Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Merging Prakrit lects into one, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Merging Prakrit lects into one

Voting on: Merging the following Middle Indo-Aryan lects as “Prakrit” (pra, currently etymology-only):

Ardhamagadhi Prakrit (pka)
Elu Prakrit (elu-prk)
Khasa Prakrit (inc-kha)
Magadhi Prakrit (inc-mgd)
Maharastri Prakrit (pmh)
Paisaci Prakrit (inc-psc)
Sauraseni Prakrit (psu)

Background: These Middle Indo-Aryan lects were originally considered to differ to such an extent that they were treated as independent languages at Wiktionary. However, as the coverage of these Middle Indo-Aryan lects has grown, it has become apparent that they do not differ from one another as originally thought. Furthermore, much of the academic literature on Middle Indo-Aryan collectively refer to these lects as “Prakrit” without specifying any particular lect, and the attestation of each lect varies considerably. Treating each of these Middle Indo-Aryan lects as independent languages has led to confusion, which has hindered the progress of Wiktionary's coverage of Middle Indo-Aryan. This merger will make it easier for editors to manage these Middle Indo-Aryan lects.

Further details:

  • The seven language codes listed above will be changed to etymology-only languages. These seven etymology-only codes will be used for the etymologies of their descendant entries (as they are used currently).
  • If a “Prakrit” term can be considered to belong to one or more of the seven Middle Indo-Aryan lects listed above, labels such as {{lb|pra|<lect name>}} would be used to automatically categorise the term.
For example:
1. 𑀅𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀇 (akkhaï) is specifically attested as Paisaci Prakrit, so, after the merger, there would be {{lb|pra|Paisaci}} beside its definition, which would link to Paisaci Prakrit and categorise the term into a category such as Category:Paisaci Prakrit. The language-header will be “Prakrit”.
2. 𑀧𑀟𑀤𑀺 (paḍadi) is attested as Sauraseni Prakrit and Magadhi Prakrit, so, after the merger, there would be {{lb|pra|Magadhi|Sauraseni}} beside its definition, which would categorise the term into categories such as Category:Magadhi Prakrit and Category:Sauraseni Prakrit. The language-header will be “Prakrit”.
  • There are currently no reconstructed entries in the seven Middle Indo-Aryan lects that are to be merged.
  • Although the following languages are included in the family Category:Prakrit languages, they will not be merged into “Prakrit” (pra):
Ashokan Prakrit (inc-ash)
Gandhari (pgd)
Kamarupi Prakrit (inc-kam)
Pali (pi)
Gandhari and Pali have separate identities. Ashokan Prakrit represents an earlier stage of Middle Indo-Aryan, and Kamarupi Prakrit represents a later stage of Middle Indo-Aryan.

Schedule:

Discussions:

Support

  1. Support Kutchkutch (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support This would greatly help in the coverage of MIA on Wiktionary. I prompt all Indo-Aryan editors to support. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support Whatever I have to say on the subject matter can be found in the relevant links posted above. I do agree with Metaknowledge that this did not have to be a vote but the others insisted that a vote be created for this purpose so here we are. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 10:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support I have made my arguments very clear in the big discussion and the many many discussions that have taken place before. And yeah, this is pointless bureaucracy. BTW, sorry for my inactivity--swamped at university. I'll be happy to write the script for the merger once it is approved. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 18:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    @AryamanA: Great to know, and thanks for supporting! 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support I remember researching about these languages, and I always thought that these all are basically different dialects of a language called Prakrit. Of course they should be one language. ॥ ☼ সূর্যমান ☽ ॥ 21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support I am pleased to see such a thorough discussion and strong support from the editors. I think this is definitely better than the current situation since it will allow much greater flexibility. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 06:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support unified Prākṛta, as one of the proposers. @SodhakSH & @Kutchkutch, thanks for your hard work of making and building this vote. By the way, Victar is being too overbearing. -⸘- inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 21:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    All credit to @Kutchkutch for the wording and discussions. I just made a default-like vote with one discussion and little description. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  8. Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  9. Support --DannyS712 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  10. Support In general, the community of editors working on a given language or set of languages should be the ones who decide what happens to the language(s). Benwing2 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I'm not going to straight out oppose the vote, but I have a few concerns. Eḷu has several archaisms and is more similar to Pali than to the other Prakrits. It seems strange to include it. "Prakrit" is such a general term for MIA languages. Minus Eḷu and Khasa, these are Dramatic Prakrits. Shouldn't we instead merge these to a Dramatic Prakrits language code? --{{victar|talk}} 06:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    We are merging only the Prakrit descendants (read above, why not in "Further details") of Ashokan Prakrit (analyses of Helu Prakrit suggest that it is descended from speakers of Ashokan Prakrit that migrated from the mainland). Also, we're not excluding Khasa (and Paiśācī) from Prakrit. CAT:Khasa Prakrit lemmas and CAT:Helu lemmas are empty as of now. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    @शब्दशोधक: What analysis suggests Eḷu is descended from Ashokan? Eḷu is also an Apabhraṁśa, and we're not merging the Apabhraṁśas into this code, right? If you're suggesting deleting Khasa, I'm fine with that, but if the language is called "Dramatic Prakrits", it shouldn't be an etym-only alias for it. Can you address my "Prakrits" header concern and my "Dramatic Prakrits" suggestion? --{{victar|talk}} 08:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Definitely no one calls 'Pali' a 'Prakrit'. On DSAL, there is a separate Pali dictionary ({{R:pi:PTS}}) from the Prakrit one ({{R:pra:Sheth}}). Even Turner ({{R:inc:Turner}}) stated 'Prakrit' as Pk. and 'Pali' as Pa. and doesn't include Pali in Prakrit. Elu is not an Apabhraṃśa, it's a Prakrit, which is why it is being included. Pinging @Kutchkutch who can explain "analyses of Helu Prakrit suggest that it is descended from speakers of Ashokan Prakrit that migrated from the mainland". 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 09:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    See also: diff by @Bhagadatta. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Why are we talking about Pali? If you mean to point out that "Prakrit" only applies to the languages being merged, Ashokan is also called a "Prakrit", yet not being included. Re: Eḷu being an Apabhraṁśa, see {{R:ODBL|page=15}} and {{R:hi:Masica:1979|page=53}}. --{{victar|talk}} 10:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    @SodhakSH, Victar The term Elu/Helu can either refer to a Helu Prakrit or Helu Apabhramsha. Helu Apabhramsha is more attested compared to the Helu Prakrit, which is why Elu/Helu is frequently discussed as an Apabhramsha. This proposal only concerns itself with Elu/Helu Prakrit, and the more attested Apabhramsha stage of Elu can be discussed at a later time. Analyses of Helu Prakrit suggest that it is descended from speakers of Ashokan Prakrit that migrated from the mainland refers to:
Müller, Edward (1883). Ancient Inscriptions of Ceylon.
Elu is a language that bears a close connection to the Ashokan Inscriptions Assimilation is never expressed by doubling as in Pali.
Kuhn, Ernst (1883). “On the Oldest Aryan Element of the Sinhalese Vocabulary” in Indian Antiquary
Elu has its nearest relations in the dialects used in King Ashoka's inscriptions, while it differs from Pali in very essential points.
WR P. B. F. Wijeratne (1944). Phonology of the Sinhalese Inscriptions up to the end of the 10th Century A.D.
