User talk:Swarabakti

Hello there! I just wanted to draw your attention to the Dutch digital archive Delpher, which has many newspapers from Indonesia during colonial times. I don't know if this might be useful for Betawi bikin for instance: https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010321660:mpeg21:a0028 Appolodorus1 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'll look into it. Swarabakti (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Appolodorus1 Tangentially related: early texts from Batavia usually just call the language "Malay". Often it's impossible to decide whether a certain passage is actually written in Betawi/Batavian Malay, generic "low" Malay, or something else entirely... I've relied on identifying passages with Betawi-specific diction and pronunciation (e.g. a "Malay" poem rhyming durian, aren and kemarin; Betawi durèn, arèn, kemarèn), but I don't know; are those enough grounds to justify using them as attestations for Betawi entries? Swarabakti (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Swarabakti That's a very interesting question. I don't know enough about languages spoken in Indonesia to say something with authority on the matter; I read at Wikipedia that Betawi's exact demarcation is subject to academic debate.

I do think it is generally true that historical texts written down by (Western) non-native speakers may contain errors of interpretation, but are still worth citing, especially in a less documented language. For example, it may well be that a Dutchman in the nineteenth century wrote down something he thought was Malay, but for which there are good grounds to classify it as Betawi. Or it may be that a native speaker switched between different registers or dialects in a text.

In such cases, the tags |termlang= and |norm= are useful in the quote template. |termlang= helps you to indicate that the term in language A occurs in a language B-context, and |norm= lets you transcribe the quoted text in a current, standardized spelling, in case it exists (your rhyme example would become apparent that way, for instance.)

Moreover, it might also be a matter of citing scholarly literature in the lemma, for example in the etymology section, to substantiate your editorial choices. From Sranan Tongo I know, for instance, that linguists have attempted to analyze the choices of some early Western dictionary writers, including the kind of registers/dialects they were mostly exposed to.

I might ping my gurus @Lingo Bingo Dingo and @Lambiam, maybe they can help you more. Appolodorus1 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ooohhh, the tags would be very useful, thanks! Re: the debate on the origin of Betawi, the actual scholarship on it has moved well past beyond simplifying its history as a "creole". Adelaar's (1992) Proto-Malayic (PM) monograph considers it a direct continuation of PM due to it having phonemic /ə/ in final closed syllables seemingly preserved from PMP and PAN, as in atep /atəp/ 'roof' (ultimately < PAN *qatəp), while most other Malayic lects merged it to /a/. That being said, it does have a lot of "vehicular" (i.e. "creole", "contact", "bazaar", "lingua-franca" Malay) characteristics akin to Eastern Indonesian Malay (Ambonese Malay, Manado Malay etc.), not found in the more "traditional" Malayic lects of Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula.

Grijns (1991, 1994) in particular argues that it originated from a lingua-franca variety of Malay and only became stabilized as a native language in the early 19th century. Nothofer (1995) argues for Betawi being a continuation of a local Java Malay variety in what he calls a "relic" area, comparing the conservatism in Betawi with nearby Malayic lects of Bangka and Palembang. There were several distinct Malay varieties spoken in colonial Batavia and the surrounding area; the (reconstructed) Batavian Mardijker Malay of the 17th and 18th century (cf. Adelaar 2021), for example, seemingly resemble Eastern Indonesian varieties a lot more than modern Betawi, and might well be the source of vehicular features in modern Betawi (aside from local Peranakan Malay influence?).

Hoogervorst (2021, 2024) noted that the earliest attestation of arguably Betawi phonological and lexical characteristics in "Malay" materials came from 1692; traces of influence from this early variety can also be found in Sri Lankan Malay and (now-extinct) Cape Malay. The earliest Betawi dictionary is from 1868 and explicitly uses the name basa Betawi (lit. "Betawi/Batavian language") already. I think if we really need to demarcate its history, we can consider the language as originating from "Java Malay" (pre-17th century; entries under "Malay" heading), which evolves into "Early Batavian Malay" (17th-18th century; under "Betawi" heading?), then "Betawi" (from 19th century onwards; firmly under "Betawi").

These days, Betawi's role as a lingua franca has been wholly replaced by Jakarta Indonesian, which does have Betawi features but not really "based on Betawi" as the Wikipedia page seems to suggest (cf. David Gil's works on Malay/Indonesian koinés). "Traditional" Betawi varieties are mostly endangered (except perhaps the Bekasi dialect), with at least one specific dialect nearing moribund: Tanah Abang with its characteristic *-ah, *-a > /ə/ reflex (cf. gahwĕ)... Swarabakti (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

In this specific example, the source of these two uses of bekin is De Sumatra Post, which bills itself below its masthead as “Daily for Sumatra’s East Coast”. It was based in Medan in North Sumatra, some 1400 km distant from Java. This makes it unlikely that ads in this newspaper are in a vernacular spoken on the north coast of Java. (An ad from the same Parisian pharmacy in the Batavia-based Java-Bode is in Dutch.)  --Lambiam 07:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, upon inspection, most of the instances there are actually more or less generic "low" Malay of Dutch East Indies, which does have some Batavian Malay influence but not quite the same. Other than considering the place of origin, IMO a "Malay" citation for Betawi also needs to show multiple typically Betawi features, whether in diction or morphology, e.g. using -in instead of generic Java Malay -ken. Cf. the one I used in sense #5 of bikin, which has jem, lu, misti, and ronda besides bikin; each of these are not exclusive to Betawi, but when considered together it's pretty typical of a Betawi utterance. Swarabakti (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when nominating a page for speedy deletion, please A) don't blank the page, B) include a reason for deletion (see {{delete}} for examples), and C) click "What links here" on the side of the page to correct any incoming links. Most of the pages you nominated had no incoming links, but there is a translation at boob to Betawi "tokét" that needs to be fixed. Ultimateria (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Noted, thanks! Swarabakti (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Swarabakti, do you have a good Balinese dictionary? And do you know a Balinese speaker that I can consult? Rentangan ^{(talk, contribs)} 08:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The one I cited at geming is available on Repositori Kemdikbud. Also the BASAbali dictionary is a good online source, too. As for Balinese speakers, perhaps you can ask editors on banwiki? Idk if any of them are active here on enwikt... Swarabakti (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the sources! These are enough and I think I don't need to ask a native speaker for now. Rentangan ^{(talk, contribs)} 03:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Swarabakti, should Indonesian and Malay transitive (or actually "inflectable") verbs be lemmatized in their "meng-" form? Everyone (especially @User:Rex Aurorum, @User:Suku Melayu and @User:Xbypass) seems to prefer this way of lemmatization. Rentangan ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am cautious about this since in traditional dictionaries the lemmas are almost always the bare forms, except in a very few cases when they are not generally used unaffixed. Besides, unlike in European languages where passive forms are secondary derivations from the active forms (e.g. active work > passive worked), the di- forms in Malay/Indonesian are equally derived from the bare forms as the meng- forms (e.g. bare makan > active/actor voice memakan, passive/undergoer voice dimakan). They cannot be derived from each other, which points to a type of symmetrical voice system (as you most definitely already knew). Unlike European passives, too, the di- verb forms do not necessarily demote the actor into a prepositional phrase; the use of oleh in Saya dilihat (oleh) anak itu is completely optional, with the PREP-less variant parallelling the AV construction Saya melihat anak itu.

In English-language studies of Malayic varieties, both the bare forms and the prefixed AV forms are usually glossed as infinitives. But if we want to be consistent with the "basic" vs. "inflected" opposition, IMO it is better to lemmatize the bare forms, unless it is certain that the terms in question are rarely (if ever) attested unaffixed. Even in the case of e.g. mengemis, it is also possible to lemmatize it at ngemis as the bare form, if we consider the ng- fossilized when borrowed from Javanese and functionally equivalent to the initial consonant in forms such as nganga (the marginal attestation of colloquial Jakarta form dingemisin instead of *dikemisin is also a supporting evidence of ngemis as the bare form). Same goes for e.g. ngabuburit, which IMO should be the lemma form instead of mengabuburit. Swarabakti (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see, this is very comprehensive. How about transitive verbs affixed with per-, -i and -kan? They also don't use meng- in imperative or certain structures (mobil yang mereka perbaiki), should the lemmas also in the bare forms (perbaiki)? Suku Melayu also said to me that intransitive verbs can also take meng- as a voice prefix (for example alir > mengalir, hilang > menghilang), is that also true or it just functions as a derivational prefix (as in besar > membesar)? Rentangan ^{(talk, contribs)} 20:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Those affixed verbs are to be considered together with the other transitive verbs, regardless of which forms are to be the lemmas. As for the intransitive verbs thing, IIRC only the unaccusative (?) ones can take meng-; these are forms in which the subject is the experiencer and may become causative if suffixed with -kan, cf. melompat, menjadi, meluncur etc. Contrast this with unergative intransitives in which the subject is the agent, like pikir, lari, pergi etc. which cannot take meng- solely (*melari, *memikir, *memergi). Swarabakti (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the case of mengemis, it is affixation of Kemis hence Kemis is the bare form. However, in the case of nganga, nganga is bare form. The presence of colloquial Jakarta form dingemisin itself does not sufficient to support the ngemis as the bare form. Xbypass (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, that is how it is done in standard Indonesian dictionary and grammar. You can refers to Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia or Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia, which verbs be lemmatized in their "meng-" form. Xbypass (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

CMIIW, but technically in the print editions of these dictionaries the verbs are still indexed by the bare forms as the canonicals, though it is true that the definitions are primarily put after the meng- forms. Most of the time, these definitions are meant to apply to both the bare and meng- forms, though in KBBI Daring the bare forms are treated as "precategorials" while the definitions are under the meng- forms (still, the latter are always explicitly shown with preceding bare forms in their entries). But again, I don't have a strong opinion on this; whichever way of lemmatization could work since both forms are usually glossed as infinitives in English anyway.

Also when I suggest that mengemis can possibly be analyzed with ngemis as the bare form, it is specifically on the assumption that it was borrowed wholesale already with the nasal prefix from Javanese (i.e., the prefixation of Kemis happened in Javanese before borrowing). Ditto for ngabuburit, which is not a derivation of burit (as suggested by KBBI until very recently—apparently the entry has been removed), but borrowed wholesale in that form from Sundanese. Swarabakti (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The unresolvedness of this issue has greatly hampered the development of Indonesian on this wiktionary. That much I can say. Suku Melayu (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply