User talk:Pulimaiyi/2017

Thanks for the Sanskrit contributions. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 13:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's my pleasure! Etymology is my interest and I'm looking to expand the Sanskrit section of wiktionary and also improve my knowledge of reconstruction of words. I also thank you for contributing in the etymology of my entry चक्षु (cakṣu) and creating a new page for its PII root. :)

माधवपंडित (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm interested in Indo-Iranian etymology as well. We've built up a correspondence table at User:Victar/Wiktionary:About Proto-Iranian that you might find interesting. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your help thus far! I'd just ask that you read through WT:Layout. You've put a few of the sections out of order or at the wrong heading level. We have fairly specific rules about the sections and their order. Once you see them, though, they are pretty easy. Thanks again! —JohnC5 15:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much. The reason I put the headers that way was that I thought that pronunciation and declension are sub-topics within the noun. I'll take care in the future. माधवपंडित (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Declension is a subtopic of the noun. Pronunciation is not. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You'll need one of these on your user page. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I was actually wondering how one gets those cool boxes. I'll add it right away. Thanks again!

माधवपंडित (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

कोई बात नहीं, लेखों के लिए धन्यवाद! —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you use {{#babel:kok|hi|kn|...}}, it'll bypass {{Babel}} and use Module:Babel instead, so Konkani will show up. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC) @Aryamanarora: Thanks for pointing that out! 😃 Really needed konkani on my babel. Madhav P. (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

1. How does the pitch accent work in Classical Sanskrit?
2. We need to have more verb conjugations (a list of verb forms in a chart) like हन्ति for Sanskrit words. Unfortunately, my Sanskrit isn't that good. It's good to see a Sanskrit user who can improve this. Thank you very much! --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

1. @KoreanQuoter: I'm gladdened by your interest in expanding the Sanskrit entries of wiktionary. However, it is with utmost regret that I inform you that having had no formal education in Sanskrit, my knowledge of this language is perhaps poorer than yours. However, from my limited knowledge, I can tell you that Classical Sanskrit lost the pitch accent and it was not marked either. For instance, any word that was not attested in the Vedas but was attested in Classical Sanskrit, in my opinion, you cannot tell its accent. I chiefly deal with the etymology, (origin), meaning and the descendants of the Sanskrit words that I make entries for. Since I know the sound shifts and changes that occured in various branches of Indo-European languages, I can to a point reconstruct a root as well. But for your question on the pitch accent, I suggest you to speak to @Aryamanarora. — This unsigned comment was added by माधवपंडित (talk • contribs).

   What exactly do you want to know about pitch accent in Sanskrit? As माधवपंडित mentioned, the pitch accent was lost in Classical Sanskrit, which instead moved to an altered version of the Dreimorengesetz, which I can clarify more if necessary. We only know about the locaiton fo the Vedic accent through verse, direct reports by ancient grammarians, and etymological reconstruction. —JohnC5 17:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

2. I agree. We need to have the verb conjugations listed out and since I can do it, I gladly will. However, a good deal of Sanskrit verbs at wiktionary are present in the root form & not always in the -ति suffix 3rd person singular present tense. But I will still do my best to provide the conjugations where possible! — This unsigned comment was added by माधवपंडित (talk • contribs).

   @KoreanQuoter: I've found to be an exceptional tool for conjugation and declension. I also must say, I have no formal education in Sanskrit either. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

   I have often used this site. For a while, I've been meaning to write comprehensive conjugation and declension modules for Sanskrit, and I was using that site for reference. I stopped because Deva is to annoying to work with in code. I realize that I'll probably need a Deva-to-Latn transliterator to make this truly practical. —JohnC5 17:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

   {{chars|sa|}}? {{xlit|sa}}? Both of these exist. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

   I'm sorry, I meant the reverse. Deva-to-Latn exists, but I'd need the then go in reverse when writing the table. —JohnC5 17:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

   I'd be willing to help if you started it. I don't know any Lua besides what I copy and paste... —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

