Hi, small note – Even though it may seem like I'm online, I might not respond right away. I might be online to quickly dump my notes on Wiktionary before they disappear from my thoughts, and not have time to reply! سَلَام(salām)!

وہوٹی edit

The IPA transcription of this lemma seems to be innacurate, since it lack the tone, can you fix it, since you a a native Punjabi speaker Rodrigo5260 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you do the same correction in the Gurmukhi Punjabi entry? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entries made by ImproveTheArabicUnicode edit

Could you fix the Urdu entries made by ImproveTheArabicUnicode when you have time?, most of them are not formatted correctly. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah no worries, I'll try and sort them out! نعم البدل (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He just did it again. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rodrigo5260 how do you do it then? ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ImprovetheArabicUnicode Ask @نعم البدل, I'm not an Urdu expert Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@نعم البدل How do I do the format? ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @ImprovetheArabicUnicode, Rodrigo5260:. Please see Wiktionary:Entry Layout, which is usually a good indication. Entry layouts, can however differ per language, but feel free to see the Urdu and Punjabi lemmas that I've worked on, for instance ظُہْرَانَہ(z̤uhrānah), باغی(bāġī), and انوکھا‎. Let me know if you have any other questions in this regards! نعم البدل (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, if you add diacritics in Urdu lemmas (using the |head= parameter) - it will automatically generate the Hindi/Devanagari equivalent. See: گَھریلُو(gharelū) or کاغَذ(kāġaẕ). نعم البدل (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was previously told not to add IPA, and it is because I don't know much of it. Also, how do I know what the root of the word is and what the word is of the root word? ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ImprovetheArabicUnicode: By who? For the most part Template:ur-IPA which suffice. It works by adding the transliteration (of the Urdu lemma) for first parameter {{ur-IPA|[transliteration]}}. نعم البدل (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User_talk:ImprovetheArabicUnicode#Pronunciations ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah right, yeah that's fair, if you're not sure about the IPA, then it's best to leave it out, otherwise a lot of languages have templates like Template:ur-IPA which will automatically generate the IPA for you. نعم البدل (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thanks! ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

پولس edit

@نعم البدل This entry uses a nonstandard transliteration, could you try to fix it? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done! Partially. Will sort out the rest of the page soon. نعم البدل (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fonts edit

I see that a lot of languages like Kashmiri, Shina, etc have fonts in the header and title. Can you tell me how to change it for Ushojo and Kohistani Shina? ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ImprovetheArabicUnicode: Sorry for the late response. The fonts for languages have to be determined on MediaWiki:Common.css - at the moment fonts haven't been set for South Asian languages, site-wide, at least not the correct ones. It may just be your device that's rendering them in a different font. نعم البدل (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok, sorry for disturbing you. Thanks. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries! نعم البدل (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

آنسو edit

This entry has a sample sentence, but it lacks its respective transliteration, could you add it when you have time? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done! نعم البدل (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

یروشلم edit

This entry has a quotation, but it has no transliteration, could you add it when you have time? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done! نعم البدل (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks 👍. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

خطہ edit

Hi, @نعم البدل:, could you fix the IPA transcription of this entry when you have time? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done! نعم البدل (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

دہلی edit

@نعم البدل: This entry also needs a transliteration for its quote Rodrigo5260 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number box edit

Hello, I want to create a number box for both Shina and Ushojo. How do you do that? ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @ImprovetheArabicUnicode: I'm sorry I forgot to respond to you. Please try making one for Ushojo at: Module:number list/data/ush/sandbox, and Module:number list/data/scl/sandbox - for (Standard??) Shina. Please follow the structure used at Module:number list/data/ur or Module:number list/data/phr/sandbox (more simplified that I was going to work on). نعم البدل (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

لینڈ vocalised as لَینْڈ edit


The Urdu vocalisation لَینْڈ (lainḍ) may be more accurate after all as in پُولَینْڈ(polainḍ) vs پولینْڈ(polenḍ), if the diphthong "ai" (in the transliteration) produces /ɛː/ in both Urdu and Hindi, which is different from Arabic (or classical Persian). لینْڈ (lenḍ) without a fatha would produce "lenḍ" /leːnɖ/ (incorrect), not /lɛːnɖ/ (correct).

Pls let me know if you know more. There are very few reliable resources on the vocalisation in Urdu. Also @ImprovetheArabicUnicode, Tspielberg, Benwing2, Theknightwho. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Atitarev: in my experience, the English IPA(key): /æ/ has mostly always been vocalised as IPA(key): /ɛː/ (or sometimes /ɑː/) in Urdu. It could be that my dialect is influenced by Punjabi, but even so in Urdu media, it's typically pronounced as IPA(key): /lɛːnɖ/. Rekhta always includes the Fatha, but UDB for some reason don't. نعم البدل (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've pulled a random video about Poland from Urdu media (at 0:04, 0:10 and 0:22, 1:26 some timestamps). I would love your feedback on it. نعم البدل (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for both posts. I will then need to change the "-land" entries back to include the fatha and fix the translit to "-lainḍ". I only changed a few. Ideally, WT:UR TR should describe better how to correctly vocalise and transliterate Urdu. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd give it a try, but I'm not really sure what kind of standard is being used for Urdu transliteration. Currently, I use whatever the Urdu headword generates, or otherwise whatever Module:pa-Arab-translit gives me (essentially whatever is closest in representing the Urdu lemma). A lot of the transliteration modules/policies were created by this random number user @User1267183728390127891247 – but I'm not really sure where he was going with it. نعم البدل (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His name was Taimoor apparently. But anyways – he made a transliteration module for Urdu Module:ur-translit – which I don't even understand the 'policy' behind it, and then a completely different standard for Module:pa-Arab-translit – even though the two scripts/languages aren't different at all. نعم البدل (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. His latest name, if I am not mistaken, is Tspielberg (I pinged him earlier but he hasn't been responding.) Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know even less about Urdu rules. I am very familiar with the Arabic vocalisation and mostly Persian but I make observations based on Rekhta and some matching to Hindi.
I can only partially follow rules Module:ur-translit. The difference e.g. between "ē" and "ī" (which should be when) escape me. WT:UR TR was meant to be re-written afterwards but it never was. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh. I would've assumed WT:UR TR would have to be settled first before making a translit module. If I'm not mistaken, Taimoor or Tspielberg (in regards to Module:ur-translit) was stuck between transliteration and roman/IPA, as the method and decided to go with transliteration that was mixed with IPA, I guess? In any case, I don't really see the point of it. I wonder if Module:pa-Arab-translit can be amended and then be used to cover a whole load of South Asian languages (like Urdu, Punjabi, and Punjabic dialects, Balochi and perhaps some of the north Pakistani languages) rather than separate modules with little to no difference. I worked on it a bit, a while back, just to iron out some issues, but it still had some other minor problems (which I keep forgetting). نعم البدل (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Module:pa-Arab-translit looks good and it relies on letters and diacritics. The current translit for Urdu looks up (among other things) Hindi pronunciations, which makes it a bit of a mess or produces something that's irrelevant for Urdu. It seems better to make the Urdu translit module to work similarly. I don't know if anyone else is currently following but there may be some objections from Hindi editors (if matching between Hindi and Urdu transliterations is the right thing to do, feasible and makes sense in ALL cases). In any case, individual symbols can be changed later when the module works efficiently. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh right! I was trying to understand how Template:ur-noun worked – I'm assuming the head gets converted to Hindi, and then the transliteration is provided from the Hindi variant? I don't really think it's necessary to match the Hindi and Urdu transliterations when the Hindi variant is provided in the header as well (and similarly Urdu on Hindi lemmas). نعم البدل (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I agree with @نعم البدل that it converts to Hindi translation so then I added polenḍ because to my knowledge, polainḍ sounds like it is kind of like saying the letter "i". But I am not good with these translations so I'm not really sure. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ImprovetheArabicUnicode: Not sure if "ai" was borrowed from Hindi ("ai" or is also pronounced /ɛː/) or it is the Urdu thing but "ai" produces /ɛː/, but "e" gives /eː/. /ɛː/ is more accurate in this case, even though the vocalisation and transliteration seems non-intuitive. It's just an observation on the current workings of vocalisation (fatha + ی)/transliteration (ai)/IPA (ɛː). The pronunciation is confirmed correct (although I am not sure about the length). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's kind of integrated. It seems to produce Hindi Devanagari variant based on the transliteration if it's not supplied but |hi= is supplied it creates the Urdu transliteration, which shouldn't happen.
Note that the current Urdu transliteration can serve as an input to {{ur-IPA}}, which seems to work. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok that makes sense. So that means the translation correction has to be manually done. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true. I think though it should be improved so that it works like Template:ar-IPA, where you can input the vocalised word and it will give the IPA. نعم البدل (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proto-Indo-European edit

Please cross-check with modern sources before adding Indo-European etymologies, especially PIE roots. — 01:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP, apologies, yes I'll avoid Indo-European etymologies altogether 😅. Out of interest, is there no possibility that the two are related? نعم البدل (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. Sanskrit पार्श्व (pārśva, side, rib, etc.) is clearly just a vṛddhi derivative of पर्शु (parśu, rib), which is (completely regularly) inherited from Proto-Indo-European *pérḱus (rib ~ chest), the hypothetical root of which would be *perḱ- (but probably not either of those listed on that page), whereas Latin pars (stem part-) requires PIE *per(H)t- or similar. (Latin also has portiō which is closely related to pars.) So I would say no, based on that and the lack of any obvious semantic link between the Latin and Sanskrit words. Few serious linguists would explore the possibility any further from here, but I'll do it for the sake of explanation.
Questionable semantics aside, any formal relationship of this root *perḱ- with Latin pars would require replacement of *ḱ, which (like *k) normally gives Latin c (/k/), with the t that actually occurs in the Latin paradigm of pars. There is no way for these to be directly equivalent. At best, in order to be related, the Latin stem would have to be from an older suffixed *park-ti- which lost all trace of the *k, analogous to the controversial etymologies that derive Latin fors ~ fortis from *bʰŕ̥ǵʰ-tis or *dʰŕ̥ǵʰ-tis via an assumed Old Latin *forctis; but you can see how ad hoc and unprovable this is getting. However, this is actually not entirely without reason, as Latin also has parcō (to spare), but the link between it and pars is highly questionable and unclear at best. Otherwise, one could still suppose them to be independent “extensions” or suffixed forms that were already derived within PIE: *per-ḱ- and *per-t-, from an older root *per- (side?), but this is just as unlikely, and more importantly it makes the mention of the Sanskrit misleading and totally superfluous, as there are many better candidate cognates of pars which could much more easily be from *per-. Also, a *-ḱ- extension probably doesn't even exist. Even Pokorny, who is infamous for interpreting roots as extensions of others, made no such connection of *perḱ- with a root *per-.
I don't know where you got the etymology from, but it looks like the author just naïvely assumed the Latin stem as pars- and is unaware of some basic IE sound laws: PIE *pers-u- or *pars-u- would give Sanskrit *पर्षु (*parṣu) and Iranian **paršu-, rather than the पर्शु (parśu) and *parcu- that we see, which can only be from *perḱu-. Or maybe they were comparing Latin parcus, which is at least possible on phonetic grounds but even more different semantically. — 17:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

سر edit

@نعم البدل Could you try to clean up this entry whenever you can? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ਖਾਮੋਸ਼ / ਖ਼ਾਮੋਸ਼ / ਖਮੋਸ਼ edit

@نعم البدل Hi, what would you suggest in a case like this? There's an entry ਖ਼ਾਮੋਸ਼ (xāmoś), another ਖਾਮੋਸ਼ (khāmoś), and then the dic.learnpunjabi.org page gives ਖਮੋਸ਼ as the main spelling. So what should be the main lemma here? My impression is that many Punjabi dictionaries don't seem to use the nuqta letters. Exarchus (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ਖ਼ਾਮੋਸ਼ (xāmoś) is the more common lemma. ਖ਼ਮੋਸ਼ (xamoś) is an alternative form and ਖਾਮੋਸ਼ (khāmoś) should just redirect to ਖ਼ਾਮੋਸ਼ (xāmoś) نعم البدل (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've made ਖ਼ਾਮੋਸ਼ (xāmoś) the main entry and made ਖਾਮੋਸ਼ (khāmoś) a 'nuqtaless form of'. I know you said to use a redirect but I think this is strictly speaking against the redirection policy of wiktionary, so for now I'll do it this way. Maybe it would not be a problem to use a redirect for Gurmukhi, as there are no other languages using it. Exarchus (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine as well! نعم البدل (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Arabic ayn sound edit

@نعم البدل Hi, so you said “Standard Urdu does (have [ʕ])”, can you please provide any source, you might be confusing it with the glottal stop [ʔ] which is found in hypercorrect speech

“A glottal stop is sometimes heard in hypercorrect speech, where it represents ع in the spelling (جماعت, "class") [jəmaːʔət] ~ [jəmaːt]” Source: Cardona, George; Jain, Dhanesh (2003), The Indo-Aryan Languages, page 339 Notevenkidding (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! @Notevenkidding: No, I'm aware of the difference between the glottal stop, and the pharyngeal approximant, and I can't really say I could ever recall an Urdu speaker pronouncing the ع as a glottal stop, or perhaps it's just rare or there may have been a brief period where that sort of thing happened?
Anyways, in Standard Urdu, the ع, though rare, is (supposed to be) pronounced as a pharyngeal approximant, but in common/colloquial speech, it's blended with the preceding or succeeding vowel. Actual Standard Urdu phonology is usually taken up by formal Urdudaans or by religious scholars. The audio recordings for Urdu lemmas provided by UDB – Urdu Lughat (جماعت), for instance, pronounce the ع, majority of the time. Rekhta – jamaa'at also attempts to put an emphasis on the ع (although Rekhta often doesn't).
So, the correct IPA transcription should be: IPA(key): /d͡ʒə.mɑː.ʕət̪/, [d͡ʒə.mɑːt̪], the former to represent the phonemic transcription, and the latter for the phonetic transcription/actual pronunciation. نعم البدل (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So like how ष is /ʂ/ in broad transcription but [ʃ] in narrow transcription.
I couldn't find any source explicitly mentioning that ع is supposed to be /ʕ/ in Urdu but a dictionary by the goverment pronouncing it as /ʕ ~ ɑ̯/ def says something ig. Thanks for your contributions btw, you are a literal gem (*^-^)/\(^-^*) Notevenkidding (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I've barely scratched the surface though, but I'm hopeful we'll get more contributors, such as yourself, for our languages! Generally speaking, most sources, in my opinion focus mainly on spoken Urdu, ignoring Standard/religious/formal Urdu, and even Dialectal Urdu, while others look at Hindi AND Urdu dialects collectively, which isn't necessarily wrong, but it does leave out certain aspects of Urdu.
By the way, I see you add Saraiki lemmas, are you a native Saraiki speaker? نعم البدل (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, Saraiki is my L1, I actually joined wiktionary for Saraiki but Urdu was (and still is) missing many basic words, like کبھی was added today and we are still missing تبھی, جبھی etc.
But Saraiki is missing basically everything so I am going to mainly work on that for now, that doesnt mean I am going to abandon Urdu but my main goal is to add more Saraiki words Notevenkidding (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am just accidentally reading this (because this page still happens to be on my watchlist), and yes, many basic Urdu words are missing. I noticed that many verbs are missing, like ماننا, بیچنا‎, اڑنا. A while back I made a page for بیٹھنا, simply because I thought it was too ridiculous that there was no Urdu entry for 'to sit'. But I'm not really the most suitable person to make Urdu entries (I basically look at the Hindi entries). Exarchus (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ugh, It's been something that on my backlog for some time now, along with numerals. I might stop fixing Urdu lemmas for the mean time, and just add a ton of Urdu verbs just so we have them. The issue with verbs is that the means can be so varied in English and you have to add pretty much every definition 😂. نعم البدل (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Notevenkidding: Not a problem! Saraiki or Urdu, no matter, I'm quite pleased to see a native Saraiki speaker here! نعم البدل (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:quote-book-ur edit

Hi. Can you explain why we need this? It is badly named (it should begin with ur-), but more to the point I really don't see the need for an Urdu-specific version of {{quote-book}}. It looks like the only thing it does is have you put vocalized Arabic text in the |tr= parameter, which is then transliterated. This is a totally nonstandard use of the |tr= parameter and unnecessary; just place the vocalized text in the |text= or |passage= param to {{quote-book}}, or if you don't want to do that, call |xlit= yourself on the vocalized Arabic and supply that to the |tr= param of {{quote-book}}. Benwing2 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fairness, yes it's badly named (which is why I planned to deprecate it with a better template) and I was supposed to put it in a sandbox initially, but yes the major point of it is to automatically transliterate vocalised Urdu/Punjabi text, while being able to retain the source formatting. Having to transliterate the quote first and then manually adding it into Template:quote-book is a pain in the ass, and having to use xlit is just adding a template within a template, wasting characters, not to mention having to continuously switch between English and Urdu keyboards and messing about with text directions.
This template just makes my life a bit easier and allows me to add Urdu/Punjabi quotations a bit more quickly, and could be expanded to Arabic scripts overall. I was going to shed off some of the parameters from this template, and replace them with other parameters which include the lang ur format as well as being able to add names in both English and Urdu. I just hadn't gotten round to do it yet. نعم البدل (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to delete this template and replace it with {{quote-book}}. I am doing a lot of cleanup work on the quote-* templates and this template is getting in the way. I have added a |norm= parameter that you can use to put the vocalized Urdu in, and it will be transliterated correctly. Benwing2 (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you see fit, thanks. نعم البدل (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Providing infos edit

here is the proof of origin of پرکاشک term https://www.google.com/search?q=%D9%BE%D8%B1%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B4%DA%A9&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi_p92FqYGBAxWfbGwGHc-tBx0Q2-cCegQIABAD&bih=625&biw=360&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rev2&hl=en-GB গহীনঅরণ্য (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@গহীনঅরণ্য It's not really ideal, but I guess it can suffice. Please do bear WT:CFI / WT:ATTEST for next time. نعم البدل (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will keep the noun, but the lemma as an Adjective in Urdu still needs to be attested. نعم البدل (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

تھئیٹر vs تھیٹر edit


What should be the full Urdu vocalisation for تھیٹر? Can it be correctly vocalised?

It works fine for example for تِھئیٹَر(thieṭar) but what about تھیٹَر(theṭar)? (not sure if "theṭar" is correct", perhaps it's thiyeṭar or thiyiṭar?

Is it pronounced /t̪ʰɪ.jeː.ʈəɾ/ or /t̪ʰɪ.jɪ.ʈəɾ/ or something else? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

😬 Loanwords aren't exactly the easiest to deal with. There's multiple ways of pronouncing 'Theater' in Urdu, depending on who you are, and where you are. The most common way is just تھیٹَر(theṭar), but it could also be vocalised as تِھیَٹَر(thiyaṭar). تِھیئَٹَر(thīaṭar) is just another way of spelling. نعم البدل (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

برطانیہ عظمی edit


Sorry, maybe a silly question. What is the deal with the izāfat here? Is it unmarked but pronounced, unmarked and not pronounced or something else (wrong spelling or vocalisation) or there could be more than one reading? If it's unmarked but pronounced then it would require a manual transliteration, right. The module won't be able to guess izāfat.

My options:

  1. بَرْطانِیَہ عُظْمیٰ(bartāniya 'uzmā) - let the module transliterate
  2. بَرْطانِیَہ عُظْمیٰ(bartāniyā-yi 'uzmā) - transliterate manually
  3. ???

Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sameerhameedy: Hi. Pls join too. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev: Hi, sorry for not responding quickly.
I'm not really sure on what you mean. The izafat is pronounced, and almost always pronounced as an "e" and normally implied with a zer if it's a consonant, or always marked if there's a vowel. It's marked with either a zer, when there's no vowel, or ئ‎ (like وَادئ(valley of...) – but it's quite uncommon to end a word with ye-hamza, so وادیِ(vād-yi) works as well), ئے(e) – example given above, or ۂ(h-yi) for he-izafat like بَرْطَانِیَۂ(bartāniya-yi). نعم البدل (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thank you. (we are all busy and respond when we can, no problem at all)
So, the correct full vocalisation would be بَرْطَانِیَۂ عُظْمیٰ(bartāniya-yi 'uzmā).
The module uses letter "i" for zer but you say it's pronounced "e". Should it stay "i" or changed to "e" in some circumstances? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The module uses letter "i" for zer but you say it's pronounced "e". – Correct.
  • Should it stay "i" or changed to "e" in some circumstances? – Probably keep as, I believe izafat hasn't been explicitly mentioned in WT:UR TR, so it's not something I could make an arbitrary call on. نعم البدل (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. In this video, izafat endings are clearly pronounced as [e], so I think it's a case for a possible exception. Besides, it seems OK with anyone referring to Urdu transliterations and when respelling in Devanagari Hindi, -ए (-e) is typically used. Also, @Sameerhameedy, in case you want to review the izafat transliteration rules. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev: I've never seen it as -ए, always as -ए-, same with transliterated Hindi-Urdu -e-. But -e is how it's transliterated from Persian. It's interesting how the two languages have different transliterations for the same sound. 04:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-iyyat or -iyat in Urdu and Persian? edit

Hello, I've got a question applying to both Urdu and Persian.

Is the ending from Arabic "-iyya(tun)" (e.g. Arabic مَسِيحِيَّة(masīḥiyya) or مَسِيحِيَّةٌ(masīḥiyyatun)) - "iyyat" or "-iyat" or it can be both or depends on a word? E.g. Urdu مَسِیحِیَّت(masīhiyyat) vs مَسِیحِیَت(masīhiyat), etc. I can see evidence of both but the former seems more standard and common.

I made both versions for both Persian and Urdu but maybe we should keep just one?

@Sameerhameedy, @Fenakhay, @Benwing2: Do you know or do you have an opinion on this? I also think that the actual transliteration may have simplifications (-iyat), especially in Urdu but the more formal spelling would require a shadda (tashdid). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Atitarev: In pronunciation – the ye is not geminated. However as per UDB, when it comes to writing, the vocalised suffix almost always has a shadda on the ye. My stance has always been to not geminate it, as per the pronunciation, but I'll have to do some digging to see if Standard Urdu geminates the ye in the suffix or not. نعم البدل (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Old Hindi' edit

There are several terms in CAT:Urdu terms inherited from Old Hindi that have their first attestations as Old Hindi in the Perso-Arabic script, and the date is sometimes included as well. Thanks for adding this information, as this is very useful. Although there are currently two references in CAT:Old Hindi reference templates, they do not have this information. Would it be possible to share if there are any references that provide more information about them? Ideally, it would be nice to have entries for these Old Hindi terms with quotations. Kutchkutch (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kutchkutch: Most, if not all, of the Old Hindi/Urdu lemmas use UDB as their reference – which is why there isn't a specific Old Hindi reference. See Old Hindi lemma عورت‎, and the quotation, which has been taken directly from UDB (press the اسناد button on the page and it will list the quotations and attestations of the word). I do try to verify the actual quote, before adding it to Wiktionary (examples being اشتراک‎), but it's a bit difficult when it comes to Old Hindi, but I was able to verify that the book does exist, at the very least lol – it's a pretty prominent Old Hindi book. نعم البدل (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. According to Wikipedia, the era of Old Hindi lasted from the 13th to 15th centuries, which makes the 1503 quotation for عورت‎ at the transition between Old Hindi and Middle Hindi. There is an etymology-only language code hi-mid for Middle Hindi.
Regarding diff at عورت‎: Although you didn't make this edit, should the Devanagari quotation from Kabir remain in the entry or should text in Devanagari only be in the Devanagari entry? Kutchkutch (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kutchkutch: I did note while adding the Old Hindi lemma that 1503 wouldn't technically count as Old Hindi but wasn't aware that Middle Hindi existed or was being utilised. It's your call, as you're likely more knowledgeable then me on this, lol. I think 1503 is the earliest attestation of Urdu words that UDB has, I've yet to see any quotations prior to the start of the 16th Century. Works of Amir Khusrau could probably be cited for Old Hindi lemmas in the Arabic script. As far for Devanagari quotations, I think it's better if we use the same script to attest words in a particular script. It can be useful to know what forms were used in Old Hindi compared to today. Also, what other transitions exist for Hindi-Urdu? We have Old Hindi / Middle Hindi / [Hindustani] ? / Hindi-Urdu? نعم البدل (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with us[ing] the same script to attest words in a particular script. Although the details about the individual stages of Hindi-Urdu are not as well studied as other languages, some fundamental observations can be made. The first transition for Hindi-Urdu is the one that created the language in the first place. The Middle Indo-Aryan CAT:Sauraseni Apabhramsa language became the Early New Indo-Aryan CAT:Old Hindi language in Western Uttar Pradesh and Delhi by around 1000 CE -1200 CE. Besides CAT:Old Punjabi language, other Early New Indo-Aryan languages from around this time that are on Wiktionary include CAT:Old Bengali language, CAT:Old Gujarati language and CAT:Old Marathi language (see Template_talk:R:bn:EDB#Using_the_reference). The archaic nature of these Early New Indo-Aryan languages is what distinguishes it from the later stages of those respective languages. This is why literature after around 1500 may be better classified as the middle stages of those languages in an attempt keep it separate from the oldest forms of those languages. The distinction between Old and Middle stages has already been made on Wiktionary for CAT:Middle Assamese language, CAT:Middle Bengali language and CAT:Middle Gujarati language. Also, by the late 1500s, the mother tongue of the Mughal emperor had transitioned to Hindustani from Persian or Chagatai since the mother of Jahangir was a Hindu Rajput.
CAT:Early Middle Japanese
CAT:Late Middle Japanese
CAT:Early Modern English
CAT:Early Modern Korean language
and similar classifications could possibly be hypothesised for Hindi-Urdu, I cannot find any justification for further dividing the stages of Hindi-Urdu beyond Old Hindi, Middle Hindi and modern Hindi-Urdu. The split of early modern Hindustani after the Middle Hindi stage into a Sanskritised Hindi language in the Devanagari script and a Persianised Urdu language in the Perso-Arabic script apparently occurred after 1837 when Hindustani in the Perso-Arabic script replaced Persian as the official language of the British Raj. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kutchkutch: Bullet pointing just to make it easier to comprehend.
  • Right, I'm inclined to agree that Old Hindi constitutes as anything prior to the start of the 16th century, and in fact I'd be willing to say that anything past 1400 C.E should count as Middle Hindi as well. Again, the issue with this may be references, I recently encountered مَنزِل‎ which dated back to 1421, which is the earliest I've seen thus far and it would become increasingly difficult to find anything earlier than that.
  • Also, despite the fact that عورت‎ was attested in 1503, would you agree that the word was also found in Old Hindi? The word has been attested as in 1420 (Devanagari variant) and in 1503 (Urdu variant), so would it be fair to assume it was also a part of Old Hindi?
  • Also, are we saying that the transition between Middle Hindi and Hindi-Urdu, happens around the 19th century? I was initially contemplating Hindustani as an ancestor of Hindi-Urdu, however I thought about it and realised it would only be highlighting the borrowings during the different stages (and the changes in meanings), however, there's not much difference between native Old Hindi vocab, and Modern Hindi-Urdu vocab, so it probably isn't worth adding a contemporary/classical ancestor. نعم البدل (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

vocalisation of ہوے edit

Hi. What's the vocalisation of ہُوے(huve), which should be "hue", not "huve". Is this an exception (to be transliterated manually ہُوے(hue)) or a rule I am missing? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's an infliction of the verb ہونا(honā, to be) (ie. 'happened'), then it should be ہُوئے(hūe). The Hamza should always be present to indicate a diphthong between two vowels. Otherwise, the module seems to be working as expected, even though it may not be an actual lemma. نعم البدل (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is, thanks. I tried to make the inflection at ہونا(honā) a little more standardised. Please review and possibly use automatic translits where possible (if not all of the cases). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do! Thanks! نعم البدل (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

سنشئے edit

The reference of this term could be found in this. https://www.google.com/search?q=%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%A6%DB%92&oq=%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%A6%DB%92&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg80gEINDkyNGowajeoAgCwAgA&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rev2&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

With regards. Rihantel (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Rihantel. Could you please provide 3 quotes which use the term? This can be from any book, newspaper, notable website etc. Google searches are not sufficient enough unfortunately. نعم البدل (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
three mentions of this word are
1: https://urduseek.com/dictionary/SUSPECT?page=98&nolog=1
In many a time, سنشئے is written in this form سنشیہ.
Sources are of that term are
With regards. Rihantel (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rihantel: Thank you for the quotes. The top 4 sources are not suitable unfortunately. Sufinama references are excellent, and archive.org in text format is unreliable. I couldn't find the word in the image format of the books. سنشیہ‎ would be fine I think, but not سنشئے‎. I will redirect سنشئے‎ to سنشیہ‎‎. نعم البدل (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Rihantel (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

یوگیہ edit

This term has been found in Rekhta online dictionary.


This term should be in Wiktionary.

With regards গহীনঅরণ্য (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]