inflection table can be shown.

Per above, I will shortly move the inflections to the anusvara forms. Svartava (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava Is the Apabhramsa mentioned in [the link] same as Avahattha?

Unfortunately, this particular work is not available online outside of Google Books in its entirety. So, a judgement about the meaning of other instances of the term “Apabhramsa” in that work cannot be made. The Apabhramsa term in that snippet alone is sufficient to verify that the term कन्त exists in Apabhramsa. However, there is no way to know whether it is referring to the “unspecified lect” in Hemachandra or the quotation from the Kirtilata.

Can you comment on … Special:Diff/80983711/80983723?

MOD:Shrd-translit has two values for ['𑆻']:

• ['𑆻']='ḹ'
• ['𑆻']='e'

This must be an error. It would not make sense to equate a single Unicode character to two different transliterations in this part of the module. ['𑆻'] is dependent ॡ (ḹ) only when the Sharada script is used for writing Sanskrit. However, dependent ॡ (ḹ) is not used for writing Kashmiri or Apabhramsa.

Short e and long e exist in both Kashmiri and Apabhramsa.

• As per the discussion with Kashmiri editors at

Wiktionary_talk:Kashmiri_transliteration#Sharada_Script

Imranqazi90: /e/ is indicated by /eː/, /o/ by /oː/. That's why it became difficult throughout time space to write Kashmiri in Sharada as it didn't have specific vowels signs for our kashmiri peculiar vowel sounds

the Sharada script does not have enough characters to represent all the vowels of modern Kashmiri. This would include the Sharada equivalent of Devanagari ऎ since the Sharada script is based on the sounds of Sanskrit rather than Kashmiri.

• Although there is a short e sound in Apabhramsa, it would still be written in the Sharada script as ए.

Therefore, at a minimum

• ['𑆻']='e' needs to be deleted
• and ['𑆼'] = 'ē' should be replaced with ['𑆼'] = 'e'

The full line of that quotation from the Bhavisattakahā is

एम करेवि समुच्चउ गोत्तहो भविसु पढुक्कु पासि बधुयत्तहो ।

The entry currently omits the second part of the line

भविसु पढुक्कु पासि बधुयत्तहो

Kutchkutch (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• {{R:inc:AGOA}} gives the term अग्गि (aggi) with its declension table without specifying the gender, and this is the only i-stem declension in the book. So, when adding its entry, what will be its gender (or will it remain unspecified, if quotations or references cannot be found)? Is the inflection for both the genders same for i-stem words? --Svartava (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava [W]hen adding [अग्गि]’s entry, what will be its gender (or will it remain unspecified, if quotations or references cannot be found)? this is the only i-stem declension in the book

• If the editor is not sure about the gender, then it should remain unspecified until one or more references that explicitly state the gender can be found or the gender can be reasonably inferred. Although having the gender as unspecified may seem a bit strange, it is much better than making a random guess without any basis. Sometimes there is not much of a difference between making a reasonable inference and a random guess.

• Ashokan Prakrit 𑀅𑀕𑀺 (agi /⁠aggi⁠/) currently has no specified gender, Prakrit 𑀅𑀕𑁆𑀕𑀺 (aggi) is masculine and in many modern languages it is feminine. Since the gender of अग्नि/अग्गि/आग has evidently changed over time, the aforementioned advice is even more applicable to this term.

• Apabhramsa Grammar and Composition (अपभ्रंश रचना सौरभ) by Kamalchand Sogani has the gender of आगि (rather than अग्गि) as feminine

• on page 128 (column 2) and page 227 of the English version
• on page 116 (column 2) and page 208 of the Hindi version

• See also User_talk:Inqilābī#Citation_for_Gender

RichardW57: On what basis do you assert that one should not use an inline reference for the source for a gender claim?

