Talk:دروازة

Etymology

Hi @Anupam - You objected to my my edit. My reasons for specifically specifying the origin of this lemmas to be Urdu and not Hindi is that the spelling exactly matches the Urdu lemma, and isn't a corruption like it potentially would be if it was influenced by Hindi. I don't see why it would be influenced by Hindi, especially considering the nuqta was and is neglected in Hindi, especially pre-Partition era which is when the word entered the Arabic language (as per Google books). نعم البدل (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:نعم البدل, the text Dialect Accent Features for Establishing Speaker Identity, authored by Manisha Kulshreshtha and Ramkumar Mathur and published by Springer, states, with respect to Hindi that "A few sounds, borrowed from the other languages like Persian and Arabic, are written with a dot (bindu or nuktā). Many people who speak Hindi as a second language, especially those who come from rural backgrounds and do not speak conventional Hindi (also called Khariboli), or speak in one of its dialects, pronounce these sounds as their nearest equivalents." The educated class will always pronounce the word as darvāzā, rendered as दरवाज़ा in Hindi and دروازہ‎ in Urdu. Certain speakers from rural areas may mispronounce the word as darvājā, but that is non-standard. News anchors on Hindi media, as with Bollywood movies, will always use the standard pronunciation. The use of the nuqta is similar to vowel markers in Urdu; you will see them in dictionaries and in certain publications, though they are understood by the educated reader who knows the correct pronunciation of the word. I do not see the need to remove Hindi from this article; FWIW, Urdu is listed first. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anupam: The use of the nuqta in Hindi is not the same similar to the vowel markers/diacritics in Urdu. The nuqta potentially changes the sound a constant represents (radically). The vowel markers in Urdu indicate a vowel and are the equivalent of ि or ु or medial अ. And no, it does not "help". If I believed Hindi was a factor in the etymology, I wouldn't have any issue in mentioning it, let alone be concerned by the order they are mentioned in (actually looking at it now, it bothers me that it's not in alphabetical order), but the fact is it's spelt as دِرْوَازَة (dirwāza), similar to دَرْوَازَہ‎ (darvāza), and not دِرْوَازَا (dirwāzā) or دِرْوَاجَا (dirwājā). نعم البدل (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You're not understanding that in handwriting or typing, nuqtas are routinely ignored in Hindi for convenience sake, as are vowel markers in Urdu. Vowel markers in Urdu too completely change the pronunciation of a word if the reader was not already familiar with that term. You are welcome to provide an etymological dictionary that mentions that the Arabic term is solely derived from Urdu alone, but the fact of the matter is that before you touched this article, the etymology of the word only included Hindustani/Hindi. You removed both Hindustani and Hindi, replacing the etymology with Urdu alone. I think that both Urdu and Hindi, as the version of the article reads now, is a fair compromise, though I would also accept Urdu and Hindustani. Since you are bothered by the alphabetical order, I do not mind if you change that too. Kind regards, Anupam (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anupam: Fundamentally, the nuqta in Devanagari is definitely not the same vowel markers of Urdu. The vowel markers in Urdu, get written for convenience and to clear up ambiguity. It's the complete opposite. The nuqta changes consonants, the diacritics in Urdu determine vowels. I removed Hindi and Hindustani, because as I said previously I believe that this term specifically comes from Urdu, without any influence from Hindi or 'Hindustani'. I'm trying to narrow the etymology down, as much as possible. If you really do feel that in order to save the world from illiteracy that the Devanagari variant must be mentioned, then you can put something like 'Compare {{cog|hi|दरवाज़ा}}', but it is not necessary to say that the term is also derived from Hindi - when it is not! Wiktionary can also attempt to determine the etymology of a lemma - especially when resources like 'etymology dictionaries' for language pairs like 'Gulf Arabic <-> Urdu, do not exist! نعم البدل (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I never stated that the vowel markers of Urdu were the same as nuqtas of Hindi; I only mentioned that they are often not used in writing/typing. Take the word "insaaf" for example (انصاف). If a reader was not familiar with this word, he/she would pronounce it as "ansaaf" since it does not have vowel markers. With the vowel markers (اِنْصاف), the pronunciation of the word is clear. You state that "is not necessary to say that the term is also derived from Hindi - when it is not". There is no evidence of that. Darvāzā is equally a Hindi word as it is an Urdu word and it is likely impossible to separate the two since the word has been used in Hindustani for centuries. Per WP:BRD, I have restored the Hindi, but as a courtesy, I have retained the Urdu that you have added. Let us wait for others to comment since it is clear that you and I disagree on this issue. Anupam (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to avoid the diacritics argument, because it's irrelevant, and it's just going to derail the conversation.

First of all, I never said दरवाज़ा (darvāzā) wasn't a Hindi word, but you can separate दरवाज़ा (darvāzā) from دَرْوَازَہ (darvāza) especially in this case otherwise how do you explain the Arabic lemma that just so happens to have ta-marbuta (ة (a)) as the final character, similar to the final word-ending choti hay ہ (a), a pattern that is found in many Urdu // Perso-Arab vocab. This is clearly a literary borrowing from Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think that means much. Look at the Urdu spelling of گَھنْٹَہ ghanṭā. It is derived from the Sanskrit घण्टा ghaṇṭā yet still ends in ہ (a). An Arabic borrowing from Hindi similarly could end in ة (a). If the word was borrowed into Arabic prior to the 20th century, it would be more fair to say that the borrowing is from Hindi and Urdu since a distinction between those languages was quite not yet clear. As I said, I think you and I will continue to disagree on this topic and so it is best to wait until others respond. For now, the status quo will have to stay. Kind regards, Anupam (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anupam: گَھنْٹَہ (ghanṭa) is also written as گھنٹا - but دِرْوَازَة‎ (dirwāza) isn't written as دِرْوَازَا‎ (dirwāzā) - they're different cases. If, like you say because of the time period it would have been influenced by Hindi as well (which I disagree with anyways, since like I say it's a literary borrowing, and Urdu was given more literary importance in the subcontinent), it would have been more likely that a corrupted form would have entered the language, perhaps دِيروَازَة or something of the sort, but no the spelling remains intact, only the actual pronunciation changes, from dar to dir - which I don't know about Hindi, since my interaction with Hindi speakers are quite limited, but I've not heard it being written as दिरवाज़ा (dirvāzā), yet because of the lack of vowel markers, but it being pronunced as 'dir' in Urdu, is very possible. نعم البدل (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)