Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Aryamanarora


Hindi workEdit


Sorry to see you stopped working on Hindi or you're just having a break? We never had a dedicated Hindi editor, anyway. Just letting you know that your work was appreciated. Cheers. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, trying to come back now. Just had a bunch of work last year, hopefully will be editing more now. Thanks for the encouragement! —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 16:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


I'm happy to see you're back. I have a couple Indian etymologies in Swahili that you or @DerekWinters might be interested in helping with:

  • embe (mango) — I can't tell what language it likely came from
  • korija — some sources say it was brought by Indians, but what would the intermediate form be?
  • harambee — there's a presumably spurious etymology given at w:Harambee that references a name for the goddess Durga

Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll get to work on embe right away, korija might take some time to decipher, and harambee (which I was looking at earlier) probably is speculative. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, this dictionary has this entry for embe:
embe [Bem iyembe, Kik riembe, Gan yembe, from PBan *jembe] = mango
I don't know much about Swahili, but it looks like embe is a native word for mango with quite a few cognates. I'll let you decide whether the etymology is reliable. On, the other hand korija is most likely a Hindi borrowing. I have no clue about harambee. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The OED claims pardo may come via Konkani (and also mentions Indo-Persian). I don't know what to make of it and no terms are given. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

कारौ and the existence of Braj Bhasha, and MumbaiEdit

Hello. It's nice to see you back working on Hindi again. Can I ask what consensus or agreed upon decision there is for removing Braj Bhasha from कारौ and calling it Braj Hindi. While a form of Hindi spoken in Braj may exist, I certainly do not believe that Braj should be removed as a language, or worse, simply called a dialect of Hindi.

Also @Metaknowledge, on a separate note, would it not better for regional forms of a language be based on the current, most widely accepted name for the region? My question regards Mumbai/Bombay Hindi. In a similar fashion, people would call it Chennai Tamil over Madras Tamil, and I think that should apply here. Also I think the distinction should be made between Mumbai Hindi and Bambaiyya Hindi, the latter of which is the dialect that follows slightly altered grammatical rules and forms from Standard Hindi, and the former is would be a tag placed on vocabulary specific to Mumbai. What are your guys' thoughts? DerekWinters (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(just to be sure, the Braj category I made was Category:Braj Bhāṣā, not Braj Hindi) I'll be honest I'm not sure whether Braj (and by extension Haryanvi and Bundeli and Chattisghari etc.) should be classified as a language or a Hindi dialect. I'm leaning towards dialect though. Much of the higher level vocabulary (beyond pronouns and some simple nouns) is identical to that of Hindi. To put it another way, it would be a waste to duplicate so many entries just because the lower-level grammar and pronunciation is different in these languages/dialects. I've looked at some Braj texts, and I find I understand them to a degree. Besides, classifying it as a dialect does not mean it will get as many entries; I've found A Braj grammar that I'll be adding some entries from. As for Bambaiyya and Mumbai Hindi, I always thought they were the same? Whatever the case is, these should remain dialects. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 18:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay. Higher vocabulary should not be our metric for deciding whether something is a language or a dialect. And there is no requirement that you add all of the Braj vocabulary, so the duplicate entries for science vocab don't have to fulfilled by you, or could even be done by a bot if it really is that simple. But mutual intelligibility is also not a metric, for I studied Spanish and speak it rather well, but I can understand Asturian, Extremaduran, Leonese, and Aragonese, and even some Catalan because of it. Yet no one shifts them to dialects of Spanish, because it's simply not the situation. Also, Bambaiyya is the dialect essentially, but Mumbai is vocab specific to Mumbai used in Standard Hindi, like essentially Mumbai slang and stuff. DerekWinters (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Kind of like Scottish English vs. Scots, a form of a standard language vs. a language (or dialect in our case, although sometimes called a creole). So I would say that अपुन is Bambaiyya, whereas things like मामा, police, (which my parents use a lot) would be part of Mumbai Hindi and Bambaiyya Hindi as it is used in both, but where ठुल्ला would be Delhi Hindi. DerekWinters (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I am now somewhat inclined to agree with you. I suppose I mainly wanted to merge Braj into Hindi to make entry creation easier. The problem with Bambaiyya Hindi is that there are far less resources about it, only a few scholarly articles are available online (although I could be searching more thoroughly). Braj on the other hand has comprehensive grammar, dictionaries, and texts available online; there is better case for it to be treated as its own language. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 03:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Mutual intelligibility most certainly should be a major metric for deciding language mergers. A lot of our languages are separated because it makes it easier; Asturian is very similar to Spanish, but merging it would make people mad at us and make our entries really messy. Hindi is the same language as Urdu, but because they are written in different scripts, we wouldn't gain much from merging them. In this case, Braj is widely considered to be a dialect (including by Wikipedia) and is in the same script, is mutually intelligible, and shares a great deal of vocabulary. This seems like a great case for a merger. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Braj has a bit of a special position though, with a very long tradition of independent literature (13th century) and many independent grammars and other material that sets it apart in Indian linguistics from Khadiboli, more so than some of the other Western Hindi languages (although from general consensus I hear that pure Haryanvi is it's own language). And yeah there's like no information on Bambaiyya out there. DerekWinters (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed the Oxford Hindi dictionary also had Braj and Awadhi in it as Hindi dialects. It appears to not be comprehensive though; I don't see Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 62: The language code "bra" is not valid., but I do see other words like Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 62: The language code "bra" is not valid. and Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 62: The language code "bra" is not valid.. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 03:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Well Awadhi is an Eastern Hindi language so it definitely is not a dialect of Hindi. Although some other sources I've seen place it closer to Bhojpuri than to Hindi. DerekWinters (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

/ʋ/ allophonesEdit

Hey! I heard that /ʋ/ can be phonemically transcribed [v] and [w]. The question is simple. When do you use which? There is no clear answer in the Hindi phonology page on Wikipedia — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 23:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

They do mention of it being variable, but they do mention it can cause confusions between speakers. — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 23:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I just chicken out and use phonetic /ʋ/. I'm no professional IPA transcriber, so I find it difficult to tell when I use [v] and [w] in Hindi. I will say though my particular idiolect is closer to [v] most of the time (except in consonant clusters such as बकवास (bakvās)). It varies from person to person, so take it with a grain of salt. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 01:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Can I ask you for a help. I saw Hindi statistics in your user page. Can you prepare one for me with Telugu statistics. I am not able to follow my contributions. Thanking you.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh those are not my contributions, that is the total Hindi statistics. Here's one for Telugu:
Telugu lemmas
2,528 non-lemma forms • 10,031 nouns • 1,176 verbs • 1,115 adjectives
Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: You can see your own statistics here. I use this to track how many entries I've added. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 18:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much sir.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"Indic" vs. "Indo-Aryan"Edit

Hey, thanks for all your work on IIr; it's long needed. Could I ask, though, that you use the language family "Indo-Aryan" instead of "Indic"? Our recognized family is "Indo-Aryan" and protolanguage, "Proto-Indo-Aryan'. Thanks! —JohnC5 01:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

They may be out of sheer laziness rather than preference :) Will do. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 01:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much! —JohnC5 01:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The Indo-Iranian Substratum by Alexander LubotskyEdit

