User talk:User1267183728390127891247

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Usermaterial!

Thank you for your kind message. It's a pleasure to edit on Wiktionary and on other Wiki projects. I also thank you for the tips, I'll be reading those pages and will definitely be adding BableBoxes to my User page! Kind regards, User:User1267183728390127891247 (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

So exciting to have another South Asian editor :) Feel free to ping me for help or info, as I am the sole South Asian admin so far. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aryaman^A! I hope you're well! Nice to meet you, it is great to meet another South Asian. As you've might've noticed, I, too, am trying to somewhat 'fix' Wiktionary (mainly on words in Urdu and a bit of Punjabi at the moment). I was actually in need of help, (and definitely will in the future too 😬) relating to the Kalasha language where I noticed the template:kls-noun doesn't work well when the {{{1}}} is in Arabic and was wondering if you knew how to add a "Latin script" option as my coding knowledge in Wikipedia is a bit poor. — This unsigned comment was added by User1267183728390127891247 (talk • contribs).

Hi. Just for your information, we would soon be having two more South Asian administrators: Bhagadatta & Kutchkutch. You may take help from them for your templet-related problems if need be. — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 13:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: That's great to hear, happy to hear that other fellow South Asian users are becomings Moderators!
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 16:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you can also exercise your right to vote, if you want! And yes, this is great news. — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Your work on the Urdu translit module looks really good. Do you think you can improve Module:fa-translit as well? I am not sure if sukun (jazm) is also required there. Do you support to eventually require Urdu and Persian entries to have full vocalisation and semi-automatic transliteration (manual if the auto-translit doesn't work)? BTW, your ping to Aryaman^A above didn't work, since you didn't sign your post (ping and sign should exist in the same edit). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: Hi! Thank you for your comment on the Module:ur-translit. I do currently still intend to work on it but due to real life occupancies, I have paused my work on it. Regarding the Persian transliteration module, I'm not too sure how confident I'd be working on it as I feel my knowledge on Persian and Persian transliteration is generally weak, as the reason why I decided to start working on the Urdu module (and previously Module:pa-Arab-translit, though I gave up on it) was because I understand how Urdu is written and how it can be transliterated (not to mention the lack of standardisation of Urdu transliteration). Having said that, I will take a look at it and see where I can improve it as it seems there has been good progress on it already by a number of users, including yourself.

And thank you, I was made aware of how to ping people properly later on 😅.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 03:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for considering. I find Persian transliteration simpler, at least in how it's often used. It may be misleading, though, since, e.g. Arabic module would consider cases like كو or كي incomplete (no vowel provided), you'd require كُو (kū) or كِي (kī) (with diacritics) to make long vowels unambiguous but in vocalised Persian (from what I can gather) کو and کی are considered complete cases and would be transliterated as "ku" and "ki" accordingly, however کُو and کِی (with diacritics) actually should be transliterated as "kow" and "key" accordingly, which makes these different from Arabic. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: Yeah, I've always imagined that Persian transliteration would be simpler. Thanks for letting me know about the diacritics, I'll do a bit of research on Persian and then try and improve it.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 05:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Neat! Didn't know about your work on this, looks awesome. I think some differences exist between this and Hindi transliteration (ɛ̄ vs ai, e.g.) and we should try to make the modules as similar as possible. BTW, I am working on Gurmukhi conjugation for Punjabi (very much in progress), see User:AryamanA/sandbox3. We can try to make some together for Shahmukhi Punjabi and Urdu. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 06:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: Hi Aryaman! I'm glad you liked it! I've purposely chosen a slightly different way of representing some vowels for this module, just so it represents Urdu properly as I feel the other transliteration standardisations are aimed more towards the Indic scripts, hence the ɛ̄ and ɔ̄ etc, but I'm still unsure as I don't think there are any transliteration standard made specifically for Urdu - so it might end up being changed. I'm also quite happy about the Punjabi conjunction templates, will definitely help out for the Shahmukhi templates (and the declensions for Shahmukhi script also need to be sorted out, while on the subject)!

Also, just wondering, did you see my message on your talk page about the request on Urdu headwords or did you not get a notification?
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 06:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@User1267183728390127891247: Ah, just saw it! I have started MOD:ur-headword and am thinking how best to go about this. We should only provide translit generation if a head= parameter is provided right? We will have to do several bot runs to get this all sorted out it seems. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: Yes, in addition Benwing2 suggested that the Arabic way could be ported over to the Urdu module so that if diacritics are required (i.e the |head is needed) the module won't be run and if they aren't, they will be automatically transliterated.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 05:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This needs an Urdu entry. Please create it when you have time. Thanks in advance! — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: Hi, I'm pretty sure that's not the correct Urdu ye (Unicode Character). The proper character is this ی
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@User1267183728390127891247: Thanks for the feedback. I was also thinking if it was really an Urdu letter because it’s not there on my Urdu keyboard, but I did find this letter in the word کيسر (confirmed here); maybe they have used some obsolete character…? — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: They are identical letters but one is used for Urdu and related languages only and the other is used for Arabic and other languages. If they are mixed up then it is a grammatical error.

The South Asian dictionaries have this problem where they don't use the correct Unicode characters for Urdu and happens with other characters too like ہ ,ھ and ک. It's important that the correct Unicode letters are used since that's what Urdu keyboard users will ultimately be using.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 17:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@User1267183728390127891247: Oh, I did not know that Qureshi’s dictionary also uses incorrect Unicode characters; I knew about the problem before but I mistakenly thought this problem existed only in dictionaries written by European orientalists… So the correct spelling of the aforesaid word, kesar is کیسر, right? — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 18:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: I can't remember exactly which dictionaries had the Unicode problem, and I do use Kitabistan from time to time (out of the most from the South Asian Dictionaries), but I tend to avoid the South Asian Dictionaries overall just because they're outdated as well as due to the Unicode problem. I tend to stick with either Rekhta or UDB Gov PK dictionaries just because I know they will use the correct characters and are pretty up-to-date.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 18:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Use of wrong characters has been an old problem in Wiktionary. User:Erutuon wrote routines to find those and we have been fixing where we knew and where we could. The translation-adder MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder-Data.js now replaces many of wrongly used characters per language code. For example, check the line for Urdu, which replaces some of the incorrectly used characters in translations:

ur: {
			from: arabicKaf + arabicYa + alifMaqsura,
			to: farsiKaf + farsiYe + farsiYe,
		},		

There are similar replacements with other languages. If you know more characters that definitely need to be replaced with the correct ones, they can be added. This is only for translation-adder, though. If someone tries to add a translation "كيسر" or "کيسر" with the language code "ur", it will be replaced with "کیسر". No-one can prevent editors using incorrect characters in the edit mode. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: For Urdu, there are 4 letters (2 have already been mentioned, the Kaaf and the Ye) which are often written with the incorrect character. The last one would be the Urdu He as well as the Do-chashme he:

1. 'He' used in Urdu: U+06C1

2. 'Do-Chashme-He' used in Urdu: U+06BE

* Mixed with: U+0647 (Persian/Arabic 'He'), U+06C3 (Arabic Tah Murtabah Goal), U+0629 (Arabic Tah Murtabah)

I was also wondering, would there not be a way to check the letters before publishing edits, for instance by checking the head language and then seeing whether there are any incorrect letters just within that language section?
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 23:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@User1267183728390127891247: If you suggest an edit to MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder-Data.js, I have access, so I can add this for you. You can see some previous discussions at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-TranslationAdder-Data.js.

Some warnings can probably be implemented in the headword module and inflection tables. I am no expert, though. You can try asking at WT:GP. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, it seems the Ye one hasn't been implemented yet, but I'll suggest that to you later on.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

arabicYa (U+064A) is replaced with farsiYe (U+06CC) for Urdu or do you mean something else? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад)

@Atitarev: Ah, it seems they have already been included. I don't know why my brain just ignored them. Thanks
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I hope you're doing fine. I noticed that it is because of recent edits in Module:ur-translit , ایک now transcribes as aik not ēk. Why do you think it's better to transcribe sequence of alif and ye as "ai"? Would not it create confusion considering Hindi transliteration? What are the IPA equivalent for e, ē, ê, ɛ, ɛ̄, and ai? If they are not distinct phonemes in Urdu, we should let Module:ur-IPA do the job. Kushalpok01 (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kushalpok01 Hi Kushal! I am doing fine thanks. While there is no difference in the phonology, I did change the initial 'ē' -> 'ai' in order to make it more representative of the Urdu spelling. I understand that there may be some confusion between the Urdu transliteration and Hindi transliteration, but Urdu speakers tend to write the initial 'ē' as 'ai' in Latin. For instance 'aik' and rarely 'ek' (because of Hindi influence).

To make it clear the e's used in this Module are:

e (for short e),

ai for long initial ē,

ē (for prolonged e in the medial and final form),

ê for short ɛ

And ɛ̄ for prolonged ɛ sounds but I am contemplating whether to just represent it with ɛ, since shortened ɛ is represented with an ê
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 15:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@User1267183728390127891247 It may confuse readers. The main point of transliteration system is to not confuse the readers. Not just Urdu speakers would look up but everyone. I believe macroned forms should be used for transcribing every prolonged sounds: e (for short e),

ē for long initial ē,

ē (for prolonged e in the medial and final form),

ɛ for short ɛ

And ɛ̄ for prolonged ɛ sounds. Kushalpok01 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kushalpok01 I understand your point, but I feel that maybe the Urdu Transliteration should differ somewhat from the Hindi transliteration, as transliterations are supposed to be representative of the spelling of a word, not necessarily the phonology, which is one of the problems I have with Indic transliteration standards used for Urdu. Giving some thought on the macron diacritics, specifically for the ɛ sounds, I would have to agree that they should be ɛ for shortened ɛ's and ɛ̄ for prolonged ɛ sounds.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 02:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I might have misunderstood the point of this discussion, but IPA symbols should not be used in transliterations. And also, on Wiktionary we are really, at least for South Asian languages, transliterating based on the phonology of the language, rather than the orthography. Orthographies generally tend not to be phonemic— the orthography of a language commonly being either influenced by the orthography of an earlier form of the language (as in the orthographies of the major South Asian languages that are written in Brahmic scripts), or influenced by the orthography a foreign language (as in South Asian languages written in the Arabic script). Thus, given this awkward scenario for South Asian languages, a phonemic form of transliteration is the best option. (However, I am an intruder to this discussion, so you may unheed this comment; just my tuppence.) -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 14:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Inqilābī: I'm so sorry for the late reply, I hadn't been on Wiktionary for some time as I had to deal with personal matters. I do feel that I have unnecessarily complicated the module:ur-translit and scrap it entirely and use the ALA-LC transliteration method with a couple of modifications (hopefully, I'll get started on that as soon as I can). However that Module isn't completely useless as it can be potentially used for the Urdu IPA module, as it works best for that. In regards to your comment about IPA symbols, I do agree with you and I will be most likely removing the IPA symbols from the module, as the ALA-LC method is literally transliterating how it will be written, not how it is pronounced, hence the lack of need for the IPA symbols anyways. I do however feel that the initial vowels (in Urdu) should be represented equally as they are expressed (for instance ایـ to be transliterated as ai..).
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 18:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I left this comment about بوہا some days ago. Regards. --37.11.122.76 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have made changes in accordance with your suggestions! Thanks
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 18:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. See the sense "certain, fixed" is there in many NIA languages; in Hindi also pakkā does mean "cooked" as well as "sure, certain", etc. Perhaps we can see it as: cooked —> ripe —> mature —> stable —> certain. Turner also suggests a relation of the sense "sufficient, able" to "cooked, ripe", so I think it is safe to say that it is from the same source. Please add that descendant to *𑀧𑀓𑁆𑀓-𑀕. Thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@शब्दशोधक Noted and added!
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 12:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Please just note that |bor=1 is to be used only when the descendant is a borrowing. Have a look at هوس (havas) for an example where |bor=1 is used for the borrowed New-Indic terms. On a related note, the new templates {{inh+}} and {{bor+}} (which display the full text 'Inherited/Borrowed from' and link to the glossary, making life easier for both readers & editors) have been nominated for deletion at WT:RFDO § Template:bor+ and Template:inh+. These both are really simple and harmless, so if you like you can vote '''Keep'''. Cheers! (P.S. You pinged my old a/c, so I didn't get any notification.) 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The usage of {{bor+}} and {{inh+}} were struck down in the vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+ and will be removed on sight. --{{victar|talk}} 19:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Victar actually got blocked for removing these new templates. They have of course passed RFDO so they can be used. SodhakSH (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SodhakSH I don't understand why the template is so controversial, especially for a Wiki project. It's really useful not having to write "Borrowed from" initially. I refrained from using it as all the previous times I used it, were changed to the traditional template.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 12:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@User1267183728390127891247: Now they shouldn't be controversial, as they passed the RFD. Now you can use it, and feel free to revert anyone who replaces it. As you can see, Victar, who did most of the replacements, got blocked for 2 weeks. Notify @Imetsia in case anyone replaces {{bor+}} and {{inh+}}. -- SodhakSH (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The usage of {{bor+}} was struck down in the vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+. Please do not continue to use it. --{{victar|talk}} 21:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Victar Well it's apparent that there's still a disagreement :/ I guess I'll avoid using it for now, again.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 01:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Victar When I meant, I would refrain from using the template, I didn't mean that it was okay to start revering my previous edits either. Please leave them as they are, until a concrete decision has been made.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 15:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

There already was and still is a decision. See User talk:Victar#Imetsia's_block. --{{victar|talk}} 15:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Victar I don't support the block but that's a separate issue, however in regards to the template - clearly there are still discussions. I know that you're against it, and respect it - by not using the template and by not actively engaging in the discussions, but at the same time, it's not nice to force your preference on me :(
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 15:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's not "my preference", it's the decision of the vote. --{{victar|talk}} 15:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Was there any reason you added another Urdu term separately. Are both the terms not merely variants? Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī Hi! They are indeed variants, but whereas one is a leaned borrowing, the other lemma was derived (?). So I felt that they should be separated. Please feel free to organise, remove or edit as you please.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 16:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

So that means you are not aware of the specific etymology for ہمالیہ, but you probably seem to indicate it’s not directly from Sanskrit. So may be it’s from Persian? Also, I see you changed the spelling from همالی, but it’s stated by Platts. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī Not exactly no, but the dominant spelling is ہمالیہ, like سلسلہ کوہ ہمالیہ (silsilah kūh-e himāliyah), and ہمالی (himālī) is an adjective - the equivalent of Himalayan. I have mixed feelings about Platts dictionary, and tend to refrain from using it, in all honesty. If it was a learned borrowing, I would assume that the spelling was retained. I tried to search a number of spellings on Google to be returned with: "ہمالے" (हिमाले (himāle)) - which might be the actual spelling of the learned borrowing, or also "ہمالیے" (हिमालिये (himāliye)) - an alternative form of "ہمالئے" (हिमलिए (himāli'e)).
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 17:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I see you've recently added some Urdu forms of Hindi Sanskritized words like सपत्नी (sapatnī, tatsama), कुमारीच्छद (kumārīcchad, coinage). which is infact quite rare in spoken Hindi. Are these all actually attested in Urdu? Svartava2 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2 No, I was only adding the Urdu transliterations of the Hindi lemmas. Is the |ur= only meant to be used for attested lemmas? I started added them, because a lot of Hindi lemmas don't have Urdu transliterations, while Urdu lemmas have Hindi transliterations, by default if you use {{ur-noun|head=}}.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 17:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

There's no rule about using |ur=. While your point is also a good point of always giving the Urdu as a transliteration of Devanagari, Hindustani isn't exactly 1 single language written in multiple scripts (unlike Sanskrit) so we can't say that if a term is attested in hindi is is by default attested in Urdu, right? So strictly speaking, unattested terms should have a * before them, unlike Sanskrit (a single language), {{sa-alt}} shows alternative scripts without any asterisk, even if they aren't specifically attested. For this reason, I actually don't put the Urdu spelling unless the term is attested in Rekhta dictionary or {{R:ur:Qureshi}}. Re: a lot of Hindi lemmas don't have Urdu transliterations, while Urdu lemmas have Hindi transliterations, by default if you use {{ur-noun|head=}}—Hindi vocabulary is far more inclusive of rare Persianisms than Urdu of rare Sanskritisms. सपत्नी (sapatnī) isn't attested in urdu, but نُشُور (nuśūr) is in hindi. Svartava2 (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your points. I do think there should be a better solution for this. There's also the problem with different spellings, for instance पाँव (pā̃v) isn't written exactly like it's transliteration, rather as پاؤں (pāõ) - Devanagari equivalent would be पाओं (pāõ) - as is the case for a lot of similar words which end in -आव.

I don't know whether it's worth creating a Template:fa-regional-style template for Hindi and Urdu (and Roman?), with it taking advantage of the Urdu-Deva Module, which would automatically generate the Devanagari and/or Hindi Forms and the transliteration, and if needed - manual input to make any changes, and then to remove the |ur or |hi from the head, perhaps?

Because then that way, we would have both the transliteration of both scripts + Roman and potentially also the Sanskrit/Persian equivalent?
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 13:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Don't we already have module:ur-convert/sandbox, which generates deva form of ur-Arab? If you're talking about deva to ur-Arab module, I agree it would be good to have but I'm not sure we should have the Urdu form shown in every Hindi lemma, because sometimes like at وین = वयन, the link could be misleading. Svartava2 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes that's the module I'm referring to, but the point of my proposed template would be that only the vocalised Urdu word would be given as an argument - since can theoretically generate both a Devanagari transliteration and Roman transliteration, and additional arguments only if the Devanagari transliteration is different to the Hindi lemma, like the example above with पांव.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 16:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

sorry, didn't understand. {{ur-noun|head=}} usually gives the correct roman translit and the correct deva form. So what different would this be from your proposed template/module? Svartava2 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Module:Mult-translit has been created. Since typing in the Multani script is difficult, it would help to have one or more automatic converters, especially for the headword line. Is creating a Saraiki equivalent of Module:ur-convert/sandbox, Module:Deva-Sind-translit and/or Module:typing-aids/data/mwr for the Multani script (and possibly the Devanagari) something that you are able to do? Implementing the following rule(s) may be a bit challenging:

page 2 of https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4159.pdf:

Vowels are generally not written unless they occur in isolation, in word-initial position, or in the final position of monosyllabic words.

Geminates are written as single consonants such as 𑊐 (ṭ) instead of 𑊐𑊐 (ṭṭ) for گَھٹَّݨ (ghaṭṭaṇ)

Also, اَتّیْں (atteṉ) is to be transliterated as atteṉ instead of attīṉ. Perhaps this can be added as a testcase at Module:pa-Arab-translit/testcases. Kutchkutch (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Module:Mult-translit is certainly useful, however I'm not sure whether Devanagari is needed. Is Saraiki definitely written in Devanagari, as I assumed that it was only mainly spoken in Pakistan nowadays and only the current Saraiki alphabet was being employed? Also, any opinion on the Khojki script, and Gurmukhi script, which were apparently also used for Saraiki. If we were to include all the scripts, then a separate template/module would probably be feasible for this.

> Is creating a Saraiki equivalent of Module:ur-convert/sandbox .. or the Multani script (and possibly the Devanagari) something that you are able to do?

I can definitely try to create something similar, soon, but I would need some examples of Multani script, and compare that to Devanagari or the Perso-Arab lemmas, to see how characters/words are represented in the respective scripts, as my knowledge on the Multani script is limited. Would you be able to provide examples of something similar?

> page 2 of https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4159.pdf:

Would this be enough of what I was requesting above, would you feel?

> Also, اَتّیْں (atteṉ) is to be transliterated as atteṉ instead of attīṉ.

Yep I'll have this sorted out, a difficult issue of medial/final forms coupled with the noon ghunna.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 16:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are testcases for Shamukhi to Multani at Module:pa-Arab-Mult-convert/sandbox/testcases. Page 2 of https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4159.pdf says:

The proposed character repertoire provides an idealised form of the script...The script was affected by various orthographic changes by the first quarter of the 20th century. As is illustrated by a comparison of a specimen from 1837 (figure 2) and 1919 (figure 3), the greatest change was the modification of the character repertoire, such that a single letter was used for writing more than one sound.

See the comments in the code for details, and feel free to make any changes to this representation of the script.

In the 2011 Census of India, there are 109,000 Saraiki speakers in the states of Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab. Since Devanagari is the predominant script in Rajasthan and Haryana, and Gurmukhi is the predominant script of Indian Punjab, it seems likely that Saraiki has been written in Devanagari and Gurmukhi at some point in time. If you prefer not to have Category:Saraiki terms in Devanagari script due to the lack of enough information, then this can be halted for now or omitted altogether. According to https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n3978.pdf, there may be issues with Khojki:

One is the use of a single glyph for representing multiple phonemes. A reason for such ambiguity is the use of Khojki outside of Sindh by scribes unfamiliar with the Sindhi language. When non-Sindhi speakers wrote Khojki, certain characters that represented sounds specific to Sindhi, such as the implosive consonant letters (, , , ) lost their original phonetic values.

The difficulty of developing a standard for Khojki in the UCS lies in determining if the character-glyph assignments should be made according to historical or modern usage. Historical usage offers a means for resolving the ambiguous assignments of glyphs to characters by reverting to the original Khojki repertoire. On the other hand, the modern assignments may be more familiar to current readers of Khojki and are used in primers that are currently in circulation.

Kutchkutch (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

> If you prefer not to have Category:Saraiki terms in Devanagari script due to the lack of enough information, then this can be halted for now or omitted altogether.

I don't mind creating a separate category for Devanagari lemmas, my only concern is whether Devanagari (or even Multani, since it is a historic script) should be given the same importance as the Perso-Arab script (in regards to the Saraiki language, respectively) because where putting multiple scripts in the header for languages like Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi, Sindhi etc., is quite reasonable and understandable, I'm not sure whether it's necessary for Saraiki, as in my opinion, it would give a slight false impression in regards to the number of Saraiki writing systems. I have no problems with creating separate pages for alternative Devanagari and Multani forms of Saraiki lemmas.

Anyways, if you deem it reasonable, then I'm fine with it too.

I'll also try and get started on the Module:pa-Arab-Mult-convert/sandbox - however I am a bit busy in the coming weeks, so progress might be a little slow on it.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 15:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Could you state the etymon at the Etymology section? Is it from Punjabi? Thanks! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sorry but I'm sure about the etymology for that lemma.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 19:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Inqilābī See:

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/steingass_query.py?qs=قانون+گو&searchhws=yes&matchtype=default

http://udb.gov.pk/result.php?search=قانون+گو

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/shakespear_query.py?qs=قانون&searchhws=yes

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/fallon_query.py?qs=قانون+گو&searchhws=yes

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/dasa-hindi_query.py?qs=कानूनगो&searchhws=yes

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/caturvedi_query.py?qs=qānūnagō&searchhws=yes

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/mcgregor_query.py?qs=qanun&matchtype=default

https://rekhtadictionary.com/meaning-of-qaanuun-go

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/singh_query.py?qs=ਕਾਨੂਗੋ&searchhws=yes

http://dic.learnpunjabi.org/default.aspx?look=ਕਾਨੂੰਗੋ

Kutchkutch (talk)

Hi,

When you're back (no rush), could you please check these translations and transliterations?

حب الوطنی f (hubbu l-vatanī), حب وطن f (hubb-e vatan), محب الوطنی m (muhibu l-vatanī)

I don't particularly trust S.W. Fallon dictionary, in particular his transliterations, the above is almost literally as in Arabic but this may the case, I don't know. Feel free to change/remove/add at patriotism#Translations. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I replaced "w" with "v" but it's otherwise as in --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: Thanks, I'll look into it. I don't believe that is the correct term for 'patriotism' in Urdu and definitely does seem to be more on the Arabic side of things. Nevertheless I'll look into it!

P.s. I'm not particularly fond of Fallon's dictionary either.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! The same or similar results are given Platts or Shakespear and Urdu-English dictionary. Another variant from a few dicionaries is وطن پرستی (vatan parastī) from Persian وطن‌پرستی (vatan-parasti). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why were the synonyms removed? —Svārtava 16:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: They are literal learned borrowings. No one actually uses those terms, except maybe Chakit.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 16:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

bha͠ucakkā isn't learned borrowing, and quite common in colloquial Hindi. —Svārtava 16:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Svartava2: I have restored the synonyms with exception of chakit!
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 06:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

How is the Urdu word گج (gaj) pronounced? --Apisite (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, keep in mind, that Urdu entries can be added to Category:Requests for pronunciation in Urdu entries. --Apisite (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite: Ah right! Will keep an eye on that, thanks!
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

• User1267183728390127891247, on a different note, is گج (gaj) not a rare term? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Inqilābī: Yes that's a rare term.
  -User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 12:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Just remember to label such terms as rare. When a specific sense is rare, use {{lb}}; when the word itself is rare, use {{tlb}}. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Inqilābī: Ah! I wasn't aware of {{tlb}}, I will make use of the template when needed, thanks!
  -User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 05:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of the Haruf-e-Tana and Urdu Latin writing systems, which are shown at Omniglot? --Apisite (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite: I tend to disregard Omniglot. I have a suspicion that they 'invent' orthographies. None of them are used in every day life. My thoughts of the theoretical scripts:

1. Latin = not to be sinister, but I firmly believe that latinising the script of any language just to 'Westernise' it, is the playing with the devil. In all seriousness, it's essentially trying to standardise what is known as 'Roman Urdu', which ... sucks and doesn't really represent Urdu spelling. It's essentially a representation of Urdu phonology or a Urdu phonetics alphabet, but latanised.

2. The Dhivehi script is cool, would definitely pick it over the Latin alphabet, but again it won't work for Urdu, since Urdu speakers have probably never even seen the script, and doesn't represent the Arabic loanwords.

Again like I say, these proposed alphabets, essentially only try to represent the Urdu phonology. I got caught up in this puzzle and basically messed up Module:ur-translit until I realised that Alphabets don't actually have to be representive of a language's phonology or just plain easy to understand, or make it simple, and left it as it is, and worked on Module:pa-Arab-translit instead.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 02:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't the Thaana consonantal forms for Arabic words (seen here) be added to Haruf-e-Tana, at least?

(Neographer Punya Pranava Pasumarty, couldn't you take User1267183728390127891247's advice regarding Haruf-e-Tana?) --Apisite (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite: Perhaps, but that's essentially putting diacritics on existing characters (or the closest sounding character), essentially implying that the letters 'come' from that letter, which is untrue.

Devanagari does that with current Persian/Arabic sounds, like फ़ (fa), ग़ (ġa), ज़ (za) and a couple more. The result you have is speakers neglecting the nuqta, hence you now have multiple ways of pronouncing a naturally-deriven word. Plus, the sounds/letters, get considered "foreign", which itself is open to bigotry...

Even if you base it on phonology alone, in the case of Urdu, sure, these Arabic words/letters don't have a difference in phonology on paper - but they definitely affect a speaker, in the sense that they influence the way they are pronounced - pitch and tones and all that. Personally, I tend to notice subtle differences in letters like ت (t) and ط (ṭ). Removing or changing the script or these "foreign" letters, will basically change the way the language naturally evolves, and I feel that's wrong.
-User1267183728390127891247^{(گل بات؟)} 03:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply