User talk:Inqilābī

Only outstanding or pertinent discussions and messages are kept here; others are ridded hence and archived in the revision history of the page.

Indian food words

Hi. I asked User:AryamanA a while ago, but he/she has been busy with other things. If you happen to be interested in words about food, there are a lot of Indian food words that have been borrowed into English (either dishes that were imported, like curries, or cooking words used by British Indian diaspora, like zafrani), and we are missing so many etymologies. Try a search for "india cooking". No pressure but this might be an easy etymology job for you. Thanks for considering! Equinox ◑ 16:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding etymologies...

Hi, Inqilābī. Please help me a little with:

"Inherited" and "borrowed" - are these words necessary?

In this edit of User:Fenakhay, "borrowed" was removed (even User:AryamanA simply uses "from" before {{bor}}).

In this edit, User:Victar commented that "inherited" isn't required, it's implied (but on the contrary, User:Kutchkutch always adds "Inherited").

नाम and नीवि both say - From Sanskrit [term (which is same)], नाम is inherited, while नीवि is borrowed.

If "from" implies "inherited from", then nīvi can be mistaken to be a tadbhava.

P.S. I'm not talking about categorisation, but simply about what should be displayed.

Regarding semi-learned borrowings - should I consider:

1. कार्तिक to be a {{slbor}} while कार्त्तिक to be a learned loan

2. कार्त्तिक to be a learned loan, while कार्तिक to be a misspelling

3. कार्तिक to be a learned loan (since very little change is there - S. kārttika -> H. kārtik(a)) and कार्त्तिक to be an alt form

Thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक:

• “From […] ” implies “Inherited from […] ”, so mentioning about inheritance is actually redundant, though nothing wrong in itself. However, in one way stating about inheritance could be problematic inasmuch as an etymon of a word could itself be a loan from another source; take for instance an Old Hindi term that was a learned loan from Sanskrit, or a borrowing from Persian— therefore the thing gets really knotty and intriguing: someone might imagine “inheritance” to be a direct chain of inheritance from its earliest reconstructed proto-word! Therefore, I think we should decide if mentioning inheritance is really helpful. (Calling @Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch, AryamanA for more input on this.)
• And yes, I agree with you, we need to specifically mention “Borrowed from […] ”.
• Hindi कार्तिक & कार्त्तिक are just spelling variants, both are learned borrowings. Both have the same pronunciation, per the page information. (And I am assuming कार्त्तिक is not pronounced with a geminated /t̪/.)
• And I hope you have not removed any other Proto-Indo-Aryan terms from etymology sections.

-_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 18:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Regarding ‘Inherited’ & ‘Borrowed’, read this first: Talk:कपड़ा.

See Marathi तंबाखू (tambākhū), Marwari असवार (asvār), (Old) Hindi काबा (kābā) for terms that would qualify as:

Inherited from Early New Indo-Aryan and borrowed from elsewhere. Kutchkutch (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I really have no issues with mentioning about inheritance per se. I just thought it was redundant… So if there be consensus, then it’s alright. -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 20:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't do that for Sanskrit/Konkani/Kannada. Hindi entries started having the word "inherited" entered in them quite recently, around August 2020. I think there was also a bot operation to that end. Ever since, a few of my Hindi entries and instances where I added the etymology have contained the word inherited to conform with the prevalent format. I agree either way when it comes to the necessity of such a label. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī, Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch: I've also seen WingerBot change from to inherited from. Ok, what should be the etymology of अपराधी? I'll just use "from" if Hindi etymology is simply - {{inh|hi|psu}}, from {{inh|hi|sa}} (unless Sanskrit word is inherited from PIA, PII & PIE and not a loan from elsewhere). अंजीर is an example of this - Inherited from Sa. Añjīra, which is ultimately from Pers. so I believe here, "inherited" is necessary. Victar probably meant that it wasn't required in Skt. etymologies and Fenakhay did that as Hindi couldn't inherit terms from Arabic, so from meant "borrowing" only (do you agree?). Understood about कार्त्तिक and कार्तिक. About PIA terms, I'll not remove them. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: The consensus about ‘Inherited’ & ‘Borrowed’ appears to be not to have consensus, so any of those could justifications could be accurate. Since अपराधी (aprādhī) could be both borrowed and inherited, then the etymology could either be:

From Old Hindi, from Sanskrit

or

Inherited from Old Hindi, which is from Sanskrit and directly borrowed from Sanskrit Kutchkutch (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Right, I'll change अपराधी#Etymology. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 13:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक: Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to Talk:मद्य? Kutchkutch (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, I think it should. By the way, Inqilābī, do you want to avoid categorising madya as a learned loan from Skt. into Marathi? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 14:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक, Kutchkutch: I would prefer the following format: Learned (/Semi-learned) borrowing from […] . Attested circa […] / First attested as {{inh|LANG|und}}. This way, the NIA word gets categorized both as a (semi-)learned loan, and an inherited word from its earlier attested form. See for example Bengali তুরিত (turito). -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 22:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Inqilābī, @शब्दशोधक: Essentially, this an outline of how to treat terms that entered Early/Middle New Indo-Aryan without going through Middle Indo-Aryan. These terms have had no standard treatment until now. This treatment could also be used for:

Inherited from Early/Middle New Indo-Aryan and borrowed from elsewhere (not Sanskrit): Marathi तंबाखू (tambākhū), Marwari असवार (asvār), (Old) Hindi काबा (kābā), etc

Out of the Early New Indo-Aryan languages (Old Hindi, Old Gujarati, Old Marathi, etc), it seems that Old Marathi terms are the easiest to find due to the existence of DSAL {{R:omr:Tulpule}}.

Marathi terms first attested as Old Marathi, borrowed from Perso-Arabic:

Marathi ग्वाही (gvāhī), खर्च (kharca), जमात (jamāt), जहाज (jahāj), जाब (jāb), जिन्नस (jinnas), जीन (jīn), तमाशा (tamāśā), दिवाण (divāṇ), दुकान (dukān), फिर्याद (phiryād), बहाद्दर (bahāddar), बहामनी (bahāmnī), मशीद (maśīd), मेवा (mevā), वतन (vatan) साल (sāl), साबण (sābaṇ), शिक्का (śikkā), हिशेब (hiśeb)

Old Marathi मलिक (malika) is also a Sanskrit term.

Information about the other Early New Indo-Aryan languages appears to be very scattered. There's a reference template for Old Hindi at {{R:inc-ohi:Kabir}}. Inqilābī, how easy/difficult is it for you to find information about Old/Middle Bengali using CAT:Bengali reference templates?

Using T:semi-learned borrowing would be especially useful for categorising semi-tatsamas. This could be used for the following:

Hindustani بَان٘چْنَا (bā̃cnā) / बाँचना (bā̃cnā), Marathi वाचणे (vācṇe), Gujarati વાંચવું (vā̃cvũ)

Hindustani گَرَجْنا (garajnā) / गरजना (garajnā), Marathi गरजणे (garajṇe), Gujarati ગરજવું (garajvũ)

Marathi उच्चारणे (uccārṇe), तरंगणे (taraṅgṇe), निस्तरणे (nistarṇe), सगळे (sagḷe)

If the year/century for Attested circa […] refers to the estimated year of the document in which the term was found, that information is not always available. If it refers to the time estimate for Early/Middle New Indo-Aryan languages, it would always be the same such as 1200/13th century, 1300/14th century, etc. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Kutchkutch, SodhakSH, Bhagadatta: While the policy that’s been laid down here has solved the problem of how to categorize NIA words as loanwords, I see a small issue. Would it not be implied that the Late NIA word was reinforced by the Sanskrit or the Persian etymon? For loans from Sanskrit this could be quite true because Sanskritisms were imposed on the vocabulary throughout the NIA period, but then what about Persian? Persian words were borrowed during the Early / Middle NIA stage, so are we not wrongly asserting that the NIA word got reinforced by the Persian term in the Late NIA stage? -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think Perso-Arabic words in Hindi are definitely reinforced by Persian. See - a Hindi term inherited from Old Hindi kateba would be *kateb, not kitāb. Also, masīti would be *masīt or *masītī. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@शांतनु For Old Hindi → Hindi, the spellings of Persian borrowings have definitely been reinforced. However, one should be cautious when relying on historical spellings to infer historical pronunciations since this is not always a straightforward task. (Special:PermanentLink/61193598#Moving_the_page, Talk:बद्ध, Category talk:Gandhari language). See https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/tulpule/frontmatter/frontmatter.html:

The early manuscripts of the Jñāneśvarī exhibit the chaotic spellings of the scribes. The manuscript that Rajvade edited and claimed was the earliest is a good example of riotous orthographic variation. The codified script in which the early Mahānubhāva writings were preserved guarded them to some extent from scribal innovation; however, here too the absence of rules is evident. The inscriptions are the most unruly, as they were engraved by uneducated artisans who did their job without paying heed to any rules of writing whatsoever.

@Inqilābī: The initial forms of Persian loanwords in Early NIA languages appear to be very crude approximations that were later Persianised, and Persianisation is still present in high-register Urdu (Talk:دانش گاہ; The Qaumi Taranah only uses one exclusively Hindustani word: का (kā) / کا (kā)). The issue you're pointing out is that if the Persianisation is not as strong as it is in high-register Urdu, the Persian loanwords may remain relatively crude. Rather than being wrong to assert that the NIA word got reinforced, the issue may be that the degree and duration of Persianisation may not always the same. दवाखाना (davākhānā) and परवानगी (parvāngī) look Persianised, while स्वार (svār) and बक्षीस (bakṣīs) look like Sanskritised hypercorrections. Etymology sections use fa with Wiktionary:Persian transliteration when fa-cls [Classical Persian] might be more accurate (User_talk:AryamanA/2019#Transliterating_Classical_Persian). Kutchkutch (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Should fa always be fa-cls in etymologies? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@शांतनु The variety of Persian that NIA languages usually borrow from is Persian language in the Indian subcontinent, which could be considered CAT:Classical Persian (Persian_language#Classical_Persian). As at Talk:बदर, the term Persian without any further specification usually refers to Western Persian or the Iranian Persian variety. At a minimum fa-cls would be used instead of fa when the Persian term doesn't appear to be used in modern Iranian Persian, there's a shift in meaning or the spelling has changed (see आलू बुख़ारा (ālū buxārā), किरदार (kirdār), ग़ुब्बारा (ġubbārā)). At a maximum fa-cls would be used for all pre-British Raj borrowings, so, ideally, fa would always be fa-cls with the unwritten transliteration system.

At Hindi रमज़ान (ramzān), User:Smettems put:

Superseded the Old Hindi रमदांनां (ramadā̃nā̃), also ultimately from Arabic.

For a Gujarati example see Gujarati સરતાણ (sartāṇ):

Inherited from {{inh|gu|inc-ogu|सुरताण}} […] Entirely superseded by the modern borrowing સુલતાન (sultān)

There are entries for both Gujarati મસ્જિદ (masjid) and મસીદ (masīd).

This is clearly a widespread issue that needs to addressed. What do you think of the current practice: superseded (by)? Kutchkutch (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: "Superseded" is okay, I guess, but that doesn't make use of the Old word. "First attested as..." seems better. In Hindi, I don't think we'll have 2 words of Perso-Arabic origin with one of them being through Old Hindi because "other (than Old Marathi) Early New Indo-Aryan languages appear to be very scattered". For સરતાણ and સુલતાન, I think etymology of સરતાણ should say that it is inherited from old Gujarati and સુલતાન as borrowed and first attested as old Gujarati. Categorise both as inherited from old Gujarati. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 06:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch, SodhakSH: “Superseded by […] ” is used for words of the same language, not for a language and its ancestor language. Which means, the phrasing applies to only a modern Hindi word that superseded a synonymous modern Hindi word. If one of the words be actually Old Hindi, then this phrasing should better be not employed, but instead one of the following should be used: 1) “First attested as […] ” in case of inheritance; 2) “Cognate with {{cog|und|TERM}}” for non-inherited that still happen to be cognate NIA forms; 3) “Compare {{noncog|und|TERM}}” for non-cognate synonyms. [Yes, its seems only the first option would actually be needed…] -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 20:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lost vote

I am so sorry for bothering you, I had a lot of doubts if I should do it now, it's been less that three months, it can be too soon. Your supported my vote - Wiktionary:Votes/2020-12/Bringing_back_wynn_entries and said there were a few alternatives to bring ƿynn back somehow, and I thought I might ask you about it.

I don't want it to be over like this and I don't believe it is actually over this way, but it does look so. Because what really worthy can I do? Start another vote, but no, somebody would try to block me in that case. Ask someone else to start a new vote? That would be not such a bad idea, but a new vote can easily end the same bad way, even worse, and almost nobody would agree to do it, I guess.

Sorry for bothering again, I wanted to stop writing that and wait for more time to pass, maybe it would have been better, but I somehow couldn't. Birdofadozentides (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Birdofadozentides: When I have time I shall propose in the Beer Parlour that the Insular script be used for Old English. By the way, you should not stop editing here just because your case is lost. Create a Babel Box on your userpage, work with Old English or any other languages you like, and be an established editor here. -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī:, insular script sounds like a good fresh idea for me. Though I think it sadly can only pass as some alternative option. Thank you for your response.

Well, my whole life here was to create those pages, I very seldom edited something else. And I don't even know what a Babel Box is, I doubt it would work out. Guess I never was an established editor. Birdofadozentides (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Birdofadozentides: Use babel: example - {{#babel:en-N|enm-3|ang-2}} (this example implies that you are a native English-speaker, have an advanced understanding of Middle English, and have intermediate understanding of Old English) - {{#babel:}} followed by language codes of those you know and the number implies your proficiency in it (1-basic, 2-intermediate, 3-advanced, 4-near native, N-native). I've been encouraging users to add these... very helpful for others. This template also categorises you into categories like CAT:User en-N, CAT:User enm-3, CAT:User ang-2, etc. per what you entered. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Insular script

@Birdofadozentides: Hey, would you mind if I start a BP discussion on switching over to the Insular script towards the end of this year? I am aslosh with so many tasks & discussions here, and I am very busy off-wiki as well. I cannot do’t afore September at least. However, for now, I could find only some of the Insular letters:

Capital letter / Small letter

? /  ?  (Insular A)

? /  ?  (Insular Æ)

? /  ?  (Insular B)

? /  ?  (Insular C)

Ꝺ / ꝺ  (Insular D)

? /  ?  (Insular Ð)

? /  ?  (Insular E)

 Ꝼ /  ꝼ  (Insular F)

Ᵹ / ᵹ (Insular G)

? /  ?  (Insular H)

? /  ?  (Insular I)

? /  ?  (Insular L)

? /  ?  (Insular M)

? /  ?  (Insular N)

? /  ?  (Insular O)

? /  ?  (Insular P)

Ꞃ /  ꞃ  (Insular R)

Ꞅ  / ꞅ  (Insular S)

Ꞇ  / ꞇ  (Insular T)

? /  ? (Thorn)

? /  ?  (Insular U)

Ƿ / ƿ (Wynn)

? /  ?  (Insular X)

? /  ?  (Insular Y)

Even the thorn Þ / þ that we see today seems to be a modern form that is used in the modern Icelandic alphabet, and not the original Insular letter. So could you help me seeking the missing letters the while? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 15:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī:, sorry for the last reply, of course I don't mind, start the discussion at any time convenient for you. About missing letters, well, I think some letters had insular forms that looked alike their modern versions. i'm not sure all insular letters exist in electronic format.

I think the only way to know how those letters used to look is to see them in manuscripts, here is the Beoƿulf manuscript for a example - http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vitellius_a_xv_f132r, there are also many other Old English manuscripts there.

Though I guess you must've meant something else, like help with finding electronic insular letters. I'm actually confused about it, I've never searched for something like that. If insular versions of the letters don't exist in electronic format, I have no idea how to make it happen. Maybe the list of Unicode characters would help? - [[1]]. Ancient and historic scripts topic doesn't have Old English

But I'm sure you've already been there. Sorry I'm so dumb and useless. Birdofadozentides (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've found some site that might be something usefull, though I'm not sure it would be a lot of help. Even if it's nothing I'll leave a link to it - https://medievalwritings.atillo.com.au/scripts/examples/inshalfunc.htm Birdofadozentides (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

lbor

Inqilabi, why are you going around replacing {{lbor}} with {{translit}}. They're not the same thing. --{{victar|talk}} 14:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@victar: They are not the same thing, that is why I went about doing so. Only English words like Sanskrit & Prakrit may be learned borrowings from Sanskrit, while any of those technical terms (as Sramana, etc.) are nothing but transliterations of Sanskrit terms. You need to realise that those technical terms can be learned loans only in those languages upon which Sanskrit is the superstrate language, namely South Asian and Southeast Asian languages. For English, we generally have learned loans from only Latin and Ancient Greek, because these two languages are the superstrates on English & other European languages. All of those words derived from Sanskrit, Egyptian, Sumerian, Chinese, Arabic, or whatever languages (save for loans that came through direct contact with English, etc. speakers) are transliterations in English & other European languages: they cannot be learned borrowings. Transliteration is the conversion of one script into another, and since these languages are not superstrates upon English, these terms can be only transliterations, and neither borrowings nor learned borrowings. Therefor please do undo your own reversions. Thanks. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A transliteration implies non-nativized word. vṛddhi and sandhi, for example are both well used and understood terms fully absorbed into the English language and are therefore borrowings. I don't even think we create English entries for transliterations. --{{victar|talk}} 21:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victar: But “transliteration” only states the mode of derivation of the word in question, that is the conversion of one script to another. It has nothing to do with how established the word is. Could you please provide any source to prove your claim? I am sure what you said is a common misunderstanding. Words like vṛddhi and sandhi have been transliterated from the Sanskrit words; it really does not matter how much ‘English’ these words have become. We should give accurate etymologies. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 21:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, they've been "transliterated" into English due to their different script, but a borrowing is a deeper adoption into a language than a mere transliteration. --{{victar|talk}} 21:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victar: Well, for your information, all instances of {{translit}} get automatically categorized as {{bor}}. If we have the more precise information, then where’s the harm? There is a reason we have that templet, and as I said, we should write accurate etymologies. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The harm is {{lbor}} is more accurate and it isn't being added to Category:English learned borrowings from Sanskrit. --{{victar|talk}} 22:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victar: I have already elaborated in my first post as to how we generally‡ cannot have English learned borrowings from a language other than Latin, Ancient Greek (both being superstrates on English), and also Old English, Middle English (these being ancestor languages, “learned borrowing” is the only possible thing). For any other languages throughout the world (other than adstrate loans, obviously), the English term can be said to be only transliterated, inasmuch as these (i.e., Sanskrit/Chinese/Tamil etc. etc.) are not superstrates on English. A Sanskrit term can be a learned borrowing only in South and Southeast Asian languages, for instance. This distinction should be very clear, we should not write inaccurate etymologies. [‡ Only very old words like Sanskrit & Prakrit may be called learned loans; all others of those technical terms from Sanskrit are fairly recent transliterations.] -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 06:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point of {{translit}} at all. If bhikshu is an English word, it's a borrowing; if it's a Sanskrit word, it's a {{romanization}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: bhikshu is not a borrowing; {{bor}} should be reserved for only loans that came through natural contact between two linguistic communities. And, romanisation is transliteration! -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 07:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that "{{bor}} should be reserved for only loans that came through natural contact between two linguistic communities", but even if there's consensus for it, we can use {{lbor}}. And my point is that since romanization is transliteration, we don't need both templates; {{romanization}} suffices. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: I have explained twice in this thread why {{lbor}} is generally a bad option for English words adopted from Sanskrit. Please see my comments and then put your response. Thanks. And also, we have only {{translit}}, and no {{romanization}} templet (which excludes non-Latin transliterations, which would pertain to European languages written in the Cyrillic script, for example). -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 09:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read your comments, and I think your criteria for the use of both {{bor}} ("for only loans that came through natural contact between two linguistic communities") and {{lbor}} ("learned loans only in those languages upon which Sanskrit is the superstrate language") are too restrictive. When I wrote {{romanization}} above of course I meant {{romanization of}}. As far as I know, Sanskrit is never written in (say) Cyrillic or Greek; I'm pretty sure Russian linguists just use the Latin alphabet (or Devanagari) when discussing Sanskrit. Russian words like анусвара (anusvara) are Russian words and thus borrowings, not transliterations. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: {{romanization of}} is not an etymology templet, while {{translit}} is. My aforesaid criteria might be ‘too restrictive’, but these are only for the sake of consistency, in order to prevent a conflict between different etymology templets. I firmly believe that Russian анусвара (anusvara) is otherwise transliterated from Sanskrit if it’s not come via another European language like English or German. Nevertheless, if there be so much opposition to my criteria, should I turn these into a policy by way of a vote? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 10:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason I object to the existence of the template {{translit}} is that being a transliteration of something isn't an etymology. Transliteration is purely a written phenomenon, and language is spoken. If I use the word bhikshu when I'm speaking (not writing) English, it can't be a transliteration. It can only be a borrowing. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A relevant discussion: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/May#unadapted_borrowings. 212.224.225.73 11:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: There is a reason for the existence of {{translit}} as an etymology templet, and most importantly, all instances of {{translit}} get automatically categorized as {{bor}} (as I said before), just as how {{lbor}}, {{slbor}}, etc. also get automatically categorized as {{bor}}. Thus, transliteration is just like any other type of etymology, and indeed transliteration pertains only to the etymology of the word in question, not to semantics or whatever (in Wiktionary obviously, I am not talking about any ordinary sense associated with the word transliteration here). The fact that English bhikshu is a transliteration does not keep it from being a fullfledged English word. Or to put it simply, {{translit}} should be used for borrowings that literally also happen to be transliterations. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 11:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

But Wiktionary shouldn't be using the word "transliteration" to mean something it doesn't actually mean. An etymology is an answer to the question "Where does this word come from?" The answer to the question "Where does the word bhikshu come from?" is "It was borrowed from Sanskrit", not "It's a transliteration of Sanskrit भिक्षु", which is only an answer to the question "Why is bhikshu spelled that way?". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: But where’s the harm if all transliterations are also categorized as borrowings. This is not any loss of information (i.e., the fact that the word in question is a borrowing), but rather we are providing more accurate information, which is actually beneficial. I cannot see how transliteration as an etymology is problematic if the words are automatically categorized as {{bor}}. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 12:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, {{translit}} should absolutely be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 18:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victar: Lemme give one example to show the difference between transliteration and borrowing: English Tagore is a borrowing (from Bengali), but Thakur is a transliteration of a common word found in many Indo-Aryan languages (such as Hindi ठाकुर (ṭhākur), Bengali ঠাকুর (ṭhakur), etc.), making both English terms doublets, but with both having different etymologies— the former through natural language contact and the latter being just transliterated. This difference is very significant, and please do consider it. You can understand from the form of the word if it has been loaned or merely transliterated. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 18:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are making up your own meanings. Victar is right. “Borrowing” and “learned borrowing” mean something different from what you construct it to mean, and “transliteration” is not mutually exclusive with it; which should rather lead you to doubt the utility of the template {{transliteration}} – “there is a reason for the existence of {{translit}} as an etymology templet” only after the principle of sufficient reason, but the reason could be considered irrational, or inconsistent with better reasons to use other templates. As said it answers the question why a word is spelled a certain way, positive answer towards which does not exclude borrowinghood nor is demonstrated to be good reason to use this template or categorize. There is an idea that one could categorize according to how much they preserve spellings in a certain way, as is also done by {{obor}}, but I do not see that you could categorize the whole wordhoard documented in the dictionary for a language by such properties.

Your arguments with proper nouns (English Tagore and Thakur) are completely moot since one still has to dispute the lexical treatment of them, to which language they even belong, unlike with “normal words”, which are the normal case from which you should make conclusions. Fay Freak (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Inqilabi, I will continue to revert your edits replacing {{lbor}} with {{translit}}. --{{victar|talk}} 19:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@victar: ’Twas a 𝔠𝔬𝔪𝔭𝔯𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔰𝔢 on my part to not treat transliterations used outside the field of linguistics (vrddhi, sandhi, etc.), as (learned) borrowings. None of those terms are ‘well used and understood terms fully absorbed into the English language’, so they need not be categorized as learned borrowings. Also this is not your area of interest, so I suggest you either give this up or take this to the BP; constant editwarring is unproductive. By the way, you also did not consider my thoughts below. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 02:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no compromise here -- you will be reverted and if you engage in wheel-warring on this, I will seek that you are blocked. --{{victar|talk}} 03:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You should technically be blocked for your lack of civilty, but obviously I am not malicious enough that I would seek to get you blocked. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked on what grounds? I think words like vṛddhi are transliterations. It is spelt using IAST, not the English alphabet. A borrowing/learned borrowing would be a word like Rigveda which was consciously borrowed into English but assimilated in spelling and pronunciation. vṛddhi OTOH is a technical term which is often written in italics (an acknowledgement of the fact that it is a Sanskrit word which has been rendered in IAST). -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 03:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Part two

@victar, Mahagaja, Fay Freak: I just saw that we have the following templet, T:name translit, that is used in definitions. Can we have the same for toponyms, terminologies, etc. as well? We would then have no need of using {{translit}}, and it could be deleted. However, I still believe transliterations are neither loanwords nor learned borrowings. A loanword arises through normal language contact; a learned loan is applicable only for languages in the same family or areal sphere of influence (and as such learned borrowings are from a superstrate language). Therefor some special templet needs to be assigned for such etymologies (for transliterations of anthroponyms, toponyms, terminologies, and the like, as opposed to loanwords or true learned borrowings for these same domains): would {{ubor}} be a goodun for this? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That template is not intended to be used in the etymology of a term but instead as a definition. See Shevardnadze. --{{victar|talk}} 16:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Victar: Oh, I just asked if we could use some T:translit for all transliterations, to be used in the definition itself, and have another templet dedicated to such etymologies, like {{ubor}}. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

প্রস্তুত

Hi again. The content of the Article প্রস্তুত doesn't make any sense-- Verb, with meaning “In a good condition for an action or situation”. As you're someone With knowledge about Bengali language, may I request you to Check/Improve it? You might also want to See Other Articles, Created by the same editor. Thank You.--4SnavaA (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank You for editing it. If you Would be able to see the editors other edits then Please do so. Best,--4SnavaA (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

And this is the same editor: 103.217.111.197 (talk). I shall review their edits when I have time. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Open compound

Would diff be a contradiction of diff? Svārtava² • 10:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: In the former case, one of the components is not a Hindi term, so you cannot write in the etymology X + Y; note that it’s a partial calque. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

well, मुंडा (muṇḍā#Etymology 2) is a Hindi term, even hi.wp has an entry for that. Also english male enhancement doesn't have any etym like {{com|en|male|enhancement}}. Svārtava² • 13:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: Hindi मुंडा (muṇḍā#Etymology 2) is but an anglicism and I do not see it as a naturalised term as such. But then, I see that it has its entry, so I have modified the headword. {{com}} and {{sa-af}} should only be used if the etymological formation is really productive. Like मुंडा, I do not see कंठ as a naturalised word as well. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

While मुंडा might not be natural, कंठ surely is. As in the set phrase कंठ लगाना = गले लगाना = to hug. नील is also as in नीलगाय. Just showing the productiveness Svārtava² • 17:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Svartava2: Only for advocates of hyper-Sanskritisation like you. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid we were here to discuss about spaced compound treatment... I do think we don't need to give {{com|hi|कर्क|रेखा}} and just Literally [...]. see also काग़ज़ी नींबू#Etymology —Svārtava² • 17:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking for English and not necessarily for Indian languages, treating multiword terms as compounds in the etymology section is a misuse of the template, does not match how we define compounds, and does not help the reader. Please stop doing this. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I appreciate your constructive feedback; but I am sure I am not misusing the template. Even @Sgconlaw uses {{com}} for multiword terms. Just have a glance at Category:English compound nouns. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī, Metaknowledge: am I wrong? I read "w:Compound (linguistics)", which says: "As a member of the Germanic family of languages, English is unusual in that even simple compounds made since the 18th century tend to be written in separate parts. This would be an error in other Germanic languages such as Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, German and Dutch. However, this is merely an orthographic convention: As in other Germanic languages, arbitrary noun phrases, for example "girl scout troop", "city council member", and "cellar door", can be made up on the spot and used as compound nouns in English too." — SGconlaw (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I hold the same view. By the way, @Sgconlaw, I generally prefer to hide the links of the individual words, as in প্রকৃতি প্রেমিক or কয়লা খনি, because I think it’s redundant to display terms with a link after having stated the etymology (or if the etymology is stated in the main entry); unless the links of the etymology and the headword are somehow different. What is your opinion? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t really bother with that. Might as well let the headword template operate in the normal way for consistency, unless for some reason it’s linking to incorrect entries. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

As the links are not displayed in case of hyphenated or non-spaced forms, I prefer to get rid of the links for open compounds, just so that all alternative forms’ headwords are consistent with each other. I definitely think that should be the norm, and I am thinking of raising the matter in the BP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In a comparative Germanic context, I certainly agree with Wikipedia's statement. However, for the purposes of English lexicography, a distinction is generally drawn between spaced and unspaced compounds, with only the latter being considered compound words. I believe that you and @Sgconlaw are in the wrong, and I welcome you to start a discussion at WT:BP about it if you want to argue the case before the community. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: well, I was just following what the English Wikipedia article said, so I will be guided about whatever the consensus is on this issue. I'll start a BP discussion. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll write in support of SGconlaw's opinion that certain terms with spaces should be considered compounds. It seems random to me to classify a term as a compound depending on whether someone happens to write a space (or hyphen or nothing) between its components. — Eru·tuon 21:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation for Gender

On what basis do you assert that one should not use an inline reference for the source for a gender claim? You've made this claim in an edit of Pali viveka. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57: The problem is that when you use an inline reference in the headword line, you are sourcing the entry as a whole using the citation. There is, fortunately or unfortunately, no way to cite the gender because the gender is shown in the headword line itself. Your own method of using the hidden comment <!-- For gender --> beside the reference is really sufficient. And what’s more, an inline reference is used only to cite the entry, or the etymology, or (uncommonly) the pronunciation. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As footnote indicators follow the supported claims, I don't see an indicator at the end of the headword line as supporting anything but the headword line itself. I don't think there is a method of supporting a whole subsection, though if there were, I'd try footnoting the section header itself.

One can use the same reference to support multiple items. The trick is to use the name attribute on the <ref> tag; they then share the same footnote, which is defined by the sole non-empty tag with that name, as seen for example in você. (That's a trick I learnt by populating tables on Wikipedia.) The reference doesn't have to be at the first use of the name - one can write it later if that makes the item easier for editors to read. In the example you describing as citing an entry, I would say that you should be citing a sense.

HTML comments are really only for talking editor to editor. That's why, when I saw that there was no longer active opposition to the use of inline references, I went back to using them. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

age of gema

Well, that was interesting. Coromines & Pascual comment, "Gema es un cultismo muy tardío (falta Aut.)." (gema is a very late cultism, missing in Diccionario de Autoridades). And looking up instances in the RAE's diachronic corpus (CORDE), I mostly find instances of the phrase sal gema (raw mineral salt) in Old Spanish. Nothing in the 16th century except some very metalinguistic discussions referring to the Latin term. It does seem it's a pretty recent learned borrowing!--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 03:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

About Bengali translit

Hello! I have just started to contribute to Wiktionary. I noticed you reverted my edit at Wiktionary:Bengali transliteration. However, I would like to thank you as it alleviated my confusion about this transliteration. However, there still remains a bit more. I noticed the transliteration at ষ্ণ as ṣṇa; I took it as a standard and created entries for other joint characters and, therefore, changed the table. Now, wouldn't that transliteration of ষ্ণ be śnô, according to the table?

I also wonder why অ is transliterated as ô! The pronunciation of ô is like that o in "pole, a bit similar to Bengali ও. So, I really want to know from where this table has been created. Looking forward to hearing from you. Regards Meghmollar2017 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: Hello and welcome! Since our transliteration is based on the phonology, ষ্ণ is transliterated as śn (as Bengali has only one sibilant, so স, শ, ষ are all transliterated as ś; while ন, ণ are both transliterated as n). We do not employ the pan-Indic convention of using macrons for vowel length because vowel length is not phonemic in Bengali: thus আ /ɑ/ is transliterated as a, while অ /ɔ/ as ô (the latter to distinguish from ও /o/). Hope that helps. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

So, should I change them according to WT:BN TR? Meghmollar2017 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Status of {{R:CDIAL}} reconstructions

Hello Inqilābī. Whether or not to convert CDIAL's reconstructions from Sanskrit to Ashokan Prakrit if a conversion a possible is still an unsolved issue.

See Talk:𑘖𑘲𑘕𑘜𑘹 & Reconstruction talk:Ashokan Prakrit/𑀧𑀝𑁆𑀞𑀸𑀦.

For example, Sanskrit *unnagna could perhaps be converted to a Prakrit form such as *uṇṇagga. Since you have started to create entries for CDIAL's reconstructions, do you have a opinion on whether these reconstructions should be modified to a Prakrit form or remain as they appear in {{R:CDIAL}}? Kutchkutch (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch, Inqilabi: See also Special:Permalink/65062470#बुभुक्ष्, Reconstruction talk:Sanskrit/ध्वजदण्ड. One possible solution would be to selectively create Sanskrit and Ashokan Prakrit entries, e.g. *dhvajadaṇḍa be Sanskrit while *nakka be Ashokan Prakrit. It would also be helpful for entries like *𑀬𑀼𑀯𑀸𑀦 (*yuvāna) for which there is corresponding Pali yuvāna and if that reconstruction be treated as Old-Indo-Aryan, it could be given as the ancestor of both Pali and Prakrit terms, as Turner does. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 05:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Hi. No idea, but it might be the case that Turner reconstructs both OIA and MIA terms. Are you sure that all Turner reconstructions are Ashokan Prakrit, or do you simply mean that it’s safer to treat all of them as Ashokan Prakrit just to avoid a wrong assumption (that the term is traceable to OIA)? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava2, Inqilābī According to:

https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/frontmatter/introduction.html

Many of the headwords, like so much of classical Sanskrit vocabulary, are in reality Middle Indo-Aryan clothed, for the convenience of presentation, in an earlier phonetic dress

Therefore, if a headword is in an OIA form instead of a MIA form only for the sake of convenience, then it should be converted to MIA so that it represents the most recent common ancestor without introducing unnecessary speculation about whether the term can be traced to OIA. For example, if one were to convert Ashokan Prakrit *𑀙𑁄𑀝𑁆𑀝 (*choṭṭa) to OIA, there could be an infinite number of possibilities. According to, Reconstruction talk:Ashokan Prakrit/𑀙𑁄𑀝𑁆𑀝:

Many words may have been innovated during the MIA period which is why they don't exist in Sanskrit … It's like trying to reconstruct PIE with only Sanskrit and Avestan, we just don't have enough data.

Since MIA and OIA are distinct stages, the older stage should not be used without adequate justification. Turner’s use of OIA forms instead of the MIA forms whenever possible is probably due the fact that OIA is more recognisable to the scholars of Indo-European and the speakers of languages with learned borrowings from Sanskrit.

The headword ātapyatē under which the Khowar word [ātΛpik `to have high fever'] appears is in reality a Middle Indo-Aryan word in Old Indo-Aryan form.

If there is a deviant descendant from a Dardic language such as this Khowar term, perhaps the OIA form could be used instead since the Dardic family is not descended from Prakrit. However, since the coverage of Dardic terms is limited, there are currently no examples of a reconstruction that must be at the OIA stage for this reason.

There may be archaisms in Pali that may justify an OIA form, but perhaps it would be better if the reconstruction for Pali yuvāna and Prakrit 𑀚𑀼𑀯𑀸𑀡 (juvāṇa) remains at the MIA stage rather than the OIA stage to avoid overreaching. However, there is no MIA ancestor of both Prakrit and Pali to host such a reconstruction because the idea of a Proto-MIA language was rejected at the Beer Parlour a few years ago.

Also, observe how the MIA reconstruction *𑀭𑁄𑀓𑁆𑀓 (*rokka) could possibly be inherited from Sanskrit रोक (roka, “buying with ready money”) if the Sanskrit term is not considered to be borrowed from MIA. Kutchkutch (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Old/Middle Bengali

User:Meghmollar2017 has been creating entries for Old/Middle Bengali. So, is it now okay to start creating them again, or do you still need time work on Old & Middle Bengali pronunciations? Kutchkutch (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• What is the citation form for Old & Middle Bengali verbs? Template:R:bn:EDB uses the stem for headwords, which is why নাচ is the form used in the descendants tree at as the Old & Middle Bengali ancestors of modern Bengali নাচা (naca). Old/Middle Gujarati, Old Hindi and Old Marathi use the infinitive, while Old Punjabi uses the absolutive. Kutchkutch (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hindi declension

Why are you adding declension to Hindi words where the declension is the same, how is that useful? 178.120.64.209 22:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you exactly want to say, but we show declensions for every part of speech and for alternative spellings/forms in any entry, just as a convention. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In हिंदुस्तानी in the last definition, the word is identical in all three declensions. Btw I don't object alternative spellings. 178.120.64.209 22:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, there is consensus to show the declension even if all declined forms are identical, as in रूसी. This is done so that a reader knows that the forms are identical and in the absence of the declension table the reader would think otherwise and would want to know the declined forms. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make them indeclinable, since plurals of languages don't exist in Hindi?

Or does this template not allow to also add m/f? 178.120.64.209 22:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I can’t really answer that as I don’t deal with Hindi entries much- I’ll ping @AryamanA, Svartava for more input. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they should be considered indeclinables since they exist as: रूसी को (rūsī ko, accusative), रूसी से (rūsī se, ablative), रूसी का (rūsī kā, genitive), रूसी में (rūsī mẽ, locative), etc. But it definitely should be labelled uncountable. Svartava (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Svartava, 178.120.64.209: Agreed with Svartava, they should have tables but they can be labelled singular-only/uncountable in there. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)}