User:Kutchkutch/elu-prk
Helu has unmistakable affinities with the Eastern inscriptions of Ashoka.
Chandralal, Dileep (2010). Sinhala
The first Aryan settlements in Sri Lanka are from two streams of immigration, one from Gujarat and the other from Bengal Up to the end of the Eighth Century the Sinhalese had free communication with the North Indians
The rationale for including Paisaci and Helu and in this merger is that they and their descendants pattern as descendants as Ashokan Prakrit. According to the ancient Prakrit grammarians, Paisaci resembles Sauraseni to such an extent that there are descriptions of Paisaci based on Sauraseni. Although Khasa Prakrit appears to be unattested, Pahari languages also pattern as descendants as Ashokan Prakrit. Since Paisaci and Helu are never considered as a Dramatic Prakrit, the merged language cannot be called “Dramatic Prakrit”. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch: Thank you for the quick reply. Regarding Paiśaci, I'm less concerned about it because a) it's poorly attested, and b) some scholars do consider it a Dramatic Prakrit{{R:ine:HCHIEL|428}}. Thanks for the clarification on Eḷu. How are we drawing a line between Eḷu Prakrit (usually called Sinhala) and Eḷu Apabhraṁśa (usually just called Eḷu)? Dictionaries simply either call it Eḷu{{R:iir:IIP|9}} or Sinhala{{R:CDIAL|alaṃkāˊra|693}}, which is problematic in-and-of-itself. Not all scholars support that Eḷu is descended from Ashokan{{R:ine:HCHIEL|440}} (nor Ardhamagadhi for that matter), and Eḷu is usually always listed separately from Prakrits in glossaries, if for no other reason then it being significantly different from most other Prakrits of the period. Regardless, what's the rationale of carte blanche merging all Ashokan derived Prakrits? --{{victar|talk}} 18:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Victar: Considering Paisaci as a Dramatic Prakrit in the following statements from {{R:ine:HCHIEL|428}} is very imaginative.
Paisaci is a Dramatic Prakrit known only from grammarians The grammatical rules at work in Paisaci could simply be the reverse application the voicing rules applied to produce other Dramatic Prakrits.
At {{R:ine:HCHIEL|440}} it says
Pali is the literary language that accompanied the first Indic-speaking migrants to Sri Lanka
to explain that the Prakrit that they spoke was not a literary language, so they used Pali as their literary language.
Chronologically, Wijeratne (1944) defines Helu Prakrit as before 2nd century AD, which is close to Wikipedia's until 3rd century CE at Sinhala language. {{R:inc:CGMIA|12}} says that Helu Prakrit, dating between the first century BC and the third century AD, belongs to the Middle Eastern Middle Indo-Aryan group derived from Ashokan Prakrit.
Wijeratne (1944) has ~250 pages of sound changes, so if someone creates an equivalent of User:AryamanA/Prakrit, we'll be able to categorise data as belonging to Helu Prakrit, Helu Apabhramsa or a later stage.
The rationale for carte blanche merging all Ashokan-derived Prakrits is explained in the background section of the proposal. Since the manner in which the academic literature treats these Prakrits is problematic, few editors have been able to contribute towards these Prakrit lects as different languages. If there are specialists in Insular Indo-Aryan, Pahari languages, etc. in the future who can make a case for a different arrangement, then that can be discussed at that time. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch: Caley is certainly not the only one that groups Paiśaci with other Dramatic/Literary Prakrit.{{R:inc:IAL}}{{R:hi:Misra|103}}(Pischel:1965:29) I don't really see the issue with this.
I understand the chronology of Sinhala > Eḷu but what I'm asking is how do we sort terms in glossaries when Sinhala and Eḷu are being used interchangeably when one is the Prakrit and the other the Apabhraṁśa? There may be words that do exhibit certain changes that we can discern in the future, as you say, but that's not always going to be the case. It seems to me that they should be merged together. It's the same issue you're trying to avoid by merging the Prakritic lects, and to point out again, this issue isn't related to Eḷu because Eḷu is listed separately in glossaries, regardless if it's an Ashokan derived Prakrit. --{{victar|talk}} 19:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch, AryamanA, Bhagadatta --{{victar|talk}} 16:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Victar The first ping didn't work.
Regarding Literary Prakrit versus Dramatic Prakrit:
This is the first time you've used the term Literary Prakrit. A distinction can be made between Dramatic Prakrit and Literary Prakrit. If the Maharastri and Ardhamagadhi lects are excluded, there are no independent works written entirely in Prakrit. Prakrit lects other than Maharastri and Ardhamagadhi are primarily found in Sanskrit plays/dramas to give some of the characters colloquial, regional, gendered, occupational or rustic appearances that Sanskrit wouldn't be able to provide. Paisaci has not been found in Sanskrit plays/dramas, which is why it is not considered as a Dramatic Prakrit. However, there are legends about how Paisaci is a lost literary language with the Brihatkatha being the most famous Paisaci work. So, Paisaci could be considered as a Literary Prakrit.
Regarding Helu/Elu Prakrit:
Earlier you cited Si. lakara ʻ adornment, beauty ʼ from {{R:CDIAL|alaṃkāˊra|693}} and Eḻu lakara from {{R:iir:IIP|9}}. At https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/frontmatter/abbreviations.html it says Si. in {{R:CDIAL}} is an abbreviation for Sinhalese. {{R:CDIAL}} also uses OSi., which presumably stands for Old Sinhalese. lakara can be found in https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/carter/ as Sinhalese ලකර (lakara).
It seems that the entire nomenclature regarding the history of Sinhala/Sinhalese (and even the modern language itself) is inconsistent. This is why (in the absence of any Insular Indo-Aryan specialists) Wiktionary's coverage of the history of Sinhala/Sinhalese would probably need to adopt its own nomenclature such as Helu/Elu Prakrit → Helu/Elu Apabramsha → Old Sinhala/Sinhalese → modern Sinhala/Sinhalese.
The Helu Prakrit terms at User:Kutchkutch/elu-prk do not differ much from their Maharastri Prakrit equivalents other than the lack of aspiration and the preservation of Sanskrit य (ya) as 𑀬 (ya) rather than 𑀚 (ja) for Sanskrit युक्त (yuktá). These terms are very indicative that Helu Prakrit is a lect within a spoken dialect continuum of Prakrit from pre-100 BCE to post-100 CE that succeeded the spoken Ashokan Prakrit dialect continuum. Helu Prakrit differs from the other Prakrits in that it didn't become a Literary Prakrit or a classical language like Maharastri Prakrit.
Merging Helu Prakrit and Helu Apabramsha would be like merging Category:Sauraseni Prakrit language and Category:Sauraseni Apabhramsa language, which no one has proposed since the middle and late stages of Middle Indo-Aryan are currently being treated as separate entities. The phonological progression from Helu Prakrit to Helu Apabramsha as shown in Wijeratne (1944) is certainly not trivial, and there is a possibility that the Category:Dhivehi language could be from Helu Prakrit but not Helu Apabramsha. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain. This shouldn't have been a vote. With rare, high-profile exceptions, the fate of language codes should be decided in discussions by the editors who know those languages best, not in votes where people with no relevant background (like me) get an equal say to subject-matter experts. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: I agree it shouldn't have been a vote. It was discussed between me, Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Inqilabi and AryamanA, who are certainly aware of the similarities and differences between these lects. We had also agreed to do this without a vote. See Category_talk:Prakrit_languages#Prakrit_entries_(contd.) (the main discussion). But because JohnC5 and Victar said that for such a major change, a vote was required (see diff and diff), this vote had to be created. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 08:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    @JohnC5, Victar, care to explain yourselves here? It's not too late to undo this needless bit of bureaucracy for its own sake. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'm guessing Victar has some concerns about the prospect of reconstructed Prakrit entries in the future and their relationship to CAT:Ashokan Prakrit reconstructed terms. @Victar Such concerns are understandable, and it would help if you could elaborate on those concerns. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: Major changes to language codes should 👏 always 👏 be 👏 voted 👏 upon. This isn't a "needless bit of bureaucracy". --{{victar|talk}} 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    This isn't on the level of Chinese or Serbo-Croatian, and no quantity of clapping emojis will change that. In the future, I hope you respect the wishes of the editors who actually work on a language rather than imposing votes on something it seems nobody even opposes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: And what about the other example votes? Do any of them meet your arbitrary level of what you think warrants a vote or not? I opined that this should go to vote, SodhakSH obliged, and I still think it was a good idea for several reasons: 1. it gives more eyeballs to the issue, informing people that may have missed the discussions 2. it distilled the proposal that spanned dozens of discussions to a single page, 3. it gives us an easy link in the future for people who want to know when and where this decision was made. --{{victar|talk}} 23:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    The only one of those votes that was inappropriate was the one you created. This vote is a waste of time, but I will try not to waste any more of my time discussing it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Victar: I'm actually convinced with your explanation. Why didn't you vote, though? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with Victar for all the reasons he stated. This is a major change. The right thing to do is make it a community vote. The fact that only a few people are in a position to say what the right move is doesn't matter. Like he said, we also have a record in one place of when, where, and how this decision was taken. Excellent. — Dentonius 13:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Abstain I have no clue. I trust those editors and hope that others without relevant background knowledge refrain from putting in their say likewise. Otherwise if someone without clue oppose I should perhaps support because the people who should know support. What Metaknowledge says is kind of right, because such votes could only invite people that should not be invited, if without a vote already everyone with recognizable interest has been proposed to. Fay Freak (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Abstain, as above. Imetsia (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. Abstain — Dentonius 14:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Abstain --Droigheann (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  6. Abstain — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 12:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  7. Abstain I'm not knowledgeable enough about Prakrits to vote yea or nay. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia