Template talk:pi-alt

@RichardW57, Inqilābī: At navama, the template returns নৰম (norom) as the Bengali script form. Turns out that wiktionary doesn't even recognize ৰ as belonging to the Bengali alphabet (it doesn't transliterate the character) let alone transliterate it as the equivalent of "v". Since I'm not familiar with the script, what should the correct character be? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 08:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī, Bhagadatta: It is inconveniently important to get the facts straight. The template returns a Pali word, not a Bengali or, as you claim, Assamese word. It's not my fault that requests to enable Pali transliteration have gone unanswered. The intended character is U+09F0 BENGALI LETTER RA WITH MIDDLE DIAGONAL, and Module:pi-translit transliterates it correctly given this intention. If you have evidence with which to challenge this decision, please continue the discussion at Module_talk:pi-Latn-translit#Bengali_2 or start a new section there. There are problems with the whole family of Bengali script consonants that resemble U+09AC BENGALI LETTER BA - different languages use them differently. (It doesn't help that there's one font that swaps the glyphs of U+09F0 and U+09F1.) The variation is one reason why it may be difficult for Pali and Sanskrit to use the same Eastern Nagari to Latin transliterator. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57: Okay, looks like Module:pi-translit works only (?) in declension tables because entering {{m|pi|নৰম}} does not transliterate it. Entering {{m|as|নৰম}} was the only way I could get any translit out of it. I thus had no way of knowing what the character was supposed to represent in Pali. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 10:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bhagadatta: That's the problem with its not being enabled. I've justified using it directly in inflection tables because one occasionally needs to pass writing system information into the transliterator, and the only mechanism available is to customise the script identifier by writing system. In this case I'm actually using an alternative interface that accepts pertinent facts about the writing system. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bhagadatta, RichardW57: ৰ was formerly used in Bengali for r, now written using র; in Halhed's A Grammar of the Bengal language (1778), both letters have been employed alternatively. Both b and v are represented using ব in Bengali. Though I have no idea about Pali written in the Bengali script, it seems to be erroneous to represent v using ৰ. Calling @Msasag for further input on this. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 11:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57: Is there any source that says ৰ represented v in Pali? And, on a different note, are the Pali alternative-script entries with no quotations, that you create, actually attested in the scripts concerned? Thanks. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 11:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: Kindly take your objections to the spelling to Module_talk:pi-Latn-translit as requested above. Feel free to raise an RfV on নৰম (navama). I had planned to raise one on the first Pali entry I saw with U+09F0 for /v/ (so as to flush out some durably archived material), but then I needed to correct a Pali entry's pointing to an Assamese word as an alternative form of the Pali word, and it felt wrong to simultaneously raise an RfV on it. So far as I am aware, none of the examples of U+0F90 for /v/ are durably archived, which is why I opposed the change from U+09F1 BENGALI LETTER RA WITH LOWER DIAGONAL. I will still transliterate that to /v/; Pali transliteration to IAST is necessarily many-to-one. RichardW57 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57: @Bhagadatta started a fresh discussion here, that’s why I am continuing it here. I really do not understand your unicode examples (I mean, that’s my fault), but could you kindly refer to any Pali manuscript where ৰ is used for v?— I am just curious to see it. Here is a modern edition that uses modern Bengali script for Pali: https://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/pali-prakash-bengali-MZE112/ . Alternatively, we may as well remove Bengali script from Pali alternative scripts until this contention has ended. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 12:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī Seems the book you sent uses ব for both "ba" and "va" in Pali right? This book uses ৰ for va and ব for ba: https://archive.org/details/pali-grammar/Ucchatar%20Pali%20Bhasha%20Shikkha%20by%20Karunabangsha%20Bhikkhu Msasag (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Msasag:. That settles it. @RichardW57: I'm sure Inqilābī did not specifically mean নৰম (navama) or any particular entry and was instead referring more generally to the alt script entries for Pali. If you answer in the affirmative I believe Inqilābī will take your word for it. I know I will. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Msasag, Inqilābi, Bhagadatta: I missed the subtlety in the question. As I have bemoaned, none of the Bengali script words with /v/ had known durable attestation. I've been creating them to avoid demonstrable error (chiefly a Pali word pointing to a non-Pali word as an inflection or alternative form). I hadn't been searching for them on the Internet. There's a similar issue with Mon-style Burmese script Pali words, except that I can generally be confident that they exist or have existed, apart from invisible differences in spelling. I haven't yet hit the problem of local forms needing such link targets, such as สะวากขาตะ (savākkhāta), which is chiefly a Thai spelling error. For that, I use the trick of only putting it in the alternatives list for svākkhāta. It does turn up in the Roman script, but at a low enough frequency to be an ignorable spelling mistake. With kesādhātu (“hair relic”), which I think is a grammatical error for kesadhātu (“hair relic”), I think it's well enough established in Thailand that the instances in the Roman script can be accepted. The two forms might have a subtle difference in meaning. I'll worry if its expected alternative forms turn up in other languages with unrelated meanings. RichardW57 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

A challenge on নৰম (navama) should have flushed out the book Msasag has presented. But, @Msasag: does the book you referenced provide 'durable attestations'? I find it hard to believe that it was scanned from dead wood. RichardW57 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

For inflection tables, I feel another writing system option coming on - how 'v' in inflection manifests in inflection. Some words will take all ways of writing 'v', but other lemma spellings will permit only one form. RichardW57 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Msasag: Can you date the Pali texts in the book you showed us? Or, rather, when was the book first published? So that means Buddhists still use ৰ for v… -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 15:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think that may be 'have started using' rather than 'still use'. What's the date on the other book? I don't read Bengali, and I didn't see an obvious date. It's noteworthy that the VRI is using ৰ U+09F0 BENGALI LETTER RA WITH MIDDLE DIAGONAL at www.tipitaka.org/beng. (The texts may be a few thousand years old - which is totally irrelevant to this issue.) --RichardW57 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī The book says it was published in 2011. Msasag (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Besides Bhadanta's books, tipitaka website also used the same alphabet. I think this is a new thing to differentiate va from ra. Earlier they used the same letter for both. Msasag (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: A Pali manuscript in the Bengali script is a rather unlikely concept. According to this review article by Enomoto Fumio, "Therefore when Buddhism was destroyed in India proper, and managed to survive only in its surrounding areas such as Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, the above-mentioned fear came true: most of the early Buddhist texts in Indic, which were transmitted by oral tradition, were lost when Buddhist monks reciting those texts disappeared." According to Banglapedia, "In Bangladesh the study of Pali language and literature started primarily to meet religious needs. Initially scholars did not feel the necessity of translating the Tripitaka into Bangla. Religious scholars, researchers and readers from home and abroad learned to study Pali in Devanagari and Roman letters. Subsequently, the study of the Tripitaka in Pali, using Bangla letters, started and is still continuing." This seems to have started in the late 19th century. The use of the Bengali script for Pali seems to be even more recent than the use of the Roman alphabet, and material would have been propagated by print rather than by manual copying. RichardW57 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply