User talk:Smettems

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Smettems,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

diff

The link was wrong, it is User Talk:Inqilābī#Regarding etymologies... where it was agreed that even though these were inherited from their early NIA form, these Persian loans were reinforced through Persianisation in the modern NIA languages. (@Kutchkutch) -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 04:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: I see that now. However, as you note, (depending on the term) it's reinforcement, not reborrowing. कतेब -> किताब is a clear reborrowing. But omr अबीर -> mr अबीर is a reinforcement, meaning it was inherited and then constrained by knowledge of Urdu/Persian. Smettems (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You are actually right that some are cases of reborrowings while others are cases of reinforcements, but it was agreed to always categorize all such words indiscriminately as borrowings from Persian because a case-by-case basis could often be blurry. The consensus reached in that discussion helped to standardise our etymologies for Persian loans, so I would like you to slacken your view on this. Thanks. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: I'm afraid I'm not in agreement with this. Neither has this consensus been voted upon (if I'm not mistaken, this was a consensus formed by only 3 editors, with minimal input from a fourth), nor is the consensus even logical. This is wiktionary, we must consider each word on a case by case basis. Smettems (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: What do you think about changes like diff, diff?– Smettems argues that: 1) not all instances of an early NIA loan from Persian were reinforced by Persian in New NIA (with the effect that a NIA word would not be categorized as {{bor|und|fa-cls|TERM}} in every case), and 2) not all NIA words (deriving from Persian) should be categorized as descendants of its early NIA form (with the effect that a NIA word would not be categorized as ‘first attested as {{inh|und|OLD/MIDDLE-und|TERM}}’ in every case); but instead the etymology of each word should be determined “on a case by case basis”. Therefor, this conviction of Smettems’s has dealt a blow to our policy made here. I would just say that determining etymologies with precision (as Smettems wants) is problematic because there are not (etymological) dictionaries dedicated to precise etymologies, so that any instances of such ‘precise etymologies’ would amount to original research by the editor. The main point to ponder on is, we can never confidently tell in which cases the early NIA word wholly died out: often there’s the case of partial inheritance from the early NIA word; likewise we can never confidently tell in which cases the Persian etymon played no role in reinforcing the word originally attested in the early NIA stage. Taking to a case-by-case approach would lead to our etymologies becoming an unsystematic mess, and utter chaos would result from the inconsistency. (Also @SodhakSH, Bhagadatta, AryamanA) -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 11:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Apparently Smettems is not in favour of the new policy. I agree that we can never confidently tell in which cases the Persian etymon played no role in reinforcing the word originally attested in the early NIA stage and also we can never confidently tell in which cases the early NIA word wholly died out. @Smettems: don't go doing this again and again as you did recently at (Old) Hindi अपराधी. This was well-discussed and is fine. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: The inability to determine etymologies with precision between Early and Modern NIA is an important reason for the new policy, and adding additional precision beyond first attested in the wording of etymology sections could be considered original research. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Smettems: The wording ‘Superseded by’ should be used only for a different term, for लश्कर (laśkar) it is not applicable. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 12:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī, Smettems: How about a compromise: if I understand correctly, you, Inqilābī are concerned with the categorisation (of NIA terms as Persian borrowings) whereas Smettems does not want to use First attested as {{inh|LANG|OLD LANG|TERM}} without exception. What I suggest is, in entries where one can't decide if it was borrowed into early NIA and inherited by modern NIA or borrowed directly by the modern NIA languages, the following may be used: From {{inh|LANG|OLD LANG|TERM}}, from {{bor|LANG|fa|TERM}} It will of course categorise the word as a Persian borrowing and as an inherited term, which is what was agreed to. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 13:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

After this, the issue that remains is, which terms are reinforcements and which are direct borrowings (note that "reborrowing" means something rather different). @Smettems How do you propose to decide that? By going by the structure of the word? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 13:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)