   Yeah, I started something a while ago at Module:User:JohnC5/Sandbox, with output here, but got frustrated with Devanagari and stopped. I may restart at some point. —JohnC5 18:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just to ask, since Old and Middle Tamil are quite well attested, why do we have reconstructed forms of Tamil-Malayalam? DerekWinters (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Oh that is because "Tamil-Malayalam" is a group of languages and dialects of which Tamil and Malayalam are best known. So the reconstructed forms are for the "Proto-Tamil-Malayalam" language which was not attested but reconstructed and which later evolved into Tamil and Malayalam. माधवपंडित (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Malaylam split from Middle Tamil in the 1500s ish, so that would make any Tamil-Malayalam language attested, and not reconstructed. DerekWinters (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: I think 1500ish is way too late; there has been a Malayalam epic poem composed in the 13th century. Now, Wikipedia states that the current understanding is that Malayalam split from Proto-Tamil-Malayalam before 300 CE when the Sangam literature was compose. The reason being that there are several Dravidian features preserved in Malayalam not found even in the oldest forms of Tamil. In fact, the language family tree given at Wikipedia shows Proto-Malayalam as the sibling of Proto-Tamil, not its descendant. Now the earliest attestations of Old Tamil are from 3rd century BC. If we can somehow confirm that Malayalam emerged after 3rd century BC, we can easily say Old Tamil is the same as Proto-Tamil-Malayalam. You know, Dravidian linguistics is confusing; even the grouping and classification of Dravidian languages is not universally accepted. माधवपंडित (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I must have seen only an older theory, stating that it developed out of Middle Tamil. Dravidian linguistics are quite confusing. DerekWinters (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. There's also the fact that Old Tamil influenced the development of early Malayalam, further complicating things. माधवपंडित (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Sometimes, linguistics (just like the study of religion) is influenced by identity and language politics and personal (often incorrect) beliefs. Often, it is what people want to be true rather than what is true. With all due respect to the Tamils, I can say, this is the case with them: often, there are Tamil supremacists who will claim that all Dravidian languages come from Tamil (some even claim Tamil is the mother of Sanskrit, believe me). I have seen this being used a lot esp. in Dravidian linguistics. Even I have seen the older theory you refer to, stating that Malayalam arose as a Tamil dialect. People often attempt to propagate their socio-political interests thru such fields of study; e.g. some people claiming that Sanskrit is the mother of all languages, whereas on the other hand some claiming that Sanskrit was never a spoken language, it was constructed and artificial etc etc etc. Both are wrong and both have vested interests. 2405:204:9402:3EB6:F150:84CF:3B91:8CE8 07:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems my username has been giving people a lot of confusion. I chose a very random name, but I am 100% Gujarati, albeit living in the United States. And yes, I've seen and heard this stuff all my life, and do tend to recognize crazy claims of Sanskrit and Tamil origin. However, I did truly believe Malayalam arose from an older Tamil variety, especially considering all of my Tamil and Malayalam friends have always stated that the two languages are so close as to be understandable by each other. Thank you for correcting me though, I should have looked at the more modern research. DerekWinters (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Check out the bibliography on pages 30-31. I think (hope) you'll find some fantastic Dravidian sources. DerekWinters (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Great find, thanks a lot! :) Especially delighted to find a book detailing Old Kannada's influence on Old Marathi, this will help us find a lot of attested Old Kannada terms. Thanks again! माधवपंडित (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Glad to help! DerekWinters (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

you might find this useful. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: धन्यवाद!!! It's got all the languages I'm working on right now, great find!! माधवपंडित (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I used it all the time. The two comparative dictionaries cover Dravidian and Indo-Aryan respectively. They're great for reconstructing. The Dasa-Hindi dictionary is the most complete Hindi dictionary, but it's in Hindi entirely. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

4 Found this! There are like 6 or more volumes. DerekWinters (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Thank you. Really need to expand Wiktionary's konkani section. माधवपंडित (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

http://learnsanskrit.org seems to be a great resource. It has a lot of simple words that haven't been added to Wiktionary. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also looks really cool, but is incomplete. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: http://learnsanskrit.org is awesome!! This'll help me to learn the language while also expanding wiktionary's Sanskrit vocabulary. Thanks a lot!! - Madhav P. (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Their sandhi lessons are so helpful, be sure to do all the introductory phonology stuff before doing them tho. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: You're right; mustn't take the phonology for granted just because we think we know Devanagari - Madhav P. (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

lol —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just found this, it has 1300 Proto-Indo-Iranian reconstructions and cognate sets. It seems to be reliable since it was compiled by Lubotsky (a very prominent Iranicist Indologist). —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

is a searchable database that is easier to use. It seems that The Indo-Aryan Inherited Lexicon is going to be one of the books eventually published in the IEED series by Leiden University. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 03:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Many thanks! This IIR dictionary is quite interesting. I've read Lubotsky's work before, it's incredible. The above dictionary has some more interesting Iranian descendants to add to *ĉasás. Madhav P. (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

—Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 08:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: त्वां धन्यं वदामि & wish you the same! ^_^ -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

My Sanskrit is not nearly good enough to come up with that… —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: You think I came up with that?! ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did… Now that I think about it धन्यं वदामि is actually a dead giveaway. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Yeah, literally translates to what, "I say a blessed thing to you"? The actual term is अनुगृहितोऽस्मि (anugṛhitoʼsmi) but it sounds wicked lol ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps without sandhi it's अनुगृहीतः अस्मि (anugṛhītaḥ asmi, “I am favored”)? Cool word —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 13:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: How beautiful & poetic!!! They don't call it देवभाषा (devabhāṣā) for nothing. :) ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I put some links (under Dravidian) on my page for Old Kannada that I think you might like. DerekWinters (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Thanks a lot!! I downloaded the pdf & it's really very interesting. Old Kannada preserves old Dravidian sounds that underwent innovation in modern Kannada. I wish we had the language here at wiktionary so we could create lemmas in it. I would request it but its script is the Kadamba script which isn't available to me-- shoot! If it'd been brahmi, there'd be no problem. ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is there any difference at all b/w Brahmi & Kadamba by the way??? ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think it's different from Brahmi if Wikipedia is anything to go to, but it has 1:1 correspondence with the Kannada scripts, if you look at File:Kaadamba script(5th century AD).jpg. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 13:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Thanks! It's indeed very similar. Since some Old Kannada inscriptions & Old Kannada poems in high school textbooks use the kannada script, I wonder if it'd be ok to create its lemmas in the kannada script. Kadamba script is not available here on this project, which is a problem. At least typing aids for Brahmi are available here. I'm really hoping a consensus is reached for using either Kannada or the Brahmi at the beer parlor... ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

IMO since it's a newer language (compared to the Prakrits etc.) it would probably be more useful to have it in the Kannada script, with a Brahmi script redirect. Especially since, as you said, it is studied in school in the Kannada script. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think so as well. Many websites (including the wiki) which provide info about O.K. use the kannada script. Plus, prospective information seekers are likelier to search in the kannada script. If we can have the IAST for Prakrit we can also have kannada script for OK i guess. -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

w:hi:कलश भाषा —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 09:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Thanks! I was not sure about the final schwa. -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe Kalasha-speakers don't believe in schwa-dropping? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 01:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Yeah, seems like it, many kalasha words have the final schwa. - ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are so many... —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 23:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Thanks! It's a real massive project and covers the languages accurately. -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's a Halegannada-Kannada dictionary apparently. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 10:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Yeah, I saw that. It's a pity my proposal for adding Old Kannada went nowhere. -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Madhva, thanks for the Proto-Indo-Aryan reconstructions. If you aren't already familiar, I recommend Kobayashi's Historical Phonology of Old Indo Aryan Consonants. Sometimes the developments from PII to PIA aren't as straightforward as you would expect. --Victar (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: Thank you for the resource! I have been reconstructing Proto-Indo-Aryan using a simple formula of a few known sound changes from PII to PIA. You make a good point, this simplicity of the sound changes in PIA must not be taken for granted. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

