Talk:Indic

RFV discussion: May 2022–January 2023

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Indic

Senses:

• A branch of the Indo-European family of languages comprising Sanskrit and its modern descendants such as Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi.
• Relating to other languages of India, which use Brahmic scripts.
• Pertaining to India or its people, culture and languages; Indian.

Tagged by @Kwamikagami but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't confirm use as a noun (first sense). I'm curious how the 2nd is used, assuming it exists at all. For the 3rd, it would be good to have examples, at least what kind of nouns are modified by "Indic".

Also, "Indo-Aryan" as a synonym for the first. That does exists as a noun (for people), but AFAICT not in the sense here. kwami (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to find works that call Tamil and Telugu Indic languages, but maybe they're just mistakes: [1], [2], [3]. 98.170.164.88 00:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is descriptive; we go by uses. It is entirely possible that some use the term in a broader sense than others.  --Lambiam 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I take such works as lying. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

In an article entitled “A Dataset for Indic Handwritten Text Recognition”,^[4] the authors write in the abstract that they introduce “a large-scale handwritten dataset for Indic scripts ... written ... in 8 widely-used scripts”.^[5] These scripts are identified on the next page as being “Bengali, Gujarati, Gurumkhi, Kannada, Odia, Malayalam, Tamil, and Urdu scripts“.^[6] However we define the adjective, there should be a sense in which, applied to a script, it means, “a script used to write an Indian language”. (Note that the script used for Urdu is not an abugida, so, as used by these authors, “Indic script” is not synonymous with “Brahmic script”.)  --Lambiam 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is covered by what is currently the third sense, "Pertaining to India or its people, culture and languages; Indian." Even more strikingly, the authors' usage doesn't include the Burmese script, let alone Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep the first sense, the noun sense. I've just added three quotations.

I don't understand the second sense. Is it, 2a) "Relating to other languages of India" or 2b) "Relating to other languages of India which use Brahmic scripts". Once we've found the vaguely supporting quotations, do we spin it off to a request for clarification? To me, this pertains to an indigenist claim that Indic and Dravidian are related. I don't know whether this concept brainfart includes Munda, isolates like Kusunda and Burushaski, or the Sino-Tibetan languages of Assam, or even Tai languages like Ahom. At the very least, we need to change "Relating to other" to "Relating also to some other" or "Relating to any". --RichardW57 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep the third sense. I've just added three quotations. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

1 passed, 2 failed, 3 passed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)