I can't send the link, but if you google it you'll find the paper. I read it through, and it makes some very interesting claims about Sanskrit, Proto Indo-Aryan, Proto Iranian, and Proto Indo-Iranian. This is much more your element and interest than mine, so I figured I'd share it with you. I can't make any judgement on the statement of irregular sound changes, structure, morphology, etc. Have fun! DerekWinters (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh I've read this paper before, but not very thoroughly. Thanks for reminding me about it! I'll read it tomorrow, Lubotsky's work is always interesting. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 01:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh good! Yeah its rather interesting and honestly I'm kind of skeptical regarding the breadth of words it's claiming that aren't inherited. DerekWinters (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-Iranian for hareEdit

I am horrible at reconstructing words but since Sanskrit & Pashto cognates were available, I made an attempt to reconstruct the Indo-Iranian ancestor of शश (śaśa) as *ĉašás. I've just kept in mind the sound-changes from PIE to PII. Can you check if it's correct & correct it if wrong? Thanks! माधवपंडित (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The PII reconstruction looks great. The PIE I'm not sure about though; the *k should be *ḱ if the IIR is *ĉ (which I'm sure it is), and modern PIE reconstruction have no *a, only *eH or *oH. @JohnC5 do you have any idea about PIE for शश (śaśa)? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 15:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@माधवपंडित I found a possible Middle Persian cognate, shwk' (sahōg)? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 15:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Glad to know since I did not reconstruct *kas which even I am sure is wrong :D. I would make a wild guess of something like *ḱeHsós...
@माधवपंडित I found *ḱh₂s-én- as the source for hare, so I don't think your guess is far off. I still am not sure about the second (śa) in the Sanskrit. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 16:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora You are right, the second श confused me as well. Could it be possible that the first syllable influenced the second? Another interesting thing to note is that the PIE root is originally said to have meant simply "grey" and yet the word evolved on to mean "hare" in too many languages independent of each other even outside Indo-Iranian like Old Prussian sasnis, Welsh ceinach and even English hare. It's too much of a co-incidence that all these languages developed the word for hare from the same root independently. माधवपंडित (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
shwk' (sahōg) is interesting since there's a Sanskrit synonym शशक (śaśaka) which looks like an equivalent. माधवपंडित (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

भस्त्रा is a feminine nounEdit

You have edited the etymology of the Hindi word भाथी (bhāthī) as descended from "भस्त्री" which you say is the feminine of भस्त्रा. However, भस्त्रा (bhastrā) is itself a feminine noun, (look at its ā ending). Check if it's correct & thanks!!! 2405:204:9487:1FF7:0:0:F5E:20A4 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@2405:204:9487:1FF7:0:0:F5E:20A4: Thanks for catching that, they are indeed both feminine. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Does भाथी (bhāthī) have to come from भस्त्री? does not even have an entry for it, so is it even a word? Why can't we put भस्त्रा (bhastrā) as the noun that gave rise to भाथी (bhāthī)?
@2405:204:9487:1FF7:0:0:F5E:20A4: I don't like because it's missing a lot of words, isn't very comprehensive, and is full of computer-related neologisms that I doubt are used at all in neo-Sanskrit. Monier Williams' Sanskrit Dictionary has it as a synonym of भस्त्रा (bhastrā), and the Hindi Shabdasagara lists Sanskrit भस्त्री (bhastrī) as the source. Note that Hindi भाथा (bhāthā) also exists. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Devanagari for Prakrits?Edit

Is there a reason you're making Devanagari entries at all, and especially making them the main entries for the prakrits? Sanskrit was a special case because of the quantity of scripts it was written in. The prakrits are quite simple, it was only ever Brahmi. DerekWinters (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Every Prakrit grammar and description I've seen uses Devanagari (although you might argue Brahmi would be too difficult to typeset in the 20th century). Th eother main reason is ease of access; if somebody wants to look up a Prakrit word, they won't look up the Brahmi, they'll look up the Sanskrit. I suppose in this case something like {{pi-alt}} would be good. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: forgot to ping —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Then shouldn't the Brahmi be the main entry, and those be Devanagarizations or something of the main entry? DerekWinters (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: Anybody who learns or studies Prakrit today invariably uses the Devanagari script or the Latin script (often both), but never the Brahmi script. Brahmi is a dead script, and so nobody (or very few people) learns it or is able to type in it reliably. Since we're an online dictionary, it hardly makes sense for use to make the reader deal with redirects or a weird script they don't know; it should just work. For the same reason we keep Pali at the Latin script form (it's the most used), we should keep Prakrit at the Devanagari form. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
But again with Pali, there have been multiple genuine scripts used over the centuries. The Prakrits really only had one. We don't represent cuneiform in Latin, and we certainly should have the Devanagari forms as a soft redirect. DerekWinters (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Even hieroglyphics are the preferred script for Egyptian entries as of late. DerekWinters (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: I don't know, I agree Brahmi was undoubtedly the Prakrit script, but since so much literature exists in Devanagari and Latin, it would be more convenient to have all the information at the Devanagari or even Latin form. Brahmi is just such a pain to work with; browsers don't render the matras well and typing is difficult. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We can always have a one-to-one Devanagari to Brahmi converter. DerekWinters (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: I agree, that's necessary. Having looked on the internet though, I see that Prakrit wasn't exclusively Devanagari. [1] [2] [3] Most of the Jain texts (I think they're in Ardhamagadhi?) are in Devanagari. They date to the 4th century BC. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's super cool. But wouldn't you say those are reproductions of the original text? Also, they each state that they are from the 1500s, 900s and onwards, and 1400s, respectively. DerekWinters (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: Oh it appears I misread the caption. They are reproductions of 4th century BC texts (which I assume were in Brahmi), you're right. But at least it's evident that Brahmi was not exclusively the Prakrit script. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 21:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I mean, that's not a very strong argument though. Countless times I've seen Gujarati news articles that quote Hindi, or even just produce Hindi statements, in the Gujarati script. I would say that Brahmi is only true script. DerekWinters (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, then let's do Bhrami then. I'd bet someone has a bot that can move the entries. If we have to, we can move them by hand, because there's so few. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 22:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
In a bit I can make a Brahmi to Devanagari correspondence, and I can ask one of our bot-makers to help us out. DerekWinters (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hindi red linksEdit


You mentioned you're after Hindi red links. Here's Hindi red links galore (many are SoP, you can also correct translations by splitting multiword translations): User:Matthias Buchmeier/en-hi-a, just replace the last English letter in the link (b, c, etc. to see more. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Thanks! I'll get right to it. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 12:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, you should aim for filling the most frequent, everyday words first. In the past I used Rupert Snell's series of books to learn basics of Hindi - "Teach Yourself Beginners Hindi", "Teach Yourself Hindi" and Hindi Dictionary. Unlike some other "Teach Yourself" series, the books are full of real live examples, excellent dialogues and important vocabulary. That's when I added a lot of Hindi translations into English entries but many of them are red linked. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: WT:Frequency lists/Hindi 1900 I've been going through this, and I got some NCERT (Indian educational system) Hindi textbooks to go through as well. I'll look at those and hopefully find an online copy. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 13:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


The Hindi translation here looks wrong. Also, the entry कौड़ी (kauṛī) needs to be created. (I noticed both of these because of kauri.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge:   DoneAryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 13:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: चीनी मिट्टी (cīnī miṭṭī) and चीनी मिट्टी के बरतन (cīnī miṭṭī ke bartan) are also correct in the sense "porcelain" but a bit too long. They do appear (with a hyphen - "चीनी-मिट्टी") in Oxford English-Hindi Dictionary by S.K. Verma and R.N. Sahai on page 511. It doesn't seem to be digitised. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: चीनी मिट्टी (cīnī miṭṭī) literally means "porcelain dirt", i.e. kaolinite. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 15:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe but I possess that dictionary and the definition is "porcelain". Dictionaries can be wrong too, so I won't insist on changing anything. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 16:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I'm going off of the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary, which says "porcelain clay" on page 321... Weird that the same publisher has different definitions. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 16:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. This does leave me a bit confused about whence Swahili got the porcelain sense... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

S endings for reconstructed wordsEdit

Hi, I noticed that many PII & PIE words end in -s-. *čákšus and *ĉasás both end in s but it isn't there in the descendants. I wonder why the s in put up in PII and PIE reconstructions. 2405:204:9487:1FF7:0:0:F5E:20A4 14:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@2405:204:9487:1FF7:0:0:F5E:20A4: *-s is the nominative singular ending for a-stem masculine nouns. This was preserved as -स् (-s) in Vedic Sanskrit, became -ः (-ḥ) in Classical Sanskrit, 𑀑 (o) in the Prakrits, and was lost in most of the New Indic languages. In Avestan it became 𐬊 (o). The reason it isn't in the descendants is that we use the stem-form in Avestan, Sanskrit, and Old Persian since most dictionaries follow that standard. Proto-languages generally use the nominative singular on the other hand. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 14:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, what were you attempting to do with *čákšus and Old Persian? —JohnC5 15:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: It's kind of funny, I was trying to get MOD:typing-aids/data/peo to do the cuneiform but it would fail horribly. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 16:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Several things:
1) Thanks for your information. I never knew why many PIE roots ended in an -s- if their descended words did not have it.
2) It is interesting that the Sanskrit अः ending comes from Vedic -स्. Now I wonder were any other cases also different in Vedic? If yes, then I think we should have two declension tables (one for Vedic and the other for Classical) for Sanskrit entries like we have two pronunciation slots.
3) This is slightly off-topic but where do you find Avestan & Old Persian words & possible cognates? For instance you unearthed Middle Persian sahōg, from where? 2405:204:9487:1FF7:0:0:F5E:20A4 09:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@2405:204:9487:1FF7:0:0:F5E:20A4: For (2) Grammar of the Vedic language is a good jumping-off point, but to be honest I don't know much about Vedic Sanskrit. Oh boy, for (3) I have a bunch of sources. I'll make a list at User:Aryamanarora/refs, because there's a lot. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 12:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sauraseni ApabhramshaEdit

Hey! So I've seen the term a few times, but what time-frame would you give for it, and what would you say is its relation to Gurjar Apabhramsha (as described by Hemachandra)? I'm rather confused on the matter. DerekWinters (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) And also, wouldn't Sauraseni Prakrit have split by then into various apabhramshas? DerekWinters (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters: I was just getting to that, I've added Gurjar Apabhramsa. You are right, Sauraseni did split by then. Sauraseni Apabhramsa was probably centered in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, probably at the same time that Hemchandra was describing Gurjar Apabhramsa. A really comprehensive book on the topic is [4]. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, do you know what is in Bhrami transliteration? Is it a glide i or something? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I have to say that is one sexy etymtree. Although, Hemachandra wrote using Devanagari (as I understand it). Also thank you for the book! I haven't read that far into it.
It was described as a weak y caused by the elision of consonants (like k, t, etc.) between two vowels. I know it featured in the eastern Prakrits more, but other than that I have no knowledge of it. Considering that the y disappeared from most eastern languages until the early NIA period, I think it doesn't have much effect on phonology. DerekWinters (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
lol, yeah I've been trying to increase coverage of Prakrit. Thanks for the help! —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 21:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I am not new to Wiktionary but new to editing. I have a great interest in Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit.

Thank you for letting me know the procedure for that. I feel that Wiktionary should add more etymology for Indo Iranian languages.

Again Thank you for your help. Will take care of that. Ajmalbrains (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ajmalbrains: Great to see an editor with interest in Indic languages! The first thing to read is WT:ELE which covers formatting. WT:About Hindi and WT:About Urdu and WT:About Sanskrit will help for language-specific information. Finally, you will need to add a {{Babel}} to your user page, so people know which languages you can contribute in. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Laryngeals in Proto-Indo-AryanEdit

Some of our PIA reconstructions include laryngeals, but I really have my doubts whether they still existed that late in the development of the language. PIA is very close to Vedic Sanskrit, probably barely separable from it in form and no more than a few centuries older at most. Vedic certainly didn't have any laryngeals! —CodeCat 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Vedic had hiatus in some words that have been reconstructed with laryngeals in PIE. Read Reflexes of intervocalic laryngeals in Sanskrit by Lubotsky for more, basically in Vedic poetry *-aHV could be scanned as one or two syllables to fit with the meter, with *H probably realized as a glottal stop. Also note that in Middle Indo-Aryan *VHC was realized as VCC instead of Sanskrit V̄C; the laryngeals had to have been there in PIA for this to happen. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Does this VCC contrast with V̄C of non-laryngeal origin? What about word-initial laryngeals? —CodeCat 17:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Fortson covers this briefly in §§10.36-37 on page 189 of the first edition. —JohnC5 18:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I haven't found anything about the Middle Indic VCC reflex yet, do you have anything on that? —CodeCat 18:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You are right it seems, all *V̄C/VHC become VCC in Middle Indo-Aryan, while in *VC the consonant is lost. [5] The laryngeal has no effect. Nevertheless, Vedic hiatus is enough evidence for a laryngeal in PIA. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 19:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a laryngeal, it's probably not even a consonant but just a marker to split the syllable, basically a lexical diaeresis. It appears that laryngeals in a VCHV sequence also cause the consonant to be placed in the preceding syllable, which becomes metrically heavy (e.g. जन (jana) = jan-a rather than ja-na). It therefore appears that whatever remained of laryngeals was just some effect on syllabification, and not any real consonant. I therefore propose to mark these instances with ', which simply means "start of syllable".
Also, can you put WT:AINC on your watchlist? I posted something on the talk page for you. —CodeCat 19:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Languages needing autotranslitEdit

I see that Bhojpuri, Konkani, Old Gujarati, and Old Marathi (among others) lack autotranslit. Is this intentional due to unpredictability/poor resources, or is this something that should be dealt with? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Bhojpuri can use MOD:hi-translit, and Old Gujarati and Old Marathi can use MOD:sa-translit. Konkani is better off with manual translit, since the Devanagari script does not differentiate some phonemes e.g. a/ô, j/z, l/lh, n/nh. @माधवपंडित knows much more than me about Konkani, being a native speaker. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  Done (except Konkani). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Old Gujarati should not use the Sanskrit module please. I've been lazy in making a module but I'll make one soon. Similarly, Old Marathi has nasalization that the Sanskrit module will not deal with. Bhojpuri users the avagraha in ways that I don't fully understand, and that the Hindi module does not capture at the moment. DerekWinters (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: Are Old Marathi and Old Gujarati really that different from Sanskrit? Even Sanskrit assimilated the anusvara, MOD:sa-translit just doesn't show it (probably because IAST doesn't). I never knew about Bhojpuri handling the avagraha different than Hindi (a vowel lengthener)... —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
From bh:w:अवग्रह: "एकर प्रयोग कहीं कहीं भोजपुरी में भी पावल गईल बा। जइसे- बनारस कऽ घाट पर बइठल रहलीं।" "This [symbol] is also sometimes used in Bhojpuri, e.g. ― [example sentence]" Wouldn't "कऽ" just be pronounced "kəː"? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
"avagraha"+bhojpuri&source=bl&ots=44p_Uo9yKP&sig=fNgTnUlO2x9myby2uWSwSkqK7qE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-s52o96LVAhXBrD4KHYU4D9kQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=%22avagraha%22%20bhojpuri&f=false Okay, it seems it's actually pronounced "ô". I'll make MOD:bho-translit. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters Please add Assamese to your to-do list, guys. The simplest method will do, like the one for Nepali, which doesn't consider shwa-dropping. Getting all combinations right is challenging enough.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll add Assamese. And if the Sanskrit module can represent nasalization properly then I think it should be fine for Old Gujarati and Marathi, but it should be shown differently.
and 2. I always assumed it was some form of canceling the schwa deletion, but I have no real understanding of it. The devanagari page on Wikipedia has some stuff about the avagraha in Bhojpuri and Awadhi. DerekWinters (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Grassmann's lawEdit

Do we suppose the Grassmann's law to be an innovation of PII, Proto-Indo-Aryan or Sanskrit?
On one hand, Wiki says PII. But then we have entries like *bʰaHĵʰúš (and others) with two aspirated consonants. It's difficult to confirm if the aspiration existed in PII because the Iranic descendants drop it in any case, Grassmann or no Grassmann.
On the other hand, I have a reason to believe that this law applies exclusively to Sanskrit (not even all of Indo-Aryan) because the Middle Indo-Aryan descendants of Sanskrit दुहितृ (duhitṛ) (from *dʰugh₂tḗr) seem to retain the aspirated initial consonant (Old Marathi धुवा (dhuvā), Pali dhītar, Punjabi ਧੀ (dhī), Hindi धिया (dhiyā) etc). Another example would be Konkani भेड्डो (bhêḍḍô) from Sanskrit बधिर (badhira) from Proto-Indo-European *bʰodʰHros. In this case we might want to move *bábʰrus to *bʰábʰruš and change the PIA descendants in several PII entries. Also @JohnC5. Madhav P. (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित: Grassmann's law almost definitely applies in Sanskrit or PIA, not PII (Lubotsky reconstructs PII *bʰábʰru-). Could the medial u not be dropped in the reflexes? As for badhira, MIA languages developed medial aspirates into /h/, so an outcome badhira > bahi(r)a > bhi(r)a is not so improbable. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you happen to know the evidence for this? I don't know it off the top of my head. —JohnC5 14:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
For Grassmann's law see Another attempt at a chronology for Grassmann’s Law in Greek. For Prakrit medial aspirates both {{R:inc:Pischel}} and {{R:inc:Woolner}} agree. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Middle Indo-Aryan does indeed turned medial aspirates of Old Indo-Aryan to /h/ as also seen in Sanskrit वधू (vadhū) > Hindi बहू (bahū), Sanskrit मुख (mukha) > Hindi मूँह (mū̃h) etc. Madhav P. (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
There may be unattested forms like *भधिर (bhadhira), *धुहितृ (dhuhitṛ), and *भभ्रु (bhabhru) that existed in the local dialects alongside the standard Sanskrit, which may have given rise to the current forms.
Also, separately, North India has always had the very interesting tendency of aligning is vocabulary across the subcontinent, in the NIA period and the Prakrit period, but likely also in the proto-Prakrit period, which may have led to the many of the descendants of *dʰugh₂tḗr having an aspirated d, despite their geographic distance. DerekWinters (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: True, and those Old IA dialects with aspirated initial consonants would point to a PIA unaffected by the Grassmann's law & leave only Skt. to which the law could be applied. Also there is the fact that Pāṇini was aware of the Grassmann's law. The only way he could know of this (other than the possibility that he knew of PII & PIE which is unlikely) is thru reduplication of stems to form verbs wherein the first one loses the aspiration (c.f. जुहोति (juhoti)) OR by comparing the Sanskrit he'd standardized to other unwritten IA dialects which were quite close. Anyway, Aryamanarora's explanation is quite plausible with the consonant & the /h/ merging to give aspiration. We may never know the true forms of Middle IA descendants because like you pointed out the MIA & the New IA languages influence each other a lot. ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's not forget that Classical Sanskrit wasn't made in a day. Panini was the last of a long line of grammarians whose work we know little of today because the Ashtadhyayi superseded all previous work. Likely by Panini's time (c. 500 BCE) the Old Indo-Aryan dialects were extinct, and Sanskrit was already standardized. Note that the Ashokan Edicts written in an early Prakrit are dated to c. 300 BCE, so Middle Indo-Aryan must have been adopted as the vernacular language by Panini's time. I seriously doubt Panini likes at other Old Indo-Aryan dialects, let alone Iranian or other Old Indo-European languages. Rather he codified what was already the norm in Sanskrit writing. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 09:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hindi Idioms and PhrasesEdit

Hey. If you're looking for idioms and phrases and stuff, check out rekhta. It's absolutely fantastic. For example पानी or the combining form पन is everything any Hindi-lover could ever want. DerekWinters (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Although, check some of the spellings in more modern dictionaries, the spellings they use are sometimes a bit more antiquated (great for alternative forms!). DerekWinters (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: Wow, that's amazing! Thanks for the resource, combined with the Shabdsagar I'll be adding a lot of idioms soon. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 03:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
It's absolutely fantastic, I can spend hours on the site (especially because of its load-times). DerekWinters (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Urdu TatsamasEdit

The term Urdu tatsama is kind of an oxymoron given that tatsamas are one of the important things that differentiate Hindi from Urdu. I believe you agree with me that there is no difference between Hindi and Urdu per se; only there are persian & arabic loanwords in Urdu & there are Sanskrit tatsamas in Hindi. But a lot of entries for formal Hindi words which are borrowed from Sanskrit (I could list these all day) have Urdu spellings and these "Urdu" words even have their own entries! For example, do we really believe that रवि & पितृ are Urdu words? Does Urdu attest these words? These are only two random examples out of the tons of dubious info out there on this project. Now surely I alone cannot just go on erasing all the Urdu entries. But can we really let Urdu tatsamas remain and mislead people? They surely are not a part of the Urdu vocabulary! (The entry پرش provides a few more examples: apparently परुष, परशु & पुरुष are Urdu words as well.) -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I can't read Urdu, like, at all. I think Hindi is more relaxed with Perso-Arabic loans, so it's totally fine, sometimes even preferred, to use ख़रगोश, हक़ीक़त, इत्तिफ़ाक़, etc. over Sanskrit loans, especially in speech. I agree with you that at least in modern Urdu Sanskrit tatsamas are rare. But maybe there was a time when पितृ could be used in Urdu? Platts lists it in his dictionary. That said, we should mark them (obsolete). I wish we had Urdu contributors who could help with this. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 01:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@माधवपंडित Urdu does have Sanskrit loanwords, even though on a smaller scale than Hindi. Please don't go removing Urdu entries without sending them to RFD or RFV first. [6] are dictionary examples of پرش (paruš). And it seems attestable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Platts is a really outdated dictionary, and seems to have a penchant for listing as many synonyms as possible. I don't ever use it. پرش is attestable, but I think it's a Persian word meaning "jump" or something like that. I doubt Urdu actually ever had any common Sanskrit borrowings. Urdu's superstrate has always been Persian (and Arabic), and Partition only reinforced its Persianate vocabulary. Again, I'd like to learn about this from an Urdu native speaker. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 08:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It's OK but I used some simple tricks to make sure I searched only in Urdu texts in Google books, not Persian and I saw some religious texts in the Google hits. BTW, Arabic-based scripts are not hard, especially Urdu spellings if you know or suspect the pronunciation from their Hindi cognates. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Some of these entries have been around for 10+ years & although they may have been created by the (erroneous) reasoning that since both Urdu & Hindi are two registers of Hindustani, any word existing in Hindi must exist in Urdu, I understand that it's not in the scope of my authority to remove these entries. I only want more discussion on this subject so a conclusion may be arrived at. My argument is that the thing that makes Urdu what it is is the absence of literary Skt borrowings and more Arabic & Persian borrowings. Colloquial words ultimately from Sanskrit will definitely be present, & we need a native Urdu speaker to confirm if the Urdu terms borrowed from Sanskrit that this project contains actually exist. My guess would be that Urdu does not attest these terms. ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@माधवपंडित Aryaman is right, we don't have active Urdu speakers but WT:TR is a place for discussion of words, WT:RFV for verifications and WT:RFD is a page for deletion requests. The process requires serious verifications and you'll be surprised to find that people are able to verify words even for languages they don't speak. If there's no consensus to delete in RFD, words will be kept but if nobody verifies a word in RFV, they may be deleted. You might want to choose what you want to do next. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

New EntriesEdit

Hi! I have a request from user Nizil Shah asking how to make entries quickly without bothering with the templates and everything that en.wiktionary uses. I just do the good old copy and paste from another entry, and change up the information, but I know you do stuff like Ajax and other things. Can you tell me what that is, or just ping Nizil Shah from my talk page to tell him what to do? DerekWinters (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters, Nizil Shah: I've made myself Module:hi and Module:pa as backends for {{hi-new}} and {{pa-new}}, which are entry creation templates. I can make a {{gu-new}} and write some documentation for it if he would like. The ajax gadget is for speeding up editing already existent entries. It can be added by adding the line importScript('User:Dixtosa/AjaxEdit.js'); to User:Nizil Shah/common.js. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 03:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @DerekWinters for suggesting. @Aryamanarora, please create that entry creation template so we can work fast and easy. I hardly understand any technical things but will be happy to have an easy editing template. Thank you.--Nizil Shah (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: It's been done, see {{gu-new}}. It cannot handle declension or conjugation yet, since I know nothing about Gujarati grammar. Please feel free to ask if you have any problems/want me to add something to it. Thanks for the Gujarati contributions! —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 07:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sanskrit कुञ्चिका (kuñcikā) and Persian کنجد (konjed).Edit

Hey, I came across a huge amount of words in various languages deriving from this (Khotanese, Pashto, Armenian, Georgian, Tokharian, Turkic, Russian, Mongolian, ...) and I figured it would be nice to have a single page to list all the descendants, but I can't decide on listing Sanskrit (attested in Chanakya) or Proto-Iranian (most non-IA cognates seem to be borrowed from Iranic), on one hand, we probably can't project it all the way back to proto-Iranian, on the other, there's no reason to suppose that Iranian cognates come from Sanskrit (I can't even find a Pali attestation). Your thoughts? Crom daba (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Crom daba: I don't think the two terms are related. Everything besides Chinese and maybe Tocharian is from Middle Iranian. See [7]Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 23:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Mayrhofer has both Sanskrit and Persian under the same heading, they seem like reasonable cognates to me. I also don't like the idea of deriving all of these from MP, Baluchi [script needed] (kunchitha) for example preserves the voicelessness which was lost in MP, some Turkic cognates are also probably deriving from Khotanese, Tokharian.
I'm not familiar with the Chinese word, what is it? Crom daba (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Crom daba: I meant Proto-Middle Iranian, the common ancestor of the Middle Iranian languages. Since there is no Avestan or Old Persian cognate, it's difficult to reconstruct Proto-Indo-Iranian, but Proto-Iranian *kuncit is not too speculative, but my Proto-Iranian knowledge is limited (perhaps @Vahagn Petrosyan can help) I'm not comfortable with the Sanskrit term because the final -kā is not seen in Iranian. For Chinese see [8]. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 11:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, didn't know a single ancestor is reconstructed for Middle Iranian, there's also Sanskrit कुञ्ची (kuñcī, cummin), but it's older than कुञ्चिका. I'll go ahead and make the Proto-Iranian then. Thanks for the Chinese reference. Crom daba (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

कोई बात नहींEdit

Is this not a complete sentence? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Aren't नहीं (nahī̃, no), क्या (kyā, what), तो (to, so), अभी (abhī, now) also complete sentences? The category is totally useless, it's just Cat:Hindi phrases. Note that आर्यमन (āryaman, Aryaman, my name) is a complete sentence too, as in "What is your name? Aryaman." —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay but there is an entire scheme of sentences by language. Why delete just Hindi? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Sentences by language. If you think it should be deleted, by all means suggest it. I don't have strong feelings either way. But there's no purpose in emptying just one language and leaving the rest of them existing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: All those other subcategories are pageless (except the English). BTW you're the one who made the Hindi category, it was empty before. I'm not emptying it, I'm retaining the status quo. I don't really edit in any of the other languages, nor do I have the inclination to start any discussion in the BP right now. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
if you weren't inclined either way, why did you add the category at all? All you've done is place a burden on active Hindi editors either to get it deleted or argue with you or add entries to it. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Why would there only be a scheme like this for one language? It was incomplete and I'm trying to make it more complete. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
And they are not empty--not sure what you're looking at here. E.g. Category:Greek dismissals or Category:Portuguese sentences. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

wrong spellingEdit

hey thank u 4 ur kind help. now i need to tell u that @ ਕਾਗ਼ਜ਼ the Shahmukhi spelling was incorrect; u put کاغز instead of correct کاغذ‏ 08:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Thanks for fixing that. I don't really add Shahmukhi anymore because I can't really read or write in the Urdu script. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 11:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@ You've put in some decent contributions! I think you should consider creating an account. You'll have a bunch of fun. There's a shortage of editors in almost all Indian languages here. 😊 -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@माधवपंडित: I think we had some false hope... The IP geolocates to Australia, so it was probably a sock of User:Awesomemeeos, who was blocked a while back for editing in languages he didn't know. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 19:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Any time you see someone appear out of nowhere and immediately rewrite all the declension templates, you have to wonder what's going on... It's like a highly-skilled driver who can make the car do anything they want- but they don't bother looking for pedestrians or small animals, even after you point out the bleeding corpse on their front grille... Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Argh, I was hoping the IP actually knew Punjabi... oh well, it's good that somebody fixed the declension templates at least. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure they had some sort of source. Their MO is to start with good sources, learn as much as they can, then proceed at full speed as if they've mastered everything, with guesswork filling in what they can't find in their sources. The real nasty part of this is that most of their work is fine, but the part that isn't is the part that no one has the resources to check.
At any rate, their low-level swapping of templates is usually beneficial, so it's tempting to just let them go. The problem is that they can rapidly switch to high-risk mode without warning, and things get out of hand.
The first couple of languages they were working on had someone who could keep track of them and didn't mind having someone clean things up. Then things went south in real life for me, so I lost track of what they were up to. Next thing I knew, they were trying to set up declension templates for Lithuanian, which has a pitch-accent system inherited from PIE (there's a lot that would look familiar based on your knowledge of Sanskrit), but the details have changed a lot due to effects of post-PIE sound changes, among other things. In order to explain the accent pattern of a given word, you have to know its history, in addition to its present phonological characteristics. AwesomeMeeos doesn't know nor care about the former, so they quickly got in over their head- not unusual- and realized it- a first, I think.
Now I have to go back and look for their other socks so people know what they're dealing with. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


Any idea about the etymology here? DTLHS (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I know of the word दलाल (dalāl, broker) (which is mentioned in quote 2, and still in use), not sure about "pykar" off the top of my head. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@DTLHS I think the term पैकार (paikār) is what we're looking for. It's a kind of merchant. DerekWinters (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps (also/more likely to be) from Bengali পাইকার (paikar)? Two of the quotes are referring to haberdashers from Bengal, the other quote not certain. Wyang (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That one might be more likely tbh, considering that पै is pronounced pɛ. My Gujarati dictionary days they're both from a Persian term, but پیکار apparently translates to fight. DerekWinters (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
hi:पैकार gives the sense "युद्ध । लड़ाई ।" as well. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 23:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: As one moves east (i.e. to Bengal) "ai" is more likely to be a diphthong. My Hindi dictionary (that I forgot was right in front of me) gives Persian "pā'ekār". —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps پای كار (pāy-kār, expert; a sub-revenue-collector; an attendant on a revenue-collector; a sweep)? Wyang (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Thanks! Yeah, it's undoubtedly that one. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 23:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The Hindi to Gujarati dictionary on gujaratilexicon gives पैकार as a seller of small wares or a roadside vendor. DerekWinters (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

R-colored vowelsEdit

Here is a link to the latest chart from the official IPA website to support my assertion that superscripts are no longer the standard. You still see them in some major dictionaries like Collins, but often they have their own in-house systems and don't follow IPA. Pariah24 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pariah24: Sorry, seems I was mistaken. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 13:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Damn. You discovered it... one less now. Wyang (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: The weirdest one was उसको (usako) which is apparently a genitive in Nepali and a dative in Hindi... —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 11:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
को (ko) is the general genitive in Nepali, and (from the entry) the marker of dative and accusative in Hindi. Perhaps the two usko are related on that level, with the link being the dative/accusative used to indicate possession: "to him is a sheep" = "he has a sheep". (Do not quote me! I haven't looked up the literature.) Wyang (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I'm not entirely sure about the Hindi, but Nepali को (ko) is almost definitely related to Hindi का (). The etymology for NIA is really messy sometimes, I'll have to look into it later. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 11:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Umm, looks like all of these may be ultimately related: [9], [10]. Interesting... Wyang (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Yes, I agree they're all probably from Sanskrit कृ (kṛ, to do). E.g. the probable evolution of कृतः (kṛtaḥ) > ku(t)o > ko. Thanks for the links, the second one seems really interesting. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 11:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


Hey man, saw some of your lemmas for Kashmiri. Do you speak it as a language? I am a native and willing to contribute to Wiki.

@ Sadly no, I know very little about Kashmiri, I just try to add basic verifiable words for all Indian languages (which are in a horrible state here). It would be great if you contributed! You can read the welcome message for some information and feel free to ask me any questions. You don't need an account, but it's best to have one because IP addresses aren't always constant. For formatting, Kashmiri انسان seems like a good model entry. BTW, I've been wondering for a while, is Kashmiri in the Arabic script written with our without vowel marking? Most of the Kashmiri lemmas are are in Latin script and so they have to be moved to Devangari/Arabic script spellings. Thanks a lot for your comment! —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


Hey Aryaman, I think the descendant tree hierarchy for the Dravidic borrowing on *Háĉšas might have been a bit of an overkill. =P To take a page from some of the other PIE branches, we generally only add hierarchy levels if there are more than one entry for that level and/or we can confidently and meaningfully reconstruct that level. --Victar (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

More to the point: you shouldn't include details that don't say something linguistically interesting about the distribution of descendents. The groupings you included could pass all of Victar's tests, but if the term is independently borrowed into both languages, the groupings are just filler. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Victar, Chuck Entz: There are supposedly more than just those two descendants, but I am not proficient enough in their scripts, and I'm not sure if the terms can be attested on the internet. Ty for the advice, I'll see if I can add more. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 13:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm also guilty sometimes of wanting to hyper-categorize. It gets really messy with borrowing though. Like, did it really enter Proto-Dravidian, or some later period? Do we really have two independent borrowing within Dravidian, or was one borrowed from the other? --Victar (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The source I used explicitly reconstructed Proto-Dravidian; I assume the Tamil word is attested in Old Tamil or something then, as proof to the age of the word. Like I said, there have to be more descendants, otherwise there would be no need for Proto-Dravidian. Btw, Telugu has no problem with directly transliterating Sanskrit अक्ष (akṣa), so the assimilation to accu is at least evidence for Proto-South-Dravidian. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 16:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Just because the borrowing survived into modern Tamil, it doesn't mean it survived in Telugu and this isn't a re-borrowing. My point is, best to just keep the hierarchy of borrowings as simple as possible, to reduce the amount of assumptions. --Victar (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. If Telugu did borrow from Sanskrit it would retain the क्ष (kṣa) consonant cluster. Anyways, my source was [11] and it does reference a Dravidian Etymological Dictionary that I so far cannot access online. But that can be done later, I'll keep the hierarchy simple as you said. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
PIA → Proto-Dravidian > Tamil → Telugu. --Victar (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

माकड (mākaḍ)Edit

Hello Kutchkutch (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Hello, Aryamanarora. You have new messages at Kutchkutch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.
Just out of curiosity, what is kutchkutch? कुछ कुछ (kuch kuch, something)? It reminds me of kus-pus in this video (e.g. 2:05) - खुस-फुस (khus-phus)? Wyang (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: कुछ-कुछ (kuch-kuch, something (or other)) probably. It's not खुस-फुस (khus-phus), but as long as you're looking at Bollywood stuff check out "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai" (कुछ कुछ होता है), it's a (now much reused) classic. I almost thought it was कच्छ (kacch) and we had a new Kutchi contributor... —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 23:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
lol! Thanks for कुछ-कुछ (kuch-kuch) - please also take a look at कच्छ (kacch). Still wondering what the kus-pus in the video is... Wyang (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: np, done now... I should do my Chinese homework now. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Haha, thanks! Wyang (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Aryamanarora’s second guess was correct. ‘Kutchkutch’ is a reduplication of one way (Kutch)(perhaps the older way?) to transliterate कच्छ (kacch) in English, and is not कुछ-कुछ (kuch-kuch) even though it might seem that कुछ-कुछ (kuch-kuch) is more likely. (કચ્છ, ‘Kutch’, ‘Kacch’ or ‘Kachchh’ don’t appear to have Wiktionary entries yet) Kutchkutch (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@KutchKutch: :O (do you actually know Kutchi then?) —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: I know little about Kutch or Kutchi other than the general info available on Wikipedia. The choice of username was random with no connection to anything that I know. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: It appears that there are currently 4 Kutchi words on Wiktionary at Category:Kachchi_lemmas with the કચ્છ entry created by you. Interesting to see Kutchi written in Gujarati script.
I continued the discussion माकड (mākaḍ) on my talk page. Thanks for your insight regarding that matter.
  Hello, Aryamanarora. You have new messages at Kutchkutch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

बंदर (bandar)Edit

Is the indenting of a synonym with a link to Wiktionary:Semantic_relations the new style of showing synonyms?
Since the Turner source says
WPah.kṭg. bandər m. ʻ monkey ʼ (← H.?)
with the ← symbol meaning (is) a loanword from according to the Front Matter, I originally wrote
Perhaps a borrowing from the Western Pahari (Himachali) word bandər from Sanskrit वानर (vānara).
Perhaps you are more certain about its origin from Sauraseni Prakrit rather than Pahari. Out of curiosity do you know if there are there any Pahari entries on Wiktionary? Kutchkutch (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@KutchKutch: You switched it; the Pahari is borrowed from Hindi. Hindi to my knowledge never borrows from the Pahari languages. The Prakrit is from the same entry. Pahari is not a language, it's a group of related languages that are similar. I have added some words in Garhwali. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see how I switched it now, and thanks for the additional information on Pahari languages. I was trying find a reason for why बंदर was different from वानर. Perhaps बंदर was the word that changed over time from Sanskrit to Hindi through Sauraseni Prakrit and वानर was a straight borrowing from Sanskrit?
@KutchKutch: Yep, that's exactly what happened. This is pretty common in Hindi: ऊँचा (ū̃cā)/उच्च (ucc), नींद (nīnd)/निद्रा (nidrā), खेत (khet)/क्षेत्र (kṣetra), even पहला (pahlā)/प्रथम (pratham). Mostly the Sanskrit borrowings have more technical or formal meanings (e.g. like क्षेत्र (kṣetra, field of study, area of a discipline) vs. खेत (khet, field for farming). —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: For the Sanskrit borrowings would it be better to use Template:bor over Template:der?
@KutchKutch: Yes, plus {{bor}} puts the entry into CAT:Hindi terms borrowed from Sanskrit. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 23:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

CU voteEdit

I wanted to wait until this closed to keep from prejudicing the discussion but I'm curious as to why or how your perception of bad judgement in terms of editing makes me unfit for CheckUser. Are you suggesting that I'd be unfit for investigating sockpuppetry? Please {{ping}} if you respond here. 18:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Look, I'd rather somebody with more standing and knowledge in the community have such a privilege. Preferably someone who is already an admin. Plus you seem to edit in languages which you have no knowledge of... —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
You weren't the only one to say as much re: previous adminship. Thanks for your feedback there and here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

कहा and होEdit

These have been sitting in CAT:E for a while. They're the result of a module change that means you can't just say some thing is an {{inflection of|something}} without specifying which inflection they are. It should be pretty easy for someone who knows the grammar to fill in the blanks: one is Hindi, and the other is Nepali. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Forgot to tell you, it's done. The Nepali inflection I added may be inaccurate though, @Wyang? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! It's good to keep the decks clear so new errors don't get lost. It's bad enough to have out-of-memory errors popping up due to some change in the linking and associated modules, without errors like these to add to the clutter. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Checked ho. I don't agree that errors should be displayed with an empty invocation of {{inflection of}}. Such information should be generated by the template itself, based on the conjugation data in the target entries. Wyang (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Thanks! If only Wiktionary was a database... the current declension tables vary widely in structure depending on the language. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sylheti transliterationEdit

Hi can you make MOD:syl-translit for Sylheti in Sylheti Nagari?

ꠀ, ꠣ = a
ꠁ, ꠤ = i
ꠃ, ꠥ = u
ꠄ, ꠦ = e
ꠅ, ꠧ = o
ꠅꠂ, ꠂ = oi
ꠅꠋ, ꠋ = ong, ng
ꠇ, ꠈ = xo
ꠇꠤ, ꠈꠤ = ki
ꠇꠥ, ꠈꠥ = ku
ꠁꠇ, ꠁꠈ = ik
ꠃꠇ, ꠃꠈ = uk
ꠇ꠆ꠇ, ꠈ꠆ꠈ = kko
ꠉ, ꠊ = go
ꠌ = so
ꠌ꠆ꠌ = cco
ꠌ꠆ꠍ = cco
ꠍ = so
ꠎ = zo
ꠎ꠆ꠎ = jjo
ꠏ = zo
ꠏ꠆ꠍ = jco
ꠐ, ꠑ = ṭo
ꠒ, ꠓ = ḍo
ꠔ, ꠕ = to
ꠖ, ꠗ = do
ꠘ = no
ꠙ, ꠚ = fo
ꠛ, ꠜ = bo
ꠝ = mo 
ꠞ = ro
ꠟ = lo
ꠠ = ṛo
ꠡ = śo
ꠢ = ho
꠆ = hośonto (virama) 
꠪, ꠫ = daṛi (fullstop) 

(Sylheti is a tonal language, and the difference between ô and o isn't clear.)

--- Sagir

@Sagir Ahmed Msa: Thanks for the info! Yeah, I'll get it done tonight. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 10:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Thanks! It uses Eastern Nagari numerals.

User:Sagir Ahmed Msa

@Aryamanarora: Hi, can you do it soon?

-- User:Sagir Ahmed Msa

@Sagir Ahmed Msa: Oh, I forgot to tell you, it's done: MOD:syl-translit. No schwa dropping yet, I'll add that when I'm on my computer. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 11:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, can you add a test page? -- User:Sagir Ahmed Msa

@Aryamanarora: hi, i checked, it's not working. Words aren't being automatically transliterated.

-- Sagir Ahmed Msa



@ मैं कुछ नहीं समझा... मगर किताब तो अच्छी लग रही है, तो धन्यवाद। —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 20:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Few ThingsEdit

वडील (vaḍīl)Edit

I noticed that through this edit you added an etymology for वडील (vaḍīl) adding that it comes from Sanskrit वड्र (vaḍra). This agrees with Turner, which says that it does come from Sanskrit वड्र (vaḍra):

  • Turner, Ralph Lilley (1969–1985), “vaḍra”, in A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages, London: Oxford University Press

However, the following two sources:

  • James Thomas Molesworth (1857), “वडील”, in A dictionary, Marathi and English, Bombay: Printed for government at the Bombay Education Society's Press
  • Shankar Gopal Tulpule and Anne Feldhau (1999), “वडील”, in A Dictionary of Old Marathi, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan

both say that वडील (vaḍīl) comes from Sanskrit वृद्ध (vṛddha).

Another similar example is: User:माधवपंडित created पोर (por) with the etymology Sanskrit पुत्रक (putraka, little child). Although Tulpule does say [Sk. putraka?]:

  • Shankar Gopal Tulpule and Anne Feldhau (1999), “पोर”, in A Dictionary of Old Marathi, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan

The following says that पोर (por) comes from Sanskrit पोत (pota)

  • Turner, Ralph Lilley (1969–1985), “pōḍa”, in A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages, London: Oxford University Press

What is the best way to resolve such discrepancies in these cases and future cases? Say both etymologies are possible, or make a decision about which one is better and just put one?

‘Compare with’ vs ‘Cognate with’Edit

In the etymology section, both appear. It seems that ‘Cognate with’ is used for close relatives while ‘Compare with’ is used for unrelated but similar words and more distant relatives (such as Indic and Persian). Is there definitely a difference between the two?

Quantity vs QualityEdit

Is improving existing articles a higher priority than creating new articles? Or do they have equal priority?

Quotations and Example SentencesEdit

Many of your new articles have quotations or example sentences. This is of course very common in traditional dictionaries to show the word being actually used, but many Wiktionary articles lack them. Is it best create your own sentence or find a sentence containing the word online? And are there certain kinds quotations or example sentences that better illustrate the word than others? Kutchkutch (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

For वडील (vaḍīl) : I think Sanskrit वड्र (vaḍra) is the more likely etymology, since there is a simple Prakrit vaḍḍa which can serve as the root for vaḍīl. With वृद्ध (vŕddh), I suppose Prakrit vaddha is not too difficult, and often Prakrit makes dental consonants retroflex, but that leaves use with vaḍḍha which is aspirated...
For पोर (por) : Sanskrit पुत्रक (putraka) gives Prakrit puttaa which has no r at all. If you look closely, Turner puts the Marathi on the second line, under a reconstructed form पोतर (potara), which IMO is totally plausible. I prefer pota as the ultimate source, since intervocalic t will be lost in Prakrit.
Once you understand some simple sound changes in Prakrit (e.g. V1CV2 usually becomes V1V2, CC is always simplified and preserved, n becomes , all sibilants become s (except in Magadhi, there it's ś), etc., see this book for more) it is easier to tell which etymology is more likely. If multiple are possible, it's fine to list both; see Hindi तन (tan) for example, and Hindi होना (honā) for a really complicated etymology.
In my mind, they are interchangeable. I usually prefer compare with to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions and to emphasize that etymology is an imperfect study. Cognate with is totally fine though, and may be preferred in some obvious etymologies. There is no difference in relation, I use compare with with Indo-Aryan cognates all the time.
For Hindi, I'm trying to work on both right now (e.g. see होना (honā) for a very complete entry), but my main focus is quantity. However I think totally skeleton entries like diff should have some more info; I always like to add an etymology and derived terms, as well as declension and conjugation. I add example sentences if the word is simple.
For Marathi I think the focus should really be on quantity right now. Marathi has so many speakers, and less than 500 lemmas; even Bengali and Gujarati have near 2,000. Once it is above 1,000 quality is more important. However, simple words can be better quality, like असणे (asṇe) could have some usage examples. Of course, you don't need to anything, just do what you can. With time, many Marathi speakers will come as they have to Marathi Wikipedia.
I prefer adding usage examples that illustrate colloquial speech (but not total Hinglish). However, some Sanskritic words have more formal examples, like कारण (kāraṇ), उल्लेखनीय (ullekhnīya), etc. and Persian/Arabic borrowings have more use of Persian/Arabic words in examples. Quotations are less important right now, because they are a pain to find and translate, but I add a few from important works such as Sursagar, Tulsidas's bhajans, Ghalib, Premchand, etc. Marathi has a long literary tradition so it should be easier to find quotations from historical works, whereas Khadiboli literature only booms after 1800's. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 01:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 01:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, those were really thorough answers. Thanks. Kutchkutch (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
re: cognate vs. compare- technically speaking, a cognate is a term that is inherited from the same source that the term in question is inherited from. Not everything that looks related is a cognate: there may be borrowing somewhere in the ancestry of one or the other, or the resemblance might be a coincidence. When you aren't sure, you say "compare..." That means you think it might be related, somehow, but you're not saying how. "Compare" isn't, strictly speaking, wrong to use for cognates, but if you know a term is a cognate, why not say so? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi. Do you want to become an admin? --Canonicalization (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Canonicalization: Oh wow, I didn't think anyone would ask! I definitely would, if only to have access to MOD:languages/data2 :) —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 11:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: I was going to start the vote when I noticed this: "Cautionary note: It is often the case that those who are not nominated by currently active administrators do much less well. To avoid disappointment, avoid premature nominations and self-nominations, you will be nominated eventually!" I can go ahead if you wish, but I myself am not an admin. @JohnC5? --Barytonesis (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: That's fine, I'm not in any rush. There's good reason for such precaution, given Wonderfool once nominated his own sock puppet for admin ship once, and succeeded... —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 12:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Aryaman, you're certainly competent, and I'd support you. As someone who was nominated by WF in a guise, I wouldn't worry too much. If you wanted to ping some users now who you think would vote for you, that wouldn't technically count as canvassing but instead including them in the discussion. Isn't that right, @Metaknowledge? —JohnC5 23:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it would go fine, although it can't hurt for the nominator to be somebody better known in the community than Barytonesis. But do you actually want to be an admin? If you just want to be able to edit protected modules and whatnot, nominating you for template editor is far easier. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
As Meta points out, unless you have a lot of deleting, blocking, or patrolling you'd like to do, template editor is sufficient. —JohnC5 00:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Ahem, John, I reckon you could be doing more of that sort of thing yourself... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I delete pages and block anon's daily. I would've been a shame if someone hadn't noticed this little change yesterday. ;PJohnC5 00:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I know, I'm just ribbing on you for not bothering with stuff like RFVs much. I have now protected that module, by the way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5, Metaknowledge: I do sometimes add {{speedy}} to spam pages and edit WT:VIP (not as much as I could though). I've noticed an uptick in vandalism on Indian language pages in the past year or so. Personally though, I think there is a serious lack of admins that have knowledge of New Indo-Aryan languages, so a lot of vandalism goes unnoticed on those pages (well, admin User:Dijan knows some Hindi-Urdu, but he's inactive). And we have a growing group of Indian-language editors too, and we need native speaker admins so we don't rely as much on other non-Indian-language admins for identifying vandalism quickly and being able to edit important modules (although template editor would be fine for that). —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 01:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll admit that it would be nice to have someone patrolling Indo-Aryan generally. —JohnC5 04:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Sooo... —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 09:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Get @Metaknowledge to do it. I hate making votes... :VJohnC5 09:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Eh, he'll see this when he wakes up. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 10:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd happily support or nominate you, Aryaman. Just let me know if I can be of help. Wyang (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Thank you so much! It would be an honor if you nominated me. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 13:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries! It's here: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-09/User:Aryamanarora for admin. Please accept the nomination on the page. Wyang (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Woo! Thanks so much! —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 13:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Aryamanarora".