User talk:Svartava

Archives

• 2021
• 2022
• 2023

शमलोक

The use of this term in Sanskrit is

https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=G849AAAAIAAJ&q=%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%95&dq=%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%95&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI_qXbsZSEAxWBTmwGHZ4_DUcQ6AF6BAgLEAM#%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%95 Rihantel (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rihantel: The RFV is for Hindi and Sanskrit, the quote you present is neither: it's likely Braj or Old Hindi. You may add another entry for whatever language the quote is, but the RFV for Hindi and Sanskrit is still unresolved. Svartava (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Uses of this term: for Hindi

1:

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.483952/2015.483952.Keshav-kaumudi_djvu.txt

2:

https://archive.org/stream/vedicsahitya_20220402/Shrikrishna%20Vishayak%20Lekh_djvu.txt

3:

https://ur.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DB%81%D9%86%D8%AF%DB%8C_%D8%B2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86 Rihantel (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rihantel 1: I can't find the word शमलोक in a quote here, using find in browser, if there is a quote using the word please mention it (sources listing meaning like शमलोक - शान्तिलोक, स्वर्ग can be added in References but are not considered a valid "citation" to verify the entry). 2: Yes, that is a valid quote but we need minimum 3 like this to keep the entry. 3: citations from sister projects like Urdu Wikipedia here, are not considered valid to attest an entry. Svartava (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

kasaya

Do you happen to know how this is pronounced? (/kɑˈsaɪjə/?) - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: In Indian English, it would be /ʃ/ instead of /s/. /kɑˈsaɪjə/ sounds about right for the Western Pronunciation, but obviously I'm can't be 100% sure about it. Svartava (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@-sche it would be /s/ in rural Hindi too. 178.120.54.117 11:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

दर्ज

शुक्रिया पंजीकृत के लिए, मैं इस शब्द नहीं जानता था। 178.120.67.56 11:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

सुनकर अच्छा लगा आपको विक्षनरी से कुछ नया जानने को मिला। Svartava (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

हां! एक बात बताइए, क्यों वर्गीकरण ज़रूरत है? अरबी प्रविष्टियों में वे पहले से ही मौजूद हैं। अगर कोई उन्हें देखना चाहता है, तो वे अरबी प्रविष्टि के लिंक का अनुसरण कर सकते हैं। 178.120.67.56 12:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

श्रेणीकरण आवश्यक तो नहीं परंतु अच्छा रहता है। श्रेणीकरण से Category:Terms derived from Arabic roots, Category:Terms derived from Sanskrit roots जैसी श्रेणियों में उपलब्ध जानकारी बढ़ती है जो पाठकों के लिए रुचिकर अथवा उपयोगी हो सकती है। Svartava (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Middle Hindi

Middle Hindi romanisation

@Svartava You are aware of this already, but just as a reminder when considering Old/Middle Hindi:

• Wiktionary’s romanization of modern Hindi is a phonemic transcription based on pronunciation rather than a transliteration of the Devanagari script. Since there is often little or no difference between the transliteration and transcription of Hindi terms, the transcription is used as the transliteration. This is for convenience and because the pronunciation indicated by the transcription is provable. (Schwa-deletion, ऋ and homorganic nasal assimilation of the anusvara is where transliteration would differ from transcription.)

• Accurately reading modern Urdu without the optional diacritics, especially with respect to vowels, depends on the semantic context in addition to what the script indicates. When the optional diacritics are provided, the transliteration produced by MOD:ur-translit is either the same or very similar to the romanization of the Hindi spelling. The differences appear to be with respect to ain (ع), ezafe, nūn ġunnā (ں ٘ ), word-final choṭī he (ہ) and orthographic borrowings from Arabic.

Regarding Old/Middle Hindi in Devanagari script;

To show that the anusvara in Old Hindi नांती most likely represents nasalisation and not न् (the corresponding homorganic nasal consonant), the transcription parameter is used. However, since this is just a deduction based on logic rather than a provable fact, the transliteration and transcription should be shown separately. (In addition, Old Hindi ष is equivalent to ख.)

Since Middle Hindi is both

• a historical variety (chronolect) of Hindi-Urdu
• and Wiktionary’s coverage so far is only in the Perso-Arabic script (other than the terms mentioned at लुंगी#Hindi)

there are a lot of uncertainties regarding the exact pronunciation of such terms. For example,

• The quotations at اکڙ#Old_Hindi and فرمان#Old_Hindi resemble modern Hindi-Urdu, but there are still several ambiguities.
• If someone were to read ناتی for the first time, what would be seen in the first step of the analysis is

nūn (n), alif (a), te (t) and choṭī-ye (y)

• In the second step of the analysis

alif (a) would be converted to ā and choṭī-ye (y) would be converted to ī

• The intermediate step would not be shown for modern Urdu since the final step is already known to be nātī, which is not the case for Old/Middle Hindi.

Therefore, it is beneficial to have both the orthographic-based transliteration and the hypothesized pronunciation as the transcription. User: نعم البدل did this for a few Middle Hindi terms, and I started following this convention. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that really does clear up, especially: The intermediate step would not be shown for modern Urdu since the final step is already known to be nātī, which is not the case for Old/Middle Hindi. Svartava (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Middle Hindi orthography

@Svartava, Kutchkutch: Just to add to that (slightly deviation from the original topic). I'm still a bit hesitant on adding Middle Hindi lemmas, generally since the exact orthography is debated, and specifically with letters ہ (h) and ی (ī) – as I'm debating or inclined towards using the Arabic / Persian H and Y instead for Old Hindi lemmas. It's a matter of how you interpret Urdu handwriting (for instance see the etymology of بھاپ (bhāp) and how the Middle Hindi lemma is slightly different to the modern spelling.) نعم البدل (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل: specifically with letters ہ (h) and ی (ī) – as I'm debating or inclined towards using the Arabic / Persian H and Y

If what you mean is that

Arabic ه and ي

should be used instead of

modern Urdu ہ and ی

then that seems reasonable. Unicode’s “Old Urdu”, which is equivalent to Wiktionary’s Old/Middle Hindi says to use

ٿ for ٹ

ڙ for ڑ

and ڐ for ڈ

at

unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0600.pdf

This would make the character set of Old/Middle Hindi closer to that of modern Sindhi since

Arabic ه and ي

ٿ and ڙ

are all used in Sindhi.

However, Sindhi ٿ is used for the modern Urdu aspirated ٹھ rather than for the modern Urdu unaspirated ٹ, which is represented in Sindhi as ٽ. Also, ڐ for Old/Middle Hindi is not used in Sindhi, which instead uses ڊ for modern Urdu ڈ.

see the etymology of بھاپ (bhāp) and how the Middle Hindi lemma is slightly different to the modern spelling

• Would that also imply that Arabic ه should also be used for do-chashmī ھ? {{R:inc-hnd:Platts}} uses Arabic ه instead of do-chashmī ھ as بهاپ.
• The spelling بھاپھہ as mentioned in the etymology of that entry has a word-final ہ after پھ. Is that intentional as per the entry following بهاپ in {{R:inc-hnd:Platts}} as بهاپهہ? Using a double word-final ه as هه instead of a single ه is also a convention used by the Sindhi dictionary dic.sindhila.edu.pk

It's a matter of how you interpret Urdu handwriting

By Urdu handwriting, I presume that you are referring to how بهاپ and بهاپهہ are handwritten in the second column of

dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/platts/page_images/0177.jpg

Kutchkutch (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch:

• then that seems reasonable – more so with H and less with Y. The Y was merely to make it more closer to Sindhi, as you suggested. Although, the aim is not to make it entirely matchable to the Sindhi orthography. Just more as a representative of how the actual letters or handwriting has changed over time.
• Would that also imply that Arabic ه should also be used for do-chashmī ھ? Template:R:inc-hnd:Platts uses Arabic ه instead of do-chashmī ھ as بهاپ. – I'm not too sure, probably not with the do-chashme-he, honestly. The do-chashme-he has typically always been considered separate to the choti-he.
• By Urdu handwriting, I presume that you are referring to how بهاپ and بهاپهہ are handwritten in the second column of dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/platts/page_images/0177.jpg – Sort of, but I'm thinking more outside of Platts dictionary lol.

نعم البدل (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@ نعم البدل| Thanks for the clarifications.

I'm thinking more outside of Platts dictionary of Platts dictionary

Yes, that was obvious. The image from {{R:inc-hnd:Platts}} was just intended to be an easily obtainable example of a specific handwritten word that is available online.

Regarding the word-final additional ہ,

Is there any clarification that you can provide regarding the additional word-final ہ used in the spelling of بھاپھہ instead of بھاپھ? At Urdu_alphabet it says

at the end of a word, [ہ] can be used to render the long "a" or the "e" vowels (/ɑː/ or /eː/), which also alters its form slightly (on modern digital writing systems, this final form is achieved by writing two he's consecutively)

Although بھاپھہ ends in a consonant rather than /ɑː/ or /eː/, the part about this final form is achieved by writing two he's consecutively does imply that an additional word-final ہ is significant for some reason.

Kutchkutch (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch:

• Is there any clarification that you can provide regarding the additional word-final ہ used in the spelling of بھاپھہ instead of بھاپھ? At Urdu_alphabet it says – So that's what I mean when I said it comes to interpreting Urdu handwriting and converting it to digital writing systems. In Urdu, when you write aspirated consonants, there's normally a flick at the end which isn't representing digitally, because the final choti-he is typically used to represent the long "a" or the "e" vowels (/ɑː/ or /eː/) (not to mention it's a bit wasteful to add a character just to represent a flick lol). The lemma بھاپھہ (bhāphh) is more closer to representing Urdu handwriting than say بھاپھ (bhāph), hence why some older digital dictionaries, mainly the DSAL dictionaries would add a second he in words which end with aspirated consonants.
• does imply that an additional word-final ہ is significant for some reason – For the most part, no – but I feel like since we're not being exact with Middle Hindi / Old Hindi lemmas, and are basing them on actual attestations, it's better to represent the attested form as true as possible. That's my only point.

Hopefully that makes it a bit more clear.نعم البدل (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@ نعم البدل Hopefully that makes it a bit more clear.

Yes it does. Although aspects of orthography may seem a bit trivial at first glance, these clarifications will certainly help with Middle Hindi / Old Hindi lemmas. Thanks for explaining the “flick” in such detail and suggesting that it better represent[s] the attested form. I have never encountered such a thorough explanation for it before.

Kutchkutch (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

MOD:inc-ohi-translit

@Kutchkutch: Shouldn't MOD:inc-ohi-translit be developed that transliterates each Perso-Arabic letters simply as it is? That'd be better than having to enter |tr= all the time. I'd do it ordinarily but I'm not enough versed in the script. Svartava (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava Shouldn't MOD:inc-ohi-translit be developed … That'd be better than having to enter |tr= all the time.

• Yes, that would definitely be easier than having to enter |tr= all the time.

• For example, if a term has an अलिफ़ [ا] after a consonant, then another instance of {{xlit}} has to used since it seems that अलिफ़ [ا] can only be transliterated as a instead of ā at the beginning of a term.

• I started MOD:inc-opa-Guru-translit for Old Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script for the same reason. MOD:Guru-translit has features that may not be appropriate for the automated |tr= parameter of Old Punjabi.

I'd do it ordinarily but I'm not enough versed in the script

• Developing MOD:inc-ohi-translit may require using MOD:ur-translit or MOD:pa-Arab-translit as a base.

• Since there are already several modules for Brahmic scripts, creating a new one is relatively not as difficult. However, since there are only these two modules available to use as a base for the Perso-Arabic script, it seems a bit more challenging.

• (There was no automated transliteration for Persian until fairly recently. And, there is unfortunately no automated translation for Sindhi in the Perso-Arabic script yet).

• Being familiar with the intricacies of the script would definitely helpful. Since User:نعم البدل was a major contributor to both modules, perhaps User:نعم البدل would be interested in this as well. Kutchkutch (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch:

• Developing MOD:inc-ohi-translit may require using MOD:ur-translit or MOD:pa-Arab-translit as a base. Probably Module:ur-translit. @Babr (I believe) did a great job with developing Module:ur-translit. I'm quite سُسْت (sust) when it comes to working on Modules but I have copied over ur-translit over to Module:pa-Arab-translit/sandbox so that I can work on sorting the Shahmukhi translit module which is based a lot more on the orthography (as opposed to the Urdu Translit policy), which I believe is what @Svartava is after (for Old Hindi)?

• on an unrelated note, would anyone be kind enough in helping develop Module:pa-IPA to help achieve my long-term objective as outlined on my talk page? نعم البدل (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch Thanks for creating MOD:inc-ohi-translit. I have also been wondering why do you write manual transliterations and transcriptions using {{xlit}} like {{xlit|hi-mid|نْ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|اَ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|تْ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|یْ}} rather than simply typing out naty. You have been doing this for Devanagari script as well. I assume it is for utilizing the module rather than putting "hard-typed" text so that any future changes in the module not remain undisplayed on the page (e.g. changing translit of ऋ (ŕ), changing nazalised anusvara/candrabindu from curl above the letter to m̐, etc. potential changes, etc.) but sometimes I think why to type something like {{xlit|hi-mid|نْ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|اَ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|تْ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|یْ}} instead of naty when it is quite unlikely to ever change and I think all such changes if ever made will be bot-enforced on the pages with "hard-typed" text as well. @نعم البدل, I am not an expert in creating modules so I doubt that I can help. Svartava (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Svartava: [S]ince there are only these two modules available to use as a base … [developing MOD:inc-ohi-translit] seems a bit more challenging [than Brahmic-script modules].

Making MOD:inc-ohi-translit produce the expected output was not as difficult as I initially thought. As you said, it should just transliterate each Perso-Arabic letter simply as it is. I used

• MOD:Sogd-translit
• MOD:Armi-translit

as a base for the algorithm, and the Perso-Arabic letters and diacritics are from MOD:ur-translit and MOD:pa-Arab-translit.

I have also been wondering why do you write manual transliterations and transcriptions using {{xlit}} … rather than simply typing out ‪naty‬.

• Yes, it is certainly inefficient to type

{{xlit|hi-mid|نْ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|اَ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|تْ}}{{xlit|hi-mid|یْ}}‬

compared to typing the four-character sequence naty. Hopefully, MOD:inc-ohi-translit either

• makes {{xlit}} unnecessary for the |tr= parameter
• or at least minimises the number of instances of {{xlit}} to just one

for Old/Middle Hindi.

• There is a possibility that the transliteration value of a character changes, and then any "hard-typed" text won't be automatically updated. However, another reason for using {{xlit}} is to prevent unintended human error due to the idiosyncrasies of the Latin script.

• Using the native script can be more intuitive than the romanisation. While discussing improvements to CAT:Hindi modules, User:Atitarev suggested allowing the native script as an input to templates in addition to romanisation.

Kutchkutch (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reverting homeland pronunciation with a schwa.

It is clearly defined right here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeland 50.170.179.122 16:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, the rollback was in error. What happened is that I just saw the last edit and rollbacked them. Svartava (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for fixing so quickly. And I know never to do mobile edits again. 50.170.179.122 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

About the Local Dublin accent

Hi. Please don't revert the recent edit on the butter page. Its Local Dublin English pronunciation that I added has a proper source. Localdublin (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Localdublin Sorry about that, the revert was in error. I saw only the last edit while patrolling so hit revert as that looked like a simple change of labels made without any corresponding changes. Svartava (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why am I removed?

I still have the right to edit Template namespace. Besides the block was unfair in the first place. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed it since template editor right is most commonly used for editing protected modules more than protected templates, the block is inconsistent with that. Also, you seem inactive, but if the module namespace block is lifted or you have a valid need for editing some protected templates, you could rerequest it later. – Svārtava (tɕ) 07:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a need for editing Template:ja-verbconj-auto now because its format contains an error. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it's protection to autopatroller. – Svārtava (tɕ) 05:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. I see you are deliberately trolling me. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)