Wiktionary talk:Punjabi transliteration

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Schwa deletion?[edit]

Kutchkutch, Taimoorahmed11, currently, Punjabi ਭਿੱਖ transliterates as "bhikkha" while it's Shahmukhi equivalent بھِکّھ transliterates as "bhikkh". Turner, Singh, etc. all transliterate the term as "bhikkh" (and all such terms) without the schwa, so I think we should also do that, unless the schwa is actually pronounced? —Svārtava [tcur] 14:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava2: I, too, have pondered over this, but I'm not sure how to go about this. I intentionally kept it so that it's more or less in accordance with the ALA-LC Urdu standard, since in my opinion it represents the spelling much more accurately. I'm open to suggestions, but please keep in mind that the current Module:pa-Arab-translit is currently also used for Saraiki, and I'm considering adding Pothwari, Hindko and possibly even Urdu in this module.
-Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taimoorahmed11: my concern is regarding the inconsistent transliteration. Is the schwa actually pronounced? If not, it should not be there in the Gurmukhi transliteration. This has got nothing to do with the Shahmukhi transliteration or any other Arabic script(s) transliteration. —Svārtava [tcur] 04:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartava2: Yes the schwa is present and pronounced
-Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 14:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taimoorahmed11: So then, shouldn't it be added to the Shahmukhi transliteration also? Also then why do maximum sources do not transliterate the schwa? —Svārtava [tcur] 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartava2: Likely because there's no character in either scripts which represents the schwa, and the sources literally transliterate the lemmas. It's a similar method which I opted for with Module:pa-Arab-translit, since it can be used for multiple dialects and languages.
-Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 14:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taimoorahmed11: Oh, I see, so should the schwa be removed from Gurmukhi transliteration as well for consistency in that case? —Svārtava [tcur] 15:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Svartava2 According to AryamanA at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/January#Use_ISO_15919_for_Hindi_transliteration,

We aren't doing transliteration to begin with...Transliteration is not useful for a reader (that's why the native script is given!), but a transcription is because it represents how a word is said in a language-suitable consistent manner...Making a consistent romanisation is a decision that had to be made for every dictionary. These transcriptions are indeed for ordinary people, but they're meant to be consistent and scientific and this modified IAST is one such system that we all have maintained a consensus on for many years. I'm hardly imposing anything here.

Therefore, if the schwa is pronounced, then it would be displayed in the Gurmukhi romanisation according to that principle. However, since Taimoorahmed11 disagrees with extending this principle to Perso-Arabic scripts, there are now several discrepancies between Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi romanisations. If ALA-LC is used for Urdu as proposed at Wiktionary_talk:Urdu_transliteration#ALA-LC_standard:

I feel it would represent Urdu spelling much better than the current standard, which doesn't distinguish between loan-letters...I understand that this standard may cause confusion for Hindi speakers/Devanagari readers, however |hi= is utilised so that Hindi equivalents can also be shown. It can also be beneficial for those learning the Urdu spelling, who might not immediately understand that different letters are used depending on the word and its etymology.

there would also be discrepancies between Hindi and Urdu romanisations. If the opposing viewpoints remain, there seems to be no way to resolve the discrepancies. Taimoorahmed11 I wouldn't oppose ALA-LC transliteration for Perso-Arabic scripts if that allows automated romanisation that would otherwise not be possible with the transcription approach. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry forgot to respond to @Svartava2 after I deleted my previous reply, since I misread his reply before. I'm in a predicament here, because, I edging more towards the fact that it should have been represented (in Shahmukhi) since the schwa is actually quite significant, when compared to Urdu/Hindi etc, but here are some of my thoughts on the matter, and why I think it's wiser to leave it out:
1. Unlike Indic scripts, a diacritic exists to represent the short 'a' vowel, the zabar, which technically represents the schwa. I feel that by including inferred letters, could potentially confuse a learner and overall make the transliteration method inconsistent, based on the script, especially considering the fact that the schwa in Punjabi mainly revolves around the geminated words, which would include the gemination diacritic, the shadda. Schwa in Punjabi also messes with the Sukoon diacritic, and the minor schwa at the end of consonants, or in other Punjabi dialects they might not even be pronounced at all? So pondering over this, I decided that it would just be easier to leave out the schwa, and it would be wiser to put the extra concern on Module:pa-IPA instead.
2. This module can potentially be adjusted and be used for a wider number of dialects/languages, which may not have the same schwa emphasis as Punjabi does. Saraiki, though I haven't studied Saraiki phonology too deeply, is an example of this. So instead of applying the transcription approach, which would involve having to make separate transliteration modules, just to represent the minor phonological differences, it's just easier, and more simpler to take a script-representative approach.
@Kutchkutch Thanks for your comment on Wiktionary talk:Urdu transliteration, I haven't made any changes to that page, due to the lack of comments from other users. To be fair, there aren't many Urdu users on this site.
Also, for:
  • there are now several discrepancies between Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi romanisations
  • there would also be discrepancies between Hindi and Urdu romanisations
Yes, definitely. The Perso-Arab scripts and Indic scripts are just too contrasting to be able to have the same transliteration method in my opinion. Sometimes I wonder whether making a separate template for Urdu/Hindi/Punjabi and other South Asian languages which have multiple major scripts, is viable, similar to Template:ko-ipa or Template:fa-regional, perhaps even to beautify the South Asian lemmas?
-Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 02:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]