Talk:ནགས
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Wyang
@-sche Could you provide some attestations of this spelling? It does not obey Tibetan spelling rules. The written Tibetan form is ནགས (nags). Wyang (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Even for Amdo (adx) rather than bo? Hmm, that's plausible.
I found the word in transliterated / IPA form and put it into Tibetan script based on previous conversations about not entering terms as IPA when the language is natively written in a different identifiable script. I don't object to it being moved, either to nak or to ནགས. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)- I don't think that we should necessarily even have Amdo Tibetan as a separate language. The pronunciation sections already include information for Amdo, Kham, etc and they are all considered to share a common literary heritage and orthographic standard. It's odd to have unified Chinese but not unified Tibetan. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Moved and expanded. Wyang (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! If the spellings used by the various dialects is the same, then I agree that a merger makes sense. Can you prepare a list of the affected codes for discussion, or just boldly merge them? (As we do with other merged lects, keep all their names listed as otherNames of bo so that they're accounted for in the grand scheme of things and so that it's trackable where e.g. fr:Catégorie:amdo should/could interwiki-link to, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I guess xct, khg, kbg, tsk, dre, hut, lhm, muk, kte, ola, loy, tcn, thw, and adx all belong in bo. Not sure what to do about otb. Probably worth keeping bft separate due to script issues and cultural divide. A lot of people would say that dz and friends belong here too and are only separated for political reasons, but that seems like too much merger madness to me. NB: Wyang knows vastly more than I do and you have better research capabilities than I do, so please don't trust anything I say here without confirmation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think the three major branches of Tibetan in PRC (Central, Amdo and Khams) can be merged as 'Tibetan'. Dzongkha is best separate. Wyang (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I have consolidated Amdo (adx), Khams (khg) and Khamba (kbg) and Tseku (tsk), Dolpo (dre), Humla/Limi (hut), Lhomi (lhm), Mugom (muk), Nubri (kte), Walungge and Thudam (ola, thw), Lowa/Loke (loy), and Tichurong (tcn). Wow, Ethnologue really split it into a lot of codes! - -sche (discuss) 05:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Wyang, do you think Classical Tibetan (xct) should be merged entirely into modern Tibetan (bo), or kept entirely separate with its own L2 sections, or would it be preferable to do something similar to what you've done for Middle Chinese, where it keeps its code and categories, but entries only have one Tibetan section? - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think mimicking the Middle Chinese treatment is reasonable. Written Tibetan is normally Classical Tibetan, but it may be desirable in certain situations to use the label "Classical Tibetan" to specify the variety of written Tibetan (e.g. in contrast to "Old Tibetan"). Wyang (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Wyang, do you think Classical Tibetan (xct) should be merged entirely into modern Tibetan (bo), or kept entirely separate with its own L2 sections, or would it be preferable to do something similar to what you've done for Middle Chinese, where it keeps its code and categories, but entries only have one Tibetan section? - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I have consolidated Amdo (adx), Khams (khg) and Khamba (kbg) and Tseku (tsk), Dolpo (dre), Humla/Limi (hut), Lhomi (lhm), Mugom (muk), Nubri (kte), Walungge and Thudam (ola, thw), Lowa/Loke (loy), and Tichurong (tcn). Wow, Ethnologue really split it into a lot of codes! - -sche (discuss) 05:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think the three major branches of Tibetan in PRC (Central, Amdo and Khams) can be merged as 'Tibetan'. Dzongkha is best separate. Wyang (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I guess xct, khg, kbg, tsk, dre, hut, lhm, muk, kte, ola, loy, tcn, thw, and adx all belong in bo. Not sure what to do about otb. Probably worth keeping bft separate due to script issues and cultural divide. A lot of people would say that dz and friends belong here too and are only separated for political reasons, but that seems like too much merger madness to me. NB: Wyang knows vastly more than I do and you have better research capabilities than I do, so please don't trust anything I say here without confirmation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! If the spellings used by the various dialects is the same, then I agree that a merger makes sense. Can you prepare a list of the affected codes for discussion, or just boldly merge them? (As we do with other merged lects, keep all their names listed as otherNames of bo so that they're accounted for in the grand scheme of things and so that it's trackable where e.g. fr:Catégorie:amdo should/could interwiki-link to, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Moved and expanded. Wyang (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should necessarily even have Amdo Tibetan as a separate language. The pronunciation sections already include information for Amdo, Kham, etc and they are all considered to share a common literary heritage and orthographic standard. It's odd to have unified Chinese but not unified Tibetan. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)