Module talk:sa-pronunc

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Layout change[edit]

@Aryamanarora , just curious, why does the classical sanskrit pronuciation now appear twice? 2405:204:9387:50DE:0:0:84F:70A0 02:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@2405:204:9387:50DE:0:0:84F:70A0: I tried to make the template match visually with {{zh-pron}}, {{bo-pron}}, {{ko-IPA}} etc. because they've been around for a while and so are pretty standardized, and they're good for maintaining IPA for many dialects. So if we ever decide to add day modern liturgical Sanskrit pronunciations or different romanizations, or even pre-Vedic reconstructed pronunciation we can do it easily. Do tell me if it looks bad though, I can revert it. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 02:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: oh i see. No, it doesn't look bad and if it'll help document an Old Indo-Aryan dialect parallel to Vedic, it's certainly something that should be there. 2405:204:9387:50DE:0:0:84F:70A0 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora If you would like to provide descriptions for the (multiple) liturgical pronunciation systems, and the "Old Indo-Aryan dialect parallel to Vedic", I can implement those. —JohnC5 16:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Mainly, modern liturgical Sanskrit does not have a syllabic r (instead there's /ɾV/) the final is sometimes dropped. All the diphthongs are merged into monophthongs except in Uttar Pradesh and South India where they remain diphthongs. As for vedic, is there not also the svarita accent that needs to be handled by the module? We could also try to reconstruct where hiatus occurs as a result of the laryngeal in Proto-Indo-Iranian. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Ok, could you list the particular liturgical accents you'd like to see and what their respective realizations of ṛ and the diphthongs are? As for the svarita, it was not phonemic at the time of the composition of the Vedas (there was a phonetic falling tone). The independent svarita occurs the composition and the transcription. Which are we representing here: the theoretical composition stage or the later transcription stage? Also, do you know of a thorough write up of the svarita? —JohnC5 18:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: For ऋ, ऐ, औ, अ:
  • (North India) IPA(key): /ɾɪ/, /ɛː/, /ɔː/, /ə/
  • (Maharastra) IPA(key): /ɾu/, /ɛː/, /ɔː/, /ə/
  • (South India) unchanged for all, except अ is /ɑ/
There are some more differences but I haven't been able to compile a complete list. As for Bengali Vedic chanting, I have no idea what it sounds like off the top of my head. As for svarita, I have not been able to find much but [1] seems promising. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 19:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: I will look into this. And any information you can provide is much appreciated. Two questions: the liturgical pronunciations are based off of the Classical ones, right? And should I account for the independent svarita or not in Vedic? —JohnC5 05:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: The liturgical pronunciations are based on Vedic Sanskrit, they're most used in Vedic chanting. I think svarita is a result of Sandi, not an independent occurrence, so maybe it isn't necessary? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 13:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Ok, I've added the sannatara-udātta-svarita (low-rising-falling) functionality to Vedic as seen here using this code. Feel free to mess around with them. I will add the liturgical dialects, but I was wondering whether you had any sources for these pronunciations you're giving (no offense). I would like to make accent labels for them in Module:accent_qualifier/data, but I'd like to know a bit more about them before doing so. Also, there is an independent svarita (not following an udātta which came from an elision or coalescence of a udātta-bearing vowel). The independent svarita did not appear in Vedic, but does in liturgical recitation, so I'll add another parameter for it. —JohnC5 04:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: That's amazing! Unfortunately, the liturgical pronunciation is based off of my own experience, there's almost no easily accessible literature about dialectical differences in Vedic chanting. We should hold off on that I think until we have something more reliable than a Quora answer. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 13:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: That Quora answer is fairly regionalist and unscientific for my taste. I would agree that we should find a better source. —JohnC5 22:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: So, I've engaged Madhav Deshpande and Peter Scharf in conversation. They have recommended the work of Wayne Howard for modern recitation practice. If you're up to it, I might recommend reading Chapter 5 of this paper. I'm thinking about breaking up the phonetic representation of Vedic by scholarly tradition:
  1. Śākalasaṁhitā of the Ṛgveda
  2. Vājasaneyisaṁhitā of the Śuklayajurveda
  3. Taittirīyasaṁhitā of the Kṛṣṇayajurveda
  4. Śaunakīyasaṁhitā of the Atharvaveda
  5. Maitrāyaṇīsaṁhitā of the Kṛṣṇayajurveda, Ṛgveda khilāni, and Kashmiri mss. of #2
  6. Kāṭhakasaṁhitā of the Kṛṣṇayajurveda
  7. Paippalādasaṁhitā of the Atharvaveda
  8. Sāmavedasaṁhitā in the Kauthuma śakhā
  9. Śatapathabrāhmaṇa
It's gonna take some more research before I can get the liturgical stuff started. —JohnC5 17:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: I've started reading it, and wow, I did not know about the depth of Sanskrit phonological studies. And yeah, it would be better to detail different scholarly traditions instead of regional variation since there's a wealth of information about them. The liturgical stuff can wait. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


@Aryamanarora, JohnC5 I object to it being collapsible. I think it looks bad, is unnecessary, and is at odds with other templates of its kind. --Victar (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: Excusing {{grc-IPA}} and every template used for Chinese. I could perhaps be conviced to remove the functionality. —JohnC5 06:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: {{grc-IPA}} actually looks a lot better -- {{sa-IPA}} looks like garbage with that bounding box. How many forms are being displayed in {{sa-IPA}} on average? If it's just two in most/all cases, that it hardly seems merited, and more akin to {{la-IPA}}. --Victar (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: Oh, I had forgotten that Aryamanarora added the bounding box. I kinda like it more with the box, to be honest. The intent will be for more reconstructed and recitational pronunciations, but I'm working on Sanskrit declension stuff at the moment. No offense, but I'll probably leave it is for now. —JohnC5 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: I did it because I was hoping we could more dialects eventually (esp. liturgical Sanskrit of today). The following languages use similar boxes: Korean, Japanese, Tibetan, Chinese, and I guess Ancient Greek. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 12:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: You did what, make it collapsible or add the bounding box? Have you seen how it looks for Greek? It looks much better than this jarring and out of place blue box. --Victar (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: I added the bounding box. Also "blue"? It's a light gray on my screen... IMHO, it looks nice, but if you really don't like it it can be removed. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Let's deal with what we have now, not what might be in months or years. I don't think we don't have enough variants to warrant it. It can always be added back if needed. --Victar (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: At the moment, both Aryamanarora and I think it looks nice, so... —JohnC5 18:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: "Looks nice" has nothing to do with it being collapsible and Aryamanarora was actually referring to the bounding box. So, at the moment, it's you, who created it as collapsible, and me who wants it removed, and despite claiming to be open to changing it, you are completely unwilling. There are only two pronunciations, Vedic and Classical. Collapsing them is unnecessary as its reduction is space is negligible and it hides them away, requiring readers to click and see them. It's a lose lose and makes zero sense. --Victar (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: Ask more people. I said I'd be open to changing it, and I still am, but when I said that, I was misremembering what it current appearance. It turns out that I'm more in favor of keeping it as is. Regardless, you discover a module I've been working on for months and say that something I built looks "bad" and "like garbage", and then you want me to change my mind? It may well look like garbage, but at the moment you're trying to attract flies with vinegar. I appreciate your making a suggestion about how to improve the layout, but please do not insult my and others' work then expect me to agree immediately with you. As I said, I can be convinced, but in this case, I will need more opinions on aesthetics than yours. I do not wish to speak so tersely, and I did appreciate the compliment you gave the module in your original post, but I hope you can see my perspective: I like the layout as it is and do not see an immediate need to change it based on the current line of argumentation. If, however, you can show me that more people dislike the aesthetic than like it, then I will follow the will of the group. —JohnC5 19:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: I think two issues are being confused here.
1. The bounding box is what I was saying looked bad. That was added by Aryamanarora and not original to the module you created. Aryamanarora said he was OK with it being reverted and did so. My apologies to Aryamanarora for my vinegary language. I should have been more delicate.
2. The issue which I'm bring up to you is the collapsing function, which is far less an issue of aesthetics and much more an issue of functionality. In that, I've only spoke practically but if my arguments don't speak to you, I can bring it up to a wider audience. --Victar (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: Your clarification is appreciated, but I think you should bring up both questions to a wider audience. After an adjustment period, I too have come to like the bounding box. In particular, I think it draws the user's eye to the fact that the box is collapsible in a way that {{grc-IPA}} sometimes doesn't (we often get remarks from people that they only just noticed the collapsing functionality of {{grc-IPA}}). My current feeling is that, if something is collapsible, the experience is improved by a bounding box to draw the user's eye to the fact more information is included. If we remove the collapsing functionality, I certainly think the bounding box should go with it. —JohnC5 20:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Having used and seen it in use for a while, I think it looks much worse now (especially since the positioning of the dropdown is dependent on the screen size). I think we should retain the bounding box if we have the dropdown. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I concur. I'm not entirely sure why Victar decided to change it without full agreement. @Aryamanarora, you would agree that it should be changed back? —JohnC5 23:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, @JohnC5, you're making untrue accusations due to not fulling reading what has been said. I not not change it; Aryaman did, following my complaint.
If neither of you find it appealing as is, I recommend revisiting removing the dropdown functionality all together. It makes absolutely no practical sense with just two entries.
--Victar (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: sorry for the false accusation; I misread which changes to the module belonged to whom. That's my bad. As I said, if we remove the collapsibilty, we should remove the box. Otherwise it should be kept. For now, remove both the box and the collapsibility if you'd like. —JohnC5 00:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes I removed it, mostly because it's really not that important. However, the placing of the dropdown on my screen is kind of annoying now though, it's in the middle of the page. Another reason for the dropdown is to standardize the treatment of Asian languages, which all use dropdowns (even a small template like {{ko-IPA}}). Some things that could be added quite easily: alternate transliteration systems (available at MOD:sa-utilities), some sort of marking of the pitch accent to make it more visible, and maybe accent sandhi? I do agree we could remove the dropdown for now. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