HAH, well if you have a simple formula, you should let the linguistic community know, because there are sound changes that we can still only guess at! Have you seen the on-going research here? I'm still very unsure about some consonant clusters, like *hẓʰ and *gʰẓʰ. --Victar (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: Of course! I bookmarked that page months ago and still follow it. As you said, many consonant clusters remain a mystery because of too many of them merging into Sanskrit kṣa. Which is why I leave the PIA forms alone when there are consonant clusters like those involved. In other cases, I'm afraid, there's nothing I do that you do not already know:

• PII -aw- > PIA -au- > Skt o (in the oldest form of Sanskrit, this was the diphthong au, reminiscent of the PIA form)
• PII -ay- > PIA -ai- > Skt e (again, originally a diphthong)
• For some reason, the RUKI law does not appear to apply to the PIA case endings, since the Sanskrit forms still end in -s
• PII ĉ > PIA ś
• PII ĵ > PIA j
• PII č > PIA c
• PII *ĵʰ > PIA h
• The Indo-European combination of -sg- or -sgʰ- become -jj- in Sanskrit, possibly through PIA -zg-? I'm not sure. (c.f. मज्जन् (majjan), रज्जु (rajju))
• PII w > PIA v

-- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

RUKI seems to apply really sporadically; I weird example I found was Sanskrit परिष्ठिति (pariṣṭhiti), which we un-RUKI'ed when borrowed as Hindi परिस्थिति (paristhiti). Sometimes NIA and MIA offer clues to PIIr where Sanskrit gives क्ष (kṣa). E.g. Hindi छन (chan) for Sanskrit क्षण (kṣaṇa), and even साया (sāyā) for छाया (chāyā). —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Wow, I always thought परिस्थिति (paristhiti) was a Sanskrit word. True, sometimes Middle Indo-Aryan gives a clue to which of the diverse clusters gave rise to the क्ष in Sanskrit. But then there are forms like Pali khaya (from क्षय (kṣaya)), rukkha (from वृक्ष (vṛkṣa)) etc. The former should have been something like *jhaya & the latter should have been *ruccha. Instead, it seems to blindly follow the Skt kṣa > Pali kha formula. Apparently, the Pali speakers were also aware of this sound correspondence between Pali and Sanskrit and specifically created new Pali words by applying the formula to Sanskrit words. So much for the "naturalness" of the prakrits... -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Panini's standardization was a blessing and a curse... —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 14:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

lol -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, that list has several errors and orthographic conflicts. For instance, *ĵʰ and *ǰʰ where not yet realized as *h in PIA, as per the paper I shared above. Let me update my table so we can be on the same page before you continue. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: I really appreciate that! I've also been reading that paper which is very interesting & informative. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've updated the page to include PIA. There dozens of consonant cluster rules I haven't added yet, especially regarding all the torn clusters, but it's a start.

Here is another PIA paper I recommend: http://enlil.ff.cuni.cz/system/files/On%20historical%20phonology.pdf

--Victar (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: I have been admiring your orthographic changes to PIA of late; everything makes much more sense. A question I noticed is where the cluster *ǵs would fit in exactly. Also, I know it may be hard to find data on the clusters *dǵʰ and *tǵʰ, but I'd imagine they would pattern with *ǵʰs. The only place I can think to find them would be some compound clitic like *ud-ǵʰe. These resources you've made are really invaluable. —JohnC5 00:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @JohnC5. You should see the spreadsheet on my computer. Sources for PIA, and even PII are far and inbetween with varying orthographic systems, making it difficult to piece together. The thorn clusters are a bit more difficult, complicated by the fact that they often have three forms, a) a standard development, b) and RUKI development, and c) a preconsonantal development. I'll add them soon to get your thoughts. --Victar (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: Thanks a lot! This paper has an interesting alternative reconstruction to *Hŕ̥ĉšas by the way, taking into account the cluster *h₂ŕ̥-tḱ-os. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. Happy to be helpful. --Victar (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित, according to Kümmel, -w- was still retained in PIA. Also, please include accents marks in PIR reconstructions. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: What evidence do we have that the pitch accent was retained in Proto-Iranian? As per my knowledge no Iranian descendant has it. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

This has been discussed before, but yes, and we know this because a) certain PIR phonetic developments depend on it, b) we know a free dynamic accent existed in Avestan, based on developments in Younger Avestan, as well as c) the survival of the old accentuation in some modern Iranian languages. --Victar (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: Alright, thanks for letting me know. I will see to it in the future. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @माधवपंडित. --Victar (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you want an entry deleted without discussion you need to use {{delete}}. If you use {{rfd}} be sure to add a section to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. DTLHS (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DTLHS: Oh I see; I didn't know that. Although I'm sure the entry is wrong, I did not just go and add the delete tag to it because I did not want to simply put up for deletion an entry which has been around for several years. I will start a discussion in that forum for deletion now. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that you've been creating entries for these where the pagetitles have vowels. That can be appropriate for some Arabic-script languages (for example, my understanding is that Uighur and Xiao'erjing Chinese do so consistently), but the majority languages in the area like Pashto and Urdu are written without vowels normally. Are you sure this is not just a dictionary-only phenomenon, or do people actually write this way? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Hmm, these languages are not very well documented so we cannot tell if the diacritics are used and most of my sources use the Latin script and only one uses the arabic script where the vowel marks are sporadic. In a Sindhi and a Pashto entry, I saw the diacritics used albeit not in the page title but rather in the "head" parameter under the part of speech header. I can move the pages to ones without the diacritic marks if I should, though... -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, the entry اِسپُسار is one of the first lemmas for the Khowar language at wiktionary so I base my entries on that. As you can see, it contains the vowels. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've moved the entries for conformity with the other languages in the area that use the Arabic script. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You could use the head parameter for vowels; for some reason we don't for e.g. Urdu or Persian, but I don't know why, it's just a convention. Anyway, thanks for moving the entries. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great work on the Dardic languages! They've been neglected for quite a long time here (except when that one user imported a bunch of Kashmiri words in Latin script). I never knew how many archaic features they preserve. btw where are you finding these word? I noticed some of them in CDIAL, which sometimes has dated terms. btw you would enjoy this website which has a lot of information on Dardic and Nuristani (the third, most neglected Indo-Iranian branch) languages. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Thanks! For some reason I'm oddly fascinated by the Dardic languages. My sources are the numerous PDFs which are actually just essays on the grammar of these various languages and carry a few words for example sentences. It's very difficult to get a complete dictionary or a vocab list. I only have a full dictionary for Kalasha & Shina. All the sources use Latin script so I type out the Arabic script myself. And OMG thanks so much for the website!! It's so convenient and complete with etymology!! -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I figured someone could make use of it. lol, I have a similar thing for Northeast Indian languages (especially the Sino-Tibetan ones). —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 11:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Haha I noticed that... So it seems like you got the North & the Northeast covered while I got the South and the Northwest! With Kutchkutch and Derek taking care of the west & Sagir of the east, I think India is safe 🇮🇳 -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Poor Madhya Pradesh :( haha. Don't forget Rajasekhar1961, he's the reason Telugu has 12000 lemmas. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Whoops, of course! Muh boi Raja's got the Deccan covered. lol. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳 —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित, Aryamanarora: Thanks for including me in the list of Indo-Aryan editors! I joined way back in 2010 and as you already know the Indo-Aryan coverage of Wiktionary was not very good back then so I became inactive for many years since there was too much to do. I eventually noticed Aryamanarora's massive contributions. Perhaps more Indo-Aryan languages would have been the size of Telugu by the time you two joined if I had made contributions during all those years.

That "Languages of the Eighth Schedule" list on Aryamanarora's user page makes this look like a competition . It excludes non-official Indo-Aryan languages in India, excludes Indo-Aryan/Dardic languages outside India, and includes Dravidian languages. Bengali and Gujarati look close, Assamese and Marathi look close, and Malayalam and Konkani look close. Kutchkutch (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: This is a great time for South Asian languages on Wiktionary, now that there are native speakers editing lol. (much of the Hindi lexicon was added by Hindi learners a long time ago) I do like to look at it as a friendly competition amongst ourselves, since it's no fun trying to compete with other major languages like Chinese (120,000 lemmas) or Japanese (59,000 lemmas), since they already have a strong community here. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Must. Overtake. Malayalam. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fun fact: Macedonian has more lemmas than any of the Indian languages. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: That's true, and I looked... the # of speakers of Macedonian and Konkani is almost the same, with Macedonian having just about 400,000 more speakers. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You did it. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Wow! So gratifying lol mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

(also this might help WT:Requested entries (Konkani) —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Malayalam doesn't appear to have any active contributors so Konkani could easily overtake Malayalam. Do the Konkani entries you make represent a single dialect or are they a mixture of dialects? Some verbs end in -प and others end in -चे so do each of these suffixes represent a different dialect or are they just two suffixes in the same dialect? Kutchkutch (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: Well broadly Konkani has 3 noticeable varieties, the Standard Konkani, Catholic Konkani and the Karwari Konkani (which includes the Konkani language spoken in Karnataka and Kerala).

Usually, most of Konkani literature is in the Catholic variant of the language which leads to a gross misrepresentation as it is not the most widely spoken dialect. Hence on this site I have tried to document the standard, colloquial variety. However, I have also made entries that are chiefly Catholic Konkani vocabulary.

In every Konkani entry, the word is transcribed in Devanagari, Latin and Kannada. The Latin spellings often reflect the pronunciation of the Catholic dialect and the Kannada spellings reflect the Karwari dialect. So typically for most of the entries, all three major varieties are documented.

The suffixes -प (-pa) & -चे (-ce) both form the infinitive of the verbs akin to Marathi -णे (-ṇe) and Hindi -ना (-nā). -चे (-ce) is literary and formal whereas -प (-pa) is generally colloquial. Usually, both these suffixes can be added to the words. However, some verbs have only one, which is why some entries have the -चे (-ce) suffix while the others have -प (-pa). -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the detailed answer! Wikipedia suggests that the Konkani language also has various dialects along the coast of Maharashtra, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and in parts of Gujarat. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: True, I also forgot to mention that as you move northwards from Goa to Maharashtra, Konkani & Marathi merge into each other. Actually Marathi & Konkani are so close they form a dialect continuum with Standard Marathi on one end and Standard Konkani on the other. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey! What's the script for Halegannada? I can't find anything that outright says it. Also on that note, do you know what script should be used to record terms from Sangam literature? DerekWinters (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I know Tamil Brahmi exists, but it seems it wasn't used for literature, where Grantha and Vatteluttu were used instead. But honestly I'm not sure at all. DerekWinters (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: The actual script is the Kadamba script. But I've been to temples where I've seen Halegannada inscriptions in the Kannada script (with some minor difference additional letters). These inscriptio:ns are from the same period that Kadamba script was used. Also, Halegannada poems in school textbooks also use the Kannada script, so we are justified in using the Kannada script for convinience. Kadamba script is very difficult to find online, it'll first have to be added on here and a module for typing aids would need to be created -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, the internet seems to say the Brahmi was used for Old Tamil... -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Kadamba isn't even in Unicode, so it is pretty much impossible to use on Wiktionary. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: True, and nobody who would want to use a resource for Old Kannada would search in Kadamba. -- mādhavpaṇḍit (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, @माधवपंडित, I found this resource for Halegannada. 1. I hope it's of some use! DerekWinters (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DerekWinters: Thanks a lot! I've used the resource you gave earlier to make all of these Halegannada entries btw. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh perfect then! These older languages are really clearing up all the confusing history of the Indian languages. DerekWinters (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another resource: Halagannada Padasampada, a Kannada-Halegannada dictionary. I also really suggest Krishnamurty's The Dravidian Languages, it really throughly compares the Dravidian languages and has modern Proto-Dravidian reconstructions. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: Thanks a lot! Love the first one. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just wish it was not so overflowing with tatthamas. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are they really called that in Kannada? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aryamanarora: LOL no, that's how the typical Prakrit speaker would say it. माधवपंडित (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems almost all of our Konkani noun entries don't have genders in the headword. Is there any reason not to have the gender? Just curious, since I know the declension tables do distinguish gender. (it would be great if you checked भाचो (bhācô) btw). —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: Konkani nouns have gender. when I began editing, there was no provision for it in the template and I did not go to the bother of specifying gender. Soon, we will also start standardizing the adjectives (of inanimate objects) by moving them to the neuter form. Like जुनें as opposed to जुनो and उजवें as opposed to उजवो etc. Adjectives describing humans like भेड्डो are fine. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have added the g= parameter to {{kok-pos}} now. Another thing I am wondering about is the lemmatization of verbs. AFAIK all verbs have standard -चे and -अप forms, and -पाचे as a colloquial variant. These are all interchangeable, right (except the colloquial won't be used in writing)? I think we should pick one to keep all verbs at; Routledge's The Indo-Aryan Languages has a very great chapter on Konkani (it even describes dialect differences), and it lists the -अप form as the first gerund and the -चे form as the second gerund, if that matters. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: In the hierarchy of standardness, -चे comes first, followed by -अप. There are some verbs -अप won't touch, like those ending in व (among others), but these go well with -चे. School textbooks and standard publications favor -चे whereas people's speech favor -अप. If we standardize verbs too, we should use a form where no lemma is left out or is rendered incorrect, IMO. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I always thought -अप was standard since that's what I had seen on IndoWordNet as the lemma. What about the infinitive? I believe it's -उंक but I am not sure. I don't know if it's the best idea, but at least it's the same for all verbs. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: Again, -पाक also exists as a suffix for infinitive but I don't think this is standard. And it would look a bit odd making that the lemma form. It'll (kind of) be like using करने instead of करना for Hindi. The strongest point in favor of -चे is that there's no verb we can't get on board. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dang, Konkani is complicated. Then I suppose we should do -चे. I agree, no actual sources use the infinitive, except for this website, but that's obviously not made by a linguist. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 13:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: No worries. I'll start moving entries soon. You can do this too if you want; just add a virama and चे to the stem... As an aside, I see you've put -क as an accusative/dative suffix but it's actually -आक. For pronouns, it's -का -- माधवपंडित (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I was going off of Rocky V. Miranda's grammar in The Indo-Aryan Languages which deconstructs that as oblique suffix -आ + clitic postposition -क. (and e.g. at भाचो (bhāco) every case that isn't the nominative has -आ- in place of -ओ). I can move it if you don't think that's right. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 13:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, no worries then, it's quite right. Must we add usage notes so it does not confuse people?? -- माधवपंडित (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

-mā is the result of -mn̥ in PII.--Victar (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: That is for masculine n stem nouns like *aryamā́. On the other hand nouns like páĉšma are neuter. Their descendants (both Sanskrit and Avestan) decline the nom. sg. with ma, not mā. See *čáĉšma and *čárma. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected. In the future though, please include a reason for reverting someone's edits. Not doing so is how wheel wars start. --Victar (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Tell me, please, does such a word exist in Kannada and what does it mean?--Cinemantique (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Cinemantique: It's a neologism. It means cosmopolitanism. That's to say, ವಿಶ್ವಬಂಧುತ್ವ (viśvabandhutva) means cosmopolitanism, made of ವಿಶ್ವ (viśva, “world”) + ಬಂಧುತ್ವ (bandhutva, “affinity”). The suffix -ದ (-da) turns the word into the genitive case. So literally, ವಿಶ್ವಬಂಧುತ್ವದ (viśvabandhutvada) means "of cosmopolitanism". -- माधवपंडित (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much!--Cinemantique (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply