Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Module talk:hi-noun. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Module talk:hi-noun, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Module talk:hi-noun in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Module talk:hi-noun you have here. The definition of the word Module talk:hi-noun will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofModule talk:hi-noun, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
@AryamanA, Atitarev Anatoli asked me to implement auto-declension of Hindi nouns but it looks like it's already partly implemented. What I've been working on is more general, supporting multiword expressions (e.g. adjective-noun expressions), singular-only and plural-only nouns, alternative declensions, overrides, footnotes, phonetic respelling and similar sorts of things; basically the same things that Module:uk-noun, Module:be-noun, Module:bg-nominal and Module:ru-noun already support. Some of these things may be less necessary for Hindi, which has much simpler declensions than the Slavic languages. The syntax would be essentially the same as is implemented by Module:uk-noun and Module:be-noun, but with the addition of phonetic respelling support. Is this work still needed? Once implemented, I was planning on running a bot to convert all the template-based declensions to the new {{hi-ndecl}}. Benwing2 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Oh that would be wonderful. This is a... skeleton of a module, and I don't have as much time to dedicate to working on anything more intensive than making new entries these days. If you're interested in working on it, I would be more than happy to let you take over! And from there, it would not be hard to extend it to Punjabi/Gujarati/Marathi/Bengali/other Indo-Aryan languages with similar systems. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)22:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, AryamanA: Thanks, guys. @AryamanA, is there a native way to force the shwa to NOT be dropped as वास्तुकला(vāstukalā) (vāstukalā). I understand that "a" is not silent here for etymological reasons - वास्तु(vāstu) + कला(kalā). If there is no native way to do that, would an additional (invisible) symbol after क be appropriate (to force "ka", not "k") or should we use a manual transliteration in such cases? For @Benwing2, it's probably the same effort but I think we should really use native ways as much as possible, it will also be helpful for the pronunciation module. BTW, Burmese modules (by Wyang) use a bunch of tricks (symbols) where native methods don't work. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)23:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Atitarev: None that I am aware of (and thus none that would be familiar to any Hindi speaking/learning Wiktionary user). One idea: how about allowing an indicator for syllable breaks in the respelling or something like that? I think that would resolve most, if not all, of the schwa dropping problems in declensions. ॰ could be used for that, and it's native, so e.g. वास्तु॰कला. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)03:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
@Atitarev, AryamanAडोई(ḍoī) is a unique declension in spelling but not pronunciation, due to the difference in Devanagari between independent and diacritic variants of vowels. It would be helpful for me if either of you could point out more examples of independent variants of the various declensions, and in particular create declensions for these terms using {{hi-decl-noun}}, as is done on डोई(ḍoī). An example with independent masculine -ā is कुँआ(kũā), which is currently a hard redirect to कुआँ(kuā̃) but should be fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, AryamanA: Yes, these inflections are logical (expected), despite the spellings. I will look for more words ending in these independent long vowels आ(ā), ई(ī), ऊ(ū).
अधर्म्(adharm, “sin, vice”) - it should probably default to "adharm" with this position, some rules may need to be revisited, e.g. vowel + liquid (l/r) + consonant.
@Benwing2, AryamanA: Here you are (2nd param). I couldn't do ALL. I can force the dropping of certain shwa by inserting a virama, which fixes the following syllable but I can't tell it to pronounce it when needed, not sure if there is a native way. Sanskrit, unlike Hindi pronounces all inherent "a", unless they are killed with virama (haland) --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev If there's no native way to force a pronounced schwa, we could do it using a special symbol ala User:Wyang, like * to force a schwa. I'm not sure what symbols Wyang uses for which purposes in Burmese. Benwing2 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev See w:Hindustani grammar, where declinable adjectives appear to behave differently from nouns. विदेशी(videśī) is indeclinable as an adjective, but apparently declines as a noun in -ī when a noun. BTW the declension for विदेशी(videśī) is wrong; it's masculine but using a feminine declension. Benwing2 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Yeah, adjectives have a different declensional system. Only certain ones ending in -ā (declinability for -ā has to be specified manually; that's why videśī is indeclinable) are declined, and in that case it's -ā for masculine singular nominative, -e for masculine everything else, -ī for feminine singular, and -ī̃ for feminine plural. It's not like the noun declensions. {{hi-adj-auto}} handles it already as I mentioned below. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)06:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I am thinking of doing a run to add {{rfinfl}} to nouns that are missing their declension. Any objections? Also are there any indeclinable, plural-only or adjectivally-declined nouns in Hindi? Any nouns in Hindi with alternative declensions? (I guess तारीख़(tārīx) is an example in the plural. Any others?) Benwing2 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, Benwing2: I support doing that! There are definitely some plural only e.g. compounds like बाल-बच्चे(bāl-bacce). Thankfully for us, only the second element is declined in these. As for adjectival compounds (do you mean adjective + noun?), they can happen in theory but I can't say I know of any entries for any so far, nor can I think of one off the top of my head. It would have to be something idiomatic I suppose. BTW, {{hi-adj-auto}} exists. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)06:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, AryamanA I'm surprised there are no adjective-noun compounds made up of declined adjectives, since they are common. What I mean by adjectivally-declined nouns are nouns that are declined according to adjectival declensions, e.g. a noun declined like barā "big", with -ā in the direct singular and -e in all other forms. Benwing2 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev Yes, I will maybe have a version of the module ready tonight, if not probably tomorrow night. A lot of the declensions can probably be filled in automatically using the gender in the headword. There are a few endings that will have to be handled manually, e.g. masculines in -ā and feminines in -iyā. Benwing2 (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Module is almost ready
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
@Benwing2, AryamanA: Thank you. And I think you're going to apply a similar logic to the headword later on, like you did so well with Slavic languages, right? @AryamanA, what do we want to see in the noun headword? E.g. plural forms, if different from lemma or in any case? Maybe all three forms, which may be different from lemma? --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)05:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, Benwing2: I'm not sure adding any inflection to the headword is necessary, given that we haven't standardized that on South Asian languages, and either way it appears to be a stylistic choice... don't want to have too much redundancy with the table. But yes, would love respellings in the headword. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)05:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, AryamanA: OK, the respellings can be added by bot once we get them working on the declension tables. The catboiler works now; {{hi-noun cat}} with no arguments, or (for one-off categories) with one argument consisting of arbitrary text that will be prepended with "This category contains Hindi nouns ". The table-of-contents template is automatically added. Benwing2 (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Nouns with manual translit
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Benwing2, AryamanA Thanks. I have fixed what's fixable. Left where it's required for now in the headword. Let's also review our forcing of shwa method. "॰" is definitely not going to work on प्रजनन. I suggest to use an invisible * (in Devanagari or translit) e.g. प्रज*नन to get "prajanan". This could fix the inflection table. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)12:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, AryamanA "Unmarked" is Wikipedia's term for declensions where the endings are added onto the direct singular stem without a stem ending that is removed. A question though about vocative plural ... I have assumed in words with nasalized direct singular that the vocative plural is also nasalized. If this is not true, I need to fix the module. Benwing2 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Atitarev: You know, now I am less sure. The vocative and oblique have generally been merged in speech; I personally do not distinguish them. Standard written form does. The problem is there aren't (m)any words with nasal endings that can refer to people, so finding vocative plural attestations is difficult... —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)02:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Atitarev, AryamanA I went through all the cases of various sorts needing phonetic respelling. I came across a bunch of issues, which I've enumerated here. Aryaman, if you have a chance, could you take a look at them? It's enough just to fill in comments to the right of each issue. Thanks!
