Talk:جلنا

Transitive sense

@نعم البدل: Are you sure the sense "to light, turn on" exists for this word (it is transitive -- the label wasn't the problem, we're doubting the sense)? I've never heard it in Indian Hindustani and it is neither listed in common Urdu dictionaries. I feel it may be a mistake for jalānā instead. Svartava (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hej!

Actually, so slightly embarrassing, but I can't really remember why I add the transitive label. It may simply be because I got جَلْنا (jalnā) and جَلانا (jalānā) up (چراغ جلانا), but I'm not really sure. In any case I've removed it. نعم البدل (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Now the first and last senses of جَلانا (jalānā) are almost the same. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: ... we can just pretend that edit was left in the drafts. نعم البدل (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Format for etymology

Inherited etymologies

Unrelatedly, I have wanted to ask @Kutchkutch about the preference of:

First attested in c. 1649 as Middle Hindi جلنا (jlna /⁠jlna⁠/), inherited from Prakrit 𑀚𑀮𑀇 (jalaï), […]

over

Inherited from Middle Hindi جلنا (jlna /⁠jlna⁠/), from Prakrit 𑀚𑀮𑀇 (jalaï), […] (with attestation year on Middle Hindi entry)

since this isn't a borrowing from either Sanskrit or Persian into NIA. Is it because Middle-Old Hindi might not be considered sufficiently distinct from Hindustani to be called its ancestor and thus termed as an older form of Hindustani language itself (first attested as […] )? But some other languages like French and English do state terms to be "inherited from Middle French/English". Svartava (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava: Is it because Middle-Old Hindi might not be considered sufficiently distinct from Hindustani to be called its ancestor and thus termed as an older form of Hindustani language itself?

How {{etydate}} should be used is more of a matter of style rather a matter of policy. The reason for using this format in this case is because

• Most of the corresponding Middle-Old Hindi terms do not have entries yet.
• And, there is no first attestation date provided for the modern Hindi-Urdu stage.

This (proposed) format simply takes advantage of the reasoning that modern Hindi-Urdu and Middle-Old Hindi are diachronic stages of the same language. It does not take into account

• how sufficiently distinct the two stages are
• and this format unfortunately does not mention ‘inherited’ before the Middle-Old Hindi term.

If a corresponding Middle-Old Hindi term has an entry, then

• The first attestation date can be moved to the Middle-Old Hindi entry.
• And, the first attestation date could possibly be removed from the modern Hindi-Urdu entry.

Or, if there is a first attestation date for the modern Hindi-Urdu stage then perhaps

• {{etydate}} should instead be used for the modern Hindi-Urdu stage
• and any first attestation date for the Middle-Old Hindi term could be mentioned without {{etydate}} on the modern Hindi-Urdu entry.

If you would like to suggest something different for Hindi-Urdu (and other South Asian languages), or ask this to a broader audience at the Beer Parlour then please do so. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I see. Based on the same reasoning, will this format work too?

Inherited from Prakrit 𑀚𑀮𑀇 (jalaï), […] . First attested in c. 1649 as Middle Hindi جلنا (jlna /⁠jlna⁠/).

This is similar to our format for etymologies of modern NIA entries of words borrowed into Early/Middle NIA from Sanskrit or Persian, but this is just a rearrangement of the current format used on this page. The convenience is that we won't need to use |nocap=1 every time and this doesn't seem problematic to me. Svartava (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava: That is fine. However, if there is no attestation date provided for the Middle-Old Hindi term, then the format would continue to be

Inherited from Middle Hindi جلنا (jlna /⁠jlna⁠/), from Prakrit 𑀚𑀮𑀇 (jalaï), […] .

which has the Middle-Old Hindi term at the beginning of the etymology. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

To keep this discussion updated: now that we are aware of {{circa2}},

Inherited from Middle Hindi جلنا (jlna /⁠jlna⁠/) ({{circa2|short=1}}),{{{{ref|...}}}} from Prakrit 𑀚𑀮𑀇 (jalaï) can also be used for showing inheritance chain instead of First attested as. Svartava (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava: Definitely useful! Thank you! نعم البدل (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Borrowed etymologies

@Kutchkutch, Svartava: – If there is an entry for the corresponding Middle Hindi lemma which was initially borrowed from some other language language, would we still utilise the bor+ template on the Hindi-Urdu lemma for the sake of categorisation, or should it be substituted with the der template? نعم البدل (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل: The accepted format for such terms is:

Borrowed from Sanskrit [TERM]. First attested as {{inh|hi|inc-ohi/hi-mid|[TERM']}} or First attested in [ATTESTATION TIME/YEAR] as {{inh|hi|inc-ohi/hi-mid|[TERM']}} (the latter can be shown using {{etydate}})

Same for Persian and Perso-Arabic terms ({{der|hi|ar|TERM}} can also be shown).

Pages you can see: इंतज़ाम, जुर्रत, प्रेम, भाखा, अपराधी. Svartava (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Just to reiterate what Svartava said in a slightly different way, the etymology section starts in the usual manner as

{{ bor+ | hi OR ur | fa-cls OR sa OR en OR pt | TERM }}

In those rare cases in which the term is directly from Arabic without a Classical Persian intermediary such as those found in

CAT:Urdu learned borrowings from Arabic

Classical Persian is replaced by Arabic. The only clearly obvious reason for doing this appears to be if an Urdu term ends in ۃ (h) such as زکوٰۃ (zkvāh), صَلوٰۃ (salvāh) and perhaps سُورَہ (sūra). It is not clear to me whether the other terms in that category are really directly from Arabic.

If the Classical Persian term is from Arabic, then the previous statement is followed by

from {{ der | hi OR ur | ar | TERM }}

For some reason that unclear to me, if the Classical Persian, Arabic or Sanskrit term is from Ancient Greek, then the the previous statement may be followed by

from {{ der | hi OR ur | grc | TERM }}

Any further languages should be categorised without being mentioned using {{ dercat }}.

If there is no first attestation date provided, then the next part is

First attested as {{ inh | hi | inc-ohi OR hi-mid | TERM }}

or, if there is a first attestation date provided, then the next part is

{{ etydate }} as {{ inh | hi | inc-ohi OR hi-mid | TERM }}

Apparently, there are currently no English and Portuguese borrowings first attested as Middle-Old Hindi (unlike Middle Bengali).

For terms borrowed from Classical Persian that are derived from Arabic, see इंतज़ाम and जुर्रत.

For terms borrowed from Sanskrit, see अपराधी and प्रेम.

For a semi-learned borrowing, see भाखा. Finding the Middle-Old Hindi form can support the claim that a term is semi-learned borrowing. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch, Svartava:

• The accepted format for such terms is
• Just to reiterate what Svartava said in a slightly different way, the etymology section starts in the usual manner as

Got it! As for:

• It is not clear to me whether the other terms in that category are really directly from Arabic – The specific lemmas would have to be orthographic borrowings, in my opinion. Whether they're direct borrowings from Classical Arabic or Classical Persian can be up for debate. They are attested in Persian as well. نعم البدل (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava What should be done with regard to script in the case of قُرْآن (qur-ān) / क़ुरान (qurān)? It has been attested in Middle-Old Hindi in the Devanagari script as कुरांन and in the Perso-Arabic script as قرآن. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava The first attestation dates for Devanagari and Perso-Arabic are different. It is 1420 for Devanagari and 1582 for Perso-Arabic. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: That makes it confusing since we don't consider Old Hindi in Devanagari and Old Hindi in Perso-Arabic script, unlike Hindi and Urdu. We can probably write: First attested as Old Hindi कुरांन (kurāṃna) in 1420 and قُرْآن (qrān) in 1582. If that seems too much then the attestation years can be removed and left to the Old Hindi entry/entries if they exist. By the way, where do you obtain the precise attestation years? Svartava (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Svartava: If the first attestation date for both scripts is to be provided on modern Hindi-Urdu entries, then

First attested as Old Hindi कुरांन (kurāṃna) in 1420 and قُرْآن (qrān) in 1582

is fine.

The date for the Perso-Arabic script is directly from {{R:ur:UDB}}, and the Devanagari script is from the Kabīr Vāṇī, which is dated to the 1400s. I do not remember where I obtained 1420, so it may be safer to say 1400s or 15th century without finding it (again) in a source. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)