Inqilābī: The problem is that when you use an inline reference in the headword line, you are sourcing the entry as a whole using the citation. There is, fortunately or unfortunately, no way to cite the gender because the gender is shown in the headword line itself … And what’s more, an inline reference is used only to cite the entry, or the etymology, or (uncommonly) the pronunciation

Is the inflection for both the genders same for i-stem words?

Apabhramsa Grammar and Composition (अपभ्रंश रचना सौरभ) by Kamalchand Sogani has the declension table of

• i-stem masculine nouns

on page 179 of the English version

on page 164 of the Hindi version

• i-stem feminine nouns

on page 184 of the English version

on page 168 of the Hindi version

Kutchkutch (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Sure, I never meant that we should straight up guess the gender but I asked you since you'd know better about it; |g=? doesn't seem problematic.

Thanks a lot for mentioning about Apabhramsa Rachna Saurabh, it is really a very good source for increasing coverage of Apabhramsa on Wiktionary. I will be creating a template for it as I managed to find it on the internet and will definitely be utilising it as a reference. Svartava (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@ Svartava {{R:inc:AGOA}} gives the term अग्गि (aggi) with its declension table without specifying the gender … I never meant that we should straight up guess the gender

There is no need to guess the gender of अग्गि since it says

“41. We may begin with masc. words”

on page 20 before the declension table for कन्त and अग्गि. So {{R:inc:AGOA}} has specified it as masc i-stem. Kutchkutch (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• {{R:inc:ARS}} mentions the terms like रहुणन्दन (rahuṇandana) contaning the न् instead of anusvara, while also mentioning नरिंद (nariṃda) which contain the anusvara. So are these Devanagari transliterations of Avahattha or rather attested forms of the Devanagari Apabhramsa?
• {{R:inc:ARS}} also mentions neuter nouns but their inflection is almost* same as masculine nouns which might be why {{R:inc:AGOA}} has asserted that neuter gender doesn't exist in Apabhramsa. (* the neuter declensions have forms ending in aïṃ but {{R:inc:AGOA||17}} deals with this by stating that these endings were added without distinction initially.) So, is it fine to mark these as masculine per Mishra?
• {{R:pra:Sheth}} even has and entry for बोल्लणअ (bollaṇaa) without अप but with हे ४, ४४३, so are entries in {{R:pra:Sheth}} with हे to be considered Prakrit or Apabhramsa, since Hemachandra's grammar has both Prakrit and Apabhramsa? Is only the 8th adhyaya for Prakrit and rest for Apabhramsa?
• I want to confirm if महा in {{R:pra:Sheth}} is for Maharastri Prakrit as I couldn't find it in front matter but I'm probably missing something.

Svartava (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava {{R:inc:ARS}} mentions the terms like रहुणन्दन contaning the न् instead of anusvara , while also mentioning नरिंद which contain the anusvara. So are these Devanagari transliterations of Avahattha or rather attested forms of the Devanagari Apabhramsa?

• रहुणन्दन must be a compound with the components being the Apabhramsa equivalent of Sanskrit रघु and Sanskrit नन्दन. The spellings णन्दण and णरिन्द are used in the Maharastri text Pauma-Chariu. However, the other Maharastri text Naya-Kumar-Chariu does not follow this convention. Although, the Maharastri text Pauma-Chariu and the Avahattha text Kirtilata use ङ् ञ् ण् न् म् for the homorganic nasal consonant, the majority of texts still use the anusvara.
• The majority (but not all) of terms in the Northern Bhavisattakahā have word-initial न rather than ण in accordance with the Ardhamagadhi convention. So, the Northern Apabhramsa equivalent of Sanskrit नरेन्द्र is नरिंद.
• Also, if quotations from Pauma-Chariu are added, the Devanagari transliteration would have to support short e in Devanagari as ऎ and short o in Devanagari as ऒ.

I want to confirm if महा in {{R:pra:Sheth}} is for Maharastri Prakrit as I couldn't find it in front matter

• I have not found an clear explanation for महा either. There are potentially five different places to look since there may be a front matter for each of the 4 volumes, and there is one link for the “front matter” at the top of

dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/sheth/

at

dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/sheth/frontmatter/frontmatter.pdf

• If there is nothing mentioned about it in those five locations, then महा seems to be the abbreviation for indicating the Maharastri lect.
• If it is later found out that महा means something different, then it would be difficult to remove the Maharastri label from entries that were marked as such solely on the basis of महा. Perhaps ‘महा’ can be an alias of ‘m’ in case such a situation arises.
• महा cannot be the abbreviation for the Prakrit used in the महावीर-चरितम् since the lect used in the महावीर-चरितम् appears to be Sauraseni. All five instances of महावी are followed by a number.
• Also, there is no abbreviation mentioned in the front matter for Ardhamagadhi. Searching for आर्ष only returns one result for आरिस.

{{R:pra:Sheth}} even has an entry for बोल्लणअ without अप but with हे ४, ४४३, so are entries in {{R:pra:Sheth}} with हे to be considered Prakrit or Apabhramsa, since Hemachandra's grammar has both Prakrit and Apabhramsa? Is only the 8th adhyaya for Prakrit and rest for Apabhramsa?

• According to page 3 of Apabhraṁśa of Hemacandra,

• the first seven अध्यायs are for Sanskrit
• the eighth अध्याय is for Prakrit and Apabhramsa
• the first three पादs are for आर्ष or Āgāmic Prakrits
• sutra 260 to the end of the fourth पाद are for Sauraseni, Magadhi, Paisaci, Culika-Paisaci and Apabhramsa.
• sutras 329-446 of the fourth पाद are for Apabhramsa
• Therefore, हे ४, ४४३ does refer to Apabhramsa since 443 is between 329 and 446 despite not being indicated as अप.

• According to page 16 of the Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature Volume 1 on Google Books (as mentioned on the Wikipedia entry for Hemachandra), all of Hemachandra’s Prakrit can be considered as Jain Maharastri and all Hemachandra’s Apabhramsa can be considered as Gurjara Apabhramsa.

• Therefore, the Apabhramsa lect of terms that have quotations from Hemachandra's grammar can be specified as Gurjara. However, since the term आर्ष mentioned in Apabhraṁśa of Hemacandra usually refers Ardhamagadhi, these two sources are contradictory about the Prakrit lect of Hemachandra’s grammar.

{{R:inc:AGOA}} has asserted that neuter gender doesn't exist in Apabhramsa … So, is it fine to mark these as masculine per Mishra?

• No, unless {{R:inc:AGOA}} is the only source that specifies the gender, the neuter gender specified in other sources should not be replaced with the masculine gender for concrete nouns and the feminine gender for abstract nouns. The reason for this is that Apabhramsa is an amalgamation of several lects and not just the ancestor of languages with two genders. (However, marking nouns as countable and uncountable would be helpful.)
• Although the prevalence of the neuter gender may have significantly diminished in a lect such as Sauraseni Apabhramsa, it must have still existed especially in other regional lects.

• The diachronic (language-external) reason for this is that the neuter gender would not spontaneously reappear in its descendants such as Old Marathi, Old Gujarati, etc. after existing in the ancestors of Apabhramsa.
• A synchronic (language-internal) reason why the neuter gender would exist in Apabhramsa is that there are neuter personal pronouns in Apabhramsa. Having neuter personal pronouns but not having a neuter gender for nouns would be a systemic gap in the grammar of Apabhramsa.

• At the risk of going off topic, Mhr. is an abbreviation for Marathi in the Kannada dictionary {{R:kn:Kittel}} according to:

dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/kittel/frontmatter/frontmatter.pdf

However, it is not always clear to me why this Mhr. abbreviation is being used. However, what may be relevant is the gender of Dravidian borrowings from Middle Indo-Aryan especially if they are from Apabhramsa rather than Prakrit.

Kutchkutch (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That was a very informative message. Following up:

• Should we have entries for spellings like णन्दण (ṇandaṇa) based on their attestation?

Also, to be on the safer side, I will remove genders from entries like मंदिर (maṃdira), अकम्म (akamma) until specifically specified in a source or unambiguous from a quotation. In future, when unsure, I'll probably just leave out the gender since having entries is more important than gender-specification. Svartava (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava Should we have entries for spellings like णन्दण based on their attestation.

• Yes, of course such spellings should have entries since they are attested. One or more quotations or references should be provided to demonstrate that the spelling exists. (This is not necessarily for meeting WT:CFI, WT:LDL or even WT:FWOTD.)

• However, there are entries without any quotations or references. (This would include using {{Q}} with the name of a text without actually providing a quotation.) Although it is usually obvious that the term was taken from {{R:CDIAL}} or {{R:pra:Sheth}}, a Prakrit or Apabhramsa entry without any quotations or references does not provide evidence of the term’s existence or the term’s spelling in the entry itself.

• The question that would arise with an entry such as णन्दण is whether the definition line should mirror the one on the main entry (if it is on a different page) or whether the definition line should use

• the template {{alternative spelling of}}
• or the Apabhramsa equivalent of the template {{pra-lect}}

• Since the two aforementioned Maharastri Apabhramsa sources use different spelling conventions, the Apabhramsa equivalent of {{pra-lect}} may not be appropriate in this case. The reason is that spelling convention depends on the text rather than the Maharastri lect.
• 𑖖𑖽𑖏𑖂 appears to have a slightly different shade of meaning compared to its corresponding Devanagari form झंखइ. If this slightly different shade of meaning is to be conveyed, then the definition line would be different from the corresponding Devanagari form.

Kutchkutch (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Svartava You found out that the meaning of महा is ausgewählte Erzählungen in Māhārashtrī at

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=8wTGMIRwVZ4C&pg=PA9

This is a Jain Maharastri text that is equivalent to the Uttarādhyayana-Vṛtti by Devendra at:

MOD:Quotations/inc-pra/data

Kutchkutch (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Families

Should we make Sauraseni Apabhramsa the ancestor of CAT:Central Indo-Aryan languages and remove CAT:Proto-Central Indo-Aryan language? I also feel that CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit languages be deleted and its subcategories be simply put into CAT:Indo-Aryan languages. --Svartava (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava Should we

• make Sauraseni Apabhramsa the immediate ancestor of CAT:Central Indo-Aryan languages
• remove CAT:Proto-Central Indo-Aryan language
• remove CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit languages

Certainly. CAT:Proto-Central Indo-Aryan language and the family CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit languages both came into existence as temporary placeholders rather than being representative of actual entities. Now the question is whether these temporary placeholders still need to exist, and whether attempting to make these changes causes any errors.

Regarding the origin of CAT:Proto-Central Indo-Aryan language,

CAT:Proto-Central Indo-Aryan language was created by AryamanA’s Special:Diff/60413231 with the edit summary dummy proto langs for IA. CAT:Proto-Central Indo-Aryan language is (according to AryamanA at WT:Beer_parlour/2020/September#Northwestern_Indo-Aryan):

only a temporary measure for organization in our modules … we should strive to replace them with [an] attested language if possible

Perhaps the necessity for dummy proto langs was also motivated by the fact that the value for the immediate ancestor at MOD:families/data is named protoLanguage.

Regarding the origin of the family CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit languages,

The family CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit languages was created by Victar’s Special:Diff/49998175, which was discussed at User_talk:Victar/Archive#psu_code

Victar: CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit languages was created so we could place the language family inc-pah below it, instead of it floating at the root.

Regarding CAT:Proto-Central Indo-Aryan language,

The page for the category CAT:Proto-Central Indo-Aryan language was probably created in error (by analogy with the then-proposed Dravidian subfamilies). All it contains is an automated family tree for the family CAT:Bhil languages. The immediate ancestor of the family CAT:Bhil languages could be changed to CAT:Western Indo-Aryan languages.

Regarding the family CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit languages,

• The immediate parent of CAT:Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages certainly needs to be the root family CAT:Indo-Aryan languages instead of this.
• Whether CAT:Romani languages belongs to CAT:Western Indo-Aryan languages or CAT:Central Indo-Aryan languages is an unresolved issue. Since there exists CAT:Romani terms inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit, the immediate ancestor of CAT:Romani languages could either be CAT:Central Indo-Aryan languages or CAT:Western Indo-Aryan languages. However, its immediate ancestor cannot be the root family CAT:Indo-Aryan languages.

Regarding the family CAT:Eastern Hindi languages,

• The family CAT:Eastern Hindi languages has CAT:Ardhamagadhi Prakrit rather than Sauraseni Apabhramsa/Prakrit as its common ancestor. Thus, the immediate ancestor of CAT:Eastern Hindi languages is currently the root family CAT:Indo-Aryan languages. This means that the family CAT:Eastern Hindi languages currently does not have CAT:Apabhramsa language as its ancestor since CAT:Ardhamagadhi Prakrit does not have an Apabhramsa descendant.
• How should this issue be addressed?

Reagarding the family CAT:Insular Indo-Aryan languages,

• The family CAT:Insular Indo-Aryan languages does not have CAT:Apabhramsa language as its ancestor.
• Conceptually, an Apabhramsa descendant of CAT:Helu Prakrit could possibly be added that would be named something like Helu Apabhramsa. However, adding it does not seem like a priority.

Regarding the family CAT:Northern Indo-Aryan languages,

• Including CAT:Sauraseni Prakrit in CAT:Northern Indo-Aryan languages instead of CAT:Central Indo-Aryan languages is not accurate.
• If that is corrected, there would be no reason for CAT:Pahari languages to exist. Pahari can just be an alias for CAT:Northern Indo-Aryan languages. Furthermore, if further classification is needed within the family CAT:Northern Indo-Aryan languages, then additional families for Central Pahari and Eastern Pahari can be added by analogy with CAT:Western Pahari languages.

Regarding the family CAT:Eastern Indo-Aryan languages,

CAT:Avahattha needs to be set as the immediate ancestor of the family CAT:Eastern Indo-Aryan languages.

Kutchkutch (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Romani appears to be called a Central IA language in a majority of papers and books. The issue for Eastern Hindi and Insular IA languages can be dealt with adding simply "Apabhramsa" as their ancestor, since we might not even have any entry for Helu Apabhramsa. At present we can maintain the status quo of further classifications of Pahari languages even if we dissolve CAT:Pahari languages. Svartava (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava Regarding Romani:

On a cursory glance. CAT:Romani language seems to better resemble Gujarati, Marwari and Sindhi compared to the Central Indo-Aryan languages. For instance, the declinable terms end in o rather than a. The ethnonym Sinti in Sinte Romani even resembles the word “Sindhi”. Since Ralph Lilley Turner is a specialist in Nepali, he has also observed similarities between Romani and Nepali.

Perhaps Romani has been placed in Central Indo-Aryan since it is more frequently compared with Hindi-Urdu rather than Gujarati, Marwari and Sindhi. The reason for comparing Romani with Hindi-Urdu rather than Gujarati, Marwari or Sindhi must be that Hindi-Urdu is the most thoroughly studied and most widely spoken New Indo-Aryan language. Although Gujarati is an official state language of Gujarat, Sindhi is an official provincial language of Sindh in Pakistan and Nepali is the official language of Nepal, these languages have not been studied as thoroughly as Hindi-Urdu. Perhaps the European scholars who study Romani are unable to access or unaware of the analyses that are available for Gujarati, Sindhi, Nepali, etc.

However, these observations alone are not enough to changing the status quo for CAT:Romani languages. Being able to inherit from CAT:Apabhramsa language is a higher priority than satisfactorily classifying Romani. Therefore, until a case for reclassifying CAT:Romani languages can be made, the status quo can be maintained by making placing CAT:Romani languages in CAT:Central Indo-Aryan languages. CAT:Romani languages being a descendant of Apabhramsa does not seem to be a controversial since they probably left South Asia during or after the transition from Middle Indo-Aryan to Early New Indo-Aryan.

Regarding CAT:Insular Indo-Aryan languages,

What is meant by

Conceptually, an Apabhramsa descendant of CAT:Helu Prakrit could possibly be added

is that Helu Apabhramsa is definitely attested and there are terms for which entries can be made. However, the reason why it would remain probably remain empty is that CAT:Helu Prakrit and Helu Apabhramsa are more inscriptional rather than literary lects. Thus, the only way to satisfactorily verify these terms is to consult sources that focus on Sinhalese rather than sources that focus on literary Prakrit and Apabhramsa. Also, making distinctions between

CAT:Helu Prakrit vs. Helu Apabhramsa vs. Old Sinhalese

seems to only be possible by using the date of the text that is analysed. Kutchkutch (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Thanks for the analysis regarding Romani. There is apparently no status quo as yet for Romani and Western is the shown to be the more appropriate classification (Bhagadatta on Discord is also of the same opinion). I'm going ahead with removing "Sauraseni Prakrit languages" (as this matter has also been raised before, but didn't proceed - but now we have better categories in place) and Proto-Central IA, since this is also not a major change and can be undone in the unlikely possibility of us needing it. Helu Apabhramsa can be created, of course. Svartava (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava At present we can maintain the status quo of further classifications of Pahari languages even if we dissolve CAT:Pahari languages

If CAT:Pahari languages is really the same as CAT:Northern Indo-Aryan languages then CAT:Pahari languages might need to be dissolved. The justification for not making any further classifications might be that the Central Pahari and Eastern Pahari languages have very little coverage other than Nepali, and it may be too early to make judgements about the relationship between Central Pahari and Eastern Pahari. This would especially be true if this division happens to be a politically-influenced separation of a dialect continuum between

Garhwali & Kumaoni in India

and Doteli, Jumli & Nepali in Nepal

Kumaoni and Doteli are the languages at the western India-Nepal border. The dictionaries for both of them sometimes refer to the other language across the border. Kutchkutch (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch I'm not an expert for Pahari languages so I'll simply leave that up to you. Svartava (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

IP Block exemption

Hi! Slightly unusual but would it be possible to get an IP block exemption on Wiktionary. For some weird reason, my IP has been banned by UDB Dictionary and I now have to use a proxy to bypass the restriction, but this makes it slightly difficult for me to edit on Wiktionary (since I have to continuously turn my proxy on and off to make edits or search the dictionary), so an IP Block exemption would be quite convenient, even if it's just a temporary exemption. (p.s. I wasn't sure if there's a specific page on Wiktionary to request perms. نعم البدل (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• @نعم البدل I also encounter IP address issues with {{R:ur:UDB}}, so I understand what you mean. Sometimes even I have to continuously turn my proxy/VPN on and off to make edits or search the dictionary. {{R:ur:UDB}} is not accessible from an Indian IP address and a few IP addresses provided by proxies/VPNs for other countries maybe because it is a Pakistani government website.
• I do not object to giving you the IP Block Exemption right on Wiktionary, since I frequently follow your editing. There is a WT:Whitelist, but that usually for the autopatroller right rather than for other rights. I intend to give you the right with the message “Request by an established user at User talk:Kutchkutch”

Kutchkutch (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل  Done. As of now, I do not see the need to make the right expire. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Appreciated. I'm not sure how they're dealing with their traffic, but I'm pretty sure they've specifically banned my IP. Other IPs in my location aren't affected. It's probably because we use it so much they may have assumed we're scraping their site or something lol. In any case, if I find my IP has been whitelisted again, I'll let you know and ask you to revoke the exemption! نعم البدل (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)