रिआया: plurale tantum? - AT: sg tantum, plural meaning
कारख़ाना, कारखाना: regular or unmarked? guessing regular A: regular
क़िला, किला: regular or unmarked? guessing regular A: regular
ज़हर: should the translit be zahar not zahr? I changed it this way. AT: zahar, that's the only way for CaCaCa when there's no virama A: agree
ज्यादा, ज़्यादा: can this adj be declined? A: nope
दवाख़ाना: regular or unmarked? guessing regular A: regular
टॅकनोलॉजी: should this really be transcribed ṭĕkanolŏjī? not ṭĕknolŏjī? AT: ṭĕknolŏjī A: agreed
नेत्र: is tr=netr correct? pronunciation disagrees with translit. AT: netr A: I think netră: AT response - it depends how we decide on it, please see Module_talk:hi-translit#a_after_non-native_consonant_clusters "pātr"/"mitr" examples. It's a matter of choice, both for translit.
पारंपरिक: should this be tr=pāramparik? AT: yes, per McGregor, probably unpredictably A: yes it should be
असमीकरण: should this be tr=asamīkaraṇ not tr=asamīkraṇ? AT: asamīkaraṇ , also समीकरण samīkaraṇ (McGregor), both unpredictably A: agreed
ऊष्मीकरण: should this be tr=ūṣmīkaraṇ? AT: ūṣmīkaraṇ, it seems a bunch of Sanskrit derivations are pronounced that way, possibly analysed as separate morphemes A: agreed, and yes, they're separate morphemes
भूमंडलीय ऊष्मीकरण: should this be tr=bhūmaṇḍalīya ūṣmīkaraṇ not tr=bhūmaṇḍalīya ūṣmīkraṇ? AT: the former per above A: agreed
तटस्थीकरण: should this be tr=taṭasthīkaraṇ? AT: ditto A: agreed
ध्रुवीकरण: should this be tr=dhruvīkaraṇ? AT: ditto A: agreed
निरस्त्रीकरण: should this be tr=nirastrīkaraṇ? AT: ditto A: agreed
प्रत्यक्षीकरण: should this be tr=pratyakṣīkaraṇ? AT: ditto A: agreed
मशीनीकरण: should this be tr=maśīnīkaraṇ? AT: ditto A: agreed
वर्गीकरण: should this be tr=vargīkaraṇ? AT: ditto A: agreed
संक्षिप्तीकरण: should this be tr=saṅkṣiptīkaraṇ? AT: ditto A: agreed
प्रांगार द्विजारेय: m or f? and is |tr=prāṅgār dvijārey correct? A: yes
प्रायापिज़्म: m or f? and is |tr=prāyāpizm correct? AT: m, correct, -ism often spelled without a virama and nuqta, resulting in -ijm/-izm, weakened shwa in pronunciation after "m" A: definitely no weakened schwa, but -izam is an acceptable pronunciation of the cluster: AT: response the virama between would contradict -izam/-ijam
प्रिय: is the rendered pronunciation /pɾiː.jᵊ/ correct? A: yes
फ़ख़्र: is tr=faxr correct? AT: yes A: agreed
फेफडे: should this be deleted since we have फेफड़ा? A: probably...
बीज गणित: m or f? and is |tr=bīja gaṇita correct? A: m, and no, fill fix
बौद्ध धर्म: auto translit is bauddh dharma, presumably should actually be bauddh dharm, the correct translit AT: yes A: agreed
हिन्दू धर्म: same issue as with बौद्ध धर्म A: agreed
भिन्नता: is manual |tr=bhinntā correct? AT: should be bhinnatā (bhinnătā in McGregor) but we have no rule on weakened shwa A: I think bhinntā is good, nn clusters and other geminates don't cause weakened schwas: AT response: McGregor is wrong on "bhinnătā"?
भौर: m or f? and is |tr=bhaura correct? AT: should be bhaur, gender? A: not a word, भोर(bhor) is the right spelling
मंडलवक: m or f? and is |tr=maṇḍalavak correct? A: yes, m
मदहोश: is tr=madahośa correct? also the definitions are redundant. AT: madhoś per McGregor A: agreed
मायने: plurale tantum needing phonetic respelling (note to self)
युरेनस: I have deleted tr=yūrainas as wrong, please verify, thanks! Also what is the gender? AT: new translit is correct A: agreed
योनि सेक्स: I have deleted |tr=yonī seks as wrong, please verify, thanks! Also what is the gender? A: m I think
राजनीतिज्ञ: auto tr=rājnītigy with final -gy is correct? A: should have weakened schwa imo
वलयिन: m or f? and is |tr=valayin correct? A: no idea to both, never heard this word in my life
शैतानवादी: I have deleted |tr=śaitanavadi as wrong, please verify, thanks! Also what is the gender? AT: correct, m A: agreed
श्वेता: I have deleted |tr=śveta as wrong. Is the noun श्वेता with meaning "white" correct? Should it be "whiteness" or "the color white", or an adjective? A: श्वेत(śvet) is the colour (but सफ़ेद(safed) is way more common)
संयोजन: I have deleted |tr=saṅyojan as wrong, please verify. AT: yes A: yes
संवेदना: I have deleted |tr=samvednā, please verify. AT: yes A: yes
A: Appears both are reasonable (but sarvănām with weakened schwa), I prefer the latter.
साँई, सांई: Auto translit sānī is probably wrong. When fixed, remove manual translit from सांई. A: f
सिंह: Is auto translit siṅh correct? AT: correct per McGregor but he may transliterate chandrabindu and anusvara differently A: siṅh is correct yes, it's pronounced siṅgh universally
सैकता: m or f? and is |tr=saikatā correct? AT: should be "saiktā" IMO A: fixed
सोणिये: This is messed up; not nominative form.
सौंदर्यशास्त्र: Is auto translit tr=saũdaryaśāstr correct?
हीमप्रपात: m or f? and is |tr=hīmprapāt correct? AT: correct
हुस्न: Pronunciation husna disagrees with translit husn. AT: I think husn (husn in McGregor) is fine but we don't have weakened shwa rule
@Benwing2, AryamanA: I responded again to some by A. Let's decide how we do मित्र "mitr" or "mitra" and similar. Both ways are possible in different dictionaries. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)
alternatives in -īe/-ie
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@Atitarev, AryamanA I am thinking of doing a bot run at some point to add declensions to nouns. If there's no manual translit and the gender is in the headword, it should be possible to auto-add declensions to most types of nouns, I think. The only exceptions I know of are masculine in -ā (which can be regular or unmarked) and feminines in -iyā (which can use the -ā declension or -iyā declension). Any others? Benwing2 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA I have written the script to do this, just waiting for confirmation that I haven't missed any cases (other than the ones mentioned above) that need to be skipped. Benwing2 (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Atitarev The bot run is almost done. When it's done, it will have added declensions to 2,383 nouns and left 726 alone, for one of a number of reasons:
279 WARNING: Won't add declension: Masculine head ends in -ā or -ā̃, needs manual evaluation:
226 WARNING: Won't add declension: No gender:
167 WARNING: Won't add declension: Space in headword:
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
@AryamanA, Atitarev I am going to add support for plurale tantum nouns to this module, but I'm not sure how they are declined. Here are various examples:
अंतरिक्ष: "outer space", "the heavens"; masculine plurale tantum; is current declension correct?
अत्फ़ाल: "children"; masculine; should this be plurale tantum? How declined?
जटा: "dreadlocks"; feminine; should this be plurale tantum? how declined?
औलाद: "offspring", "children"; feminine plurale tantum; how declined?
अवाम: "the public"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
अहबाब: "friends", "companions"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
उमरा: "people of high rank"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
एशियाई खेल: "Asian Games"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
ऐनक: "glasses, spectacles"; feminine plurale tantum; how declined?
काग़ज़ात: "documents, papers"; masculine plurale tantum (is gender correct?); how declined?
काली-पीली: "taxicabs, taxis"; feminine plurale tantum; how declined?
किंतु-परंतु: "ifs and buts"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
किमी: "km" (??); masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
ख़ुशख़बरी: "good news"; feminine plurale tantum; how declined?
गाली-गलौज: "abuse and cursing"; feminine plurale tantum; how declined?
गोरू:"cattle"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
छोले भटूरे: "chhole bhature"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
जज़्बात: "feelings, emotions"; masculine plurale tantum (is gender correct?); how declined?
प्रजा: "subjects", "people"; feminine plurale tantum; how declined?
फ़ीस: "fees"; feminine plurale tantum; how declined?
भाई-बहन: "siblings"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
माँ-बाप: "parents"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
माता-पिता: "parents"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
मायने: "meanings, nuances"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
मुजाहिदीन: "mujahideen"; masculine plurale tantum; how declined?
This is not all the existing pluralia tantum but is a good sample of them and should cover the various cases. Some examples may be redundant to others. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, AryamanA: I can't answer many questions but it seems with words like माता-पिता(mātā-pitā), only the last part is inflected, so inflects like plural of पिता(pitā).
@Benwing2, Atitarev: For nouns, generally only the second element declines, but there exist variants where both decline. I'm not sure how common it is for both to decline, it may depend on the term. E.g. in my experience, माता-पिता(mātā-pitā) only the second element declines, but लेखा-जोखा(lekhā-jokhā) it seems both declining is more common (confirmed by Google hits).
@AryamanA, Benwing2: I am following all the discussions but I have exceeded my poor knowledge on many recent questions and I am not able to find more good references. I will join in on the conversion to the new templates, once most of the issues are resolved. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)07:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Atitarev: My apologies, I was not thorough enough in answering these.
This I hadn't thought of before. माता-पिता(mātā-pitā), only पिता(pitā) declines, and as a plural only. Basically, the paradigm is the exact same as पिता(pitā) just with the undeclined माता(mātā) prepended. The compound is always treated as a plural, e.g. an adjective modifying it would always take on masculine plural forms.
लेखा-जोखा(lekhā-jokhā), on the other hand, declines as any other countable noun, both singular and plural. Only the second element is declined, so we have obl./voc. sg./dir. pl. लेखा-जोखे(lekhā-jokhe), obl. pl. लेखा-जोखों(lekhā-jokhõ), voc. pl. लेखा-जोखो(lekhā-jokho).
किंतु-परंतु(kintu-parantu) is again declined the same way माता-पिता(mātā-pitā) is, only second element declines and follows the regular forms of a u-stem masculine noun.
अस्त्र-शस्त्र(astra-śastra) is same again, plural-only, only second element declines.
हिलना-डुलना(hilnā-ḍulnā) both elements conjugate as normal, replacing the slot that a single verb would take. E.g. oblique infinitive is हिलने-डुलने(hilne-ḍulne), past progressive masculine singular is हिल-डुल रहा था(hil-ḍul rahā thā).
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
@AryamanA, Atitarev I did a big pass over the Hindi lemmas. This led to a ton of questions. Some of the more important ones are below:
उड़िया, उइग़ुर, ख्मेर, चेक, चेचेन, जर्मन, डच, तमिल, तातार, थाई, पोलिश, बड़ो, लोजबान, सिंहला, स्लोवेनियन, इंडोनेशियन, बम्बैया: guessing these are feminine as languages.
कोकबोरोक, हिंदको, बंगला, रेख़ता, स्कॉट्स: are these masculine or feminine as a language? Given as masculine.
स्पेनी, कोरियाई, हिन्दुस्तानी: are these masculine or feminine as a language? Given as masculine but I changed them to feminine.
अरोरा, अस्थाना, ओबामा, कच्छारा, कुशवाहा, एशिया, ऑस्ट्रिया, ओझा, बनिया, मराठा, ओशिआनिया, कनाडा, कन्हैया, कलकत्ता, क़ाहिरा, कातालोनिया, कान्हा, कुशवाहा, कृष्णा, कॅटलोनिया, कोटा, कोरिया, कोलकाता, गया, गुप्ता, गोवा/गोआ, चाइना, झा, तेलंगाना, दशहरा, धतूरा, पोखरा, फ़्लोरिडा, बोलिविया, मंगोलिया, मखीजा, मथुरा, मराठवाडा, मल्होत्रा, महात्मा, मादरेचा, मित्रा, म्यान्मा, यहूदा, रशिया, रेख़ता, वागरेचा, शर्मा, श्रीलंका, सक्सेना, सिसोदिया, सोमालिया, हड़प्पा, etc.: Can I assume that all masculine place names in -ā are regular rather than unmarked? I have made this assumption. What about masculine personal names, surnames and castes?
ओझा, कायस्थ, क्षत्रिय, खत्री, जाट, दे, ब्राह्मण, मराठा: are these caste names masculine or feminine? Given as masculine. Also it appears the names can be both caste names and names of members of the caste (except ब्राह्मण?). I assume the latter can be masculine or feminine based on sense, like names of ethnicities (except क्षत्रिय, which appears to have feminine क्षत्रियण).
अरोरा: is this caste name masculine or feminine? Given as feminine.
अग्रवाल, अरोरा, असलम, आडवाणी, ओबामा, कच्छारा, कुशवाहा, कपूर, केजरीवाल, कैफ, खंडेलवाल, ख़ान, गाँधी, गांगुली, गुप्ता, गॉर्डन, चंद, चौधरी, जलाल, झा, तेंदुलकर, त्रिपाठी, त्रिमूर्ति, त्रिवेदी, बंसल, बच्चन, मखीजा, मल्होत्रा, मादरेचा, मित्रा, वागरेचा, शर्मा, शिंदे, सक्सेना, सरनाईक, सरवटे, सिसोदिया, सेठ, हार्वर्ड, हिंगड, etc.: Surnames are generally given as masculine, should they actually be masculine/feminine by sense?
@Benwing2, AryamanA: I had a look at the first on the list - उड़िया and उइग़ुर. As language names, they are definitely feminine but they also have senses for people, which is not in dictionaries. If the forms are correct, maybe @AryamanA can advise on the gender.
@Benwing2, Atitarev: I can say this definitely: all languages are feminine. All ethnicity names, surnames, caste names can be either masculine or feminine. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)
@AryamanA OK. Are they unmarked or simply indeclinable? In particular, surnames and personal names can be pluralized; are they pluralized with endings in the oblique, or are they indeclinable? BTW I already added regular declensions to these words, I'll change them to be unmarked or indeclinable depending on your answer. Benwing2 (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA Thanks. BTW, the words referring to castes can presumably either refer to people in those castes or to the castes themselves. When referring to people, they are understandably either masculine or feminine by sense, but what about when referring to the castes themselves? E.g. for अरोरा, it could be used as a caste name in the Hindi equivalent of "Arora is a caste originating from the Punjab region of India and Pakistan". In such a usage, is it masculine or feminine? Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
@Atitarev, AryamanA I went through and converted all surnames to have g=mf and a masculine/feminine declension. I made all surnames ending in -ā be unmarked, per the discussion above. Here is the list of all such surnames, please verify that all are actually unmarked, i.e. indeclinable in the singular rather than ending in -e in the oblique/vocative singular: अरोरा, अस्थाना, ओबामा, कच्छारा, कुशवाहा, गुप्ता, झा, मखीजा, मल्होत्रा, मादरेचा, मित्रा, मिश्र, मेहता, वर्मा, वागरेचा, शर्मा, सक्सेना, सिसोदिया. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
@Atitarev, AryamanA Here is the list of remaining issues, except for some questions about the gender of individual words, which can wait. Apologies for the number of questions.
इस्तांबुल: gender? also is tr=istānbul (not auto tr=istāmbul) correct?
एमएलए: how declined? and is tr=emele correct? (auto tr=emaelae)
ग़ुस्लख़ाना: should this be tr=guslxānā?
बुलंदशहर, शहर: śahr or śahar? translit and pronun disagree
वहम: tr=vahm or tr=vahma? translit and pronun disagree
संलयन: tr=sanlayan or tr=sãlayan?
हुस्न: tr=husn or tr=husna? translit and pronun disagree
सहस्र: tr=sahasr or tr=sahasra? translit and pronun disagree
समुदाय: how is this pronounced? pronun and translit disagree
शाह: how is this pronounced? pronun and translit disagree
रहस्य: how is this pronounced? pronun disagrees with translit and Urdu
रस्म: how is this pronounced? pronun gives | but it has a virama
रत्न: how is this pronounced? pronun gives only but it has a virama
तत्त्व: pronunciation and translit disagree
दलदल: tr=daldal, tr=daladal, or both?
नागरिकता: tr=nāgriktā, tr=nāgrikatā or both?
सामी: does this actually mean "Semites, Semitic people" or "Semitic person"?
कन्नड़: This has two pronuns, one with final -a, I'm assuming it should have two translits.
केरल: Should this have translit/pronun kerala? Urdu equivalent کیرلا has final -a.
गुजरात: this has two etymologies, one a state "Gujarat" and one a city "Gujrat" but both given with the same pronun; should they be different?
पुराना नियम: is this declined differently in the oblique sg?
बंजारा: defined as "the Banjara or Lambadi people", should it actually be "member of the Banjara or Lambadi people"?
बक़रीद: should this be tr=baqarīd not default tr=baqrīd?
मित्र: should this be tr=mitr not default tr=mitra? Urdu is متر without any final vowel, which is normally indicated.
मोंटेनीगरो: gender? given as masculine but with attention note asking to check gender.
यहूदा इस्करियोती: does the first part decline differently in the oblique?
रोमानिया, सेंट लूसिया: given as feminine, is this correct? most countries in -yā are masculine.
ऑस्ट्रिया: given as both masc and fem, is this correct? most countries in -yā are masculine.
लैला और मजनू: I have marked this as masculine singular-only, is that correct?
विराटनगर: I have changed the tr to tr=virāṭnagar, correct?
शाहमुखी: I have assumed this to be feminine as other scripts appear to be feminine.
शिंदे, शिगात्से, सरवटे: How is this declined? I have assumed it to be indeclinable.
शिव: Given with two pronunciations, one with final long -ā. Is this correct? Maybe it's actually a final short -a? The translit needs to be updated.
शुक्र: How should it be pronounced and transliterated? Presumably as tr=śukr not default tr=śukra, per the Urdu شکر?
हवाई: Is feminine correct? It's marked as "check this".
अति (likewise अभिव्यक्ति): Given with pronun like this: {{hi-IPA||अती}} Is this intended to indicate two pronuns, one with short final -i and the other with long final -ī? If so it doesn't work.
अतिसंवेदनशील: This has translit atisãvedanśīl but the pronunciation uses a respelling to indicate /ə.t̪ɪ.səm.ʋeː.d̪ən.ʃiːl/, without a nasal vowel before the v. Is this correct and/or normal? If normal, should we fix the translit to not make it a nasal vowel?
अग्निशस्त्र: pronun has respelling अग्नीशस्त्र indicating a long -ī- in the middle. Is this correct and/or normal? The same respelling is not done to अग्निशमन, अग्निपरीक्षा or अग्निशामक
अज्ञेयवाद: at this point it has pronun respelling अज्ञेय॰वाद, which has no effect. Is this correct? Same for अज्ञेयवादी with pronun respelling अज्ञेय॰वादी.
अनुपस्थित: pronun has respelling अनूपस्थित indicating a long -ū- in the middle. Is this correct and/or normal? There are a large number of other words in anu- without similar respelling.
अम्लता (likewise अम्लपित्त): Given with two pronuns अम्ल-ता and अम्लता. This causes two pronuns /əm.lᵊ.t̪ɑː/, and /əm.lə.t̪ɑː/, . This appears to indicate that reduced schwa is phonemic. Should we be transliterating it as ă?
@Benwing2, AryamanA: I welcome the introduction of the weak shwa. Transliterated as "ă"? It may solve some discrepancies between translit and IPA. @AryamanA said it's not always predictable. However, we do have many cases when it's shown in IPA as "ᵊ" but we either ignore or use a normal "a" in the translit. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)23:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
अर्जेन्टीना, अर्जेंटीना: Note to self: Put main at अर्जेण्टीना.
अल्पसंख्यक: Still syllabifies badly as /əl.p.səŋ.kʰjək/ with respelling अल्प-संख्यक. Same for ऑक्सफ़ोर्ड with respelling ऑक्स-फ़ोर्ड, syllabified as /ɔk.s.pʰoːɾɖ/, and many others.
असंवेदनशील: Pronunciation says /ə.səm.ʋeː.d̪ən.ʃiːl/ but translit asãvedanśīl. Is the pronunciation normal in cases of anusvara + v? If normal, should we fix the translit to not make it a nasal vowel? Same issue in अतिसंवेदनशील, संवेदनशील, असंवैधानिक, संवैधानिक.
असहयोग: Pronunciation says /ə.səʱ.joːɡ/, what does the raised ʱ after a vowel mean?
अहंकार: Manual pron respelling forces and , is this a special exception or something that should be handled by default?
आठों पहर, पहर: Manual respellings force but /peːʱɾ/; one is presumably wrong. Also, is this an exceptional pronun?
आत्महत्या: Pronun given as /ɑːt̪.mᵊ.ɦət̪.jɑː/, should this use translit ātmăhatyā?
आवाज़: Pronun given as /ə.ʋɑːz/, /ɑː.ʋɑːz/. Should the translit follow?
इकहत्तर: Pronun given as /ɪ.kʰət̪.t̪əɾ/ or /ɪ.kət̪.t̪əɾ/, should the first actually be /ɪk.ɦət̪.t̪əɾ/?
उदाहरण: Second pronun given as /ʊ.d̪ʱɑː.ɾəɳ/, should this actually be /ʊd̪.ɦɑː.ɾəɳ/? Also should there be a second translit to reflect this pronun?
उन्होंने: Pronun is rendered as /ʊn.ɦoːn.neː/, which is probably wrong.
ऊँचा: Should second pronun /uː.t͡ʃɑː/ be reflected in the translit?
एकड़: Should second pronun /eː.kəɾ/ be reflected in the translit?
एहसान: Is /ə.ɦə.sɑːn/, correct as the only pronun? If so, how should this be reflected in the translit (currently ehsān, which is wrong)?
ऐयाशी: Is second pronun /əj.jɑː.ʃiː/ correct? If so, should it be reflected in the translit?
कम्युनिज़म: Second pronun given as /kəm.jʊ.nɪz.mᵊ/, I changed it to /kəm.jʊ.nɪzm/. Correct?
कर्मभूमि: Note to self: Change translit handling of final -rm.
ख़त्म करना: First pronun is /kʰət̪.mə‿.kəɾ.nɑː/. Is that intended? ख़त्म by itself is /kʰə.t̪əm/ or /xət̪m/.
खींचना: First pronun is /kʰiːɲ.t͡ʃnɑː/, is that correct in light of recent discussions?
जन्मदिन: Can this be pronounced either janmadin or janamdin, despite the spelling?
ज़र्रा: Pronun given as zarraa, causes /zəɾ.ɾə.ᵊ/. What does this mean?
ज़ेहन: Pronun given as ज़हन, yielding . Correct?
जातिवाद: Pronun given as जातीवाद, with long -ī-. Correct? Likewise जातिवादी.
तनख़्वाह: All given pronuns are lacking the व. Correct?
धर्मशाला: Pronun gives /d̪ʱə.ɾəm.ʃɑː.lɑː/ despite the virama. Correct?
पेंशन: Auto translit pẽśan but pronun /peːn.ʃən/. Is pronun correct? If so, should the translit change? Do all words in anusvara + ś work this way?
फ्रेन्चाइज़: Note to self: This is a nuqtaless form serving as the main entry. Fix it.
चाँदी: Two pronuns given, चाँदी and चांदी, which produce the same results. I removed them. Likewise सूँघना and बाँधना.
भैंस: Has pronun respelling भैँस, which is the same as the title. I removed it. Likewise भैंसा, भौंह, सांप, सौंह; also मँगवाना, मँगेतर (in the opposite direction).
मधुमेह: Has respelling मधू-मेह. Is this predictable?
मानवीय: Pronun disagrees with translit.
मैंने: Pronun is /mɛːn.neː/, almost certainly wrong.
संकलक: Why is the pronun respelling given as संक-अलक? Seems wrong.
संवाद: Pronun has /səm.ʋɑːd̪/ but translit sãvād. Which is correct? Likewise संवाददाता, संवेदनशील, संवैधानिक
सर्वसाधारण: Translit was sarvasādhāraṇ, I changed it to sarvsādhāraṇ, and pronun accordingly. Likewise सर्वहारा.
सिंहला: Pronun given as /sɪ̃ʱ.lɑː/. Correct?
स्वायत्तता: Pronun given as /sʋɑː.jət̪t̪.t̪ɑː/. Does it really have three t's in a row?
आगरा, उड़ीसा, ओडिशा, ऊपरवाला, ओझा, कन्हैया, कान्हा, कृष्णा, कलकत्ता, कोटा, कोलकाता, गया, गोआ, गोवा, तेलंगाना, दशहरा, धतूरा, नोएडा, पटना, पोखरा, बँटवारा, बनिया, ब्रह्मा, मथुरा, मराठवाडा, मराठा, महात्मा, रेख़्ता, श्रीलंका, हड़प्पा, हरियाण: Proper nouns that I didn't change to 'unmarked' because they appear derived from common nouns or I have questions about them. Please let me know if they should be 'unmarked'.
@Atitarev, Benwing2: Going through this. BTW, regarding your note to self on the first one, please don't move the anusvara entries to the full-consonant forms, we standardize at the anusvara like most dictionaries (e.g. Oxford) do these days. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)13:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Standardizing alternatives
Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion
@Atitarev, AryamanA Should we standardize on chandrabindu as the main article when there are chandrabindu/anusvara alternatives and the character doesn't go above the line? E.g. महँगा is alt form of महंगा, मूँछ is alt form of मूंछ, साँस is alt form of सांस, etc. but conversely सांप is alt form of साँप, अंधेरा is alt form of अँधेरा, etc. What about explicit n vs. anusvara? E.g. शान्त is alt form of शांत, सम्पूर्ण is alt form of संपूर्ण, हिन्द is alt form of हिंद, अत्यन्त is alt form of अत्यंत, अन्तर्गत is alt form of अंतर्गत, etc. but conversely समंदर is alt form of समन्दर, हिंदुस्तानी is alt form of हिन्दुस्तानी, हिंदू is alt form of हिन्दू, etc.. हिंद vs. हिन्दू are related but have opposing tendencies in alt forms. Benwing2 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, AryamanA OK. I made a list of all cases where a form with anusvara is an alt form of a main lemma with chandrabindu or explicit n/m. Should we rename all of them? Note that I am guessing that anusvara is only universally correct when it comes before a (homorganic) stop sound; before a fricative or approximant, or a non-homorganic stop sound, use chandrabindu or explicit n, and word-finally, use chandrabindu on vowels that don't go above the line, and anusvara on vowels that do go above the line. Is that right?
The following list contains proposed renames based on alt forms. The form on the left is the current main lemma, and the form on the right is the current alt form that I'm thinking should be the main lemma. I marked ?? or ??? by cases that do not involve a stop sound, as described above.
आँकड़ा -> आंकड़ा
खण्ड -> खंड
घुँघरू -> घुंघरू
चाँदी -> चांदी
दाँत -> दांत
बाँस -> बांस ??
बाँह -> बांह ??
भाँग -> भांग
मँगवाना -> मंगवाना
माँ -> मां ???
माँग -> मांग
माँगना -> मांगना
मूँग -> मूंग
राँची -> रांची
लँगड़ा -> लंगड़ा
हँसना -> हंसना ??
हँसाना -> हंसाना ??
हाँ -> हां ???
हालाँकि -> हालांकि
अँधेरा -> अंधेरा
आँसू -> आंसू
आनन्द -> आनंद
आरम्भ -> आरंभ
इन्द्र -> इंद्र
उसांस -> उसाँस ???
चन्द्रबिन्दु -> चंद्रबिंदु
चाँटा -> चांटा
चुम्बन -> चुंबन
टाँग -> टांग
तन्दूर -> तंदूर
पाँच -> पांच
पाँचवाँ -> पांचवाँ ? (no alt form currently)
पाँव -> पांव ???
पूँछ -> पूंछ
बाँह -> बांह ??
महँगा vs. महंगा ?? which one is better?
महँगाई and महंगा are main forms, inconsistent
main forms मुँह, मुँह काला करना, मुँह मीठा करना, मुँहतोड़, मुँहतोड़ जवाब, मुँहमाँगा, मुँहासा
समन्दर -> समंदर
साँप -> सांप
main form सल्लू साँप
सौगन्द -> सौगंध
हिन्दुस्तानी -> हिंदुस्तानी
हिन्दू -> हिंदू
What do you think? Should we rename? Benwing2 (talk)
@Atitarev, Benwing2: Having looked into this more, I don't think we should do any automated pagemoves because we risk losing information or even providing false information. Basically, chandrabindu instances can be replaced with anusvara, but the reverse is not always true. And nasal + consonant clusters can be replaced with anusvara but it's not equivalent to the chandrabindu-type anusvara. Some of them I will move manually when I am sure. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, AryamanA All of the cases above with an arrow in them represent situations where both the forms with chandrabindu (or explicit n) and anusvara exist; what I'm proposing is just changing which one is the main form vs. the alt form. Benwing2 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Okay so, I am good with all nasal consonant -> anusvara moves. We should go ahead with those.
As for chandrabindu, the historically "correct" or "standard" way for anusvara vs. chandrabindu is the chandrabindu form, but this isn't really adhered to in modern times (possibly because many keyboards e.g. Gboard on Android don't even have a key for the chandrabindu). So from a descriptivist standpoint anusvara is more common but I'm not sure we should move those. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)20:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Atitarev I moved all the nasal consonant conjunct lemmas to anusvara variants. As for chandrabindu vs. ansuvara, McGregor isn't consistent, e.g. he has अंकन(aṅkan, “valuing, appraising”) but अँकना(ãknā, “to be valued, to be appraised”). I wonder if we shouldn't adopt a single principle and stick with it. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Atitarev I think maybe the principle should be the following: (1) Word-finally and before a non-stop consonant, use chandrabindu if the letter doesn't go above the line, anusvara if it does; (2) Before stop consonants, always use anusvara. This seems to accord with actual usage. Benwing2 (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
@Benwing2, AryamanA According to me chandrabindu and that dot have two different functions. For example:
हंस /ɦəns/ is a Swan (The bird)
हँस /ɦə̃s/ is imperative of to laugh.
You can see the pronunciation difference between those two words. Now, the dot works the same as chandrabindu when it appears at the end of a word for example:
दें /dẽ/ (can be considered both 1st and the last syllable; more discussed below)
लें /lẽ/ (can be considered both 1st and the last syllable)
बोलें /bolẽ/.
खोलें /kʱolẽ/
When it appears in an in-between position its pronunciation changes depending on whether the consonant next to it. For example:
कंबल /kəmbəl/ (the dot here represents /m/)
चंचल /t͡ʃənt͡ʃəl/ (but here the dot represents /n/)
The logic followed is written below.
before the consonants (क ख ग घ) (च छ ज झ) (ट ठ ड ढ) (त थ द ध) the dot is pronounced /n/.
before the consonants (प फ फ़ ब भ) the dot is pronounced /m/.
when it appears at the end of the word it is pronounced /m̥/
For single syllable word always use chandrabindu e.g. माँ and ख़ाँ but obviously the dot for दें and लें because the vowel marks े, ै etc don't go well with chandrabindu.
Fix the orthography rules as:
ँ = /m̥/
ँ = ं if and only if the nasalised vowels are ें ैं because ेँ ैँ don't look good.
ं = /m/ (for labial consonants including फ़)
ं = /n/ (for all non-labial consonants)
Now, the words you gave. The rule to follow is: Wherever you can replace ं with either a म or a न use a ं , and wherever you cannot, use ँ.
आँकड़ा
खंड
घुँघरू
चाँदी
दाँत
बाँस
बाँह
भाँग
मँगवाना
माँ
माँग
माँगना
मूँग
राँची
लँगड़ा
हँसना
हँसाना
हाँ
हालाँकि
अंधेरा
आँसू
आनंद
आरंभ
इंद्र
उसाँस
चंद्रबिंदु
चाँटा
चुंबन
टाँग
तंदूर
पाँच
पाँचवाँ
पाँव
पूँछ
बाँह
महँगा
महँगाई
मुँह
मुँहतोड़
मुँहमाँगा
समंदर
साँप
सौगंध
हिंदुस्तानी
हिंदू
There are other changes that also happen depending on whether the consonant after the nasalisation is voiced or unvoiced. But, note these no do not say whether the chandrabindu should be used or the dot. These below show "allophonic" sound changes. So, they ideally should not be used to change the orthography. So, I recommend not to use ण्ड consonant combination anywhere, unless it's used for a proper noun such as for e.g. इण्डेन गैस (which is the company's official way of writing it).
करूँ /kəɾũ:/ & करूँगा /kəɾu:ŋga:/ (note the final vowel is nasalised as /ũ:/, now note the same vowel changed to /u:ŋ/) . It's exact phonetic devanagari spelling would be करूङ्गा.
इंडियन = इण्डियन /ɪɳɖiyən/ (before retroflex consonants the /n/ changes to /ɳ/). So, if you wouldn't use करूङ्गा anywhere, you also shouldn't use ण्ड consonant combination anywhere.
@AryamanA, Itsmeyash31, Atitarev Thank you very much for the long response. I'm a bit confused by what you wrote but I'll try to paraphrase it:
Chandrabindu and anusvara are equivalent before stop consonants i.e. क ख ग घ च छ ज झ ट ठ ड ढ त थ द ध प फ फ़ ब भ (where they are pronounced as the homorganic nasal consonant, i.e. /n/ /m/ ) and at the end of a word (where they are pronounced as nasalization of the preceding vowel), but are not equivalent before fricatives (at least /s/, probably also /z/ /f/ /v/ /ʃ/ /h/), where anusvara indicates /n/ and chandrabindu indicates nasalization of the preceding vowel.
Therefore, we can standardize on one or the other before stop consonants and at the end of a word, but not elsewhere.
The choice of which one to use, based on the examples given above, is as follows:
When following a short vowel /a/ /i/ /u/, use anusvara.
When following a long vowel that goes above the line, i.e. े ै ो ौ ी , use anusvara.
When following a long vowel that does not go above the line, use chandrabindu.
As an exception to the first rule, use chandrabindu following a short vowel /a/ /u/ (maybe just /a/) before ग. This rule seems strange to me but you have two examples of this (मँगवाना लँगड़ा) and no examples the other way. Did you mean मंगवाना लंगड़ा ?
These four rules explain all your recommendations.
Do you mind if I standardize according to the above rules? (BTW we need to fix the module to handle chandrabindu before fricatives as vowel nasalization and not /n/, which is what it does currently.) Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: I agree that it's only unpredictable before fricatives. Regarding the rest, I don't think it's possible to standardize on any one, it's word specific. Words borrowed from Sanskrit use anusvara in front of fricatives: हंस(hans), संस्थान(sansthān), etc. while words inherited from Sanskrit use the chandrabindu regardless of whether the outcome is nasalization or a nasal stop: लँगड़ा(laṅgṛā) and मँगवाना(maṅgvānā) are correct. However, modern orthographic variants that replace chandrabindu with anusvara are extant (but not the standard). The reverse is not true, the Sanskrit borrowings can never be written with chandrabindu. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)03:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA Are there are words where the most standard form has anusvara following a long vowel? E.g. I found अनांत्र and अयनांत, which are Sanskrit borrowings and do not redirect to chandrabindu spellings, but I don't know if these are the standard. Meanwhile, is the rule about chandrabindu in inherited words reliable? E.g. I found कांपना, which does not redirect to a chandrabindu spelling and is inherited, but I don't know if this is standard. I suspect there are a great deal of wrong forms currently extant on Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA Also, is the rule about chandrabindu + /s/ as vowel nasalization reliable? E.g. we have साँस as an alternative spelling of सांस. Are these pronounced differently? Benwing2 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Those Sanskrit borrowings are indeed only spelled with anusvara, अनांत्र and अयनांत are correct as is. Chandrabindu forms are not always permissible variants of anusvara forms, but an anusvara is a normal variant of a chandrabindu form. Basically, anusvara is a superset of chandrabindu. काँपना is the appropriate spelling indeed. And yeah, we probably have some moving to do.
साँस and सांस are both supposed to be pronounced /sɑ̃ːs/ (nasalized, not a nasal stop). Again, this is because chandrabindus are replaced with anusvaras often. One can never write हंस, संस्थान, etc. with chandrabindu (they have nasal stops). So this will have to be fixed per-entry.
@AryamanA Thank you for your response. Sorry to keep bugging you with questions; I don't have any reference book for Hindi spelling or grammar, and there don't seem to be very many good online resources, particularly for pronunciation that properly notes elision where it occurs. (Contrast e.g. with Ukrainian, where there are at least 4 separately-sourced online sites listing all the case forms of each word.) Benwing2 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: No worries, sorry for my slow responses, it's a busy semester. If you go on LibGen or university library sites (if you have access to those), Yamuna Kachru's book titled Hindi is available. It's the most recently published comprehensive Hindi grammar. But I think we've probably exhausted its usefulness, since so much stuff has been implemented already. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
country names
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
प्रधान मंत्री कल जा रहे हैं(male) ― pradhān mantrī kal jā rahe ha͠i ― The Prime Minster is going tomorrow.प्रधान मंत्री कल जा रही हैं(female) ― pradhān mantrī kal jā rahī ha͠i ― The Prime Minster is going tomorrow. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Benwing2: @AryamanA, thanks. In Russian, there are words that refer to both men and women but they stay grammatical masculines (they may or may not a feminine equivalent), that's why I wanted to make sure. I can see you have applied the dual declension as well, thanks.
Would अध्यापक(adhyāpak) be an exception (masculine only?), since there is a feminine equivalent अध्यापिका(adhyāpikā)?
@Atitarev: Oops, I missed it earlier, sorry. Yes, so when there is a feminine equivalent that is common, then the masculine form is only masculine. प्रधान मंत्रिणी(pradhān mantriṇī) does exist as feminine of प्रधान मंत्री(pradhān mantrī), but it's very rare, and didn't catch on. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
@Atitarev, AryamanA Is there a rule about the gender of cities and continents? E.g. अजमेर, अनंतपुर, अबटाबाद, अमृतसर, अलीगढ़, अहमदाबाद, अहिच्छत्र, आगरा, आलप्पुष़ा, इंदौर, इलाहाबाद, इस्तांबुल, इस्लामाबाद, उस्मानाबाद, ऋषिकेश, औरंगाबाद, कन्नौज, कपिलवस्तु, करनाल, कलकत्ता, क़सूर, क़ाहिरा, काठमांडू, कानपुर, काबुल, कार्थेज, कैथल, कोटा, कोरेगांव, कोलकाता, ख़ुशाब are given as masculine, but अमरावती, अयोध्या, उत्तरकाशी are given as fem. (Checking the first 3169 of about 13000 lemmas.) Benwing2 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: No clear cut rule unfortunately. However, a lot of these are derived from regular nouns पुरm(pur, “city”), गढ़m(gaṛh, “fort”), आबादm(ābād, “city”) so we could automate the gender for some of those perhaps. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)
@AryamanA Thanks. What about foreign names of cities? E.g. the following (up through lemma #4000) don't currently have gender given: अंकारा, अबू धाबी, इंचियोन (in South Korea), उरुमची (in China), ऊफ़ा (in Russia), एडिलेड (in Australia), एथेंस, ऐम्स्टर्डैम, ऑकलैंड, ऑक्सफ़ोर्ड, ओटावा, ओसाका, क़ुस्तुंतुनिया, कार्डिफ़, कुआला लमपुर, केपटाउन, कैंब्रिज, कैनबरा, कैलगरी, क्योटो, क्राइस्टचर्च, गोल्ड कोस्ट, ग्रोनिंगन, ग्लासगो. Benwing2 (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Benwing2: Sorry, asking this again. Is there a trick to find out the gender of e.g. तेहरान(tehrān, “Tehran”)? I have tried to search for e.g. both "बड़ा तेहरान" and "बड़ी तेहरान" (large Tehran) or ""तेहरान बड़ा है"/""तेहरान बड़ी है" (Tehran is large) (using various masculine and feminine adjectives). The results tell me nothing of use. Are both genders valid?! Could there be some other ways to check? I am surprised there's no online reference or even discussions on the topic. Maybe something in Hindi? It seems also that loanwords in general don't follow rules, so it could be arbitrary before it settles. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)00:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: Yes, exactly, loanwords don't really follow fixed rules for gender. Sometimes terms with similar semantics settle on the same gender, e.g. भाषा(bhāṣā), बोली(bolī), and borrowings ज़बान(zabān), लिसान(lisān) are all feminine and all mean "language". Nothing like that for cities. Tehran appears masculine to me so I made the entry. That's the best we can do for now. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)16:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: Good fix on जोधपुर. I don't have anything better than native speaker intuition to go off of unfortunately. The thing is, I'm not perfect at it; for a good portion of my childhood I only spoke in English so my ability to do things like intuit genders for loans is a little dull. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)00:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA: That's fine, thank you but I still encourage you to come up with a few tricks (even if imperfect) as per Module_talk:hi-noun#country_names to determine word gender being actually used. A sample sentence in Module_talk:hi-noun#Dual_gender with रहे/रही, which determine the gender, is a good method, I think but there could be multiple. In Russian, for example, it would only be difficult to determine gender for rare loanwords, which are never used with adjectives, pronouns or verb forms, which indicate gender. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)00:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: Ohh, you mean like a diagnostic grammatical trick? That would be the habitual "to be": तेहरान होता है "It's Tehran/Tehran exists" sounds better to me than तेहरान होती है. Whenever I ask my parents a question about gender of a noun, they use this construction to figure it out, so maybe it's a common thing. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)03:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Finally, how does कौआ(kauā) decline? I am guessing as a regular, not unmarked, masculine. Is there any reference for these declensions? I would be very surprised if there isn't. Benwing2 (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Atitarev: The head is the second word. Hindi has reanalyzed these izāfat constructions as compounds, and the word takes the gender of the second word and is declined only at the end. It might be that Urdu treats them more like Persian does (head is first word), I'm not sure about that. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)15:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Yeah, I think that info belongs in the conjugation table. The feminine plural endings (that's never the oblique) with anusvara only occur in verb forms, so don't think we should replicate that on the verb form pages. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)02:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@AryamanA, Atitarev Above you mentioned that two-part nouns like लेखा-जोखा(lekhā-jokhā, “accounting”) decline only in their second part. However, "लेखे-जोखे" gets many more hits than "लेखा-जोखे" (10,400 vs. 267), and adverbial oblique आमने-सामने(āmne-sāmne) suggests that both parts of आमना-सामना(āmnā-sāmnā) also decline. Is this a general phenomenon? Is it restricted to nouns ending in -ā? Benwing2 (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, AryamanA I couldn't find the discussion quickly but if I remember correctly, Aryaman said there are different examples and both parts can be declinable (case by case), so your finding must be right, IMO and both parts are declinable. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)04:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@AryamanA, Atitarev I noticed you added an on-m declension. Are you sure we need this? It looks to be indeclinable, and we already can add notate indeclinable nouns using |ind=1 on the headword. (We also already have an indeclinable noun type indicated using <$>, although I am planning on removing it.) Benwing2 (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: I'm not very comfortable with calling nouns "indeclinable" because, unlike adjectives, in this case the usual obl. pl. and voc. pl. morphemes are being added but they just get assimilated and on the surface there is no change. There's nothing weird going on relative to other masculine nouns, the same morphemes are involved. Adjectives that are undeclinable just do not care about gender agreement, they have no other forms. They are an entirely distinct class from declinable adjectives. And unlike adjectives, there's no precedent of Hindi dictionaries calling nouns "invariable" or "indeclinable", so that may be confusing for the end user. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)05:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA I see your point, but I'm concerned that if we follow this logic, we need to add separate declensions for masculine and feminine nouns in -e, and feminine nouns in -o, and masculine and feminine nouns in -ai, etc. etc., all or most of which exist and all of which are indeclinable. See CAT:Hindi indeclinable nouns and CAT:Hindi indeclinable proper nouns for examples of such nouns. Overall I think that a declension table all of whose forms are the same is more confusing than simply stating that the noun is indeclinable. Benwing2 (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Need of a new Pronoun declension Table
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Benwing2, AryamanA, Atitarev Honestly, the pronoun declension tables that are used for Hindi, the way they are now, are an abomination to say the least haha. I really think we need a new one. The current one ignores many declensions. Have a look at the declensions below in the pictures. Can this be implemented? There should be two tables. One for the pronouns and their grammatical cases and the second for all the pronouns formed using the 8 case-markers/primary postpositions of Hindi. Also, there are these genitive and semblative cases which unlike other case-markers and pronouns further decline depending on gender and number. If those declensions (Pic3) could be implemented in the table in Pic2 then that would be better.
Pic1: Pronouns and the case declensionsPic2: Pronouns using case-markersPic3: declensions of the declinable pronouns (genitive and semblative) and case-markers
We can replace the columns that we use now with a column as shown in the pics. The current table is like this below. I don't think "indirect" is the common word that is used to refer to the "oblique" case. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Atitarev, AryamanA: Yes, that would be much better. By the way, I just noticed there are some wrong entries in the pictures I uploaded, for e.g. some are wrongly gendered and I used "proximal/distal" for the relative and interrogative pronouns. That should be removed.
Width of template
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The template seems to be bigger than the entire screen width, and apparently it is set from 30-45em, isn't that quite big, should it not be just width 100%, at least for mobile devices? -Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟)00:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