TBH I liked the dropdown... —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to get into this again, but it unnecessarily hid data. --Victar (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Please do something about {{sa-desc}}, it looks like garbage!! --2A02:2788:A4:F44:B0CD:80E3:189A:8FF2 14:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

स्वधा (svadhā)[edit]

So this can have the accent on the first or second syllable. Is there a way to show this using only one invocation of the template? @JohnC5AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Not yet. Unfortunately, I really need to refactor this, and in particular, I want this to use IAST input and have better tonal realizations. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 05:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

र (ra)[edit]

@AryamanA Was the र really a retroflex flap (ɽ) in Sanskrit? Would it not be an alveolar flap (ɾ) instead? -- CueIn (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnC5 Are you sure about this? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 11:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Most modern literature uses a retroflex flap based on the descriptions of the grammarians and its widespread production of retroflexion. Some authors (Peter Scharf, for example) prefer the retroflex approximate, /ɻ/. @CueIn On what basis would you construct the alveolar tap instead? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 06:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: It probably seems strange to him and me because pretty much all New Indo-Aryan languages have an alveolar tap. Hindi does also have the retroflex flap but it's written like ड़ (ṛa), a totally different letter. Also, I find clusters like in अर्ध (ardha) strange if the "r" is retroflex and the "dh" is dental. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 15:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Sorry for the late reply. Like @AryamanA said, most modern IA languages use the alveolar tap and I expected Sanskrit's r to be the same (modern Sanskrit chantings all use the ɾ and not ɽ). The retroflex flap sounded more like a stop to me. I did not know of the linguistic literature though. Also, next to dental stops doesn't the retroflex flap sound odd? -- CueIn (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA, CueIn: As with many of these things (palatals, rhotics, clusters, tones), there seem to be multiple competing opinions on the matter. I'm steadily researching this, but don't expect progress soon. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 02:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: No worries, the progress has been great so far :) —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 02:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnC5: It's ok, I thought it was a genuine mistake. -- CueIn (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA, JohnC5 So I was reading w:Grammar of the Vedic language where it is given that ancient treatises on Vedic phonology say that r was originally alveolar which later became retroflex and (ta) and (da) were originally /t/ and /d/ and later became completely dental (/t̪/ and /d̪/). What do you guys make of this? -- CueIn (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to add that if OIA -ta- and -da- are represented as /t/ and /d/, it will also explain better the corruption of OIA -tya- and -dya- into MIA -cca and -jja respectively (cf Ved. mṛtyu/ MIA maccu or miccu, Ved. adya/MIA ajja. etc). Basically, palatal "ca" and "ja" are more likely to emerge if the t and d were articulated from the root of the teeth as opposed to a purely dental t and d. -- CueIn (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)