User talk:AryamanA/2016

Hi,

What's the correct word for "cave" in Hindi, गुफा (guphā) or गुफ़ा (gufā)? Is it a case of over-correction (गुफ़ा) or just the habitual dropping of nuqta? In Urdu it's گفا, with an "f". "Teach Yourself Hindi dictionary" has गुफा (guphā). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The form without nuqta is several times more common, but the nuqta form is also used (likely over-correction). My dictionaries don't even list the nuqta form. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 13:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I am not sure if simple Google searches are helpful, though. Nuqta are often dropped, even if it's used in pronunciations, e.g. फ़िल्म (film) vs फिल्म (philm) (with or without lang:Hindi in the search. Thanks for adding the entry. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rajpal Hindi Dictionary, Bahri's Hindi Dictionary, and Hindi Śhabdsāgar all only list the non-nuqta form. I'm at school right now, so I can't check the Oxford dictionary right now. I can also ask my parents - they know much more Hindi than I do. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've also gone ahead and asked hi:User:Sfic. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm pretty sure the original word had "f", judging by the Urdu spelling (and pronunciation) in it but it was lost as it happened with some other words with nuqta. A similar thing happens in Russian where some words get "ё" () replaced with "е" , the reverse is also true. Spellings affects how people speak. Now, if modern Hindi has "ph", it should be the main form and the word with "ph" - an alternative form. I think we can rely on automatic transliterations for words with and without nuqta. Oxford English-Hindi dictionary also spells फिल्म.

BTW, are you familiar with letter ष़? Should be transliterated as "ẓ" or "ž"? Apparently, it's only used to transliterate some foreign words, not sure for what languages. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

ष़ is used to transliterate Malayalam ശ and some other Dravidian characters - either transliteration is fine, but I think झ़ is already transliterated as ž. You're probably correct about the about the spelling - my parents pronounce it replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g) and said it does have a nuqta. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 14:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've changed it to "ẓ". Are you able to find out the pronunciation? ശ is not a voiced consonant, is it? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

My mistake - I think the letter was ഷ . Neither of them are voiced. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

For गुफा or गुफ़ा the original spelling depends on its etymology. The nuqta form would be original if the word were a loanword from Arabic or Persian. However, the nuqtaless form would be original if it is a native word, as /f/ is not a native phoneme. The shabdsagar states that it derives from the Sanskrit गुहा but I find that highly unlikely. DerekWinters (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What was your reason (not to sound confrontational, actually curious) for moving મોંઘુું to મોઘું? For my part, I've always heard મોંઘું and never મોઘું. DerekWinters (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I assumed it was a typo, but it appears I was wrong. Sorry! —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thanks though for changing it :). Btw, just curious, but I am a university student too. I go the University of Maryland, where do you go? DerekWinters (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lol, I'm in high school still. But I can see why you would think that. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 10:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, ok. :) DerekWinters (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Really? Didn't know you were that young! --Barytonesis (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Barytonesis: Almost out of this place lol... —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I made this and the other two noun-declension templates a while ago kind of by accident. They aren't meant to be actually used at all. A masculine noun can't have a neuter or feminine declension, which I forgot when making them. કૂતરો is masculine and only masculine, while કૂતરી is feminine and only feminine. Whoops :(. DerekWinters (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You can check my list of contributions for any entries of Pali nouns that need declension tables, such as ogha. Thank you for taking the time to read. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

And here is the list. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'll get to it soon. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I edited Module:User:Aryamanarora/hi-IPA because it has been displaying a module error. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Exactly what are the general rules of accents (pitch accents or not) in Sanskrit? I made Template:sa-verb-pres long time ago and I'm curious about the accent system in Sanskrit. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

From what I gather, they are pitch accents. There are three types of accents - उदात्त (udātta, “high pitch”), अनुदात्त (anudātta, “low pitch”), and स्वरित (svarita, “falling”). The only rule I know is that there really are not rules - Vedic tone sandhi is complex. You might want to read Vedic accent for a jumping-off point. Also, beware: my Sanskrit knowledge is very basic. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@KoreanQuoter, in case you didn't get the reply. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this piece of knowledge. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

NP —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 23:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the pronunciation that you added to "bath". We are always happy to have Indian English speakers here to help enrich the dictionary.

Thanks again. Tharthan (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'll be sure to add more. And actually, I have a General American accent, but lived in India for most of my life. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add any extra information to pinyin entries (such as definitions, etc.) as it just duplicates the work done at the hanzi entry. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, will do :) —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 23:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This was strictly regulated by a vote. Besides, pinyin entries could be generated and maintained by a bot. They are nothing but redirects. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'd like your opinion about something relating to many of the taxonomic name entries. I noted that you used {{Fabaceae Hypernyms}}. For entries at species level or lower, I have shown only taxa at family level and below, which means omitting that template. My rationale has been that there is usually plenty of content at species level and not so much interest in the whole family tree. For plants it only removes about one line of text, but for animals the effect is more substantial.

Any thoughts? DCDuring TALK 17:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree with that practice. It looks less cluttered that way, and doesn't duplicate information. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why is it Αρυαμαν instead of Αριαμαν? --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 17:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know any Greek whatsoever - this was a quick guess based on some Wikipedia articles. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Greek letter υ (u) was originally an "u" sound, then a front-rounded "y" on its way to becoming a front-unrounded "i". The Latin letter u was from the Euboean variant of the Greek alphabet before this change occurred, while the Latin letter y was borrowed much later from the more modern Attic Greek variant (seen in the upper-case Υ (U)) to represent an Ancient Greek sound that no longer matched that of the letter u, but wasn't i, either. It's only in the development of modern English that the letter y took on the "j" sound used to transliterate the Devanagari य (ya). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

W(O)T ƏZ Ð R(U)L? --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The geminated consonant requires the inherent vowel after it. Compare with * - as you can see, it also messes up the tones. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 13:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

ƏGZ(E)P(-)T(-) Ə(E)T Ð(I) ƏN(-)D(-)? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hmm...I'm not sure. You could ask @DerekWinters, since he has a better grasp of the Indic scripts as a whole. I'm leaning towards no. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 14:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please add more to Mod:pa-translit/testcases if you can. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau Literally took me forever to figure out the second one you put. At the end of words, a geminated consonant retains its inherent schwa. भिन्न (bhinna). I don't really know how to write Punjabi too well though. DerekWinters (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: I apologize :p --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau, DerekWinters ਧੰਨਵਾਦ is actually dhannvād , as per a couple of native speakers I asked. Hindi भिन्न is pronounced bhinn . —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 13:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I always have a tough time determining whether its with or without the final a. But I think its definitely a released nasal, which is why I am generally so confused with final schwas in certain words. DerekWinters (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Man, I wish we weren't so "lazy" with our schwa-dropping :) —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Haha :) DerekWinters (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing unusual with the schwa-dropping or dropping the inherent vowels. Northern India area is not the only area that features that. The scripts are very phonetic, still. If there were less letters, I'd say e.g. Devanagari is an easy script to learn. It makes some developers work harder to implement the rules for schwa-dropping, though. A lazy approach would be to use Google or Shabdkosh approach and ignore the schwa-dropping :). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I meant the speakers of Indic languages were lazy; though of course, jokingly. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I got what you meant. It adds extra work, otherwise, the conversion would be very simple. IMO, transliterating schwa-dropping should basic rules, not considering "light pronunciations" or semi-dropping, whatever is predictable. From my observation, it's not always consistent. I mean, if different words in identical cases (the same pattern and type of consonants) are pronounced differently, then it shouldn't be a big deal. I noticed some inconsistencies in dictionaries in how some words (especially loanwords) are transliterated, eg. बैटरी (baiṭrī) can be both "baiṭrī" and "baiṭarī". I'm sure there could also be more than one way of saying some of those. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Just making sure :) Text isn't very effective for conveying humor.) We should select some sort of model accent (e.g. Delhi Hindi) for those unpredictable cases, and add some pronunciations notes. There must be hundreds thousands of videos in Hindi, especially by politicians (who generally speak Delhi Hindi, IMO). We could look at those and analyze the common pronunciations. You're right about बैटरी (baiṭrī); both are common pronunciations. Similarly, words with nuqta use two prounciations - for example, ज़ुकाम (zukām or jukām). —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Both कॉफ़ी (kŏfī) or काफ़ी (kāfī) are also possible, aren't they? I mean pronunciation, not the spelling. You're right about (IPA) pronunciations but the transliterations shouldn't be tweaked too much, IMO. Automatic transliterations can show what is actually spelled - ज़ुकाम (zukām) and जुकाम (jukām), कॉफ़ी (kŏfī) or काफ़ी (kāfī) but "Pronunciation" sections can show all possible variations. I know you pronounce "film" even if you spell it फिल्म (philm), instead of फ़िल्म (film). That way, we don't have to rely on manual transliterations that much. The entry for फिल्म (philm) can also say that it's pronounced "फ़िल्म" or something, along with IPA. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I want to use an example from Thai - the word ทราย (saai) is spelled "traai" but pronounced "saai". "ซาย" (saai) is the phonetic respelling for this word. Just like "फ़िल्म" would be for "फिल्म". Does it make sense? Do you agree? {{hi-pron}} could use a "phonetic respelling" parameter in such cases. Cf also Russian "тест" (test), which is pronounced "тэст". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(indent back) I thought about the idea for a long time - I'm not very good at Lua though, so I couldn't implement it. I like what Wyang has been doing with Nepali and Thai, but I don't think Hindi needs this, because pronunciation generally follows the transliteration rules, and when it doesn't I can add the pronunciation manually. I did something like that at उपन्यास (upanyās) a while back. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't sayint that there was anything unusual about the dropping patterns, only that semi-dropping (as with your example with battery) makes it very hard to transcribe. I would'nt do the Thai thing with Hindi. I would just give multiple pronunciations/transliterations for a word. DerekWinters (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to make things more complex but instead of the page title, you could use the phonetically spelled word, add virama to force vowel dropping, nuqta, chandra. Russian is even more phonetic, perhaps, but it uses phonetic respellings at times. Do you agree that transliterations should also match closer the spelling, once the shwa-dropping rules are all defined and implemented? I mean, we don't need to tweak it for missing nuqta and chandra.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

But see, for most Hindi words, there isn't a single phonetic respelling. The 'फ' in 'फिल्म' is already occasionally pronounced 'f' as opposed to 'ph', so it wouldn't need a respelling. If a person spells it 'काफ़ी', they'll likely pronounce it that way, instead of 'कॉफ़ी'. Same with 'ज़ुकाम'. So these cases don't need respellings. What Aryamanarora did at उपन्यास could be better done by way of a simple syllabification. Also, is उपन्यास really nasalized? DerekWinters (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think that it's an interesting option, but I agree with DerekWinters. Hindi has a lot of varieties. If we include phonetic respellings, it could get very confusing. Personally, I like the current transliteration system. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think I'm not making myself clear. I also like the current transliteration system and I think we should get rid of manual transliterations, fix remaining small issues. My suggestion was for pronunciations, not transliterations but transliterations shouldn't be tweaked too much and show what's written.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, now I understand better - you're suggesting something like Russian, where transliteration is one-to-one (I think?) but the pronunciations are handled with {{ru-IPA}}. I think that would be great, but I'm worried about the need: do we really need IPA for every single Hindi entry? —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, we don't but if we do use, then all varieties could be added, regardless whether the spelling reflects the pronunciation.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Then, yes, I support the concept. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora, DerekWinters: How is ਤਿੰਨ supposed to be pronounced (as well as transliterated)? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau I watched a couple of counting videos in Punjabi, and it seems the transliteration is a solid tinn without a final 'a'. However, with ਇੱਕ, there is both ikka and ikk being pronounced. I have no idea how to do the IPA for Punjabi. DerekWinters (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

IPA^(key): , —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is Punjabi a tonal language? Why are you using "˧"? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Surprisingly, it is tonal. Many of the Indo-Aryan languages in the region are, like Dogri. Punjabi has lost its murmured consonants (gh, dh, ḍha, bha, etc.) and used tones to compensate. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

How about pitch accents among languages and dialects in South Asia? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's actually pitch accent. And it is actually common among languages in the Punjab region. Tonal languages are also common in eastern regions, among the Sino-Tibetan languages (the ones I've worked on here are Nyishi and Dimasa). —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just deleted Cat:Hindi terms derived from Bombay Hindi‎. If you think about it, Bombay Hindi is part of Hindi, so you're saying Hindi is borrowing from itself. Of course, that's just a shorthand for saying that Standard Hindi is borrowing from Bombay Hindi- that level of sub-detail is okay in the text of the etymology, but not in categorization. This has always been the standard, but now the modules have been changed to check for this and give a module error in categories that violate it. From now on, put "-" in the {{etyl}} second parameter to prevent categorization when both parameters are language codes for varieties of the same language: {{etyl|hi-mum|-}} instead of {{etyl|hi-mum|hi}}. @DerekWinters the same goes for Old Hindi. I'll have to ask at the Beer Parlour about re-borrowings that should go into Cat:Hindi twice-borrowed terms. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz What's wrong with Old Hindi? It's like English inheriting from Old English (or Middle English, in chronologically comparable terms). DerekWinters (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong is that Wiktionary doesn't recognize Old Hindi as a separate language, unlike Old English or Middle English. The closer analogy would be Early Modern English, as in Shakespeare or the King James version of the Bible. I'm not saying that this is correct, but that's the way we currently have it. If you want to have Cat:Hindi terms derived from Old Hindi‎, you'll have to first talk the community into making Old Hindi a full-fledged, separate language instead of an etymology-only language. That means an Old Hindi L2 header, not using Hindi templates in Old Hindi entries, creating Old Hindi POS, derivation and topical categories, and probably some other changes, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Hmmm. Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, Late Latin, New Latin, Post-classical Latin‎, Renaissance Latin, Byzantine Greek, Koine Greek, Anglo-Norman, Old Northern French, Jewish Aramaic, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Classical Hebrew, Austrian German, Viennese German, Northumbrian Old English, etc. aren't "full-fledged, separate languages", yet they have been allowed to have categories like Category:Terms derived from Classical Hebrew, Category:Terms derived from Late Latin. Why is Old Hindi an issue? DerekWinters (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cat:Terms derived from Old Hindi‎ would be perfectly okay, for terms in other languages than Hindi that derived from Old Hindi. As for the others, you won't find Category:Hebrew terms derived from Classical Hebrew nor Category:Latin terms derived from Late Latin. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh ok, that makes more sense. DerekWinters (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

How would the schwas be deleted in this situation, where C stands for consonant, and ə stands for schwa? --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau I can answer this (for Hindi). It would be CəCəC. The actual spelling is CəCəCə. E.g. लपट (lapaṭ). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: What if it is CəCəCV? --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: Why is दिसमबर (disamabara) not pronounced dismabar but disambar? --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

CəCəCV depends on the quality of "V", it's either CəCəCV or CəCəCVə. I think it's normally CəCəCVə.

It's the order, the same reason why CəCəCə is CəCəC, not CəCCə. If a vowel after C3 is not ə, then the schwa after C2 is dropped. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau दिसमबर is disambar because its CVCVCəCVCə, which then loses its schwas. This pattern can be generalized to a greater C(CCC...)V(Cə)C(CCC...)V(Cə)C(CCC...)V(Cə).... of which all the schwas would be lost. The V could also function as a schwa. One can remove the individual Cə pairs in between without disrupting the pattern. DerekWinters (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it CVCəCəCəCə? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 16:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Then why doesn't it become CVCCəCəC? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Two reasons: (1) Hindi speakers don't like consonant clusters with s (except for svə, as in स्वतंत्र (svatantra); many rural speakers even pronounce school as /ɪskuːl/) and (2) it is an English borrowing, so pronunciation is the same as December. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Native Hindi words will often lack consonant clusters other than those including 'v' or 'y' as the second member (because they can basically become glides). All other conjuncts are often loanwords, the majority of which are from Sanskrit. in the example given by Aryaman above, /ɪskuːl/ is stressed as /ɪsˈkuːl/ and is syllabified as /ɪs.ˈkuːl/. Thus, there isn't a cluster here, but a touching of two syllables, one with a consonant as its coda and one with a consonant as its onset. As such, schwa-deleting rules will tend towards a movement like the above, seeking interfaces of two syllables instead of outright clusters. Also, you will often find some words with a couple competing romanizations involving a schwa. Hindi speakers would never notice these differences themselves, but the preference of an individual would result in a different romanization. This is because Hindi releases most of its stops, unlike English. DerekWinters (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau I used CVCVCəCVCə, substituting in V for ə where the V could include an ə. DerekWinters (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

CəCəCə can be CəCCə sometimes, I think. I'll try to find some examples. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 13:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

They must be spelled with a conjunct, otherwise we are in trouble.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Whenever you edit or create a template that invokes a module, you should always check Category:Pages with module errors (Cat:E for short) for at least a day or two afterwards. Please fix the templates that are causing the module errors (except for the user module, which isn't your doing). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Never mind- User:Kc kennylau seems to have fixed everything for you (and only one of his edits was actually to a template, so it looks like the errors were probably from a side-effect rather than a fault of your edit, per se). Chuck Entz (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template:kok-pos&diff=prev&oldid=37839547 --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you moving Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatám to *ĉatá. Any particular reason for this? We use *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ and not *k̂ *ĝ *ĝʰ on Wiktionary for the PIE palatals (see WT:AINE), so maintaining the same convention (*ć *ȷ́ *ȷ́ʰ and not *ĉ *ĵ *ĵʰ) for PII would probably be a good idea.

(I also find the acutes to be more visually distinct from the carons we will be needing for *č *ǰ *ǰʰ, but that's just my opinion.)

Also, if you mean to do larger amounts of work on PII, I would suggest starting the considerations page Wiktionary:About Proto-Indo-Iranian to document any editorial decisions (e.g. transcription issues, where to reconstruct laryngeals). --Tropylium (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm following the style of Alexander Lubotsky, which matches with the phonology given at w:Proto-Indo-Iranian language#Phonology. Quoting Wikipedia,

"The phonetic nature of this contrast is not clear, and hence they are usually referred to as the "primary"/"first" series (*ĉ *ĵ *ĵʰ, continuing Proto-Indo-European palatovelar *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ) and the "second(ary)" series (*č *ǰ *ǰʰ, continuing Proto-Indo-European plain and labialized velars *k⁽ʷ⁾ *g⁽ʷ⁾ *gʰ⁽ʷ⁾ in palatalizing contexts)."

Basically, the use of carons shows the distinction in the pronunciation from PIE to PII. As for WT:About Proto-Indo-Iranian, I'll be sure to outline my transcription scheme there. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Tropylium Having reread some of Lubotsky's papers, it seems that he uses *ć *ȷ́ *ȷ́ʰ. I'll make the changes. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 11:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Having seen some of the entries you created, I have to say I definitely prefer y and w over i̯ and u̯, especially when both our PIE transcriptions and our transliterations of Sanskrit/Indic and Avestan use this notation.

Also I'm curious, what happens when palatovelars occur in a palatalising environment, such as *ḱe? Which of the two series results? —CodeCat 01:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It results in IIR *ća, to Sanskrit śa, Avestan sa, OPers. θa. The Wikipedia article sums it up well. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Be caureful while using Kabir because he was well known for borrowing heavily from Awadhi, Braj Bhasha, Bhojpuri, and other forms of the languages spoken in the area. I'm not sure how much of his work is truly Old Hindi. DerekWinters (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for switching tables to this new system. It's more flexible because you're not limited to hiding or showing the entire table, and the table will also fit its contents better (divs don't expand to fit the table). You may have noticed the "vsHide" classes on table rows. There's also a "vsShow" class, which does the exact opposite: shows when collapsed, hides when expanded. This can be used for the "principal parts" of tables, like you see for Dutch at lopen, Veps at kacta and PIE at *linékʷti. I hope this helps! —CodeCat 01:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It does look very nice while being useful. I will eventually convert all Hindi inflection tables to vsSwitcher. Thanks for the info! —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's advisable not to use percentual width like 100% with this system, because it results in very wide tables and a lot of wasted space, especially on larger monitors. I normally set a minimum width for the cells (with "min-width") so that they are equal in width most of the time and not too narrow, but if the contents is too wide they can expand (something that was not possible with the old NavFrame system). —CodeCat 01:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you're adding topic categories to PIE pages. Can you use the {{topics}} template for that? It applies the proper sorting, whereas the bare category does not. Might also be preferable for other languages! —CodeCat 00:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I will. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, would you please consider creating an entry for the Sanskrit and Hindi term वीणा (a musical instrument)? Many thanks, 173.89.236.187 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. 204.11.189.94 12:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've really enjoyed your work on PII thus far―it has been truly helpful! I'm also trying to decide whether my early claim that PIE *VH > PII *V̄ is true. Cheung seems to have PIra *VH in many places. Do you think we should change them back? —JohnC5 19:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think researchers are still divided on the laryngeal in PII; some believe that *V̄ is the resultant (), but some believe that *VH was the norm. *VH makes more sense in some cases, where Avestan retained a glottal stop (presumably from the laryngeal) in certain words (). Vedic Sanskrit also has stops in the Rig-Veda, supporting the existence of the laryngeal after vowels in PII.

IMO, *VH should be the preferred entry name unless evidence for *V̄ can be found in Sanskrit or Avestan texts. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat What do you think, by the way? Also, could it be a situation similar to Balto-Slavic where *VH > BS *V̄ˀ so that PII has *V̄H? —JohnC5 21:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering myself what evidence there is for the laryngeal. How much do we really know about these glottal stops? How were they written? —CodeCat 21:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

—Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The case for preservation of prevocalic laryngeals seems straightforward. The arguments I have seen for the maintenance of coda laryngeals specifically are not so many:

1. a stress shift in Indo-Aryan (but not Iranian) conditioned by medial laryngeals;
2. various Iranian languages (Khotanese, Yaghnobi, Ossetic, partly Sogdian and Pashto) reflect *iH, *uH as short *i, *u.

The handout from Kümmel that I have for the latter point argues though that this affected only *i/*u + H, and that *aH > *ā was earlier (so already PII if not common core IE?) --Tropylium (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

That seems credible; *tuH "you" makes much more sense than **tū, considering the Old Persian reflex is tu-va-ma /tuvam/ not tu-u-vam /tūvam/. PII *dhuHmás also is better then **dhūmás "smoke"; the Iranian reflexes have a short "u". —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Aryamanarora's link "7" above claims that interconsonantal laryngeals became *i or disappeared before PII. However, a situation like *sth₂tós > स्थित (sthitá) seems to contradict this because pre-laryngeal aspiration took place in PIA, not PII (PII also lacks the phoneme *tʰ). —JohnC5 01:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the lost of interconsonantal *H only occurred in Iranian? —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 11:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I could imagine some sort of glottalized form existing in PII (*stˀitás ~ *st̰itás) in order to fulfill both the need for a vowel and the later aspiration of the preceding consonant. I have not looked enough at the literature to know whether this makes sense, and this may be further afield than just assuming the *H remained interconsonantally. —JohnC5 14:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but I'm inclined to wait until researchers reach a consensus. The problem is that could take years. Until then, assuming *H is extant in PII is the best option. We can move entries as more research is done and discoveries are made. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 14:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good stuff! —JohnC5 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply