Talk:हांव

Hi माधवपंडित. I have a Konkani friend whose family is from Cochin, but she can't speak Konkani fluently at all. However, she taught me a bit of she knows, and she said that my was something like 'मिगेल', your was 'तुगेल', his was 'तगेल'. Are you familiar with these form? DerekWinters (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Whoa, sorry for the late reply; I never got notified about this because you did not page me. The Konkani spoken in Goa differs slightly from the Konkani varieties spoken in Karwar, Mangalore and Cochin Konkani. The word for "my" in Konkani is "मगेले" with "मुगेले" being the form used in the Roman Catholic dialect. Similarly, "yours" in Konkani is "तुगेले". The Karwari Konkani forms are indeed identical to the words you gave. "His"/"her" is "तेगेले". So while using "तुगेल" , "तगेल" will not be incorrect, any native speaker of Goan Konkani will be able to tell that you're from Karwar or Mangalore or something. Once Konkani proper becomes well documented enough on this project, I'll work on the different dialects. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: That makes sense. Thanks! And no worries, I forgot about this too. DerekWinters (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Good to see you back!! -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Declension (no dialect specified) according to The Indo-Aryan Languages by Danesh Jain and George Cardona:

So the cases are a bit different from our current table. @माधवपंडित? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 16:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: As you can see most are actually the same, varying perhaps a bit in the pronunciation. This could be the roman catholic dialect as they nasalize everything a lot. Superessive corresponds to locative, I think superessive is the better term. The only case that has me confused is the instrumental. In fact the forms given seem to be for the nominative past, given here as hā̃vên (corresponding to Hindi मैं-ने (ma͠i-ne). मुझ-से (mujh-se) corresponds to Konkani म्हज्यान/म्हझ्यान (mhajyān/mhajhyān). mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: Yeah, that was the main thing I was confused about. मैंने (ma͠ine) is actually the ergative case, but I guess it is only used with past tense... Actually, now that I think about it, instrumental does make sense. मैंने (ma͠ine) always has to take an object, so

मैंने उसको थप्पड़ मारा ― ma͠ine usko thappaṛ mārā ― I slapped him

मैंने काम कल किया था ― ma͠ine kām kal kiyā thā ― I did the work yesterday

but you can't say

*मैंने सोया ― ama͠ine soyā ― *I slept

So I suppose instrumental is not really wrong? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Yeah, even Konkani does not use hā̃vên for intransitive verbs. However instrumental would still be kind of incorrect. Currently our tables show those forms in the instrumental which would be used when an action has been performed by means of the noun in the question. In cases of these intransitive verbs, the noun is still the actor. The inflection forms for transitive and intransitive may need to be differentiated but intransitive inflection and instrumental cannot be merged, IMO. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: That is true. Maybe that's why it says "agentive" too? Although that isn't right either; agentive nouns are like खानेवाला (khānevālā, “eater”). Perhaps ergative is the better term. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Sounds fair enough! -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित Forgot to tell you, just like two days ago (thanks to having edit access to the module finally lol). I only added pmh and pka. I'm not too sure about adding Helu and Dardic languages (as well as Gandhari) as a descendant of Sanskrit yet. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 03:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Thanks for doing it! And yes, although I am pretty sure the Dardic languages are descended from Sanskrit (as many Dardic words show derivations from words that were later, Classical Sanskrit innovations and also no sound that Sanskrit lost from PIA is seen in Dardic) I would suggest you not to add Dardic as a descendant right now without consensus.... it may endanger your position as an admin because this is too big of a change to be making outright. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: Even if I did do it, I don't think anyone would really notice/care, just because there are not many Indic language editors. Still, it's better to gather consensus.

Also pinging @DerekWinters, Kutchkutch, Sagir Ahmed Msa: languages that descend from Sauraseni/Maharashtri/Ardhamgadhi Prakrit can use {{inh}} for etymologies now. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think Rigvedic Vedic Sanskrit (in all its dialectical forms,) is the ancestor of all Indo-Aryan languages. And even when forms derive from unrecorded or "non-Sanskritic terms", then an unattested asterisk form of Sanskrit can be used as the ancestor. DerekWinters (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

True, just like we have Latin reconstructions. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, we don't even bother with Proto-Romance, it's just reconstructed Latin. Of course, there's Mitanni borrowings and stuff, so we still need Proto-Indo-Aryan. I still don't understand why only psu was treated as a direct descendant. (also, off topic, but why is Pali's ancestor Bihari!?) —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Sanskrit/ठग्ग् is an intriguing entry since it's the only reconstructed Sanskrit term on Wiktionary. The etymology section of an entry with a Turner reference usually uses the Turner page title as the Proto-Indo-Aryan term if a Sanskrit word is unavailable, but there's only 21 Proto-Indo-Aryan entries (compared to 277 Proto-Indo-Iranian entries). So the etymology section of ठग (ṭhag) would have said {{der|hi|inc-pro|*ṭhagg}} if it had followed this pattern. Since Sanskrit gets gets all the attention, all the other Old Indo-Aryan languages don't seem to get enough attention.

Wiktionary:About_Proto-Indo-Aryan says Contrary to popular opinion, Sanskrit was not the ancestor of later Indo-Aryan languages. The distinction between Sanskrit & Proto-Indo-Aryan is often moot.

User:Aryamanarora/Prakrit/comp says Prakrit came from Proto-Indo-Aryan, not the Sanskrit we know of.

In spite of these two statements, all non-borrowed Indic words say 'From Sanskrit'.

The purpose of Proto-Romance appears to be to check whether the methods of renconstruction work since Latin is attested. Reconstructed Sanskrit (Reconstruction:Sanskrit/ठग्ग्) doesn't seem to serve that purpose. Since Proto-Norse is attested it goes against the notion that proto languages are unattested creations. Kutchkutch (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: This was discussed before and the answer lies in what we consider to be Sanskrit. If we restrict "Sanskrit" to the language of the epics and the language used by the educated elite, Sanskrit has no descendant, is very mechanical and is nobody's mother tongue but learned by the speaker after he begins his education. If we instead see it as the collective language of the Āryans as they arrived in India, in all its forms, variations and dialects, Sanskrit *is* the ancestor of *all* Indo-Aryan languages. Not every word brought in by the settlers was documented, hence we have in Modern IA languages many words that have no attested Sanskrit ancestor, for which Turner and others use PIA. I've read that there is a Prakrit word tūra meaning cheese, which has cognates in the Germanic, Slavic, Romance and Iranian, but no recorded Sanskrit etymon. It only means *तूर (*tūrá) was a Sanskrit word, only it was not recorded in literature. This also explains some deviations shown by Modern IA languages from their Skt. etymon (c.f. Sanskrit क्षीयते (kṣīyate) & Old Marathi झिजणे (jhijaṇe)). Here we must note that the speech brought in by the settlers was not 100% homogeneous and small variations existed while at the same time being very mutually intelligible, so still classifiable as a single language, Sanskrit. The problem is, only the speakers of one variety decided to document their speech through the Vedas. Hence, the original ancestor of words like झिजणे (jhijaṇe) have been lost, being from a dialect other than Rigvedic. Some variations were actually recovered later during the Standardization (see रिहति (rihati) v/s लिहति (lihati)) while some were not. So, if we take Sanskrit in a broader sense and include all speech that was brought into India, then Sanskrit is the ancestor of all IA languages. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Haha! But what is the Bihari language? Is there a single language? Aren't the languages spoken in Bihar a cluster of dialects for which an umbrella term Hindi can be used? (Hindi languages). Even Wikipedia says there's a group called the Bihari languages but does not allude to one language. Yet wiktionary has it as a single , separate language with two lemmas which are very common words across the subcontinent, so it doesn't help to understand what classifies as a "Bihari" word. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: Bihari is an Eastern Hindi language. I don't know anything about it, but if you look deep enough, every language starts to look like a collection of dialects, lol. I have noticed though, McGregor's Hindi dictionary does mark some words as "Bihari". From a cursory online search, it looks like Bhojpuri to me. Definitely mutually intelligible with Standard Hindi. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah! Mitanni is the only (recorded) Indo-Aryan language to not come from the Rigvedic form. Also, doesn't Pali descend from Ardhamagadhi? DerekWinters (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was, but since Pali is "Early Middle Indo-Aryan" (along with Ashokan Prakrit), I decided to put it under Sanskrit. Magadhi Prakrit on Wikipedia says Pali and Ardhamagadhi were "analogous", so I think they were both Eastern Indo-Aryan languages. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply