Template talk:R:bn:EDB

Fixing the templet

@Kutchkutch, could you please fix this templet?— while trying to modify it that it displays ‘pages’ in case of multiple pages, I apparently added some parameter for volumes as well (by copying from another templet). ‘pages’ should be retained, only the volume parameter needs to be gotten rid of. Thanks! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 02:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH diff Kutchkutch (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Would love to try, thanks for the ping! 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 10:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Please fix it! Sorry for the trouble caused. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Erutuon: I changed my mind; I just saw that the book is in 2 volumes but digitalised in a single PDF. Therefor, just one small task: please add the parameter for volume (1 or 2) which can mentioned. Thanks! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: What parameter do you want volume to be in? — Eru·tuon 22:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Erutuon: The format is to be as in the reference at this entry, like {{R:bn:EDB|VOLUME NO.|PAGE NO.}}, the volume being 1 or 2. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Done. (Take care to check current uses of the template. For instance, ꠝꠦꠇꠥꠞ (mekur) is showing "volume 776". I thought of fixing them with JWB, but I don't know what the volume numbers are...) — Eru·tuon 03:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Erutuon, Inqilābī, Kutchkutch: What does {{#invoke: string | find | {{{2|}}} | ^%d+$}} do? {{#invoke: string | find | 1 | ^%d+$}} gives 11 and {{#invoke: string | find | 11 | ^%d+$}} gives 12. Does it give 1 and the number of digits in the value entered and what is its role in this template? (P.S. just curious to know more about template editing) 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 04:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  @SodhakSH: No, not the number of digits: it prints the start and end positions of the match, if there was a match, otherwise nothing. When you put it in an {{#if:}} as in the template, it lets you print something depending on whether the parameter consists of only digits, because {{#if:}} checks for a string that is not empty and doesn't consist entirely of whitespace characters. "If parameter 2 is all digits, then x, else y". — Eru·tuon 05:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Using the reference

@Inqilābī: How does one determine if a term in this work is Old Bengali or Middle Bengali (for descendants trees and creating entries)? Kutchkutch (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Thank you for asking. Sen mentions the names of the literary works (in abbreviations) in which the term is attested, for each entry word. And in the first few pages of the book, the details (including the date) of those works are given, wherefrom you can infer the chronolect. The Old Bengali period spans from 900/1000 - 1200 CE; the Middle Bengali period spans from 1200 - 1800; and New Bengali from 1800 onwards. And of course, a term commonly belongs to more than one chronolect. Hope this helps. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Thanks for answering. The timeline was the part that I couldn't infer. It seems that the timeline for historical Bengali is similar to that of Marathi.

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/tulpule/frontmatter/frontmatter.html

Old Marathi, began in the eighth century and continued until the middle of the fourteenth century. The period of Old Marathi, although it thus extended over about six centuries, was productive only during its last seventy-five years ... Middle Marathi (c. 1350-1800)

Apparently, the timeline for Gujarati, Hindi and Punjabi is different (Old: 1200–1500, Middle: 1500—1800, New: 1800—). The only Middle languages with entries so far are CAT:Middle Assamese language and CAT:Middle Gujarati language. CAT:Middle Oriya language and Middle Hindi (hi-mid) are still empty. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Sen takes a conservative approach in estimating the beginning of Old Bengali, at only 1000 CE: “ […] 1000 as the probable earliest limit for the emergence of the Bengali language.” ({{R:bn:EDB|1|v}}) On the other hand, Chatterji assumes a date of 950 CE as the beginning of Old Bengali, but notes the following: “This period may, in the Proto-Bengali stage, have gone beyond 900 […] in any case, it may be said to have overlapped the late MIA […] stage.” ({{R:ODBL|1|129}}) Given that all non-Dardic IA languages have originated from some local Apabhramsa, it looks rather unsystematic to see the different stages of various NIA languages having unalike timespans. So this suggests that no linguist has studied the comparative development of NIA as a whole. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)